W: www.universitybusiness.co.uk | T: @UB_UK


in July 2013 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, put paid to this argument by overruling a planning inspector's decision for housing in the Green Belt. The reason for the apparent intervention was that, even where a severe shortage of land for housing existed, to grant consent for development in the Green Belt solely on this basis would risk set ing an undesirable precedent for similar developments.


Student accommodation and the cost implications of the Community Infrastructure Levy


As regards universities in particular, even where applications are approved, recent legal changes may mean that the costs of development become prohibitive. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced in 2010 and was intended to be fairer, faster and more certain and transparent than the system of Section 106 planning


obligations which have been accused of causing delays as a result of lengthy negotiations. It operates by defi ning a standardised mechanism for payment, no longer relying on individual agreements and the pooling of funds.


While CIL has introduced greater certainty in many areas it has resulted in an increase in costs for universities seeking permission for student accommodation. Indeed, new student accommodation has at racted amongst the highest CIL rates of all uses in many local authorities. For example, CIL charging rates per square metre range from £100 in Bristol, £200 in Brent, to £425 in Tower Hamlets. There are concerns that these additional costs might lead to schemes not coming forward due to viability concerns. CIL applies to new buildings and


extensions over 100 square metres and conversions of properties that have been vacant for longer than six months. While it


includes the creation of residential units and student housing by conversion, exemptions do exist. Student housing built and operated directly by universities could be exempt from the CIL if they have charitable status and if the proposed development is to be used wholly or mainly for a charitable purpose. The indications are such that development is likely to be increasingly linked to university's charitable status in order to avoid CIL payments. Nevertheless, until a legal challenge is made to test the legality of this approach, uncertainties remain.


A simple review of recent planning applications


demonstrates the possible cost increases some universities can expect as a result of CIL. In Oxford, an application to develop 141 studios on St Clement's Street in 2012 at racted Section 106


contributions of £122,000 for infrastructure (£865 per bed). The equivalent planning application submit ed now would at ract a full contribution of at least £424,200 (£3,008 per bed). In Bristol, an application for 442 beds on the former ice-rink site submit ed before CIL came into operation at racted a Section 106 contribution of £572,617 equating to £1,296 per bed space. A recent planning consent on the former Magistrates Court in Bristol for 348 beds at racted a CIL


contribution in relation to the student part of £1,003,300 equating to £2,883 per bed space. The greater certainty and transparency through CIL is, for some, proving costly. A robust challenge lodged by a university seeking to show that the CIL exemption should apply to their scheme must surely not be far off . We


wait with bated breath! UB


POLLY REYNOLDS IS A SENIOR ASSOCIATE IN THE


PLANNING TEAM AT LEADING EDUCATION LAW FIRM VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS.


POLLY CAN BE CONTACTED ON 0117 314 5276 OR AT


preynolds@vwv.co.uk.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80