Consultation outcome

Consultation on the proposed London Emergency Housing Package: Government response

Updated 25 March 2026

Introduction

1. This document summarises the consultation responses on the proposed London emergency housing package. This consultation sought views on 2 distinct but related proposals:

• Part I: a proposal for a new, time limited relief from borough-level Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges for qualifying residential developments in Greater London
• Part II: proposals to make permanent changes to the Mayor of London’s planning powers under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

2. London is currently facing a housing emergency. Although housing starts rebounded in Q4 2025 – driven by the Building Safety Regulator reporting over 7,000 starts (nationally) following reforms at the regulator to accelerate housebuilding – this follows a period of substantial decline that began in late 2023. While housing completions have remained relatively stable, London’s housing starts still remain substantially below their long-term annual average of around 18,000 homes a year. The low level of starts we have seen in London in recent years will feed into lower housing completions over the coming years, meaning fewer homes and affordable homes for Londoners, without urgent action.

3. This situation is being driven by significant viability challenges. A challenging economic environment – following the inflationary pressures and interest rate increases of recent years – has increased costs and squeezed the profitability of schemes. In London this has been felt particularly acutely, and compounded by flagging sales values and an increased exposure to regulatory burdens borne by flatted development.

4. Where housing is being taken forward, it is increasingly as a result of significant levels of affordable housing having been sacrificed. Developers which cannot deliver the Fast Track Route level of 35% affordable housing currently need to go down the Viability Tested Route in order to proceed. This has led to some schemes being permitted with less than a tenth of the housing they provide being affordable.

5. Therefore, a key aim of the Homes for London Package proposed by the government and the Mayor is to encourage more schemes to come forward with greater levels of affordable housing than would otherwise have been the case. The GLA’s Time-Limited Planning Route (TLR) will enable developers to secure permission without a viability assessment on private land where they commit to at least 20% affordable housing (with a minimum of 60% Social Rent), with providers able to apply GLA grant to all affordable homes above the first 10%. The government’s CIL relief (Part I of the consultation) is intended to operate in concert with this route, allowing schemes delivering affordable housing at this level to access 50% CIL relief (which can increase to a maximum of 80% relief where at least 35% affordable housing is delivered). The CIL relief aspect is vital as it ensures affordable housing is not the sole and main area of compromise when viability is challenged.

6. Feedback from consultation on the CIL relief was clear that the process for securing it must be quick, certain and predictable in order for it to be pursued (alongside the TLR) instead of the Viability Tested Route. The government is confident that the overall design consulted on substantively provides this. Specifically:

a. While summary appraisal viability evidence is required as part of the application process, this is deliberately intended to be significantly less onerous than the Full Viability Assessment required by the Viability Tested Route. It is expected to be based on information developers bringing forward schemes will typically already have, or could otherwise straightforwardly obtain. The government accepts that this process will be less detailed than Full Viability Assessments – which will continue play a vital role in wider planning policy. However, the government sees this as an important and deliberate design of the emergency package to accelerate overall levels of housebuilding activity – including social and affordable housing – in London.

b. Because the evidence is to be accompanied by a signed statutory declaration from the applicant, the government is clear it must be accepted by the relevant borough, with no need or expectation to request additional information or subject applications to scrutiny. As above, this is intended to drive faster levels of housebuilding activity, while also avoiding an administrative burden for boroughs to provide or procure their own viability scrutiny. The government will set out clear expectations on how quickly applications must be confirmed.

Critically, the overall impact of CIL relief will depend on how many schemes qualify. Feedback from Consultation responses indicate that it will be difficult to evidence definitively that a scheme will be made viable by the CIL relief or – as articulated in the consultation – that the CIL relief is “demonstrably necessary to make the development viable”. This is because the application of CIL relief will be one of a number of inputs and assumptions which together impact overall viability and so enable a scheme to be delivered.

7. The perceived difficulty of requiring evidence that shows that the CIL relief is the sole determining factor in a viability calculation risks deterring use of this proposed emergency route, even for developments where CIL relief would likely tip the balance in favour of development viability.

8. Further to this, schemes with the most challenging viability positions – which are in most need of support – may also be excluded from the CIL relief if it is required that they must show the CIL relief is “demonstrably necessary”, even where CIL relief would support their overall viability position and give greater confidence to proceed with higher levels of affordable housing. The department recognises that some developers are prepared to commence work on some schemes which are considered to be unviable in terms of a viability assessment – conducted in accordance with professional standards and guidance – for example, because of their expectations over the potential performance of the development in the future, particularly for phased schemes. Some Consultation responses suggested that if such a test were retained, it would considerably limit the application and impact of the relief.

9. In light of this, the government wants to maximise the chances of unviable development being unlocked by this CIL relief and accelerate housebuilding activity, and is therefore proposing a revised approach to viability, as well as the commencement deadline, to achieve the intended policy outcome.

10. Specifically, it is proposed that the CIL relief will be available where schemes demonstrate through a residual appraisal that they are unviable. The developer will be required to make a statutory declaration confirming that the inputs and assumptions used in the appraisal are fair and reasonable at the date the appraisal is submitted. Where this information is provided, the local planning authority must grant the relief. In this emergency context, the statutory declaration removes the need for consideration of a full Financial Viability Assessment, which would undermine the certainty developers need to proceed with schemes as quickly as possible.

11. The government also intends to amend the commencement deadline to 31 March 2030. This is in response to feedback received through the consultation that the proposed deadline of 31 December 2028 was overly restrictive, and to align with the wider amendment to the eligibility window for the TLR, to validation of a planning application by 31 March 2028, by which time the new London Plan is expected to have been adopted. This approach better reflects the fact that there may be delays outside the control of applicants in terms of securing planning permission, and maximises the opportunity for schemes to access the emergency measures.

12. This proposed policy shift fulfils the policy intention originally outlined in the October 2025 Homes for London policy note – namely targeting relief at schemes which would likely fail to come forward if the CIL relief was not available – but adopts a refined approach so that the relief will achieve the policy outcome of a material increase in housing delivery in London.

13. The government fully recognises that increasing the number of schemes in scope of relief will have direct implications for boroughs’ abilities to fund infrastructure. As was previously acknowledged in the Homes for London policy note and consultation, the government continues to recognise this is a real impact. However, it is the government’s view that this should be balanced against the status quo in the capital, where very few sites are coming forward, and the few that are progressing are proceeding with very low levels of affordable housing. In totality, this falls far short of the needs of Londoners.

14. Having more schemes come forward with more affordable housing is a necessary and positive outcome – and weighing up the benefit of such a positive result against the acknowledged impact on CIL funds is nonetheless an overall substantial net improvement, with long-lasting benefits for the capital. It remains the case that this is a time-limited intervention, and the government remains committed to the benefits of the CIL regime for delivery of local infrastructure over the long-term.

15. The government intends to liaise with London boroughs, developers and other stakeholders on the implementation of the emergency CIL relief. We intend to consult on the draft amending regulations as soon as possible in the spring, providing a further opportunity to gather views and evidence to help refine the proposals. This will help ensure that the relief is designed to maximise its effectiveness in achieving the intended policy objectives.

16. Part II of the consultation sought views on making permanent changes to the Mayor’s existing call-in powers. This included a new streamlined procedure for residential development of 50 or more homes if the development is not included in other PSI categories, where the Mayor will have the power to call in the application if the local planning authority is minded to refuse development; and a new power for the Mayor to call in applications for development of a building of more than 1,000 square metres on Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land.

17. This document sets out the government response to both Parts I and II of the consultation.

Overview of consultation responses

18. The consultation was open for 8 weeks from 27 November 2025 to 22 January 2026. It was published on GOV.UK. Responses were accepted via online survey on the Citizen Space digital platform, and via email or via written letter.

19. The consultation received 217 responses, of which 84 were submitted via the online survey and 147 were received by email. Question 1-2 of the consultation questionnaire asked for contact information of the respondents and are not analysed here. Question 3 asked respondents for details on the type of organisation they are responding on behalf of.

20. The tables below provide a breakdown of the general consultation responses by type of respondent (Table 1).

Table 1. Types of consultation respondent

Types of respondents	Number of responses
Private individuals	56
London boroughs	32
Arms-length bodies	3
Advisory	2
Developers	62
Consultancies	7
Organisations	17
Housing associations	3
Professional bodies	5
Interest groups	22
Social housing providers	3
Voluntary organisations	5
Total	217

21. This document provides a summary of the consultation responses received. It does not attempt to capture every point made, nor does it cover comments on aspects of policy that fall outside the scope of the consultation. This document sets out the changes the government proposes to make in response to the main points raised in the consultation and, where the government proposes to not make changes, the reasons are also explained.

22. We have provided a statistical summary of respondents for each question where relevant. However responses to some questions have been consolidated where there are significant similarities in responses to avoid repetition. We have indicated throughout this document where responses to questions have been grouped.

23. A number of respondents chose not to answer some questions. For the purposes of the statistical summary of responses to each question, we have excluded those respondents that did not answer the question.

24. For some yes or no questions there was the option of adding an accompanying qualitative response. Qualitative responses have been reviewed, regardless of respondents answering the yes/no question.

Part I: A proposal for time-limited relief from the Community Infrastructure Levy to support housebuilding in London

Qualifying developments

Question 4

Do you agree that the relief should not apply to development on “excluded land” as defined? Please explain your answer.

Question 4 response

A total of 131 respondents provided substantive responses to this question. 67 said they were supportive overall of the excluded land definition. 45 were not in support of the excluded land definition, and 19 were neither in support nor against overall.

Key points

• There was a marked divide between local authorities and developers. Local authorities were more supportive overall of the excluded land definition in order to target relief at the most viability challenged, typically brownfield, developments. Developers were overall less supportive, commonly suggesting that where planning permission has been granted on excluded land, relief should always apply.
• In relation to the exclusion of development on land which has been designated as Green Belt, a large majority of developers were against this exclusion, a large majority of boroughs were in favour of this exclusion, and a small majority of respondents in other categories were in favour of this exclusion.
• In relation to exclusion of development on land which has been designated as Metropolitan Open Land, a large majority of developers were against this exclusion, a large majority of boroughs were in favour of this exclusion, and a small majority of respondents in other categories were in favour of this exclusion.
• In relation to exclusion of development on land which is a park, recreation ground, allotment, golf course or other locally designated open space, a large majority of developers were against this exclusion, a large majority of boroughs were in favour of this exclusion, and an equal number of respondents in other categories were in favour of this exclusion.
• Some respondents raised that the treatment of development on grey belt land needed clarification as to how it would be treated in regard to relief eligibility.

Government response for Question 4

The government’s intention is to provide a simple definition in secondary legislation which targets relief predominantly on brownfield / previously developed land, and which ensures developers and boroughs can assess with certainty whether particular developments fall in or out of scope of relief. The government remains of the view that this is the correct targeting – developments on excluded land (land which has been designated Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, or which is a park, recreation ground, allotment, golf course or other locally designated open space) will commonly benefit from higher uplifts in land value and not involve additional costly demolition and remediation works, and therefore be less likely to encounter the viability challenges which the new CIL relief is intended to mitigate.

However, the government acknowledges that a number of consultation responses indicated that a blanket exclusion may unfairly penalise developments which straddle multiple types of land where a limited proportion (i.e. percentage) takes place on “excluded land”. The government proposes to allow for such developments to be in scope of relief, and will use the consultation on draft regulations to inform the exact minimum level (with options ranging from 10% to 25% under consideration), with input from stakeholders during this process.

As all grey belt land is also Green Belt, it will be covered by the “excluded land” definition and out of scope of relief.

Public and industrial land (which is not also “excluded land” under the definition proposed) will be in scope of relief, but subject to a higher affordable housing requirement – see government response to Question 8.

Question 5

The government welcomes views on approaches restricting relief to certain land uses – including the merits of whether the policy should apply based on established use classes, or something more bespoke.

Question 5 response

A total of 142 respondents provided substantive responses to this question. 57 agreed overall with the proposed land use restrictions, 59 disagreed and 26 neither agreed nor disagreed.

Key points

• There was a marked divide between local authorities and developers. Local authorities were more supportive overall of the proposed land use restrictions, developers were less supportive overall of the proposed land use restrictions.
• In relation to the exclusion of student and co-living accommodation, a strong majority of boroughs agreed, suggesting that, in their experience, these face fewer viability challenges. Conversely, a strong majority of developers disagreed, pointing to the role of these developments in meeting London’s overall housing needs. The opinion of those in other categories was evenly split.
• A majority of respondents from all categories agreed with the use of existing use classes for the purpose of applying the policy.

Government response for Question 5

The government notes that responses were broadly split overall, with particular focus given to the proposed exclusions for student and co-living accommodation. Having considered these responses, the government considers that it is appropriate to restrict relief to residential development, excluding student and co-living accommodation. This is on the basis that the relief is intended to be focused on those developments which will directly contribute to meeting long-term housing need in London.

The government recognises that many developments are mixed-use, and intends for only the portions of these developments with eligible land uses to qualify for, and benefit from, the relief. For example, on a mixed-use residential and retail development, only the CIL attributable to the eligible residential units would contribute towards the minimum qualifying threshold and (if the threshold is met, as well as all other qualifying criteria) benefit from the relief.

The government notes that the majority of respondents across all categories supported the use of existing use classes for the purpose of applying the relief. The government will give consideration to this feedback when drafting the relevant regulations and guidance. The draft regulations will be consulted on.

Question 6

The government welcomes views on the application and level of the proposed borough-level CIL liability threshold, including whether this would have significant negative implications for SME builders.

Question 6 response

A total of 128 respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• Boroughs were generally more supportive of the proposed threshold, with some citing that the threshold was appropriate, and some indicating that it could be set at a higher level. A third of boroughs raised that the threshold could have negative impacts on SME builders, although none proposed that this be lowered or removed.
• A majority of developers and non-borough respondents expressed concern that the proposed threshold of £500,000 would be unfair to SMEs – and developers on smaller sites more generally – given these still encounter viability challenges. A majority of developers also expressed that there should be no threshold to accessing the relief at all, with fairness and simplicity commonly cited in justification.
• A smaller number of developers and non-borough respondents suggested that, if the threshold is retained, this should be set at a lower level or that SME specific alternatives should be explored to mitigate potential negative impacts.
• Some respondents also raised the following points: that CIL social housing relief, if accounted for, could create a perverse incentive to reduce affordable housing provision where that would support meeting the threshold; that alternatives to a CIL liability-based threshold (including a threshold based on number of units or one based on percentage of gross development value) should be used instead; and that the impact of the threshold proposed could vary across London, between higher and lower value areas and areas with different prevailing CIL rates.

Government response for Question 6

The government recognises that concerns were raised by respondents on the potential impact that the threshold will have on SME builders, and recognises that SMEs play an important role in housing delivery. However, having carefully considered the consultation responses, the government proposes to retain the borough-level CIL liability threshold at £500,000. The government considers that this threshold targets relief at significant liabilities, and avoids large volumes of small claims. The government is confident this will capture an appropriate range of sites: given typical CIL rates across London, many sites (including some small sites) would be expected to incur CIL liabilities of this quantum. As set out in the response to Question 5, on a mixed-use residential and retail development, only the CIL attributable to the qualifying residential units would contribute towards the minimum qualifying threshold.

The government will draft regulations carefully with a view to removing or minimising any unintended outcomes, reflecting the overall intention of relief is to support greater delivery of affordable housing by developments in the current viability-constrained context. The government also intends to consult on the draft regulations.

Question 7

The government welcomes views on the threshold applying to a development as a whole, and whether this presents any challenges for phased developments where each phase is a separate chargeable development for CIL purposes. If so, should a lower threshold apply for each phase of a phased development? Please share your views

Question 7 response

A total of 117 of respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• The majority of developers expressed the view that the threshold should apply to the CIL liability of the development as a whole, suggesting that accounting for phasing would introduce complexity. Conversely, the majority of boroughs believed the threshold should apply to the CIL liability of individual phases, on account of each phase being a separate chargeable development, and given details of later phases (including their CIL liability) not always being clear up front. Respondents in other categories were slightly in favour of the threshold applying to the CIL liability of individual phases.
• A smaller number of respondents were in favour of the minimum threshold applying to phases of schemes for larger, multi-phase or strategic longer-term schemes only. A number also raised that, for phased schemes, a lower minimum threshold of liability should apply.

Government response for Question 7

The government notes the differing views provided and, having carefully considered responses, proposes that the threshold will apply based on the liability of the whole scheme, rather than to individual phases. Responses highlighted that applying the threshold to the whole-scheme borough-level CIL liabilities could prove challenging for phased schemes, particularly as the CIL liability on later stages will not be known at the start. The government recognises this issue, but wishes to maintain the simplicity of a single threshold calculation across all types of permission. For phased developments, the approach will be to allow estimates as to the CIL liability of later phases, aligning with the type of estimates commonly included within Committee reports.

Question 8

The government welcomes views on the proposal to require a minimum level of affordable housing as set out in this sub-section. Please share your views

Question 8 response

A total of 146 respondents provided substantive responses to this question. 80 were overall supportive of the 20% minimum threshold for affordable housing (with a minimum of 60% Social Rent). 46 disagreed with the inclusion of a minimum threshold, and 20 did not indicate whether they were in agreement.

Key points

• Of developers, around half opposed the inclusion of a minimum level of affordable housing, expressing the view that CIL relief should simply be focussed on maximising housebuilding in general by targeting wherever viability is challenged. Around half of developers supported it, as did the majority of boroughs and respondents in other categories, in order to tie relief to a clear public benefit.
• Concern was raised over the requirement that the tenure of affordable housing must include a minimum of 60% social rent, particularly its impact on the Build to Rent sector which typically delivers affordable private rent.
• A number of responses expressed concern over whether the 20% minimum threshold of affordable housing would: disincentivise developments from providing higher levels of affordable housing above this level; could lead to inflation of land prices; or had been arrived at through sufficient testing and evidence.

Government response for Question 8

The government notes that there were mixed views on the proposal to require a minimum level of affordable housing, with the majority overall in support of a threshold. The government proposes to retain the requirement for a minimum of 20% affordable housing as a condition of accessing the relief, provided a minimum 60% of all affordable homes provided are Social Rent and the first 10% of all homes delivered are provided as affordable housing without grant. This approach will secure affordable housing delivery, and will align with the Greater London Authority’s TLR.

In keeping with this TLR alignment, the government additionally proposes to require a higher minimum level of affordable housing of 35% on public sector and industrial land (where industrial floorspace capacity has not been re-provided). This recognises the capacity for such land to make a greater contribution given its land value expectations, and ensures development on it maximises public benefit. This will be considered further when the draft CIL regulations are consulted on.

The government also recognises that the social rent requirement would mean Build to Rent developments, where they do not deliver this due to the nature of their delivery model, would not be able to access the relief. The government therefore intends to introduce an alternative tenure requirement for Build to Rent schemes, allowing them to qualify where they deliver their affordable housing as Discounted Market Rent, with at least 30% of affordable homes at or below London Living Rent levels or Key Worker Living Rent, and the remaining affordable homes provided at a range of genuinely affordable rents. This approach also aligns with the TLR.

Question 9

Overall, are you supportive of the qualifying criteria outlined? Please set out your views

Question 9 response

A total of 149 of respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• Respondents frequently commented that the qualifying criteria would benefit from clarity or refining to improve understanding, and expressed concern that the proposed criteria add complexity to the system.
• Further comments related to the negative impact that the relief would have on boroughs in administrative burden in administering the relief, and the negative impacts on the local area due to loss of CIL revenue.

Government response for Question 9

The government recognises the vital importance of clear criteria – to allow developers to assess their eligibility for relief, and to provide boroughs with enough confidence to take their decisions on whether or not to apply the relief, and to make the administration of the relief by boroughs as simple as possible.

The government fully acknowledges that CIL relief will have direct implications for boroughs’ local funding for infrastructure. As set out in the introduction, CIL relief is designed to ensure more schemes come forward with more affordable housing, and the government considers that when weighing the benefits of this, against the impact on CIL funds, there is overall a substantial net improvement for Londoners when compared against the status quo of inadequate housing delivery which is set to continue if no action is taken.

Question 10

The government welcomes views and evidence on whether a time-limited borough-level CIL relief in London will have the desired effect of improving viability to support housebuilding in London? As part of this, the government would welcome case studies on the impact that borough-level CIL has on development in London. Please share your views

Question 10 response

A total of 158 respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• Around half of developers expressed the opinion that the relief would have the desired effect of improving viability to support housebuilding. The majority of boroughs and respondents in other categories expressed the view that it would not.
• The majority of developers and a number of respondents in other categories felt that the measure could or should go further in order to improve its effectiveness, and almost half of developers raised that the complexity of application of the relief would reduce its effectiveness, and that the proposed timescales would also impact negatively on effectiveness.
• The majority of boroughs suggested that CIL was not one of the principal factors constraining viability of residential developments, and the majority voiced concerns that the relief would negatively impact on their ability to fund essential infrastructure. A third suggested that alternative CIL policies could improve effectiveness, such as instalment or deferral policies. Just under half of boroughs raised concern that the government had not provided sufficient evidence for respondents to be able to assess the effectiveness of the measure.
• Respondents also raised the following concerns: that the upcoming introduction of the Building Safety Levy would erode some of the benefit of the CIL relief; that the inclusion of Mayoral CIL within the scope of the relief would improve its effectiveness and fairness; and that the relief could be undermined by boroughs increasing section 106 requirements, the exclusion of smaller and student/co-living developments, clawback mechanisms, viability testing, and the impact of low demand on market absorption rates and speed of build-out.

Government response for Question 10

The government notes that respondents expressed a wide range of views in response to this question, and recognises that CIL is not the sole determining factor affecting development viability: broader market conditions such as build-cost inflation, higher financing costs and demand-side pressures all play a role. The government however remains clear that borough-level CIL liabilities represent a significant up-front cost for developers in London, and that a time-limited partial relief from CIL can therefore support unlocking residential development that would otherwise remain stalled. The CIL relief available will not be 100% relief to ensure that boroughs still receive some CIL funding for essential infrastructure, and the level of relief will only increase where additional affordable housing is provided by a development.

The other specific points raised are covered in the government’s response to other questions.

Question 11

Are there any specific criteria that you think could be clarified or adjusted? If so, please give your reasons why. Please share your views

Question 11 response

A total of 119 respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• Respondents generally reiterated points made in previous questions, or made general comments on the importance of clarity overall.

Government response for Question 11

Please refer to the government response to Question 9, as well as responses to other questions in this section.

Question 12

Are there any additional eligibility criteria you think should be considered for the CIL relief beyond those proposed? Are there any other observations or comments you wish to make? – Please share your views.

Question 12 response

A total of 104 respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• The majority of developers and respondents in other categories suggested that no additional criteria be considered for the CIL relief. A small majority of boroughs suggested that there should be additional qualifying criteria.
• Of respondents who believed that there should be additional eligibility criteria, these responses tended to be focused on the inclusion of Mayoral CIL liability and less restriction on the type of residential development which is within the scope of the relief.
• Respondents who suggested that there be no additional eligibility criteria for the relief often commented that the inclusion of any additional criteria would complicate the system.

Government response for Question 12

The government has carefully considered responses and views expressed, and (apart from the suggested changes to existing criteria outlined in earlier responses) does not propose to introduce any additional criteria.

There are fundamental differences between Mayoral CIL and borough-level CIL in London. Mayoral CIL is a strategic levy set by the Mayor of London to finance major transport infrastructure projects across London, and can be used to finance large projects by borrowing against expected levy receipts. Mayoral CIL is ringfenced for specific projects to ensure funding for these critical schemes remains stable, with all receipts currently committed to repayments on the Elizabeth Line until the early 2040s. Borough-level CIL rates for residential developments are often significantly higher than Mayoral CIL rates, so form a higher cost to residential-led schemes. The government remains of the view that providing relief from CIL at the borough-level targets the most significant cost pressure without undermining debt repayments on the Elizabeth Line.

Process for securing relief

Question 13

The government welcomes views on the proposed steps before applying for relief as set out in this sub-section. This includes views on how the grant funding mechanism may interact with the proposed CIL relief, and any circumstances where following the order/choreography set out would be difficult.

Question 13 response

A total of 98 respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• The majority of developers were broadly opposed to the steps overall, whilst the majority of boroughs were broadly supportive. Of respondents in other categories, there was almost equal responses in support and against the proposed steps.
• Respondents frequently commented that CIL relief should be able to be applied for at an earlier stage of the process, prior to planning consent.
• Comments frequently raised that difficulties securing Registered Providers would make the proposed steps challenging to follow, and relatedly that delays in securing grant funding could also pose challenges.
• Many respondents raised that increased flexibility in the sequencing of the steps would be beneficial.
• Many respondents raised that the application process as proposed would be overly complex and uncertain. A number raised that streamlining the application process, with a view to minimising duplication with other processes that developers go through, would be beneficial.

Government response for Question 13

The government remains of the view that prior completion of the steps outlined in the consultation is necessary to ensure the CIL relief application process itself can be as quick and certain as possible. For example, the developer having declared their intention to apply for CIL relief to the GLA at the planning stage, so that this is factored in as part of grant discussions, and reduces any potential frictions when the CIL relief is subsequently applied for formally to the borough.

The government acknowledges the importance of developers having enough early certainty to be able to factor in the expectation of CIL relief at the commercial decision-making stage, recognising this will come before CIL relief is formally applied for and confirmed. The changes and clarifications in relation to the CIL application process, including the role of viability testing (see grouped response to Questions 19 and 20) are intended to provide this certainty.

The government recognises that completion of all relevant steps may take time, and accepts that the original consultation proposal – of requiring commencement by 31 December 2028 – would be prohibitively challenging in some cases. Therefore, the government intends to extend this commencement deadline to 31 March 2030. This aligns with wider decisions on the emergency package to adjust the eligibility window for the TLR to validation of a planning application by 31 March 2028, by which time the new London Plan is expected to have been adopted.

Question 14

The government welcomes views on the proposed application fee, the level of fee that is proposed and whether this would create any difficulties. Please share your views

Question 14 response

A total of 120 respondents provided substantive responses to this question. A total of 94 respondents expressed a clear opinion on whether they were supportive of the fee or not. 34 said they did agree with the proposal. 60 said they did not agree, and 26 neither agreed nor disagreed.

Key points

• The majority of developers and respondents in other categories expressed the view that the proposed fee was too high, whilst the majority of boroughs expressed the view that the proposed fee was too low. A number of respondents believed that the fee was not needed at all, at any level.
• A number were opposed to the fee being non-refundable in cases where the application for relief was rejected, and a number were concerned about the size of the fee in comparison to CIL administration fees.

Government response for Question 14

The government recognises the divergent views raised in response to this question. The government considers that an application fee is important to support the administration of the relief by boroughs and any ongoing monitoring required and that setting this at £25,000 strikes the right balance.

The government acknowledges that not all individual cases will incur costs to this scale; however, the government is of the view that providing the up-front certainty with a uniform fee level, and by allowing fees to be pooled, ensures boroughs have sufficient funds overall for the work involved in administering and delivering this relief scheme for some years hence. The government intends to provide clear regulations and guidance which sets out expectations for usage of the fee, to ensure it is used appropriately: for example, given the proposed role of viability evidence set out in the grouped response to questions 19 and 20, it is not the government’s intention that boroughs use this fee to conduct their own viability testing, or to pay for such testing to be conducted on their behalf, where a statutory declaration has been made and the required information has been provided.

The government’s overall approach to the relief is intended to give developers and boroughs certainty regarding which developments qualify for the relief to be granted, minimising the risk of non-compliant applications being submitted. The government would also expect non-compliance risks to be highlighted when the developer first indicates their intention to apply for CIL relief – before any fee is paid – to the GLA and relevant borough.

Question 15

The government welcomes views and evidence on whether 50% relief for qualifying schemes delivering 20% affordable housing is appropriate, or whether an alternative approach should be considered. Please share your views

Question 15 response

A total of 140 respondents provided substantive responses to this question. Around a quarter were broadly supportive of the proposal.

Key points

• Those who were broadly supportive of the proposal generally held the view that the approach would help to incentive housebuilding and provide certainty on the level of relief available whilst ensuring a minimum amount of affordable housing would be delivered.
• Around a quarter expressed concern that the requirement to deliver 20% affordable housing would undermine certainty for the development industry; some expressed the view that the relief should be de-coupled from the requirement to provide affordable housing, or it should also be available to support schemes delivering lower levels of affordable housing.
• Around a quarter expressed concern that the 20% affordable housing requirement was too low, or that there should be increased emphasis placed on the delivery of Social Rent. Others emphasised the importance of tying the relief to 20% as a minimum provision of affordable housing.
• In relation to the level of relief, some felt that 50% relief from CIL would not go far enough and higher levels of relief should be considered. Others emphasised that the level of relief should be the minimum required to make a scheme viable, whilst others expressed the view that no relief should be available. Boroughs were more likely to express concern about the proposed level of relief and evidence base to justify it than developer respondents.
• Some respondents queried how the relief would apply on mixed use schemes.

Government response for Question 15

The government has carefully considered the range of views expressed and agrees that certainty as to the level of relief available to developments is an important consideration. The government response to Question 8 more fully sets out the rationale for retention of the minimum level of affordable housing at 20% (with a minimum of 60% Social Rent).

Maintaining the affordable housing minimum level is important to ensure that much-needed affordable housing will be provided, and the partial nature of the relief will ensure that some borough-level CIL is still collected to support key local infrastructure priorities. The proposed approach of 50% relief for qualifying schemes delivering at least 20% affordable housing is intended to be retained. This provides a meaningful reduction in the upfront costs associated with paying CIL, and will still ensure that boroughs receive a contribution towards infrastructure.

Public and industrial land (where industrial floorspace capacity has not been re-provided) will need to deliver a minimum of 35% affordable housing to qualify for relief (with a minimum of 60% Social Rent) – see government response to Question 8.

Question 16

The government welcomes views on whether this approach strikes an appropriate balance and provides a clear incentive for additional affordable housing to come forward. Please share your views

Question 16 response

A total of 125 respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• The majority of developers and respondents in other categories expressed the view that the approach – of relief rising linearly up to 80% relief for 35% affordable housing – strikes an appropriate balance. Around a third of boroughs felt that an appropriate balance was not struck, and another third gave more mixed views on the appropriateness.
• A third of boroughs, and a quarter of other respondents expressed concern that higher levels of relief above 50% would reduce the amount of CIL collected and therefore would impact on infrastructure provision. Some boroughs expressed that there was insufficient evidence provided by which they could make a judgement on the appropriateness.
• Some developers raised that complexity and uncertainty around the application process would dull the incentive, and that there should be no affordable housing criterion at all in order to access the relief. A number raised that any incentive that the increased level of CIL relief provides would be offset by the financial impact of delivering less market housing.
• Around half of other respondents noted that the existing CIL social housing relief already provides a similar incentive for additional affordable housing to come forward.

Government response for Question 16

The government agrees that the relief must remain proportionate and considers that a 50% level of relief, increasingly linearly up to a maximum of 80% relief where at least 35% affordable housing is provided, appropriately balances improving development viability whilst supporting increased affordable housing delivery and still maintaining some CIL contributions towards infrastructure funding. The expectation that at least 60% of the affordable homes provided are Social Rent will apply to schemes delivering up to 35% affordable housing. The government proposes that where affordable homes are provided above 35%, their tenure is flexible, provided the homes are genuinely affordable.

While social housing relief effectively removes CIL payments on the affordable homes provided by a development, the London CIL relief provides additional relief on the remaining CIL payable (i.e. market) homes, providing a further incentive and, in effect, counterbalancing the reduced Gross Development Value associated with providing proportionally more affordable (and less market) housing.

The government is confident that the broader changes and clarifications to the policy outlined in this document ensure this provides a clear incentive to deliver greater amounts of affordable housing that might otherwise be the case – while acknowledging that other factors will of course also affect this.

Question 17

The government welcomes views on the optimal levels of relief to ensure development can proceed, while maximising CIL receipts and affordable housing delivery. Please share your views

Question 17 response

A total of 109 respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• Half of developers broadly agreed with the proposed level of relief, while almost all boroughs and the majority of other respondents broadly disagreed with the proposed level of relief.
• A third of developers raised that the CIL relief should also be available for schemes which are delivering less than 20% affordable housing. Just under a third of developers suggested that there should be more flexibility in the level of relief, at either higher or lower levels, that can be granted on certain schemes.
• Around half of boroughs expressed concern that the relief will not bring forward more development, and that other factors were more influential on viability. A third of boroughs raised concern that the CIL relief will lead to a lack of infrastructure, and a third encouraged government to consider alternatives to the relief, such as instalment or deferral policies for payment of CIL.

Government response for Question 17

The rationale for retention of the proposed level of relief is set out across the government’s responses to Questions 15 and 16. Further to this, the government does not intend that the level of relief available will be subject to bespoke site-by-site assessment, as this would increase complexity and reduce the certainty and consistency of the policy application – which would be contrary to the clear feedback of respondents across the consultation questions.

Consideration of alternative CIL mechanisms such as instalment and deferral policies is set out in the government response to Question 28.

Question 18

The government welcomes views as to whether boroughs should have any discretion in relation to the relief and if so in what circumstances, and how this may work such that robust incentives for additional affordable housing remain.

Question 18 response

A total of 116 respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• Almost all developers believed that boroughs should not have discretion in relation to granting of the relief, as were the majority of respondents in other categories thought that boroughs should not have discretion.
• In particular, three quarters of developers expressed concern that any discretion boroughs were given would lead to uncertainty and an inconsistent approach across different areas, and a quarter also raised that introducing discretion could lead to delays in processing applications, which could create challenges given the time-limited nature of the relief.
• Over two thirds of boroughs believed that boroughs should have discretion, suggesting that this would enable boroughs to better manage their infrastructure delivery and requirements, and allow boroughs to apply the relief proportionately in a way which reflects local infrastructure impacts.
• A number of boroughs and respondents in other categories raised concerns that discretion would lead to uncertainty and an inconsistent, with a number noting that a discretionary CIL relief already exists in the form of Exceptional Circumstances Relief.

Government response for Question 18

The government recognises the divergence of views in response to this question. In order to ensure that the new CIL relief unlocks the maximum the number of currently unviable residential developments in London, the government does not intend to introduce any discretion – so aiming to bring clarity to both developers and boroughs that, if developments meet the qualifying criteria and follow the application process, boroughs must grant relief. This not only provides certainty for developers, but also makes administrating the relief a quicker, simpler and more objective task for boroughs. The government notes that the discretionary Exceptional Circumstances Relief has had limited uptake.

Question 19

The government welcomes views on the appropriate and proportionate level of information that a developer must provide for a scheme in order to be able to qualify for the relief, ensuring that only those schemes which genuinely need the relief are able to benefit from it but avoiding the level of viability testing that would be required under the GLA’s Viability Tested Route.

Question 19 response

136 respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• The majority of developers expressed concern that the requirement for viability evidence as proposed in the consultation will lead to uncertainty and delays. Over half of developers expressed the view that relief should be automatic for qualifying schemes which deliver a minimum percentage of affordable housing.
• There was concern that the proposed approach would not be robust enough to ensure that the relief would be targeted at schemes that genuinely need it. Nearly a third of boroughs suggested that there should be the opportunity for a full Financial Viability Assessment or an ability to interrogate evidence and assumptions underpinning appraisals.
• Over half of boroughs expressed concern about capacity and pressure on resource and emphasised that they are unlikely to have the expertise to assess viability information provided by developers in-house.
• Some respondents indicated it would be challenging for viability evidence to demonstrate that 50% CIL relief was necessary to make the development viable. Some also suggested that developers may be prepared to proceed with a scheme based on commercial and strategic considerations even if application of CIL relief was not shown to make the development viable.
• Some respondents suggested that government should consider establishing a national database of build costs, requiring developers to submit actual costs once schemes are completed.

Government response for Question 19

See grouped response to Questions 19 and 20.

Question 20

The government welcomes views on whether existing enforcement mechanisms for (i) statutory declarations (see section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911), and (ii) prosecution under the CIL Regs (see Regulation 110 of the CIL Regs ) for supplying false or misleading information that is required to be provided under those Regulations, are sufficient to deter gaming of the system, or whether other deterrents should be made available? If you think these are not sufficient, please set out your reasons and views on what kinds of other deterrents may be needed, noting the government’s aims of creating a streamlined and certain process.

Question 20 response

94 respondents provided substantive responses to this question. Around a quarter agreed that existing enforcement mechanisms would be sufficient.

Key points

• Around a quarter of respondents expressed concern that the proposed approach to enforcement would not be appropriate because viability is based on informed professional opinion – boroughs expressed concern that a statutory declaration would be unsuitable in this context, whilst those representing developers expressed concern about the potential for criminal sanctions based on reasoned assumptions and conclusions.
• Some scepticism was expressed on the prospect of convictions, including concern about borough resourcing.
• Alternative or additional mechanisms included references to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors professional guidance and reporting standards; the ability for local authorities to employ third party expertise to interrogate viability appraisals; clawback mechanisms; and an appeals service.

Government response for Question 19 and Question 20

The government has considered responses carefully. As set out in the introduction to this formal response to the consultation, the government proposes to revise the viability requirements to maximise the effectiveness of the relief. Developers will need to provide a summary residual valuation demonstrating that the scheme is unviable. Such an assessment should still factor in any GLA grant received and other reliefs from CIL that the scheme is eligible for. This approach revises that consulted upon, which was that appraisals would need to show the CIL relief was demonstrably necessary to make the development viable.

The government also acknowledges that, by their very nature, inputs into viability assessments can often be based on qualified assumptions and predictions, and represent a “snap-shot” of a particular point in time (which may change). The government will make clear that predictions not materialising, or a viability position evolving from this snap-shot, will not be grounds for enforcement proceedings. Developers must make a statutory declaration confirming that the inputs and assumptions are fair and reasonable at the point of application, undertaken by a suitably qualified practitioner based on the information available to them at that time.

The government intends to consult on the draft CIL amending regulations which will present an opportunity to obtain further views and evidence on the revised approach. We also intend to work with boroughs, developers and viability experts to develop a clear pro forma for developers to submit the necessary viability information, and for this to be available as soon as possible so schemes can start being brought forward.

As set out in the consultation, the government will collect a representative sample of applications and decisions for auditing, to ensure that information is submitted in line with the required standards and that a consistent approach is taken across boroughs, in line with regulations and guidance.

Question 21

The government is interested in obtaining views on the suitability of the proposed process for securing the relief. The process is intended to provide consistent, timely and proportionate decision-making, whilst ensuring that applications for relief are robust and honest. We welcome feedback on whether these steps are practical and effective in supporting the intended outcome. Please share your views

Question 21 response

A total of 102 of respondents provided substantive responses to this question. Three quarters were broadly unsupportive of the overall proposed process and had concern over various aspects of its operation.

Key points

• The majority of developers raised concern over timescales for the proposed relief, with schemes needing to have commenced before the end of 2028. Many felt that this was unrealistic, especially for schemes which are large and complex.
• A third of developers raised concern over a risk of delays in the process of obtaining the relief, often due to factors outside of the applicant’s control. Just under a third indicated that the interaction with other policies such as grant funding and planning routes could prove to be challenging, and would need to be carefully calibrated to ensure a smooth process for securing of the relief.
• A number of respondents from all categories raised concern that the proposed process would place administrative pressures on boroughs who have limited resources and other responsibilities. This was also the case for concerns which expressed that the proposed viability test is too burdensome and risks undermining the intended streamlining of the process for securing the relief. In addition to this, concerns were raised that the overall process is too complex, and that the process is onerous and lacks transparency.

Government response for Question 21

See grouped response to Questions 21, 22 and 23.

Question 22

Are you supportive of the overall approach proposed to securing relief? Please share your views

Question 22 response

A total of 118 respondents provided substantive responses to this question. 31 said they did overall agree with the proposed process for securing the relief. 69 said they did not agree, and 18 neither agreed nor disagreed.

Key points

• Half of developers, and a number of respondents in other categories expressed concern that the timescales for securing the relief were too short and that commencement by the end of 2028 would be unrealistic for many schemes to reach, especially those which are larger and more complex.
• Just under a third of boroughs raised concerns that the proposed approach to securing the relief would put administrative burden onto boroughs, and may cause resourcing issues.
• Just under half of developers and a number of boroughs and respondents from other categories expressed concern over the viability test and how burdensome this process would be.
• The majority of developers and a number of boroughs and respondents from other categories raised that the proposed process is too complex overall and would benefit greatly from simplification. A number of respondents from all categories indicated concerns over the interaction with the proposed CIL relief against other policies, such as grant provision and planning routes.

Government response for Question 22

See grouped response to Questions 21, 22 and 23.

Question 23

Do you foresee any challenges with particular aspects of the approach proposed to securing relief? If so, how might these be overcome? - Please share your views

Question 23 response

A total of 97 of respondents provided substantive responses to this question. Just over three quarters of all respondents indicated that they foresaw some challenges with the proposed process for securing the relief.

Key points

• Around a third of developers expressed concerns over the following points concerning the tight timescales for securing the relief and commencing before December 2028, the issues caused by interaction with other policies such as securing grant and planning routes, the uncertainty caused for developers due to the proposed process, and the overall complexity of the proposed process.
• A number of other points were raised by respondents which includes the following concerns: the lack of clarity on how Section 73 applications will work in the context of securing the relief, the potential for risk and delay in the process, the administrative burden placed on boroughs, and the burdensomeness of the proposed viability test.
• A number of respondents indicated a preference for automatic granting of the relief for qualifying developments, and a number indicated a preference for the borough having discretion in processing of the relief and determining whether this should be granted.

Government response for Questions 21, 22 and 23

The government has fully considered the responses provided, and is confident that the key changes proposed in response to questions in this chapter – revising the approach to viability evidence (see grouped response to Questions 18 and 19) and extending the commencement deadline to 31 March 2030 (see response to Question 13) – ensure the process can be navigated by developers, and administered by boroughs, to ensure that increases in housing delivery are maximised, while the relief remains appropriately time-limited for an emergency intervention.

Administration

Question 24

The government welcomes views on appropriate clawback provisions to ensure schemes which benefit from the relief contribute to urgent housing need. This will include clawback of relief if an incorrect/false statement is made about the viability evidence which is submitted to justify the need for relief from CIL.

Question 24 response

116 respondents provided substantive responses to this question.

Key points

• The vast majority of boroughs and respondents from other categories were broadly supportive of some form of clawback mechanism. Developers had mixed views, with half broadly supporting some form of clawback and half broadly in opposition.
• A third of developers expressed the view that the clawback should not apply to delays which are outside of the developer’s control. Half raised that the clawback would reduce certainty for investors and developers.
• Over half of boroughs flagged that clawback would necessitate ongoing monitoring by boroughs in order to be enforceable, with resourcing implications.
• A number of respondents from all categories raised that it would be challenging to determine what is a “false” statement, as viability necessarily involves making assumptions.

Government response for Question 24

The government has carefully considered the responses to this question, and is of the view that a clawback mechanism is appropriate to ensure the relief is targeted at schemes which will deliver residential development. The government recognises the need for certainty, and agrees that the clawback provisions should be clearly defined. For the purposes of measuring build-out in the context of the clawback, the government proposes that a default expectation will be set of 5 years from commencement to completion, with the ability to deviate from this on a case-by-case basis through agreement between boroughs and developers.

The clawback mechanism will also apply where the relief has been secured on the basis of materially incorrect or misleading information, and where a disqualifying event takes place such as a change of tenure type which brings the development outside of the qualifying criteria. As noted in the government’s response for Question 19 and Question 20, assumptions which are made in viability appraisals, and inputs included which are fair and reasonable at the point of application but subsequently change, will not be grounds for enforcement proceedings.

Question 25

Are you supportive of the overall approach proposed to administering the relief? Please share your views

Question 25 response

A total of 88 of respondents provided substantive responses to this question. Just under three quarters of respondents were overall not supportive of the overall approach proposed for administering the relief.

Key points

• A third of developers and a number of respondents from other categories suggested that processing activities that take place during administration of the relief need a set timescale. A third of developers also expressed concern over the tight timescales for securing the relief and commencing before December 2028.
• Two thirds of boroughs raised that the proposed process would create administrative burdens and resources issues for boroughs.
• A number of respondents from all categories raised the following concerns in relation to the proposed process for administering the relief: the potential for risk and delay in the process; the issues caused by interaction with other policies such as grant funding and planning routes; and the complexity of the proposed process for administering the relief.
• A number of respondents indicated a preference for automatic granting for qualifying developments, and a number of developers indicated disagreement with the proposed clawback provision.

Government response for Question 25

The government recognises that completion of the steps for administering the relief may take time, and accepts that the original consultation proposal – of requiring commencement by 31 December 2028 – would be prohibitively challenging in some cases. Therefore (as covered more fully in response to Question 13) the government intends to extend this commencement deadline to 31 March 2030.

The government recognises that requests have been made for automatic granting of the relief for qualifying developments. The government response to Question 19 sets out the evidential requirements that must be satisfied in order for the relief to be granted, and the rationale for this.

Question 26

Do you foresee any challenges with particular aspects of the approach proposed to administering the relief? If so, how might these be overcome? Please share your views

Question 26 – response

A total of 87 respondents provided substantive responses to this question. A significant majority of respondents foresaw some challenges with the proposed process for administering the relief.

Key points:

• Almost a third of developers and a number of respondents in other categories expressed the opinion that processing activities require a timescale for completion in order to prevent delays to the process.
• A quarter of developers and a number of respondents in other categories expressed concern over the tight timescales for administering the relief and commencing before December 2028. A number were also concerned over the potential for risk of delay in the process for administering the relief.
• A quarter of boroughs and a number of respondents in other categories raised that the proposed process would create administrative burdens and resourcing issues for charging authorities. A quarter also indicated that the processed process would benefit from a mechanism for appeal.
• A quarter of developers and a number of boroughs and respondents in other categories felt that the proposed process was too complex overall and would benefit from simplification.
• The following concerns were also raised by a number of respondents: concern over issues caused by interaction of the relief with other policies such as grant funding and planning routes, concern that there was a lack of clear and consistent processes for the administration process and disagreement with the use of a clawback mechanism in administration.
• A number of respondents indicated a preference for automatic granting of the relief for qualifying developments.

Government response for Question 26

The government recognises that a significant proportion of respondents foresee challenges with the proposed administration process, particularly in relation to timescales, local authority capacity and the complexity around certain aspects of the relief.

The government recognises that completion of the steps for obtaining the relief, alongside the original consultation proposal – of requiring commencement by 31 December 2028 – would be prohibitively challenging in some cases. Therefore (as covered more fully in response to Question 13) the government intends to extend this commencement deadline to 31 March 2030.

The government also recognises the concerns raised around borough capacity to administer the relief. The government has designed the relief to be as straightforward as possible to administer while also meeting its policy aims, and will seek to further reduce complexity in administration where this is possible. The government will also consider how guidance and standardised processes can support authorities to administer the relief as effectively and consistently as possible. Applicants must pay a set fee in order to apply for the relief, which can be used by boroughs to assist with administration costs.

The government response to Question 14 sets out the expectations for usage of the fee. The government recognises that requests have been made for automatic granting of the relief for qualifying developments. The government response to Question 19 sets out the evidential requirements that must be satisfied in order for the relief to be granted, and the rationale for this.

The government recognises the challenges identified by respondents, and considers that these can be effectively mitigated through the above measures.

Implementation

Question 27

Do you foresee any challenges with the proposed implementation process?

Question 27 response

A total of 80 respondents provided substantive responses to this question. Three quarters of respondents foresaw challenges with the proposed implementation process.

Key points

• A third of developers and a number of boroughs and respondents from other categories highlighted the importance of fast implementation, and therefore indicated that delays in making the necessary legislation would prove challenging.
• A third of developers and a number of boroughs and respondents from other categories expressed that the 2028 deadline for commencement would be challenging, and asked that this be extended.
• Almost half of boroughs and a number of developers and respondents from other categories noted that boroughs capacity and readiness to operationalise the relief would be challenging.
• A number of respondents from all categories expressed that some aspects of the relief were complex and unclear, and that this may make implementation challenging or risk it resulting in unintended consequences. Relatedly, a number also requested that the legislation be accompanied by clear guidance and templates to ensure that implementation is consistent.
• Some respondents also flagged that boroughs will be managing implementation of the Building Safety Levy at a similar time, which creates pressures on capacity. A number also expressed the view that the relief may delay some schemes rather than expediting them, where they significantly redesign in order to qualify for the relief.

Government response for Question 27

The government recognises that a significant proportion of respondents foresee challenges with the proposed implementation process, particularly in relation to timing, local authority capacity and the complexity around certain aspects of the relief.

The government agrees that unnecessary legislative delays would prove challenging, and may undermine the effectiveness of the proposed relief policy – and is therefore committed to implementing the relief as quickly as possible through amendments made to the CIL regulations.

The government expects that the level of detail that has been provided in this document – and which will subsequently be provided in the consultation on the draft regulations – should be sufficient for any preliminary work in advance of commencement to proceed while the relevant legislation is taken forward. The consultation on the draft regulations will also further ensure that these measures are as effective as possible upon implementation.

The government recognises that completion of the steps for obtaining relief, alongside the original consultation proposal – of requiring commencement by 31 December 2028 – would be prohibitively challenging in some cases. Therefore (as covered more fully in response to Question 13) the government intends to extend this commencement deadline to 31 March 2030.

The government also recognises the concerns raised around borough capacity and readiness to implement the relief, and are mindful of the fact that these authorities will also be preparing for the implementation of the Building Safety Levy (BSL) during a similar time period. Administration of the BSL will be supported by grant which includes funding of set-up costs in advance of the levy coming into operation, and ongoing administrative costs which will be recovered from levy revenue on a cost recovery basis. The government’s response to Question 26 covers the administration of the CIL relief. The government remains confident that with these measures in place, the new CIL relief can be implemented successfully and achieve the intended objective of unlocking development in London.

Question 28

The government welcomes any views on other ways that developers could be supported through the CIL system to bring forward developments.

Question 28 response

A total of 105 respondents provided substantive comments to this question.

Key points

• Respondents raised a number of ways that developers could be supported through the CIL system to help bring forward development.
• A third of developers, half of boroughs and a number of respondents in other categories were in support of an instalment policy whereby CIL payments could be spread out throughout the development lifecycle, rather than being paid on commencement.
• Just under a third of developers, just under half of boroughs and a number of respondents in other categories were in support of a deferral policy whereby the CIL payments would be payable on scheme completion rather than commencement.
• Almost half of developers were in support of the use of CIL in-kind or infrastructure payments in lieu of CIL cash payments.
• Other options that were raised by respondents in all categories are as follows: an automatic CIL relief without the need for a viability assessment, changes to policy to make it easier for borough CIL rates and charging schemes to be amended, targeted support for SMEs and temporarily pausing CIL indexation and fixing CIL rates.
• A number of respondents in all categories also raised that amending the existing Exceptional Circumstances Relief to make it easier to use could have benefit.

Government response for Question 28

The government recognises that a wide range of suggestions have been put forward for ways in which developers can be supported through the CIL system to bring forward developments. Respondents proposed a number of alternative mechanisms, and a number of these received significant support from developers, boroughs, and respondents in other categories. In particular, there was notable support for instalment and deferral policies, as well as for greater use of CIL in-kind payments.

Having carefully reviewed the responses received for this question, the government has decided not to pursue these alternative approaches at this time. The government’s priority is to focus on delivering the measures it considers will be the most impactful in addressing current viability challenges, and to do so as quickly as possible. The government will therefore pursue the proposed CIL relief, and considers that this provides a more targeted and effective response to viability issues that are faced by residential developers in London. The relief will be time-limited and targeted, and strike an appropriate balance between supporting housebuilding and ensuring that CIL continues to operate effectively for the purposes of essential infrastructure funding. Boroughs can allow payment by instalments by publishing an instalment policy on their website (under regulation 69B). This includes the freedom to decide the number of payments, the amount of each payment and the time due.

Part II: A proposal for permanent changes to the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 to support housing delivery in the capital

A new PSI category for residential development of 50 or more subject to a streamlined procedure

Question 29

Do you agree with the new PSI category of 50 or more homes ? Please state why.

Question 30

Do you agree with the streamlined process for the new PSI category? Please state why.

Questions 29 and 30 – response

For Question 29, a total of 104 respondents answered yes/no. Of those, about half (48 respondents, or 46%) agreed with the proposed changes, and about half (56 respondents, or 54%) did not agree.

There was strong support from the group Developers (88%) and Professional Bodies (75%). However, there was minimal support from public authorities (11%) and Individual/personal view (19%).

For Question 30, a total of 93 respondents answered yes/no, an overall response rate of 43%. Of those, about half (49 respondents, or 53%) agreed with the proposed changes, and about half (44 respondents, or 47%) did not agree.

There was overwhelming support from the group Developers (100%) and strong support from Professional Bodies (75%).

About half of respondents from public authorities agreed (50%) but there was weak support from Individual/personal view (20%).

Key points Question 29:

• Respondents in favour of the proposals remarked that smaller housing schemes within the proposed PSI category 3J are sometimes subject to inconsistent decision-making by planning committees, which the proposed measure would largely prevent. They also highlighted that, cumulatively, the smaller sites of 50-149 homes would play a meaningful role in meeting the housing supply for London.
• Many respondents who did not agree with the proposals felt that these schemes would not normally raise strategic issues. Respondents thought that these schemes are more local in nature than development over 150 homes, and should therefore be within the remit of a borough instead of the Mayor. They felt that this point was exemplified by the proposal that the Mayor would be able to call in a scheme that only affects one borough rather than more than one borough as is the case with ‘regular’ PSI categories.
• Some respondents also pointed out that the proposed measure would affect a relatively small proportion of applications and that therefore the necessary extra procedures and capacity to implement it would be disproportionate.
• Respondents stated that the proposed measures could have unintended consequences with regards to how applications are handled by applicants. For example, applicants might be incentivised to reduce efforts to comply with local plan policies and instead focus more on delivery of housing to satisfy GLA housing policies.

Key points Question 30:

• Although many respondents expressed concerns about the proposals under Question 29, several of those respondents have no specific concerns over the proposed process for the new PSI category as put forward by Question 30. Respondents from a variety of groups, however, emphasised that further guidance is required on what documents are required for such a referral, as well as on exact time periods
• There is also concern, primarily from public authorities, that the new powers could generate tension between boroughs and the GLA, particularly in cases where a borough believes that a refusal is justified on local issues and policies even if the scheme contributes positively to wider housing delivery.
• Respondents from various groups thought the proposed procedure was proportionate to avoid the lengthier Stage 1 / Stage 2 procedure that ‘regular’ PSI applications are subject to. Respondents noted, however that even a streamlined procedure would be dependent on increased resource and capacity at the Greater London Authority.

Government response for Questions 29 and 30

The government has considered the range of responses to the proposals and has concluded that the proposed new PSI category of 50 or more homes with its streamlined procedure would be an appropriate measure to address the housing crisis in the capital without adding a disproportionate burden on local planning authorities.

As some respondents noted, these schemes can play a meaningful contribution to meeting the housing need for London and it is important, given the crisis, that the Mayor has the opportunity to consider why a local planning authority is minded to refuse an application within this new category. The streamlined procedure will also mean that a scheme which complies with local policies and the authority is minded to grant permission will not be subject to the Mayor’s scrutiny, allowing boroughs to continue to shape the development proposals in their area.

We recognise that a greater role for the Mayor in relation to these applications could lead to resourcing pressures at the Greater London Authority. We have worked in collaboration with the Mayor and his officials on these proposals. They are taking measures to ensure that procedures and additional resources are put in place to ensure the effective operation of these changes.

The government intends to move forward with the new PSI category and streamlined procedure. We will today bring forward secondary legislation to make the necessary changes to the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. This will come into force in May, after local elections. This will provide sufficient time for the Greater London Authority and London Boroughs to implement these changes.

Applications on Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land

Question 31

Do you agree that development in Category 3D of the Schedule of the Mayor of London Order 2008 should be brought into scope of the Mayor’s call-in power?

Question 31 – response

For Question 31, a total of 90 respondents answered yes/no, an overall response rate of 41%. Of those, less than half (40 respondents, or 44%) agreed with the proposed changes, more than half (50 respondents, or 56%) did not agree.

There was strong support from the group Developers (85%). However, there was weak support from public authorities (24%) and Individual/personal view (15%). Over a third (37%) of the group Interest groups/voluntary organisations agreed, while less than half (44%) of the group Professional Bodies agreed.

Key points

• Respondents in favour of the proposal argued that GB/MOL is by its very nature a strategic matter and therefore should be within the remit of the Mayor, providing strategic oversight and consistency in decision-making. They also noted that the proposal does not change the decision-making policies for any proposed development in these areas.
• Several respondents who opposed to the proposals thought that they were not fully aligned with emerging national and London policy on “grey belt” or “poor quality Green Belt/Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)” and the proposal would therefore run contrary the plan-led planning system.
• Furthermore, respondents argued that an emphasis on the development potential of “poor quality” land could incentivise poor land stewardship. They also thought that the proposal would lead to speculative applications because of possible differences in weight given to housing policies by the borough and by Greater London Authority, undermining the local authority’s planning role in the planning system.

Government response for Question 31

Having considered the responses received, the government intends to make the changes set out in the consultation and enable the mayor to use his call-in powers for Category 3D PSI applications.

We recognise the concerns that the proposals will weaken protections on the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land. However, we do not think they are justified. As other respondents remarked, regardless of who is the decision-maker applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and existing protections (both national and local) will remain in place. The new National Planning Policy Framework (which the government has recently consulted on) will retain strong protections for Green Belt. The revised London Plan will also continue to give Metropolitan Open Land a high level of protection and seek to identify “grey belt” land for different strategic land uses.

The government considers that the changes will allow the mayor to take a strategic view where development is brought in these areas and enable him to play a more active role on these applications, securing better outcomes where development is proposed on poor quality Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land. This will not, however, make it easier for development to be granted planning permission on high quality Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land.

We will today bring forward secondary legislation to make the necessary changes to the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. This will come into force in May, after local elections. This will provide sufficient time for the Greater London Authority and London Boroughs to implement the changes.

Public Sector Equality Duty and Environmental Protection Policy Statement

Question 32

Do you have any comments on any potential impacts for you, or the group or business you represent, and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic that might arise under the Public Sector Equality Duty as a result of the proposals in this document? Please provide details.

Question 33: Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified? Please share your views

Question 32 response

For Question 32, a total of 73 respondents provided substantive responses to this question, an overall response rate of 34%. Of those, more than half (40 respondents, or 55%) responded yes to the question. About half (33 respondents, or 45%) responded no to the question.

Question 33 response

For Question 32, a total of 67 respondents answered yes/no, an overall response rate of 34%. Of those, about half (31 respondents, or 46%) indicated yes to the question. About half (36 respondents, or 54%) responded no to the question.

Key points from Questions 32 and 33

• Respondents from different groups, but in particular Local Authorities and Interest Groups / Voluntary or Charitable Organisations, expressed deep concern that a reduction in borough-level community infrastructure levy (CIL) would result in a reduction in investment in community facilities such as transport, education, health, and open space, all of which could disproportionately disadvantage groups with protected characteristics. Reducing CIL would risk undermining the ability to deliver infrastructure that supports inclusive growth and addresses existing inequalities.
• Respondents also pointed out that reducing borough funding for such infrastructure would result in higher public cost elsewhere to meet the existing demand on specialist housing, open space, health and education facilities, etc.
• Respondents advised that an Equality Impact Assessments should be carried out to evaluate short- and long-term impacts of the proposed measures on those with protected characteristics.
• Respondents concluded that improved viability of residential schemes would result in increased delivery of affordable housing and other housing types or tenures that protected group disproportionately rely on.
• Some respondents advised that any mitigation strategy should be an integral part of the design of the proposal, taking account of local demographic data, deprivation data, proposed housing delivery and population growth and the condition and supply of existing health and social infrastructure.

Government response for Questions 32 and 33:

The government has carefully considered the potential impact of the proposals on individuals and groups with protected characteristics, as defined under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).

The government recognises the concerns that have been raised in response to this question, especially on the impact that the new CIL relief may have on inclusive infrastructure. The targeted and time-limited nature of the relief means that it should focus on those schemes which are constrained due to viability and meet the strict eligibility criteria. The emergency housing package, of which the new CIL relief and changes to Mayoral powers are part of, aims to support housebuilding in London, to unlock stalled schemes and enable more homes including affordable homes to be built. The relief aims to maximise the levels of affordable housing that are being delivered, and those with protected characteristics are currently disproportionately represented in poor housing outcomes.

Question 34

Do you have any views on the implications of these proposals for the considerations of the 5 environmental principles identified in the Environment Act 2021? Please share your views.

Question 34 response

For Question 34, a total of 33 respondents provided substantive responses to this question, an overall response rate of 15%. Of those, 25 (76%) responded yes to the question, while 8 (24%) responded no to the question.

Key points

• Several respondents pointed out that borough CIL plays a critical role in delivering infrastructure that supports environmental protection, and that a significant increase in CIL relief would reduce funding for, for example, sustainable transport, public realm improvements, carbon reduction measures, flood mitigation and biodiversity enhancements, which would weaken the integration of environmental protection and development.
• Respondents thought that the proposals would run contrary to all five principles where delivery pressures, particularly housing delivery in London, are being given precedence over a preventative and integrated approach to the duty under the Environment Act 2021.
• Other respondents thought that with appropriate planning controls relating to land quality, density, transport accessibility and design remain in place, the relief should support more sustainable patterns of development rather than undermine environmental objectives.

Government response for Question 34

The government has carefully considered the views expressed on the potential implications of the proposals in relation to the environmental principles set out in the Environment Act 2021. The government recognises that CIL plays an important role in the funding of infrastructure that contributes to environmental protection and sustainability. The targeted and time-limited nature of the new CIL relief will ensure that the intervention is focused only on those schemes which would not have come forwards without the relief.

For the purpose of eligibility for the relief, the excluded land definition ensures that development on green belt, metropolitan open land, and land designated as a park, recreation ground, allotment, golf course or other locally designated open space does not qualify for the relief. This approach ensures that the relief is targeted at predominantly brownfield or previously developed land, and does not incentivise development on protected or valued open spaces.

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables boroughs to enter into negotiated agreements with developments to mitigate the impact of otherwise unacceptable development. This means that any site-specific mitigations relating to environmental infrastructure that the borough finds necessary can be secured and enforced through this agreement.