The government will be able to impose levies on new developments, under a proposed law, to make those behind them fund other schemes to benefit the community and economy.

A ’community infrastructure levy’ would be introduced under the controversial Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill, which is currently going through the House of Keys.

While several MHKs have voiced fears over proposals for a new system of national policy directives, which would allow the government to sidestep normal planning processes, the idea of the new levy was greeted more warmly last week.

Policy and Reform Minister Chris Thomas outlined the idea. Although the bill paves the way for such a levy, it would need Treasury concurrence.

In addition, regulations would have to be drawn up ’following consultation and engagement to get the balance right’ but the aim would be ’to ensure new developments help fund the accompanying wider changes which bring economic, environmental and social benefits’.

Bill Shimmins (Middle) gave his support to the levy but called for it to be used to support urban redevelopment ahead of countryside schemes.

’A higher cost community infrastructure levy for large countryside developments and a lower or minimal levy for those on brownfield, in-town, urban regeneration projects would help reverse the unfortunate trend that we have seen on this island over the last few decades,’ he said.

The government had to make urban regeneration more attractive and he asked whether the levy would be used to ’prioritise brownfield developments ahead of building over the Manx green fields’.

Mr Thomas said that was covered in the action plan that was laid before Tynwald last year as a precursor to the bill.

’There is a specific commitment to use rates, compulsory purchase, planning permissions around car parks for brownfield site development,’ he said, ’and community infrastructure levies seem to make a lot of sense to include in that list.’

The Bill was granted a second reading last week, meaning its general principles were supported. But there was a hostile reaction to proposals for national policy directives to be drawn up at short notice by the government.

Planning committee chairman Tim Baker (Ayre and Michael) led the criticism, claiming the directives, which could overrule development plans and change previously agreed planning directives, would not receive proper scrutiny.

But Mr Thomas argued they would allow the government to act quickly in response to economic or social need, without having to take legislation through the branches of Tynwald.

Detailed scrutiny of all proposals will take place at the clauses stage.