Scores of householders are ganging up against the council, crying…
“We want our CIL money back. We want justice.”
For the uninitiated, CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) is a cost imposed on development to support infrastructure, such as schools, roads, and community facilities provided by local authorities, including parish and county councils.
Setting the record straight on CIL
Controversy surrounding CIL is not just a Waverley issue. High charges imposed on developers and householders cause national concern, particularly from baffled householders who have inadvertently failed to complete vital paperwork.
Waverley’s Tory Group – led by Cllr Jane Austin, who, like her namesake, loves a good story, is intent on making a drama out of a crisis, using the CIL controversy to batter the ruling administration. An administration that has already acknowledged the levy is complex and has pledged to review it urgently.
Most of the present Tory incumbents were not members when the following decision was made, and those who were conveniently forgot.
The Waverley Web recalls that in October 2018, the Conservative-led Council chose not to offer discretionary CIL relief. At the time, the Lib Dem representative, Cllr Paul Follows, voiced concerns about the policy’s rigidity and potential to unfairly burden homeowners and small-scale developers.
The then-‘new boy on the block’, as Tory councillors then referred to him, ignored his warnings, so they forged ahead with the policy by majority vote.
Cllr Lauren Atkins now wants the council to use a “common-sense approach” where administrative mistakes were made and genuine householder errors had occurred/ She urged to act immediately and “wipe the slate clean ” without delay using powers it already has.” Her amendment was lost.
Some councils, like Guildford, still operate the 106 legal agreement system for infrastructure improvements. Dunsfold Garden Village falls into that category, with squillions of liabilities.
In a nutshell, the Rainbow Administration proposed a motion to ensure that CIL continued to support sustainable development and fund infrastructure fairly and proportionately. Due to public concern, it wants to form a cross-party executive working group to focus on:
1. The Rationale for Introducing CIL in 2018 and examine why CIL was chosen over continued reliance in general on Section 106 agreements or alternative mechanisms, and whether the impact on individual homeowners was thoroughly considered.
2. The Absence of Discretionary Relief: To establish why the Council did not adopt an exceptional circumstances policy, which could have allowed flexibility in cases of hardship or genuine error by applicants and to explore legal and procedural options for introducing a policy.
3. To explore the legal and procedural options for withdrawing or amending CIL Liability Notices in exceptional circumstances, and whether a formal protocol could be introduced.
4. To consider changes to the current system, including introducing ‘an exceptional circumstances policy’ and ensuring that penalties are proportionate and fair.
The Executive and the Council would finally consider a Cross-Party Working Group’s recommendations.
What is happening in Waverley is happening elsewhere. It is the unintended consequence of legislation brought in by the government in 2018 and adopted by WBC shortly after to support local communities and provide them with improved facilities.
Waverley CIL Enforcement Policy adopted by WBC Tory Executive 17th December 2024:
The Devil is in the detail.
Not all development is liable for CIL – buildings where “people do not normally go” or intermittently inspect or maintain fixed plant or machinery are exempt. Or when completed, the development has a gross internal area of less than 100 sqm (unless it comprises one or more dwellings). Local Authority charging schedules also exclude other development types.
The Tory approach to this debate was bizarre. First, as you note, they were campaigning to overturn a decision by their own party taken in 2018, and insert a provision that they had rejected when it was proposed by Paul Follows, at the time the only Liberal Democrat.
They then made a major theatrical intervention, including a series of “qustions from the public” from some fof their own supporters, putting variations on what were essentially the same question, and an amendment to a council motion to put into place a mechanism to provide the review they wanted (and more).
Having lost the debate on their amendment, they then voted unanimously against the substantive motion. Thankfully, the motion was in fact carried by a wide margin – or their would have been no change at all in the regulations.
The final oddity in their display was that in her summing up to the debate on the opposition motion, the Tory leader, Cllr Jane Austen, insisted that this was “not about party politics” – but proceeded to deliver a speech was very much about party politics.
Spot on the mark. One of the most political with a Capital P diatribes we have ever heard delivered in Waverley’s Council chamber from a woman who, soon after being elected to the borough, sought to be an MP in Liverpool. A councillor who never even attempts to conceal her glee that the skids are under the council she was elected to serve and would have abandoned if she had been given the chance.
Cllr why do you and others continue to politicise the trauma and distress of residents? Whoever introduced CIL in 2019, this Administration has had 6 years to correct it – my wife and I were hit in 2020 and despite may appeals to Cllrs and Officer to show compassion and understanding – our own Cllr does not even answer our repeated requests for a meeting.
Our cry has fallen on deaf ears until last Sept when Cllr P Follows agreed to listen to our case and in December Cllr J Austin took on the responsibility to lead a motion correct 6 years of injustice
In January a cross party motion was adopted which I can only assume you agree with as no one voted against, to follow West Berks
Why did it take compassion from a Cllr Lauren Adkins to bring this motion to full Council? We are now more than 3 months on and and victims are hearing statements from officers and Cllrs – they either have no intention of following the West Berkshires protocol or they have not taken the time to understand it – as you are aware West Berks is a Lib Dem led Council. If you only take the time to speak to victims and understand their distress you will learn every question asked at Full Council last week came from a victim ! – not one question came from or was influenced by the Conservative Party.
My father 92 years of age, who is still with us, has been a staunch member of the Labour Party for the last 76 years and you accuse me of being a Conservative Party supporter?
The Nolan Principles of Public office of which Im sure you are aware Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, and Leadership.
Selfishness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest
– when will you and others spend time to understand victims circumstances and fight for justice rather than use the opportunity for political gain
Objectivity – Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias
……without bias? – when will you and others take the time to understand and show some compassion for victims of this unjust legislation
Honesty – Holders of public office should be truthful.
– Cllr you are spreading untruth and showing no compassion for victims, who are all residents of Godalming
Leadership – holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect.
You personally and all Cllrs on WBC have been sent a legal opinion which explains discretionary powers WBC has to act reasonably yet WBC states they have no discretionary powers and continue to blame legislation or the previous administration – Cllr have you read the information you have been sent by Victims ?
Human Impact of Waverley’s policy’s resulted in trauma and distress:
– Forcing a husband and wife to sell their home to pay disproportionate CIL charges they could not afford, which ultimately resulted in the husband experiencing a breakdown in his health.
– Relentlessly pursuing one couple who cannot afford to pay, which has forced them to put their house on the market and is currently for sale.
– Relentlessly pursuing an elderly man with terminal cancer whilst he was in hospital having suffered a major heart attack and whose wife has dementia.
– A couple have had to increase an interest only mortgage to delay the CIL payment they cannot afford to pay.
Each of these cases have their complexities, one of which, in the opinion of a well-respected Kings Council, has been caused by “multiple egregious errors by WBC”. – blame the previous administration ?…… or spend the time and seek to understand ?
This is another post office scandal – the Council on which you serve continues to “threaten home owners with seizure and sale of their home” – and potential “3 months in prison: if they do not pay financially crippling sums for getting some paperwork wrong – which if they had got right would have resulted in full exemption – no CIL – is this not an injustice? – do you agree that is just?
– Im quoting The WBC CIL Enforcement policy this administration approved just last December2024 not the policies introduced by the Conservatives in 2019
Why do you continue to state its the fault of the conservatives when its WBC that shows a complete lack of compassion and discretion – CIL introduced by the previous Administration has gifted the current Administration over the past 6 years the sum of £79M. Its the complete lack of compassion and acceptance of discretionary powers that is not befitting of anyone in public office
Cllr please – we ask you take your responsibilities seriously and support our fight to correct injustice by acting objectively selfishness and with honestly
As one of the residents in your ward Cllr, I’d like to set the record straight on part of what you say and I’ll also reach out directly to explain further. I submitted a question in advance, off my own back and nothing to do with any party, merely trying to get a plain answer to a simple question about the cil regulations. Unfortunately the answer was plain obfuscation. I object to being associated as being part of political theatre. I and other residents are merely trying to get answers and plead the case for justice. Which party implemented cil should be seen as irrelevant at this point, solving the problem should be the goal on behalf of residents and all parties I believe shouid do that.
Speaking as a resident in your ward, those “questions from the public” Cllr Weldon are the public’s right to ask a question and I don’t feel it’s fair to tarnish that with the term political theatre. Speaking personally, I am being charged £94,000 for a home extension which has made our lives a misery in the past 4 years and I simply wanted to ask a simple question, pre-submitted, regarding the council’s discretion to withdraw CIL liability notices. Sadly the answer I received was plain obfuscation, for what reason I know not, but the right to withdraw these notices is there in the regulations for all to see and there’s even the view of a KC to support that. I and the other residents I have spoken to have zero political axe to grind. We care nothing for who did what in the past, we simply want to see leniency and indeed, justice served. I am in fact a Lib Dem voter and have been all my life. I and other residents just would like to see this moved from a political issue to being something all parties can get behind and resolve. Seeing through the motion to follow West Berkshire’s policy for the discretionary review and allow the lives of those affected residents to move on. Thank you.
Now let me see.
Is there.
A
Multi million pounds pot of money.
Or
B
An awfully complex I.O.U
?
MM
“The Community Infrastructure Levy (the ‘levy’) is a charge which can be levied by local authorities on new development in their area. It is an important tool for local authorities to use to help them deliver the infrastructure needed to support development in their area.” Why oppose CIL the main problem is that it is not spent on infrastructure? It is time the that loopholes in CIL evasion were closed, extensions already benefit from no increase in council tax bands until the property is sold. Even though extensions can move a property from band F to band H.
CIL is there to mitigate the impact of a big development. The trouble is these days there is rarely a way to mitigate the impact (no matter how much money you throw at infrastructure) because a lot of the developments are in the wrong place. Attaching CIL, affordables or conditions just gives planners an easy excuse to recommend approval.
I am disgusted by the party politics.
I am disgusted by the lack of care. None of the victims dispute the need for CIL and its applicability to new developments that add to local infrastructure.
I am disgusted at the lack of decency that would recognise the problem for what it truly is – unfair and financially crippling for householders who are simply improving their homes.
If any of you had been on the receiving end of the treatment we have had you would be thinking differently.
A council that insists that work has commenced when it hadn’t and without checking the facts first is not showing any duty of care. To charge the full CIL plus, to rub salt in the wound, penalties for not having informed the council that work had started, to refuse to discuss it, to refuse to look at any evidence showing work hadn’t started, refusing to visit the site to see for themselves that it was obvious that no work had been done? Is that a just system?
Would any of you like to boldly say that you think that is a reasonable and responsible way for a council to treat its residents? Please stand up.
Planners do not yet recognise that conditions without completion audits become requests.