'Exactly' zero appeals lodged under Waverley Borough Council's CIL review as mistrust rules

Last year, homeowners began receiving massive Community Infrastructure Levies for works carried out on their homes.

Usually these charges are reserved for large-scale developers to cover the impact on an area; for example to pay for new roads, a doctor’s surgery, or community hall.

Instead, residents have been charged for failing to navigate complex planning bureaucracy and were stung with fees they could have been exempt from.

It led to reports of people being threatened with imprisonment, having to sell their home, or remortgage, just to cover the charges while, they say, waiting for the council to come to its senses.

Pledging to look into the matter Waverley Borough Council announced it would carry out its own discretionary review into any case – and lined up an independent senior barrister to assess each application on a case-by-case basis.

Since launching however, not a single person has gone through the process after they were told the council’s decision would be final, and the remedial actions unclear – particularly if the error was made by a party other than the local authority.

Waverley Borough Council however, insist people should trust the process and that people should supply a written statement outlining their case with any supporting evidence.

“The independent person reviewing the case will look at every element of the case, regardless of who has made the mistake.

“In the event of a council error as per the legal advice, the liability notice can be withdrawn and the matter addressed swiftly”, officers told the August 5 executive committee.

The review is being kept as open as possible, the council added, with the barrister having the scope to recommend how strictly CIL liability is enforced in cases where mistakes were made elsewhere.

Leader of the council, Councillor Paul Follows said: “We are likely talking about quite individual types of error and we’ve specifically and clarified again that we are not blocking any type of error from being assessed by this process.

“It may be that the response is quite specific to an individual.

“Yes, the enforcement policy is probably the primary vehicle by which that will be achieved but we don’t know until we’ve actually assessed the cases.

“As of right now, despite the amount of people that have come to speak about this and the number of times they have, there have been exactly no applications to the discretionary review.”

He added: “We will need to assess individual cases in terms of specific remedy. We have established the broadest possible classes of council error as well as opening the possibility to other types of error.”

At the meeting Councillor Follows referred to the role of the Local Government Ombudsman in relation to Community Infrastructure Levy decisions.

The council has since clarified the context of that comment.

It said: “There are two appeal mechanisms relating to Community Infrastructure Levy charges, the Planning Inspectorate, and the Valuation Office Agency.

“If a resident believes there has been maladministration, unfair treatment, or a failure in due process related to a CIL matter, they also have the right to raise a complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman (although it’s important individuals go through the council’s formal complaints process first).

“As the LGO has confirmed, it does not function as an appeal body and does not reconsider the merits of a decision itself.

“Instead, it investigates complaints about whether councils have followed proper procedures and acted fairly.

“In that sense, while residents cannot ‘appeal’ a CIL decision through the LGO in the traditional sense, they can ask the Ombudsman to review how the decision was made, if they believe the council has not followed due process.”

Councillor Follows’ comments were intended to reflect that option, the council said.