Angry CIL ‘Debtors’ Thanked for Their Patience by Waverley Council

Published on: 17 May, 2025
Updated on: 19 May, 2025

Godalming and Ash MP Jeremy Hunt with residents

By Chris Caulfield

local democracy reporter

“Absolutely outrageous” tax charges slapped on people carrying out “simple home extensions” by Waverley Borough Council must stop, say residents and MPs.

The local Conservative group has dozens of residents have been unfairly hit with community infrastructure levies and stuck with huge surprise bills, forcing some to have to sell their homes.

The council has promised to carry out a review of the “complex legislation” first brought and has been lobbying central Government to reform a system it says handcuffs authorities.

The Community Infrastructure Levy came into effect in 2010, and updated in 2019.

It is a charge levied by local authorities on new developments and seen as an important tool” to deliver the infrastructure needed to support development.

It applies to most new developments of more than 100 square metres or more, or creates a new home.

Some may be eligible for relief or exemption, including residential annexes and extensions, and houses and flats which are built by “self-builders”.

The problem comes from the “strict criteria that must be met and procedures that must be followed, to obtain the relief or exemption” and can often catch people out.

Residents are blaming the council for being over zealous in how they are chasing down those who fall foul and end up paying when they shouldn’t be.

The council has previously argued that in almost all cases the extra fees – as per the law – are being handled correctly. They have also encouraged those who feel their CIL charge was misapplied to come forward.

Posting a video, MP for Godalming and Ash Jeremy Hunt said: “Waverley Borough Council are doing something absolutely outrageous at the moment.

“Unlike other councils they are exploiting legislation to slap an extra tax on people who decide to do extensions to their homes,

“I’ve had people say they’ve been suddenly told they have to pay £50,000, £80,000 without any warning at all.

“Listen to some of their stories and you will see why my neighbour Greg Stafford and I are pushing Waverley to end this totally unfair practice.

One person said they had been charged £94,000 CIL “for a simple home extension” that has meant they’ve had to put their house on the market to sell as they are unable to pay it.

Karen Baxter said: “My conversion was a loft conversion and I’ve been charged CIL, not only on my own personal conversion, but on the rest of the hotel development that I’ve bought my house in. This is grossly unfair.

Anthony King: “I’ve been charged with my wife £55,000 for a very small extension on a one metre conservatory.

Greg Stafford MP

MP for Farnham and Bordon, Greg Stafford said: “The stories we hear from the people affected are absolutely appalling” adding they were “working to sort this issue out and to tell Waverley Borough Council that they really can’t tax people when they shouldn’t be.”

A spokesperson for the council said they understand how complex CIL regulations were and how distressing it can be if residents are not familiar with the process.

They added: “That’s why the council’s executive is committed to introducing a discretionary review process – one that ensures cases are assessed fairly, thoroughly, and without undue delay.

“However, CIL legislation is complex, and it’s crucial that we take the time to develop a review process that is both robust and lawful.

“We are carefully considering the terms of reference for the discretionary review and the legal mechanisms available to us

“We have made changes to our processes to ensure that both residents and their professional agents understand when CIL may be payable and what the laws require them to do.

“In parallel, we are lobbying central Government with a number of suggestions for reforms to the CIL legislation – aimed at making the system more effective at achieving its intended purpose: delivering essential infrastructure for our communities.

“A detailed proposal for the discretionary review process will be brought to the executive in July.

“In the meantime, we thank residents for their patience as we work to develop a fair and financially responsible process.”

Responses to Angry CIL ‘Debtors’ Thanked for Their Patience by Waverley Council

Brian Quinn Reply

May 18, 2025 at 10:25 am

Well done for covering this. One point: the only reference to West Berkshire is in one of the placards in the photo.

West Berkshire solved the issue in its district in March 2024 so other councils can too. https://pennypost.org.uk/2025/03/cil-charges-the-fight-continues/ offers a summary of the CIL issue in West Berkshire and elsewhere. This includes a link to the March 2024 speech by West Berkshire Leader Jeff Brooks (text and video) which is well worth reading/listening to.
J Crawford Reply

May 18, 2025 at 11:18 am

At a time of serious health issues, which continue, the Waverley Council Executive and elected representatives at the time refused to engage with us, show empathy or use their discretionary powers. Their advice in discussion was: “Raise court action.”

The issue relates to an annex in garden of family main house for us as elderly parents.

In advance of commencing work on a mobile lodge annex the appropriate permission was granted, the relevant plans and construction methodology having been submitted and planning officer visit taken place. This was 12 months in advance approximately of CIL [Community Infrastructure Levy] being implemented or introduced.

After work had commenced the classification of the annex was changed and permission granted for annex building which was mobile by which time Waverley had introduced CIL, something some other councils have not implemented, as there is not a requirement to do so.

As the reclassification had taken place after the build had started Waverley took the decision that build had started prior to obtaining exemption albeit in their paperwork they omitted to highlight that CIL would be liable for change or tick the appropriate box in their form!

The annex which is less than the 100 sq m should on every basis have been exempt.

Hopefully, the current Executive and elected representatives will resolve this matter of what is an exorbitant, immoral penal charge against homeowners which was designed for developers.

I have an unanswered question which the council acknowledge they received: “In 2019 they as a council agreed to review CIL annually – why has this not happened?”
R Wong Reply

May 18, 2025 at 12:42 pm

I thank those who have raised this issue and are campaigning for change.

We are a young family in Merton faced with a £85,000 levy for which we are meant to be exempt. We never received any CIL documents but proactively reached out to CIL team at Merton for advice. They said we were as residents exempt and there was a form to complete.

At no point in the verbal or email communication that followed did they say that the form needed to be approved prior to starting our extension, that failure to do so would result in losing out on the exemption and that we would be required to pay the full amount. We actually found about this narrow pitfall via a press article which additionally highlights the lack of transparency on this.

If anyone else has been affected please join Facebook group ‘Fight CIL Injustice’. Thanks to West Berkshire for making a change that aligns with fair and ethical principles. And to those protesting at Waverley I say, “Keep going!’
Maria Dobson Reply

May 19, 2025 at 10:55 am

As someone directly affected by this broken system, I welcome the Guildford Dragon’s coverage of this ongoing injustice. I was one of the many private individuals who was unfairly hit with a life-changing Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge for a simple home extension — despite being eligible for a self-build exemption.

Like many others, I submitted the correct forms but was tripped up by a minor administrative error. It would seem that councils across the country choose not to flag these errors or offer any assistance at the time — instead, they wait until the “point of no return” before delivering their “got you” moment. It’s a tactic that’s as deliberate as it is disgraceful. Councils know the CIL process is complex, yet they provide no proactive support or warnings, only silence until it’s too late.

This isn’t just a Waverley problem — it’s a national scandal. I’m in West Berkshire, and thankfully I had support from my ward councillor and the leader of the opposition party. It took me nine years of campaigning to get a resolution and a full refund — and I did nothing wrong. Since my fight, and thankfully a change in administration, over 20 residents here have had their cases overturned. West Berkshire Council has even offered to help Waverley put things right — but it would seem Waverley is choosing to ignore that offer.

The echoes of the Post Office Horizon scandal are hard to ignore: a faceless system, complex rules, victims blamed for minor administrative errors, and authorities refusing to admit fault — even when the consequences for residents are devastating. Like the sub-postmasters, we are ordinary people being financially and emotionally ruined by a flawed and inflexible system.

Waverley, you do have the power to fix this. Stop hiding behind legal process and performative reviews. Do the right thing — refund those affected, accept the help being offered, and stop punishing residents for honest mistakes in a system you know is broken.

This is not just a legal matter — it’s a moral one.

If any reader is affected by this CIL scandal, please be aware that there is a campaign WhatsApp group set up and are all working together to get a resolution. If you would like to be added, please contact me.