Letter: Our Residents Want CIL Money Properly Used for Infrastructure Without Delay

Published on: 30 May, 2025
Updated on: 30 May, 2025

From Jane Austin

Waverley borough councillor for Bramley & Wonersh and Conservative leader of the opposition

In response to: Conservative Claims on Use of CIL Payments ‘Political Theatre’ Say Lib Dems

I feel compelled to write to clarify several important points following recent comments from Council Leader Paul Follows and his Lib Dem spokesperson colleague. I believe it is essential to ensure residents have a clear and accurate picture of how CIL [Community Infrastructure Levy] is being handled—and why urgent changes are needed.

1. CIL has been under Liberal Democrat-led oversight for six years

Waverley formally adopted CIL in March 2019, just prior to the local elections. The Liberal Democrat-led administration has been in control since May 2019. Since March 2019, the current administration has issued 99.97 per cent of the total £65.9 million in CIL liability notices (source: Waverley’s Exacom system). Every meeting of the CIL Allocation Committee has occurred under this administration’s leadership.

2. Transparency around CIL interest income is lacking

Over the past five years, Waverley Borough Council has accrued a staggering approximately £2.5 million in interest on unspent CIL funds. To put this into perspective, last year alone, the interest earned was equivalent to around 10 per cent of the borough’s total council tax income.

Our preliminary analysis suggests Waverley may have the highest CIL interest income of any Surrey district or borough and possibly (relative to our council’s size) in the country (investigations are continuing).

The CIL interest has not been itemised or reported transparently in published papers. Instead, all interest income has been absorbed into the council’s general fund, without ring-fencing it for infrastructure delivery or informing the public of how this interest is being used.

Residents want infrastructure – not to learn this money is propping up council operations via “treasury management”. We believe more of this money should be paid over to Surrey County Council who actually deliver much of the infrastructure.

3. Current CIL allocation practices are not supporting residents

The CIL Allocation Committee meets just once a year, limiting opportunities for allocations or for the committee to be responsive. Each year, numerous community-led infrastructure applications are denied funding or found non-compliant, leaving over £10 million funds unallocated.

For the past two years, Conservative councillors have been excluded from the Council’s CIL Allocation Committee on the instruction of the council leader. This has left the panel politically and geographically unbalanced. Analysis of CIL allocations shows most of the project funding has been allocated to political “strongholds” of the Executive (source: Waverley Exacom system).

4. The CIL process at Waverley requires reform

Our group’s ongoing investigations into Waverley’s CIL practices has revealed that the current system is not effectively delivering the infrastructure residents want and need. Too much of the collected CIL remains unspent, and we have growing concerns that some residents are being unfairly charged.

We are escalating these issues through local channels and with our Members of Parliament, as part of a broader national call for reform for elements of the CIL system. Locally, we urge Waverley’s Executive to demonstrate transparency, act in the public interest, and allocate funds more effectively and equitably.

The Community Infrastructure Levy was introduced to support infrastructure in our growing communities. We believe it is vital that the funds, and by extension interest earned on those funds, should be used responsibly, transparently, and for their intended purpose.

Finally, on a personal note, it is disappointing to once again note the misogynistic overtones of the comments made in the article: reducing an important discussion to a statement effectively saying “you don’t understand”.

My two degrees, professional property training and qualification and years in planning and property apparently still do not qualify me to comment on this subject, or any of my Conservative group which includes: property company owners, property and planning consultants, accountants, auditors and a retired judge – whose collective experience in all tiers of local government extends to nearly a century.

Share This Post