Letter: The Minister Himself Says, ‘CIL Was Never Intended To Be Used in This Way’

Published on: 10 Dec, 2025
Updated on: 10 Dec, 2025

From Steve Dallas

CIL Injustice Group

In response to comments within and on: Court Ruling Proves Council Policy Correct, Claims Waverley Council – Local MPs Disagree

In his comment on the above article Brian Edmonds asks “Why not check the law and rules before building an extension?” but– which law should we check? Homeowners are not planning experts and when Waverley Council does not help residents through a complex process how are they expected to know? Yes, a Developer should know, but we are not developers.

If you live in Guildford there is no CIL. If you live in Waverley an unintended mistake in some paperwork will cripple you with fines of up to £300k, threats of seizure and sale of your home and, possibly, three months in prison. So, do we read law according to Guildford or the law according to Waverley? It’s a post code lottery. A joint CEO, a joint head of Planning – yet two different standards.

In response to Cllr Townsend [Lib Dem, Cranleigh West] – no political party has been leading residents to believe a local council could overturn national legislation. Why does she insist on politicising victims’ distress for political gain?

Her statement is false and misleading the public. It was me, with the opinion of a senior KC, who stated that not only does Waverley have a duty to act reasonably and not cause hardship, but that the law does grant them discretion.

Cllr Townsend is also misleading the public by saying, “I am pleased the court has confirmed that Waverley has acted entirely within the law.” The courts have done no such thing. Firstly, she is referring to a specific case between a developer and Bracknell Forest not Waverley. Waverley is not mentioned in this case. Today we have received a second opinion given by an independent KC – and I quote:

“Luck v Bracknell is only a first instance decision. It is not legally binding on any other court. It’s just a decision to be considered/ distinguished on the facts.”

Perhaps Cllr Townsend would do the right thing, she can check for herself and confirm this legal opinion is correct. The Bracknell Forest case confirms nothing with regards to Waverley.

It is disgraceful that elected representatives, councillors, are politicising residents’ distress. Hitting another party may be is fair game. Dragging victims into this is unacceptable.

WBC has caused immeasurable anxiety and distress, with at least one victim known to have had a nervous breakdown, family homes put up for sale and or sold, not because someone unintentionally got a form wrong, but because of Waverley’s exceptionally high charging rate – five times that of neighbouring boroughs. It’s unjustifiable!

If the charging rate was more reasonable mistakes would become more manageable. There is no charging rate in Guildford! With the sharing of services why don’t Waverley follow the best practice of their sister council Guildford? Show some compassion and understanding!

The Minister for Housing made a clear statement that: “CIL was never intended to be used in this way”. He named “West Berks as a good example of a council that has shown discretion and refunded homeowners” – he names Waverley as: “…a council that chooses not to!” (July 2025).