Letter – Waverley Council’s Answers on CIL Just Don’t Make Sense

Published on: 9 Aug, 2025
Updated on: 9 Aug, 2025

From Steve Dally

In response to: Dragon Interview – Cllr Townsend on Waverley’s CIL Issue

Waverley Council’s opinion is that the CIL regulations are inflexible. This is the stance they have taken since 2019. But West Berkshire Council have demonstrated councils have full discretion (as do a further 26 councils we, as victims, have identified through FoI requests).

Waverley took advice, a legal “opinion” was obtained. Waverley have in their possession an alternative legal opinion from a well-respected and very senior King’s Council which lays out how Waverley can treat homeowners in line with West Berkshire, however it’s discretionary and Waverley have chosen to dismiss this advice in favour of a legal opinion which justifies their historic position.

The alternative legal advice states councils have a duty to act reasonably, which includes circumstances “where a homeowner has inadvertently omitted to submit a claim form for an exemption for a residential annex or extension at the appropriate time before development commences.”

Indeed, that appears to be the basis on which West Berkshire has instigated and is carrying out its review of CIL liability for householders. This is the legal basis on which West Berks and many other councils can and do take a more pragmatic approach. Waverley chose not to use this discretion.

This is a choice. Two legal opinions, no case law. West Berks choose to correct this injustice. Waverley has taken the position to implement a zero tolerance, no discretion policy. The Minister of Housing could not be more clear – “CIL was never intended to be used in this way.”

The Minister names West Berks as a Council choosing to use its discretion – and he also names “Waverley choosing not to follow West Berks”.

I really don’t understand why the Waverley Executive have become so entrenched in its stance and chosen to follow one legal opinion and dismiss another. Are councillors not elected to represent the interests of their residents? In January, a meeting of the full council at Waverley chose to follow West Berkshire but the Executive has chosen to dismiss those wishes.

Of course, it’s in the financial interest of Waverley Borough Council not to show any discretion. No-one can make them choose discretion except a Judicial Review and we as homeowners don’t have the money to pay the levy never mind another £50k to fund a legal challenge!

Why will they not follow a more reasonable approach and use discretion to refund homeowners who failed to submit the correct paper on time? What’s the risk? There is no risk when the Minister for Housing names West Berkshire as a good example of a council using discretion [see YouTube clip here].

In July, victims asked for a full independent review of the practices of Waverley’s planning department – the request was refused. What are the members of the Executive trying to protect or hide?

Let’s question the answers Waverley keep repeating, because it just does not make any sense.