Letter: Why Can’t Waverley Council Respond to My Freedom of Information Request Regarding CIL?

Published on: 20 Sep, 2025
Updated on: 21 Sep, 2025

From Maria Dobson

On 11th July, I submitted a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to Waverley Borough Council. It is a statutory requirement that such requests are responded to within 20 working days, yet despite repeated follow-ups, including intervention by Cllr Jane Austin (leader of the Conservative Group at WBC) directly to the joint chief executive I have still received no answer.

My request sought a detailed breakdown of all costs incurred by Waverley in responding to, managing, or defending against campaigns, challenges, or objections from Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) campaigners.

Despite assurances and a holding message on 20th August citing “summer holidays and staff not being available,” a month later and nothing further has been sent to me and now my direct follow-ups are being ignored.

Waverley insist they cannot refund CIL payments due to legal constraints, yet they are ignoring the law when it comes to FoI requests. It appears to be a case of the council “marking its own homework”.

This raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability, particularly when large sums of taxpayer money are involved.  We already know Waverley is sitting on a large pot of CIL money and is earning considerable sums of interest, which you have previously reported.

Other councils, such as West Berkshire have recognised the injustice of CIL and successfully put it right for residents, they have offered Waverley help with putting this right but it would seem that this offer was declined.

This does raise the question whether decisions are being influenced by the significant amounts of money the council is holding, and the interest it’s generating, rather than by fairness?

I have spent the past nine years campaigning on the unfairness of CIL. I was personally caught out by paperwork errors at West Berkshire Council.  After persistence,  I was refunded, which demonstrates that errors can be rectified when councils act with transparency and accountability.  That experience has shown me how essential it is for authorities to provide clear information and act responsibly.

Waverley’s failure to respond, even to a basic FoI request, undermines public trust and raises questions about what is being hidden from scrutiny.

The public has a right to know how much is being spent defending CIL decisions, transparency in this area is not optional it is a legal and moral obligation.

Ignoring legitimate requests while simultaneously citing legal constraints to avoid refunding residents suggests a troubling double standard.

Editor’s response: We will invite WBC to comment.

Share This Post