Opinion: Waverley Has Failed Spectacularly on CIL

Published on: 6 Jul, 2025
Updated on: 7 Jul, 2025

By Jane Austin

leader of the Conservative Group at Waverley Borough Council

This week, I spoke with an estate agent in Godalming who shared a troubling new trend: prospective buyers are avoiding homes that require significant building work.

Why? Because they fear being hit with huge Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges by Waverley Borough Council.

And the problem was – I couldn’t tell him they were wrong.

Cllr Jane Austin (right) with residents campaigning for fair treatment

For those unfamiliar, CIL is a charge designed to ensure developers contribute to local infrastructure. CIL is not intended to capture homeowner work such as extensions, self builds or annexes (eg “granny flats”), which are all exempt, but in some cases householders must fill out forms to secure the exemption.

Waverley residents have learned the hard way just how unforgiving the CIL system can be. We Conservatives are supporting 11 householders who have been hit with crippling charges ranging from £40,000 to £235,000. A further four managed to fight and overturn householder CIL charges – all had legal or taxation expertise.

Both groups are scathing about Waverley’s treatment of them. Some describe the actions of the council as entrapment and are now scared to deal with them for fear of further charges.

Steve Dally

This week Waverley’s Executive agreed a review for some of these cases – but the review scope is inadequate and falls woefully short.

In a crass publicity stunt it was announced in the meeting itself that one of the residents affected, Steve Dally, will receive a £70k refund. This doesn’t cover his legal expenses and increased mortgage interest payments, let alone compensation for the stress suffered.

Mr Dally was also charged £thousands of CIL interest charges by the council and it is unclear whether this will also be refunded. The announcement comes after a four-year long fight against the council and he is still waiting for any payment to be made.

The narrow review scope focuses solely on whether the council made an error, so if a householder (or third parties acting for them) made an honest mistake they won’t be eligible to apply in most cases.

This is stricter than even HM Revenue & Customs which enables correction of honest errors, or the criminal justice system which allows appeals.

In voting for this scheme, Waverley’s Lib Dem-led Executive ignored the pleas of fellow councillors and rode roughshod over the recommendations of the Council’s scrutiny committee. It chose to accept to the opinion of only one of two conflicting legal opinions on CIL, both from hugely respected King’s Counsel (from the same chambers!). And it destroyed the hopes of victims that they would, after years of fighting the council, finally receive just and fair treatment.

We all acknowledge that CIL legislation is deeply flawed. But across over 150 councils operating CIL only two – West Berkshire and Waverley, have seen this clustering of multiple cases of unfair charges. That seems to point not to bad luck – but to local systemic failure, potential maladministration and a breach of duty of care.

CIL victims are in the process of collecting FOIs of all UK CIL charging councils – to date the data demonstrates that many do offer householders discretion on a case-by-case basis, that they support their residents through the process.

It is a tragedy this did not happen at Waverley.

What help, if any, did Waverley give its residents to avoid these charges? The evidence in front of us suggests the council was razor focused on collecting cash.

So – we have no independent investigation of historic CIL practices at Waverley which would transparently deal with the concerns raised, and no broad review which those hit can apply to.

West Berkshire Council did both last year; commissioning an investigation by the Planning Officers Society and subsequently implementing a discretionary review of cases which withdrew CIL liability of £400,000 from over 18 householders.

In January, Waverley Councillors unanimously voted to follow West Berkshire’s example.

Cllr Jeff Brooks, leader of West Berks, criticising his own council, said: “In 32 years as a councillor, this is the most egregious example of a council using the letter of the law to its advantage. It may have been legally correct, but it was morally reprehensible.”

We heard much of that sentiment echoed by many of our long-standing Waverley councillors last week. Waverley’s Executive has spectacularly failed its residents here.

And it gets worse…

Waverley collects the CIL and then allocates what it has collected. It is failing to efficiently distribute CIL to projects, with £11 million left unallocated this year alone.

So, all this collected cash is not even going on that much-needed infrastructure.

Worse still, CIL interest collected goes into Waverley’s general fund to support the day-to-day operations of the council. Applying the general fund overall return to £24 million CIL funds held as at March 2025 would mean it had accrued £1-£1.25 million in a single year.

This may all be legally defensible, but it is morally reprehensible.

The fight continues…