This week, I spoke with an estate agent in Godalming who shared a troubling new trend: prospective buyers are actively avoiding homes that require building work. Why? Because they fear being hit with huge Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges by Waverley Borough Council.

And the problem is - I couldn’t tell him they were wrong.

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 (granny annexes), which are all exempt (in some cases householders must fill out forms to secure the exemption).

CIL legislation is complex and requires lots of form filling, but Waverley residents have learned the hard way just how unforgiving the system can be. We are supporting 11 householders who have been hit with crippling charges ranging from £40,000 to £235,000. A further four residents 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. Many are now scared to deal with the council.

This week Waverley’s Executive agreed a review for some of these cases. In a cheap publicity stunt, in the meeting it was announced Mr Dally would receive a £70k refund after four years of fighting the council, only after having made the Dally's wait 25 weeks for an answer on their case. That may all sound like a step in the right direction, but the review is inadequate and falls woefully short.

The narrow review scope focuses solely on whether the council made an error, so if a householder (or a third party acting for them) made an honest mistake they won’t be eligible to apply. This is stricter than even HMRC, 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. It 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, each by hugely respected Kings Counsels. And it destroyed the hopes of victims that they would finally receive just treatment by the Council (some have been fighting the charges in some cases for four to five years).

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 Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for 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, if any, help did Waverley give its residents to avoid these charges? The evidence in front of us suggests the council was razor focused on collecting cash.

We need a proper investigation of CIL practices at Waverley and to commit to a broad review for CIL victims.

West Berkshire Council did exactly that last year, undertaking an investigation by the Planning Officers Society, subsequently implementing a discretionary review of cases, which refunded £400,000 to over 18 householders. In January Waverley councillors unanimously voted to follow it.

Cllr Jeff Brooks, leader of West Berks, said of CIL: “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 our long-standing Waverley councillors last week.

Waverley’s Executive has spectacularly failed its residents here. But 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 million to £1.25 million alone in one year.

This may all be legally defensible, but I think its morally reprehensible. The fight continues.

Cllr Jane Austin, Leader Waverley Conservative Council Group