For the last five years, we’ve been following the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) scandal, originally in West Berkshire. Put simply, this involved homeowners being charged eye-watering and life-changing sums by their council for technical oversights and misunderstandings about the system. It’s as if you were fined up to £235,000 for an error in a VAT return, even though it was admitted that the item should have been zer0-rated. Indeed, in such cases it would be possible to resolve the matter without being threatened with improsonment or sequestration.

West Berkshire Council

In West Berkshire (WBC), the scandal was, commendably, resolved within a year of the new adminsitration coming to power by the Council’s leader, Jeff Brooks. You can read his unequivocal statement on the matter in March 2024 here. He also penned an article on the subject which appeared in Local Governent First on 25 June 2025 and which you can read here. The headline was “CIL refunds: treating people fairly.” The last three words are what this is all about and a maxim which West Berkshire at least is now living up to.

Other councils have yet to follow suit. It soon became clear that the scandal was not a local one-off. An increasing number of others in a dozen different authorities have suffered in a similar way. The epicentre of cases that have emerged, however, have been in another WBC: Waverley Borough Council in Surrey. A WhatsApp group I’m a member of has been steadily growing and it’s from this area that most of the cases have emerged.

Waverley Borough Council

Waverley has been repeatedly pressed to follow WBC’s example which involves, in essence, making the brave admission that the council’s moral compass needed to be reset. This Waverley appears consistently to have failed either to deflect or accept. At its meeing on 1 July, however, it did propose introducing a discretionary review system. This might seem like progress.

Or perhaps not. Different KCs’ opinions have been sought by the various parties. The one most to Waverley’s liking contended that there was no real discretion possible and that the only grounds on which a CIL liability could be challenged was if the council had erred (many would feel that that is axiomatically a responsibility of all organisations). The word “discretionary” seems therefore to be just window-dressing.

The larger questions of applicant or agent errors, the general confusions caused by a complex system governmed by badly-drafted legislation and the moral dimension of a council’s relationship with its residents were left unaddressed (as they weren’t in West Berkshire). The narrowness of the scheme and the warning of no right of appeal if a claimant’s case failed seems likely to make many not want to engage with it: possibly the intention.

Waverley also tried to pull a rabbit out of its hat at the meeting by announcing that one resident would have his payment rescinded, as it resulted from a Council error. As the scheme had not yet been agreed, this could not therefore be a result of it. This therefore seems a publicity stunt. It may, however, be presented as evidence that Waverley has listened and acted.

A four-year wait

As significantly, this particular case has been live, and in an increasingly public way, for over four years. It seems shocking that Waverley committed an error (as it now admits) but took this length of time to admit this. Whether it knew internally that it had messed up but was doubling down on the secret is something only a candid admission or an FoI request will reveal. I’m afraid that an increasing number of residents will be unwilling to give the council the benefit of the doubt on this point.

This breakdown of trust and reputation will spread to other areas of Waverley’s relationship with the public. This is what can happen when you get a reputation for shafting people.

Elections are due to take place in May 2026. It’s unlikely this process will have been completed by then. As these will be for new unitary authorities, the chances are that any injustices left unaddressed at that point will remain so.

Legality, intention and support

The decision to follow the more restrictive KC opinion also led Waverley to suggest that WBC’s position might be illegal. If so, fifteen months on, I’m unaware of any challenge that’s been brought. Indeed, I understand that many people, including Cabinet members, are holding WBC’s plan as one possible route out of the moral and legal maze. I’ve gone further and have been happy to call our local council an exemplar.

It’s also necessary to remember what CIL is intended to do. Gov.uk describes it as “a charge which can be levied by local authorities on new development in their area..to use to help them deliver the infrastructure needed to support development.” It is not a tax on wealth or income. Some at Waverley have, however, claimed that the people being charged can afford it. As well as being untrue, this is to miss the point. Sadly, any tax or levy can be perverted for purposes for which it was not intended.

Finally, local councils should really exist to help us, not to screw us up. This scandal has undermined the reputation of several, which makes it less likely that residents will cut them slack when it needs it. After all, if you own a home and want to make a minor extension, this could happen to you. Are you prepared to lose your savings or be forced to sell up to pay an unfair bill? How would you feel about a council which develops such a predatory reputation?

Councils, Waverley included, do a lot of good things and provide a wide range of excellent services. This scandal undermines an unspoken contract we have with elected members and their officers that they’re here to help make things better. These stories show that some of them are making things worse. In these times of declining faith in the democratic process, it’s hard to see anything but problems coming from a debacle like this.

A motto to live by?

Most councils have mission statements or similar which they promote to demonstrate their ethical standards. An example might be “we aim to treat people and the environment with respect and kindness and to conduct council business in an open, inclusive, timely and democratic way, fair to all residents”.

Fine words and noble sentiments. I should stress that I haven’t just made these ones up but taken them from Waverley BC’s Corporate Strategy 2024-28. Some residents will have their doubts as to how well these aspirations are being put into practice.

Statement from Waverley BC’s opposition leader, Jane Austin, on 1 July 2025

This critical vote before you tonight affects livelihoods and, for some, the very roof over our residents heads. While I am delighted for Mr and Mrs Dally  for 25 weeks they have been in hell waiting – all for what feels like a cheap publicity stunt publicity by our Council.

We urge you in the strongest possible terms to vote against the recommendation. The proposed review scheme is not fit for purpose. The majority of those hit will not qualify to even apply under the scheme, some will not apply because of the way it is drafted. The scheme does not reflect the will of the full Council.

Imagine how you would feel if an honest mistake on a planning form led to a charge of £50,000–£100,000, the threat of imprisonment, you now must sell your family home to pay the Council.  Then worse – what if your elected representatives ignored your pleas – in some cases for years, and now hide behind procedure and ‘best value’ justifications instead of supporting you in your hour of need.

I believe there is no political will from those sitting on the Executive to listen to or really help these residents.

Evidenced by our Leaders repeated disdainful incorrect statements that those charged were building large extensions equivalent to a 2-3 bed house and it was correct they should pay CIL. Some hit have extended by as little as 3sq m. Crucially, they would all be exempt if they had filled the paperwork out correctly. Did our Council help them with this?

We all acknowledge that CIL legislation is deeply flawed. Over 150 councils operate CIL – but only at West Berkshire and Waverley have seen this clustering of cases. That seems to point not to bad luck, but to local systemic failure, potential maladministration and a breach of our duty of care. What, if any, help did Waverley give our residents? The evidence in front of us suggests the Council are razor focused on collecting cash.

The CIL victims’ group has undertaken Freedom of Information requests for every CIL charging authority across the UK. So far, responses received demonstrate many Councils do apply common sense to CIL regulations for householders, for example by offering periods of grace to submit notices and by supporting and reminding residents throughout the process if they fail to submit forms. It is a tragedy this did not happen at Waverley Council, which has lost sight of its duty of care to the people it serves.

We read yet another resident’s testimony last night – who, like others before him, experienced a CIL team using extraordinary measures to attempt to extract CIL and CIL interest – actions which could be described as entrapment. Surely, we must together call for a broad independent investigation of all CIL cases and historic CIL practices at Waverley?

West Berkshire’s Leader, Jeff Brooks, implemented the discretionary review we Waverley Councillors voted to follow, 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 our long-standing Waverley Councillors last week.

What Waverley is proposing tonight is an attempt to sweep serious concerns about CIL practices at our Council under the carpet. For the sake of our residents, for transparency and to limit further damage to our Council’s reputation please listen to what your fellow Councillors are saying loud and clear. Please take a balanced view of all of the evidence in front of you, follow the recommendations made by the O&S committee and reject this proposal.

Brian Quinn

You may also be interested in…

• CIL: How well does West Berkshire Council tick the box? (December 2020).
• “The utmost integrity at all times” (January 2022).
• Your councillor can ask the question: but can they get the answer (part one)? (January 2022) .
• Your councillor can ask the question: but can they get the answer (part two)? (March 2022).
• A CIL petition in West Berkshire (March 2022).
• The CIL nightmare (December 2023).
• West Berkshire Council Leader Jeff Brooks’ statement concerning CIL (March 2024).
• CIL: a solution in West Berkshire (August 2024).
• CIL charges: the fight continues (March 2025).
• The CIL scandal: one WBC is replaced by another (July 2025).
• CIL contortions in Waverley (July 2025).

Note that the subject has been also covered on numerous occasions in weekly news columns in Penny Post. With the exception of the December 2023 article (which appears in the “Across the area” section of This Week with Brian), these haven’t been referenced here.