Decision

CIL Appeal 1868691 – 05 Aug 25 (Accessible version)

Published 16 October 2025

Appeal Decision

by redacted  MRICS

an Appointed Person under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as Amended

Valuation Office Agency (DVS)
Wycliffe House
Green Lane
Durham
DH1 3UW

e-mail: redacted@voa.gov.uk

---

Appeal Ref: 1868691

Address: redacted

Proposed Development: Alterations to redacted  to include the erection of a single storey mansard roof extension and changes to the fenestration on redacted  elevation, partial demolition and rebuilding of redacted  and amalgamation with redacted; all to enlarge existing flats (Class C3). Creation of a courtyard at rear ground floor level of redacted  and a terrace to the rear of redacted  at fifth floor level, installation of green roof areas to the main roof of redacted  and the rear of redacted  at part fifth floor level. Installation of plant in the pavement vaults and within the internal lightwell at first floor level with associated screening. [SITE INCLUDES redacted].

Planning Permission details: Granted by redacted  on redacted, under reference redacted.

---

Decision

I determine that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payable in this case should be £redacted  (redacted).

Reasons

Background

1. I have considered all the submissions made by redacted   of redacted, acting on behalf of the Appellant, redacted, and the submissions made by the Collecting Authority (CA), redacted.  In particular, I have considered the information and opinions presented in the following documents:

a) CIL Appeal form dated redacted.

b) Grant of Planning Permission redacted, dated redacted.

c) The CIL Liability Notice (ref: redacted  ), dated redacted.

d) The Appellant’s Regulation 113 Review request dated redacted.

e) The CA’s Regulation 113 Review dated redacted  .

f) The CA’s response to Regulation 113 dated redacted.

g) The Appellant’s representations dated redacted  including a recalculation of the existing and proposed GIA dated redacted  as well as plans showing areas excluded to the lower ground floor and ground floor (Drawing ref redacted  - redacted  - redacted  -  redacted – redacted  - redacted  - redacted  - redacted

h) A set of ‘approved’ existing and proposed floorplans, sections, elevations and demolition plans.  Including the location plan, planning statement, design and access statement and the area schedule (with drawing number reference included).

i) The redacted   Off Plan Area Measurement Report redacted.

j) Receipt from redacted  dated redacted  confirming previous CIL Liability payment.

2. Planning permission was granted under application no redacted  on redacted   for, “Alterations to redacted  to include the erection of a single storey mansard roof extension and changes to the fenestration on redacted  elevation, partial demolition and rebuilding of redacted  and amalgamation with redacted  ; all to enlarge existing flats (Class C3). Creation of a courtyard at rear ground floor level of redacted   and a terrace to the rear of  redacted at fifth floor level, installation of green roof areas to the main roof of  redacted and the rear of redacted   at part fifth floor level. Installation of plant in the pavement vaults and within the internal lightwell at first floor level with associated screening. [SITE INCLUDES redacted].

3. The CA issued a CIL liability notice reference number redacted) dated redacted  in the sum of £redacted. The Appellant requested a review of this charge on redacted  setting out inaccuracies in their GIA calculations which were discovered following the commission of a RICS Measured Survey of the Approved Plans.

4. The response to the review was received redacted  from the CA and determined there will be no change to the CIL sum.  The CA concluded, for a change to take effect, a revised planning application would be required.  The CIL would then be calculated on the approved plans and, therefore, the chargeable development.

5. The Appellants refer to a previously paid CIL liability of £redacted relating to a consent (redacted), which has since been implemented and paid in full.  The Appellant states they are seeking to ensure that the floor area built (under redacted) and to be built (under redacted  ) is charged appropriately.

6. The Appellant has not put forward a revised CIL calculation, however, has set out what they consider the difference in GIA is in comparison to the previous payment made.

Grounds of Appeal

7. The Appellants grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:

a) The information supplied by the Appellant and relied upon by the CA relating to the approved planning application redacted () was inaccurate.  The CA’s GIA calculations were taken from inaccurate plans and information supplied to calculate the CIL liability. 

b) The Appellant disputes the necessity of submitting a fresh application and considers Regulation 65 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2012 (as amended) allows for a collecting authority, at any time, to issue a revised liability notice in respect of a chargeable development.

c) The Appellant contends there is nowhere in the regulations requiring a new planning application to be submitted.  The Appellant opines that when new (more accurate) information comes to light, the collecting authority is completely at liberty to issue a revised liability notice.

8. In summary, I consider the issues before me are:

a) Whether the new, and more accurate information submitted since the application was approved, can be considered as the chargeable development as per the meaning set out within (9) of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended); and

b) Whether the CA could have issued a revised liability notice in respect of a chargeable development under Regulation 65 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended).

9. There is no dispute around the charging rate or indexation adopted.

Approved Development in Dispute

10. The dispute between the parties relates to No. redacted  and no. redacted  which are located within the administrative area of redacted  and comprises a site area of approximately redacted  sqm.

11. The Site is located in redacted , on the north side of redacted. The Site is bounded by no. redacted   to the west and redacted  to the east.  No. redacted   is a residential building of six storeys (one of which is a lower ground floor). No. redacted  is a four storey building (one of which is a basement), including a ground floor garage and is used as a single residence with storage in the basement.  At present, no. redacted   and no. redacted  contain 13 residential units.

Decision

12. The CIL Regulations Schedule 1 define how to calculate the net chargeable area. This states that the “retained parts of in-use buildings” can be deducted from “the gross internal area of the chargeable development.”  Consequently it is important to base the areas correctly to enable a reflective CIL Liability.

13. The chargeable development is defined in the CIL regulations as follows.

Meaning of chargeable development
9.—(1) The chargeable development is the development for which planning permission is granted.

14. The CA opines as follows:

a) CIL is charged on the chargeable development following grant of a planning permission. The granted permission relates to among other factors, the plans submitted with the planning application to support the decision making process.

b) On determining a permission, a Decision Notice is issued. Within the Decision Notice, are various conditions which set controls on how the development should be constructed.  To accept the inaccuracies and amend the remeasured GIA would require a condition(s) in a granted permission regarding change of approved drawings/plans to correct an error.

The CA then referred to the relevant condition on the approval redacted.

Condition(s):

(1). The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings and other documents listed on this decision letter, and any drawings approved subsequently by the City Council as local planning authority pursuant to any conditions on this decision letter.

15. In their representations the CA recognised that clear errors were made during the planning process.  However, they concluded that there were the strict provisions in planning law that govern amendments to a granted permission and referred to an example of an application for a non-material amendment, a section 73 application or a new application to supersede a previous permission. The CA advised the Appellant  that in order to make their suggested changes they would be required to make a fresh application.

16. From the information supplied, it would appear the GIA calculations were provided by redacted, the architects for the approved scheme, on behalf of the Appellant.  The Drawing Register labelled, redacted  – Area Schedule, sets out the floor areas along with related drawing numbers.  However, it is not clear from the information provided, and the Appellant’s representations, what type of measuring tool redacted   has based their area calculation of GIA upon.  By contrast, the Off Plan Area Measurement Report produced in redacted  confirms that Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software was used to construct accurate area drawings from the information collected.  The measurements have been stated as being in accordance with the Sixth Edition (September 2007) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Code of Measuring Practice and the Globally applicable 6th Edition (May 2015).

17. Gross Internal Area (GIA) is not defined within the Regulations. The VOA use the definition of GIA contained within the RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th Edition when considering all CIL appeals.

18. It is clear from Regulation (9), the chargeable development is the development for which planning permission is granted.  The CA is correct here.  However, I have studied the approved plans cited in the relevant decision notice and supplied as part of the CIL appeal documents.  I am satisfied the plans which were used to measure the GIA and shown within the Off Plan Area Measurement Report have not deviated from the approved plans.  It is merely a more accurate form of measurement.

19. It is very apparent, even from the approved plans submitted, there are vast areas of GIA that were missed during the calculation and should have been raised prior to the application’s determination from both parties, in my view.

20. If the Off Plan Area Measurement Report produced in redacted  differed from the approved plans, I would accept the CA’s view that they could not be used to determine the GIA of the chargeable development.

21. In summary, based on the facts of the case, I therefore consider that, in accordance with the CIL Regulations - Liability notice 65.—(5), the CA could have issued a revised liability notice in respect of the chargeable development based upon the revised measurements provided by the Appellant.

22. In reviewing the plans, I also noticed the Appellant has included areas which were not part of the scheme within their existing calculation of GIA in order to offset.  This was cited within the Appellant’s representation labelled redacted -Area Schedule – Existing.  In addition, when assessing/comparing the plans within the Report against the previously measured plans, I noted one more area which should have been included on the Lower Ground Floor.  It was therefore necessary to review and recalculate the GIA.

23. For ease I have set out in the tables below my recalculation of both the existing and proposed GIA using the information I have been supplied.

24. Table 1 shows the Existing GIA recalculation and where the information was sourced.

Item as per Existing floor plans description	Floor	GIA Sq M.	Floor GIA Sq. M.	Comment/source of measurement
Plant room and storage LGF	Lower Ground floor	redacted	redacted	Taken from redacted report - GIA stated considered the same as existing plans
Corridor, lift, flat redacted	Lower Ground floor	redacted		Taken from redacted report - GIA stated considered the same as existing plans
Corridor	Lower Ground floor	redacted		AP measured from redacted - redacted - B: hall = redacted sq m
Mews, garages, flat redacted part) & flat redacted, corridor, stairwell	Ground floor	redacted	redacted	Taken from redacted report - GIA stated considered the same as existing plans. Noted: on the existing plan redacted the garage is in a different location and shown as ‘outside of ownership’
Mews	First floor	redacted	redacted	Taken from redacted -Area Schedule - Existing, due to lack of plans to scale off
Flat redacted (Part), Flat redacted, stairwell	First floor	redacted	redacted	Taken from redacted report - GIA stated considered the same as existing plans
Flat redacted (part)	First floor - Mezz	redacted	redacted	Taken from redacted -Area Schedule - Existing, due to lack of plans to scale off
Mews	Second floor	redacted	redacted	Taken from redacted -Area Schedule - Existing, due to lack of plans to scale off
Flat redacted (part) & redacted	Second floor	redacted	redacted	Taken from redacted report - GIA stated considered the same as existing plans, less the area included as Flat 3, accounted for above
Flat redacted (part)	Second floor - Mezz	redacted	redacted	Taken from redacted -Area Schedule - Existing, due to lack of plans to scale off
Flats redacted & , redacted staircase	Third floor	redacted	redacted	Taken from redacted report - GIA stated considered the same as existing plans
Flat redacted & , redacted staircase	Fourth Floor	redacted	redacted	Taken from redacted report - GIA stated considered the same as existing plans
	Total	redacted	redacted

25. Table 2 shows the Proposed GIA recalculation and where the information was sourced.

Flat	Floor	Original GIA	Remeasured GIA	Comments on additional measurements adopted.
11	Lower ground floor	redacted	redacted	Existing GIA did not include the internal ancillary rooms nor concierge.  Measurement of redacted  sq m taken from GIA provided on redacted  survey.  AP measured from redacted  - redacted  - B: hall =redacted  sq m
2 & 13	Ground floor & mews lower	redacted	redacted	Included 2 x garages and stairwell.  Measurement taken from GIA provided on redacted  survey.
4	1st	redacted	redacted	Excluded balcony redacted  sq m and included stairwell redacted  sq m.  Measurement taken from GIA provided on redacted  survey.
13	1st floor mews	redacted	redacted	previously included walls to be excluded.  Measurement taken from GIA provided on redacted  survey.
3, 5 & 6	2nd	redacted	redacted	Included restricted headroom  redacted sq m and stairwell redacted  sq m.  Measurement taken from GIA provided on redacted  survey.
3	2nd fl mews	redacted	redacted	Includes landing of redacted  sq m.  Measurement taken from GIA provided on redacted   survey.
7 & 8	3rd	redacted	redacted	Includes the stairwell in remeasurement redacted sq m.  Measurement taken from GIA provided on redacted  survey.
9 & 10	4th	redacted	redacted	Includes stairwell in remeasurement  redacted sq m.  Measurement taken from GIA provided on redacted  survey.
10	5th	redacted	redacted	Includes restricted headroom redacted  sq m.  Measurement taken from GIA provided on redacted   survey.
	Totals	redacted	redacted

26. A summary of the GIA summaries is set out below.

Summary of various GIA calculations -Existing	Sq. M.
Original GIA - Existing	redacted
Amended GIA following redacted  report - Existing	redacted
Remeasured GIA by Appointed Person -Existing	redacted
Summary of various GIA calculations -Proposed	Sq. M.
Original GIA - Proposed	redacted
Amended GIA following redacted   report - Proposed	redacted
Remeasured GIA by Appointed Person -Proposed	redacted
Summary of recalculation by Appointed Person	Sq. M.
Existing GIA	redacted
Proposed GIA	redacted
Difference in GIA	redacted

27. I have calculated the CIL charge as follows:

redacted CIL

£[redacted]  x [redacted]   sq. m. x [redacted]= £[redacted]
                                                [redacted]

redacted CIL

£[redacted]  x [redacted]  sq. m. x [redacted]  = £[redacted]
                                                [redacted]

28. On the basis of the evidence before me, I conclude that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payable in this case should be £redacted  (redacted).

redacted

redacted  MRICS
Principal Surveyor
RICS Registered Valuer
Valuation Office Agency
Date: 5 August 2025