Decision

CIL Appeal 1869847 – 31 Jul 25 (accessible HTML version)

Published 4 December 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

---

VOA Appeal Ref: 1869847

Planning Application: redacted

Proposal: Erection of a 2 storey building to create 3 x 1 bed flats (Use Class C3). Provision of amenity space, car parking, bin and cycle storage. Installation of air source pumps. (Amended description and plans).

Address: redacted

---

Decision

Appeal dismissed.

Reasons

1. I have considered all of the relevant submissions made by redacted  (the Appellant) and by redacted   - the Collecting Authority (CA), in respect of this matter. In particular, I have considered the information and opinions presented in the following documents:-

a) Planning permission decision in respect of Application reference redacted, dated redacted.

b) CIL Liability Notice reference redacted , dated redacted  for £redacted .

c) CIL Appeal form dated redacted , along with supporting documents referred to as attached.

d) Representations from the Appellant.

e) Representations from the CA.

f) Comments from the Appellant on the CA’s Representations.

2. Planning Permission for the Proposal was granted as detailed redacted.

3. The CA issued a CIL Liability Notice reference redacted, dated redacted  for redacted  stating this was levied under the CA’s CIL Charging Schedule and s211 of the Planning Act 2008. The CIL was based on a chargeable area of redacted  square metres, a Rate of £redacted  per square metre.

4. On redacted  the Appellant emailed the CA to request a correction to the chargeable area of redacted  square metres, submitting the Gross Internal Area [GIA] should be redacted  square metres and also requesting the GIA of a former block of garages be deducted from the chargeable area. This was effectively a request for a Regulation 113 Review.

5. The Appellant emailed the CA redacted  to request an update on the status of the Regulation 113 Review.

6. On redacted  the CA replied with a revised CIL Liability Notice reference redacted, dated redacted for £redacted  under the same authority as the previous CIL Liability Notice. The revised CIL was based on a chargeable area of redacted  square metres and a revised Rate of £redacted  per square metre.

7. On redacted, the Valuation Office Agency received a CIL appeal from the Appellant made under Regulation 114 (Chargeable Amount Appeal) confirming they disagree with the CA’s chargeable amount within revised CIL Liability Notice reference redacted, dated redacted, with supporting documents attached.

8. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:

a) The Appellant does not agree with the CA’s calculation of the chargeable area.

b) The Appellant submits they are concerned about the accuracy and consistency of the CA’s CIL calculations, referencing CIL Liability Notice dated redacted based on a chargeable area of redacted  square metres and a Rate of £redacted per square metre.

c) The Appellant states the CA has failed to deduct the GIA of the former garages, referred to above, which had a floor area of redacted square metres. The Appellant submits the garages were in lawful use by themselves and the previous owner from redacted until their demolition which commenced the week of redacted . The Appellant paraphrases Regulation 40(7) (now contained within Schedule 1), reiterating the deduction of garages floorspace was omitted.

d) On the Appellant’s CIL Appeal Form – within the “Your opinion of correct CIL charge” section, the Appellant submits the CIL should be £redacted, based on a chargeable area of redacted square metres, being the proposed redacted square metres less redacted  square metres of demolished garages. The Appellant has adopted a Rate £redacted  per square metre, Permission Year Index and Charge Year Index of 11, which are the same Rate and Index as the subject CIL Liability Notice.

e) The Appellant submits there were procedural irregularities in respect of the timing and composition of the CA’s responses to the Appellant’s request for a Regulation 113 review made redacted.

f) The Appellant requested that their Agent, redacted, was removed from all correspondence, the Appellant states redacted continued to receive communications.

g) The Appellant concludes by referencing supporting documentation:

1. CIL Liability Notice dated redacted, reference redacted  for £redacted – makes reference to Existing GIA of redacted square metres. The resultant calculation appears to confirm the redacted square metres is deducted from the Proposed GIA of redacted square metres.

2. CIL Liability Notice reference redacted  , dated redacted  for £redacted stating this was levied under the CA’s CIL Charging Schedule and s211 of the Planning Act 2008. The CIL was based on a chargeable area of redacted square metres, a Rate of £redacted per square metre, Permission Year Index and Charge Year Index of 10.

3. CIL Liability Notice reference redacted, dated redacted for £redacted  under the same authority as the previous CIL Liability Notice. The revised CIL was based on a chargeable area of redacted square metres and a Rate of £redacted per square metre.

4. Correspondence in form of copy email from the Appellant to the CA redacted  – this was effectively a request for a Regulation 113 review as summarised above.

5. Correspondence in the form of a copy email to the CA redacted   requesting an update on the status of the Regulation 113 Review as summarised above.

6. Correspondence in the form of a copy email from the CA to the Appellant redacted referring to the revised CIL Liability Notice, as summarised above.

7. Correspondence in form of copy email from the Appellant to the CA dated redacted requesting Agent Contact Details removed and advising the Appellant should be the primary point of contact for all correspondence in respect of Application redacted.

8. Evidence in support of lawful use in the form of a photograph described as showing the Appellant’s van parked outside the garages in use redacted. The photograph shows a silver coloured van parked off road in front of what appears to be four garage doors. The photo captures the pavement mounted street name sign for redacted.

9. Evidence in support of lawful use in the form of a photograph described as showing a digger on the site with garages still standing redacted . The photograph shows a turquoise blue Kobelco mechanical digger parked off road in front of what appears to be four garage doors.

10. Evidence in support of lawful use in the form of a copy email dated redacted described as confirmation from previous owners. The sender makes reference to arrangements yet to be made to empty the garages prior to exchange.

11. Evidence in support of lawful use in the form of a hyperlink described as accepted CIL Form 1 confirming lawful use from redacted. Unfortunately the hyperlink when clicked leads to a page on the CA’s website advising the document is unavailable for viewing at this time. I note the Appellant subsequently appended said form to their comments on the CA’s representations, as further below.

9. The CA has submitted representations that I have summarised as follows:

a) The CA summarises the current proposal and the subject site including a statement that the site previously featured a row of 5 garages with access from redacted.

b) The CA confirms that in respect of previous planning application reference redacted, there was explicit reference to the demolition of existing garages as part of the proposal description – the GIA was taken into account when calculating CIL as they were in situ at the time of the application being received.

c) The CA states planning permission in respect of application reference redacted was granted redacted  and that a CIL Liability Notice was sent with the planning permission – this was the original CIL Liability Notice as summarised above for £redacted based on a chargeable area (C3) of redacted square metres, and a Rate of £redacted per square metre.

d)redacted  the CA issued a revised CIL Liability Notice reference redacted, dated redacted for £redacted  based on a chargeable area (C3) of redacted square metres, and a Rate of £redacted per square metre.

e) The CA states the CIL rate as of redacted for C3 is £redacted  per square metre, as published on its website.

f) The CA submits the Design & Access statement [DAS], dated redacted, for application reference redacted quotes that the garages have already been demolished.

g)The CA states that elevational plans submitted with application redacted do not show garages in situ.

h) The CA states its Building Control department received an application for demolition of the garages dated redacted and that a Demolition Notice dated redacted  was sent to the Applicant. Further, Building Control site visit notes dated redacted state demolition is complete. The CA concludes by stating that based on the findings of the site history and building control records, it is satisfied the garages were demolished prior to the planning permission redacted and therefore could not be taken into consideration for calculating CIL.

10. The Appellant submitted comments on the CA’s representations which I summarise as follows:

a) The Appellant submits the CA’s has misinterpreted Regulation 40(7) (now contained in Schedule 1) by not allowing the GIA of the garages to be a deduction as part of the CIL calculation – and reiterates the garages were in continuous lawful use from redacted until their demolition in redacted, satisfying the six month use requirement within the applicable three year period. The Appellant refers to the evidence in support of lawful use, as summarised earlier, and included a copy of the CIL Form 1 referred to. The Appellant reiterates the garages were demolished week beginning redacted and submits that the evidence provided proves lawful use for over two years within the required three year period.

b) Additionally, the Appellant states the previous planning permission was not implemented therefore the CA is incorrect, references Regulation 40(7A)  (now contained in Schedule 1) submitting this regulation prohibits multiple deductions for the same building and that only applies where the earlier deduction has been part of an implemented development, which the Appellant submits in this case it has not, therefore the GIA of the garages remains eligible for deduction under the subject application. The Appellant confirms the fact the garages were demolished is not in dispute, only that under what the Appellant refences as Regulation 40(7) paraphrases this does not require the buildings to be in situ at the time of the permission, only that they were in lawful use within the relevant period.

c) The Appellant reiterates that the CIL Form 1, available on the CA’s website, confirms lawful use of the garages. A copy of said form was attached to the Appellants comments.

d) The Appellant concludes by reiterating the garages were in lawful use for a qualifying period, the previous planning permission under which the garages were an allowed deduction, was not implemented, Regulation 40(7) is met and Regulation 40(7A) does not apply and therefore a deduction of redacted square metres from the chargeable area should be made.

11. Having fully considered the representations made by the Appellant and the CA, I make the following observations regarding the grounds of the appeal:

a) In this case, the Appellant does not agree with the CA’s stated chargeable area used in the calculation of CIL. The Appellant submits the GIA of the garages, demolished in redacted, should be offset in the calculation of the chargeable area for CIL because they were in use for the qualifying period by the previous owners and the Appellant.

b) Matters which are not in dispute are that the garages were demolished in redacted, the CIL Rate and Indexation.

c) In-use buildings / Lawful use - The CIL Regulations Part 5 Chargeable Amount, defines how to calculate the net chargeable area. This includes statement that “the gross internal areas of parts of in-use buildings that are to be demolished before completion of the chargeable development” can be deducted from the GIA of the chargeable development.

f) “In-use building” is defined in the Regulations as a relevant building that contains a part that has been in lawful use for a continuous period of at least six months within the period of three years ending on the day planning permission first permits the chargeable development.

g) Most pertinent to this case is the criteria for a “relevant building” which means a building which is situated on the relevant land [relevant land means the land on which the chargeable buildings will stand] on the day planning permission first permits the chargeable development.

h) Regulation 8 “Time at which planning permission first permits development” states at (2) “Planning permission first permits development on the day that planning permission is granted for that development.” In this case, the day planning permission first permitted the chargeable development was redacted upon the grant of planning permission. Therefore, in this case, the relevant time period within which at least six months of use is required to be proven is redacted to redacted.

i) The CIL liability in this case has been generated by the grant of the subject planning permission combined with the physical attributes of the Appellant’s property on the date planning permission first permitted the development, redacted.

j) Turning to the off-setting of the former garages floor area when calculating the chargeable area, this is covered by Schedule 1 Part 1 – Chargeable amount:  standard cases. This part of the CIL Regulations covers what makes a building eligible so that its floor area can be off-set from the floor area of a proposed development. In this case, the day planning permission first permitted the chargeable development was redacted and therefore, as confirmed by the Appellant and verified by the CA, no such building existed on that date because the garages had already been demolished.

k) It is therefore the demolition of the garages prior to the date planning permission first permitted the development, redacted, when considered against the CIL Regulations, which is the reason why the deduction of the garages GIA is unavailable to the Appellant. The CIL Regulations are clear in respect of the criteria for off-setting the floor area of an eligible building which is to be demolished as part of a new build development.

i) The Appellant raises and reiterates matters out with the scope of this Regulation 114 Appeal including the CA’s apparent failure to comply with Regulation 113 - Review of chargeable amount – (7) and apparent failure to adhere to the Appellant’s request the removal of their Agent as a point of contact in all correspondence. Whilst I note the timeline and events from redacted onwards, scrutiny of prior timing is not within the remit of this Regulation 114 – Chargeable Amount Appeal.

l) There is no dispute in relation to the CIL rates adopted or indexation and I therefore dismiss this appeal.

 redacted BSc FRICS

Valuation Office Agency
31 July 2025