Decision

CIL Appeal 1869949 – 15 Aug 25 (accessible HTML version)

Published 4 December 2025

Appeal Decision

By redacted  BSc FRICS

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

Correspondence address:
Valuation Office Agency (VOA)
Wycliffe House
Green Lane
Durham
DH1 3UW

[Please note that this is our national postal centre, contact by digital channels is preferred]

Email:  redacted@voa.gov.uk

---

VOA Appeal Ref: 1869949

Planning Application: redacted

Proposal: Erection of a data centre (Use Class B8), comprising a Data Centre Building of approximately redacted m AOD in height (approximately redacted sqm GEA including ancillary office space); a Plant Building of approximately redacted m AOD in height (approximately redacted sqm GEA), an Energy Centre of approximately redacted m AOD in height (approximately redacted sqm GEA), with associated works including landscaping, access, car and cycle parking, and servicing areas.

Address: redacted

---

Decision

I determine the CIL payable in this connection is £redacted  [redacted]. This is based on a chargeable area of redacted  square metres, –redacted 2022/25 Rate of £redacted  per square metre and Index of redacted (rounded).

Background

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:- - Planning permission decision in respect of Application reference redacted, dated redacted.

a) CIL Liability Notice reference redacted  in respect of redacted, dated redacted  for £redacted.

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

c) Representations from the Appellant.

d) Representations from the CA.

e) 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 redacted  and redacted  and redacted  [redacted] CIL Charging Schedules, and S211 of the Planning Act 2008. The CIL was based on a chargeable area of redacted  square metres, redacted  – 2022/25 Rate of £redacted  per square metre and Index of redacted .

4. On redacted  the Appellant requested a Regulation 113 Review.

5. On redacted  the CA replied advising the outcome of the review was to uphold the original chargeable amount, along with the reasons for the decision.

6. 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, with supporting documents attached.

Appellant’s grounds of appeal

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

8. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal can be summarised as two pivotal issues which, they submit, the CA has erred in by:

1. including Levels 9 and 10 of the Plant Building and Levels 10 and 11 of the Data Centre Building in its calculation of Gross Internal Area [GIA], and
2. including the Energy Centre Building in the GIA of the development.

9. Additionally, the Appellant queried the CA’s fundamental approach to calculating GIA, submitting they cannot reconcile the CA’s figures with the floor plans.

10. The Appellant submits the Plant Building and the Data Centre Building both include extensive open plan areas at roof level.

11. The Appellant has included as part of their representations a report titled “Report on Gross Internal Area Calculation for CIL Liability” prepared by redacted  (redacted), dated redacted. This report supports the Appellant’s view that neither:

1. the roof level plant on the Plant Building and Data Centre Building,

2. nor the Energy Centre Building in its entirety,

should be included in the GIA of the development for CIL purposes.

12. The most salient points of the DPR report to this appeal are that:

1. “The top level of the plant area is not a permanent roof structure but instead comprises a combination of photovoltaic (solar) panels, chiller plant exhausts and mesh maintenance walkways.”

2. “The side coverings to the plant area do not have the appearance of permanence (e.g. made of brick or similar building materials) as they consist of a recycled anodised aluminium framing supporting a bird mesh which allows 70% free air transmission.”

3. “The intermediate level mesh platform walkways between the chiller / cooler plant which have been included in the Charging Authority’s GIA calculations do not constitute a separate floor and in fact form part of the cooling plant and its maintenance arrangements.”

13. Regarding the Energy Centre Building, the Appellant submits it is within the category of “a building into which people do not normally go or only for purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery” as defined in by Regulation Part 2 Definition of Key Terms 6(1)(a) and (b) and 6(2). Providing these conditions can be shown to be met, The Energy Centre Building should not be included in the overall GIA calculations.”

14. The redacted report concludes “the total GIA for the development has been incorrectly evaluated and the subsequent calculation of the Chargeable Amount is therefore also incorrectly assessed.”

15. The Appellant references Regulation 6(1) and 6(2) in support of their position that the Energy Centre Building should not be included in the GIA because this Regulation states at 6(1)

“The following works are not to be treated as development for the purposes of section 208 of PA 2008 (liability) —

(1) anything done by way of, or for the purpose of, the creation of a building of a kind mentioned in paragraph (2);”

Paragraph 6(2) states:

“(2) The kinds of buildings mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) and (b) are —

a. a building into which people do not normally go;

b. a building into which people go only intermittently for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery.”

16. Relating this part of the Regulations to the Energy Centre Building, the Appellant submits:

a) The Energy Centre building will not be permanently occupied and is not decorated.

b) The only people entering the Energy Centre Building will be for intermittently inspecting or maintaining the fixed plant or machinery.

c) The space within the Energy Centre Building is principally a high voltage restricted area.

d) Ancillary rooms are for use by operatives maintaining the plant and equipment and for file storage.

17. The Appellant states they have been unable to reconcile the CA’s stated GIA figures with their own and confirms their own calculated GIA figures, excluding the Energy Centre Building, as:

Data Centre Building:	redacted square metres
Plant Building:	redacted  square metres
Total:	redacted  square metres

18. The Appellant highlights that whilst they are of the opinion that the Energy Centre Building should be excluded from GIA, the CA has stated the GIA to be redacted  square metres – the Appellant has queried this figure, stating it is impossibly greater than the Gross External Area [GEA] of redacted square metres. Further, the Appellant queries the origins and accuracy of the CA’s calculated GIA figure of redacted  square metres, stating the CA has not provided information on this figure’s origins.

19. The Appellant states the correct amount of CIL is £redacted  which is based on the same rate and indexation as the CA’s calculation within the CIL Liability Notice, but adopts a different GIA. This results in a different CIL amount.

CA Representations

20. The CA summarises the background to the development site, and the current position, being the reasons for the Appellant making the Regulation 114 Appeal. Additionally, the CA confirms it has undertaken measurement of the approved plans.

21. The CA confirms the GIA it has calculated based on the approved plans is redacted  square metres.

22. The CA addresses the Appellant’s position as two distinct areas for consideration - the roof level plant areas and the Energy Centre Building.

23. Regarding the roof level plant, the CA firstly summarises its understanding of the Appellant’s position:

a) That the rooftop level is not a permanent structure, being composed of photovoltaic panels, chiller plant exhausts, and mesh maintenance walkways;

b) That the side enclosure of the plant area appears impermanent, comprising an architectural structural framework that is approximately 70% permeable to air;

c) that the intermediate floor or walkway between the chiller plant and DAC gantry consists of mesh platforms, which, in the Appellant’s view, do not constitute a separate floor.

24. The CA submits the Appellant is suggesting that these areas should be categorised as those described under CoMP GIA exclusions 2.19 “External open-sided balconies, covered ways and fire escapes”.

25. The CA rejects the exclusion under this part of the CoMP, stating its examination of the approved floor plans confirms the presence of permanent roofing structures fully encompassing the rooftop areas, situated entirely within the buildings’ curtilage. The CA states that, consistent with other approved roof plans, the permanence of the materials employed and the absence of any indication of temporary construction in both the approved drawings and the accompanying Design and Access Statement [DAS], further support inclusion within GIA calculations.

26. The CA refers to prior appeals arguing these have consistently demonstrated that the CoMP permits the inclusion of areas within the GIA calculation even where such spaces are not fully enclosed. Specifically, the CA states it concurs with the view that a lack of external walls does not necessarily preclude the inclusion of a space within GIA measurements. Accordingly, the CA maintains that the composition of the external walls of the plant rooms is immaterial in determining whether the space should be classified as GIA.

27. Additionally, the CA refers to the approved floor plans explicitly depicting the areas designated for the DAC gantry and chiller plant as distinct floor areas, comparable to standard floor levels within the Data Centre and Plant Buildings (see Appendix 7). The CA submits that on conventional floor plans, had these not constituted actual floors, one would expect to see voids or annotations identifying them as mesh platforms. This is not the case in the approved plans.

28. The CA acknowledges that the open-air passageways adjacent to the chiller plant and DAC gantry have been excluded from the GIA calculation, in accordance with the guidance set out in the RICS CoMP. However, the CA states the rooftop plant areas themselves fall squarely within Item 2.9 of the RICS GIA measurement table, which includes ‘lift rooms, plant rooms, fuel stores, tank rooms housed in a covered structure of permanent nature, whether or not above the main roof level’.

29. The CA maintains the view that the structures in question exhibit the characteristics of permanence required under this provision and are therefore correctly classified as GIA and included in the calculation of the total chargeable area.

30. Turning to the Energy Centre Building, the CA highlights the Appellant’s argument, as summarised above, that the whole Energy Centre Building should be excluded under Regulation 6(1) and 6(2). The CA acknowledges the provisions within the Regulations, however, it does not agree with the Appellant and is of the opinion the Energy Centre Building is designed for regular use and occupancy, and therefore falls within the definition of chargeable GIA.

31. The CA subsequently explains its reasoning, including that following a review of the approved plans, these clearly identify internal spaces within the Energy Centre Building designated for use as office, a mess room, shower facilities, changing rooms, and storage. The CA states these facilities are not provided elsewhere within the wider development site.

32. The CA states the approved documents do not indicate any restriction limiting access to these facilities solely to personnel working within the Energy Centre. As such, the CA reasonably concludes that these areas are intended to serve staff from the Data Centre and Plant Building as well. Accordingly, the CA submits the Energy Centre is a building proposed for ongoing and regular use and does not meet the exemption criteria set out under Regulation 6(2). It is therefore appropriately included in the calculation of chargeable GIA.

33. The CA addresses the Appellant’s submission querying the origins and accuracy of the CA’s GIA by confirming its calculation of GIA is based on independent measurements taken directly from the approved plans. Further, the CA confirms the total chargeable GIA figure of redacted  square metres has been derived through the detailed measurement of all approved plans and that no figures have been extracted from the DAS or other narrative documentation in the calculation of the chargeable GIA. The CA appended to its representations a set of measured plans with an accompanying spreadsheet detailing its GIA calculations.

34. The CA challenges the Appellant’s calculation of GIA by stating that even if excluding the roof top plant and Energy Centre Building, the CA calculates the GIA to be redacted  square metres which is a greater figure than the Appellant’s own GIA for same at redacted  square metres, arguing the Appellant’s calculations materially understate the actual GIA for the development.

35. The CA concludes by confirming it rejects the Appellant’s grounds of appeal, specifically because:

a) Rooftop Plant Areas - these spaces are permanently covered, structurally integrated, and appropriately classified as GIA under item 2.9 of the CoMP. The partial openness or permeable nature of the enclosure is immaterial, given established precedents and statutory interpretation.

b) Energy Centre Building - includes regularly occupied internal spaces, explicitly designated for ongoing staff use, such as office space, welfare facilities, and storage. Consequently, it does not satisfy the exemption criteria set out under Regulation 6(2) of the Regulations.

c) The CA reiterates that the total chargeable GIA measurement of redacted  square metres was independently and meticulously calculated from approved plans, fully compliant with Schedule 1, Part 1 (Standard Cases) of the Regulations, and adhering strictly to the guidelines set out within the CoMP. No reliance was placed on narrative documentation or external sources for these measurements.

Appellant Comments

36. The Appellant firstly addresses the CA’s commentary on the roof top plant areas by reiterating their explanation why these areas should be excluded from GIA, being because:

a) the top level of the plant area is not a permanent roof structure.

b) the side coverings to the plant area do not have the appearance of permanence.

c) the intermediate level mesh platform walkways do not constitute a separate floor.

37. The Appellant refutes the CA’s interpretation of the roof level plant, referencing Clause 2.9 of the CoMP, as above, and associated GIA Note 5, stating the CA has fundamentally misunderstood its nature because, as previous referenced, clause 2.9 of the CoMP [what should be included] includes:

“Lift rooms, plant rooms, fuel stores, tank rooms which are housed in a covered structure of a permanent nature, whether or not above the main roof level”

38. The Appellant continues by referencing CoMP GIA Note 5 which states that items included in clause 2.9 should be included if housed in:

“Lift rooms, etc. – the items covered by 2.9 should be included if housed in a roofed structure having the appearance of permanence (e.g. made of brick or similar building material)”

39. The Appellant states the plant is not housed in a roofed structure made of brick or similar building material, but rather a mesh construction design which functions as bird protection measures and as plant support. The mesh is permanent but not a roofed structure. The Appellant submits the CA has not addressed this point.

40. The Appellant comments on the CA’s statement about prior appeals by stating no evidence has been supplied to support this statement. The Appellant submits there is no way of checking comparability and therefore no weight should be attached to this statement.

41. The Appellant refutes the CA’s statement that it “concurs with the view that a lack of external walls does not necessarily preclude the inclusion of a space within GIA measurements” by stating the CA does not reference whose view it concurs with and also makes the opposing argument that the lack of external walls will, in many cases, indicate that space should not be included within GIA measurements.

42. The Appellant comments that the proposed plant includes large air handling and cooling equipment, which it would be impossible to maintain safely without some form of intermediate level access.

43. Turning to the Energy Centre Building, the Appellant acknowledges the proposed areas designated for office use, a mess room, emergency showers, changing rooms and storage – however, submits their existence does not change the status of the Energy Centre Building as a building into which people go only intermittently for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery for the reasons set out below:

a) The purpose of the Energy Centre Building is to accommodate a redacted  redacted KV electricity substation – this will be an unmanned, remote and secure site – therefore the support facilities the CA refers to are to support the redacted  personnel when they are attending the site and will only be used intermittently.

b) The Appellant advises the designs have been evolved in the intervening period - references an appended drawing – the only facilities provided will be a mess, office and meeting room, albeit a further planning application / non-material amendment may be required.

c) Further, the Appellant clarifies the purpose of these facilities is to provide a safe area away from the high voltage equipment to change into protective clothing and prepare for inspections – submitting the existence of these facilities does not mean the building is one into which people normally go.

44. The Appellant refutes the CA’s point that there are no access restrictions, stating any such restrictions would come under Health and Safety requirements, not planning, and that the absence of such planning restriction does not determine the status of the building. The Appellant comments they would be prepared to enter into a Section 106 agreement covering restricted access if required.

45. Turning to the issue of measurement or calculation of GIA, the Appellant queries the CA’s statement that it has undertaken its own independent measurements, stating their Surveyor has confirmed that such measurements would require CAD drawings to ensure accuracy and precision. Further, the Appellant states the CA has neither requested nor been provided with such drawings, submitting the CA’s measurements will not be accurate if based on the PDF plans.

46. The Appellant advises they have instructed their Surveyor to re-measure the original CAD drawings, referring to appended marked up plans with GIA shaded red. This re-measuring has resulted in an updated GIA as follows:

Data Centre Building:	redacted  square metres
Plant Building:	redacted  square metres
Total:	redacted  square metres

47. The Appellant submits their updated GIA should be used to calculate the CIL.

48. The Appellant Concludes their comments by reiterating:

a) the roof plant areas should be excluded from GIA.

b) The Energy Centre Building is a building into which people go only intermittently for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery.

c) The GIA figures calculated are based on precise and accurate measurements taken from the Architect’s CAD drawings.

49. They submit that the CIL charge should be £redacted, based on the Appellant’s updated GIA of redacted  square metres for the development and the CA’s Indexation.

Decision

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

51. In this case, the Appellant does not agree with the CA’s stated chargeable area used in the calculation of CIL.

52. The CA’s Liability Notice states at “How we calculated this figure”:

“We calculated this figure using the formula below as set out in Regulation 40 Schedule 1 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended):

The CIL Total Area Charge = Chargeable Area (A) x Rate (R) x Index (I)

The Chargeable Area is the gross internal area of the total development less the floorspace of any existing buildings which are eligible deduction.”

53. The CIL Charging Schedule Rate “Rate” and associated indexation “Index” are not disputed between the Parties.

54. Schedule 1 Part 1 of the Regulations state at (6) that GIA is the basis for quantifying the part of the development to which the Rate is applied.

55. Regulation 40 - Calculation of chargeable amount - of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) now contained in Schedule 1 Part 1 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations (amendment)(England) (No.2) 2019 details the formula to be used in the calculation of chargeable amount – this is effectively the same as the equation detailed in the “How we calculated this figure” section of the CIL Liability Notice.

56. The term Gross Internal Area [GIA] is not defined in the CIL Regulations however the Guidance Note, RICS Code of Measuring Practice [CoMP] is the principle guidance available. The prevailing edition of the RICS Code of Measuring Practice, at the date the subject Planning Permission was granted, redacted, was the 6th edition.

57. The purpose of the CoMP is to “provide succinct, precise definitions to permit the accurate measurement of buildings and land, the calculation of the sizes (areas and volumes) and the description or specification of land and buildings on a common and consistent basis. This may be required for valuation, management, conveyancing, planning, taxation, sale, letting, or acquisition purposes.”

58. The CoMP defines GIA as:

“…the area of a building measured to the internal face of the perimeter walls at each floor level (see note GIA 4).”

Including	Excluding
Areas occupied by internal walls and partitions	Perimeter wall thicknesses and external  projections
Columns, piers, chimney breasts, stairwells, lift-wells, other internal projections, vertical ducts, and the like	External open-sided balconies, covered ways and fire escapes
Atria and entrance halls, with clear height above, measured at base level only	Canopies
Internal open-sided balconies, walkways, and the like	Voids over or under structural, raked or stepped floors
Structural, raked or stepped floors are to be treated as a level floor measured horizontally	Greenhouses, garden stores, fuel stores, and the like in residential property
Horizontal floors, with permanent access, below structural, raked or stepped floors
Corridors of a permanent essential nature (e.g. fire corridors, smoke lobbies)
Mezzanine floor areas with permanent access
Lift rooms, plant rooms, fuel stores, tank rooms which are housed in a covered structure of a permanent nature, whether or not above the main roof level
Service accommodation such as toilets, toilet lobbies, bathrooms, showers, changing rooms, cleaners’ rooms, and the like
Projection rooms
Voids over stairwells and lift shafts on upper floors
Loading bays
Areas with a headroom of less than 1.5m (see APP 6)
Pavement vaults
Garages
Conservatories

Note GIA 4 referenced above is a “how to use” note, clarifying:

“Internal face – means the brick/block work or plaster coat applied to the brick/block work, not the surface of internal linings installed by the occupier”

59. The parties appear to agree on accepting the CoMP definition of GIA, however, the Parties both submit that each other has erred in its application in respect of the calculation of the GIA of the development.

60. I have considered the elements of the development which the Parties remain in dispute over. I summarise these, considering both the Regulations and application of the CoMP, as to whether specific areas and features should be included or excluded when calculating GIA. I address these areas of fundamental disagreement adopting the Parties’ categorisation for ease of reference below.

61. Roof top plant areas – I have considered the respective positions of the Parties, as summarised above, in conjunction with supporting material submitted and in particular note:

a) There are repeated references to “rooftop” and, within the full DAS “The roof of both the data centre and plant building are open and contain additional mechanical cooling equipment capable of venting waste heat to atmosphere in the event it is not distributed via the energy centre to a future district heating network.”

b) The following attachments from the Appellant representations clearly show the configuration of the roof top plant.

1. “Appendix redacted  and

2. “Appendix redacted  Sketch of Roof Cooling Concept”

62. In Summary, I am of the opinion that Levels 9 and 10 of the Plant Building and Levels 10 and 11 of the Data Centre, as referenced on the approved plans, should not be regarded as GIA per the CoMP because:[JT1]

a) With respect to areas to be “Included” in GIA per clause 2.6

“Horizontal floors, with permanent access, below structural, raked or stepped floors”

I would not include in GIA because they are not below a structural floor and are “open” as further examined below..  Further, I acknowledge the description / reference on the plans “Levels 9 and 10 of the Plant Building” and “Levels 10 and 11 of the Data Centre” however, as the Appellant has stated “the intermediate level mesh platform walkways do not constitute a separate floor” and “the plant is not housed in a roofed structure made of brick or similar building material, but rather a mesh construction design which functions as a bird protection measure and as plant support.” I am therefore of the opinion these levels are akin to “External open-sided balconies, covered ways and fire escapes” and should be excluded under the CoMP.

b) With respect to areas to be “Included” in GIA per clause 2.9

“Lift rooms, plant rooms, fuel stores, tank rooms which are housed in a covered structure of a permanent nature, whether or not above the main roof level.”

I would not include in GIA because, whilst I concur with the CA that the structures are permanent, crucially however, they are not covered but “open” as described by the Appellant “side coverings to the plant area do not have the appearance of permanence (e.g. made of brick or similar building materials) as they consist of a recycled anodised aluminium framing supporting a bird mesh which allows 70% free air transmission.” And “The top level of the plant area is not a permanent roof structure but instead comprises a combination of photovoltaic (solar) panels, chiller plant exhausts and mesh maintenance walkways.” And “The intermediate level mesh platform walkways between the chiller / cooler plant which have been included in the Charging Authority’s GIA calculations do not constitute a separate floor and in fact form part of the cooling plant and its maintenance arrangements.”

c) With respect to areas to be “Included” per CoMP Note GIA 5:

“Lift rooms, etc. – the items covered by 2.9 should be included if housed in a roofed structure having the appearance of permanence (e.g. made of brick or similar building material).”

I would not include in GIA because whilst I concur with the CA that the structures are intended to be permanent, crucially however, they are not of  permanence as described in the CoMP “(e.g. made of brick or similar building material).” Further, nor are they a roofed structure as they are “open” to the sides and top, again, akin to “External open-sided balconies, covered ways and fire escapes” and should be excluded under the CoMP.

63. Energy Centre Building – I have considered the respective positions of the Parties, as summarised above, in conjunction with supporting material submitted and comment as follows.

64. Addressing the CA’s reference to Regulation 6(1) “(2) The kinds of buildings mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) and (b) are—

1. a building into which people do not normally go;

2. a building into which people go only intermittently for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery.”

65. I am of the opinion that, having regard to the plans and documentation provided and referred to, that the physical characteristics of the Energy Centre Building mean it does not fall under the category of property referred to by Regulation 6(1)(2).

66. In support of this view, I have considered the content of DAS “8.5 Access Statement” at

a) “Section 5. Energy Centre” of the ARUP Access Statement [Reference: redacted  Issue

redacted ], “Sections 5.1 Entrances, 5.2 Vertical circulation [which includes a description of how] “the north and south circulation cores will serve level -1 to level 5. Both will provide a goods lift and a general access stair. All goods lifts will provide minimum dimensions of 1400mm (width) x 2100mm (depth). The goods lifts are not intended to be used by passengers regularly but will be able to accommodate one wheelchair user (all types of wheelchairs) together with several other passengers and will also allow a wheelchair user to turn through 180 degrees where required. Lifts and stairs will be developed in subsequent design stages.”

b) 5.3 Horizontal circulation

c) 5.4 Occupier space

d) 5.5 Distributor Network Operator services space

e) 5.6 Maintenance rooms, and,

f) 5.7 Means of escape”

These design features and considerations, as fully detailed in the above sections of the DAS, combined with the proposed accommodation detailed on the plans, which as the CA has highlighted, will include office, a mess room, shower facilities, changing rooms, and storage, make it evident there will be more than intermittent access or visits to the Energy Centre Building and a greater level of activity than intermittent inspection or maintenance of fixed plant or machinery, otherwise such facilities would not be required. Therefore, I am of the opinion the Energy Centre Building should be treated as development and not excluded under Regulation 6(1)(2).

67. I note the Appellant refers to subsequent revision of these support areas however, I note that the revisions are not in accordance with the approved plans and the revised use seems less likely in view of the approved design / use of the building.

68. I therefore calculate the GIA to be redacted  square metres being the sum of:

Data Centre Building:	redacted square metres
Plant Building:	redacted square metres

above as submitted by the Appellant following a re-measurement exercise and detailed within their comments, redacted  [Ref: redacted], plus, as previously provided by the Appellant in their Area Schedule:

Energy Centre Building:	redacted square metres
Total GIA:	redacted square metres

69. The Parties have confirmed the CIL Charging Schedule Rate applied is not disputed, therefore I determine the CIL payable in this connection is £redacted [redacted]. This is based on a chargeable area of redacted square metres, redacted  – 2022/25 Rate of £redacted  per square metre and Index of redacted  (rounded).

redacted BSc FRICS
Valuation Office Agency
15 August 2025