Decision

CIL Appeal 1874509 – 30 Sep 25 (accessible HTML version)

Published 27 November 2025

Appeal Decision

by redacted BSc FRICS

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

Correspondence address:

Valuation Office Agency - DVS
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: 1874509

Planning Application:redacted

Proposal: Demolish existing garages, erect dwellinghouse with associated amenity space, bin and cycle storage and layout parking to front.

Address: redacted.

Decision

Appeal dismissed.

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:-

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

b) CIL Liability Notice reference redacted in respect of 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 is based on a chargeable area of redacted square metres and rate of £redacted per square metre.

4. On redacted the Appellant emailed the CA making a request for a Regulation 113 review.

5. On redacted the CA replied to the Appellant’s request for a Regulation 113 Review, advising the outcome of the review was to uphold the original chargeable amount, along with the reasons for its 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 one pivotal issue – that, they submit, the CA has erred in by not deducting the Gross Internal Area [GIA] of the garages as a relevant, in-use building from the chargeable area of the proposed building.

9. The Appellant submits the garages have been in constant use for decades, and therefore in continuous lawful use for a period of at least six months within the period of three years ending on the day planning permission permitted the chargeable development, redacted. The Appellant refers to contact details for the Parties who have rented the garages and an email from one of the Parties regarding their rental. Please note no email matching the description of that referred to is included within the representations received.

10. In support of the Appellant’s claim, they have provided information as evidence of the garages’ continuous lawful use in, comprising:

a) Photographic image of the garages.

b) Copy of an email exchange between the Parties dated redacted and redacted.

The photographic image shows what appears to be the front elevation of a single storey building with pitched roof and two painted timber garage doors. There is a dark coloured vehicle parked in line with the right hand garage door, partially obscuring the garage door behind the vehicle. The copy email exchange includes a statement that the two garages on site are rented out to two people at different addresses on the same road as the subject property. The names and addresses of two individuals are contained in the email.

11. The Appellant submits the internal area of the garages calculated from site survey by their Architect to be redacted square metres. This is accompanied by a CAD style  image annotated with measurements of redacted by redacted. I note if assuming the annotated measurements are in millimetres, the product of these two measurements would equal the stated GIA of redacted square metres. The Appellant submits the correct chargeable area, calculated by deducting the GIA of the garages, redacted square metres, from the total proposed GIA of redacted square metres is therefore redacted square metres. Whilst the Appellant has not stated explicitly their opinion of correct CIL, the Appellant’s opinion of chargeable area equates to CIL of £redacted, based on the same Rate and Indexation as the CA’s calculation within the CIL Liability Notice.

CA Representations

12. The CA clarifies it calculated the chargeable amount of £redacted based on a Total Proposed GIA of redacted square metres at a Rate of £redacted.

13. Secondly, the CA summarises its understanding of the Appellant’s case which corresponds with the Appellant’s grounds of appeal – that the GIA of the garages should be deducted from the GIA of the proposed development when calculating the chargeable area for CIL.

14. The CA states it did not receive sufficient information, or information of sufficient quality, to enable it to establish that a relevant building is an in-use building.

15. CA states the Appellant was informed by email on redacted that deductions relating to existing floorspace had not been taken into account for the CIL calculation and to consider a review of the calculation, existing floorspace evidence would need to be submitted within 28 days of the date of the Liability Notice.

16. The CA states it provided the Appellant with a link to the CIL Regulations paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 “ Calculation of Chargeable amount” and that it states on paragraph 8 and 9 that:

(8) Where the collecting authority does not have sufficient information, or information of sufficient quality, to enable it to establish that a relevant building is an in-use building, it may deem it not to be an in-use building.

(9) Where the collecting authority does not have sufficient information, or information of sufficient quality, to enable it to establish—

i. whether part of a building falls within a description in the definitions of KR and E in sub-paragraph (6); or

ii. the gross internal area of any part of a building falling within such a description, it may deem the gross internal area of the part in question to be zero.

17. The CA states the Appellant confirmed on the redacted that they would like existing floorspace of the garages to be deducted – CA described the supporting evidence as “a photo of the garages” and that no other existing floorspace evidence.

18. The CA states it wrote the Appellant on redacted acknowledging the Regulation 113 review request and provided a list of acceptable evidence. The Appellant did not provide any additional evidence.

19. The CA states it did not receive sufficient information, or information of sufficient quality, to enable it to establish that a relevant building is an in-use building, and according to CIL Regulations paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 the CA deemed the existing GIA in question to be zero.

20. The CA states it provided its Regulation 113 response and reasons on redacted - that the CIL was  unchanged following review on the grounds that the information received is not sufficient (or of sufficient quality) to demonstrate existing floorspace is deductible and therefore existing floorspace was not deducted from the chargeable amount.

21. The CA submits it explained in its decision that a list of evidence considered acceptable was provided to the Appellant within the email dated redacted and that evidence needs to show evidence of the premises being in-use / occupied for six continuous months in the past three years, which the photo provided as evidence failed to demonstrate. Further, the CA states it explained that in order to show that the floorspace is in-use, photographs submitted as evidence need to be dated and must also show the premises open. Any evidence must show lawful occupancy and that it is not sufficient that the building has a lawful use to which it could be put.

22. The CA states it has acted in accordance with the regulations and it is important to note that it is ultimately for the developer / owner and their agents to understand the CIL regime and to take the appropriate steps to comply with CIL Regulations.

23. The CA concludes be reiterating reference to paragraph 8 of the regulations paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 “ Calculation of Chargeable amount” -

a) The CA did not receive sufficient information, or information of sufficient quality, to enable it to establish that a relevant building is an in-use building.

b) In accordance with paragraph 9b, the CA deemed existing gross internal area in question to be zero.

Appellant Comments

24. The Appellant reiterates they have made clear statement to the CA that the garages have been rented out for decades and provided the names and addresses of the renters. Additionally, the Appellant refers to the photographic image of the garages submitting they both have padlocks, submitting that the garages would not need to be locked if not in use.

Decision

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

26. 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 whole of the existing GIA should be excluded from the calculation of the chargeable area for CIL because the garages have been in-use for a continuous period of at least six months within the relevant three year period.

27. In-use buildings / Lawful use - The CIL Regulations Part 5 – Regulation 40 - Calculation of chargeable amount - defines how to calculate the net chargeable area. This states 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 gross internal area of the chargeable development.”

28. “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.

29. Part 2 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 approval of the planning application. 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.

30. I am of the opinion the Appellant’s statement that the garages having been rented out for decades together with the photographic image supplied do not prove actual lawful use of the garages. I note the Appellant’s statement was not accompanied by proof of rental payments.

31. Unfortunately, the Appellant has not, in my opinion, provided evidence which is sufficiently strong to prove continuous use during the requisite time period. There has been ample opportunity to collate evidence that could include actual payments for rent, bills and / or other costs that would be incurred.

32. The evidence provided in relation to use of the property during the period in question is insufficient to demonstrate continuous use for the required six months within the relevant qualifying period.

33. In summary, I am of the opinion that the criteria for demonstrating that the garages have been in active lawful use for the required six months within the relevant three year period as detailed above has not been met.

34. There appears to be no dispute between Parties regarding Rate, Index, existing GIA and proposed GIA, therefore I dismiss this appeal.

redacted BSc FRICS

Valuation Office Agency
30 September 2025