01-08-2025
Waverley residents criticise council's CIL review scheme
Surrey residents who believe they were wrongly charged for work done to their houses have voiced concerns over a council scheme to appeal the Borough Council (WBC) said it would review community infrastructure levy (CIL) bills for residents who thought they had wrongly received the charges after some homeowners claimed they had incorrectly received bills of up to £70, a group of residents have said that the scope of the review system remains clear, claiming they had been told the scheme covers resident and agent errors despite the council website saying it only covers "errors by the council".The council has been approached for comment.
John Crawford, who was hit with a £46,000 CIL for a mobile annexe building in 2021, said: "They need to reverse it immediately."I've lost faith in the local government because I feel like they haven't been prepared to look at it in a fair and logical manner."
Mr Crawford told BBC Radio Surrey that he had the work done shortly after coming out of hospital having suffered a heart new building allowed his family to help look after him and his wife, who has been diagnosed with dementia since the couple received the CIL launched the discretionary review system on 17 July, which allowed homeowners who can submit appeals if they believe they were incorrectly charged CIL on residential extensions, annexes or self-built properties "due to an error by the council".A spokesperson for the CIL Injustice Group called a lack of clarity "paralysing", adding: "ordinary people, self builders and families improving their homes are left exposed in a process they do not understand and cannot trust".The group called for clarity from the council to confirm whether or not resident or agent error was covered by the review scheme, and explain what remedies were available to them if is typically charged to developers as a contribution towards essential infrastructure. However a number of homeowners across Waverley have also faced the council previously said that, in most cases, it had been correct in issuing the bills, despite anger from exception, it said, was the case of Steve and Caroline Dally who were billed £70,000 for a home extension and given no opportunity to argue their case.
