Request for Public Statement of Fact Concerning CIL, Council Procedure, and Legal Advice Relied Upon
Dear Mr Wrobel, Chief Executive Waverley Borough Council
We the victims of CIL Injustice in Waverley write to you concerning Waverley Borough Council’s handling of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges as applied to homeowners.
On 27 January, residents filled the Public Gallery at a meeting of Waverley Borough Council to presented a public petition calling on the Council to implement, without delay, the Discretionary Householder CIL Review and Refund Scheme unanimously approved by councillors in January 2025, namely:
“If homeowners had submitted forms correctly and would have been granted exemption, they will be treated as if they had,”
following the example already adopted by West Berkshire Council and other charging authorities.
The petition also called for a full and independent investigation into the behaviour and practices of Waverley Borough Council’s Planning Department in relation to the issuing and enforcement of CIL Liability Notices to householders.
You were present at this meeting, yet you did not say anything to bring leadership to the chaos that followed. What residents witnessed at that meeting caused serious concern regarding governance, procedure, and the accuracy of legal statements made to councillors and the public.
Conduct of the Meeting and Council Procedure
Prior to consideration of the petition, the Monitoring Officer read a statement reminding councillors to approach the matter with an “open mind.” Despite this, the subsequent conduct of the meeting gave the clear appearance of being procedurally managed to prevent open debate.
A motion was introduced by the Portfolio Holder, Cllr Liz Townsend, asserting that implementation of the petition’s request would be unlawful.
Cllr Ward raised a point of order, citing the Council’s Constitution, including:
- Paragraph 4.1, Rule 14, which lists motions permitted without notice, and
- Annex One, Paragraph 3, which states that petitions shall be debated by Full Council and that Full Council will make a decision on the petition.
Cllr Ward argued that the motion did not comply with these provisions and was therefore out of order.
This point of order was overruled following advice from the Monitoring Officer that the Mayor has “absolute discretion” to waive the Council’s procedural rules under the Constitution.
We request a clear public explanation of:
- The lawful basis upon which the Constitution may be suspended in these circumstances
- Whether such suspension was lawful; and
- If not, whether the Council will issue a public apology and provide appropriate redress.
Conduct of the Mayor
We also raise serious concerns regarding the Mayor’s impartiality.
It is widely understood that the Mayor is expected to act in a non-party-political manner and to ensure that procedures are applied fairly, including safeguarding minority views. However:
- Since assuming office, the Mayor has not read out a single public question or answer, contrary to previous practice; and
- Without exception, the Mayor has voted in line with the Leader of her own political party.
Residents question how this conduct is compatible with the requirement for impartiality and freedom from political bias, particularly where procedural discretion was exercised in a way that curtailed debate on a public petition.
We ask that you explain publicly how the Mayor’s actions in suspending procedural rules, on the advice of the Monitoring Officer, were lawful and consistent with her constitutional role.
Legal Assertions Concerning Luck v Bracknell Forest
Throughout the meeting, the Leader of the Council, the Portfolio Holder, and the Monitoring Officer repeatedly asserted that the High Court decision in Luck v Bracknell Forest Borough Council conclusively proves that it would be unlawful for Waverley Borough Council to exercise discretion in genuine householder CIL cases.
Councillors were repeatedly advised that even debating such discretion would be unlawful. It was further suggested that other councils applying discretion may now be acting unlawfully.
These statements had a material influence on councillors and resulted in the effective denial of debate on elements of the public petition.
Independent Legal Opinion
The CIL Injustice Group has sought advice from two independent King’s Counsel. Their joint view is summarised below:
Luck v Bracknell Forest is a first-instance High Court decision. It is not binding on any other court or council. The decision turned on its own facts and did not determine the full scope of discretion available under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.
The court was not asked to consider circumstances where homeowners would otherwise have qualified for exemption, nor the lawfulness of a West Berkshire-style discretionary approach. Assertions that the judgment removes all discretion are legally flawed.
Many councils, including West Berkshire, continue to apply discretion at enforcement stage without legal challenge.
If Waverley Borough Council maintains that Luck conclusively prevents discretion, the proper course in the public interest is publication of the legal advice relied upon.
Requests for Public Clarification
Accordingly, we formally request that you, as Chief Executive, provide a public statement addressing the following:
- What is the correct legal interpretation of Luck v Bracknell Forest Borough Council?
- On what legal advice did the Monitoring Officer and Administration rely when asserting that Luck vs Bracknell Forest proves discretion would be unlawful? And publish it in the public interest.
- If the above independent legal summary is said to be incorrect, please explain precisely why.
- Were councillors misled, even inadvertently, as to the scope of their lawful decision-making powers?
Public Confidence
During the petition process, residents repeatedly expressed a loss of confidence in the Council’s willingness to act in the interests of those it serves. The conduct of the meeting on 27 January has done nothing to restore that confidence.
Many affected residents left the meeting in distress, having felt that their concerns were dismissed on the basis of legal assertions that are now strongly disputed by independent counsel.
We have therefore chosen to conduct this correspondence openly, in the interests of transparency and accountability, so that residents may see how their concerns are addressed by the Council’s senior leadership.
We look forward to a clear, factual, and public response from you to our concerns .
Yours sincerely,
Victims of CIL Injustice in Waverley