The newly launched Discretionary Review process for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges in Waverley has already been branded a hollow gesture by affected residents, with many too nervous to submit their applications due to a lack of clarity, broken links, and unanswered questions.
The CIL Injustice Group, a network of homeowners facing life‑changing CIL bills, say they remain in limbo despite Waverley Borough Council’s (WBC) high‑profile announcement on 1 July 2025 that a new review process had been approved.
A Review Shrouded in Confusion
The Council’s website currently states:
“Homeowners can submit a request for a Discretionary Review if they believe they were incorrectly charged CIL due to an error by the council on a residential extension, annexe, or self‑build since 1 March 2019.”
Nowhere in this published guidance is there any mention of resident or agent error being considered in scope. Indeed, the link provided by WBC www.waverley.gov.uk/cildiscretionaryreview has not worked since the announcement, leaving residents unable to access further details.
Mixed Messages from the Council Leader
On social media, Council Leader Cllr Paul Follows has given conflicting and unsubstantiated assurances:
- “The discretionary review is open, is not limited in scope save for it being residential applications and not commercial. It’s being done by an independent person and will consider council and resident error and then remedies for that.”
Pressed further by a member of the CIL Injustice Group, Follows reiterated:
- “The review can consider council error AND resident/agent error. The remedies are different but both are in scope.”
Yet despite repeated follow‑up questions both publicly and by email, specifically asking him to provide a link or document that confirms this and to explain what the “different remedies” are – no response has been provided.
Residents Left in the Dark
This mixed messaging has left many affected homeowners unwilling to apply for the review at all, fearing they might inadvertently jeopardise their cases without clarity on what the review can and cannot consider.
One member of the CIL Injustice Group commented:
“We were told resident error is in scope, but nothing on the Council’s site says that. The link doesn’t even work. If we apply without knowing the terms, are we waiving our rights? Nobody will tell us.”
The Steve Dally Case
Adding to the growing distrust is the case of Steve Dally, a resident publicly used by Waverley as a flagship success story. On 1 July, the Council trumpeted that Mr Dally would be refunded his wrongly charged CIL. Four weeks later, he is yet to be repaid
“It feels like a publicity stunt,” said one member of the CIL Injustice Group. “They announced Steve’s refund to make it look like progress. But nothing has actually happened.”
A Serious Breach of Trust
The situation leaves victims of Waverley’s CIL policies facing not only financial distress but also a staggering lack of transparency. Despite repeated requests, residents have no clarity on whether administrative errors can be considered, no functioning online guidance, and no answers from the very leader who claims to be helping.
The Council’s failure to follow through on its own public statements, coupled with broken links, unanswered questions, and a much‑publicised refund that has yet to materialise represents a serious breach of residents’ trust.
At best, this is evidence of incompetence. At worst, it points to underhand behaviour by Waverley Borough Council and its Leader, Cllr Paul Follows, who continue to preside over a system that has financially devastated ordinary homeowners while offering only opaque and inconsistent remedies.
Call to Action:
The CIL Injustice Group calls on Waverley Borough Council to urgently and publicly confirm, in writing:
- That resident/agent error is indeed within the scope of the Discretionary Review.
- Where this is set out in official policy or guidance.
- And what the “different remedies” are for council error versus resident/agent error.
- And to cease threatening home owners with seizure and sale of their homes which they say is “Good Practice”
Only by providing clear, published answers can Waverley begin to rebuild trust and ensure homeowners feel safe to engage with the review process they so desperately need.
The Victims of CIL (names provided, all Waverley Victims of CIL with no allegiance to any Political Party)
Housing Minister recognises CIL legislation is unfairly capturing homeowners
The Minister for Housing Communities and Local Government has now confirmed what many campaigners have long argued: the CIL regime was never intended to operate in this way – and Waverley is choosing to ignore that.
During a Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee session on 15 July 2025, the Lib Dem MP for Newbury asked Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook a question concerning CIL: The Minister’s response was unequivocal:
“You are right that some councils have given refunds. West Berkshire is a good example of one that has chosen to take that path. There are two things to say. First, a series of households across the country have been very badly hit by this. It is very clear to us that the CIL regulations in question are not intended to operate in this way. We are giving very serious consideration to amending them to ensure that no one else is affected in this manner. I had the right honourable Jeremy Hunt in to see me recently.… Yes [Waverley], is an example of a local authority that is not taking the West Berkshire approach to reimburse residents.”
The Housing Minister therefore publicly acknowledges that the current interpretation of CIL by some councils, like Waverley, is not aligned with the original intention of the law.
The Minister also recognises the West Berkshire model, which refunded householders where charges arose from genuine administrative error. The direction of travel from central government is now obvious: discretion should be exercised fairly, and homeowners should not be punished for innocent mistakes.
