AC-2025-LON000257 - [2025] EWHC 2984 (Admin)

On 30^th January 2017 the Council granted Permission 16/00800/FUL for one dwelling on the site. The planning permission was for a 5-bedroom dwelling and change of use and extension of an existing outbuilding to form an annex providing residential accommodation ancillary to the use of the main dwelling house.

The next day, on 31^st January 2017, the Claimant was issued with a nil CIL Liability Notice, having been given 100% “self-build relief” following submission of the necessary CIL Form 7: Self Build Exemption Claim Form Part 1 (“the Self Build Part 1 Form”). The relief was of £334,478.27.

The Claimant’s Self Build Part 1 Form was received by the Council on 8^th August 2016. Section B of that form included a declaration, signed by the Claimant, that “this is a “self build project” for the purposes of the exemption set out within the regulations”. A self-build is defined in the form as “all homes built or commissioned by individuals or groups of individuals for their own use, either by building the home on their own or by working with builders”. A further declaration on the form confirmed that:

“I understand…The meaning of a ‘disqualifying event’ for CIL self build exemption and that where a disqualifying event occurs before or after commencement of development I must inform the collecting authority within 14 days”. (emphasis added)

A Commencement Notice was submitted by the Claimant, dated 27^th July 2017, with a commencement date of 11^th August 2017. Work commenced on that date, with works to the outbuilding on site for occupation by the Claimant during the self-build, which the Claimant proceeded to occupy.

A trench was subsequently dug in January 2020. However, the development authorised by Permission 16/00800/FUL never progressed beyond occupation of the outbuilding and the trench. Accordingly, a Compliance Certificate was never issued for the development, and no CIL Form 7: Self-Build Exemption Claim Form Part 2 was ever submitted.

On 24^th January 2023 SPL Investment Holdings Ltd applied for planning permission 23/00046/FUL on the site. The Claimant is a director of this company.

On 19^th January 2024 the Council granted Permission 23/00046/FUL for the development of two dwellings on the Pine Acres site. On 24^th January 2024 the local planning authority (“LPA”) issued CIL Liability Notices for Permission 23/00046/FUL.

In October 2024 the Claimant sold the site to Pineacres LTD. He did not notify the Council of the sale, nor did he take any steps to transfer liability for CIL in relation to the 2016 permission. He moved onto land to the north of that site, where he currently lives (“the adjacent site”).

On 21^st November 2024 the Council granted Permission 23/00047/FUL for the development of one self-build house on the adjacent site.

The original CIL Liability Notice in respect of Permission 23/00046/FUL, dated 24^th January 2024, was in the Claimant’s name as the (then) landowner of the Pine Acres site.

On 28^th May 2025 an Assumption of Liability Form was submitted to the Council in respectofPermission 23/00046/FUL by Mr Andrew Szymanski of Pineacres Ltd., and on 29^th May 2025 and 17^th June 2025 the Council issued revised CIL Liability Notices in Mr Szymanski’s name.

The pre-commencement conditions for Permission 23/00046/FUL were discharged by the Council on 23^rd June 2025 and 17^th July 2025, enabling the development lawfully to be commenced.

CIL Form 6: Commencement Notices were submitted by the third parties (the above-named Mr Andrew Szymanski of Pineacres Ltd. and a Dr Ashwin Soni) on 24^th July 2025, and these were acknowledged by the Council in Acknowledgement Notices dated 28^th July 2025.

The development authorised by Permission 23/00046/FUL commenced on or around 12^th August 2025, and the outbuilding building on site had been demolished by this point. It is accepted by the Defendant that Permission 23/00046/FUL was now inconsistent with the single dwelling scheme authorised by Permission 16/00800/FUL, as the 2016 permission intended to retain and incorporate the outbuilding into the development, so it was now physically impossible to build the development permitted.

The Council issued a CIL Demand Notice, dated 12^th August 2025, to Mr Andrew Szymanski for one half of the CIL liability referable to Permission 23/00046/FUL, naming Dr Ashwin Soni as the Liable Party for the other half.

The Claimant was progressing the development of the single dwelling authorised by Permission 23/00047/FUL on the adjacent site, although this had not yet been commenced. He was doing so as a self-build. On 2^nd December 2024 the agent acting on behalf of the Claimant (Mr Christian Leigh) returned “Assumption of Liability” and “Self-Build Exemption” Forms to the Council referable to Permission 23/00047/FUL. I note that throughout the history set out above Mr Leigh was acting as the Claimant’s agent, not merely in respect of the obtaining of planning permissions but also in respect of CIL.

The claim for exemption was dealt with as follows:

On 16^th December 2024 the LPA sent two Demand Notices, dated 6^th December 2024, in the sum of £334,478.27and £2,500,referable to Permission 16/00800/FUL.

On 18^th December 2024 Mr Leigh sent an emailto Mr Moore at the Council asking that the Demand Notices be withdrawn. However, by an email dated 20^th December 2024, the Council refused. This is one of the decisions under challenge.

It is accepted by the Claimant that until the 2023 permission had reached a position which meant that development pursuant to the 2016 permission was no longer possible, the Council could not have been certain that the single dwelling for the 16/00800/FUL scheme would not be built. The outbuilding was demolished in August 2025 and therefore it was at that date that it was clear that the 2016 permission would not be completed.

Solicitors acting for the Claimant sent a further letter to the Council, dated 27^th August 2025, again requesting the Council to withdraw all Liability and Demand Notices in respect of Permission 16/00800/FUL. By a letter dated 4^th September 2025, the Council again refused. This is the second decision under challenge and is the subject of the order of Sir Peter Lane.

The key parts of the letter of 4th September 2025 stated: