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

The Claimant’s overarching submissions were made by Mr Stinchcombe, who also dealt with Ground Two. Mr Helme dealt with Ground One but also made some overarching submissions. To avoid confusion, I will refer to the “Claimant’s submissions”. I will refer similarly to the “Defendant’s submissions”.

The Claimant started by pointing to the statutory purpose of the self-build exemption being to encourage self-build housing and not place barriers in its way. This purpose is strongly reflected in the Consultation Document on the proposed self-build exemption, dated April 2013. He said to allow the Council to charge the Claimant £334,478.27 whilst the Council is also seeking to recover from the developer of the 2023 permission, in respect of an inconsistent development on the same land, was both unfair and absurd. It is now accepted that the two permissions cannot both proceed, and that the 2016 permission is impossible to complete. Therefore the Council is obliged to withdraw the liability for the Claimant to pay CIL in respect of that scheme.

He submitted that in effect the Council was seeking to double recover CIL in respect of the same land, although he accepted that it was not recovering off the same person twice and therefore, strictly speaking, it was not double recovery. He also accepted that the 2016 permission had been implemented, and the Claimant had had the benefit of living (lawfully) in the outbuilding for some 7 years pursuant to that permission. However, the Claimant’s submission was that he was effectively being penalised, with the effect that he could not now construct the self-build housing on the adjacent land. He therefore submitted that the Council’s decisions were contrary to the purpose of the self-build exemption scheme.