Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge the complainant for a Community Infrastructure Levy. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council. The complainant also had a right of appeal if she disagreed with the Council’s calculations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained that the Council has said she must pay a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Mrs X argues she is exempt from the charge. She also disagrees with the Council’s calculations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered her comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. A CIL is a planning charge introduced by the Planning Act 2008. It allows local authorities to deliver infrastructure to support and develop the area. Most development which creates net added floorspace of 100 square metres or more, or creates a new home, is liable for the levy.
5. Some development may be exempt or eligible for relief from the CIL, but there are strict requirements that apply in relation to the exemptions. The person liable for CIL can appeal to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) if they disagree with the collecting authority’s calculation of the amount charged.

What happened

6. Mrs X extended her property and converted her loft. She had wrongly believed the works were permitted development and she therefore did not need to apply to the Council for planning permission.
7. The Council visited Mrs X’s home after being advised about the unauthorised works. It invited Mrs X to submit a retrospective application to regularise the development built. In 2019, Mrs X submitted an application and permission was granted.
8. The Council advised Mrs X the development was liable for CIL and a CIL liability notice was issued shortly after planning permission was granted. Mrs X has complained about the Council’s decision to charge her the CIL. She says the development is exempt. She also disputes the Council’s calculations and argues it should not have included the loft floorspace as this part of the build was permitted development.

Assessment

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge Mrs X for CIL or how it calculated the amount it says she must pay. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council. Mrs X also had the right to appeal to the VOA if she did not agree with the Council’s calculation.
10. Mrs X says the Council should apply the CIL exemption retrospectively as her planning application was retrospective. However, the CIL regulations are clear and exemptions cannot be applied for retrospectively. The Council also made it clear to Mrs X and her agent shortly after the application was submitted that the development would be liable for CIL. Therefore, it is unlikely I could find fault by the Council.
11. Mrs X has also disputed the Council’s calculation of the CIL. However, if someone disagrees with the Council’s calculation they can appeal to the VOA. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate a matter where someone had the right to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mrs X also had a right to appeal against the Council’s calculation of the CIL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman