Council 'marking own homework' on planning charges

Homeowners have criticised a planning fee review scheme for a lack of clarity

Residents who believe a Surrey council wrongly charged them thousands of pounds in planning charges say they are reluctant to appeal as the process is "loaded against us".

A total of 20 households in Waverley were billed for community infrastructure levies (CIL) - a fee intended for developers to contribute to local infrastructure.

Waverley Borough Council launched an appeal process earlier this year for those who believed it made an error in charging them CIL, leading to accusations the authority was "marking its own homework".

The local authority said it was aware of residents' concerns and that it was taking a "fair and transparent" approach.

"We would encourage anyone who feels they may have been unfairly charged to contact us so their case can be reviewed," councillor Liz Townsend added.

Rupert Wingfield was granted planning permission to add six dormer windows to his home in the village of Wonersh and said he was later sent a CIL bill for £72,000.

He told BBC Radio Surrey: "We were told we could only claim a CIL exemption if building hadn't started, but the bill came through weeks later and there was no warning at the time."

'Reluctant to appeal'

The father-of-three said he believed that if a household had been found to have made an error when applying for CIL exemption, they should be given the opportunity to rectify it rather than being made to pay the bill.

He added that he was reluctant to use the council's appeals process as it would mean relinquishing his ability to appeal further if the case failed.

Two of the 20 people who claim to have been incorrectly charged CIL have applied to the council's appeals process, the BBC understands.

The council said on its website that "an independent, professionally qualified and experienced person" will consider the reviews, and will then make a recommendation to the authority's assistant director of planning about whether there should be a "withdrawal or revision" of CIL.

Mr Wingfield said this was an example of "the council marking its own homework".

The council previously said that in most cases it had been correct in issuing the bills, despite anger from homeowners.

It added that the exception was the case of Steve and Caroline Dally, who were billed £70,000 for a home extension.