Council leader says CIL officers were ‘unpleasant and overzealous’

Home owners who have extended their plots could be in for cash back from West Berkshire Council.

The council has set aside an undisclosed sum to pay for it, but won’t say how much, fearing the floodgates may open.

The move – heralded in by the acting leader of West Berkshire Council, Jeff Brooks (Lib Dem Thatcham West) – reverses what he has termed an “unpleasant and overzealous” approach by council officers.

He has launched a full salvo at his own officers for their behaviour.

“In 32 years as a councillor this is the most egregious example I have ever experienced of a council using the letter of the law to its advantage and to the detriment of what should be a common objective to assist residents in achieving an intended outcome in terms of fees that should be paid,” he said.

“It may have been legally correct according to a dreadfully poorly drafted piece of legislation, but it was morally reprehensible.

“The sums of money involved were considerable to the householder – a relatively small extension – perhaps one reception room and a couple of bedrooms – could be assessed as over £20,000 payable in CIL charges, often some 30 per cent of the cost of the extension itself.

“West Berkshire Council did not develop an enforcement policy that would guide the way in which charges were collected and the council chased debts down with a process that whilst lawful, was, at times, unpleasant and overzealous.”

“The council should have understood that such a tactic was only provided within the legislation to enable councils to place such notices on the premises of builder/developers if they were behind in payments, not to place them on the premises of householders who were meant to be exempt from the charge.

“Basic common sense, as well as a sense of common decency, should have prevented our officers – West Berkshire Council officers – from visiting an ordinary resident – not a profit making developer – and affixing a notice on their gate post – which the legislation forbids the householder from taking down until the debt is paid – with that notice stating the amount of the debt for all their neighbours, visitors and passers-by to see.

“But in West Berkshire we did exactly this and we certainly have one example where our officers posted such notices on the gate post of an ordinary resident.

“Without a sensible and sensitive enforcement policy, this council allowed its CIL team to threaten householders; shouting through letter boxes if the householder would not come to the door, placing legal charges against their properties, and chasing them down relentlessly for late CIL payments.

“And these payments would not have been chargeable if these same people had completed the necessary and very complex forms to achieve the exemption from the payment that the legislation anticipated, and our website stated, that they were entitled to.”

In April 2015, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was developed to enable councils to charge developers in order to receive payments towards a district’s infrastructure needs associated with new development.

Many councils up and down the country elected not to pursue householders who were developing an extension to their home, building a new one after demolishing their old house or building an annex.

Balances were incorporated into the legislation to prevent abuse of the system by developers masquerading as individuals building or extending a house.

“WBC charging policy stated and still states to this day that: there will be no CIL charge for self-build housing, residential annexes and extensions,” added Mr Brooks.

“That is what the legislation intended.

“According to the legislation, householders must be assessed for CIL and then must complete a complex range of forms – provided by central government – in order to be deemed exempt from CIL charges.

“The process was over confusing and easy to get wrong.

“But, in West Berkshire Council, instead of implementing a light touch approach and assisting the applicant to complete the forms correctly and thus achieve a zero-rated CIL charge as intended within the legislation, this council and via the then CIL management team implemented what can best be described as a zero-tolerance policy.”

If the forms were not submitted in a timely manner or were incorrect, then the charge was levied; invoices were dispatched, and the collection of the charge was undertaken.

Although, within the legislation, the applicant could appeal to the council the house owner had no formal way that they could catch up and complete the paperwork correctly.

“In short, this episode has been a stain on the good name of this council,” Mr Brooks said.

“So I am stating that we will introduce a process to refund and/or cancel charges – CIL payments, surcharges, and interest charges – that householders building for their own domestic purposes were forced to pay or are still liable to pay, where they simply filled out their forms incorrectly or were remiss in providing that documentation.

“This disgraceful episode ends here.

“I have instructed officers to bring a report to the next meeting of this executive, to ensure that no further demands will be made of householders who simply want to extend or redevelop their homes.”

He plans to publish a process whereby any householders who have undertaken development that has become CIL liable due to mistakes they may have made following the process will be able to apply to a panel of members and officers at the council to have their CIL charges reviewed, and to have these repaid or cancelled “wherever it is appropriate to do so”.

“We have much to do as a new administration but one thing that is non-negotiable with us is an overriding sense of fairness in how we treat our residents,” he added.