High Court Rules on CIL Chargeable Development

Swift J rejected the Claimant's challenge to liability and demand notices issued by the Defendant Council under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 in respect of the whole of a proposed residential development in Radstock. The Claimant had sought to argue that the outline permission should be interpreted, when read alongside a s. 96a TCPA 1990 non-material amendment (NMA), as a "phased planning permission" for the purposes of CIL. The Judge held that, as it was common ground that development had commenced before the grant of the NMA, liability had been triggered under regulation 31 at which point the material planning permission was not phased. Consequently, per regulation 71, the full amount of CIL had fallen due for payment in full.

Per curiam, the Judge also held that in general parties must exhaust all statutory appeal routes before the court will hear an application for judicial review. However, there were exceptional circumstances on the facts of this case which resulted in the court hearing and determining the claim.

Daniel Stedman Jones acted for the successful Defendant, Bath and North East Somerset Council.