RE: CIL PINS Appeals - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Well spotted! 

I agree with you that the Regulation 54B (6) was deleted from the CIL Regs in 2019. 

However, if you take a look at the CIL Form 7 on the Planning Portal it includes the following at the top:

If your CIL liability notice, or revised CIL liability notice (if issued), was issued prior to 1 September 2019: All of the four steps described below need to be followed within required time scales otherwise the exemption will either not be obtained (Steps 1 and 2) or will be rescinded if previously obtained (Steps 3 and 4). A surcharge may also be applied in regard of Step 3.

Therefore, I can only assume that the CIL Liability Notice referred to in the CIL Appeal was issued prior to 1 September 2019?

David

Hi David,

The only info in the appeal decision says that the relevant Liability Notice was issued 7 May 2021 - obviously this could have been a revised notice, so hopefully that's what's happened and it's just not mentioned in the decision notice.

I'm still not convinced it's within their remit to recommend withdrawal of the exemption but either way it's for the relevant CA to challenge - just seemed like a really strange one to read in 2024! We haven't had a pre-2019 permission be implemented in some time.

Thanks,

Robyn

Hi Robyn,

I would agree a interesting outcome.

But then that conclusion and recommendation is from the 'Appeal Planning Officer' and not the 'Inspector'.

The appeal goes on to have an additional comment from the 'Inspector', to say that the appeal is dismissed and the surcharge upheld based on the evidence and the Appeal Planning Office report.

I cant remember an appeal in this format before, but the actual appeal outcome is a dismissal and surcharges to stand.

Not sure why the 2 stage approach, can only assume that the CIl appeal process is busy.

Cheers

Neal

Thank you for the feedback.

Section 54(b) sub-section (6) has been revoked by SI no. 1103. Both the formal decision and Inspector’s decision (Paragraph 1 and 10) correctly state the outcome and are consistent with the Regulations. We do not have the power to require withdrawal of the self-build exemption. However, the Appeal Planning Officer’s recommendation referred to the revoked section in full without referring to SI no. 1103 and its status - revoked.

As an aside, I'm hoping to arrange outreach sessions covering CIL enforcement appeals - lessons learned. I'd be interested to hear from you as to any specific topics you feel should be covered. Please keep in mind we handle 117, 118 and 119 appeals only. The email address is: enforcementoutreach@planninginspectorate.gov.uk. 

Hi Ahsan,

Thank you for your explanation, much appreciated.

We'll have a think about any issues arising from PINS appeals and be in touch, the outreach sessions sound interesting.

Robyn

Hi Ahsan,

Likewise, outreach sessions sound interesting.

Cheers

Neal

Hi Robyn et'al

It can be difficult keeping up with appeal decisions, and evermore challenging with the level of redaction particularly when much of the information is publically available.
London boroughs who attend a pan London group (CCG) have long since suggested (and tried to work towards) a central database where all appeals decisions are held and can be accessed by collecting authorities without the current level of redaction (with prior agreement of course). This would assist with the consistent application of the regulations and aid ongoing learning and development, along with potential option for reporting and statistics.

Any collecting authorities out there that would support this idea?

Hi Claire,

I definitely think that would be useful! It's not usually quite so bad with the PINS appeals, but the VOA appeals are so heavily redacted it is difficult to understand the ramifications of the decision sometimes - a closed/private database would be ideal.

Robyn