CAPTAIN LEE JONES v SHROPSHIRE COUNCIL (2025) EWHC 365 (Admin) is an application for Judicial Review of the Council’s Decision to issue and serve on the Claimant a CIL Stop Notice under Regulation 90 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010.
The Notice related to land that had the benefit of planning permission granted by the Council for the erection of a detached house with triple garage. At the date of service of the Notice, the planning permission had been implemented but the development remained to be completed. The reason given for the decision to issue the Notice was that an amount of CIL payable in respect of the development remained unpaid. The Notice required the cessation of building works at the land from that date onwards and until such date as the Notice may be withdrawn by the Council. The Notice stated that full payment of the unpaid chargeable amount was required for the Notice to be withdrawn.
The single ground of challenge pursued was that the Council’s administrative action in issuing and serving the Notice was time barred by virtue of Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980. The Claimant’s case was that the issue of a CIL Stop Notice pursuant to Regulation 90 of the Regulations is an action to recover a sum recoverable by virtue of the Regulations. By virtue of Section 9 of the 1980 Act, such an action may not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. The Claimant contended the cause of action accrued upon demand for payment from him of the chargeable amount and that more than six years had elapsed by the date of issue of the Notice.
CIL was introduced by the Planning Act 2008. It is a charge which may be levied by local authorities on new developments in their area. CIL provides funding for local authorities, known in this context as collecting authorities, to use to help them deliver the infrastructure needed to support development in their area. Following a consultation process, a local authority must prepare, approve and publish a charging schedule which sets out its CIL rates. Most new built development, including new dwellings, may be liable to CIL. There are certain exemptions and reliefs. One exemption is provided in respect of self-build housing: see Regulation 54A of the CIL Regulations. The procedure for claiming that exemption is stipulated in Regulation 54B of the CIL Regulations. Persons who wish to take the benefit of the self-build exemption must ensure that their claims are made in writing on a form published by the Secretary of State (or a form substantially to the same effect) and received by the collecting authority before the commencement of the chargeable development. Regulation 54B(3) of the CIL Regulations states that a claim for self-build exemption will lapse where the chargeable development to which it relates is commenced before the collecting authority has notified the claimant of its decision on the claim.
Regulation 67 of the CIL Regulations requires the submission of a commencement notice to the collecting authority no later than the day before the day on which a chargeable development is begun. Regulation 68 of the CIL Regulations requires a collecting authority to determine a deemed commencement date in a case where it believes that either chargeable development has already begun without submission of a commencement notice, or that the date of actual commencement of the development was earlier than as stated in the commencement notice. Regulation 69 of the CIL Regulation provides that a collecting authority must serve a demand notice on each person liable to pay an amount of CIL in respect of a chargeable development. The demand notice must state the amount payable by that person (including any surcharges or interest applied) and the day on which payment of the chargeable amount is due. Regulation 71(2) of the CIL Regulations provides that in a case where the collecting authority has determined a deemed commencement date, the chargeable amount of CIL is payable in full on that date.
Part 9 of the CIL Regulations provides for the enforcement of CIL. Chapter 1 (Regulations 81 to 88) of Part 9 of the CIL Regulations provides for the imposition of surcharges and payment of interest. In particular, Regulation 83 empowers a collecting authority to impose a surcharge equal to 20% of the chargeable amount in respect of a chargeable development or £2,500, whichever is the lower amount, where that development is commenced before the collecting authority has received a valid commencement notice. Regulation 87 permits interest to be charged on late payments.
Chapter 2 (Regulations 89 to 94) of Part 9 of the CIL Regulations is headed “CIL Stop Notices”. Regulation 89 stipulates the preliminary steps which a collecting authority must take before issuing a CIL Stop Notice. Regulation 90 confers the power on a collecting authority to issue and serve a CIL Stop Notice. Regulation 91 provides for the withdrawal of a CIL Stop Notice. Regulation 92 requires the issue of a CIL Stop Notice and specified information in relation to that Notice to be included on the local authority’s planning register as soon as practicable and in any event before 14 days have elapsed since the issue of the notice.
All entries relating to a CIL Stop Notice are to be removed from the register if the notice is withdrawn or quashed. By virtue of Regulation 92(3), in a case where the collecting authority does not itself maintain the planning register, that authority must notify the requisite information about the issued CIL Stop Notice (and, if later withdrawn or quashed, that information) to the local authority responsible for the planning register for the land to which the Notice relates. By virtue of Regulation 93(1)(a) a person commits an offence if they contravene a CIL Stop Notice which has been served on them. By virtue of Regulation 93(5), it is a defence for that person to prove that the CIL Stop Notice was not served on them; and that they did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of the notice’s existence.
Regulation 94 empowers the Court on the application of the collecting authority to grant an injunction restraining an actual or apprehended breach of a CIL Stop Notice. Regulation 119 provides for an appeal against the issue of a CIL Stop Notice on limited grounds.
Chapter 3 (Regulations 95 to 107) of Part 9 of the CIL Regulations enacts arrangements for the recovery of an amount of CIL which has become payable to a collecting authority and has not been paid through Court proceedings. Regulation 97 empowers a collecting authority to apply to a Magistrates’ Court for a liability order against the person by whom the unpaid amount of CIL is payable. If a liability order is made by the Magistrates’ Court, the amount in respect of which it is made becomes enforceable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3 of Part 9 of the CIL Regulations. The collecting authority may levy the unpaid amount by taking control of goods, by distress, and may apply for a warrant of commitment. Provision is made for the imposition of charging orders. In the alternative to pursuing recovery through an application for a liability order in a Magistrates’ Court, the collecting authority is empowered to bring a claim for an unpaid amount of CIL which has become payable in a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Regulation 97(3) of the CIL Regulations enacts a time limit within which a collecting authority must apply to a Magistrates’ Court for a liability order: six years from when the current amount became due.
Mould J accepted that as a matter of ordinary language, administrative action taken by a local authority in the exercise of its statutory powers for the purpose of coercing payment of a sum lawfully due from a citizen can be described as action to recover that sum. The question whether the phrase “an action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment” in Section 9(1) of the 1980 Act was intended to apply to such administrative action, or to have a more limited application which excluded administrative action of that kind. That question was to be considered by interpreting the phrase both in the context of Section 9(1) of the 1980 Act and in the wider context of the 1980 Act as a whole.
Mould J concluded as follows:-
“67. …The power to issue a CIL Stop Notice has been given to collecting authorities so that they are able effectively to enforce payment of unpaid CIL against a developer without the need to pursue recovery proceedings in the courts. There is a clear incentive on the collecting authority to act in a timely way, since the coercive effect of the CIL Stop Notice is likely to be stronger at an early stage in the carrying out of the development. It is to be expected that the developer will feel constrained to take steps to clear the unpaid amount of CIL, in order to enable them to continue with the development and so realise their investment. This is consistent with the evident, broader policy objective that enforcement of payment of CIL due in respect of development should be effective, so that funds are available to meet the cost of local community infrastructure in accordance with the local authority’s published schedule.
- It is clear that the power to issue a CIL Stop Notice was conferred on collecting authorities as an alternative means of enforcing payment of CIL without the need to bring recovery proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court (or a court of competent jurisdiction). The power to issue a CIL Stop Notice enables a collecting authority to incentivise a developer to pay CIL due in respect of their development. Its very value as an enforcement tool is founded upon denying the developer the opportunity to realise the value of their investment without having made their due contribution to the infrastructure needs of their local community. It is likely in most cases to depend for its coercive effect upon the development being at a relatively inchoate state of progress. …
- Section 119 of the CIL Regulations provides limited grounds of appeal against a CIL Stop Notice. However, the decision to issue a CIL Stop Notice in any given case is amenable to challenge by way of judicial review, in accordance with the time limits prescribed under Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules. By virtue of Regulation 89(1) of the CIL Regulations the collecting authority must be satisfied in any case that it is expedient that development should stop until the amount of unpaid CIL has been paid. The collecting authority must state their reasons for issuing a CIL Stop Notice, both in the warning notice served pursuant to Regulation 89 of the CIL Regulations and in the CIL Stop Notice itself. If a case were to arise in which a collecting authority issued a warning that they intended to issue a CIL Stop Notice to enforce payment of a modest and residual unpaid sum of CIL many years after the development had been largely carried out, the recipient of that warning notice would be in a position to question the expediency of doing so and, in principle, to challenge the subsequent issue of a CIL Stop Notice on public law grounds.
- The registration requirements imposed by Regulation 92 of the CIL Regulations are plainly intended to minimise the risk of a purchaser of all or part of an incomplete development which is subject to an extant CIL Stop Notice being unable through proper inquiry to find out about the notice. In the event that such a purchaser was genuinely innocent of the existence of the notice notwithstanding proper inquiry and carried out works in contravention of the notice, they would be able to avail themselves, if prosecuted, of the statutory defence under Regulation 93(5) of the CIL Regulations.
- For the reasons I have given, I conclude that the time limit enacted under Section 9(1) of the 1980 Act does not apply to the issue by a collecting authority of a CIL Stop Notice in the exercise of the powers conferred by Regulation 90 of the CIL Regulations. The issue of a CIL Stop Notice is not an “action” to recover a sum recoverably by virtue of any enactment, within the meaning of Section 9(1) of the 1980 Act. The Defendant’s administrative action in issuing the Notice on 23 September 2022 was not time barred by virtue of Section 9 of the 1980 Act.”