Gideon Amos

The amount of flexibility that can be exercised depends on the nature of the error in the process that is being discussed, so not every council can operate the same redress in the same situation. The hon. Gentleman confirms that it was a Conservative administration that drew up the CIL charging schedule, the forms and all the processes that underlie and guide—in fact, not just guide but narrowly dictate—how the council exercises control over CIL. Where the hon. Gentleman is right is that the rules need to change. The best way to change them would be to change the regulations in this place. That brings me to the Minister and the Government. The Minister has said, including when my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury raised the issue, that CIL was never intended to be applied in this way, and I believe he is right. He has named the Liberal Democrat authority in West Berkshire as a good example of exercising discretion where the law allows that to be done, but naming good examples is not enough, and we need to do more. We need three things from the Government on this issue, and we need them in this Parliament. We need a statutory definition of what constitutes a minor administrative error, so that homeowners are not penalised by tens of thousands of pounds for a missed form. We need a statutory right of appeal against CIL charges, with clear limits for resolution, and a clear lawful basis on which councils can waive or refund charges in cases of genuine homeowner error. Currently, that option can be exercised only in certain cases, depending on the nature of the error involved. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated in previous discussions that the Government will act, but we need to see action. While on the subject of CIL, we should be honest about the wider problem. All the Members who have spoken—I think they have all been hon. Gentlemen—were right that it is necessary to fund infrastructure, so the rationale behind CIL is worth while. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) pointed out, the CIL funds do need to be spent on delivering infrastructure. The levy is a flat rate per square metre and bears no relation to the level of the uplift in land value before and after planning permission is granted. I confess that back in the 2000s when the measure was being put forward, I was part of a lively debate with bodies such as the British Property Federation, arguing that the levy should relate to the level of land value uplift. In some parts of the country, where we have clear viability challenges, there is very little land value uplift. The same level is charged as on a site with a massive land level uplift, where there is no viability problem. The state is missing out on land value uplift in places and the CIL is affecting viability in other places. We would suggest that the Government move towards a levy that relates to the land value increase that the landowner is gaining. That is necessary to fund schools, surgeries, GPs, roads, and all the rest of it. The Minister is reportedly looking at the levy again; I urge him to be ambitious and make the changes we are arguing for. Patching the exemption rules is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The injustice that constituents are facing is real—we agree on that—but the schedule put in place by previous parties is what has guided Waverley’s actions. The council is doing what it lawfully can to address the issue, but the Government need to do the rest.