Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) on securing this debate. I have applied for a similar debate twice, but clearly I do not have the touch of a former Chancellor in the Westminster Hall lottery.

This is a very serious issue. The community infrastructure levy is meant to be simple: developers contribute and that money is used to fund the infrastructure that communities need. That is the principle, and that is the promise, but in parts of my constituency that promise is being broken. The regulations are clear that CIL is intended to support growth through infrastructure, yet we see millions of pounds collected and sitting idle, with little evidence of delivery. The rules exist but the action does not follow.

In Waverley where, as we have heard, CIL rates are among the highest in the country, substantial sums are being collected and left unspent—£30 million when we last checked at the beginning of the year. That alone undermines public trust, but the reality is worse than that. The money does not simply sit there; it accrues interest—£125,000 a month in Waverley’s case. That interest is not ringfenced for infrastructure; it is absorbed into the general council spending. It is equivalent to 10% of council tax in Waverley’s case. Residents are told that the money is for community facilities when in reality it is sitting in accounts, quietly supporting day-to-day council spending.

At the same time, inflation is eating away at the value of the original CIL pot, so when the council does eventually spend it, it delivers less than it should. Communities lose twice: the infrastructure does not arrive and the money set aside to fund it is steadily diminished.

Worse still, the system is being misapplied. Of course, it is right that developers should contribute, but individual homeowners making changes to their own properties were never intended targets of the regime. Pursuing them aggressively, as Waverley borough council does, is not just heavy-handed; it is plain wrong. Let us call it what it is: a cash grab.

CIL may be a national framework, but it is administered locally. The contrast within my constituency could not be starker. In East Hampshire, charging rates outside the regeneration zone in Whitehill and Bordon range from £95.94 to £265.68 per square metre. Even with a manual exemption system, the council actively supports residents, contacting them repeatedly by letter, email and phone to make them aware of exemptions, guiding them through the process and clearly warning them of the consequences of failing to submit the correct forms. That is what good administration looks like.

Let us compare that approach with that taken by the Liberal Democrat-run Waverley borough council. There, the CIL rates charged to affected homeowners are among the highest in the country. In Farnham, they stand at £547.17 per square metre, rising to just under £570 per square metre in Haslemere and the surrounding villages.

With those high rates comes a very different approach. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who together face CIL liabilities of nearly £1 million. They are not developers; they are ordinary residents who feel blindsided, misled and, in some cases, harassed. They are being charged for exemptions they were never supposed to pay. That is not administration. That is extraction.

The response from the Liberal Democrat leadership, supported for too long by the Farnham residents group, has been one of inertia and, frankly, contempt. Instead of being helped to navigate a complex system, residents have been left in the dark and presented with life-changing bills. This is not fairness; it is the politics of envy in action, and my constituents are paying the price.

Let me give some examples. One constituent who lives on the Surrey-Hampshire border has an East Hampshire postcode but her property falls within Waverley. She was hit with a £48,000 charge, which has now risen with interest to £60,000. In Haslemere, another constituent received a £94,000 charge because an agent failed to submit the correct forms. He was forced to put his home on the market, with the only alternative to divert the majority of his pension to pay the bill.

In Lower Bourne, a couple were issued with a £54,000 charge two days before Christmas in 2024. That led to delays and additional restart costs of between £15,000 and £20,000. Also in the Bourne, a resident faces a charge of £150,000. In Moor Park, another faces a charge of close to £100,000, triggered by a mid-project planning amendment.

Even minor administrative issues are treated with zero flexibility. A Farnham resident now faces a £25,000 charge, along with £5,000 in legal costs, following a change-of-use application for a granny annexe. These are not speculative, rapacious developers; they are people improving their homes, supporting their families and planning for their futures. The human cost is real and growing.

As has been pointed out, last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash and I met the Minister to discuss these issues. At the time, he appeared sympathetic, so I ask him today: what progress has been made? At that meeting, we urged the Minister to issue clear guidance to local authorities to prevent further harm while the regulations were reviewed. Unfortunately, that idea was not taken forward. I understand the concern about overreach, but what we are seeing now is not restraint; it is injustice.

I support my right hon. Friend’s proposed solutions. With that in mind, I ask the Minister three fairly straightforward questions. First, what progress has been made on reforming the CIL regulations? Secondly, will he issue clear guidance to ensure that councils do not exploit the rules to the detriment of ordinary homeowners? Thirdly, will those who have been wrongly charged be refunded? Under the current system, once development has commenced, there is effectively no right to appeal. It is a rigid and unforgiving mechanism. Most councils choose not to wield it in this way, but Waverley borough council has.

The spirit of the law is being ignored, and the balance has been lost. My constituents are being treated not as residents to be supported, but as revenue to be extracted. This is not what the levy was designed to do. It was meant to build stronger communities, not penalise them. The law may permit what is happening, but it was never intended to enable it. It is time we put that right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government should do that. There have been opportunities to do something about this; there are opportunities to change the law. He seems to have read the later part of my speech, and is quite right to mention our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who not only made that point in respect of that Bill but brought it to the attention of the Select Committee last year. Liberal Democrats in Parliament have been trying to get resolution and a change in the rules.

In Waverley, the council has gone further than the law requires. It has set up a discretionary review process, opening a few weeks from now in June, for householders who believe they have been wrongly charged. That is the right thing to do, acting within the limits of what the law allows it to do. But the council can only act up to and within the bounds of the law, which is rigid.

[Gregory Stafford]

Before the hon. Member moves on, I should correct what he said: CIL was introduced in Waverley in 2019, and the Liberal Democrats took over the council one month later. The idea that the Conservatives brought it in is utter nonsense. The Liberal Democrats have now had seven years to try to fix it, and they have not. I ask the hon. Member to use his influence on his fellow Liberal Democrats to encourage them to operate a system far more like those in other parts of the country that we heard about from my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), which operate with more flexibility.

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

T2. The Justice Secretary’s plan to slash jury trials without any guarantee that the backlog of cases will fall has not survived first contact with Labour Back Benchers. The backlash has forced No. 10 to reassure Labour Members that legislation will not be introduced until October next year, but the Justice Secretary’s team insist that it will come in February. They cannot both be right. Can the Justice Secretary confirm at the Dispatch Box when the legislation is coming forward?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman can do better than that. That is not true. We are serious about bringing down the backlog, and that means that we of course want to introduce our courts Bill in the early part of next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Greene King does outstanding work, as do other organisations in our prison service. They are important partners in delivering better justice.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor rightly rejected murderer Alan Jermey’s Parole Board request for open conditions, for which his daughters and I are extremely grateful. I understand that Mr Jermey is now legally challenging the decision, so will the Lord Chancellor revisit my request for a meeting with her about this issue?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member will know that, with a judicial challenge, there will be some constraints as to what I can say publicly, and indeed even privately in a meeting. I will take advice to ensure that nothing compromises the legal process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that vital question. We are giving judges the statutory power to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. We are also making it clear that reasonable force can be used, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, to ensure that any adult offender attends when ordered to do so. I pay tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, as well as to the family of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, who have all fought tirelessly to bring about this law. This is a law for all of the victims and it is in their memory that we bring it forward.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

T2. Across my constituency I hear the same thing from parents, school staff and youth workers: early signs of offending behaviour are often missed or not acted on until it is too late; and in rural areas, stretched services and limited access to youth provision make the problem worse. Given the success of the Haslemere youth hub, will the Lord Chancellor consider expanding community-based justice schemes to ensure young people are not drawn into the criminal justice system when they do not need to be?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that those sorts of schemes are exactly what are needed. That is why we have increased funding for youth offending teams and protected funding for the Turnaround scheme, which is highly successful in moving people who are on the edge of youth crime away from crime. We are continuing with that funding and we have the Young Futures prevention partnerships coming in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The Legal Aid Agency keeps contracts under review to ensure that there is provision right across the country, including in Ealing. As I said earlier, the additional money going into legal support, which includes advice services, such as citizens advice bureaux, law centres and other advice providers, will reach constituents just like hers, both remotely and face to face.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

T2. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

The House will be aware of the attack at HMP Frankland on 12 April. The bravery of the officers involved undoubtedly saved lives, and my thoughts are with them as they recover. I think also of the victims of the Manchester arena bombing and their families, who are understandably outraged. Since the attack, I have suspended access to kitchens in separation centres and close supervision centres. An independent review will ascertain how the incident was able to happen, what more must be done to protect prison staff and, more widely, how separation centres are run, and the prison service will also conduct a snap review of the use of protective body armour. In addition, I can today announce that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will trial the use of tasers in our prisons. Wherever we can strengthen our defences to better protect our staff and the public, we will do so.

The horrific attacks in Nottingham on 13 June 2023 cost Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates their lives. I pay tribute to their families and the survivors, many of whom are in the Public Gallery today. The Prime Minister promised that we would heed their calls for a public inquiry, and I can today announce that a full statutory inquiry will take place, chaired by Her Honour Deborah Taylor and with the power to compel witnesses. I will place its full terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses at the earliest opportunity. The inquiry must be thorough in its assessment of the facts and unsparing in its recommendations—that is the very least that we owe those who have lost so much and fought so hard for this moment. I am sure that this House, so often divided, will be united on that at least today.

[Gregory Stafford]

I associate myself with the Lord Chancellor’s comments and extend my sympathies to the families of those who were attacked.

In Bordon, the release of a sex offender to a property near the Hogmoor inclosure—frequently used by young people, families and children—has caused consternation in my constituency. What is the Lord Chancellor doing to ensure that people who have been convicted of sex offences are properly monitored when released into the community? Do our national and local agencies have the resources and powers to ensure that these risks are monitored and the public are kept safe?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We have robust processes in place to ensure that those offenders can be monitored effectively at both national and local levels and that those monitoring mechanisms are as robust as possible. I will happily look into the case that the hon. Gentleman raises and ensure that he gets a ministerial response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I wholeheartedly echo my hon. Friend’s words about the vital work of organisations such as Women’s Aid, who do such brilliant work in empowering women and children to rebuild their lives after experiencing domestic abuse. This Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. That is why I have decided to protect violence against women and girls victims spending in the Ministry of Justice by maintaining the current funding levels for sexual violence and domestic abuse support for the next financial year.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

In August 2008, Alan Jermey brutally murdered Kirsty Wilson, strangling her and setting her body on fire while their two young daughters slept upstairs. He has now been recommended for transfer to an open prison, which could allow him unchaperoned access to the community within six months. His daughters, now 18 and 23, are my constituents, and they are terrified by the thought of encountering him, or worse, of him coming to their home, as he knows their address. Will the Lord Chancellor meet me and these young women to discuss their fears and ensure that this transfer is stopped?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to discuss the case.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I begin by sending my condolences to the family of Lord Prescott, who was the sort of political figure who cut across party lines. As a teenager with just a passing interest in politics, I fondly remember seeing that punch and thinking, “Good for him!” As a shadow Minister, I should clarify that by saying he was exercising his lawful right to self- defence. May he rest in peace.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Opposition. We are debating an issue that is always a challenge for any democracy: how do we ensure that bad actors do not exploit important protections that have been put in place for our benefit, and how do we prevent measures that are meant to act as a shield from being turned into a weapon? These tensions find sharp expression in the misuse of our legal system through SLAPPs. They are not just frivolous lawsuits or the expected robust exchange between solicitors and their clients; they are a serious, deliberate tactic used to stifle voices that expose wrongdoing or hold the powerful to account. They are designed to intimidate, drain resources and create a chilling effect that suppresses important public discourse.

It has been positive to hear contributions from Members that demonstrate a deep understanding of this issue and its importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) drew on his experience of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and of being a former Secretary of State in discussing all the key issues that we have considered today, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East reminded us of the importance of ensuring that the other side of the debate is remembered when it comes to allowing people to fairly protect their reputation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked in helpful detail about what happened to the former Member Charlotte Leslie, reminding us how much politicians are in the firing line. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), who has joined me on the Opposition Front Bench, is concerned about how SLAPPs can be used to stifle debate both locally and nationally.

Of course, all Back Benchers here today want to see action from the Government. Although the tone of the debate has been consensual, it is the job of the Opposition to hold this new Government to account. In what is becoming a familiar pattern, Labour Members, when in opposition earlier this year, supported legislation that would have built on our work in this area. Now that they are in government, however, reasons to delay have appeared. In the other place, the Government have said that they now think a further review is needed. Today, alongside an explanation for this change, I hope that we will hear a more concrete commitment and a clear plan from the Minister.

SLAPPs extend their impact far beyond the courtroom. Investigative journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners and even grieving families raising safety concerns have found themselves silenced. SLAPPs do not defend reputations; they conceal misconduct, shield wrongdoing and erode public trust in our institutions. In the previous Parliament, as a member of the Justice Committee, I had the welcome opportunity to join a one-off session of the Foreign Affairs Committee that did an excellent job of putting SLAPPs in the parliamentary spotlight. I got to hear at first hand from witnesses working across journalism, many of whom have been mentioned today, including Catherine Belton, the author of “Putin’s People”; investigative journalist Tom Burgis; Susan Coughtrie from the Foreign Policy Centre, who is co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition; and Arabella Pike, who is head of publishing at William Collins.

I distinctly remember Catherine and Arabella talking powerfully about their experience of the sustained legal attack that “Putin’s People” came under, and it was clear that it took real courage to persevere with its publication. Tom described his experience across Africa, and the wider network of oligarchs and corrupt Governments working together to suppress journalism that would have held them to account. He has direct experience of successfully defeating SLAPPs relating to his own book, as others have mentioned. Susan described how individuals take advantage of good journalistic practices, whereby giving a right to reply is used to start to overwhelm journalists, and highlighted that this sort of activity is undertaken by not just legal professionals but other, unregulated individuals. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has documented numerous cases where SLAPPs have smothered stories of profound public interest—stories exposing safety failures, corruption and malpractice. Such cases deserved public scrutiny, yet they were buried beneath a mountain of legal threats.

Of course, the right to defend one’s reputation is important. It ensures fairness, prevents the spread of harmful falsehoods, and protects individuals from malicious attacks. Like others who have spoken today, I have first-hand experience of that. A journalistic blogger decided that they had proof that my time spent volunteering as a policeman was made up, and that I had committed a criminal offence in lying about it. At the height of an election campaign, I saw that story spread across social media and reach tens of thousands of people. It was only through my taking the available legal steps that stopped it spreading further. Shoddy journalism should not find shelter in anti-SLAPPs legislation, but when SLAPPs turn the scales of justice into tools of suppression, they undermine the very principles that they claim to protect.

Sadly, the UK legal system is seen by some people as a favourable domain to stifle debate. Although it is not a watertight source, a 2020 survey by the Foreign Policy Centre revealed that the UK was the most frequent single international origin of legal threats against journalists, accounting for 31% of cases. By comparison, 35% of SLAPP threats originated in the US and the EU combined.

Recognising the threat of SLAPPs, the previous Conservative Government introduced important legislation that the current Government said represented a significant step forward in this area. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 defined SLAPPs in law for the first time, introduced swift dismissal mechanisms and implemented cost protections in claims relating to economic crime, reflecting the then Government’s belief that 70% of SLAPPs are linked to financial corruption and the scope of the original Bill. The last Government also established the SLAPPs taskforce, a group of legal and media professionals tasked with improving our understanding of SLAPPs and equipping stakeholders to combat them. As others have mentioned, during the previous Parliament the former Member for Caerphilly, Wayne David, introduced the strategic litigation against public participation Bill, a private Member’s Bill that presented further possible steps to address SLAPPs.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I will introduce my own Bill, which is based on that Bill, in early January. Will my Bill have the support of the Conservative party Opposition?

[Dr Mullan]

That is an important point and, notwithstanding my hope that the Government will introduce legislation, I expect that we will be able to support a Bill that is suitably similar to the one originally presented.

Mr David’s Bill proposed a robust framework to combat SLAPPs, including a wider early dismissal mechanism, and a requirement on claimants to demonstrate a greater likelihood of success for a trial to proceed. Additionally, the Bill called for new civil procedure rules to protect defendants from adverse costs when SLAPP claims go to trial. Crucially, it would have empowered the Lord Chancellor to extend this framework to other courts or tribunals if SLAPPs were being used to circumvent these protections.

The Conservative Government recognised the Bill’s value, supporting it as a complement to the steps we had already taken, and importantly, so did the then Labour Opposition. Unfortunately, despite its potential, the Bill fell away during the wash-up before the general election, as is sadly too often the case.

The proposals had cross-party support. There was no call from the then Opposition for a review or for things to be considered further, which they have now decided is necessary. In a recent article, the co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, Susan Coughtrie, expressed her disappointment that Labour has not developed a clear plan for similar legislation:

“This could have been a relatively ‘easy win’ not only for the new government, but for the protection of public interest speech and the democratic health of our society.”

She is right, of course, and I cannot think of a new Government in more dire need of an easy win than this Labour Government.

With all this in mind, I urge the Minister to address several pressing questions. Given the Government’s support in opposition for the private Member’s Bill and its measures, why have they now determined that a further, delaying review is needed? When will this review be complete? Even if the review recommends some changes to the approach outlined in that Bill, do the Government commit in principle to introducing comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation next year? If not, when will they bring forward legislation?

Will the Government commit to further and ongoing work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority to see whether its work could be reformed to deter law firms from taking on SLAPP cases? Finally, will the Minister commit to supporting the ongoing work of the SLAPPs taskforce? Ahead of legislation that has been unnecessarily delayed, this would send a strong signal of the Government’s commitment on this issue.

The balance we must strike is clear. Our legal framework must protect the right to defend one’s reputation while safeguarding freedom of speech and ensuring that public interest journalism can thrive. I urge the Government to pick up where we left off, as they have a detailed and comprehensive private Member’s Bill ready to go. The powerful must not be allowed to misuse the legal system to suppress scrutiny and silence critics.

In opposition, Labour Members were clear on what they supported and what needed to be done. Somehow, entering government has brought uncertainty and hesitation to their thinking. At a time when too much of this House’s legislative capacity is left unused, and when this Government desperately need a positive story to tell, they have changed course. I encourage them to build on our work and deliver in this area so that we can reaffirm our commitment to justice, accountability and the public interest, and ensure that the UK remains a beacon of free speech and fairness under the law.