Residents have called for a public inquiry into Waverley Borough Council’s handling of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges, describing its treatment of local householders as “disgusting”.

Ian Colvin of Haslemere, who was charged £92,000 in CIL for a large home extension, said: “The way we have been treated is frankly disgusting and worthy of a public enquiry. Waverley has demonstrated it is more focused on collecting CIL for the council’s coffers rather than supporting its residents. We come at the very bottom of the pile. Shameful behaviour.”

His comments came after Waverley’s executive approved a long-awaited discretionary review into CIL charges – a move that residents and opposition leaders say amounts to little more than “performative politics”, offering no meaningful hope of fair redress.

The Community Infrastructure Levy, introduced nationally in 2010, is a planning charge allowing councils to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects to support local infrastructure.

Waverley adopted CIL in 2018 but has faced mounting criticism for applying the levy to homeowners building large extensions, with residents arguing it was never intended for large developers and not for ordinary householders.

It was announced at the meeting that Steve Dally, who paid £70,000 in CIL charges, would be refunded the money because it was a council error. Waverley, however, could not guarantee that other homeowners who made mistakes in their forms would also be refunded.

Despite his good news, Mr Dally said he was annoyed that the council withheld a decision to refund him for more than 26 weeks, despite admitting council error in his case.

“For the past 25 weeks for a decision, we have been fighting what a leading KC lists as multiple egregious errors by the council,” said Mr Dally, who paid £70,000 in CIL. “Of course we are grateful to finally be informed we will get a refund – the details of which have not yet been confirmed! Will we be compensated for the significant bank interest these errors have caused us?”

He added: “Since this ordeal began in 2020, the way Waverley Borough Council has treated my wife and I has been nothing short of scandalous, dogmatic, even draconian, with more focus by the council on achieving its Best Value than the hardship and distress these disproportionate fines have caused – the immeasurable impact this has had and dominated our lives.”

Victims believe this will be the only refund ever granted under the new review, describing it as “a performance, not a commitment to fairness.”

Cllr Jane Austin, leader of the Waverley Conservative Group, said: “The Lib Dem-led exec spectacularly failed Waverley residents. The executive ignored the pleas of fellow councillors, rode roughshod over the recommendations of the council’s scrutiny committee and chose to accept the opinion of only one of two conflicting legal opinions on CIL – each by hugely respected Kings Counsel.”

She said Freedom of Information (FOI) requests showed many councils do apply discretion for householders, offering grace periods and support. “It is a tragedy that this did not happen at Waverley Council, which has lost sight of its duty of care to the people it serves.”

Haslemere resident Graham Atkins, who overturned a £50,000 CIL liability after a year-long fight, said: “I have no doubt that the treatment meted out to me was borne out of the fact that in the council’s view, I have avoided paying over £50,000 to them. Having seen the extent of effort the CIL team expended in pursuing me I have to question whether or not the council is exercising its powers judiciously.”

Rupert and Jane Wingfield, who faced a £70,000 bill, said: “The logic completely escapes us: a discretionary review that applies no actual discretion, and under which 90 percent of affected residents won’t even be eligible to apply.”

Cllr Carole Cockburn added: “Residents weren’t asking for special treatment. They were asking Waverley to show the same moral courage West Berkshire did last year. Legality is not the same as justice.”

Cllr Liz Townsend admitted the decision had taken too long for Mr Dally but said she was delighted he would receive his refund.

Cllr Paul Follows, leader of Waverley Borough Council, said the discretionary review would prioritise cases where the council had made an error and could withdraw a liability notice. Other issues raised would inform learning and feed into a six-month enforcement review.

He said not limiting the scope of what was considered a council error was intended to avoid excluding people, urging anyone who believed they had an issue to raise it so their case could be checked end-to-end.

Residents found to be subject to a council error would receive redress, while other cases would be dealt with through enforcement review. Cllr Follows said officers had assured him that all theoretical possibilities were covered by the scheme.