Angry homeowners walked out from a Waverley Borough Council meeting last night after councillors declined to debate a public petition over Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges.

One senior councillor described the decision not to debate the petition as “an embarrassment”, saying it made the meeting “the worst I have ever attended”.

The petition, backed by more than 650 residents, called for an independent investigation into the council’s handling of CIL. It also called for affected homeowners to be treated as if they had qualified for exemption, in line with the approach campaigners say has been taken by West Berkshire Council.

Under council procedure, petitions may be debated at the discretion of the mayor. At the Full Council meeting on Tuesday, January 27, on advice from officers, Mayor Cllr Penny Rivers ruled that the petition should not be debated directly and instead allowed councillors to consider a motion responding to the issues raised.

CIL is a levy set by Parliament and collected by councils on new development to fund infrastructure such as schools, roads and community facilities.

While self-builders can claim an exemption, the regulations are strict and errors in completing or submitting paperwork can trigger full liability.

In Waverley, homeowners who made mistakes when applying to build annexes or extensions were hit with charges running into tens of thousands of pounds in some cases.

Campaigners affected by CIL liabilities accused the council of ignoring the plight of residents facing crippling debt, forced house sales and serious mental health harm.

As council leader Cllr Paul Follows responded to an amendment during the debate, about 15 residents affected by CIL walked out of the chamber.

“Democracy is not being upheld,” shouted petition organiser Steve Dally as he left the public gallery.

Former mayor Cllr John Ward (Farnham Residents: Farnham Rowledge), who has served on the council for 20 years, said the meeting was the worst he had experienced.

“We have an opportunity here to help out residents, which is why we were all elected,” he said. “I have constantly asked that enforcement be delayed until there was more clarity on this matter. All to no avail.”

He criticised what he described as repeated attempts by the executive to avoid open discussion.

“I’m very sad at the attempts, yet again, by the executive to avoid discussing the issue,” he said.

“If things were going well, an independent review would be welcomed, as it would reinforce the council’s position and perhaps remove some of the nasty press.”

Cllr Ward added: “However, if many believe it is likely to castigate the executive, I can see why they do not really want one.”

He said: “This is the most embarrassing council meeting I have ever attended. To not allow the petition to be debated, as our council rules clearly say it should be, I think is a disgrace.

“I am desolate. And this is the worst evening I have sat in this chamber.”

The council has previously introduced a discretionary review scheme allowing historic cases to be independently assessed, but campaigners say it should offer refunds in cases where homeowners would have qualified for exemption if paperwork had been completed correctly.

Earlier in the meeting, Mr Dally presented his petition so the council.

“The responsibility of standing here tonight, seeking justice for these poor victims, is nothing short of overwhelming,” he said.

“The impact of your debate tonight for these people facing crippling debt and the sale of their homes may be life-changing.”

He said Waverley Borough Council had unanimously voted in January 2025 to support a discretionary approach to CIL cases.

“After years of trauma, victims were given hope that justice would prevail,” he said. “Within days of that motion being passed it became clear this administration had no intent of honouring the wishes of this council.”

Mr Dally said campaigners had launched the petition because they felt they were not being heard.

“Standing on the streets of Godalming, Cranleigh and Farnham in cold, wet winter mornings was a sobering experience,” he said. “Nobody had a good word to say about this council.”

Leader of the Opposition Cllr Jane Austin (Conservative: Bramley & Wonersh) proposed an amendment supporting the petition, saying residents had been left in limbo for more than a year.

Cllr George Murray (Farnham Residents: Farnham Bourne) seconded the amendment, saying the public had come expecting a debate.

“The principle is that the public are here for a debate about their petition,” he said. “They’ve spent a year or longer in lots of cases bringing this, and they’ve got more than 650 people agreeing with them.”

“These debates don’t happen very often,” he added. “If I were sitting where they are, it’s all legality and confusing. We could just debate it. Even if we don’t agree with it, at least we’re having a debate.”

Responding for the administration, portfolio holder for planning and deputy leader Cllr Liz Townsend (Liberal Democrat: Cranleigh West) said she sympathised with householders who had “fallen foul of the complex and inflexible nature” of nationally set CIL regulations.

However, she said recent legal developments reinforced the council’s position.

Referring to the High Court ruling in Luck v Bracknell Forest Council, she said the judgment confirmed that a charging authority does not have a broad power to withdraw a CIL liability notice once it has been validly issued.

“It is therefore clear now in law that a charging authority does not have the power to withdraw a charging notice for whatever reason they deem appropriate,” she said.

Cllr Townsend warned that the council could not selectively disregard CIL charges without wider consequences.

She said allowing liabilities to be withdrawn could lead to developers seeking to reclaim money already paid for infrastructure projects.

“We could have developers coming to us saying, ‘We want our two-million quid back that we paid towards schools in Farnham because we don’t think we should have paid it,’” she said.

Cllr Follows (Liberal Democrat: Godalming Central & Ockford) said councillors must comply with the advice of Waverley’s legal counsel.

“We have a duty to act legally, a duty to our residents to apply as much discretion as the law allows, and a duty to act factually,” he said.

Cllr Follows encouraged residents impacted by CIL charges to apply for the council’s discretionary review.

“You do not need to be scared of applying. You can go through it in good faith and have your case considered to the maximum level the law allows,” he said.

Councillors later unanimously voted in favour of a motion agreeing to commission a full and independent review into the behaviour and practices of Waverley Borough Council’s planning department in issuing and enforcing CIL liability notices to homeowners.

After the meeting, the Conservative opposition described the decision as a “cross-party victory”.

Cllr Austin said the vote was a step towards greater transparency and said the group would continue to press for further changes.

She paid tribute to the campaigners. “The perseverance of the CIL Injustice group led by Steve Dally is the reason we even had this debate. They have fought for fairness not just for themselves, but for residents across Waverley and nationally,” said Cllr Austin. “We will all not give up the fight.”

Mr Dally criticised the way the petition had been handled but said campaigners were encouraged by the outcome.

“Victims were pleased to see the call for an independent report was heard,” he said.

“Let’s hope the executive this time honours the wishes of council — and not as we experienced in January 2025, when councillors voted for a motion but showed no intent to honour it.”