CIL under Scrutiny: MHCLG Promises to consult on changes to Householder and Self-Build CIL Reliefs

April 29th was a big day in the House of Commons.

It was the day that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill received Royal Assent, become the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.

It was also the day that the the impact of the Community Infrastructure Levy on private homeowners was debated in Westminster Hall.

Whilst I fully acknowledge that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 becoming law is the more important event, we don’t actually have the final text of the Act available yet – so you are going to have to wait a few days for my thoughts on that one*.

For now, I will simply submit my pitch to nickname the Act EDCEA (pronounced Ed-See-A), and leave it at that. If you are feeling impatient, however, a high-level summary of the Act can be found in the MHCLG press-release.

Instead, I thought we would take a look at the Westminster Hall debate on the impact of CIL on individual householders.

Now, I know Hansard can be a bit dry, but I do recommend reading the transcript of the debate in full, as it makes for a really interesting read. Not least because of what it can tell you about the implications of local political issues for the national debate.

The big news from the debate is that MHCLG is going to consult on changes to Self-Build Relief and the common householder reliefs (being the relief for annexes and residential extensions) before the Summer recess.

With Matthew Pennycook stating that:

“through the forthcoming consultation, the Government will put forward proposals aimed at improving outcomes for householders and self-builders, while safeguarding the integrity of the CIL system and ensuring that local planning authorities can properly administer, scrutinise and enforce that system. We want to ensure that in the future, the system minimises the opportunity for procedural errors and that, when errors are made, it does not impose disproportionate penalties. We also want to prevent homeowners and self-builders from incurring significant and unexpected CIL charges, which, as we have heard today, can have significant consequences for individuals and their families.“

However, the debate also hinted at some other elements of the CIL regime which may be up for a second look.

For example, at one point Matthew Pennycook states:

“The Government appreciate that compliance with the process requirements of CIL can appear complex, particularly for developers who might not otherwise be involved in planning and development on a regular basis, or who do not have professional builders or advisers involved in the process. A householder developer might not be aware of their CIL liability until after planning permission stage, when a levy liability notice is issued by the authority. They might not fully appreciate the consequences that arise from commencing their development between permission being granted and commencement taking place.

Furthermore, the nature of the regulations means that developments that receive retrospective planning permission under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 cannot benefit from an exemption because, in planning terms, this is the grant of a new planning permission. A section 73A permission is treated as having commenced when that permission is granted. As a result, any exemption previously obtained does not carry over and it is not possible to comply with the procedural requirement of applying for an exemption before commencement” (my emphasis).

Which does somewhat suggest that there might be some softening of the rules around retrospective consents, which would be quite helpful for SMEs and other developers – as well as householders.

Similarly, earlier in the debate various members of parliament debated issues around the spending of CIL receipts and the impact of the Levy on SME Builders. Comments that seemed to receive a great deal of support in the chamber.

There was, however, no promise of immediate redress for anyone currently facing issues with the CIL system, nor of a wider review of the CIL Regulations overall. Which may well be disappointing for some.

Indeed Matthew Pennycook closed the debate by stating:

“Before I conclude, I will briefly address what I know is probably the biggest concern that exists, which is the issue of retrospectivity. I recognise that many hon. Members who have spoken today will be concerned not only about what we do in future to amend the regulations, but about how proposals will help constituents who have already incurred a CIL charge as a result of non-compliance with procedural requirements for securing an exemption, arising from the way the regulations were framed in 2014. I am afraid I have to repeat what I said earlier: I cannot comment on individual cases and facts that are not known to me, nor on the approach taken by specific charging authorities, but I want to reassure hon. Members here today that we take such concerns very seriously. They are actively informing our work to reform the system going forward.

The regulations in question have been in force for more than a decade and there will inevitably be a significant amount of variation between cases. There are limits on what the CIL legislative framework can do in such a context, but I remain committed to addressing those concerns in a revised system going forward, and I am more than happy, as I have been striving to do over recent months, to keep hon. Members with an interest in this issue and whose constituents are affected, fully updated. It is certainly not the case that when it comes to those already affected we intend to do nothing.”

So in short – reform to self-build and householder reliefs is coming. It won’t be soon and it won’t help everyone, but it is coming.

And that is a piece of good news for a hopefully sunny bank holiday weekend.

*in my defence, It is hard to analyse legislation that has yet to be formally published.