- Planning and Community Infrastructure Levy (Lambeth London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Planning analysis: This case raises a point of construction in relation to regulation 85 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL Regulations), and the extent to which the surcharge liability for payment is contingent on the service of a liability and/or a demand notice, issued under the CIL Regulations by a collecting authority, in circumstances where a revised liability and/or demand notice is issued or served. In particular, does the previously incurred late payment surcharges cease to be payable? The court held that it did not and that liability for a late payment surcharge was not contingent on a liability or demand notice or expunged by the service of a revised liability or demand notice. Written by John Litton QC, Landmark Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial