A newly published CIL appeal is a useful warning for anyone relying on existing floorspace to reduce a Community Infrastructure Levy bill: space can physically exist inside a building and still fail to qualify as gross internal area for the CIL calculation.
In CIL Appeal 1891221, published on 28th August 2026, the dispute concerned four loft/storage areas in buildings due to be demolished for a 24-flat redevelopment. One loft area counted. Three did not.
The important lesson is not “lofts do not count”. The Appointed Person’s reasoning turned on floor level, permanent access and evidence — and, notably, low headroom was not the reason the three areas failed.
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
What was the development?
The full decision in CIL Appeal 1891221 concerns demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment with an H-shaped building ranging from two to five storeys, containing 24 self-contained C3 flats, together with disabled parking, refuse and cycle storage, play space, landscaping and boundary treatment.
Planning permission had been granted on appeal. A first Liability Notice was issued, a section 96A non-material amendment was later approved, and the collecting authority then issued a second Liability Notice.
The appellant challenged the charge in the correct sequence: first a Regulation 113 review, which the collecting authority rejected, followed by a Regulation 114 chargeable amount appeal to the Valuation Office.
There was no dispute about the charging rate, the GIA of the proposed development or indexation. The fight was over how much existing “in-use” floorspace in buildings to be demolished could be deducted.
The four loft areas at the centre of the appeal
The existing second-floor accommodation included four loft/storage areas. The collecting authority accepted one as GIA because the approved plan showed it with permanent access via a fixed staircase.
The other three were shown as accessible through loft hatches. The appellant argued that all four should count: the spaces were said to be permanently accessible, used for storage and interconnected, and later drawings were said to provide a more accurate survey than the original planning drawings.
The collecting authority disagreed. It said the later survey plans did not prove permanent access and pointed out that no time-stamped photographs or equivalent evidence had been supplied. It also relied on the approved existing floor plans, which had not been amended by the later section 96A approval.
The Appointed Person agreed with the authority and dismissed the appeal.
What does GIA actually mean for CIL?
The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 use gross internal area in the chargeable amount calculation but do not themselves define GIA.
The Appointed Person therefore adopted the definition in the RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition, describing it as the generally accepted method of calculation.
At its heart, GIA is the area measured to the internal face of the perimeter walls at each floor level. The Code includes, amongst other things, structural, raked or stepped floors measured horizontally, horizontal floors with permanent access beneath them and mezzanine floor areas with permanent access.
That phrase “floor level” became central to the decision.
Why one loft counted and three did not
The Appointed Person accepted the collecting authority’s approach that, for a loft area to be regarded as a floor for GIA purposes on the evidence in this case, it needed permanent access — typically a fixed staircase — as part of the building’s normal internal circulation.
Only one of the loft sections was shown with permanent stair access. At least two of the four loft areas could not be accessed safely or conveniently for normal day-to-day use without a fixed stair. The decision described loft-hatch access as inherently intermittent and non-permanent.
More importantly, the Appointed Person concluded that the three disputed areas did not comprise a “floor level” on the evidence. That was what took them outside the RICS GIA definition used in the appeal.
The case therefore does not create a rule that every loft reached through a hatch can never be GIA. It records how the RICS definition was applied to these particular spaces and this particular evidence.
Low headroom was not the problem
This is one of the most useful details in the decision. The appellant referred to including areas with at least 1.5 metres of headroom. But the RICS definition expressly includes areas with headroom below 1.5 metres.
So the rejected floorspace did not fail because the roof sloped down too low. The decisive issue was whether the spaces constituted a qualifying floor level with the necessary permanent access, supported by adequate evidence.
That is an important distinction for anyone carrying out a CIL calculation. Do not import a 1.5-metre headroom test where the measurement standard being applied does not use one to exclude GIA.
Boarded storage space is not automatically deductible floorspace
The appeal is also a warning against assuming that a boarded area used for storage must count simply because you can stand things on it.
For CIL, several questions have to line up. Is the area actually GIA? Is it part of a relevant existing building? Does the building satisfy the “in-use building” test? Is that qualifying GIA being demolished or retained in a way which falls within the Schedule 1 calculation?
Those are separate questions. A physical space can exist and be useful as storage, but if it is not GIA on the measurement basis being applied, it never gets as far as becoming deductible GIA in the demolition calculation.
Existing floorspace and demolition credit: keep the tests separate
The CIL formula allows qualifying GIA in existing buildings to reduce the net chargeable area in defined circumstances. For demolition, Schedule 1 uses the GIA of parts of in-use buildings which are to be demolished before completion of the chargeable development.
An “in-use building” is a relevant building containing a part that has been in lawful use for a continuous period of at least six months within the three years ending on the day planning permission first permits the chargeable development.
It is therefore useful to think in this order:
- identify the physical areas said to exist
- measure whether those areas are GIA on the applicable basis
- establish which existing building parts satisfy the statutory in-use requirements
- apply the Schedule 1 retained/demolished floorspace rules
- only then arrive at the net chargeable area
Our CIL process guide and CIL FAQ explain the wider liability process.
What if my loft is boarded, used — or has a ladder?
This is where the appeal becomes much more interesting than a simple ‘lofts do not count’ headline. The decisions point to three separate questions: the physical floor, the means of access and the evidence of actual use.
A permanent conventional staircase? That is the strongest position. In Appeal 1891221 the one loft area accepted as GIA was the area shown with permanent stair access. But even then, you still need to establish the extent of the qualifying floor and satisfy the separate CIL rules for existing in-use floorspace.
Stairs that lead to a loft hatch? The published decisions do not appear to answer that exact configuration. A genuine fixed staircase forming part of the normal internal circulation is very different from a pull-down ladder, but a hatch at the top may still raise factual questions about how permanent and convenient the access really is. I would not treat the presence of the hatch, by itself, as a statutory test either way.
A fixed or pull-down loft ladder? A 2025 VOA decision, CIL Appeal 1871723, is particularly useful. The appellant argued that the loft had a fixed, permanent access structure securely attached to the building fabric. The Appointed Person nevertheless regarded it as a loft ladder rather than a permanent staircase and refused to include the loft in existing GIA. A further 2025 decision, Appeal 1877081, again treated evidence of permanent stair access as important.
A boarded loft used for household storage? Boarding is helpful evidence that a usable surface exists, but it is not automatically the same thing as a qualifying structural floor level. In Appeal 1891221 the appellant specifically said the disputed lofts had been used for storage, yet three areas still failed. The Appointed Person also observed that spaces reached only through loft hatches do not generally comprise a structural floor.
A loft that is actively used — perhaps for a model railway? That is a better evidential story than a dusty void nobody enters, because genuine regular use can support the argument that the space is capable of day-to-day use. But I have not found a published CIL appeal saying that active use alone converts a hatch-accessed or inadequately floored roof void into GIA. A model railway room reached by a conventional staircase over a structural floor would be a much stronger case than boards over joists reached by a loft ladder.
Very low headroom? Surprisingly, that is not the obvious problem. The RICS GIA definition used in these appeals expressly includes areas with headroom below 1.5 metres. Both Appeal 1891221 and Appeal 1871723 reinforce that point.
None of these Appointed Person decisions is a court judgment creating a binding rule that ‘no staircase means no GIA’. The wording in 1891221 is that permanent access is required, typically via a fixed staircase. That is why the safe practitioner approach is to look at the whole factual picture rather than treating one feature as a magic switch.
The approved plans carried real weight
The appellant said the original plans were approximate, not suitable for measurement and carried the familiar warning not to scale from the drawing. Later material was said to be more accurate.
That did not solve the evidential problem. The collecting authority pointed out that the section 96A non-material amendment had not amended the approved existing floor plans. Those plans therefore remained part of the relevant approved material.
The Appointed Person preferred the original, more detailed loft plan when considering internal partitioning. The later plan used opaque shading which may have obscured partitions. No photographs had been produced to demonstrate an open loft area or the claimed permanent access.
Ultimately, only one of the four loft areas was accepted as GIA.
Do the evidence work before demolition
There is a very practical lesson here. If a development relies on existing floorspace deductions, do not leave the evidence until after the building has gone.
Before demolition, secure:
- a proper measured survey showing the measurement basis used
- clear floor plans identifying every claimed floor level
- dated photographs of the spaces and their access
- photographs showing fixed stairs, hatches, partitions and floor construction
- historic approved drawings where they help establish the building configuration
- records establishing lawful use and the statutory in-use period
- a clear reconciliation between the survey, approved plans and the floorspace entered into the CIL calculation
Once a building has been demolished, a later dispute can turn into an attempt to reconstruct physical conditions from old drawings, recollections and incomplete records. That is a much weaker place to be.
Regulation 113 and 114 worked exactly as intended here
The procedural history is worth noticing too. The appellant requested a Regulation 113 review within the 28-day review period. After the authority upheld its calculation, the appellant made the Regulation 114 appeal on chargeable amount.
That contrasts sharply with Segrue Investments v Swindon, where missed CIL review and appeal opportunities later became a major problem.
It also sits neatly alongside Herod Property v Westminster. Herod is the warning about commencing a Class MA scheme before CIL liability has been properly resolved. Appeal 1891221 is different: it is about what existing floorspace actually qualifies in the calculation.
Together they make a useful three-part CIL checklist: procedure, commencement and measurement.
The practical message from Appeal 1891221
Not every square metre physically inside an existing building necessarily counts as deductible GIA for CIL.
Loft and storage areas need to be tested against the measurement definition actually being used. Permanent access and whether the space is genuinely a floor level can matter. Headroom below 1.5 metres does not automatically exclude an area under the RICS GIA definition used here. And where the existing building is going to disappear, the quality of the evidence collected before demolition can make all the difference.
If the charging authority disagrees with your floorspace calculation, do not lose sight of the procedural clock either. Our CIL reviews and appeals guide explains the routes for challenging a charge.
Primary sources
The principal source is the Valuation Office/HMRC full decision in CIL Appeal 1891221, dated 14th July 2026 and published 28th August 2026. We have also checked the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the current RICS page for the Code of Measuring Practice. RICS confirms that, pending publication of the seventh edition, the sixth edition remains in use.
Created: 30th August 2026 | CIL floorspace
