The High Court has dismissed a developer’s challenge to two Community Infrastructure Levy liability notices issued by Swindon Borough Council. The judgment in Segrue Investments Ltd v Swindon Borough Council [2026] EWHC 2080 (Admin) is a sharp reminder that the statutory CIL review deadline matters even where the parties are still discussing whether the calculation is right.
The developer maintained that qualifying existing floorspace at the former HSBC bank should have reduced the charge from £125,274.64 to nil. But the formal Regulation 113 review route had not been used in time, and the court rejected an attempt to use Regulation 65 as a later route back into the calculation.
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.
The Forum redevelopment and the two CIL liability notices
The case concerned The Forum, Marlborough Road, Swindon SN3 1QN, a former HSBC bank. Segrue Investments had two relevant consents.
- A prior approval under Class R for the change of use to 15 apartments, granted on 11 November 2022
- A planning permission dated 26 January 2023 for a change from office uses to three apartments and one dwelling, with external alterations
Swindon issued the first liability notice, reference CIL-2022-0105-LN1, on 8 December 2022. A second notice, CIL-2023-0005-LN1, followed on 17 February 2023.
The claimant’s case was that the existing building should have been treated as qualifying existing floorspace when the chargeable amount was calculated. If that argument succeeded, the CIL liability was said to fall from £125,274.64 to zero.
Lawful use is not the same as an “in-use building” for CIL
This distinction sits at the heart of the dispute. For CIL purposes, it is not enough simply to say that an existing building had a lawful planning use. The relevant question is whether the statutory conditions for an “in-use building” are satisfied.
Under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, the calculation can take account of qualifying existing floorspace. Government’s current CIL guidance explains that the building must meet the required lawful-use test, including the relevant period of actual lawful use within the three years before planning permission first permits the chargeable development.
The former bank had closed to customers in October 2020. Segrue’s advisers argued that the lawful planning use continued even though the branch was no longer trading. Evidence referred to the lease, business rates, maintenance and services, and the continued operation of facilities within the building.
Swindon’s response was that this confused lawful planning use with the separate CIL question of whether the building was actually in use for the purposes of the Regulations. Later evidence included a further CBRE letter stating that the safe and ATMs had remained in daily use up to closure. By then, however, the statutory review deadlines had become critical.
The CIL review deadline: Regulation 113 gives only 28 days
Regulation 113 allows the person who has been served with a liability notice to request a review of the chargeable amount. The request must be made within 28 days of the liability notice.
After the first notice, the developer asked the council for more time. Swindon was willing to continue discussing the calculation and indicated that it would consider further material informally until the end of January 2023. Crucially, the council also made clear that it could not extend the statutory Regulation 113 deadline.
The statutory deadline for the first liability notice expired in early January 2023. The second notice had its own 28-day period, expiring on 16 March 2023.
That second date mattered because a Valuation Office Agency appeal decision concerning another bank had already been published by then. The High Court therefore rejected the suggestion that the claimant had been deprived of the opportunity to use the formal review route simply because relevant evidence emerged later.
Regulation 114 is the next formal appeal route
If a Regulation 113 review does not resolve the amount, Regulation 114 provides the appeal route to the Valuation Office Agency. The current government guidance explains that an appeal against the chargeable amount must generally be made within 60 days of the liability notice, and the review step must first have been used where required.
Planning Geek’s guide to CIL appeals and reviews sets out the main routes and time limits. The important point from Segrue is that informal exchanges with the collecting authority do not stop the statutory clock.
Why Regulation 65 did not reopen the calculation
Having missed the ordinary review and appeal routes, Segrue relied on Regulation 65. That provision deals with revised liability notices where the chargeable amount changes.
The developer argued that the later evidence about the building’s use meant Swindon should revisit the chargeable amount and issue revised notices.
Sir Peter Lane rejected that interpretation. If Regulation 65 could routinely be used to reopen a disputed calculation whenever new material was produced after the event, the specific time-limited procedures in Regulations 113 and 114 would be substantially undermined.
The court did not say that Regulation 65 can never operate after new information emerges. The point is narrower and more important: it is not a general late-review mechanism for a liability notice simply because the liable party now has a better evidential case.
Regulation 65(5) still leaves the collecting authority a discretion to issue a revised liability notice at any time. Sir Peter Lane said that, for example, overtly cogent late evidence which was genuinely unavailable earlier and could not reasonably have been obtained might justify substantive consideration. Segrue’s evidence did not fall into that category because its substance could and should have been assembled for the regulation 113 review and regulation 114 appeal process.
The judicial review was also brought too late
There was a second procedural problem. The High Court held that the judicial review itself was out of time. Public law proceedings must be brought promptly and, in any event, within the applicable judicial review time limit unless an extension is justified.
The availability of the purpose-built CIL review and appeal machinery also mattered. The court considered that the claimant had had a suitable alternative remedy but had not used it successfully within the statutory timetable.
All four substantive grounds failed
The claim was dismissed. In summary:
- Ground 1 failed because the claimant’s interpretation of Regulation 65 was rejected
- Ground 2 failed because Regulations 65(4) and 65(5) did not impose the asserted duty to undertake a fresh substantive reconsideration of the late material
- Ground 3, alleging irrationality, failed
- Ground 4, concerning reasons, failed because the council had given a legally adequate reason: the statutory review and appeal periods had expired
The full judgment in Segrue Investments Limited v Swindon Borough Council [2026] EWHC 2080 (Admin) is hosted in the Planning Geek library.
What should a developer do if a CIL liability notice looks wrong?
The practical lesson is fairly unforgiving: treat the liability notice as a document with a live deadline, not as the opening move in an informal negotiation.
- Check the liability notice immediately against the permission, floorspace and charging schedule
- Gather evidence of any qualifying existing floorspace straight away, including evidence of actual lawful use during the relevant statutory period
- Diarise the 28-day Regulation 113 deadline as soon as the notice arrives
- Do not assume correspondence, meetings or an officer’s willingness to reconsider material extends the statutory deadline
- Use the Regulation 113 review route formally where the chargeable amount is disputed
- Move to the Regulation 114 appeal route within time where that remains appropriate
Our main Community Infrastructure Levy guide, CIL process page and CIL FAQ explain the wider system, including existing floorspace and commencement issues.
The trap exposed by Segrue
The judgment does not decide that an empty building can never qualify, nor does it turn the CIL “in-use” test into a simple question of whether the front door was open to the public. The statutory test must be applied to the evidence and the particular building.
What it does make clear is procedural. A developer should not assume that it can carry on an informal discussion with the LPA, miss the Regulation 113 deadline, and then use Regulation 65 later to obtain the review it did not pursue in time.
Published: 26th August 2026 — CIL review deadline
