Giordano: CIL and retained floorspace deductions
R (Giordano Limited) v London Borough of Camden Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1544 concerns a deduction in the Community Infrastructure Levy calculation for retained parts of a building.
The court rejected the council’s insistence that the building must already be physically ready for the intended use. Under the provision in issue, an existing implementable planning permission could establish the necessary legal ability to use it.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2019] EWCA Civ 1544
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 12th September 2019
- Judge
- Sir Ernest Ryder, Lindblom LJ and Hickinbottom LJ
- Case number
- C1/2019/0023
Six flats became a proposal for three larger flats
The building at Windmill Street had permission from 2011 for six flats. That permission was lawfully commenced and remained capable of completion. No CIL had applied to that permission.
The developer then obtained a 2017 permission for three larger flats. The relevant residential floorspace was the same, or virtually the same, but the building remained a partly converted shell.
Camden issued a liability notice for £547,419.09 and refused the deduction. Its interpretation was upheld in the High Court but overturned on appeal.
Two different routes to a floorspace deduction
The then regulation 40(7) distinguished retained parts of an in-use building from retained parts of another relevant building where the intended use could already be carried on lawfully and permanently without further planning permission.
The second route did not repeat the first route’s requirement for actual lawful use over a specified period. Reading it as though it did would blur a distinction the legislation had deliberately made.
Giordano concerns that second route. It does not remove the evidential requirements for a different deduction based on an in-use building.
Legal ability was not physical readiness
The relevant question was whether, on the specified day, the use and any necessary building works could be undertaken lawfully without obtaining another permission.
The court held that an extant and implementable permission could satisfy that question. The building did not have to be occupied already, or fully fitted out with kitchens and bathrooms, before the new permission was granted.
That avoided requiring the owner to finish one conversion only to undo parts of it immediately to carry out another. It did not depend on speculation about the owner’s future intentions.
The decision was returned to the council
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It considered the deduction engaged on the undisputed facts, but returned the matter to Camden for redetermination.
This is a calculation authority, not a general exemption from CIL for every conversion or change between residential layouts. The retained area, relevant date, lawful use and ability to implement the earlier permission all need to be established.
Read Hourhope for a different existing-use issue. Giordano interpreted the regulations applicable to its facts; use the version of the calculation provisions governing the development being advised on.
Read the Giordano judgment
The complete Court of Appeal judgment is available to Gold Members.
Giordano Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026