London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Thornton Park (London) Ltd [2021] EWHC 1459 (Admin)
Lambeth v SSHCLG is an important High Court decision on CIL late-payment surcharges. It answers a deceptively simple question: if a revised Liability Notice or Demand Notice is issued, does that erase a surcharge which has already arisen because CIL was paid late?
Mrs Justice Thornton held that it does not. CIL liability and the relevant payment dates arise under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. Liability and Demand Notices record and communicate that position. They do not create it afresh every time a revised notice is served.
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
- [2021] EWHC 1459 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
- Judgment date
- 28th May 2021
- Judge
- Mrs Justice Thornton DBE
- Case number
- CO/3423/2020
The developer missed the CIL instalments
Thornton Park had assumed liability for CIL on a substantial mixed-use development in Lambeth. A Demand Notice required payment in two instalments, due in January and July 2019.
Those instalments were not paid. Lambeth therefore imposed late-payment surcharges under regulation 85.
The development was later altered through a non-material amendment, which changed the chargeable amount. That led to revised Liability Notices and revised Demand Notices.
The Inspector treated the revised notice as a reset
Thornton Park appealed the surcharges. The Inspector accepted its argument that, because an earlier Demand Notice ceases to have effect when a revised notice is served, Lambeth had to wait for the surcharge timetable to run again from the revised notice.
On that basis the Inspector quashed the late-payment surcharges.
Lambeth challenged that decision. The Secretary of State accepted in court that the Inspector’s interpretation was wrong.
CIL liability arises from the Regulations, not the notices
The court approached the CIL Regulations purposively.
Where a person has assumed liability, liability to pay CIL arises on commencement of the chargeable development under regulation 31. The payment timetable is then governed by regulations 69B to 71 and any applicable instalment policy.
The late-payment surcharge under regulation 85 is triggered when the relevant amount remains unpaid after the statutory period following the date on which payment was due.
Liability and Demand Notices are administrative
A Liability Notice records and informs the liable person of the CIL liability. A Demand Notice records and informs the liable person of the amount and payment date, including any interest or surcharge.
The notices are important, but they do not themselves determine when liability arises. Nor does serving a revised notice recreate the underlying liability from scratch.
A revised notice does not wipe the slate clean
Regulations 65 and 69 say that an earlier Liability Notice or Demand Notice ceases to have effect when a revised notice is issued or served. Thornton Park relied heavily on those words.
The court rejected the suggestion that this extinguishes liabilities which have already accrued. A revised notice may reflect a changed chargeable amount or other updated particulars, but it does not erase a surcharge or interest already incurred because an earlier payment was late.
Otherwise a developer could potentially avoid late-payment consequences simply by creating a reason for a revised notice to be issued.
The Inspector’s surcharge decision was quashed
The court held that Lambeth had lawful authority to impose the surcharges. The Inspector had misinterpreted regulation 85 by treating the revised notice as restarting the statutory timetable.
The claim therefore succeeded.
Why Lambeth still matters
The practical point is straightforward: do not assume that a later amendment to a development, or a revised CIL notice, gives a fresh payment holiday for amounts which were already overdue.
The current CIL Regulations should always be checked because they have been amended repeatedly, but the distinction drawn in Lambeth between the statutory liability and the administrative notices remains important.
Read the full Lambeth judgment
The approved High Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Related Planning Geek guidance
See our guide to CIL surcharges, penalties and missed forms and the wider Community Infrastructure Levy section.
Lambeth CIL Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026