Oval Estates: CIL phasing after commencement
R (Oval Estates (St Peter’s) Limited) v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2020] EWHC 457 (Admin) concerns the difference between intending to build in phases and having a planning permission which legally provides for phased development.
The developer added phasing to its permission after work had started. That did not retrospectively undo the CIL liability which had already arisen.
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
- [2020] EWHC 457 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 28th February 2020
- Judge
- Swift J
- Case number
- CO/2636/2019
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 permission was unphased when work began
The development was at Cobblers Way, Radstock. Outline permission was granted in 2016, followed by reserved matters in 2017. The developer assumed liability for CIL and commenced work in October 2018.
Although a proposed phasing plan appeared in the reserved-matters documents and the section 106 agreement referred to phases, the court found no operative requirement making the permission a phased permission at commencement.
A section 96A amendment granted in February 2019 added a binding phasing plan. The developer argued that CIL should then be payable only for the phase which had begun, rather than the whole development.
A non-material change is still a change
The court rejected the suggestion that the amendment merely confirmed what the permission had always meant. A change being non-material for section 96A purposes did not mean that nothing had changed.
At commencement, the permission did not expressly provide for phases. Under the provisions applicable to the case, the developer therefore became liable for the chargeable development as a whole.
The later amendment could not reverse that event. The court also declined to import the particular statutory treatment of section 73 permissions into section 96A, for which the same provision had not been made.
The liability notice did not set the commencement date
The developer also argued that the position should be tested when the council issued its liability notice, after the amendment. That argument failed.
The judgment distinguishes the function of each notice from the event which gives rise to liability to pay. In this case, commencement—not service of the later liability notice—was the operative event.
Read Trent and Braithwaite for the separate questions concerning defective notices and the appropriate way to challenge them.
The statutory appeal route still mattered
The court emphasised that the statutory review and appeal procedures would normally be the first route for disputing a calculation. It nevertheless excused the failure to use them in these particular circumstances, including the council’s delayed notice and the pressure to commence to retain funding.
The judicial review was therefore considered, but failed on the merits. It would be wrong to say the court rejected the case simply because the developer had not appealed.
The practical lesson is to settle the legal phasing position before commencement. The judgment concerns the regulations applicable to its facts, not a guarantee about every later amendment or CIL calculation.
Read Oval Estates
The complete judgment is available to Gold Members.
Oval Estates Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026