Our public law team has advised Sheffield City Council on securing a final charging order in enforcement proceedings relating to an unpaid Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liability of £1.3m.

The case highlights the effectiveness of the enforcement regime under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the courts’ willingness to support recovery action where appropriate.

Background

CIL is a statutory mechanism enabling local authorities to raise funds from developers to support infrastructure delivery.

The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 set out a prescriptive framework for both the imposition and enforcement of the levy. Effective enforcement is essential not only to ensure that the infrastructure funding gap is met, but also to protect the interests of local communities, maintain public accountability, and uphold the integrity of a regime that is deliberately strict.

The Regulations apply in areas where a local authority has consulted on, and approved, a charging schedule which sets out its levy rates and has published the schedule. Where a developer has failed to pay the levy, local authorities have access to a range of enforcement options available through the Regulations.

Enforcement approach

In this case, Sheffield City Council pursued recovery through a charging order, following the grant of a liability order by the Magistrates’ Court.

Our team worked with St Philip’s Chambers to obtain an interim charging order from the High Court, with the matter subsequently listed for a further hearing. The court granted a final charging order – a strong outcome securing the council’s outstanding debt against the developer’s land.

Costs

Perhaps of particular interest to practitioners in this field is the approach taken to costs. 

On behalf of the Council, it was submitted that fixed costs were not appropriate in the circumstances of this case, with reliance placed on Blacknest Gate Ltd v Seymour Realty Ltd [2020] 9 WLUK 313 (TCC).

The court accepted that:

• The high value of the matter (£1.3m);
• The unusual background to the debt; and
• The Council's entitlement to retain specialist solicitors and experienced counsel to protect significant public funds.

The District Judge accepted those submissions, finding that the complexity and value of the case, together with the importance of the matter to the Council, justified departing from the fixed costs regime. Costs were awarded on the standard basis, consistent with the approach taken in Blacknest.

What this means for local authorities 

This outcome is significant for local authorities and their legal representative, with the decision reinforcing that:

• Charging orders remain a practical and effective enforcement mechanism for unpaid CIL liabilities.
• The court retains discretion to depart from fixed costs where the value and complexity of the matter warrant it.
• Local authorities can appropriately instruct specialist legal teams when pursuing high-value enforcement action in the public interest.