CIL Stop Notices – Time Barred?

Under regulation 90 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (“the CIL Regulations”) a collecting authority may serve a CIL Stop Notice in respect of a chargeable development. A CIL Stop Notice is a formal notice issued by a collecting authority to halt the chargeable development if the CIL Payment is outstanding, preventing the development from progressing further until the CIL Levy is paid.

The recent High Court case of Captain Lee Jones v Shropshire County Council [2025] EWHC 365 Civ dealt with the issue of whether the action of issuing and serving a CIL Stop Notice was time barred by virtue of section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”) which provides that an action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Factual Background

On the 5 June 2015 Captain Lee Jones (“the Claimant”) was granted planning permission from the erection of a detached house with a triple garage. The Claimant intended to carry out the development himself and to rely on the self-build exemption from CIL Liability as set out in regulation 54A of the CIL Regulations.

On 10 July 2015, the Claimant emailed Shropshire County Council (“the Defendant”) noting his intention to begin development the following day but did not complete or submit the requisite CIL forms as stipulated by regulation 54A of the CIL Regulations.

On 13 August 2015, the Council notified that date as the deemed date of commencement of the chargeable development and issued a Demand Notice requiring immediate payment of the chargeable amount in the sum of £39,361.43 (including a surcharge of £2,500).

In subsequent correspondence, the Claimant noted that he had intended his email of 10 Jul 2015 to be notice of his commencement of the development in reliance on the self-build exemption. The Council did not question this intention but insisted that the statutory procedure set out in regulation 54B must be complied with and the Claimant had failed to do this. Consequently, the Claimant was not able to rely on the self-build exemption and the development was liable for CIL in the amount demanded.

From 2015 to 2022 many (seven!) years of lengthy correspondence between the parties, an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, a High Court challenge, an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, an application to the Magistrates for a Liability Order, another High Court challenge and the service of two CIL Warning Notices on the Claimant ensued until the 23 September 2022, when the Council issued and served the CIL Stop Notice (subject to this challenge) on the Claimant prohibiting all works on the land that had not already been carried out in relation to the grant of planning permission. The CIL Stop Notice stated that full payment of the unpaid chargeable amount was required for it to be withdrawn.

Submissions

It was the Claimant’s position that the issue of a CIL Stop Notice is an action to recover a sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment, and so is subject to the time limit of 6 years imposed by section 9 of the 1980 Act. The Claimant submitted that the word “action” in the context of the 1980 Act includes administrative action by a local authority exercising statutory powers. The Claimant therefore argued that the cause of action accrued when the Demand Notice was issued in 2015 and so, the Stop Notice issued in 2022 was out of time.

The Defendant submitted, and the Court agreed, that the administrative act by a public authority exercising statutory powers did not fall within the ordinary meaning of an “action” brought in a court of law. There was nothing in the 1980 Act to support the contention that the 6 year time limit was intended to apply to such administrative action.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the issuance of a CIL stop notice is not an “action” to recover a sum under the 1980 Act. The Court emphasised that the term “action” in the 1980 Act refers to legal proceedings in a court of law, not administrative actions by local authorities.

Therefore, the Council was not “time barred” from issuing the stop notice and the application for judicial review was refused. The implications of this decision being that local authorities can issue CIL Stop Notice’s beyond the six-year period applicable to court actions – which is a powerful tool in enforcing compliance with the CIL charging regime.

For developers, an unpaid CIL liability can give rise steps to prevent their development from being completed – which of itself is likely a considerable deterrent from not paying CIL liabilities as they fall due(!).