David Drew, 63, spent several years planning and constructing the property on a two-acre plot in rural Wokingham, investing an estimated £1.2 million in what he intended to be a permanent family home. The house, which features mock-Tudor styling, landscaped gardens, extensive parking and a detached annexe, was completed only for Mr Drew to receive enforcement action from Wokingham Borough Council weeks later.
At the heart of the dispute is the council’s claim that the main dwelling was constructed more than 10 metres away from the location approved in the original planning consent and that an additional structure on the site constituted a second, unauthorised dwelling. As a result, the council ruled that Mr Drew was no longer eligible for an exemption from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), a charge designed to fund local infrastructure such as roads, schools and green spaces.
From dream home to financial pressure
CIL is primarily aimed at property developers and is calculated based on the size of new buildings. However, individuals building a home for their own occupation can apply for a self-build exemption, provided strict conditions are met. Mr Drew says he applied for and received that exemption before construction began and believed he was fully compliant.
According to his account, the positioning error occurred after he adjusted the layout to allow sufficient space for a driveway to access the front of the property. He maintains the house remained entirely within the boundaries of land he owned and attracted no objections from neighbours. Nearby land uses include a commercial storage site on one side and an equestrian therapy facility for children with additional needs on the other.
Despite successfully appealing against an initial enforcement notice that required demolition of the house, Mr Drew was later informed that because a retrospective planning application had been necessary, the CIL exemption no longer applied. The council subsequently issued a bill totalling £292,174.11, which also included floor space from the annexe, originally used as temporary accommodation during construction.
Unable to meet the cost outright, Mr Drew took out a second mortgage, adding more than £2,300 a month to his outgoings. He now says the financial burden is unsustainable and has placed the property on the market.
Questions over process and timing
Mr Drew has criticised the council’s handling of the case, particularly the timing of enforcement action. He points out that Wokingham Borough Council was responsible for building control inspections throughout the project and signed off the completed build before enforcement proceedings began.
He argues that if the siting issue was as significant as claimed, it should have been identified earlier during inspections. He also disputes the classification of the annexe as a separate dwelling, describing it as a shed-like structure used temporarily during construction.
The council has responded by stating that building control officers are not legally required to verify the precise siting of foundations and that responsibility for compliance rests with the builder. It also says the breaches came to light while investigating a separate enforcement matter relating to unauthorised business activity on the site, which has since ceased.
Council’s position
In a statement, Wokingham Borough Council said it had not acted unfairly or disproportionately. Officials emphasised that the dwelling was built more than 10 metres away from the approved location, placing part of the development in protected countryside, and that planning permission had been granted for only one dwelling, not two.
The council added that CIL exemptions cannot be applied retrospectively under national regulations and are not available where a second dwelling is involved. While acknowledging that minor administrative errors can sometimes lead to harsh outcomes elsewhere, the authority insists this case involved significant departures from approved plans rather than paperwork mistakes.
Wider implications
The case highlights growing concern among self-builders about the complexity of the planning system and the potentially severe financial consequences of errors, even when developments remain within privately owned land. Housing and planning experts note that CIL rules are rigidly applied and offer councils limited discretion once a breach is established.
For Mr Drew, the outcome has been life-changing. What began as a long-term family project has turned into a legal and financial struggle that he says has eroded trust in the planning process. While he accepts that mistakes were made, he argues that the scale of the penalty is disproportionate and that clearer guidance and earlier intervention could have prevented the situation.
As the property goes up for sale, the dispute serves as a cautionary example for anyone undertaking a self-build project, underscoring the importance of exact compliance with planning approvals and the high stakes involved when regulations are interpreted strictly.
Source:Africa Publicity
