Berkshire man faces £104,000 CIL bill after retrospective home extensions, council says

A Berkshire father of four is facing a £104,000 charge under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) after retrospective planning applications for a home extension on his semi-detached property were considered under a planning enforcement process. Officials say Khalid Hussain breached approved plans by making alterations that extended beyond what was originally permitted, and that CIL exemptions do not apply to retrospective schemes.

Hussain, a taxi driver who operates in the area and owns a property described as a gated six-bedroom with a large driveway and a two-bedroom annexe in the back garden, had been granted permission to build a side and rear extension and to expand his loft. He ultimately carried out at least six changes not included in the initial application, including two additional bathrooms on the first and second floors, a larger dormer in the loft, and a roof change from a hip to a gable, all without proper planning approval. He says the work has been paused for almost a year as he struggles to finance further progress.

The council maintains that Enforcement Officers found breaches of the approved plans, and that Hussain’s retrospective submission was refused due to design concerns. After appealing, a revised retrospective application was approved in January 2025. Under national regulations, developments approved retrospectively cannot receive CIL relief or exemption, and Wokingham Borough Council says the liability notice for the 2025 permission reflects these rules. The authority adds that while the charge cannot be waived, payment can be arranged in installments under its policy. Officials also emphasize they are not punitive over small mistakes by residents who lack planning familiarity, but say this case involves a planning breach rather than a minor discrepancy.

Hussain says he knew “the ins and outs” of CIL were complex but argues the levy is not proportionate to the changes. He has said he and his family—his wife and two younger children—have endured “sleepless nights” and mental strain as they navigate the enforcement process. He contends that the charge appears to apply to the entire extension rather than just the parts altered retrospectively. He notes that when authorities first issued an enforcement notice, he was told he would need to demolish the whole extension before any resolution could be reached, a threat he says caused further distress. “I’d made some changes to the original plans and so I put some retrospective planning in,” he explains. “Then they hit me with a CIL charge of nearly £104,000.”

The property, originally a three-bedroom home before extensions were carried out, remains unfinished. Hussain says the family has been living in a granny annexe at the back of the property, which contains two bedrooms, a bathroom and a separate kitchen, while the main house sits largely dormant due to financial constraints. Neighbors raised concerns about the size of the dormer; Hussain, however, asserts the alteration did not overlook neighboring properties. He adds, however, that the broader dispute is not about a single planning error but about the way CIL is applied to retrospective schemes and, in his view, how the council wields its powers to secure payments.

In response, a council spokesperson said planning permission for the extensions was granted in 2019 with CIL relief applied at that time. They noted that subsequent works did not follow the approved plans and were subject to enforcement. After a 2023 retrospective application was refused for design reasons and an appeal in 2024 upheld that refusal, the council approved a further retrospective application in January 2025. They stressed that, under national regulations, retrospective developments cannot receive CIL relief or exemption, and that while the charge cannot be waived, arrangements can be made to pay in installments. The spokesperson added: “We would reiterate that we are not over-zealous in pursuing CIL and would look reasonably at small mistakes by residents who are not familiar with planning regulations. But this case relates to a planning breach rather than a minor discrepancy and Government regulations are clear on the approach that the council needs to follow.”