Toni & Guy (South) Ltd & Anor v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the land identified in the notice must be the same land whose condition adversely affects amenity and on which remedial works are required. The notice must be served on the owners and occupiers of that land. A local planning authority cannot lawfully describe an entire building as the relevant land where only discrete floors cause the amenity harm. The ground in section 217(1)(c) addresses over-enforcement: it concerns works exceeding what is reasonably necessary to remove the adverse effect, not the recipient’s inability to carry out works. The statutory enforcement provisions do not necessarily protect an occupier who lacks control over the works.

This was an appeal by case stated from District Judge Sweet’s decision at West London Magistrates’ Court. The District Judge dismissed the appellants’ appeals against a notice served under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The notice described the relevant land as the whole building at 10 Fulham Broadway, but required works only to the first, second and third floors. The appellants occupied the ground floor and had no ownership, occupation or access rights to the upper floors. The central issues were whether the authority was required, or entitled, to serve the notice on the ground-floor occupiers and whether the notice was excessive or otherwise invalid.

1. The appeal was allowed and the section 215 notice was quashed as against the appellants.
2. Section 215(1) permits service only where the condition of identified land adversely affects amenity. The land in respect of which the owner and occupier may be served must be the same land to which the remedial works under section 215(2) relate. The authority therefore had to identify the first, second and third floors, rather than the whole building, as the relevant land.
3. The authority was required to serve the notice on the owners and occupiers of the land causing the amenity harm. It had no power to serve the notice on the ground-floor occupiers because no land owned or occupied by them was in the condition causing the adverse effect. The practical purpose of the notice is to require specified works from persons with ownership or occupation rights over the affected land.
4. The appellants could not rely on section 217(1)(c). That ground concerns over-enforcement, where the remedial works exceed what is reasonably necessary to remove the adverse effect on amenity. It does not address whether the recipient has power to undertake the works.
5. The court rejected any suggestion that section 216 would have protected the second appellant from enforcement proceedings or supplied a defence based merely on its inability to carry out the works. The court declined to decide the separate submission that the notice was a nullity, since the appeal succeeded on the statutory-power point and the issue could affect persons who were not parties.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by case stated allowed; the notice was quashed as against the appellants.
• West London Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Sweet dismissed the appellants’ appeals against the section 215 notice.