C & P Reinforcement Ltd, R (on the application of) v East Hertfordshire District Council

A listed building enforcement notice requiring steps to retain remains in a safe and protected manner imposes a continuing obligation. The specified compliance period determines when the required state of affairs must have been achieved; it does not limit the obligation to that period. After the compliance period, the owner is in breach if the required state of affairs has not been brought about or is not maintained while the notice remains extant. The notice must nevertheless state clearly, within its four corners, what the recipient must do. Words such as retain bear their ordinary prospective and continuing meaning where the purpose of the notice is to prevent further harm to a listed building.

The claimant was convicted by justices of failing to comply with a listed building enforcement notice issued under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The notice required the remains of a partially demolished listed building to be retained in a safe and protected manner, with a compliance period of one month.

By case stated, the claimant appealed to the Administrative Court. The central issue was whether the obligation continued after expiry of the specified compliance period, so that failure to maintain the required condition on later dates constituted an offence.

1. The appeal was dismissed and the question posed by the justices was answered in the affirmative.
2. The enforcement notice was sufficiently clear. Read as a whole, it identified the breach, explained the objective of preserving the historic remains, required retention in a safe and protected manner, and specified when the obligation had to be satisfied. This complied with the principle in Miller-Mead v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963] 2 QB 196, that a person facing penal consequences must be able to ascertain the required conduct from the notice itself.
3. The one-month period was the period within which the claimant had to bring about the required state of affairs. Under section 38(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, restoration or alleviation works were intended to establish a condition continuing into the future. It would defeat the statutory purpose if the owner could comply at the end of the period and immediately reverse the steps taken.
4. Section 43(1) made the continuing condition material: after the compliance period, a prosecution could be brought at any time while the notice remained in effect if the required step had not been taken. The ordinary meaning of retain was prospective and continuing. The reasoning in R (on the application of Lynes) v West Berkshire District Council [2002] EWHC 1828 (Admin) and Maltedge v Wokingham District Council (1992) 3 PLR 136, concerning specified compliance periods, did not require a different result.
5. The justices had found non-compliance on two dates while the notice remained in force. Although they had not expressly found compliance during the compliance period, the findings were sufficient for the conviction. Costs were awarded to the council in the sum of £4,125.

• Justices for East Hertfordshire: convicted the claimant of failing to comply with the listed building enforcement notice.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by case stated, answered the question in the affirmative and dismissed the appeal.