Allsop, R (on the application of) v Derbyshire Dales District Council

A notice under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 215 must identify the condition of land complained of and the steps required to remedy it with sufficient clarity to satisfy fairness and natural justice. Where the condition results from a lawful use not contravening Part III, section 215 cannot be used to require that use to cease. An invalid notice cannot be salvaged by later variation where it failed to disclose the substance of the mischief.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from the Derby Crown Court. The Crown Court had dismissed an appeal against a notice served under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, varying it so that it required cessation of storage of vehicles or trailers bearing unorthodox livery. The notice had described the problem more broadly as storage of vehicles and trailers, although the council’s actual complaint concerned graffiti on one trailer beside a conservation area. The High Court was asked whether the Crown Court had correctly construed section 215.

1. Appeal allowed and notice quashed. The Crown Court’s answer to the case-stated question was wrong.
2. Section 215 does not authorise a notice requiring cessation of a lawful use which is not alleged to contravene Part III. Section 217(1)(b), together with the separate power in section 102 and the compensation provision in section 115, supported that conclusion.
3. A section 215 notice must identify the complained-of condition and the remedial steps with sufficient clarity to enable the recipient fairly to understand the complaint and what must be done. This follows from natural justice and is particularly important because failure to comply is a criminal offence under section 216(2).
4. The notice conveyed that storage of vehicles and trailers as such was the problem. It did not fairly notify the recipient that the actual complaint was graffiti on a particular trailer in a particular position. It therefore fell outside the section 215 power.
5. The defect was substantive, not merely one of drafting. Section 217(5) could not retrospectively save the invalid notice by narrowing its wording. The council was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs in principle, with quantum and assessment to be agreed or referred to the judge.

• Derby Crown Court: dismissed the appeal against the section 215 notice, but varied the notice to limit it to vehicles or trailers bearing unorthodox livery.
• High Court (Administrative Court): answered the case-stated question “no”, quashed the notice and ordered costs in principle for the claimant.