Berg v Salford City Council

A notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may require works which improve property as part of remedying an adverse condition; the statute does not require a distinction between maintenance and improvement. Amenity is a matter of fact and degree, assessed by location and common sense. A visual disamenity may suffice, even without actual interference or public complaints, and the property need not be uniquely worse than its surroundings. The relevant date for the notice’s validity is service, while the appropriateness of the required works is assessed when the appeal is determined. Requirements must be sufficiently clear, but contextual standards such as suitability to the surrounding area are not necessarily unlawful. Costs remain subject to the court’s broad discretion.

The appellant owned commercial premises subject to a notice served by the respondent under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The notice required works to window boarding and exterior woodwork. The Magistrates’ Court upheld it with amendments. The Crown Court dismissed a further appeal, made further amendments and ordered costs.

The Crown Court stated eight questions concerning the scope of section 215, amenity, visual disamenity, timing, clarity, third-party rights, amendment of notices and costs.

The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed.

1. Scope. Section 215 concerns the condition of land and its effect on amenity, not whether works are labelled maintenance or improvement. Repair may inevitably improve property. Works may therefore go beyond literal maintenance if they are necessary to remedy the condition and prevent adverse effect on amenity.
2. Amenity. Amenity is assessed by fact and degree, location and common sense. A property need not be clearly distinguishable from other properties, and poorer conditions elsewhere do not prevent action against it. Visual features may constitute disamenity even if difficult to see beyond a short distance. Actual interference with other persons, or public complaints, is unnecessary where visual disamenity is established.
3. Timing. Validity is assessed at service. The appropriateness of the works is assessed when the Magistrates’ Court or Crown Court determines the appeal.
4. Clarity and third-party rights. A requirement to carry out works in a manner appropriate to the property and surrounding area was sufficiently clear. Some subjectivity did not make it invalid. The evidence did not establish interference with the adjoining owner’s rights.
5. Amendments and costs. The notice was not required to be quashed because requirements had been withdrawn or amended. The appeal powers permitted amendments in the appellant’s favour. Costs in local-authority appeals are subject to a broad discretion, and the Crown Court had considered the appellant’s partial success and means.

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.

1. Manchester Magistrates’ Court: dismissed the appeal against the section 215 notice, subject to amendments.
2. Manchester Crown Court: dismissed the further appeal, upheld the notice as amended and ordered costs.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.