Drewey Ambrose Price & Anor v South Cambridgeshire District Council

An enforcement notice must be served in accordance with the statutory service provisions, having regard to the identity and known addresses of the persons to be served. Where separate occupiers own separately addressed plots, placing multiple copies in envelopes at a general access gate may arguably fail to constitute lawful service. A local planning authority’s refusal to withdraw and re-serve a notice may also be arguable as irrational or procedurally unfair where the defective service deprived affected persons of statutory appeal rights. An assurance that enforcement action will be delayed does not restore those rights.

The claimants, registered owners and occupiers of separate plots forming part of a caravan site, sought permission to challenge an enforcement notice issued by the defendant local planning authority under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They alleged that the notice had not been lawfully served and challenged the Council’s refusal to withdraw and re-serve it after learning that it had not come to their attention.

The Council maintained that service was lawful, that an appeal to the Secretary of State provided an alternative remedy, and that the claim was out of time. The issues were whether the service challenge and the challenge to the refusal to withdraw were arguable.

1. Permission granted. Both grounds were arguable.
2. Under sections 172 and 329 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Council was required to serve the enforcement notice on the relevant owners, occupiers and materially affected interest-holders. The Council was seeking to serve 19 separate occupiers, whose plots had distinct addresses. In the claimants’ case, their address was known to the Council.
3. Section 329(1) identifies acceptable methods of service, including leaving the notice at the person’s usual or last known place of abode or at an address for service. Section 329(2) provides an alternative method where the statutory conditions apply. It was arguable that placing 19 copies of the notice in three envelopes at a general access gate, together with one further copy affixed to the land, did not amount to adequate or lawful service.
4. The challenge to the refusal to withdraw and re-serve the notice was also arguable. Once informed that the claimants had not received the notice, the Council arguably ought to have withdrawn and re-served it, particularly given their planning history and the likelihood that they would have exercised their statutory appeal rights.
5. The proposed Letter of Assurance did not restore those rights. It only assured that enforcement action would not be taken pending the planning appeals. It did not reinstate the claimants’ rights of appeal under section 174(2), including grounds concerning the validity of the notice and its compliance requirements.
6. The judge did not determine the time-limit issue. Since the alleged failure of service only came to the claimants’ attention on 8 February 2023, any question concerning timing could be addressed at the substantive hearing if the claim succeeded on the service ground. The parties were directed to submit a draft order containing case-management directions.

The judgment records that permission was refused on the papers by Mr CMG Ockelton, Vice-President of the Upper Tribunal, sitting as a High Court Judge, on 22 May 2023. The claimants renewed their application on 23 May 2023. The renewed application was heard by the Planning Court and both grounds were held arguable.