Turner v Secretary of State for Housing: Enforcement notice service on multiple occupiers upheld

The High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an enforcement notice served in respect of Gladwins Wood, a registered ancient woodland in Buckinghamshire that had developed into a substantial commercial operation with numerous storage containers, plant hire compounds, and scaffolding businesses.

James Turner appealed against an Inspector's decision to uphold Buckinghamshire Council's enforcement notice, focusing on whether the notice had been properly served on occupiers under section 174(2)(e) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The central issue concerned the Council's service method: affixing copies to entrance gates rather than to individual compounds within the site.

The service challenge

The site contained dozens of separate occupiers operating from distinct compounds, with constantly changing tenancies and no comprehensive records. The Council served the notice on Turner and identifiable occupiers by post, but relied on affixing copies to the entrance gates for remaining occupiers whose identities could not be ascertained.

Turner argued that section 329(2)(b)(ii) of the 1990 Act required service on each occupier's specific "premises"—their individual compound—rather than the site generally. He contended that MJL Contracts Ltd, occupying Plot W12, had not been served because the notice was not affixed to an object within their plot.

Mrs Justice Steyn DBE rejected this interpretation. The "premises" for service purposes meant the land to which the enforcement notice related—the entire planning unit. This reading aligned with the requirement in section 172(2)(a) to serve "the occupier of the land to which it relates". The Inspector had correctly determined that the appeal site constituted the relevant premises.

Practical considerations

The judgement emphasised that requiring service on each individual compound would frustrate Parliament's intention to enable enforcement action. In this case, the Council would likely have needed a magistrates' warrant to access the site, given Turner's uncooperative approach. The constantly changing layout and occupier identities would have made comprehensive service on individual compounds practically impossible.

The Court noted that the requirement to affix notices "conspicuously" remained significant. Service would not be valid if a notice were placed in an inconspicuous corner. Here, affixing to entrance gates across the sole access route satisfied this requirement.

Turner relied on the contrast between section 329(2)(b)(ii) ("on those premises") and section 329(3) ("on the land"), but the Court found this unpersuasive given the contextual analysis.

Substantial prejudice

On the alternative ground concerning substantial prejudice under section 176(5), the Inspector had concluded that even if occupiers were not served, they suffered no substantial prejudice. All occupiers knew about the subsequent inquiry but none attended or made representations. Only MJL Contracts Ltd complained, asserting they would have appealed without explaining any grounds for doing so.

The Court held this fact-specific determination was one the Inspector was well-placed to make. Turner's own professionally represented appeal, initially including all grounds, provided occupiers with effective representation. The Inspector's assessment that no occupier submissions would have materially affected the outcome was not unreasonable.

The decision confirms that enforcement notice service on large, multi-occupied sites can be effected through affixing to entrance gates, provided this is done conspicuously. The practical approach reflects the established concept of the planning unit and prevents unscrupulous landowners from frustrating enforcement through complex occupancy arrangements.