Over Taylor Biggs

The tenant, Toni & Guy Hairdressers, were tenants of the ground floor of 10 Fulham Broadway under a 17 year Lease contributing 40% of the costs of Landlord's services, which included the repair and maintenance of the exterior and main structure of the building and its redecoration.

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham had served a Notice under Section 215 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 claiming that the front elevation of the building had fallen into disrepair and was adversely affecting the street scene.  Therefore the visual amenity of the area had been adversely affected.

The Notice required the repair of the rendering to the front elevation at first, second and third floor levels and for it then to be re-painted. 

The tenants of the ground floor objected to the service of the Notice and indicated that unless it was withdrawn (as it did not relate to the ground floor premises) they would appeal.

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham would only confirm that generally speaking they would only enforce a Section 215 Notice against those persons capable of undertaking the work.  This confirmation was unsatisfactory so far as the ground floor tenants were concerned and they felt that they had to appeal.

On the appeal, the Magistrates Court was satisfied that the Section 215 Notice was properly served, as this needed to be done on all owners and occupiers.  It therefore dismissed the tenant's appeal and the tenants therefore referred the matter to the High Court. 

The High Court held that the Notice should have been served against the first, second and third floor owners, as the relevant work related to those parts only.  The Judge referred to Government best practice Guidance in relation to Section 215 Notices requiring them to be clear, precise and unambiguous.  It was simply not possible to refer to the building as a whole, even if parts only of it required the necessary remedial work.

The Judge did express the view that he thought the Court proceedings were not strictly necessary given that Hammersmith and Fulham had indicated clearly that it would not seek to rely on the Notice in respect of the ground floor.  The Judge was left with the impression that the recovery of costs against the Council seemed to be a strong motivating factor.  Nonetheless, the decision may concentrate the minds of local planning authorities, who may be at risk if they fail inadequately to identify the particular parts of a property affected by such a Notice.