AC-2024-LON-002192 - [2025] EWHC 2815 (Admin)

Fecha: 31-Oct-2025

Mrs Justice Steyn DBE

Mrs Justice Steyn DBE :

Introduction

This is an appeal brought pursuant to s.289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the 1990 Act’). The appellant, James Turner, appeals against the decision of the Secretary of State’s appointed Inspector, dated 31 May 2024 (‘the Decision’), made following an inquiry held on 21-22 May 2024, to dismiss his appeal against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council to issue an Enforcement Notice on 20 September 2021 in respect of land known as Gladwins Wood, Pinstone Way, Tatlin End, Denham (‘the Land’).

The appeal to the Inspector was based on statutory grounds (b), (e) and (g), with an appeal pursuant to ground (a) being withdrawn one clear working day before the first day of the inquiry: s.174(2) of the 1990 Act. The Inspector dismissed the appeal in respect of ground (e). He allowed the appeal in respect of one of the twelve allegations concerning ground (b), and extended the period for compliance with some of the requirements of the Enforcement Notice under ground (g), but save to that limited extent he dismissed the appeal and upheld the Enforcement Notice (subject to minor variations). In a separate decision, the Inspector refused Mr Turner’s application for an award of costs in respect of ground (e) and made a partial award of costs against him, in favour of Buckinghamshire Council, in respect of ground (a).

This appeal is concerned solely with ground (e), by which the appellant contended that “copies of the enforcement notice were not served as required by section 172”: s.174(2)(e) of the 1990 Act. The appellant was granted permission to appeal against the Decision by Lang J on the following two grounds:

The Inspector erred in law in concluding that the occupiers were duly served with the Enforcement Notice by fixing it to the entrance gate (‘Ground 1’); and

ii)

The Inspector erred in law in concluding that the occupiers were not substantially prejudiced even if the Enforcement Notice was not duly served on them (‘Ground 2’).

In addition, the appellant was given permission in respect of one further ground, by which he challenges the Inspector’s refusal to award him his costs in respect of ground (e) (‘the Costs Ground’). It is common ground that if, and only if, the appellant succeeds on both Grounds 1 and 2, he should also succeed on the Costs Ground.