Blight notice – Qualifying interest – Sections 149 and 168(1) of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Claimant company owning freehold of terraced house – Property renovated then let for three months after which becoming vacant – Claimant serving blight notice on respondent council – Whether claimant having qualifying interest – Whether actual occupation required for claimant to be “owner-occupier”
In November 2005, the claimant company acquired the freehold of a terraced house, which it renovated with a view to letting the property. The house was let from June to August 2006, after which it remained vacant. In October 2006, the claimant served a blight notice on the respondent council, pursuant to section 150 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. By a counternotice, the respondents contended that the claimant did not have the right to serve such a notice since it did not have a “qualifying interest” in the property, within the meaning of section 149; it was not an “owner-occupier” as defined in section 168(1) since it had at no point been in actual occupation of the property.
The claimant referred the respondents’ objection to the Lands Tribunal. It contended that it’s interest fell within section 168(1)(a), which defined an “owner-occupier”, in contradistinction to a “resident owner-occupier”, as a person who occupied the hereditament “in right of an owner’s interest in it” and had done so for the six-month period preceding the service of the blight notice. The claimant contended that that definition did not require a physical presence and that its interest as owner and the rights associated with that interest, conferred “occupation” for the purposes of the provision. It submitted that, otherwise, it would be unnecessary for section 168 to distinguish between an “owner-occupier” and a “resident owner-occupier”. The question of whether the claimant had a qualifying interest was decided as a preliminary issue.
Decision: The preliminary issue was decided in favour of the respondents.
Although it was possible for a company to be an owner-occupier of a dwelling and the claimant had an owner’s interest in the property, it did not satisfy the occupation requirements of section 168(1). The refurbishment works that the claimant carried out did not amount to occupation; even if they did, section 169(1) would still not be satisfied, since the property had been let from July to August 2006 and, accordingly, the claimant had not been occupied during the six-month period preceding its blight notice. By contending that it occupied the property solely by virtue of its freehold ownership, the claimant was relying upon a constructive de jure occupation that resulted from the mere ownership of land. That would not suffice for section 168(1) purposes; occupation in that context meant actual occupation and the claimant’s legal possession of the property did not constitute de facto occupation. Consequently, the claimant had no qualifying interest and its blight notice was invalid.
The preliminary issue was determined by way of written representations.
Sally Dobson, barrister
