Respondent depositing waste materials — Appellant local authority issuing “stop” notice — Whether “stop” notice validly served — Appeal allowed
The appellants issued a stop notice, under section 183 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in respect of land used by the respondent for the depositing of waste materials. A process server delivered copies of the notice to persons both at the respondent’s registered office and its principal office. However, the server failed to: (i) identify those persons; (ii) obtain their confirmation that they would pass on the notices to the appropriate officers within the company; or (iii) obtain receipts.
In November 2002, the appellants preferred an information to the magistrates’ court to the effect that the stop notice had been contravened. The magistrates dismissed the information on the ground that the stop notice had not been validly served, but referred the matter to the court for consideration.
The question for the court was whether the planning authority were required to prove that they had delivered a copy of the stop notice to the relevant premises or whether it was necessary to prove that the notice had been delivered into the hands of a director or a secretary of the company.
Held: The appeal was allowed
The service of the stop notice was governed by section 329 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and by section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972. Taken together, those sections covered a variety of methods of service, and it was sufficient for the appellants to have effected service in accordance with either section.
For the purposes of section 233 of the 1972 Act, as defined by the Interpretation Act 1978, a “person” could be a body corporate. On that basis, delivering a document to, or leaving it at, a company’s registered or principal office constituted service under section 233(2).
Although the service of a notice by a local authority could lead to criminal liability, that was no reason to adopt a restricted approach to the interpretation of section 233 or to suggest that a corporate body should have its attention specifically drawn to the existence of such notices. Given that important documents could be served on corporate bodies through the post, companies were expected to make the necessary administrative arrangements for their receipt by the appropriate officers of the company, and it was reasonable to expect the same approach to be adopted in relation to documents left at the company’s registered or principal office.
On that basis the stop notice had been validly served on the company under section 233. The matter was therefore remitted back to the magistrates.
Peter Wadsley (instructed by the solicitor to Gloucestershire County Council) appeared for the appellants; Ian Dove QC (instructed by Willans, of Cheltenham) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
