Caravans and Automobiles Ltd v Southall Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1963 |
| Date | 1963 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Town Planning - Enforcement notice - Service - Land used by several persons - Notice served on one user - Whether service valid - “Occupier” -
Company A carried on the business of the display and parking of caravans and trailers for sale, and displayed signboards on a site which was used also for a similar business by company B. Both companies used the land with the knowledge and consent of the tenant of the site, who was a shareholder of company A and a director of company B, but he had not granted to either company any sub-tenancy or other interest in any part of the land, and they did not occupy it jointly; company A made a money payment to the tenant. Limited planning permission had been granted for such use of the land, but after it had expired, the companies continued to use the land.
The local planning authority served an enforcement notice on company A as “the occupier of land” under section 23 of the
Held, that whatever the exact meaning to be attached to the term “occupier” as used in section 23 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, it meant all the occupiers who were occupiers of different parts of the site the subject of the enforcement notice; and that there had not been a valid service of the enforcement notice since, if both companies were truly in occupation, they were not in joint occupation and only one occupier had been served, and if they were not in occupation, the tenant as the occupier had not been served; and that, accordingly, the appeal should be allowed and the conviction quashed.
Per Lord Parker C.J. I doubt whether cases on occupier's liability and rating cases are of any assistance in considering who is the occupier for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
Per Havers J. I do not find assistance from the authorities dealing with the common law liability of an occupier or rating.
CASE STATED by Brentford justices sitting at West Ealing.
On October 9, 1962, an information was preferred by Southall Borough Council as agents for the Middlesex County Council, the local planning authority, against the appellant company, Caravans and Automobiles Ltd., that they had continued to use certain land for the display and parking of caravans and trailers in contravention of a notice dated April 3, 1962, served on them as the occupiers requiring them to discontinue the use of the land, and without planning permission, contrary to section 24 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
The following were among the facts found by the justices. The notice was served on the company as the occupier of the land. The freehold of the land was held by the London Co-operative Society Ltd., and one Harry Gold had been and was the tenant of the land under a tenancy agreement made between him and the freeholders on December 2, 1957. No enforcement notice was served on the tenant Gold. The local planning authority knew and had at no time disputed that Gold was the tenant of the land. Gold was a shareholder of the company and of the West End Caravan Company Ltd.; he was also a director of the West End Caravan Company Ltd., but not of the appellant company. The company traded under the name of the Greenford Caravan Company, and there were signboards on the land which carried the name: Greenford Caravan Company. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevens v Bromley London Borough Council
...1 All E.R. 841, C.A. The following additional cases were cited in argument: Caravans and Automobiles Ltd. v. Southall Borough Council [1963] 1 W.L.R. 690; [1963] 2 All E.R. 533, D.C. 1 Town and Country Planning Act 1962, s. 45 (3) (a): see post, p. 408E-F. Westminster Council v. Southern Ra......
-
American Drywall Building Centre Ltd Appellant v Development Control Authority Respondent [ECSC]
...notice on both the owner and occupier and in that instance notice was not served on the owner and quoted the case ofCaravans and Automobiles Ltd vs Southall Borough Council1963 ALLER page 533 which confirms that notice on the occupier alone was insufficient. He contented that the rules of N......
-
Preliminary Sections
...Ors. v. I.G.P. (1957) N.R.N.L.R . 8. ........................................................ 390 United Marketing Co. v. Hasham Kara (1963) 2 All E.R. 533. 2 3 58 73 . University of Lagos v. Aigoro (1984) N.S.C.C. vol.15 745 University of Lagos & Anor. v. Aigoro (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. Usenfowok......