Cases - R v Hounslow London Borough Council, ex parte Dooley
Record details
- Name
- R v Hounslow London Borough Council, ex parte Dooley
- Date
- (2000); [1999]
- Citation
- P&CR 405; PLSCS 274
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Planning control
- Summary
-
On 3 November the local planning authority issued and served copies of an enforcement notice in respect of a restaurant and wine bar and the erection and use of extract ducting at the rear of the property. A stop notice was served on the same day. As the applicants contested the validity of service of the stop notice, a second stop notice was served on 10 November in the same terms as the first. The recipients applied for judicial review of the notices claiming that they should have been consulted first and that there was no power to serve a second notice.
The judge refused the application. Circular 10/97 advises discussions about alternative means of production or operation where practicable, but there is no legal duty to consult in this way. There is a clear danger that, in certain cases, consultation could frustrate the purpose of the stop notice.
There is nothing in the statute to limit the number of notices. The stop notices were consistent and there was no need to choose between the two.
The judge also held that section 187(3) carries no implication that the service of a stop notice is to be by personal delivery. Service is governed by section 329, which provides for various modes of service for any notice served under the 1990 Act. Furthermore, the effect of the provision is that, provided the notice has been served on one person who appears to have an interest in the land or to be engaged in any prohibited activity (section 183(6)), any person may be guilty of contravening it after a site notice has been displayed, unless he has no actual or constructive knowledge of its existence.