Introduction 

Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is, on its face, a relatively simple statutory mechanism permitting a local planning authority to require land to be maintained where its condition adversely affects amenity of the local area. However, I have found that in practice it gives rise to a complex regime which is civil in origin and discretionary in application but enforceable through the criminal law. As a criminal defence barrister who regularly deals with cases of this nature, I felt that it would be useful to outline a brief guide to the legislation to help laypeople understand what can be quite a difficult area of the law. 

I will look at the statutory ingredients of the offence arising from non-compliance, the scope of the underlying power, the meaning of amenity, and the principal avenues of challenge. I will also look at the practical and forensic issues which arise in defending such cases. 

The Statutory Framework for Section 215 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Section 215(1) provides that where it appears to the local planning authority that the amenity of a part of their area, or of an adjoining area, is adversely affected by the condition of land in their area, they may serve a notice.

The statutory structure is straightforward and governed by the various sections of the TCPA 1990:

• There is a discretionary power to serve a notice (s.215);
• There is a requirement that the notice specifies remedial steps and a compliance period of not less than 28 days ;
• There is a right of appeal to the magistrates’ court (s.217);
• There is criminal liability for non-compliance (s.216) and
• A parallel power of direct action with cost recovery (s.219).

Government Best Practice Guidance emphasises that the power is broad, applying to ‘land and buildings’, and that ‘land’ includes buildings by virtue of s.336 . It is also expressly discretionary and intended to be used as part of a wider enforcement and regeneration toolkit.

The Ingredients of the Criminal Offence (s.216)

The criminal offence is created by section 216. Its elements can be analysed as follows.

Service of a Valid Section 215 Notice

The prosecution must prove that a notice was lawfully served on the defendant as owner or occupier. Defects in service or identification of the relevant person may be fatal, although the statutory scheme permits some flexibility where ownership changes during the compliance period .

The Notice Requires Specified Steps Within a Defined Period

The notice must specify the steps required and specify a compliance period of at least 28 days . There is a real need for precision in the notice. The guidance repeatedly stresses that notices must be ‘clear, precise and unambiguous’ . Vague or overly broad requirements may give rise to either a potential appeal or grounds for defending non compliance breaches. 

Failure to Comply Within the Compliance Period

An offence for failure to comply may be made out by failing to take the required steps within the specified period. Proof is typically evidentially straightforward and relies on inspection evidence, photographs, and officer testimony.

Status as Owner or Occupier

Liability for non compliance may attach to the person on whom the notice was served as owner or occupier. The statutory scheme allows for reallocation of liability where responsibility shifts during the compliance period.

Legal considerations 

The Statutory Defence

The statute provides a limited defence where the defendant proves that the failure was attributable to another person and that all reasonable steps were taken to secure compliance. This introduces a due diligence type concept. In practice, the evidential burden is significant.

A Continuing Offence

Post-conviction, failure to comply gives rise to a continuing offence attracting daily financial penalties . This materially increases exposure and is often deployed as leverage in enforcement strategy.

What is the concept of ‘Amenity’ within s215?

The statutory trigger is the adverse effect on ‘amenity’. The term is deliberately undefined. The ODPM guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/town-and-country-planning-act-1990-section-215-best-practice-guidance makes clear that amenity is a matter of fact and degree which is context-specific and assessed by reference to the condition of the site and its impact on the surrounding area .

This breadth allows flexible intervention across a wide range of circumstances encompassing everything from derelict buildings to overgrown land; but it also creates potential areas for challenge. An important limitation is that s215 is concerned with condition, not aesthetics. The modern case law illustrates that the power cannot be used to regulate lawful design choices absent disrepair. This distinction is often decisive.

What is the scope of the Power under s215?

The scope of works that may be required is extensive. It includes matters as diverse as:

• clearance and tidying;
• demolition;
• repair and repainting;
• enclosure and landscaping.

Government guidance demonstrates that the provision has been used across a wide range of sites, including town centre frontages, rural land, listed buildings, and partially completed developments. Importantly, the notice must not and cannot require works which themselves would constitute a breach of planning control. If this is the case it may be exploited on appeal or in defence.

Appeals and Pre-Enforcement Challenges

Section 217 provides a structured appeal mechanism to the magistrates’ court.
The statutory grounds for challenge are limited but significant:

• no adverse effect on amenity;
• condition attributable to lawful use or operations;
• excessive requirements;
• unreasonable compliance period .

The appeal suspends the effect of the notice pending determination. The court has power to quash or vary the notice. From a legal perspective, the appeal stage is critical. It is often the only opportunity to challenge the underlying merits before criminal liability comes into play.

Evidential and Practical Considerations

Examining the Drafting of the Notice

Defects in drafting are a recurrent feature in contested cases. Common issues include lack of specificity in required works, internal inconsistency and requirements exceeding what is necessary. These issues go directly to both appeal grounds and the fairness of prosecution.

Evidence of Amenity Harm

Although the concept is broad, the authority must still establish that the condition of the land adversely affects amenity. The guidance emphasises the importance of objective evidence such as photographs as well as site inspections and clear evidence on the impact upon the locality of the alleged harm.

Proportionality

The requirements imposed must be no more than necessary. Overreach is a frequent basis for successful challenge.

Human Rights Considerations

Interference with property rights engages Article 1 of the First Protocol and, potentially, Article 8. However, the guidance indicates that such interference will ordinarily be justified by the public interest in environmental quality and amenity.

Considerations in Defending s215 cases

From a defence perspective, the principal lines of challenge to a s215 notice can be:

• No adverse effect on amenity
• Condition attributable to lawful use
• Requirements exceed what is necessary
• Procedural defects in service or drafting
• Reasonable steps defence under s.216

In practice, the most effective challenges tend to focus on the first and third grounds, supported by detailed factual and photographic analysis.

It is worth also considering the effect of two appellate cases on conducting these cases, the first in Berg v Salford City Council.  In this case the appellant challenged, by way of case stated, the decision of the Crown Court to uphold a notice served under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of commercial premises situated on a main road. The local planning authority had formed the view that the condition of the property adversely affected the amenity of the surrounding area and required a series of remedial steps, including the replacement of window boarding, the removal of advertisements, repair of timber, and repainting. The appeal raised a number of issues of principle concerning the scope of the power, in particular whether section 215 could extend beyond mere maintenance into improvement, the proper construction of ‘amenity’, whether visual impact alone was sufficient, the relevant timing for assessment, and whether the requirements of the notice were sufficiently clear.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the statutory language was not confined to maintenance and did not preclude steps which might properly be characterised as improvements, provided they were directed at remedying the condition of the land and were no more than necessary to address its adverse effect on amenity. In construing ‘amenity’, the court endorsed the Best Practice Guidance as the most appropriate interpretative aid, emphasising that the concept is one of fact and degree to be assessed by common sense in its local context. It further held that visual disamenity alone was capable of engaging the statutory power, without any requirement to demonstrate physical interference with neighbouring land. The relevant date for assessing the justification for the notice was the date of service, while the appropriateness of the required works fell to be considered at the date of determination by the court. Finally, the notice was upheld as sufficiently clear and precise, with the court accepting that reference to suitability within the surrounding area was an intelligible and lawful standard.

In Allsop v Derbyshire Dales DC an appeal was allowed on the basis that section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does not empower a local planning authority to require the cessation of a lawful use of land, nor to issue a notice that fails clearly to identify the mischief it is intended to remedy. The authority had purported to serve a notice requiring a farmer to cease storing trailers on his land, but it later emerged that the true concern was graffiti on a single trailer. The court held that, where the use of land is lawful and not in breach of planning control under Part III, section 215 cannot be used to circumvent the statutory regime governing control of use. Further, as a matter of fairness and legal certainty, particularly given that non-compliance constitutes a criminal offence, a section 215 notice must clearly and accurately convey the nature of the complaint and the steps required to remedy it. In this case, the notice failed to do so, as it did not make apparent that the issue was the painted trailer rather than the general use of the land. That defect was fundamental and could not be cured by variation, with the result that the notice was quashed as falling outside the statutory power.

The above two cases give an indication of the breadth of the statutory power and how the defence can attempt to delineate it in practical terms. 

Sentencing in s.216 Cases

Failure to comply with a notice may bring about a prosecution under s216. Sentencing for offences under section 216 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/216/2013-03-13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is governed by the summary nature of the offence and the continuing breach framework. On conviction, the court may impose a fine, now effectively unlimited in England, reflecting the seriousness and duration of the non-compliance . Of particular significance is the continuing offence provision: where a defendant fails to remedy the breach after conviction, further daily fines may be imposed for each day the default persists. In practice, courts focus less on punishment for past breach and more on securing future compliance, with fines calibrated to incentivise prompt remedial action, taking into account the financial benefit (if any) derived from non-compliance and the defendant’s means.

Conclusion

Section 215 provides local planning authorities with a powerful and flexible tool to address land which detracts from the amenity of an area. Its apparent simplicity masks a complex interaction between planning judgment and criminal liability.

The key in any s215 litigation lies in how precise the steps taken by the Local Authority were. This will require a carefully drafted notice, supported by clear evidence of amenity harm. For defendants, the breadth of the concept of amenity and the proportionality of the required works may offer scope for challenge. Ultimately, the provision operates most effectively not as a punitive mechanism, but as a tool to require compliance, its success often lying in the threat of enforcement rather than its execution.

In defending the issue of such a notice or a prosecution under s216 matters are inevitably fact specific and those subject to proceedings are well advised to seek specialist legal advice. 

If you find yourself facing proceedings involving a s215 notice it is advisable to seek specialist legal representation to get the best possible result and avoid a criminal conviction. Quentin Hunt is a Barrister who specialises in the crossover between planning and criminal law. He is particularly adept at negotiating solutions with local planning authorities so as to avoid court action. He accepts instructions both through solicitors and directly from members of the public. You can contact Quentin for a free, no obligation conversation about your case.