A Basingstoke enforcement notice has survived even though the council failed to serve it on the new owner of the property.
The appeal concerned Flats 1 to 4, 51 and 53 Alexandra Road in Basingstoke. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council issued an enforcement notice on 4th June 2025 over the painting of the building and the replacement of traditional timber windows and doors with uPVC.
The Inspector accepted that the appellant had not been served as required. That did not automatically invalidate the notice because section 176(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allowed the service failure to be disregarded where no substantial prejudice had been caused.
The property changed hands just before the notice
The appellant completed the purchase on 14th May 2025. By coincidence, the council carried out its Land Registry search on the same day.
The ownership record had not yet caught up with the transaction. When the enforcement notice was issued on 4th June 2025, it was therefore not served on the new owner.
That mattered because section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires a copy of an enforcement notice to be served on the owner and occupier of the land and on other materially affected interests identified by the authority.
The appellant appealed on ground (e), the statutory ground used where copies of an enforcement notice were not served as section 172 requires. Planning Geek explains all seven statutory grounds in our guide to enforcement appeal grounds.
Basingstoke enforcement and section 176(5)
The Inspector accepted that the appellant had not been correctly served. The key question then became whether that failure had caused substantial prejudice.
Under section 176(5) of the 1990 Act, a failure to serve a copy of an enforcement notice as required may be disregarded where neither the appellant nor the person who should have been served has been substantially prejudiced by the failure.
On the facts here, the purchaser learned of the notice, lodged a valid appeal before it took effect and was able to make detailed professional representations. The Inspector found that the appellant had therefore had a proper opportunity to challenge the notice.
The ground (e) appeal failed.
Planning Geek analysis: this is not permission for councils to be casual about service. Section 172 imposes a statutory service requirement. The point is narrower: defective service does not necessarily destroy an enforcement notice where section 176(5) applies and the person concerned has not suffered substantial prejudice.
Our existing enforcement appeal grounds guide already explains this principle and why the prejudice question is fact-sensitive.
The Article 4 and conservation area arguments also failed
The property lies in the Brookvale West Conservation Area. An Article 4 Direction was relevant because permitted development rights had been removed for works including external painting and the replacement of windows and doors.
The Inspector described the area as predominantly Victorian and Edwardian in character, with traditional joinery contributing to its appearance. The appeal building comprised a pair of cottages, including a former shop.
The light grey painted exterior was found not to reflect the recurring off-white and light cream appearance in the conservation area. The replacement uPVC windows and doors also had thicker, blander profiles than the traditional painted timber features they replaced.
The Inspector concluded that the works harmed the character and appearance of the conservation area. The ground (a) appeal therefore failed and deemed planning permission was refused.
For the wider position, see Planning Geek’s guides to Article 4 Directions and conservation areas.
Four months was not enough for replacement timber windows
The appellant did succeed on ground (g), which challenges the period allowed for compliance.
The notice required compliance within four months. The Inspector accepted that the number of windows and doors involved, and the need for at least some bespoke timber fenestration including the former shopfront, meant time would be needed to identify a suitable supplier and then design, manufacture and install the replacements.
The appellant sought 12 months. The Inspector considered that excessive, but agreed that four months was too short and extended the compliance period to six months.
Buying a property does not wipe away enforcement risk
The decision contains a practical warning for purchasers. The appellant acquired the property after the unauthorised works had taken place and said they were unaware of the council’s enforcement investigation.
Planning enforcement is concerned with the land and the breach, not simply with the person who carried it out. A purchaser can therefore acquire a property carrying serious planning liabilities even where the ownership record has only recently changed.
This is not a substitute for conveyancing advice, but it is a reason to check the planning history carefully where works or uses may be contentious. Our guide to buying a house with an enforcement problem explains the planning issues to look for.
The Planning Geek takeaway
The Basingstoke appeal is a useful reminder that two different questions must be kept apart.
First, was the enforcement notice served as section 172 requires? Here, it was not served on the new owner.
Second, did that failure substantially prejudice the person who should have been served? Here, the answer was no because the purchaser knew about the notice in time, appealed before it took effect and was able to contest it properly.
That is why the service failure did not bring down the notice.
Sources and documents
- Planning Inspectorate appeal APP/H1705/C/25/3369273 full decision, issued 14th September 2026
- Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 172
- Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 176
Created: 15th September 2026
0 Comments