Abatement notice meaning

In this issue: Business tenancies Disputes and remedies Property Disputes in Scotland LexTalk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional Property disputes updates Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary New and updated content Trackers Latest Q&A Business tenancies Competing approaches to a tenant’s ‘holding’ in claims for renewal of business tenancies (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Medley Assets Ltd) In Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Medley Assets Ltd [2024] Lexis Citation 358, a contested application to renew a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) was examined. The landlord relied on ground (f), asserting a reasonable need to recover possession to undertake substantial works. A key ancillary question concerned the scope of the tenant’s ‘holding’, hinging on how that term is construed in LTA 1954, s 30, and whether it aligns with or differs from ‘holding’ in LTA 1954, s 32 (the property to be included in any new tenancy)....

In this issue: Social housing Education Children's social care Social care Healthcare Governance Licensing Planning Environmental law and climate change LexTalk®Local Government: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Social housing Homelessness suitability—human rights and religious freedom (Ghaoui v LB Waltham Forest) Reported to be the first ruling to consider Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) alongside the assessment of whether accommodation provided to discharge a homelessness duty under the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996) is suitable. The appellant maintained that the offer of accommodation to fulfil the main homelessness duty was inappropriate because the respondent council had not properly taken into account the consequences of their decision to keep their children in a local faith school. The appeal was dismissed. The judgment offers guidance to local authority officers and applicants’ representatives on addressing suitability, location...

Mr Stephen Luck v Bracknell Forest Borough Council [2025] EWHC 2984 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling confirms that a disqualifying event for self-build relief can occur at any stage up to the end of the three-year clawback window, including prior to completion. A sale that brings the self-build intention to an end is a disqualifying event under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948, reg 54D(2)(a), with the result that the relief is lost and the full CIL becomes due. Accordingly, developers and self-builders should manage CIL actively when schemes evolve or land is disposed of: use the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948, reg 32 to transfer liability; and rely on the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948, reg 74B to obtain abatement before the new permission is commenced, and hard-wire these measures and reimbursement obligations into contractual arrangements. The decision further clarifies that collecting authorities cannot invoke the Community...

Introduction The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a tariff charged on development. Its statutory footing sits in Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), which authorises the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for CIL’s imposition. Those rules were introduced as the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (the CIL Regulations), SI 2010/948. CIL covers both England and Wales, though this Practice Note addresses only the method for calculating CIL in England for any planning permission issued on or after 1 September 2019 (or a liability notice, whenever served, relating to such a permission). For assistance on working out the CIL sum payable in Wales, and in England for a permission granted before 1 September 2019 or a liability notice, whenever served, for such a permission, see Practice Note: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)—calculating CIL in Wales. Context No single provision in the CIL Regulations, SI 2010/948 neatly sets out the precise circumstances in which CIL liability is triggered. Nevertheless, this can be inferred from...

Who makes the determination? Local authorities (LAs) alone carry the duty to decide whether land constitutes contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990). They may only pass this duty on in line with their statutory powers under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. When weighing up a potential determination, LAs can take into account information or guidance from the Environment Agency (EA), Natural Resources Wales (NRW), or another suitably qualified specialist. Even so, the final call rests with the LA. In practice, an officer acting under delegated authority, or a committee through a formal resolution, will usually make the determination. Whichever decision-maker is involved, they must ask the correct question: is the land contaminated land, or not? At that point, it is premature to consider the suitability of serving a remediation notice; that assessment comes after the determination. For instance, in Shelley, an LA committee framed the issue wrongly when deciding whether a statutory nuisance existed. It focused on...

Statutory nuisance leading to abatement notice A local authority is required to periodically examine its district for statutory nuisances, and when a resident submits a complaint, it must take all reasonably practicable steps to investigate it. A statutory nuisance may arise where any of the following are, or are likely to be, prejudicial to health or a nuisance: the condition or physical state of premises smoke, fumes or gas released from premises, a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street dust, steam or odours originating from business, industrial or trade premises refuse, or any accumulation or deposited material noise arising from any premises, vehicle, machinery or equipment in the street For further detail on the above, see Practice Note: Statutory nuisance. A statutory nuisance can also be abated, limited or prevented by a nuisance order made by the magistrates’ court, following proceedings brought by an aggrieved person. This sits outside the scope of this Practice Note; for that,...

To: [ name ] of [ address ] Please note that: The [ name ] [ District ] [ Borough ] [ City ] Council (the Council) is satisfied that a statutory nuisance [ exists OR is likely to [ occur OR recur ] ] under section 79(1) [ specify which subsection ] of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), originating from [ the premises at ] [ specify the address of the source of the nuisance ] and resulting from [ describe the matters which are causing the nuisance ]. This abatement notice is issued to you as you are [ the person responsible for the statutory nuisance OR [ the owner OR the occupier of ] the premises ]. What you are required to do [ You are required to abate...