The power to grant an injunction to restrain actual or threatened breaches of planning control under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is above all to permit abuses to be curbed and urgent solutions provided, where called for [South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2001] EWCA Civ 1549].
The High Court refused to grant an injunction in respect of unauthorised development in Pembrokeshire County Council v Cole and another [2024] EWHC 2187 (Ch); [2024] PLSCS 151.
The defendants, brothers aged 25 and 24 years old, were joint proprietors of Cwm Farm, Narberth, in Pembrokeshire which they acquired in 2018 to carry on a farming business originally run by their parents.
In October 2018 they sought a determination from the claimant as to whether prior approval was required to erect an agricultural building to house and milk a flock of goats over the winter months.
Having heard nothing for 56 days they mistakenly believed that works could commence under permitted development rights.
In December 2018 the claimant identified various breaches of planning control including constructing an agricultural building comprising a goat shed, cattle shed, parlour and dairy (the shed), plus a pole barn, solar array, wind turbine, static caravan and farm track.
Planning applications to retain the shed and various other elements of the construction were refused in 2019 and 2020. An application in 2021 was also refused due to the adverse impact of noise and odours on residential amenity and the detrimental impact of vehicular movements on a public right of way and surface water drainage on the River Cleddau Special Area of Conservation. An appeal upheld the refusal on the third ground only.
In default of compliance with an enforcement notice requiring the defendants to remedy the planning control breaches the claimant sought an injunction. By the date of the hearing much of the unauthorised development had been remedied with the shed and track to it remaining. A further planning application was expected to be determined in October 2024.
The defendants’ evidence was that they had taken steps to address the planning inspector’s concerns: they had reduced the number of livestock to reduce the quantity of manure and rented additional land outside the SAC to store it. An injunction to remove the shed and track would cause them serious financial harm.
The court was satisfied that the defendants had genuinely sought to address the planning objections, that they continued to do so, and their pending planning application could not be regarded as having no real prospect of success. The current situation was not causing environmental harm.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
