Application to vary injunction requires a change of circumstances or new facts

The court’s jurisdiction to vary an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should only be exercised where there has been a material change of circumstances or where new facts have emerged which could not have been relied upon before. An application to vary an injunction prohibiting residential occupation of a caravan has been dismissed in Hart District Council v Freeman and another [2023] EWHC 1246 (KB). The defendants ran a company breeding, rearing and producing free-range pigs primarily for pork. They farmed on land in South Warnborough in Hampshire, known as Hares Farm, which they purchased with a mortgage in June 2022, and land rented from nearby Priory Farm. Having been given notice to leave their rental accommodation in Hook in August 2022, and unable to find alternative accommodation, they purchased a twin-unit static caravan which they placed on Hares Farm – on which they had installed foul water drainage and a water and electricity supply – and began to live there in September 2022.  They required planning permission to live in the caravan. They assured the claimant that they would submit a planning application but failed to do so. In October 2022, they were served with an injunction under the 1990 Act which prohibited residential occupation of the caravan.   In December 2022, the claimant issued an enforcement notice directed at the unauthorised material change of use of Hares Farm from agricultural to mixed-use including the siting of the caravan. The defendants appealed and later sought to expand their grounds of appeal, requesting a hearing to address their impending homelessness and the need for a permanent presence at Hares Farm in order to breed pigs throughout the year.   The defendants’ application to vary the injunction could not be used as an accelerated form of challenge to the enforcement notice. The court ought only to exercise its jurisdiction to vary the injunction if there had been a material change of circumstances or where new facts had emerged which could not have been relied upon before: see Willetts v Alvey [2010] EWHC 155 (Ch). The defendants had not raised a material change of circumstances. They had failed to demonstrate that they could not afford rental accommodation, that families in the area have difficulty in renting accommodation or that their child had dissuaded landlords from accepting them as tenants. Even if there had been a change of circumstances, the balance of convenience favoured the claimant. There was nothing in the defendants’ personal circumstances so compelling that it outweighed the public interest in the fair and consistent application of planning laws. Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator