Respondent owning business premises — Appellants issuing enforcement notice for unauthorised change of use — Appellants applying for injunction — Judge making order with itemised list of unauthorised activities — Appellants challenging format of order — Appeal allowed
The respondent leased premises that had established business-use rights as a motor spares shop. In 1994, the appellant local authority served the respondent with an enforcement notice alleging that the premises were being used as a workshop to repair cars. The respondent maintained that planning control had not been breached since he only installed parts sold from his shop, and the established business use included minor repair works. A planning inspector found for the local authority and upheld the enforcement notice, with which the respondent failed to comply. The authority sought an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The judge made an order that listed a number of unauthorised activities. The authority were unhappy with the wording of the order and appealed against it. The respondent contended that the order should stand, on the basis that it allowed him to carry on activities that were ancillary to the primary use of the shop, such as tyre fitting and minor repairs.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The judge had been striving for precision in the wording of the order. She had intended to ensure that: (i) the injunction applied only to activities that breached planning control; and (ii) the respondent understood which works he could and could not carry out. In principle, the list should have been comprehensive. However, no rational basis for some of the omissions could be identified. The court was prepared to interfere with the manner in which the judge had exercised her discretion on that basis and also on the ground that a more general formulation was preferable.
The order was modified so as to allow the respondent to use the premises for the fitting of goods sold from the shop but restraining their use as a repair workshop for vehicles.
Benedict Sefi (instructed by the solicitor to Brent London Borough Council) appeared for the appellants; John Litton (instructed by Zeckler & Co, of Uxbridge) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
