A local authority may seek injunctive relief under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 where necessary for any actual or apprehended breach of planning control. The court considering such an application has a discretion as to whether to make an order and must be satisfied that an injunction is just and proportionate.
An application for a final injunction under section 187B of the 1990 Act has been refused in Waverley Borough Council v Gray and others [2023] EWHC 2161 (KB).
The case concerned land off Dunsfold Road at Lydia Park, Waverley, owned or occupied by the 13 named defendants. The land was in the open countryside and designated as an area of great landscape value.
The claim was issued in July 2021 and an interim injunction obtained at a time when the claimant believed the site to be unoccupied. The order addressed the unlawful change of use of the land to that for the stationing of caravans for human occupation, including the creation of hardstanding. Such unauthorised development continued despite the interim injunction.
Applications by certain defendants for planning permission were refused to prevent the dominance of Gypsy and Traveller occupation in the area (there being an established Gypsy and Traveller community nearby with around 100 pitches on Lydia Park) and because the unauthorised development was contrary to the development plan and national policy.
The welfare needs of the families on the land were extensive. Several defendants had significant medical conditions which only came to light late in the proceedings. Since becoming aware that there were occupants on the site, and on notice as to some of their individual welfare needs, the claimant had failed to meaningfully reassess its initial decision to pursue injunctive relief.
The claimant’s decision-making process was based on its belief that the defendants had somewhere to go but in fact there were no viable alternative sites. Empty pitches on Lydia Park were not available to them. A roadside existence which would lead to significant hardship was the most likely consequence of final injunctive relief.
The unauthorised development had caused environmental harm and there had been failures to comply with the interim injunction, but this was the last resort of defendants with nowhere else to go rather than a flagrant breach of the order. Some planning appeals had yet to be determined and the secretary of state may take a different view to the claimant. Final injunctive relief was refused save against those no longer owning the land or who played no part in the proceedings.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
