A wilful and flagrant disregard for the integrity of the planning system justifies the grant of prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The High Court has considered an application for injunctive relief in Chelmsford City Council and another v Mixture [2024] EWHC 1006 (KB).
The case concerned land at Damases Farm, Chelmsford in Essex owned by the defendant. While the land fell within the administrative areas of both claimants, the majority fell within that of Chelmsford City Council which sought to remedy “serious, repeated and flagrant” breaches of planning control on the land.
Prior to the defendant’s involvement with the land, it was vacant grassland which had considerable aesthetic value and positively contributed to the intrinsic beauty and character of the rural area. It was largely vacant save for two dilapidated buildings and an old brown mobile home.
In April 2017, complaints were received of an unauthorised encampment on the land with diggers, trucks, a caravan and construction equipment. Such use intensified over the following 18 months with the construction of a hardstanding followed by a building, hard surface and a telegraph pole. The developments were all without planning permission and contrary to the claimants’ planning policies.
Five enforcement notices were served, to take effect between late September 2017 and late November 2018 requiring removal of all vehicles, equipment and development on the land: none of them were complied with.
In January 2023, the defendant was convicted of failing to comply with the first two enforcement notices. At the same time, he was imprisoned for 13 months following a prosecution by the Environment Agency for operating a waste operation on the land without a permit.
By the date of the hearing there was extensive development on the land. The court was satisfied that there had been a clear breach of planning control which required planning permission for any use of the land other than agricultural purposes and any operational development. The breaches were serious and flagrant and gave rise to material planning harm. There was also a risk of further development on the land including residential occupation of it. The defendant had indicated that in the absence of alternative residential accommodation he would return to the land.
The evidence amply demonstrated that the breaches of planning control would continue unless and until restrained by the court and that nothing short of an injunction would provide effective restraint. The court granted a final injunction with both prohibitory and mandatory elements.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
