Operation of section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
The injunction-granting power, in aid of enforcement notices, given to the court by section 187B of the 1990 Act has generated a number of litigated points:
* The section applies to both actual and apprehended breaches of planning control, including the specific regulations governing the display of advertisements: see
* In cases giving rise to human rights issues, the planning authority can no longer expect the order to issue as of course. Obliged now to observe the doctrine of proportionality, the courts must, inter alia, weigh the environmental considerations against the likely hardship and distress that the order might bring to the defendant and his family: see South Bucks District Council v Porter and related appeals [2003] UKHL 26; [2003] 23 EG 135 (CS), where several of the gypsy defendants successfully appealed against orders affecting their mobile homes. See further
* Proceedings taken by the authority under the section cannot be used by the defendant as an opportunity to raise planning merits points that should have been raised by way of an appeal to the Secretary of State within the time limits prescribed by section 174 of the Act: see Buckingham County Council v North West Estates plc [2002] 25 EG 153 (CS). An exception (held inapplicable in that case) is made where the notice, being bad on its face, should be treated as a nullity.
Operation of section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
The injunction-granting power, in aid of enforcement notices, given to the court by section 187B of the 1990 Act has generated a number of litigated points:
* The section applies to both actual and apprehended breaches of planning control, including the specific regulations governing the display of advertisements: see The Knightsbridge shroud Estates Gazette 12 May 2001, commenting upon Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council v Harvey Nichols & Co Ltd [2001] EGCS 49.
* In cases giving rise to human rights issues, the planning authority can no longer expect the order to issue as of course. Obliged now to observe the doctrine of proportionality, the courts must, inter alia, weigh the environmental considerations against the likely hardship and distress that the order might bring to the defendant and his family: see South Bucks District Council v Porter and related appeals [2003] UKHL 26; [2003] 23 EG 135 (CS), where several of the gypsy defendants successfully appealed against orders affecting their mobile homes. See further The rights side of planning in Estates Gazette 15 December 2001, p85, and Limited rights of passage Estates Gazette 29 June 2002, p134, by Gill Castorina and Mark Shelton, of DLA.
* Proceedings taken by the authority under the section cannot be used by the defendant as an opportunity to raise planning merits points that should have been raised by way of an appeal to the Secretary of State within the time limits prescribed by section 174 of the Act: see Buckingham County Council v North West Estates plc [2002] 25 EG 153 (CS). An exception (held inapplicable in that case) is made where the notice, being bad on its face, should be treated as a nullity.