Local planning authorities have the power to apply for injunctions where serious breaches of planning control have occurred without necessarily having issued an enforcement notice in the first instance.
However, the importance of obtaining the correct authorisation to issue such proceedings was emphasised in Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Brook [2004] EWHC 2841; [2004] PLSCS 286. In that case, the council had applied for injunctions to restrain the defendant from depositing waste materials in an area of woodland. However, the authority invested in the head of planning services under the council’s scheme of delegation did not cover such proceedings, albeit that it referred to “the taking of enforcement action under the Town and Country Planning Act including the service of enforcement notices”. The court heard that the authorisation by the head of planning services had been invalid, and the claim for the injunction by the local planning authority was dismissed.
Two significant points arise here. First, local planning authorities should ensure before taking action that they have the correct delegated authority or committee authority to do so. Second, developers should check that local planning authorities have the necessary authorisation to take the proposed course of action; specific delegated authority is required in the form of a committee resolution, or otherwise. The planning officer’s assurance that he has authority may not be adequate, particularly where the course of action is likely to be contentious, or the ramifications costly.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
Local planning authorities have the power to apply for injunctions where serious breaches of planning control have occurred without necessarily having issued an enforcement notice in the first instance.
However, the importance of obtaining the correct authorisation to issue such proceedings was emphasised in Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Brook [2004] EWHC 2841; [2004] PLSCS 286. In that case, the council had applied for injunctions to restrain the defendant from depositing waste materials in an area of woodland. However, the authority invested in the head of planning services under the council’s scheme of delegation did not cover such proceedings, albeit that it referred to “the taking of enforcement action under the Town and Country Planning Act including the service of enforcement notices”. The court heard that the authorisation by the head of planning services had been invalid, and the claim for the injunction by the local planning authority was dismissed.
Two significant points arise here. First, local planning authorities should ensure before taking action that they have the correct delegated authority or committee authority to do so. Second, developers should check that local planning authorities have the necessary authorisation to take the proposed course of action; specific delegated authority is required in the form of a committee resolution, or otherwise. The planning officer’s assurance that he has authority may not be adequate, particularly where the course of action is likely to be contentious, or the ramifications costly.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
