Salisbury District Council v Le Roi

An injunction requiring demolition of an unauthorised building cannot ordinarily be challenged years later by seeking its variation before another High Court judge. Matters which should have been raised on an appeal against the original order cannot generally be deployed to resist its enforcement, absent exceptional circumstances or a significant change of circumstances.

Planning enforcement may potentially engage Article 8, but Convention rights will not ordinarily justify relief where the residential use was knowingly unlawful and alternative accommodation exists. Delay by a local authority may justify allowing additional time for compliance, but will not necessarily prevent enforcement where the public interest in effective planning control remains compelling.

The local authority obtained an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring demolition of an unauthorised smaller barn unless planning permission was obtained. The order was made by Mr David Steel QC in 1996 and was not appealed.

After the planning appeal failed, the appellant did not demolish the barn. He applied to vary the injunction and resisted committal proceedings, relying on alleged assurances by council officers, estoppel, Article 8, and delay. Hallett J refused to vary the injunction and committed him for contempt. The central issue was whether those matters could justify reopening or withholding enforcement of the final order.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The order requiring demolition was final and binding. The application to another High Court judge to discharge the relevant part of the order was, in substance, an unappealed challenge to its correctness. In the absence of a significant change of circumstances, such an application fell within a very limited jurisdiction and was an abuse of process.
2. Arguments based on alleged representations by council officers should have been advanced against the original injunction. They could not be reintroduced years later to resist enforcement of that injunction. The court therefore did not need to determine the merits of the estoppel claim.
3. Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was an enforcement provision under which the local authority had already obtained an order. The alleged assurance could not sensibly be treated as promising that, after an injunction had been obtained, the authority would not seek committal for non-compliance.
4. Planning enforcement could potentially be met by an Article 8 claim, but this was not an appropriate case for relief. The appellant had knowingly converted the barn into a dwelling without permission, was not then living there, and had alternative accommodation. Those circumstances could not outweigh the public interest in effective planning control.
5. Although there had been unnecessary delay, it did not justify withholding enforcement. It was appropriate instead to extend the compliance period. The appellant was given 16 weeks from judgment to comply, failing which a term of three months’ imprisonment would apply.
6. Morritt VC additionally stated that the court had a discretion whether to enforce an injunction by committal, referring to Guildford Borough Council v Smith [1994] JPL 734. The relevant question was whether Hallett J had erred in law or fact, or acted plainly wrongly in exercising that discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal dismissed. The injunction was upheld, with 16 weeks allowed for compliance and three months’ imprisonment in default.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division (Hallett J): refused to vary the injunction and committed the appellant for contempt.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division (Mr David Steel QC): ordered demolition of the smaller building within six months after final dismissal of the planning appeal.