South Cambridgeshire District Council v Persons Unknown

A court may grant a local planning authority an injunction under section 187B of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 against persons whose identities are unknown. The defendants must be described objectively and with sufficient particularity to permit service. A description based on conduct occurring on identified land may satisfy that requirement, whereas one based on a person’s subjective intention is unsuitable.

The court may authorise an alternative method of service appropriate to the circumstances. Where the statutory threshold is met, documents may be displayed prominently at the affected land under CPR 6.8.

The council sought an injunction under section 187B of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 to restrain unidentified persons from depositing hardcore, stationing residential accommodation and occupying caravans on eleven identified plots. Enforcement notices relating to the land had previously been upheld, and the council regarded further unauthorised residential development as a serious planning problem.

The Cambridge County Court dismissed the application because the judge considered that he lacked power to grant an injunction in the proposed terms. He granted permission to appeal. The issues were whether an injunction could be made against persons unknown, how those defendants should be described and how the proceedings and injunction could be served.

1. Appeal allowed. Section 187B of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 empowered the court to grant the injunction sought against persons whose identities were unknown. Earlier difficulties concerning relief against unidentified defendants had been removed by statute or rules of court. The County Court therefore had jurisdiction to make the order: per Brooke LJ, Clarke LJ agreeing.

2. The defendants had to be described by objective conduct with sufficient particularity to enable service. A description referring to persons merely proposing to act depended on their subjective intentions and was unsuitable. The claim form should instead identify persons, other than those named in its schedule, who were causing or permitting specified materials to be deposited, residential accommodation to be stationed or existing caravans and mobile homes to be occupied on the identified land. The approach to identifying persons unknown in Bloomsbury Publishing Plc v News Group Ltd [2003] EWHC 1205 (Ch) informed that amendment.

3. The evidence established that it was necessary or expedient to restrain the actual or apprehended planning breaches. It showed extant enforcement notices, relevant development-plan restrictions and a serious local problem concerning unauthorised residential use. Once the defendants’ description was amended, the substantive relief requested was appropriate.

4. CPR 6.8 permitted an alternative method of service. The claim form and injunction could be placed in clear plastic envelopes and fixed to a stake, gatepost or another prominent location on each plot. The council should check weekly that the notice remained displayed and state where copies of the application and evidence could be obtained. The precise amended claim form and order were to be settled following further submissions.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the council’s appeal, held that the County Court had power to grant the injunction against persons unknown, and directed that the defendants’ description and service provisions be settled in an appropriate form.

2. Cambridge County Court: Judge O’Brien dismissed the injunction application because he considered that he lacked power to grant relief in the proposed terms. He granted permission to appeal.