Slough Borough Council v Prashar & Ors

An injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 need not be confined to land covered by an enforcement notice. The court may grant relief covering additional land where evidence establishes that the relevant breach of planning control extends beyond the area identified in earlier enforcement notices. The injunction must nevertheless be framed with sufficient clarity as to the land and conduct restrained. Where land within one authority’s planning jurisdiction is used merely to obtain access to land within another authority’s jurisdiction, an injunction should not prohibit that access in the absence of proceedings by the authority with jurisdiction over the destination land.

The appeal arose from a planning dispute concerning land at Poyle Place, Horton Road, Slough. On 2 December 2003, Miss Nicola Davies QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen’s Bench Division, granted Slough Borough Council an injunction requiring the defendants to cease and remove commercial vehicle operations, portable buildings and hard standings.

Permission to appeal was granted on two points: whether the injunction improperly included the northern segment of Moor Lane, which was said not to be covered by the enforcement notices, and whether it could prohibit vehicles crossing the land to reach land south of it within Spelthorne Borough Council’s planning jurisdiction.

1. Appeal and amendment. The appeal was dismissed on the challenge concerning the northern segment of Moor Lane, but the order was amended in relation to access across the land. The amendment deleted the word “movement” from paragraphs 1(a) and 1(c)(i) and inserted wording covering movement connected with parking and storage. The plan description was also clarified by adding “and unhatched”.
2. Scope of the injunction. Per Lord Justice Longmore, an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 did not have to be confined to the area covered by an enforcement notice. The judge had evidence that the defendants’ encroachment and use had extended beyond the areas covered by the previously issued notices. She was entitled to accept that evidence and grant relief covering the wider area shown on the plan.
3. Access to land in another planning jurisdiction. The land within Slough’s jurisdiction was used to obtain access to land within Spelthorne’s jurisdiction. Any concern that the destination land was being used in breach of planning control was a matter for Spelthorne. Since Spelthorne had not brought injunction proceedings, the existing access ought not to be prohibited in the present proceedings.
4. The court otherwise left the High Court order unchanged. There was no order as to costs, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: On 2 December 2003, Miss Nicola Davies QC granted Slough Borough Council an injunction requiring the defendants to cease and remove specified commercial vehicle uses, buildings and hard standings.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed on the Moor Lane issue and the order was amended concerning access and clarification of the plan. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.