Oxfordshire County Council v Wyatt Bros (Oxford) Ltd & Ors

On an application for an injunction to restrain a continuing breach of planning control, the court exercises an original and discretionary jurisdiction. It does not substitute its own planning judgment for that of the local planning authority, but considers all the circumstances, including hardship, compliance and proportionality. A prolonged and substantial breach may justify an injunction despite financial consequences, an imperfect restoration outcome or a pending planning appeal.

Oxfordshire County Council sought an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring Wyatt Bros (Oxford) Ltd and its directors to remove unauthorised waste deposited at Waterstock Golf Course and restore the land in accordance with enforcement notices.

The defendants accepted a continuing breach but argued that it was technical, that negotiations had indicated that some waste could remain, that restoration would produce an unsatisfactory landscape, and that relief should await an appeal against refusal of a further planning application.

1. The jurisdiction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is original and discretionary, not supervisory. The court must not decide the planning merits afresh, but must consider all the circumstances and grant an injunction only where it is just and proportionate.
2. The breach was substantial both quantitatively and qualitatively. The waste seriously harmed the openness of the green belt. The defendants could not reopen the accuracy of the restoration contours previously settled through the enforcement appeal.
3. The Council had not moved the goalposts. Its position had consistently been that the landform should closely reflect the pre-existing contours and that a substantial portion of the waste east of the lake should be removed.
4. The Council had considered the planning shortcomings of enforcing the notices, the financial consequences, the negotiations and the outstanding lake-related breach. The public interest in the environment and maintaining planning control outweighed the financial consequences.
5. Relief should not be deferred pending the latest planning appeal. The application did not cover the whole site, further delay was unjustified, and the defendants’ conduct showed that voluntary compliance was unlikely.
6. An injunction was made against the first defendant only. Consideration of relief against the individual directors was adjourned. Waste was to be removed by 31 August 2006, with seeding completed by 15 October 2006, subject to the terms of the order.

The enforcement notices were challenged before an inspector and were ultimately upheld after appellate proceedings.

• Court of Appeal: On 26 October 2001, allowed the Council’s appeal and restored the enforcement notices as varied by the inspector.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Granted an injunction under section 187B against the first defendant, with consideration of relief against the second and third defendants adjourned.