St Edmundsbury Borough Council & Anor v Reynolds & Ors

When granting an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court must consider whether the relief is proportionate and must take account of hardship, the defendant’s circumstances, the planning history and the public interest in enforcing planning control. The court should ordinarily be willing, if necessary, to enforce the order by imprisonment. An order should not extend to a person who lacks a realistic ability to control or remedy the breach. Nor may section 187B be used to enforce matters falling outside planning control, such as preventing decay in a listed building where no unauthorised works are alleged.

The appellant appealed an order made by HHJ Thompson in the Ipswich County Court on 17 October 2012. The order, made under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, required the defendants to remedy long-standing breaches of planning control at Bardwell Hall Farm and Great Carr Wood.

The appellant accepted the breaches but argued that she should not be subject to the injunction because she did not cause them, lived in fear of her former husband, and lacked practical control over parts of the land. She also challenged provisions concerning a listed building, costs and Great Carr Wood.

1. The appeal was allowed to the limited extent identified below. The appellate court could interfere with the judge’s discretionary decision only if relevant matters had been ignored, irrelevant matters considered, or the decision was otherwise legally unsustainable.
2. Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 confers a broad discretion, but relief must be proportionate. The court must consider hardship, the defendant’s personal circumstances, the planning history, the public interest in enforcement and whether it would be prepared, if necessary, to enforce the order by imprisonment. The lower judge had considered those matters. His assessment that the appellant’s fear did not make her incapable of taking any action was open to him on the evidence.
3. The injunction was wrongly extended to the appellant in relation to Great Carr Wood. Her relationship with that land was, at most, exiguous or vestigial. The judge had not explained the basis on which he found that she retained an interest, or addressed how she could realistically control activities carried out by the owner and occupiers. The relevant provisions therefore remained against the other defendants but were removed as against the appellant.
4. The order could not require the appellant not to permit deterioration of a listed building. Preventing decay was not, without more, a breach of planning control enforceable under section 187B. The separate regime under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 concerned unauthorised works or breach of conditions, and there was no evidence that the appellant had carried out either.
5. The order was amended so that the appellant was not liable for costs relating to obligations no longer imposed on her. The words making the first and fourth defendants jointly and severally liable for costs were deleted.

• Ipswich County Court: HHJ Thompson made the injunction order on 17 October 2012.
• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): the appeal succeeded to the limited extent identified in the judgment. The order was amended in relation to Great Carr Wood, the listed-building provision and costs.