Buckinghamshire County Council v Sweeney & Ors

A local planning authority may obtain an injunction under section 187 B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrain an apprehended breach of planning control, including against persons unknown. The ordinary interim injunction principles apply. The court considers whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages provide an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lies, including proportionality and preservation of the status quo. The public interest in preventing unauthorised development may not be adequately compensable in damages. An injunction is proportionate where it merely requires compliance with planning law and does not prevent lawful measures addressing the defendants’ needs.

The claimant, the local planning authority, sought an interim injunction concerning land adjoining a caravan park. It alleged that the first defendant and persons unknown had carried out unauthorised development, including laying and tarmacking a track, despite service of a temporary stop notice. A without-notice injunction was granted on 5 June 2020, with the matter listed for a return hearing.

The first defendant did not attend, although the court was satisfied that he had been served and was aware of the hearing. A planning application had been submitted but had not been determined. The central issues were whether the court should proceed in the defendant’s absence and whether the statutory and interim injunction requirements were satisfied.

1. The court proceeded with the return hearing in the first defendant’s absence. He had been properly served, had been able to obtain assistance from a planning agent, and could apply later to vary or discharge the order. Proceeding was therefore consistent with the overriding objective and fairness.

2. Section 187 B(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 empowered the claimant to seek an injunction restraining an apprehended breach of planning control. The power extended to an injunction against persons whose identity was unknown.

3. Applying the principles in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, there was a serious issue to be tried. The evidence indicated unauthorised development, further works despite the temporary stop notice, and an intention to continue development. No substantive defence based on planning permission had been advanced.

4. Damages were not an adequate alternative remedy. The claimant was acting as custodian of the public interest, and financial compensation could not repair the potential harm to that interest caused by further unauthorised development.

5. The balance of convenience favoured relief. The injunction preserved the status quo by requiring the defendants to comply with planning controls. Refusal risked further development in open countryside, additional enforcement costs, and expenditure by persons who might relocate to the land.

6. The order was proportionate. Although the first defendant’s family circumstances might in due course engage Convention rights, the injunction did not prevent him meeting those needs by lawful means. The order was granted with liberty to apply for variation or revocation.