East Hertfordshire County Council v Mahoney & Ors

On an application to continue an interim planning injunction, the court may grant relief where the evidence establishes a real prospect that the claimant will obtain final relief restraining development outside the scope of the existing planning permission. The balance of convenience may favour preserving proper planning control, particularly where unauthorised work has already begun. The injunction should nevertheless be framed with precision. It should not prohibit conduct permitted by the planning consent, such as moving a vehicle within the same authorised plot or substituting one permitted vehicle for another. A restriction on connection to mains water may properly exclude work undertaken by a statutory undertaker, but need not permit completion of unauthorised works merely because access to mains water would be convenient.

The Council applied to continue an injunction granted ex parte by Saini J on 4 September 2020. The injunction concerned development on land at Chapel Lane, Little Hadham, occupied by the respondents, who had undertaken unauthorised development and later obtained planning permission on appeal for ten pitches, subject to conditions.

The principal condition required an approved Site Development Scheme. The Council alleged that work within that scheme had begun before approval and that mains-water connection works had been undertaken without the necessary permission. The respondents sought permission to complete any outstanding connection works. The court had to decide whether interim relief should continue and, if so, the appropriate scope of the order.

1. Interim threshold. On the evidence, trenches had been dug and pipes laid for a mains-water connection without the required permission. The delivery of substantial quantities of hardcore supported the inference that works within the unapproved Site Development Scheme were also being undertaken. There was therefore a real prospect that, at trial, the Council would obtain relief restraining those works.
2. Balance of convenience. Significant weight was placed on development being carried out in accordance with proper planning authority. Although access to mains water was important, the occupants had access to water from the borehole and had previously lived on the site without that supply. No exception was therefore justified to permit completion of connection works already begun. The court gave no weight to an unsupported allegation that the Council had impeded a statutory undertaker.
3. Form of order. Relief was granted, subject to clarification. The order should not prevent a van being moved within the same authorised plot. Nor did the restriction on substituting one van for another prevent a substitution permitted by lawful planning consent. The order was to be reformulated, if possible by agreement, to reflect the Inspector’s decision and to avoid retrospective effect.

Not stated in the judgment.