Buckinghamshire Council v Ward & Ors

For an interim injunction under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court must be satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried, damages would not provide an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience and justice favours relief. The order must also be necessary and proportionate. A preventative injunction may maintain the status quo by prohibiting further development or occupation while planning issues remain unresolved. The court may proceed without notice where notice could prompt further works, provided procedural safeguards such as a return date and liberty to apply are available.

The claimant local authority sought an urgent, without-notice interim injunction against named occupiers and persons unknown in respect of agricultural land near Edgcott. Caravans, hardcore, a trench and other works had been placed on the land rapidly, despite a warning letter and Temporary Stop Notice. A planning application had subsequently been made, but no planning permission was in force.

The court considered whether interim relief under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was necessary and proportionate, including the effect on children and persons requiring medical care, the appropriateness of alternative service and a remote public hearing, and whether the application should be determined without notice.

1. Interim injunction granted. The court was satisfied that the statutory jurisdiction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was engaged and that the relief sought was necessary and proportionate.
2. The conventional interim injunction requirements were met. There was a serious issue to be tried, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience and justice strongly favoured preserving the status quo.
3. The prohibitory order was justified as a preventative measure. It restrained further encampment, occupation, stationing or storage of caravans, plant or machinery, and further active development without appropriate prior written permission. The detailed terms of the order governed its effect.
4. The court did not determine the planning merits. The authority’s concerns about the sustainability and policy compliance of the proposed development, together with the apparent defiance of the warning letter and Temporary Stop Notice, provided a cogent context for interim protection.
5. The order was proportionate notwithstanding the presence of children, including children said to require medical treatment or oxygen. It contained exceptions for medical supplies and equipment and emergency-service access.
6. The without-notice procedure was justified because giving notice could prompt additional works before the application was heard. Alternative service was appropriate. The order included a return date and liberty to apply on 72 hours’ written notice to vary or discharge it.
7. The remote Microsoft Teams hearing was compatible with open justice because the hearing was public, the means of remote observation had been publicised, the hearing was recorded and the judgment was to enter the public domain.