Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council v Kathleen Anne Morrison & Ors

An interim injunction may be granted under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 187B, where the court is satisfied that it is necessary, proportionate and expedient to prevent further unauthorised development. The ordinary interim-injunction considerations remain relevant, including a triable issue, adequacy of damages, the balance of convenience and the interests of justice. A without-notice order is justified where notice would create a real and substantial risk of accelerated unlawful activity. Such an order should be carefully confined to prohibiting further activity and should preserve existing occupation pending an inter partes hearing.

The claimant local authority sought, without notice, an interim injunction against named defendants and persons unknown in relation to substantial unauthorised development on land at Barwell. A Temporary Stop Notice had been issued, but development activity was continuing. The application concerned whether an injunction should prevent further development, occupation and the bringing of caravans or materials onto the land, and whether the application and service arrangements could properly proceed without notice.

1. The application was granted. The court was satisfied that an interim injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was necessary, proportionate and expedient to prevent further unauthorised development.
2. The claimant had established a triable issue. Damages would be an inadequate remedy, no undertaking in damages was required or appropriate, and the balance of convenience and justice strongly favoured relief.
3. The planning merits were not determined at this urgent interim hearing. The evidence nevertheless disclosed compelling reasons to conclude that further activity was likely unless restrained, particularly because development had continued in defiance of a Temporary Stop Notice.
4. The application was properly made without notice. Works had been carried out over a Bank Holiday weekend and continued despite the notice. There was a real and substantial risk that giving notice would accelerate unauthorised activity and occupation before the hearing.
5. The order was prohibitory rather than mandatory. It preserved the status quo at service and prohibited further development, the bringing of caravans, machinery, storage containers, building materials or waste, expansion of hardstanding, fencing and new occupation. It did not require removal of existing structures or evict persons already living on the land.
6. The order provided safeguards, including application on 48 hours’ notice to vary or discharge it and a return hearing at which all parties could participate. Alternative service methods, including attaching the order to caravans and the site entrance, were justified, particularly for persons unknown.

not stated in the judgment.