NORTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL v James Jason MONGAN

An injunction under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 187B, is an original and discretionary remedy. The court must consider all the circumstances and grant relief only where it is just and proportionate, and where the defendant can and reasonably ought to comply. Flagrant and prolonged breaches of planning control may weigh strongly in favour of relief. For an interim injunction, the court must also consider whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages are an adequate remedy and where the balance of convenience lies. A mandatory order may require restoration of the land, and ancillary restrictions on disposal may be imposed where they are necessary and proportionate to secure compliance.

The Council sought continuation of an interim injunction and a mandatory injunction against the registered proprietors of agricultural land at Plots 10 and 11, Greenfields. The application arose from unauthorised engineering works, the deposit of hardstanding and waste materials, and non-compliance with an enforcement notice concerning Plot 10. An interim order had been granted without notice on 11 February 2022. At the return hearing the defendants did not attend or appear. The court therefore considered whether service had been effective, whether it was fair to proceed in their absence, whether injunctive relief should continue and whether mandatory and ancillary orders were appropriate.

1. Service and absence. Although personal service had not been achieved, posting the claim documents to the defendants’ last known address and leaving copies on Plot 10 had made the proceedings reasonably likely to come to their attention. Service was therefore effective under CPR 6.3 and 6.9. It was fair to proceed in their absence because they had received or been aware of repeated enforcement steps, had given no explanation for non-attendance and a further adjournment would cause further delay and unfairness.
2. Section 187B jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is original and discretionary. The court must consider all the circumstances, including the defendant’s personal circumstances and any hardship, and must grant an injunction only where it is just and proportionate and one with which the defendant can and reasonably ought to comply. The guidance in South Bucks DC v Porter [2003] UKHL 26, as summarised in Davis v Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council [2004] EWCA 194, was applied.
3. The evidence established compelling and continuing breaches on Plot 10 and sufficient evidence that the defendants were responsible for the works extending to Plot 11. The prohibitory injunction was therefore continued, and a mandatory injunction required removal of deposited material and restoration of the land.
4. The interim injunction principles in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 were satisfied. There was a serious issue to be tried, damages were not an adequate remedy because the Council acted in the public interest and the landscape damage could not properly be remedied by damages, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the agricultural status quo.
5. A restriction preventing sale or lease of the land without the Council’s solicitor’s consent was just and proportionate because it assisted enforcement of the mandatory order and addressed the risk of steps being taken to avoid compliance. Costs were summarily assessed at £3,982. No general liberty to apply was granted, although the defendants could apply under CPR 39.3 to set aside the order if its criteria were met.

First instance decision. The judgment records that an earlier planning appeal concerning residential use of Plot 10 was dismissed by a planning inspector on 22 March 2017; no citation is stated.