Epping Forest District Council v Paul Rudolph Halama

The claim was an application by the local planning authority for a planning injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remedy a long‑standing unauthorised domestic extension. The judge found an actual breach of planning control had been conceded and upheld the authority's decision to seek an injunction, subject to the court's own balancing exercise.

Applying authoritative guidance (notably South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter and related authorities), the court weighed: (i) the planning history and unsuccessful enforcement steps including an enforcement notice, an appeal dismissed by an Inspector and a discontinued prosecution based on undertakings; (ii) the degree and duration of non‑compliance; and (iii) the defendant's personal circumstances. The defendant had not produced independent evidence of his financial means or of the costs of the remedial works.

On that basis the court concluded an injunction was necessary and proportionate to secure demolition/reduction of parts of the extension and alteration of the dormer to accord with the revised permissions (as reduced under section 180 TCPA). The injunction was granted in the terms sought, with six months for compliance, and the claimant was awarded costs of £23,969 with 12 months to pay.

This was a first instance application for an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 brought by Epping Forest District Council to restrain and require remedial works to an unauthorised large domestic extension at 46 Russell Road, Buckhurst Hill.

Background and facts:

• The defendant carried out an extension materially beyond the scope of the 2015 permission. In 2019 an application for retrospective permission for the larger works was refused and the council issued an enforcement notice. The defendant appealed the notice and also sought retrospective permission; the Inspector dismissed the appeal and refused the retrospective permission in February 2020. The Inspector identified amendments that, if implemented, would address the harm (reduction in rear projection and narrowing the dormer) and the council subsequently granted revised permissions under section 180 TCPA in stages in 2021.
• The defendant undertook in the Magistrates Court (in connection with a prosecution discontinued in October 2021) to carry out the remedial works by 15 July 2022 but did not do so, later asserting inability to afford the works and some health problems. He did not produce documentary evidence of costs or means until late in the proceedings.

Nature of the application: The council applied for an injunction under section 187B TCPA to require the defendant to alter the development to accord with the revised permissions (reducing the rear extension depth to 4m each floor and moving the dormer wall inward by the permitted margin).

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether there was an actual or apprehended breach of planning control;
• Whether the council's decision to apply for an injunction was lawful;
• What enforcement steps had been taken and whether alternatives to an injunction had been properly considered;
• Whether an injunction was necessary, expedient and commensurate, having regard to the public interest in enforcement and the defendant's personal circumstances, including ability to comply; and
• On what terms an injunction should be granted and the appropriate timetable and costs order.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• The court accepted there was a long‑standing breach of planning control and that the council had pursued enforcement, prosecution and negotiated revisions to permission (section 180 adjustments). The Inspector's decision and subsequent permissions did not eliminate the breach because the defendant had not carried out the compliant works.
• On the lawfulness of the council's decision to apply for an injunction, the judge found the decision was properly made and evidenced save for a narrow point about whether personal circumstances had been considered; that point was insufficient to render the decision unlawful and the court was able to assess personal circumstances itself.
• The history of enforcement and persistent non‑compliance weighed strongly in favour of an injunction under the guidance of Porter and related authorities. The defendant’s unsubstantiated assertions as to lack of funds meant the court could not find he could not reasonably comply with a mandatory order; authorities require evidence to support an inability to comply.
• Balancing the public interest in upholding planning control against personal circumstances, and given the absence of evidence of means or precise costs, the court found an injunction to be necessary, expedient and commensurate. It granted the injunction as sought, allowed six months for compliance, and awarded the council its reasonable and proportionate costs of £23,969, with 12 months to pay.

The judgment also provided practical observations intended to assist County Court judges dealing with domestic planning injunctions and referenced leading authorities on the approach to section 187B TCPA relief.

The claimant's application for an injunction under section 187B TCPA is allowed. The court granted an injunction requiring the defendant to carry out the remedial works to bring the extension and dormer into conformity with the revised planning permissions (as reduced under section 180 TCPA), giving the defendant six months to comply. The court reached this conclusion because there was a conceded, longstanding breach, a history of enforcement and non‑compliance, the council's decision to seek an injunction was lawful in substance, and the defendant produced insufficient evidence to show he could not reasonably comply; accordingly an injunction was necessary, expedient and proportionate. Costs of £23,969 were awarded to the claimant, payable within 12 months.