Chelmsford City Council & Anor v Wayne Mixture

Under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court may grant a final injunction where, in all the circumstances, restraint of an actual or apprehended breach is just and convenient.

Relevant considerations include the seriousness and flagrancy of the breach, persistent non-compliance with enforcement notices, the public interest in securing planning control, planning harm, the likely effectiveness of conventional enforcement, and the balance between public and private interests. The court does not reconsider the merits of planning judgments. Personal circumstances and qualified Convention rights must be considered, but an injunction may remain proportionate where other measures have failed.

The claimants, two local planning authorities, sought a final injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The relief was both prohibitory and mandatory.

The claim concerned extensive unauthorised operational development, storage, caravans used for residential purposes and other uses at land within the claimants’ administrative areas. Five enforcement notices had been served, and appeals against four had been dismissed. None had been complied with. The defendant did not file an acknowledgment of service or evidence and did not attend the hearing.

The central issues were whether actual or apprehended breaches of planning control existed and whether an injunction was necessary, expedient, just and proportionate.

1. Disposition. A final injunction was granted with prohibitory and mandatory elements. The claimants were awarded their costs.
2. The court was satisfied that there were clear actual breaches of planning control and apprehended future breaches. The unauthorised material changes of use and operational development required planning permission under sections 55(1) and 57(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The extant enforcement notices, together with the dismissal of the available appeals, established the planning-control context.
3. Applying South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter & Others [2003] 2 A.C. 558, the court considered the seriousness and flagrancy of the breaches, the long history of persistent non-compliance, the defendant’s guilty pleas to offences concerning two enforcement notices, the public interest in enforcing planning control, and the material harm to the rural character and appearance of the area.
4. The court could not revisit the merits of the claimants’ planning judgments. Those were matters for the planning authorities. The court instead had to weigh the public interest in enforcement against the defendant’s private interests. Conventional enforcement measures had proved ineffective, and the evidence showed that nothing short of an injunction was likely to secure compliance.
5. The claimants had considered the defendant’s personal circumstances, Article 8 rights and Article 1 of Protocol One rights. Those qualified rights could be interfered with where justified and proportionate. The three-month period proposed for compliance with the mandatory provisions further reduced any hardship. The lack of evidence from the defendant as to actual hardship also weighed in favour of relief.