Buckinghamshire Council v Jimmy Barrett & Ors

Injunctions under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.187B require a proportionate response to actual or apprehended planning breaches. The court should assess the overall course of conduct, including seriousness, flagrancy, environmental harm, urgency and the adequacy of other remedies. A mandatory order may be justified where the defendant caused the breach and lesser enforcement is unlikely to secure removal. A prohibitory order may likewise be granted where past conduct shows a real risk of serious future breaches. An injunction against Persons Unknown is exceptional and requires compelling evidence of a strong probability of a breach causing real harm, with a threat that is real and imminent.

The claimant local planning authority sought mandatory and prohibitory injunctions concerning unauthorised development on land in the Green Belt. It alleged that Jimmy Barrett was responsible for hardstanding, bunding and makeshift stables, and sought a further prohibitory injunction against Persons Unknown or newcomers.

The court found the operational development to be breaches of planning control, but held that placing a caravan on the land was not itself a breach absent residential use. The central issues were Mr Barrett’s responsibility, the propriety and proportionality of mandatory and prohibitory relief, and whether the stringent requirements for an injunction against Persons Unknown were met.

1. Breaches of planning control. The hardstanding, bund and makeshift stables were operational development without planning permission. The caravan itself was not a breach because there was no satisfactory evidence of residential use.
2. Responsibility and flagrancy. Responsibility means causing something to happen with a sufficient causal connection for the conduct to be meaningfully attributed to the person, beyond a negligible, marginal or trivial connection. Direct evidence is unnecessary. The court may draw rational and reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence. Mr Barrett’s interest in the land, the utility of the works to him and his conduct supported the conclusion that he was responsible. The course of conduct, including a further breach after expiry of the Temporary Stop Notice, was flagrant.
3. Mandatory relief. The planning permission’s condition did not itself require removal of the unlawful structures. Other enforcement powers were therefore necessary. The injunction was proportionate and commensurate with the harm to the openness of the Green Belt, the public interest in enforcing planning control and Mr Barrett’s history of non-compliance. It was just and convenient under s.37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
4. Prohibitory relief against Mr Barrett. Although such an order significantly interfered with individual liberty, the seriousness and flagrancy of the past breaches, the risk of further harm to the Green Belt and the inadequacy of lesser measures justified the order.
5. Persons Unknown. The claimant relied on possibilities rather than a strong probability of future breaches. It provided no full and detailed evidence of compelling need, no evidence that the threat was real and imminent, and had not adequately considered lesser measures or consulted affected communities. The application was therefore dismissed.
6. The mandatory and prohibitory orders against Mr Barrett were granted. The prohibitory injunction against Persons Unknown was dismissed. Costs and consequential matters were adjourned.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.