Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council v Luke Salathiel & Ors

When deciding whether to grant an injunction under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 187B, the court must assess the balance of convenience and proportionality. It must consider the hardship that compliance would cause to the defendants and their families, including the availability of alternative accommodation and matters of health and education. However, serious and uncertain risks to public safety, including unstable slopes, possible subsidence and contamination, may decisively favour mandatory relief. Unsupported assertions of hardship carry limited weight. The court need not determine the planning merits independently where the breach of planning control is established and undisputed.

The claimant local planning authority sought interim and final injunctive relief against the owners and occupiers of land near Banna Bungalows, Nantyglo. The defendants had carried out unauthorised engineering works, stationed caravans and occupied the site without planning permission. A limited prohibitory injunction had been granted at an earlier hearing. On the return date, the claimant sought a mandatory injunction requiring removal or remediation of the unauthorised development. The central issues were the application of the interim injunction principles, the effect of planning and public-safety considerations, and the weight to be given to the defendants’ asserted family, health and accommodation needs.

1. Mandatory injunction granted. The balance of convenience clearly favoured the claimant. The order included both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions.
2. Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 187B, the court could grant an injunction appropriate to restrain an actual or apprehended breach of planning control. The breach was serious and undisputed: substantial engineering works and the stationing and residential occupation of caravans had occurred without planning permission.
3. The court applied the principles in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited (No 1) [1975] AC 396. There was a serious question to be tried, and damages were not an adequate remedy for either side.
4. Following the guidance in South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2004] UKHL 33, the court did not determine the planning merits independently. It considered whether it would be prepared, if necessary, to contemplate committal for breach, and therefore assessed the hardship to the defendants and their families, alternative sites, health, education and proportionality. The availability of suitable accommodation was relevant.
5. The evidence showed an unacceptable combination of risks. The newly created slopes were unstable, lacked adequate drainage and presented a high but uncertain risk of collapse. Unexplored historic coal workings created an unquantifiable subsidence risk, and possible contamination created a separate public-health concern. These matters strongly supported immediate relief.
6. The defendants’ claimed hardship was largely unsupported. There was evidence that they had previously lived at the council’s authorised Traveller site, but no evidence that they had been excluded from it, were homeless, or could not accommodate themselves there. Assertions concerning relationship difficulties, partners’ mental health, overcrowding and children’s health did not justify allowing continued occupation.
7. The claimant was required to consider its intended course promptly and to progress the Part 8 proceedings as soon as reasonably practicable, although the precise form of final relief required further informed consideration.