Durham County Council v Percy Stephenson & Ors

The court granted an interim without-notice injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, exercising its original jurisdiction under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and having regard to Rule 25.3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and relevant authorities (notably Ipswich Borough Council v Fairview Hotels and Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers). The judge found a serious basis for a substantial breach of planning control and a real and imminent risk of further unauthorised development and occupation. Damages were held to be an inadequate remedy and the public interest in planning enforcement supported the interim measure.

Because the application was made without notice, the court required a package of procedural protections: publication of court documents on a specified Durham County Council webpage, a clear information sheet to be displayed on the land, a specified return date and an interim mention hearing by remote access, liberty to apply and monitored contact details. The order preserved the status quo for those already on the land at the time of service and did not require removal of equipment but prohibited further use. The court declined to require a cross-undertaking in damages from the local authority in the public interest.

Background and nature of the application: Durham County Council made a without-notice urgent application for an interim injunction to restrain further development, occupation and related activity on land at Station Town, Wingate, alleging an apprehended breach of planning control. The relief sought was an interim injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The application was heard as an urgent without-notice application in Court 37 of the Kings Bench Division.

Factual matrix:

• Enforcement inquiries commenced on 14 January 2025 and a site visit took place on 15 January 2025. Two planning officers, Susan Porter and David Chong, filed witness statements and exhibits including photographs of the site as at 15 January 2025.
• The photographic and witness evidence described large-scale unauthorised works: fencing creating plots of about 500m2 to 2,000m2, wooden fences, electricity and water supplies, surfaced access, hardstanding, brick pillars, lighting, CCTV, septic tanks, excavation works and heavy plant.
• Land registry information indicated parts of the land were owned by the first and second defendants; the third defendant had made an enquiry about purchasing part of the land but any connection to the works on site was unknown. At the visit four caravans and a car were observed on one plot occupied by a grandmother, her adult daughter and two children.

Issues before the court:

1. Whether there was a serious basis to conclude a substantial breach of planning control had occurred and an imminent risk of ongoing or further breaches.
2. Whether damages would be an adequate remedy.
3. Whether it was proportionate to grant a without-notice interim injunction given human rights, equality duties and the best interests of children.
4. What procedural protections were required for a without-notice order (including service, return hearings and access to materials and hearings).
5. Whether a cross-undertaking in damages should be required of the local authority.

Courts reasoning and decision: The judge accepted that Parliament under section 187B had given local planning authorities the power to seek injunctions in anticipation of breaches and that he sat in original jurisdiction. On the evidence he was satisfied on the face of it that there was a substantial unauthorised large-scale development and a real and imminent risk of further occupation and works. Damages were inadequate and the public interest in proper planning enforcement weighed in favour of interim relief. The without-notice procedure was justified because giving notice would risk incentivising accelerated occupation; to balance the absence of notice the order included extensive procedural protections: a dedicated Durham County Council webpage ("Wingate Injunction 2025") for service and documents, an information sheet to be displayed at the land, a specified time and date of service, a remote mention hearing the next day and a return date within a week for fuller consideration, monitored contact details and liberty to apply. The order preserved the status quo for anyone on the land at the time of service and did not require removal of plant, but prohibited further use and entry by others. The court declined to require a cross-undertaking in damages from Durham County Council, treating the measure as interim and taken in the public interest. The judge also directed Durham County Council to file within seven days a witness statement addressing Gypsy and Traveller provision in the area.

Procedural orders and safeguards: The order sets out remote hearings (24 and 31 January 2025), allows anyone affected to attend remotely and to file evidence, requires Durham County Council to upload court documents promptly to the specified webpage, requires a photographic record at service, and includes persons unknown and liberty to apply provisions with provision for ascertaining and serving individuals if identified.

The court made the interim injunction order sought. The judge concluded there was a serious basis for concluding there had been a substantial breach of planning control and a real and imminent risk of further breaches; damages would not be adequate; the public interest in enforcement justified interim relief; and the absence of a cross-undertaking in damages was appropriate given the public interest. Extensive procedural protections were imposed to mitigate the effects of the without-notice procedure.