Tandridge District Council v John Brien & Ors

Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 187B, the court has a discretionary power to grant an injunction restraining an actual or apprehended breach of planning control. The court does not determine the planning merits, but must decide independently whether the proposed relief is just, necessary and proportionate. Relevant considerations include the seriousness and persistence of the breach, environmental harm, planning history, available alternatives, hardship, health, education, children’s welfare, Article 8 rights and the authority’s consideration of those matters. A pending planning application does not prevent relief where it is invalid, has weak prospects, or does not reflect the development on the ground. Injunctions against Persons Unknown require precise definitions, minimum necessary terms, effective notice, territorial and temporal limits, and a liberty to apply.

Tandridge District Council sought final injunctive relief against two landowners and two categories of Persons Unknown. The claim concerned alleged unauthorised residential caravan use and associated development on agricultural land in the Metropolitan Green Belt. Interim relief had been granted under s 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, then continued by agreement pending trial.

The defendants relied on an extant planning application, earlier planning permission for an adjoining area, family circumstances, Article 8 rights and the best interests of affected children. The central issues were whether final relief was necessary and proportionate, and whether the proposed order against Persons Unknown satisfied the requirements governing newcomer injunctions.

The court granted the injunction against the First and Second Defendants and a five-year injunction, subject to annual review, against the Third and Fourth Defendants. Compliance was to be allowed two months from the order.

1. Named defendants. The jurisdiction under s 187B is discretionary. The underlying breach is a matter for the planning authority or the Secretary of State, not the court. Applying South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558, the court nevertheless had to assess whether relief was just, necessary and proportionate. It considered the flagrant breach, substantial Green Belt harm, the likelihood of continuing development, the weak evidence of hardship and medical need, the existence of personal permissions for several occupants elsewhere on the site, and the absence of cogent evidence about alternative accommodation or the impact on children.
2. The planning application was invalid and did not accurately describe the development. Even if revalidated, it had insufficient prospects of success to outweigh the compelling need for enforcement. The Council was not required to exhaust other enforcement powers before seeking an injunction.
3. Article 8 was engaged for existing residents. The interference pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the Green Belt and preventing significant harm. The order was proportionate because lesser measures were unlikely to work, the terms were tailored, and the evidential case for excessive hardship was weak. The Council had adequately considered children’s welfare and its public-sector equality duty.
4. Persons Unknown. Applying Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47, the order was justified by a compelling case and the absence of practical alternatives. The defendants were defined by the prohibited activities, rather than by names. The order was clear, precise, territorially confined, limited to five years, supported by effective service and notice, and included an appropriate liberty to apply. No cross-undertaking in damages was required.