PP 2013/64 A reminder of the approach to be adopted by the court when considering the grant of an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 empowers a local planning authority (LPA), where it considers it necessary or expedient for any actual or apprehended breach of planning control to be restrained by injunction, to apply either to the High Court or the county court for injunctive relief. In St Edmundsbury Borough Council v Reynolds [2013] EWHC 737 (QB); [2013] PLSCS 97, the LPA had been granted an injunction in the county court requiring the removal of goods in the nature of vehicles, machinery and rubbish deposited on the land in question in breach of planning control. The landowners appealed to the High Court on two grounds, the first of which was upheld. The usefulness, however, of the case is that it sets out a reminder of the approach to be taken by the court post the Human Rights Act 1998. The leading authority in this respect is the decision of the Court of Appeal in South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2001] EWCA Civ 1549; [2002] 3 PLR 1. This was later upheld by the House of Lords – see [2003] UKHL 26; [2003] 2 PLR 101 – when the guidance given by Simon Brown LJ was described as “judicious and accurate in all respects”. This can be summarised as follows: (1) The judge is not required, nor even entitled, to reach his own independent view on the planning merits of the case (2) He should not grant injunctive relief unless he would be prepared, if necessary, to contemplate committing the defendant to prison (3) He should not be of that mind, unless he had considered for himself all questions of resulting hardship for the defendant and his family (4) Of relevance also will be countervailing considerations such as the need to enforce planning control in the general interest (5) The degree and flagrancy of the alleged breach of planning control may well prove critical (6) If conventional enforcement measures have failed over a prolonged period of time, then the court would obviously be readier to use its own more coercive powers (7) Relevant, too, will be the LPA’s decision to seek injunctive relief, as the democratically elected and accountable body principally responsible for planning control (8) The court’s discretion is absolute, and injunctive relief is unlikely unless properly thought to be proportionate. John Martin