Runnymede Borough Council v Harwood

Unauthorised change of use — Unauthorised dwelling in green belt — Injunctions obtained by local planning authority — Injunctions discharged — Scope of injunctions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — Whether previous principles applicable — Guidelines by Court of Appeal — Judgment for the local planning authority — Injunctions restoredThe land known as Sicamore Farm, Chersey Lane, near Egham, Surrey, had been occupied by the defendant since 1981, but had not been used for agricultural purposes for some years. He moved into “building Z” and a notice for demolition followed; on appeal he was given personal planning permission for three years so as to demonstrate the viability of an agricultural holding. After three years consent was refused for further use. He applied for planning permission for a change of use for the storage and repair of goods vehicles. His appeal against refusal was dismissed. He used the land for that purpose despite the absence of planning permission. Two prosecutions followed and he was fined on each occasion for failure to comply with the enforcement notices. Outline planning permission was again applied for, inter alia, for conversion of a redundant agricultural building, viz a brick-built former stables, as a home for himself and his family. H went ahead with the conversion without permission. That conversion was referred to as “building X”. The council were granted two injunctions to restrain H from continuing to use the land for the storage of motor vehicles; and for not occupying building X. Those two injunctions were discharged on H’s undertakings. The council appealed. Held The appeal was allowed. 1. The injunctions had been granted under section 187(b) of the 1990 Act, which had been inserted with effect from January 2 1992 by section 3 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. It provided that where a local planning authority considered it necessary for any actual or apprehended breach of planning control to be restrained by injunction, they could apply to the court for an injunction irrespective of the exercise of other powers. The court could grant an injunction as appropriate for the purpose of restraining the breach. Jurisdiction lay with the High Court or the county court. 2. Although planning authorities previously had had power for enforcing a notice under the planning statutes by obtaining an injunction, it had to be proved that the criminal penalties were not enough to deter the defendant from infringing planning law. 3. Plainly the powers of the court under section 187(b) were much wider and the court should not construe them as impliedly limited by the previous restrictions. That they would have wider effect was indeed envisaged in dicta in Doncaster Borough Council v Green [1992] 2 PLR 58. 4. The judge, in discharging the injunction, applied the law as laid down in East Hampshire District Council v Davies [1991] 2 PLR 8. However, that case was decided before section 187(b) had been enacted, let alone come into force. The case was inapplicable to that section where Parliament had granted the court a clear power to grant injunctions to enforce planning control over actual as well as apprehended breaches of planning control. It could not have been the intention that, where there had been an actual breach, that the power should only be exercisable at the trial, with interlocutory applications confined to preserving the status quo until trial. 5. In withholding an injunction the court would be giving temporary planning permission for the continuation of some activity for which the planning authority had consistently refused permission. Robert Gray QC and Michael Druce (instructed by the solicitor to Runnymede Borough Council) for the planning authority; Ranjit Bhose (instructed by Francis Mostyn & Co, of High Wycombe) appeared for Mr Harwood.