Maidstone BC v Goliea Brazil & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 965 (KB)
Buckinghamshire Council v Jimmy Barrett & Ors
29 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 140 (KB)
High Court
A council got court orders forcing a man to remove illegal buildings he'd put on protected land and stopping him from building more. They couldn't get a similar order to stop other unknown people from building there because they didn't prove it was likely to happen.
Key Facts
- •Buckinghamshire Council (Claimant) sought injunctions against Jimmy Barrett (First Defendant) and Persons Unknown for unauthorised development on Green Belt land.
- •Unauthorised development included hardstanding, bunds, and makeshift stables.
- •A static caravan was placed on the land, but its use was not deemed residential, avoiding a planning control breach.
- •Jimmy Barrett eventually obtained retrospective planning permission for some of the development, with conditions for removal of certain structures.
- •The court considered whether Jimmy Barrett was responsible for the breaches and whether injunctions against him and Persons Unknown were justified.
Legal Principles
The High Court may grant injunctions if just and convenient (Senior Courts Act 1981, s.37(1)).
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.37(1)
Local planning authorities can apply for injunctions to restrain planning control breaches (Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.187B).
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.187B
Injunctions should consider the flagrancy of the breach, environmental damage, urgency, and competing interests (South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No 2) [2003] 2 AC 558; Ipswich Borough Council v Fairview Hotels (Ipswich) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2868 (KB)).
South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No 2); Ipswich Borough Council v Fairview Hotels
Injunctions against Persons Unknown require compelling justification, strong probability of harm, and consideration of alternative remedies (Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47).
Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers
Outcomes
Mandatory order against Jimmy Barrett: Granted.
Jimmy Barrett was found responsible for flagrant breaches, and a mandatory order was deemed necessary to remedy the situation, despite his willingness to remove the structures. Lesser measures were deemed insufficient.
Prohibitory order against Jimmy Barrett: Granted.
Given the flagrancy of the breaches and the risk of future unauthorized development, a prohibitory order was deemed necessary to protect the Green Belt.
Prohibitory order against Persons Unknown: Dismissed.
Insufficient evidence of a compelling need, strong probability of future harm, or consideration of alternative remedies was presented. The claimant failed to meet the requirements set by Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers.
Similar Cases
St Albans City and District Council v Anthony Hugh Taylerson & Ors
[2024] EWHC 602 (KB)
Basildon Borough Council v Eliza Sanders & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2954 (KB)
Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council v Luke Salathiel & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1900 (KB)
Pembrokeshire County Council v Ryan Jack Cole & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2187 (Ch)