Key Facts
- •Chelmsford City Council and Braintree District Council (Claimants) sought a final injunction against Wayne Mixture (Defendant) for breaches of planning control at Damases Farm.
- •The Defendant failed to respond to the claim despite sufficient notice.
- •Multiple Enforcement Notices (EN1-EN5) were issued and appealed (mostly unsuccessfully) due to unauthorised development and use of the land for residential and commercial purposes (storage and waste management).
- •The Defendant was convicted of criminal offences related to non-compliance with Enforcement Notices and operating a waste operation without a permit.
- •A site visit revealed continued breaches, including residential occupation.
- •The Defendant's email on the weekend before the hearing claimed lack of notice and lack of legal advice, but the court rejected this due to evidence of prior knowledge.
Legal Principles
Planning permission is required for development (material change of use or operational development).
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) can issue Enforcement Notices for breaches of planning control.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Appeals against Enforcement Notices can be made to the Secretary of State.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
LPAs can apply to the court for an injunction to restrain breaches of planning control.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
The court considers whether granting an injunction is 'just and convenient'.
Senior Courts Act 1981
Relevant factors in deciding injunctions include the degree and flagrancy of the breach, public interest, history of non-compliance, and any hardship caused.
South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter & Others [2003] 2 A.C. 558; Ipswich Borough Council v Fairview Hotels (Ipswich) Limited [2022] EWHC 2868 (KB)
Outcomes
Final injunction granted with prohibitory and mandatory elements.
Persistent and flagrant breaches of planning control, ineffective previous enforcement measures, public interest in upholding planning regulations, and minimal hardship to the defendant.
Defendant's request for adjournment denied.
Insufficient evidence of lack of notice or inability to attend, and potential prejudice to other litigants.