High Court Grants Mandatory Injunction Against Jimmy Barrett in Planning Control Breach Case, Dismisses Relief against 'Persons Unknown'

Citation: [2024] EWHC 140 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Buckinghamshire Council v Jimmy Barrett & Ors [2024] EWHC 140 (KB), the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice was presented with applications for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions to restrain alleged breaches of planning control, as well as additional prohibitory relief sought against ‘Persons Unknown.’ Deputy High Court Judge, Dexter Dias KC, was tasked with determining the fate of these applications focusing on planning law issues, the enforcement of planning control, and the use of injunctions against known and unknown parties.

Key Facts

The claimant, Buckinghamshire Council, sought legal recourse to prohibit unauthorised developments by the first defendant, Jimmy Barrett, who had historical ties to the land in question through equestrian use. The land, located near Wapseys Wood and within the Green Belt, had experienced a series of unauthorised developments, including the laying of hardstanding, the erection of makeshift stables, and the placement of a caravan. Notably, the land was acquired by Mr. Barrett during the course of these events.

The applications in question included an order mandating the removal of unauthorised structures, prohibiting further breaches by Mr. Barrett, and a broader order against ‘Persons Unknown’ to prevent potential future unauthorised use of the land by third parties.

The case law analysis revolves around key areas including the exercise of the High Court’s discretion under Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and the application of Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which empowers local planning authorities to seek injunctions to restrain breaches of planning control.

Reference was made to the pivotal House of Lords decision in South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No 2) [2003] 2 AC 558, which outlined principles for granting permanent injunctions. Holgate J’s principles from Ipswich Borough Council v Fairview Hotels (Ipswich) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2868 (KB) were echoed, emphasizing the need to assess the degree of environmental damage, urgency, balance of competing interests, and the propriety of injunctive relief.

Critical to the case was the recent Supreme Court judgment in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47, which specifically addressed the strict threshold for granting injunctions against ‘Persons Unknown,’ highlighting the necessity for full and detailed evidence of a compelling justification for such a remedy.

Furthermore, London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v Persons Unknown & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 13 set guidance that descriptions of ‘Persons Unknown’ must be sufficiently clear for the purpose of service and the court’s jurisdiction in such proceedings.

Outcomes

The court found Mr. Barrett responsible for the flagrant breaches of planning control, having considered both direct and strong circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the mandatory order requiring Mr. Barrett to remove the unauthorised structures was granted. The prohibitory order against Mr. Barrett was also granted to prevent future breaches, taking into account the significant harm that unauthorised development could cause to the Green Belt.

However, the application for a prohibitory order against ‘Persons Unknown’ was dismissed. The Judge concluded there was insufficient evidence of a compelling need or a strong probability of future breaches by unknown individuals to justify such an exceptional remedy.

Conclusion

In Buckinghamshire Council v Jimmy Barrett & Ors, it was established that where direct evidence of a defendant’s responsibility for planning breaches is lacking, substantial indirect evidence can still lead to the grant of injunctions. The decision reiterates the seriousness with which courts approach the protection of planning regulations, especially concerning the Green Belt. It also echoes the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the stringent requirements necessary for the grant of injunctive relief against Persons Unknown, safeguarding against overbroad applications of power. Thus, while the authority was able to secure protection of the land from Mr. Barrett, it failed to establish the necessity of extending the same protection against unnamed parties.