South Bucks District Council v Smith & Anor [2006] EWHC 281 (QB) (23 February 2006)

South Bucks District Council v Smith & Anor [2006] EWHC 281 (QB) (23 February 2006)

An injunction should be granted to restrain the defendants' unlawful residential use of the site, but its operation should be suspended until the final determination of the defendants' current planning application (including any appeal), because recent changes in government policy and the fresh application mean there is a real, non-fanciful prospect of planning permission being granted, and immediate enforcement would be disproportionate given the hardship to the defendants and their family.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 281 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: South Bucks District Council; First Defendant: Andrew Smith; Second Defendant: James Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application Under Section 187 B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Injunction granted, but suspended
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Green Belt Policy, Gypsy and Traveller Rights, Article 8 ECHR, Planning Permission, Proportionality, Enforcement of Planning Control
Planning Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Injunctions Green Belt Policy Gypsy and Traveller Rights Article 8 ECHR Planning Permission +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South Bucks District Council

Claimant

Andrew Smith

First Defendant

James Smith

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application Under Section 187 B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an injunction should be granted under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrain residential use of land in breach of planning control
  2. 2 Whether the grant of an injunction would be a proportionate interference with the defendants' Article 8 rights
  3. 3 Whether recent changes in government policy and a fresh planning application affect the appropriateness or timing of injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

An injunction should be granted to restrain the defendants' unlawful residential use of the site, but its operation should be suspended until the final determination of the defendants' current planning application (including any appeal), because recent changes in government policy and the fresh application mean there is a real, non-fanciful prospect of planning permission being granted, and immediate enforcement would be disproportionate given the hardship to the defendants and their family.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted, but suspended

Orders

  • An injunction is granted restraining the defendants from using the land for residential purposes and requiring removal of caravans and vehicles, but its operation is suspended until the determination of the defendants' current planning application, including any appeal.