Wokingham Borough Council v Scott & Ors [2017] EWHC 294 (QB) (20 February 2017)

Wokingham Borough Council v Scott & Ors [2017] EWHC 294 (QB) (20 February 2017)

The statutory code under the TCPA 1990 requires challenges to enforcement notices to be made by statutory appeal, and not by collateral challenge in injunction proceedings. The alleged defects in the enforcement notice were not such as to render it a nullity, and any inducement to withdraw the appeal was not established on the evidence. The ongoing and extensive breaches of planning control, the failure of other enforcement measures, and the significant harm to the Green Belt justified the grant of an injunction. The court found the remedy proportionate and necessary, and no sufficient hardship or exception was established to refuse relief.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 294
Parties
Claimant: Wokingham Borough Council; First Defendant: Keith Robert Scott; Second Defendant: Yvonne Theresa Scott; Third Defendant: The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Pet Stop; Fourth Defendant: The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Fish Glorious Fish; Fifth Defendant: The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Quality Garden Buildings; Sixth Defendant: The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Granite Transformations; Seventh Defendant: The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Bell Antiques; Eighth Defendant: The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Deep End Pools; Ninth Defendant: The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Garden Trends; Tenth Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Injunction granted
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement Notices, Green Belt Policy, Statutory Appeals, Discretionary Remedies
Planning Law Administrative Law Property Law Injunctions Enforcement Notices Green Belt Policy Statutory Appeals Discretionary Remedies

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wokingham Borough Council

Claimant

Keith Robert Scott

First Defendant

Yvonne Theresa Scott

Second Defendant

The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Pet Stop

Third Defendant

The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Fish Glorious Fish

Fourth Defendant

The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Quality Garden Buildings

Fifth Defendant

The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Granite Transformations

Sixth Defendant

The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Bell Antiques

Seventh Defendant

The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Deep End Pools

Eighth Defendant

The Owners and Occupiers of the Retail Use Trading as Garden Trends

Ninth Defendant

Persons Unknown

Tenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an injunction should be granted under section 187B TCPA 1990 to restrain breaches of planning control at Hare Hatch
  2. 2 Whether there is a valid challenge to the enforcement notice outside the statutory appeal process
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to refuse an injunction due to alleged defects in the enforcement notice or inducement to withdraw appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory code under the TCPA 1990 requires challenges to enforcement notices to be made by statutory appeal, and not by collateral challenge in injunction proceedings. The alleged defects in the enforcement notice were not such as to render it a nullity, and any inducement to withdraw the appeal was not established on the evidence. The ongoing and extensive breaches of planning control, the failure of other enforcement measures, and the significant harm to the Green Belt justified the grant of an injunction. The court found the remedy proportionate and necessary, and no sufficient hardship or exception was established to refuse relief.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted

Orders

  • An injunction is granted restraining the Defendants from further breaches of planning control at Hare Hatch as specified in the enforcement notice and judgment.
  • The Defendants are required to comply with the enforcement notice and cease unauthorised uses and remove unauthorised structures and items as set out in the order.