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 court held that the statutory scheme under the TCPA 1990 requires challenges to enforcement notices to be made by statutory appeal, not collateral attack in injunction proceedings. There was no irrefutable defect in the enforcement notice, nor any understandable reason for not appealing. The breaches of planning control were extensive, persistent, and caused substantial harm to the Green Belt. The court found it necessary and proportionate to grant an injunction to restrain further breaches, and the hardship to Defendants did not outweigh the public interest in enforcing planning control.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 294 (QB)
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
Application for Injunction Under Section 187 B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Injunction granted
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement Notice, Green Belt, Planning Control, Statutory Appeals, Discretionary Remedies
Planning Law Public Law Injunctions Enforcement Notice Green Belt Planning Control 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 4 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

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

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 its discretion to refuse an injunction due to alleged defects in the enforcement notice or reasons for not appealing

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statutory scheme under the TCPA 1990 requires challenges to enforcement notices to be made by statutory appeal, not collateral attack in injunction proceedings. There was no irrefutable defect in the enforcement notice, nor any understandable reason for not appealing. The breaches of planning control were extensive, persistent, and caused substantial harm to the Green Belt. The court found it necessary and proportionate to grant an injunction to restrain further breaches, and the hardship to Defendants did not outweigh the public interest in enforcing planning control.

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 order.