Wokingham Borough Council v Scott & Ors

Wokingham Borough Council v Scott & Ors

The statutory code under the TCPA 1990 requires challenges to enforcement notices to be made by statutory appeal; there is no valid exception in this case. The enforcement notice is not a nullity, and any errors are correctable. The Defendants have not established an understandable reason for not appealing. The breaches of planning control are extensive and ongoing, and the hardship to the Defendants does not outweigh the public interest in enforcing planning control and protecting the Green Belt. An injunction is necessary and proportionate.

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 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Injunction granted
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement Notices, Green Belt Policy, Statutory Appeals, Proportionality Under ECHR
Planning Law Local Government Law Property Law Injunctions Enforcement Notices Green Belt Policy Statutory Appeals Proportionality Under ECHR

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 16 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 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 hardship to Defendants outweighs the need for planning control

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory code under the TCPA 1990 requires challenges to enforcement notices to be made by statutory appeal; there is no valid exception in this case. The enforcement notice is not a nullity, and any errors are correctable. The Defendants have not established an understandable reason for not appealing. The breaches of planning control are extensive and ongoing, and the hardship to the Defendants does not outweigh the public interest in enforcing planning control and protecting the Green Belt. An injunction is necessary and proportionate.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted

Orders

  • Injunction to restrain breaches of planning control at Hare Hatch, to take effect 10 weeks from judgment (by 4pm on 1 May 2017)
  • Precise wording of the order and costs to be determined after further submissions