Oxfordshire County Council v Wyatt Bros (Oxford) Ltd & Ors

Oxfordshire County Council v Wyatt Bros (Oxford) Ltd & Ors

The breach of planning control is substantial, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and has persisted for years despite enforcement notices and opportunities for compliance. The claimant has not 'moved the goalposts' and has acted reasonably. The harm to the green belt and public interest outweighs any financial hardship to the defendants. Injunctive relief is proportionate and necessary. Relief should not be suspended pending the planning appeal. At this stage, relief is only granted against the first defendant company, with the question of relief against the individual directors adjourned.

Parties
Claimant: Oxfordshire County Council; First Defendant: Wyatt Bros (Oxford) Ltd; Second Defendant: Michael Wyatt; Third Defendant: Ronald Charles Wyatt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (planning Enforcement/injunction) / Judgment After Contested Application for Injunction
Outcome
Injunction granted against the first defendant; consideration of relief against second and third defendants adjourned.
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under Section 187 B TCPA 1990, Enforcement of Planning Control, Waste Disposal, Green Belt Policy, Proportionality of Injunctive Relief
Planning Law Environmental Law Local Government Law Injunctions Under Section 187 B TCPA 1990 Enforcement of Planning Control Waste Disposal Green Belt Policy Proportionality of Injunctive Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oxfordshire County Council

Claimant

Wyatt Bros (Oxford) Ltd

First Defendant

Michael Wyatt

Second Defendant

Ronald Charles Wyatt

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (planning Enforcement/injunction) / Judgment After Contested Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an injunction should be granted under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enforce compliance with planning enforcement notices requiring removal of waste and restoration of land.
  2. 2 Whether the breach of planning control is substantial or technical.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the claimant (alleged 'moving the goalposts') precludes relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The breach of planning control is substantial, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and has persisted for years despite enforcement notices and opportunities for compliance. The claimant has not 'moved the goalposts' and has acted reasonably. The harm to the green belt and public interest outweighs any financial hardship to the defendants. Injunctive relief is proportionate and necessary. Relief should not be suspended pending the planning appeal. At this stage, relief is only granted against the first defendant company, with the question of relief against the individual directors adjourned.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted against the first defendant; consideration of relief against second and third defendants adjourned.

Orders

  • First defendant ordered to remove all waste materials from the specified area except as permitted by enforcement notices or planning permission, restore land to specified contours, prepare for seeding by 31 August 2006, and complete seeding by 15 October 2006.
  • Order to exempt any material permitted to remain by future planning permission.