Fenland District Council v CBPRP Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 3132 (KB) (25 November 2022)

Fenland District Council v CBPRP Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 3132 (KB) (25 November 2022)

The claimant failed to demonstrate that the planning harm or risk to asylum seekers from accommodating them at the Rose and Crown Hotel was sufficiently serious to justify the grant of an interim injunction. The balance of convenience, considering the urgent statutory need to provide accommodation and the temporary nature of the use, did not favour immediate restraint. The refusal of an injunction does not authorise any unlawful use, and alternative enforcement powers remain available to the local authority.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3132 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Fenland District Council; First Defendant: CBPRP Limited; Second Defendant: Serco Limited; Third Defendant: H & H North Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application Under Part 8 (planning) / Interim Application for Injunction Pending Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Material Change of Use, Planning Control, Accommodation of Asylum Seekers, Balance of Convenience, Enforcement Powers Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law Interim Injunctions Material Change of Use Planning Control Accommodation of Asylum Seekers Balance of Convenience +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fenland District Council

Claimant

CBPRP Limited

First Defendant

Serco Limited

Second Defendant

H & H North Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application Under Part 8 (planning) / Interim Application for Injunction Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether use of Rose and Crown Hotel to accommodate asylum seekers constitutes a material change of use requiring planning permission
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain such use pending trial
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate that the planning harm or risk to asylum seekers from accommodating them at the Rose and Crown Hotel was sufficiently serious to justify the grant of an interim injunction. The balance of convenience, considering the urgent statutory need to provide accommodation and the temporary nature of the use, did not favour immediate restraint. The refusal of an injunction does not authorise any unlawful use, and alternative enforcement powers remain available to the local authority.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction under s.187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 refused
  • Liberty to apply for Barnstone Limited to discharge or vary any future order