Fenland District Council v CBPRP Limited & Ors.

Fenland District Council v CBPRP Limited & Ors.

The claimant failed to demonstrate, on the evidence, a serious level of risk to asylum seekers or planning harm that would justify the grant of an interim injunction. The balance of convenience did not favour immediate restraint of the use of the hotel, as the harm alleged was not commensurate with the relief sought, and the need to accommodate asylum seekers under statutory duties outweighed the planning and welfare concerns raised.

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 (planning) / Interim Application for Injunction Pending Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Material Change of Use, Planning Enforcement, Accommodation of Asylum Seekers, Balance of Convenience, Statutory Duties Under Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law Interim Injunctions Material Change of Use Planning Enforcement 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 6 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 (planning) / Interim Application for Injunction Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of the 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, on the evidence, a serious level of risk to asylum seekers or planning harm that would justify the grant of an interim injunction. The balance of convenience did not favour immediate restraint of the use of the hotel, as the harm alleged was not commensurate with the relief sought, and the need to accommodate asylum seekers under statutory duties outweighed the planning and welfare concerns raised.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction under s.187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is refused.