Wealden District Council v Devall & Anor [2025] EWHC 2809 (KB) (29 October 2025)

Wealden District Council v Devall & Anor [2025] EWHC 2809 (KB) (29 October 2025)

The Defendants carried out operational development (rebuilding the barn, laying hardstanding) on the Land without planning permission, constituting a breach of planning control. The works materially altered the external appearance of the barn and the Land, were not permitted development, and were preparatory to unauthorised residential use. The breaches were deliberate and flagrant, justifying injunctive relief. The public interest in enforcing planning control outweighs the Defendants' private interests. A final injunction, with both prohibitory (for two years) and mandatory elements, is necessary and proportionate to remedy the breach and prevent further harm.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2809 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Wealden District Council; Defendant: John David Devall; Defendant: Sally Anne Watson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Final Injunction (planning Control) / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Final injunction granted (prohibitory for two years, mandatory elements as specified); costs to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under S.187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Breach of Planning Control, Proportionality of Injunctive Relief, Permitted Development Rights, Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Injunctions Under S.187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Breach of Planning Control Proportionality of Injunctive Relief Permitted Development Rights Article 8 ECHR +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wealden District Council

Claimant

John David Devall

Defendant

Sally Anne Watson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Final Injunction (planning Control) / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants carried out operational development on the Land in breach of planning control
  2. 2 Whether the works constituted 'development' requiring planning permission
  3. 3 Whether a final injunction (mandatory and prohibitory) is just, proportionate and necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants carried out operational development (rebuilding the barn, laying hardstanding) on the Land without planning permission, constituting a breach of planning control. The works materially altered the external appearance of the barn and the Land, were not permitted development, and were preparatory to unauthorised residential use. The breaches were deliberate and flagrant, justifying injunctive relief. The public interest in enforcing planning control outweighs the Defendants' private interests. A final injunction, with both prohibitory (for two years) and mandatory elements, is necessary and proportionate to remedy the breach and prevent further harm.

Court Disposition

Final injunction granted (prohibitory for two years, mandatory elements as specified); costs to be assessed.

Orders

  • Defendants restrained for two years from carrying out further operational development or using the Land in breach of planning control.
  • Defendants required within three months to demolish the barn, remove hardstanding laid by them, remove tree surgery equipment, and clear waste/rubble resulting from unlawful development or compliance with the order.