Stratford On Avon District Council v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2015] EWHC 3593 (QB) (21 December 2015)

Stratford On Avon District Council v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2015] EWHC 3593 (QB) (21 December 2015)

The application for injunctive relief was dismissed because the court found that the Defendant had not committed breaches on the evidence or, where there were breaches, they were minor, isolated, and not sufficient to justify injunctive relief. The obligations in the Method Statement were to use reasonable endeavours, not absolute prohibitions. The Defendant had taken significant steps to comply, and there was no evidence that conventional enforcement measures would be ineffective. Granting injunctive relief would be disproportionate and oppressive in the circumstances.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3593
Parties
Claimant: Stratford on Avon District Council; Defendant: Persimmon Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application Under Section 187 B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Application for Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Application for injunctive relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement of Planning Control, Proportionality, Discretionary Relief
Planning Law Administrative Law Injunctions Enforcement of Planning Control Proportionality Discretionary 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stratford on Avon District Council

Claimant

Persimmon Homes Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application Under Section 187 B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Application for Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether injunctive relief under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should be granted against the Defendant for alleged breaches of planning control
  2. 2 Proper construction of planning conditions and Method Statement obligations regarding delivery hours, banking, gate person, and landscaping
  3. 3 Proportionality and necessity of injunctive relief versus conventional enforcement measures

Ratio Decidendi

The application for injunctive relief was dismissed because the court found that the Defendant had not committed breaches on the evidence or, where there were breaches, they were minor, isolated, and not sufficient to justify injunctive relief. The obligations in the Method Statement were to use reasonable endeavours, not absolute prohibitions. The Defendant had taken significant steps to comply, and there was no evidence that conventional enforcement measures would be ineffective. Granting injunctive relief would be disproportionate and oppressive in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for injunctive relief dismissed