Councils secure final injunctive relief over unauthorised development

Chelmsford City Council and Braintree District Council have secured a High Court injunction over unauthorised development and waste dumping at a site crossed by their boundary.

Mr Justice Saini said in his judgment that breaches carried out by the defendant were such that “nothing short of an injunction will provide effective restraint”.

The councils sought both prohibitory and mandatory relief over land at Boreham, which the defendant is understood to own.

They wanted to secure compliance with the multiple enforcement notices and breaches of planning control and restrain unauthorised uses including residential occupation.

The judge said the defendant had been aware of the proceedings for some time, but did not engage with them until the weekend before the hearing or file any response

He said the defendant did not file an Acknowledgement of Service within 14 days or serve any written evidence and “were he to seek to now defend the proceedings with evidence he would need to obtain the permission of the court”.

Saini J refused to adjourn as this would “not only waste time and money but they also cause prejudice to other litigants whose cases have to wait in line”.

Before the various disputed developments, the site had been open land not in any specific use.

Complaints were received of an unauthorised encampment along with diggers, trucks, a caravan and construction equipment in April 2017.

Both councils served a succession of enforcement notices, none of which were complied with.

In January 2023, the defendant pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to two counts of failing to comply with an enforcement noticed was fined £10,000 for each offence.

The same month the court jailed him for 13 months on two counts of running a waste operation without an environmental permit. A remediation order was also made, which has not been complied with.

Saini J noted he was shown a recent drone photograph of the site that “evidences extensive development as well as the presence of a number of vehicles, construction equipment, skips and caravans”

He concluded: “Standing back, in my judgment, an injunction is necessary and expedient because of all the above factors, including the clear conflict with the development plan policies and national policies.

“An injunction will uphold the integrity of the planning system as conventional enforcement measures are not likely to be effective in preventing further breaches or in bringing the breach to an end.”

Saini J said the evidence “amply demonstrates that the breaches of planning control will continue unless and until effectively restrained by the court and that nothing short of an injunction will provide effective restraint”, and that the councils had exhausted other enforcement measures open to them.

The councils were awarded costs.

Mark Smulian