The High Court, analysing the cumulative works, came to the conclusion that they demonstrated a deliberate and flagrant breach of planning control in an environmentally sensitive area.
Facts:
The Local Planning Authority (LPA) of Wealden District Council (WDC) is seeking an injunction against the defendants, Mr. Devall and Ms. Watson, who purchased a 0.14-hectare parcel of land on the north side of Old Forge Lane in February 2024. The land in question is located within the High Weald National Landscape Area and within 400 metres of the Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA).
Prior to the purchase, the defendants' planning agent sought pre-application advice for establishing a residence, but the LPA indicated that the proposal was unlikely to gain support and required planning permission. After the purchase, the defendants carried out various works, including the demolition and rebuilding of a derelict barn with a materially different appearance (green sheeting, different doors and windows), the creation of a large area of hardstanding and a lawn area, and the affixing of a letterbox.
Residents filed complaints in April 2025, and an LPA visit to the location confirmed the works. The defendants had also paid for a domestic water supply connection, which Southeast Water described as being for a "new build," though Ms. Watson later claimed she had cancelled the works after the initial injunction was granted.
Ms. Watson engaged with the Court to a limited extent, confirming that she is Mr. Devall's partner and lives with him and their children in West Sussex, although she did not attend the final hearing or file evidence in the required format, arguing that the proceedings had caused her stress and that the works were simply a restoration of the barn and a clearing of pre-existing hardstanding.
The LPA argued that the cumulative works evidenced a flagrant and deliberate breach of planning control and constituted an intention to use the land for unauthorised residential occupation, a use which the LPA sought to prevent, given the prevailing environmental sensitivities.
Decision:
The High Court granted the injunction and ordered the defendants to demolish the rebuilt barn and to remove any hardstanding material, tools, equipment, waste, and rubble generated by the unlawful development. The defendants were restrained for a period of two years from carrying out any further operational development or using the land in breach of planning control.
The demolition and rebuilding of the barn, as executed, with a materially different external appearance, constituted an operational development requiring planning permission, in direct contravention of Sections 55(1A) and 55(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) 1990. The breach was deemed flagrant because the defendants proceeded with the works in the face of clear pre-application advice that planning permission was required and that a residential proposal was unlikely to succeed.
The cumulative works (i.e., rebuilt barn, hardstanding, lawn, letterbox, and payment for a "new build" water supply) demonstrated a clear intention to establish unauthorised residential use.
Implications:
The judgement reaffirms that the Court can and will grant a final injunction under Section 187B of the TCPA 1990 where the LPA demonstrates that nothing short of an injunction will provide effective restraint against an actual or apprehended breach.
It supports the LPA's right to seek an injunction to prevent anticipated harm (i.e., immediate residential use) based on the evidence of preparatory works (hardstanding, water supply, letterbox) and the defendants' stated initial intention to reside on the property.
The case highlights that the Court will look at the cumulative effect of seemingly minor breaches to establish a deliberate intent to breach planning control.
Finally, this demonstrates that proceeding with development after receiving a warning is highly likely to be considered a deliberate disregard for the law, thereby strongly justifying an injunction.
