[2025] EWCA Civ 1134

In response, Mr Green says that relevant to the decision of the local planning authority in seeking an injunction pursuant to section 187B of the 1990 Act is whether such action is necessary or expedient. There is no obligation to seek an injunction or to take any enforcement action. The planning authority has a broad discretion relevant to which are the prevailing circumstances. The use of the Hotel to accommodate asylum seekers was regarded by the Council as being in breach of planning control but it tolerated the situation prior to July 2025 as there were no protests, disorder or criminality. The trigger for seeking an injunction was the July protests. What had been previously tolerated became intolerable. There was no delay as the Council was responding to a change in circumstances. Further, Somani is not prejudiced by the absence of any previous lack of enforcement action by the Council.

In determining where the balance of convenience fell, the judge was exercising a broad discretion to grant an injunction where it was just and convenient to do so. The judge’s finding that Somani had acted deliberately is relevant to the flagrancy of the breach. In South Bucks, Simon Brown LJ (as he then was) at [38] identified the importance attached to enforcing planning control in the public interest and the relevance of the degree and flagrancy of the postulated breach of planning control. Somani made a decision not to apply for planning permission in May 2025; it chose to take the risk. It was deliberately confronting the Council with a choice between accepting the position or taking enforcement action. That was a deliberate decision.

As to the issue of hardship, at [55]-[56] the judge dealt with the need for asylum seeker accommodation generally and as met by the Hotel. The judge sufficiently addressed this issue. If practical difficulties arose, the judge made provision for liberty to apply to the court. As to any failure on the part of the Council to consider the harm that might be caused by an injunction, the court was exercising an original and not a supervisory jurisdiction: it was for the court to reach its own view on the evidence which the judge did.

We consider, with respect, that the judge made a number of errors of principle which vitiate his exercise of discretion in assessing the balance of convenience.