In EPPING FOREST DC v SOMANI HOMES LTD ( 2025 ) EWHC 2937 (KB), the Bell Hotel case, the Council’s claim is dismissed by Mould J in an over 300 paragraps Judgment. The Council, as LPA, applied for a FINAL INJUNCTION to restrain the Defendant from using the Bell Hotel to provide ACCOMMODATION for ASYLUM SEEKERS , on the basis that the use for that purpose constituted a BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL. Mould J set out the legal principles about development and MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE (paras 28-38), enforcing planning control (paras 39-60), Section 187B of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (paras 159-166), determining whether a breach of planning control has taken place and the distinction between hotel use and hostel use (paras 169-175, 182 & 205), the correct approach to whether an injunction is an appropriate remedy (paras 206/207), environmental harm and urgency (paras 227/228 and 232-270), counervailing factors ( paras 271-275 and 281/282), and striking the balance and whether an injunction is a COMMENSURATE REMEDY (para 283-291).

The Judge concluded at paras 295/296, that this is NOT a case in which it is just and convenient for the Court to grant an injunction. The current use of the Bell, as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers, does constitute a CHANGE in the USE of those premises, which REQUIRES PLANNING PERMISSION, BUT an injunction is NOT a COMMENSURATE RESPONSE or appropriate. The breach was far from being flagrant. The degree of planning and environmental harm resulting from the current use of the Bell is limited. “ The continuing need for hotels is an important element in the supply of contingency accommodation to house asylum seekers in order to enable the Home Secretary to discharge her statutory responsibilities is a SIGNIFICANT COUNTERVAILING FACTOR.” The Judge also (paras 297-300) declined to give the Council declaratory relief.

In R v CHAMDAL (2025) EWCA Crim 1384 the Court of Appeal provides guidance on sentencing principles for contravening a TPO or TPOs and on relevant factors

STOP PORTLAND WASTE INCINERATOR v SoS for HCLG, POWERFUL PORTLAND LTD & DORSET COUNCIL (2025) EWHC 777 ( Admin ) is concerned with a decision on a Planning Appeal in relation to part of a Policy in a Development Plan and an Application, to Dorset Council, as Waste Planning Authority, for a detailed planning permission for a energy recovery facility. The challenge was a reasons challenge. At para 27 Holgate LJ highlighted some points of particular relevance :-

1. To be legally adequate, the reasons for a decision need only provide conclusions on the principal important controversial issues, and NOT on every material consideration or matter raised;
2. Reasons (a) must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law and (b) should enable unsuccessful opponents of the development proposed to understand how the policy or approval underlying the decision may impact upon future such applications;
3. Decision Letters should be read in a straightforward manner, recognizing that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced;
4. A reasons challenge will succeed ONLY if the party aggrieved can satisfy the Court that it has genuinely beed SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED by the failure to produce an adequately reasoned decision