Gypsy caravan site – Breach of planning control – Injunction – Gypsy site set up in breach of planning control – Enforcement notice– Several applications for planning permission refused by claimant local planning authority and secretary of state on appeal – Defendants continuing to occupy two pitches on site four years after deadline for compliance with enforcement notice – Whether appropriate to grant injunction against defendants – Claim allowed
In October 2004, a gypsy caravan site was set up, in breach of planning control, on an agricultural field in the area for which the claimant local planning authority were responsible. The site comprised 16 pitches, each in separate ownership, and included an access track from the adjoining highway. The claimants issued a stop notice and an enforcement notice against the defendant occupants in connection with their use of the site. Meanwhile, the defendants submitted 16 applications for planning permission in respect of the site, which the claimants refused to grant.
Appeals against the refusal of planning permission and the enforcement notice were dismissed, in September 2005, on the recommendation of the secretary of state’s planning inspector, save for an extension of time to allow the defendants to comply with the enforcement notice. In September 2006, three days before the deadline for compliance, certain defendants who remained in occupation submitted further planning applications, which the claimants again refused. The claimants’ decision was upheld by a planning inspector on appeal, following a detailed consideration of the planning merits and the occupants’ personal circumstances. A challenge to the inspector’s decision, brought by the occupants under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, was also dismissed. A third planning application in respect of one pitch was likewise refused, both by the claimants and by an inspector on appeal in April 2009.
By 2010, the upper part of the site had been cleared, pursuant to an interim injunction, but two families continued to occupy two pitches on the lower part. The claimants indicated that they would seek to remove the families by way of injunction if they did not vacate voluntarily. However, the families refused the claimants’ offer of permanent pitches on an existing gypsy site or assistance in the purchase of suitable land.
The claimants applied to the court, under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act, for an injunction in respect of the two remaining occupied pitches; only the occupants of the two pitches were represented in the proceedings. Meanwhile, those defendants applied once more for permanent planning permission in respect of their pitches. They argued that recent changes on the site had made a grant of planning permission appropriate and that an injunction should accordingly be refused.
Held: The claim was allowed.
It was appropriate to grant an injunction. The significant factors included the flagrant and prolonged nature of the breach, the defendants having remained in occupation for four years following the expiry of the compliance deadline for the enforcement notice despite three separate planning inquiries, and section 288 proceedings, in which the decisions had gone against them: South Bucks District Council v Porter [2003] UKHL 26; [2003] 2 PLR 101 applied, Brentwood Borough Council v Ball [2009] EWHC 2433 (QB); [2009] PLSCS 274 distinguished. The planning history was relevant, particularly the second inquiry, in which careful consideration had been given to the planning permits and the defendants’ personal circumstances. The planning position had been considered at lengths, including whether temporary permission would be warranted, and a reasoned, clear and careful decision by the second inspector, which provided cogent reasons for refusing planning permission. Moreover, planning permission had been refused even though alternative accommodation had not been available on gypsy sites at that stage. The relevant issues in the public interest in the enforcement of planning control and the private interests of the represented defendants had been carefully weighed. On each occasion, it had been concluded, for cogent reasons and after considering all material factors, that the represented defendants’ occupation of the site should be brought to an end in circumstances where it was known that the result would be itinerant camping by the roadside, with all the resultant disruption and hardship. Accordingly, the planning decisions already taken should be accorded the full measure of judicial respect. Where the secretary of state had given a recent adverse decision, a party would have to show that there was a real prospect of obtaining a different planning decision, based on some material change in circumstances, before it could successfully oppose an injunction on that ground: South Cambridgeshire District Council v Flynn [2006] EWHC 1320 (QB); [2007] JPL 440 applied. The current application did not show, even arguably, that a material change in circumstances made the prospect of a different decision a possibility.
Moreover, alternative accommodation was now available and the grant of an injunction would not lead to homelessness. The difficulties that the defendants would face if required to leave the site were not such as to outweigh the other factors that weighed heavily in favour of injunctive relief. The court was satisfied that the breach would continue until restrained by an injunction. Accordingly, taking into account all the relevant factors, whether considered individually or cumulatively, there were clear and powerful reasons to grant an injunction to enable the claimants to secure complete compliance with the enforcement notice: South Bucks applied.
Richard Langham (instructed by the legal department of Taunton Deane Borough Council) appeared for the claimants; Alex Offer (instructed by Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the represented defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
