Gypsy caravans — Application for planning permission — Introduction of caravans before determination of planning appeal — Breach of injunction Whether injunction should be discharged — Whether defendants should be committed for contempt of court — Claim dismissed
The defendant was a gypsy who owned a plot of land in the area for which the claimants were the local planning authority. When they were not travelling, the defendant and his wife resided on the land in their caravan pursuant to a planning permission granted in 1986. In 2005, the defendant applied for planning permission to site a further seven caravans on the land, and to undertake ancillary works, with a view to accommodating other members of his family. At that time, his wife was terminally ill, and the family wished to live together and to assist with her care. The defendant began to carry out works, but the claimants then refused planning permission, contrary to their planning officer’s recommendations. They also issued enforcement notices and served a stop notice to prevent further development. The defendant appealed on various grounds, including ground (c) in section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, namely that the matters complained of did not amount to a breach of planning control. He maintained that the 1986 permission permitted use of the land as a caravan site and did not confine such use to a single caravan.
The defendant subsequently breached the stop notice by allowing an additional caravan onto the site. He also informed the claimants that he proposed to add a further caravan, which had been removed from storage by a company that had since gone bankrupt, after his efforts to make alternative arrangements were unsuccessful. The claimants responded by applying for, and obtaining, an interim injunction restraining the defendant from further contraventions of the stop notice pending determination of the planning appeal. However, the second caravan was subsequently delivered to the site. The claimants brought an application to commit the defendant for contempt of court. The defendant argued that the interim injunction should be discharged. He relied, inter alia, upon his prospects of success at the imminent planning appeal.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
It was inappropriate, on the limited information before the court, to express any view on the defendant’s prospects of success on the planning appeal. It would be difficult to do so without going into the planning merits, which fell for determination at the public inquiry. The claimants had obtained the interim injunction on the basis of evidence that the defendant’s use of the land was in breach of planning control and that was simply a holding position to prevent further caravans from being introduced pending the outcome of the appeal. In the circumstances, it was not appropriate to discharge the injunction: Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry [2003] UKHL 26 applied. Nor would it be appropriate, however, to commit the defendant for contempt of court in the light of the highly unusual circumstances. These included: the fact that the defendant’s prospects on the planning appeal were not hopeless; his personal circumstances, including the illness of his wife, which were the cause of the breaches; his conduct in keeping the claimants informed and not having sought to conceal matters from them; and his undertaking not to introduce further caravans before the planning appeal was determined.
Robert Lewis and Christopher Buckley (instructed by the legal department of Waverley Borough Council) appeared for the claimants; Jonathan Clay (instructed by Bertram White Tavner & Co, of Epsom) appeared for the defendant.
Sally Dobson, barrister
