Maidstone BC v Goliea Brazil & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 965 (KB)
Basildon Borough Council v Eliza Sanders & Ors
20 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2954 (KB)
High Court
A council tried to evict families from land they developed without permission. The court considered if the eviction was fair, looking at if there were other places for the families to go and if the families’ children would be ok. Because there weren’t good options, and the families were mostly complying with previous court orders, the court said the families can stay until the permission issue is resolved.
Key Facts
- •Basildon Borough Council sought a final injunction against eight defendants and persons unknown for breaches of planning control on land in the Green Belt.
- •Unauthorised works included laying hardcore and erecting fencing to create four Gypsy/Traveller pitches.
- •Defendants 5 and 7 claimed to be occupying the land with their families.
- •Planning permission was refused, and appeals were pending.
- •The interim injunction granted in June 2024 prevented further work but allowed Defendants 5 and 7 to remain.
Legal Principles
The court has discretion to grant injunctions for breaches of planning control, considering all circumstances and proportionality.
South Bucks District Council v Porter (No. 1) [2003] 2 AC 558
The court must consider hardship to defendants, including availability of alternative sites and Article 8 rights (private and family life).
South Bucks District Council v Porter (No. 1) [2003] 2 AC 558
Best interests of children are a relevant consideration in proportionality assessments under Article 8.
R (SC) v SoS Work and Pensions [2022] AC 223; R (Devonhurst Investments Ltd) v. Luton BC [2023] EWHC 978 (Admin)
Planning policy and judgment are for local authorities, but the court can consider other issues like environmental harm and the possibility of a successful planning appeal.
South Bucks v Porter; Brentwood Borough Council v Buckley and Ors [2021] EWHC 2477 (QB)
Injunctions against persons unknown are possible with appropriate safeguards.
Wolverhampton v. London Gypsies and Travellers [2024] 2 WLR 45
Outcomes
The interim injunction was continued against all defendants, allowing Defendants 5 and 7 to remain pending the outcome of the planning appeal.
The court considered the lack of alternative sites, the presence of children, and the potential success of the planning appeal. The claimant failed to conduct a welfare assessment once evidence of occupancy emerged.
Similar Cases
Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council v Luke Salathiel & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1900 (KB)
St Albans City and District Council v Anthony Hugh Taylerson & Ors
[2024] EWHC 602 (KB)
Waverley Borough Council v Anthony Martin Gray & Ors
[2023] EWHC 670 (KB)
The Mayor & Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Michael Casey & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2252 (KB)