Key Facts
- •Maidstone BC sought a permanent injunction against 23 defendants under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for unauthorized development on Green Belt land.
- •The land, owned by various defendants, is subject to multiple planning breaches and previous enforcement actions, including a 2017 injunction.
- •Defendants occupy the land with caravans and structures, causing significant harm to the Green Belt and posing flood risks.
- •Many defendants have personal circumstances, including medical conditions and children attending local schools, that would be impacted by eviction.
- •No alternative sites are currently available for relocation.
Legal Principles
Court's discretion to grant injunctions under section 187B TCPA 1990; considering proportionality, impact on defendants' rights (Article 8 ECHR), planning history, and availability of alternative sites.
South Bucks District Council v Porter (No. 1) [2003] 2 AC 558
Public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010
Importance of upholding court orders and not condoning contempt.
Mid Bedfordshire District Council v Brown [2004] EWCA Civ 1709
Need for newcomers to take immediate steps to vary an injunction.
South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell and Others [2005] EWCA Civ 1429
Outcomes
Injunction granted against defendants 3-23.
Significant and flagrant breaches of planning control, despite previous enforcement attempts; harm to Green Belt outweighs defendants' hardship; adequate consideration given to personal circumstances (except for D1 & D2).
Injunction refused for defendants 1 and 2.
Temporary planning permission still valid; less flagrant breaches; inadequate consideration of their circumstances by the Claimant.