Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council v Luke Salathiel & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1900 (KB)
Waverley Borough Council v Anthony Martin Gray & Ors
29 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 670 (KB)
High Court
A council got court orders to stop people living in caravans illegally on their land. Some people tried to get the orders changed, but the judge said no because they broke the rules, and it's important to follow the law about planning permission. The judge wants to hear all the evidence at a big trial.
Key Facts
- •Waverley Borough Council (Claimant) sought injunctions against multiple defendants (D1-D14, including Persons Unknown) for breaches of planning control on land near Cranleigh, Surrey.
- •Defendants are members of the Gypsy & Traveller community, and had stationed caravans on the land without planning permission.
- •Interim injunctions were previously granted, prohibiting occupation and development on the land.
- •Defendants D7, D13, and D14 applied to suspend or vary these injunctions.
- •D13 and D14 had submitted planning appeals, arguing against final injunctions before appeal exhaustion.
- •D7 sought suspension to allow his family to continue residing on the land due to their health issues.
- •The trial was adjourned due to relief from sanctions granted to D7.
Legal Principles
The court exercises an original, not supervisory, jurisdiction in planning injunction cases. The court must consider all circumstances, but not independently assess planning merits. Injunctions must be just and proportionate, considering defendants' rights (Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1). The local authority's decision is relevant but not determinative.
South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558
Local authorities must consider best interests of children and obligations under the Equality Act 2010 regarding Gypsy, Romany, and Traveller communities.
Flintshire County Council v The Queen [2018] EWCA Civ 1089; Moore v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 44 (Admin)
Interim injunctions under s187B generally follow the American Cyanamid test. Proportionality is key: can the problem be addressed less drastically? Relevant factors include injunction scope, duration, site availability, cumulative effects of injunctions, and the local authority's proportionality assessment.
Basingstoke & Deane BC v Loveridge [2018] EWHC 2228 (QB); Bromley LBC v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 12; Thurrock Council v Stokes and Ors [2022] EWHC 1998 (QB)
Local authorities must present evidence demonstrating consideration of defendants' personal circumstances and potential hardship.
South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558
Personal circumstances cannot be used to circumvent previous court orders. Public interest in upholding planning control and respect for court orders is paramount.
Brentwood BC v. Buckley [2021] EWHC 2477 (QB); Cheshire East BC v. Maloney [2021] EWHC 350 (QB); Mid-Bedfordshire DC v Brown [2005] J.P.L 1060
Outcomes
D13 and D14's applications to vary injunctions were refused. The court held that whether planning appeals needed to be exhausted before granting final injunctions is a matter for the trial judge.
To avoid piecemeal litigation and in furtherance of the overriding objective (CPR 1.1 and 1.4(2)(d)). Their undertakings remain in force.
D7's application to suspend the injunction was refused.
The court found insufficient evidence to justify suspension, given the serious and longstanding breaches of the injunction. The court emphasized the need for public confidence in planning control and considered that the current injunction 'holds the ring' pending trial. While the court acknowledged D7's health concerns, the evidence of those concerns was contradictory and incomplete.