Ashford Borough Council v Stevens & Ors

An injunction under s187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 involves an original and discretionary jurisdiction. The court must consider all the circumstances, including personal circumstances and Convention rights, and grant relief only where it is just and proportionate.

On an application to vary an injunction, the court should assess the planning prospects, the applicants’ personal and Article 8 rights, the interests of children, and the public interest in ensuring that court orders are obeyed. Where occupation began unlawfully after the injunction, and the planning merits provide no real prospect of permission, the public interest in upholding the order may outweigh hardship caused by removal.

The Council obtained an injunction under s187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 restraining development of land at High Halden and residential occupation by caravans. After the order was made, members of the defendants’ family moved mobile homes onto the land and continued residential occupation.

Paige Williams applied to vary the injunction so that she and her family could remain pending determination of planning applications or any appeal, or until suitable accommodation was provided. Several defendants admitted contempt, while the committal proceedings against others were adjourned. The central issue was whether the injunction should be varied in the light of the planning prospects, the applicants’ personal circumstances and Article 8 rights, and the public interest in enforcing court orders.

1. The variation application was refused. The injunction remained in force. The court was to hear further submissions on the time required to remove the mobile homes and caravans and on consequential orders. The committal proceedings were not finally determined.
2. Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 confers an original and discretionary jurisdiction. Applying South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558, the court had to consider all the circumstances, including personal circumstances, Article 8 rights and the planning history, and grant an injunction only if it was just and proportionate.
3. On an application to vary, the relevant considerations included the planning issues and the prospects of permission, the personal circumstances and Convention rights of the applicants, the best interests of children, and the overarching public interest in respect for court orders. That approach was supported by Mid-Bedfordshire District Council v Brown [2004] EWCA Civ 1709 and Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb [2011] EWCA Civ 1355.
4. The occupation had never been lawful and began after the injunction was made. The applicants had no legitimate status quo requiring protection. Their evidence of hardship, medical consequences and alternative accommodation was limited and, in material respects, insufficiently supported. The court accepted that removal would cause hardship but gave reduced weight to speculative or overstated medical opinions.
5. The previous enforcement appeal had rejected permission even for a single pitch. Even assuming that the applicants qualified as travellers, their personal circumstances were unlikely to displace the planning analysis, particularly in view of paragraph 25 of the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites. There was no real prospect of planning permission being granted.
6. Varying the injunction would allow the defendants to retain the benefit of residential occupation obtained in breach of planning control and a court order. The public interest in maintaining respect for court orders, explained in Brown [2004] EWCA Civ 1709, was a factor of great importance and outweighed the factors favouring variation.

The judgment records that Choudhury J granted the planning injunction on 30 March 2018. Soole J subsequently joined Paige Williams as a named defendant and gave directions for her variation application. This court refused the variation application.