Chichester District Council v Sullivan & Ors (Rev 1)

Under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court has an original and discretionary jurisdiction to grant inhibitory or mandatory injunctions to restrain actual or apprehended breaches of planning control. Persistent, serious and intentional breaches, coupled with unsuccessful enforcement measures, strongly support relief. The court must nevertheless decide for itself whether the proposed order is just and proportionate, including under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol. Lack of alternative accommodation for gypsy or traveller occupiers is a weighty consideration but is not decisive. The impact of changing circumstances, including the Covid-19 pandemic, may justify tailored deadlines or later variation, but does not necessarily prevent an injunction. Site-wide proceedings may be appropriate, provided the order distinguishes between obligations which only plot owners can perform and obligations imposed on occupiers and users.

The local planning authority sought permanent injunctions concerning land within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The land had been progressively divided into residential plots and occupied by gypsy and traveller families in caravans and mobile homes, despite enforcement notices and an inspector’s decision requiring cessation of residential use and removal of physical development.

The defendants relied on the absence of alternative pitches, personal and family circumstances, human rights, alleged unfairness in joining multiple defendants, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The court had to determine whether injunctions should be granted, against whom, in what form, and with what compliance periods.

1. Jurisdiction and governing principles. Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 conferred an original discretionary jurisdiction. The court could grant inhibitory and mandatory relief, including against persons unknown. It did not review the planning merits of the local authority’s or inspector’s decisions. Following South Bucks District Council v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558, persistent non-compliance and the failure of lesser measures were strong factors in favour of an injunction.
2. Proportionality. The court had to decide for itself whether relief was just and proportionate. Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol were engaged. The environmental harm, the site’s AONB status, the seriousness and duration of the breaches, their intentional nature, and the failure of enforcement measures made the case for relief compelling.
3. Personal circumstances and alternatives. The lack of available gypsy or traveller pitches was significant, particularly because some occupiers might have to go on the road and children might be affected. It was not, however, a trump card. The court also considered pregnancy, health issues, schooling and family life. Those matters justified extended and staggered deadlines, but did not outweigh the public interest in restoring the site.
4. Covid-19. The current pandemic circumstances did not justify refusing or postponing mandatory relief. Future outbreaks or individual medical developments could be addressed by applications to vary the orders, supported by appropriate evidence.
5. Form of relief. The proceedings could properly continue against multiple defendants and persons unknown. All defendants and persons unknown were restrained from unlawful use. Positive obligations to remove fixed development and reinstate each plot applied only to its current owner. The First and Nineteenth Defendants were excluded.
6. Order. Domestic occupation and associated moveable items had to cease by 31 December 2020. Remaining physical development had to be removed and the land restored by 31 January 2021. The parties were directed to prepare an amended draft order.