Maidstone BC v Goliea Brazil & Ors.

The claimant, Maidstone Borough Council, sought a permanent injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrain and reverse widespread unauthorised development on land in the Metropolitan Green Belt that was also in a high flood risk zone. The court applied the guidance in South Bucks District Council v Porter and related authorities, assessing (a) the degree and flagrancy of breaches of planning control, (b) the planning harm (including Green Belt and flood risk), (c) the availability of alternative lawful sites, and (d) the personal circumstances of occupiers, including Article 8 and the public sector equality duty under section 149 Equality Act 2010.

The judge concluded that, except in the case of the first and second defendants (who had been granted temporary personal planning permission in 2017 which remained material to their case), the breaches were flagrant, enforcement history demonstrated that conventional measures had failed, and the cumulative planning harm and risk of further breaches made injunctive relief both necessary and proportionate. The application was granted against Defendants 3–23 and refused as to Defendants 1 and 2 for reasons including the prior temporary planning permission and inadequate consideration of their personal circumstances in the council's decision to apply.

This was a first instance application by Maidstone Borough Council for a permanent injunction under section 187B TCPA 1990 to restrain and require removal of unauthorised caravans, hardstanding and other works on land known as 'Land at Three Sons, Hampstead Lane, Nettlestead' in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Flood Zone 3.

Background and parties:

• The land is registered in several titles and occupied in multiple plots by various defendants (numbered D1–D23). The claimant relied on a planning consultant's evidence and a detailed enforcement history including enforcement and stop notices (2015), a prior s187B injunction (2017) and multiple refused retrospective planning applications and planning inspector decisions.

Nature of application and issues:

• The claimant sought prohibitory and mandatory relief to prevent further caravans, structures, hardstanding and works and to require removal of existing development.
• The principal issues were whether an injunction was appropriate and proportionate under s187B: assessment of planning harm (Green Belt and flood risk), the flagrancy and persistence of breaches and the failure of enforcement, the human factor (personal circumstances, Article 8 and best interests of children), availability of alternative sites, and whether the council had properly discharged its public sector equality duty.

Court’s reasoning and findings:

• The court applied the Porter framework: it accepted the planning status as given but exercised a judicial discretion, required consideration of hardship and alternative sites and assessed proportionality. It gave weight to the claimant’s decision-making where adequately done but formed its own judgment.
• The land had been substantially transformed and the development caused serious harm to Green Belt openness and posed flood risk concerns. Enforcement history showed repeated failures of conventional measures, including continued breach after a previous injunction.
• There was an absence of available lawful alternative sites; the council acknowledged this. Many occupiers and their children would suffer hardship if evicted, but (subject to D1/D2) that hardship did not outweigh the public interest and the scale and flagrancy of breaches.
• The council’s decision to seek an injunction was generally supported by a reasoned report, although it contained errors and omissions in relation to D1 and D2 (notably misdating the expiry of their temporary personal permission and failing to consider their personal circumstances), and limited shortcomings in the equality duty analysis were not, on the facts, decisive.

Outcome: The court granted the injunction as sought against Defendants 3–23 and refused it as against Defendants 1 and 2, explaining the different treatment by reference to the planning inspector’s earlier temporary permission for D1/D2 and the council’s insufficient consideration of their circumstances.

This first instance application was allowed in part. The court granted a permanent injunction in the terms sought against Defendants 3 to 23 because their occupation and development were flagrant breaches of planning control, enforcement measures (including a previous s187B injunction) had failed, and the planning and public interest outweighed the hardship to occupiers. The application was refused as to Defendants 1 and 2 because they had been granted temporary personal planning permission by the Planning Inspectorate in 2017, the council erroneously treated that permission as expired when deciding to apply for an injunction, and the council failed to give adequate consideration to their personal circumstances before seeking relief.