Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council v Luke Salathiel & Ors

The claimant applied under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for injunctive relief to restrain unauthorised engineering works and the stationing and occupation of caravans on land at Nantyglo. The court had earlier granted a limited prohibitory injunction but, after further evidence from the claimant including a final geotechnical and contamination report, it concluded that a mandatory injunction was necessary as the balance of convenience and public interest favoured removal and remediation. Key legal principles applied included the American Cyanamid principles and the guidance in South Buckinghamshire v Porter on proportionality and the need to consider hardship, with specific reference to wellbeing of children and the Public Sector Equality Duty (Equality Act 2010 s149).

The court found that the defendants had carried out a flagrant and covert cut-and-fill engineering operation without planning permission and had occupied the site with caravans. The Tetra Tech report identified slope instability (factors of safety below acceptable standards), a material risk from shallow coal mining legacy, and elevated concentrations of PAHs and beryllium in near-surface soils presenting a moderate human-health risk. The defendants’ assertions of hardship and unsuitability of the council-run Cwmcrachen site were unsupported by robust evidence. For those reasons the court granted both prohibitory and mandatory relief requiring the defendants to remove caravans and restore the site or otherwise comply with remediation directions.

This is a first-instance Part 8 planning enforcement claim brought by the local planning authority under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for injunctive relief against unauthorised development and occupation of land to the east of Banna Bungalows, Nantyglo.

Background and facts:

• The site had been infilled historically to form a sloping grassed area. Over the Easter weekend (29 March to 1 April 2024) the defendants carried out substantial cut-and-fill works to reprofile the slope and brought on site several touring caravans.
• No planning permission had been sought or granted for the engineering operations or for residential occupation in caravans. The claimant served a temporary stop notice on 5 April 2024 (expired 2 May 2024) and applied for injunctive relief.
• At a with-notice hearing on 1 May 2024 the court granted a limited prohibitory injunction and gave directions for the defendants to file further evidence; the defendants did not file further evidence or acknowledge service. The claimant filed further statements and exhibits, including a final report from Tetra Tech.

Issues framed:

• Whether injunctive relief (including mandatory relief) should be granted to restrain or reverse unauthorised works and occupation under s187B T&CPA 1990.
• Whether the American Cyanamid principles and the approach in South Buckinghamshire v Porter required refusal of mandatory relief having regard to hardship, proportionality, wellbeing of children and the Public Sector Equality Duty.
• Whether the evidence established urgent public interest grounds (safety, subsidence risk, contamination) to justify mandatory relief pending final determination.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• The Tetra Tech report identified two primary stability risks: (a) newly constructed slopes with factors of safety below EC7 requirements, giving an assessed "very high" risk to site users and adjacent properties; and (b) unquantified risk of subsidence due to recorded shallow coal mining beneath the site. The report also identified elevated PAH compounds and beryllium in near-surface soils and assigned a moderate human-health risk that might require capping, removal of soils or hard-standing.
• The court treated the engineering works as a flagrant and covert breach of planning control carried out to create a fait accompli. The public interest in preventing an immediate risk to safety and in protecting health weighed heavily in favour of injunctive relief.
• The defendants’ asserted hardships—unsuitability of the council-managed Cwmcrachen site, mental-health effects of partners, and the needs of children—were not supported by cogent evidence. The claimant produced evidence that the defendants had previously occupied pitches at Cwmcrachen with chalet/touring caravan/amenity provision and that no homelessness presentation or documentary medical corroboration had been shown.
• Applying the American Cyanamid and South Buckinghamshire guidance and addressing proportionality and equality issues, the court concluded that the balance of convenience and public interest favoured granting mandatory relief as well as maintaining prohibitory measures.

Relief and aftermath: The court ordered both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions to require removal of caravans and remediation steps as necessary, and directed the claimant to consider promptly the form of final relief and enforcement options (including enforcement notice or amendment of the Part 8 claim to seek a final mandatory injunction).

At first instance the court granted the claimant both prohibitory and mandatory interim injunctions (making the mandatory injunction sought). The court’s rationale was that the defendants carried out a serious, covert breach of planning control by unauthorised engineering operations and occupation by caravans; the claimant’s geotechnical and contamination evidence (Tetra Tech final report) demonstrated significant risks to safety, subsidence and human health; and the defendants’ assertions of hardship were unsupported and did not outweigh the public interest and balance of convenience in favour of injunctive relief.