Basildon Borough Council v Eliza Sanders & Ors

The claimant sought a final injunction under s.187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrain unauthorised operational development and a change of use of land in the Green Belt for stationing caravans. The court found the operational works and the timing of those works to be flagrant breaches, and recognised the definitional harm to Green Belt openness, but declined to grant the final injunction sought.

The judge continued the interim injunction previously made on 4 June 2024 and permitted the fifth and seventh defendants to remain on the land until the outcome of the pending planning appeal. Key reasons were the absence of a re-assessed proportionality exercise once evidence emerged about the defendants’ personal circumstances (including children), the failure of the claimant to carry out welfare assessments, the realistic prospects that the planning appeal might succeed, and the lack of available alternative pitches. The decision applied the principles in South Bucks v Porter and balanced Green Belt harm against Article 8 and children’s best interests and equality considerations under the Equality Act 2010.

This was a first instance application by Basildon Borough Council for a final injunction under s.187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to land known as "land to the rear of Sunnyside, Lower Avenue, Bowers Gifford". The claimant sought to restrain further operational development and any material change of use to stationing caravans for human habitation, to require restoration of the land and to remove occupiers from the site.

Background and procedural posture:

• The claimant served a Temporary Stop Notice after operational works commenced in late May 2024; works continued and an interim injunction was obtained without notice on 29 May 2024 and varied on 4 June 2024 to allow two named defendants to remain on site pending further directions.
• The claimant refused a subsequent planning application for four Gypsy/Traveller pitches on 16 September 2024; an appeal against that refusal and an appeal against an enforcement notice were pending before the planning inspectorate at the time of the hearing.

Facts and evidence considered:

• The court heard evidence from planning enforcement officers and from some defendants; aerial and satellite imagery going back several years was admitted and showed intermittent presence of caravans and hard standing.
• The claimant’s enforcement report found the development to be unauthorised and harmful to the Green Belt; the defendants (not all legally represented) asserted long-standing and continuing occupation, that they are Romani Gypsies and that children live on the site.
• The claimant accepted breaches of planning control and relied on the flagrancy of the works and the need to uphold planning law. The defendants emphasised Article 8 rights, best interests of children and lack of alternative authorised pitches in the borough.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether it was proportionate and just to grant a final injunction in all the circumstances having regard to planning harm and to private and family life (Article 8) including the best interests of children.
• Whether the claimant had adequately considered equality duties and the personal circumstances of occupants and whether the council should have undertaken welfare assessments when new evidence emerged.
• Whether interim relief should be continued and, if so, on what terms pending the planning appeal.

Court’s reasoning and outcome:

• The court applied the guidance in South Bucks v Porter (Porter) and related authority: the injunctive power is discretionary and requires a structured proportionality assessment including consideration of hardship, availability of alternative sites, the degree of breach, and children's best interests.
• Although the operational development caused definitional harm to the Green Belt and the works were carried out in a concerted way, the claimant had not re‑evaluated proportionality or undertaken welfare checks after evidence emerged indicating that children and occupants were resident. The claimant could not demonstrate availability of alternative pitches and there was real prospect that an inspector might reach a different planning conclusion at appeal.
• Balancing those factors, the judge refused to grant the final injunction but continued the existing interim injunction (the Second Order of 4 June 2024) against all defendants, preserving the right of the fifth and seventh defendants to remain on the land until the planning appeal process is concluded.

The judgment records that the claimant may return to court for further relief depending on the outcome of the planning appeal or if further enforcement action is appropriate; the judge invited the parties to draw up an order reflecting the continuation of the interim injunction.

This was a first instance application in which the court declined to grant the final injunction sought by the claimant. The judge continued the interim injunction of 4 June 2024 against all defendants, allowing the fifth and seventh defendants to remain on the land until the pending planning appeal is finally resolved. The decision was driven by a structured proportionality assessment under South Bucks v Porter: the definitional Green Belt harm was weighed against Article 8 rights, the best interests of the children, equality considerations and the absence of a welfare re-assessment and of available alternative sites. The claimant was criticised for not re‑assessing proportionality once evidence about occupancy and children emerged and was left free to pursue further enforcement or to return to court after the appeal outcome.