East Herts District Council v Patrick Joseph Flynn & Ors

The court granted a final injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrain and remedy breaches of planning control consisting of the material change of use of the land as a residential caravan site and unauthorised operational development (the laying of hardstanding) within the Metropolitan Green Belt and Brickendon Conservation Area. The court treated the Authority's enforcement history, the dismissed planning appeals and the Inspector's decision as important background, found that conventional enforcement routes (prosecution or the council carrying out remedial works) would not provide an appropriate or proportionate remedy, and held that an injunction was necessary and proportionate.

The court balanced the public interest in protecting the Green Belt and conservation area against the private interests of the occupiers, including the children's schooling and the family's accommodation needs, and extended the compliance period to allow time for relocation. The court considered and applied the leading authorities on s.187B injunctions (including South Bucks and Ipswich) and took account of the best interests of the children and public sector equality duties under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Background and parties: This Part 8 claim was brought by East Herts District Council against the occupants and the registered owner of land known as Long Leys, Fanshaws Lane, Brickendon (title HD585515). The First and Second Defendants (Mr Flynn and Ms O’Leary) occupied the site with their two children; the Third Defendant was the registered owner (BJS Sports Limited); proceedings against the Fourth Defendant were discontinued. The site lies in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Brickendon Conservation Area.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimant sought a final prohibitory and mandatory injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrain the continuing material change of use of the land as a residential caravan site, to require removal of caravans and residential paraphernalia, and to require excavation and removal of hardstanding, to secure compliance with an Enforcement Notice dated 4 February 2020.

Procedural posture: Planning applications in 2018 and 2019 were refused; an Enforcement Notice was issued and an appeal was dismissed by the Inspector on 28 April 2022 who found inappropriate development in the Green Belt and extended compliance to 28 August 2023 to reduce disruption to the children's schooling. The defendants did not comply with the Enforcement Notice and took no steps to remove the breaches. The claimant issued these Part 8 proceedings on 17 April 2025. The defendants engaged late and provided no substantive evidence. At the hearing the parties agreed terms for an injunction and the court was invited to exercise its discretion to make the order.

Issues framed: (i) whether there was an actual breach of planning control and non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice; (ii) whether it was necessary or expedient to seek relief by injunction under s.187B rather than by other statutory means; (iii) whether an injunction would be proportionate, having regard to the public interest (Green Belt and conservation) and private interests (family welfare and children's schooling), and equality duties.

Court's reasoning: The court found uncontested breaches of planning control (material change of use to a residential caravan site and unauthorised hardstanding) and persistent non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice despite the Inspector's decision and extensions. The court applied the principles from South Buckinghamshire (South Bucks) and Ipswich: the authority must consider whether injunction is necessary or expedient and whether other statutory remedies are likely to succeed. The claimant had considered alternatives (prosecution and carrying out works under s.178) and reasonably rejected them as ineffective or disproportionate. The court accepted the importance of the occupiers' family and children's schooling but found no evidence of particularised hardship or that the claimant had failed to consider personal circumstances; the claimant had offered assistance and allowed additional time. The court adjusted the compliance period (nine months in total: six months to remove the static home and paraphernalia and three months for hardstanding) to mitigate hardship and concluded that an injunction was a commensurate, necessary, and proportionate remedy to uphold planning control. The court therefore granted the final injunction and made a costs order against the occupying defendants.

The court granted a final injunction in the terms agreed by the parties, restraining the material change of use and requiring removal of caravans, paraphernalia and hardstanding in staged periods. The injunction was granted because there was an established breach of planning control, conventional enforcement methods had been considered and rejected as ineffective or disproportionate, and the injunction was proportionate after balancing the public interest in protecting the Green Belt and conservation area with the occupiers' family and children's interests.