Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Michael Casey

A final injunction against persons unknown may restrain future breaches of planning control where there is a compelling demonstrated need for enforcement, other available measures are inadequate, and sufficient procedural protection is provided for newcomers. The injunction must also be appropriately limited in territorial and temporal scope. A court may grant such relief under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 where the statutory conditions and equitable requirements are met.

The claimant local planning authority sought a final injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning unauthorised development and the stationing of caravans at land occupied by members of the Gypsy and Traveller community.

Interim relief had previously been granted. The named defendants subsequently agreed terms resolving the claim against them. The remaining issue was whether a final prohibitory injunction should be made against persons unknown, including future newcomers to the land.

1. Statutory power. Section 187B(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local planning authority to apply for an injunction restraining an actual or apprehended breach of planning control where it considers an injunction necessary or expedient. Section 187B(2) gives the court discretion to grant an injunction it considers appropriate for that purpose.
2. Applicable principles. The court applied the principles endorsed by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47. A final injunction against newcomers is justified only where: there is a compelling need for enforcement which other available measures do not adequately meet; the order contains sufficient procedural protection for persons affected by it; and the injunction is territorially and temporally constrained.
3. Application. The evidence established significant and persistent breaches, including substantial deposits of hardcore, retaining walls, unauthorised structures and additional caravans. Previous notices and other enforcement measures had not been effective. The claimant had also experienced difficulty identifying those responsible. These matters demonstrated a compelling local need for injunctive enforcement.
4. The proposed order provided procedural protection by requiring notice to affected persons and allowing an application to vary or discharge the injunction on 48 hours’ notice. It was limited to the land shown on the red-line plans.
5. Although an unlimited injunction was acceptable against the named defendants, a ten-year limit was appropriate against newcomers. That period reflected the history, extent and likely continuation of the breaches while ensuring that the order did not outlast the compelling circumstances relied upon.
6. The sealed consent order was revoked and was to be remade to reflect the judgment. The agreed disposal against the named defendants was approved, and final injunctive relief against persons unknown was granted in modified terms.