Somerset Council v Peter Richards (Senior) & Ors

A final injunction to restrain an unauthorised traveller site under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is discretionary. Establishing a breach does not make relief automatic, and the court must not re-determine planning merits already decided through the statutory process. It must independently assess whether relief is appropriate and proportionate, balancing Article 8 rights, traveller status, family life, children’s welfare, health, equality considerations and alternative accommodation against the public interest in effective planning enforcement. A recent, detailed planning appeal decision may receive substantial weight, although it is not conclusive. Serious hardship may justify a period for compliance without defeating relief. Injunctions against Persons Unknown require compelling justification, procedural safeguards, territorial and temporal limits, and a just-and-convenient order. Here, final prohibitory and mandatory relief was granted with staged compliance periods.

Somerset Council sought a final injunction under section 187 B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 after traveller families reoccupied land adjoining 6 Oxen Lane, North Curry, in October 2024 and created a residential site with associated works. A retrospective planning application was refused and a statutory planning appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspector on 1 June 2026.

The defendants relied on traveller status, shortage of authorised accommodation, children, health, equality and Article 8 rights, and challenged environmental aspects of the planning outcome. The court considered whether final prohibitory and mandatory relief should be granted against named defendants and Persons Unknown, whether the hearing could fairly proceed despite most defendants’ absence and late evidence, and what time should be allowed for compliance.

Disposition. The claim succeeded. The court granted a final injunction against the named defendants and Persons Unknown under section 187 B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

1. Statutory discretion and planning merits. Section 187 B confers an independent and broad judicial discretion. An established breach does not make an injunction automatic. The just-and-convenient discretion under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 substantially overlaps with the section 187 B inquiry. Applying South Bucks DC v Porter (No.1) [2003] UKHL 26; [2003] 2 AC 558, the court was required to take the planning merits as determined through the statutory process and not conduct a surrogate planning appeal, while independently assessing hardship and all other relevant circumstances.
2. Proportionality. The injunction interfered with Article 8 rights, but pursued the legitimate public objective of enforcing planning control. Traveller status, homes, family life, children’s welfare, education, health, equality considerations and the shortage of alternative accommodation all carried weight. Children’s best interests were a primary consideration, but no factor had automatic priority. The recent planning appeal was not determinative, although substantial weight attached to the Inspector’s detailed assessment of both planning harm and personal circumstances. The court concluded that the cumulative public interest in enforcement outweighed the substantial hardship identified.
3. Persons Unknown. Applying Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47; [2024] 2 WLR 45, the court found a compelling need for relief, adequate procedural safeguards, territorial confinement to the Land, liberty to apply and a temporal limit to 15 September 2027 unless extended.
4. Procedural matters. Applying R v Jones (Anthony) [2002] UKHL 5, the court could fairly proceed in the absence of most defendants because they had a fair opportunity to participate and the substance of their case was before the court. Service was effective. Applying CPR 3.9 and the guidance in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, late evidence was admitted because it was material, the claimant had been able to respond and no material prejudice resulted.
5. Form, timing and costs. Both prohibitory and mandatory relief were justified. The mandatory provisions were suspended for three months for cessation of residential occupation and four months for removal of development, associated items and waste, and reinstatement of the Land. The named defendants were made jointly and severally liable for the claimant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records interim relief by HHJ Picton on 21 July 2025 and further case-management directions by Griffiths J on 2 February 2026; no appellate decision is stated.