West Devon Borough Council v Irene Connors & Ors

Under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an injunction is discretionary and no single test governs its grant. Continuing breaches despite unsuccessful enforcement, and evidence that only an injunction will provide effective restraint, strongly support relief. The court must consider personal hardship and the effect on Article 8 rights, while giving weight to a planning authority’s considered balance, and must decide whether relief is just and proportionate. A newcomer injunction requires compelling need supported by full, detailed evidence and proof that conventional measures are inadequate. Where occupants of a small, privately owned site can be identified and pursued through ordinary proceedings, that route may suffice.

West Devon Borough Council, the local planning authority, sought a permanent injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning agricultural land bought and developed by members of the Connors family and Ryan Bolton. An enforcement notice had been upheld on appeal, with compliance extended to 29 January 2027, but further development continued. The application sought relief against identified occupants and persons unknown. The central issues were whether an injunction against the identified defendants was necessary and proportionate, and whether the evidence justified a newcomer injunction.

1. Relief against the identified defendants. The court granted a permanent injunction, with amendments to the compliance dates. The jurisdiction under section 187B is an original and discretionary one. South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter & Others [2003] 2 A.C. 558 establishes that no single test governs the exercise of discretion. A continuing or anticipated breach, the failure of earlier enforcement and evidence that no lesser measure will effectively restrain the conduct strongly favour an injunction. The Council’s earlier notices had not stopped development, and further development followed the refusal of planning permission.
2. Proportionality and hardship. The court considered the effect on the defendants’ Article 8 rights and whether the injunction was just and proportionate. It gave weight to the Planning Inspector’s careful consideration of the families’ circumstances, while noting that the Council had made no suitable alternative traveller sites available. That failure weighed against relief and could be decisive in a future case. On the evidence before the court, however, the defendants’ Article 8 case did not justify significant weight. The court also considered the defendants’ housing needs, the winter conditions and the need to maintain hygiene. It therefore extended the deadline for removing specified caravans and washing facilities to 29 January 2027, matching the enforcement notice period.
3. Persons unknown. Wolverhampton City Council & Others v London Gypsies and Travellers & Others [2023] UKSC 47 requires a compelling need for a newcomer injunction, supported by detailed evidence and not adequately met by other available measures. The Council’s evidence did not address the specific need for that relief. The site was small, privately owned and occupied by one extended family; the Council could identify occupants and proceed against them in the usual way. The court refused the injunction against persons unknown. It had extended the relief to the known Hall family who had moved onto the land.

This was a first-instance application. The judgment records that an interim injunction was granted on 10 July 2026 by a Deputy Judge of the High Court; the present hearing concerned permanent relief.