Council secures final High Court injunction over unlawful development

The council was seeking both prohibitory and mandatory relief to restrain what it contended were continuing breaches of planning control arising from the use of the land at Oxen Lane, North Curry as a residential traveller site.

The council was also seeking to require the cessation of that use together with the removal of associated operational development.

His Honour Judge Sidddique, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, noted that the land had been the subject of planning controversy and enforcement action extending over more than 20 years.

The background to the current claim was the reoccupation of the land in October 2024, when families entered onto the land and commenced works associated with the creation of residential pitches. Caravans and mobile homes were subsequently brought onto the land.

Somerset contended that these activities constituted unlawful development and unauthorised residential use for which planning permission had neither been granted nor subsequently obtained.

In June this year a planning inspector dismissed an appeal against the council’s refusal to grant retrospective planning permission for the site.

HHJ Siddique concluded: “I am satisfied that the grant of a final injunction against the named defendants and persons unknown represents a proportionate and justified response to the breaches of planning control identified in these proceedings.

“Whilst I have given substantial weight to the personal circumstances of the occupiers, those considerations are outweighed by the factors favouring enforcement.

“Accordingly, I grant the claimant's application for a final injunction pursuant to section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in the terms set out in the accompanying order, subject to the periods of suspension identified….”

HHJ Siddique decided that the mandatory provisions of the injunction should be suspended for a limited period. “A period of suspension is necessary to allow reasonable time for alternative arrangements to be made and to mitigate the hardship that would result from immediate enforcement, particularly in relation to children and vulnerable individuals.”

In relation to the provisions requiring the cessation of residential occupation and use of the land, he concluded that a suspension period of three months was appropriate.

In relation to the provisions requiring the removal of unauthorised development, associated items and waste, together with the reinstatement of the land, he judged that a longer period of four months was justified.

Responding to the ruling, Cllr Mike Rigby, Somerset Council’s Lead Member for Economic Development, Planning and Assets, said: “This has been a long-running and complex case, and we recognise that residents have been frustrated by the length of time it has taken to reach this point.

“However, throughout this process the council has been required to follow both planning law and the legal processes set by the courts. We could not bypass those procedures, regardless of the strength of local feeling.”

He added: “Since the site was reoccupied, we have pursued planning enforcement action, secured an interim injunction, defended the refusal of planning permission through the appeals process and sought a final ruling from the High Court.

“The planning inspector dismissed the appeal against the council’s decision and the High Court has now granted a final injunction in our favour.

“We welcome the Court’s judgment, which recognises the importance of upholding planning controls while carefully considering the circumstances of those living on the site.”

He said the council would now work with all relevant agencies to implement the Court’s order “and bring this long-running matter to a lawful conclusion”.