Borough secures High Court injunction against several defendants over site where caravans are parked

The High Court has granted Waverley Borough Council an injunction against most defendants in a case concerning caravans parked on a site without planning permission.

Karen Ridge, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, refused injunctions against other defendants on the grounds that they had no reasonable alternative sites to go to.

The case of Waverley Borough Council v Gray & Ors [2023] EWHC 2161 (KB) concerned 13 named defendants and ‘persons unknown’.

Waverley sought final injunctions under s.187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in relation to a site in Cranleigh.

Judge Ridge noted the disputed site was outside any settlement boundary and was open countryside subject to a local plan policy designation as an ‘area of great landscape value’. Parts of the site are occupied by various defendants and their families.

Waverley had in May 2021 secured a series of temporary injunctions prohibiting further unauthorised works.  

It now sought a final injunction preventing any unauthorised development or occupation of the land and setting deadlines for it to be vacated.

There is an established Gypsy and Traveller community with some 100 pitches on the other side of the road at the disputed site.

Waverley’s reasons for refusing planning consent for the disputed site included that it would cause dominance of Gypsy and Traveller occupation in the Stovolds Hill settlement and that it would be contrary to development plan and national policy because the area is open countryside.

Judge Ridge said some defendants contested the council's suggestion that pitches on the Gypsy and Traveller site may be available. 

She said: “I understand these to be private sites, in the hands of individuals and it is to be expected that those individuals would want to keep any empty pitches for use by their own families.

"I conclude that it is unlikely that private pitches held by other unconnected individuals would be available to any of the defendants as alternative sites.”

She said there had been substantial works that constituted unauthorised development and continued to cause environmental harm.  

Defendants had been aware of the injunction orders, and in the cases of four of them “the failures to comply with the orders are serious and longstanding”.

Judge Ridge said Waverley cited in support of making final orders “flagrant and continuing breaches of court orders; the breaches are taking place in an area under significant pressure from similar unauthorised development; the breaches continued in the face of assurances given by the defendants; the claimant has made satisfactory provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation”.

Submissions for the defendants argued there had been deficiencies in Waverley's assessment of the impact of any final injunction on the families.

The defendants also argued there is a public law duty on authorities to review the proportionality of the continuation of interim injunctions as information comes to light and circumstances change and that Waverley had failed to do this, and this failure represented a continuing breach of the public sector equality duty.

They said: “Underpinning [Waverley’s] application for a final injunction is the proposition that the defendants could move to empty pitches at [the site] if the injunction is made final.

"That presumption is mistaken and underestimates the issue of the amount of hardship the families would suffer if the injunction were made final.”

Judge Ridge noted a number of the defendants had children, some with complex health needs.

She said the council refused planning permission on the disputed land on the basis it could demonstrate a five-year supply of pitches and that alternative accommodation was available on the other site nearby.

“This again points to the mindset of the local authority throughout their decision-making processes, they believed the defendants had somewhere else to go and a precarious roadside existence was not likely in the event of a final injunction,” Judge Ridge said.

She added: “I conclude that there are no other alternative sites available to these defendants in the event that they were required to leave the [site].

“A roadside existence for these families, with all of its attendant difficulties would be the most likely consequence of final injunctive relief. “That would lead to significant hardship for these families given their particular circumstances and healthcare needs.”

Judge Ridge said the defendants had vacated the site and later moved back when alternatives proved to be unsustainable and “I do not characterise moving back on to the site as a 'flagrant' breach of the injunction order but a last resort of defendants with nowhere else to go”.

She found defendants D3, D5, D6, D7, D8 demonstrated they wished to comply with the court orders and “their actions in moving back on to the site must be viewed in the light of their earlier compliance and the change in circumstances which meant that they had little to no remaining options in finding alternative accommodation”.

Judge Ridge added: “Apologies have been offered to the court and the defendants have sought to vary the terms of the injunction and pursue matters through the planning application and appeals process.”

For defendants D13 and D14 i who were not in breach of an injunction when they moved to the site, “it would be unjust and disproportionate to grant final injunctive relief [and] the interim injunction should be discharged against these defendants”.

Defendants D1 and D2 owned the site and “given the history and past uncertainty I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant a final injunction in negative form in respect of D1 and D2”. 

D4, D9 and D10 were joined as parties because their names featured in a planning statement in support of a planning application for use of the land as residential caravan site and D11 following service of a statutory notice under s. 330 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

“In relation to these four defendants, I am satisfied that they have been concerned with the land, albeit in a peripheral sense,” Judge Ridge said.

"The claimant maintains its case against these defendants, whilst accepting that costs should not be awarded against them.  I am satisfied, given their previous involvement and the documentation, that it is appropriate to grant final injunctions in negative form against these defendants.”

She concluded the claim for injunctive relief against persons unknown - designated as D12 - had been “carefully framed and limited with regard to both the area of land covered…and the activities are limited and clearly defined” and the injunction was justified.

Mark Smulian