Background
Somerset Council sought a final injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning land adjoining 6 Oxen Lane, North Curry. Traveller families had reoccupied the land in October 2024, brought caravans and mobile homes onto it, carried out engineering and servicing works, and used it as a residential site without planning permission.
The land had a planning-enforcement history extending back to 2004. An enforcement notice remained in force, earlier appeals had failed, and the High Court had granted an injunction in 2010 before the site was cleared. After the 2024 reoccupation, the occupiers applied retrospectively for permission, but the application was refused and a Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal on 1 June 2026 after considering the planning harm, Traveller accommodation needs, children’s welfare, health issues, equality considerations, and Article 8 rights.
Most defendants did not attend the final hearing, although two appeared and received assistance from a McKenzie Friend. The court nevertheless admitted their late evidence, found that service and notice had been adequate, and concluded that the occupiers had received a fair opportunity to present their case.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court granted Somerset Council both prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief. It held that the residential use and associated operational development remained breaches of planning control and that an injunction was appropriate given the site’s lengthy enforcement history, the extant enforcement notice, the earlier injunction, the knowingly unauthorised reoccupation, and the recent dismissal of the planning appeal.
The court accepted that eviction would interfere with the occupiers’ Article 8 rights and cause real hardship, particularly because children and people with health difficulties lived on the site and authorised Traveller pitches were scarce. Those considerations carried substantial weight, but the court held that they were outweighed by the public interest in enforcing planning control. The injunction was therefore a proportionate interference with the occupiers’ rights.
The court allowed three months for residential occupation and use to cease and four months for removal of unauthorised development, associated items and waste, and reinstatement of the land. Relief also extended to Persons Unknown, subject to procedural safeguards and a temporal limit of 15 September 2027 unless the court orders an extension.
Key Takeaways
- A section 187B court does not reconsider the planning merits, but must independently assess hardship, proportionality, and whether injunctive relief is appropriate.
- Traveller status, children’s best interests, medical needs, Article 8 rights, and the shortage of lawful pitches carried substantial weight but did not override the unusually strong enforcement factors.
- An injunction may bind newcomer Persons Unknown where there is compelling justification, adequate notice and safeguards, and appropriate territorial and temporal limits.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between the statutory planning process and the High Court’s enforcement role. A recent appeal decision addressing the occupiers’ personal circumstances did not dictate the result, but it received significant weight and could not be relitigated through the injunction proceedings.
It also shows how courts may tailor enforcement to reduce hardship without permitting an unlawful use to continue indefinitely. Here, the court granted comprehensive relief but suspended the mandatory provisions long enough to allow relocation and site-clearance arrangements.