Background
Blackpool Borough Council sought a permanent injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning land owned by Alice Beale, Laurence Boswell and Otheyboy Boswell-Jones in the Marton Moss Conservation Area. The defendants, who are Romani Gypsy travellers, had laid hardcore, installed services and divided the land into plots without planning permission. Beale and Boswell-Jones later occupied the site with their families.
An enforcement notice requiring cessation of the development and restoration of the land was upheld on appeal, but the defendants did not comply. Instead, Beale and Boswell-Jones moved caravans onto the site shortly after the compliance deadline. The owners subsequently applied for permission to create four permanent caravan pitches and argued that any requirement to leave should await the final determination of that application and any appeal.
The Council sought an order requiring the families to leave within 14 days and the site to be restored. Boswell, who had not occupied the site, offered an undertaking. The Council also sought relief against persons unknown.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court held that a permanent injunction was justified against Beale and Boswell-Jones. Their breaches were flagrant, serious planning harm was continuing in protected open land, and the court found it extremely unlikely that the pending application or an appeal would secure planning permission. The court declined to postpone enforcement until the planning process ended and allowed the families 21 days, rather than the requested 14, to leave.
The court found that the Council had failed properly to comply with its continuing public sector equality duty, including by failing to reassess the case after receiving the defendants’ detailed evidence. Applying the causation approach in Forward v Aldwyck Housing, however, it held that full compliance would highly likely not have produced a substantially different decision. After independently considering the defendants’ Article 8 rights, protected characteristics, medical circumstances and the children’s best interests, the court concluded that the injunction was proportionate.
The court agreed to accept a suitably framed undertaking from Boswell, failing which it would issue an injunction against him in equivalent terms. It refused a permanent injunction against persons unknown because the Council had not demonstrated a compelling need or proper justification for that relief.
Key Takeaways
- A section 187B injunction may require occupants to leave and restore land even while a fresh planning application remains pending, particularly where permission is extremely unlikely and serious planning harm continues.
- A breach of the public sector equality duty does not automatically defeat enforcement; the court must examine whether proper compliance would highly likely have produced a substantially different decision.
- Relief against persons unknown requires a compelling need and proper justification; restrictions binding identified landowners may make broader relief unnecessary.
Why It Matters
The judgment illustrates the court’s balancing exercise when planning enforcement affects the homes and cultural identity of Romani Gypsy families. Article 8 rights, equality duties and children’s interests were important considerations, but they did not outweigh the public interest in ending deliberate and continuing breaches that caused serious harm to a conservation area.
It also warns local authorities that equality analysis must be substantive, documented where appropriate and kept under review as new evidence emerges. Although the Council’s failure was not outcome-determinative here, the court scrutinised it closely rather than treating compliance as a formality.