Background
Uttlesford District Council sought an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning land at Mole Hill Green in Essex. After receiving complaints, the council observed hardstanding, fencing, machinery and caravans on what had been a green field. It issued a temporary stop notice on 5 May 2026. On 7 May, Mr Justice Mould granted an emergency injunction without notice prohibiting specified development, the bringing or stationing of caravans and other structures, and residence on the land without planning consent. The injunction was later continued pending this return-date hearing.
Anthony Mongan said he had purchased the relevant land for use by his extended Traveller family and maintained that 12 families had occupied caravans there before the injunction was granted. He sought to vary the order so that the families could remain while planning matters were resolved, relying principally on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The council disputed that residential occupation had begun before 7 May. A fourth defendant, Lorna Derrett, owned a separate nearby parcel and supported enforcement against the development on Mongan’s land.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Ritchie continued the injunction against Mongan, the family members who were to be named as defendants, and persons unknown. The court found, for the purposes of the return-date decision, that the council’s evidence showed on the balance of probabilities that nobody was residentially occupying the relevant land when the original injunction was granted. The caravans appeared to form part of rapid development works; the site lacked services, some caravans were tilted, and the defendants had not supplied persuasive dated evidence of ordinary family life on the land.
Because no home or residential occupation had been established before the original order, Article 8 did not affect the court’s decision to retain the prohibition on residence. The court also found a serious issue to be tried concerning breaches of planning control and the timing of occupation, concluded that damages were not an adequate remedy, and held that the balance of justice supported preserving the pre-development position. It continued the restrictions on further development, additional residents, equipment and related activities, as well as the bar on residence.
The court removed Derrett as a defendant, holding that she should never have been joined, had not been properly served and had done nothing giving rise to a cause of action. It also accepted the council’s undertaking to make a proper application to add the previously unidentified family members named in correspondence.
Key Takeaways
- Placing caravans on land does not by itself establish residential occupation or a home for Article 8 purposes; the court examined the reality of daily living, the duration of occupation, community ties and whether other accommodation existed.
- On a section 187B return date, evidence of rapid unauthorised development, disregard of a temporary stop notice and possible post-injunction activity may weigh strongly in favor of continuing interim restrictions.
- A claimant relying on a persons-unknown injunction should seek to join individuals once their identities become known.
Why It Matters
The decision explains how the High Court may assess claims that a newly established Traveller site was already a “home” when an emergency planning injunction was issued. Article 8 requires careful consideration when an order interferes with an existing home, but the party asserting that protection must provide credible evidence of genuine residential occupation.
The judgment also reinforces procedural safeguards for persons-unknown injunctions, including clearly defined defendant classes, narrow prohibitions, appropriate geographic limits, effective service and rights to seek variation or discharge.