Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v AC & Anor [2013] EWHC 45 (QB) (18 January 2013)

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v AC & Anor [2013] EWHC 45 (QB) (18 January 2013)

The court held that, despite the significant hardship and interference with Article 8 rights that eviction would cause, the planning harm to the Green Belt, the absence of planning permission, the defendants' continued unlawful occupation, and the lack of alternative means to secure compliance justified the grant of an injunction. The Council's failures in site provision and the impact on children were weighed but did not amount to 'very special circumstances' sufficient to outweigh the planning harm or render the injunction disproportionate.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 45
Parties
Claimant: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council; Defendants: AC and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S 187 B / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Injunction granted
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement of Planning Control, Article 8 ECHR, Gypsy and Traveller Rights, Green Belt Policy, Children's Rights
Planning Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Injunctions Enforcement of Planning Control Article 8 ECHR Gypsy and Traveller Rights Green Belt Policy +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Claimant

AC and others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S 187 B / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an injunction under s 187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrain breaches of planning control on the Waterstone Lane Site.
  2. 2 Whether the grant of an injunction would be a disproportionate interference with the defendants' Article 8 ECHR rights and the rights of their children.
  3. 3 Whether the Council has complied with its duties to provide for Gypsy and Traveller sites and to consider the welfare of children.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, despite the significant hardship and interference with Article 8 rights that eviction would cause, the planning harm to the Green Belt, the absence of planning permission, the defendants' continued unlawful occupation, and the lack of alternative means to secure compliance justified the grant of an injunction. The Council's failures in site provision and the impact on children were weighed but did not amount to 'very special circumstances' sufficient to outweigh the planning harm or render the injunction disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted

Orders

  • Mandatory injunction granted restraining the defendants from continuing to use the Waterstone Lane Site as a Gypsy and Traveller site in breach of planning control.
  • Defendants ordered to vacate the site within a specified period.