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, although the defendants and their children would suffer significant hardship and interference with their Article 8 rights if evicted, and although the Council had not provided sufficient alternative Gypsy and Traveller sites, the planning harm to the Green Belt was substantial and had been upheld on appeal. The court found that the continued occupation was unlawful, that the Council had offered alternative accommodation, and that the balance of public and private interests required the grant of an injunction. The court concluded that the grant of an injunction was a proportionate and necessary response to enforce planning control, but allowed a period for compliance...

Citation
[2013] EWHC 45 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council; Defendants: AC and others (including BC, DE, FG, HI, JL, KL, MO, NO, PQ)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Claim for Injunction Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S 187 B / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Injunction
Outcome
Injunction granted with period for compliance
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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Claimant

AC and others (including BC, DE, FG, HI, JL, KL, MO, NO, PQ)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Claim for Injunction Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S 187 B / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Injunction

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 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, although the defendants and their children would suffer significant hardship and interference with their Article 8 rights if evicted, and although the Council had not provided sufficient alternative Gypsy and Traveller sites, the planning harm to the Green Belt was substantial and had been upheld on appeal. The court found that the continued occupation was unlawful, that the Council had offered alternative accommodation, and that the balance of public and private interests required the grant of an injunction. The court concluded that the grant of an injunction was a proportionate and necessary response to enforce planning control, but allowed a period for compliance...

Court Disposition

Injunction granted with period for compliance

Orders

  • Mandatory injunction granted requiring the defendants to cease use of the Waterstone Lane Site as a Gypsy caravan site and remove caravans, structures, and materials.
  • Defendants ordered to comply within a specified period to allow for transition and mitigate hardship.