Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v AC & Anor

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v AC & Anor

The court held that, despite the significant interference with the Defendants' and their children's Article 8 rights and the lack of alternative Traveller sites, the occupation of the Waterstone Lane Site was unlawful from the outset, all planning appeals had failed, the Council had offered alternative accommodation, and only an injunction would secure compliance. The balancing exercise, considering all factors including the best interests of the children, tipped decisively in favour of granting the injunction as proportionate and necessary to uphold planning control and the rule of law.

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
Civil (planning/local Authority Enforcement) / Judgment on Application for Injunction
Outcome
Injunction granted
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S 187 B, Enforcement of Planning Control, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home and Family Life), Children Act 2004 S 11, Best Interests of the Child, Traveller/gypsy Site Provision, Green Belt Policy, Discretionary Relief and Proportionality
Planning Law Human Rights Law Local Government Law Children's Rights Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S 187 B Enforcement of Planning Control Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home and Family Life) Children Act 2004 S 11 +4 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Civil (planning/local Authority Enforcement) / Judgment on Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a mandatory injunction under s 187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrain breaches of planning control by the Defendants on the Waterstone Lane Site
  2. 2 Whether the grant of an injunction would be a disproportionate interference with the Defendants' and their children's rights under Article 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the Council has failed in its duties to provide adequate Traveller sites under the Housing Act 2004 and related guidance

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, despite the significant interference with the Defendants' and their children's Article 8 rights and the lack of alternative Traveller sites, the occupation of the Waterstone Lane Site was unlawful from the outset, all planning appeals had failed, the Council had offered alternative accommodation, and only an injunction would secure compliance. The balancing exercise, considering all factors including the best interests of the children, tipped decisively in favour of granting the injunction as proportionate and necessary to uphold planning control and the rule of law.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendants to cease using the Waterstone Lane Site as a Gypsy caravan site by noon on 28 February 2013
  • Owners to remove caravans, structures, hard standings, and materials associated with the unauthorised use and reinstate the site by 31 May 2013 (as per ownership)