Guildford Borough Council v Cupids Green Limited & Ors

Guildford Borough Council v Cupids Green Limited & Ors

Widespread, clear, and flagrant breaches of planning control occurred on environmentally sensitive land. Enforcement notices and lesser measures proved ineffective. Injunctive relief under section 187B is necessary, expedient, and proportionate to restrain actual and apprehended breaches, including against persons unknown. The Council considered defendants' personal circumstances, welfare, and human rights, and the order is justified and lawful. Mandatory elements apply only where defendants are responsible or able to comply; restraining elements apply more broadly. Costs excluded for certain defendants who remedied breaches or were not responsible.

Parties
Claimant: Guildford Borough Council; Defendant: Cupids Green Limited; Defendant: Alfie Sam Daly; Defendant: Jack Mikol; Defendant: Jack Brazil; Defendant: Joseph Brazil; Defendant: Albert Chapman; Defendant: Celia Green; Defendant: Billy Chapman; Defendant: Frank Edward Green; Defendant: William Keat; Defendant: Nick Chapman; Defendant: Jadwiga Agata Szczecinek; Defendant: Jamie Alan Wotton; Defendant: Show Site Services Limited; Defendant: Noah Green; Defendant: Martin Chatfield; Defendant: Russell John Ede; Defendant: Dean John Early; Defendant: Adam Zackary Bahou; Defendant: Joseph Faam; Defendant: James Oliver Ede; Defendant: Asaf Hosein; Defendant: Haleema Hosein; Defendant: Lixiang Guo; Defendant: Olga Eugenia Ustinova; Defendant: Mohammad Faam; Defendant: Junbo Ding; Defendant: Caili Zhu; Defendant: Bridget Cash; Defendant: Joseph Stanley Mitchell; Defendant: Angelica Ceccarelli; Defendant: Sean Nicholas Ridgwell; Defendant: Hogs Back Farm Limited; Defendant: Persons Unknown (already moved onto land); Defendant: Persons Unknown (not already moved onto land); Defendant: Thomas Chapman; Defendant: Karen Ann Denyer; Defendant: Simon William Blanchflower; Defendant: Jacqueline Valerie Blanchflower; Defendant: Virdzhiniya Pancheva Ilieva; Defendant: Barry William Doyle; Defendant: Shelia Doyle; Defendant: Catherine Rachel Aikin-Sneath; Defendant: Ruby Boyce; Defendant: Jordan Newell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment on Application for Injunction
Outcome
Injunction granted against named defendants (except Cupids Green Ltd) and persons unknown; mandatory elements limited to responsible parties; restraining elements apply broadly; costs excluded for certain defendants; adjournment for defendants with pending planning applications.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement of Planning Control, Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Traveller Accommodation, Green Belt Protection, Proportionality, Persons Unknown Orders
Planning Law Environmental Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Enforcement of Planning Control Article 8 ECHR Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guildford Borough Council

Claimant

Cupids Green Limited

Defendant

Alfie Sam Daly

Defendant

Jack Mikol

Defendant

Jack Brazil

Defendant

Joseph Brazil

Defendant

Albert Chapman

Defendant

Celia Green

Defendant

Billy Chapman

Defendant

Frank Edward Green

Defendant

William Keat

Defendant

Nick Chapman

Defendant

Jadwiga Agata Szczecinek

Defendant

Jamie Alan Wotton

Defendant

Show Site Services Limited

Defendant

Noah Green

Defendant

Martin Chatfield

Defendant

Russell John Ede

Defendant

Dean John Early

Defendant

Adam Zackary Bahou

Defendant

Joseph Faam

Defendant

James Oliver Ede

Defendant

Asaf Hosein

Defendant

Haleema Hosein

Defendant

Lixiang Guo

Defendant

Olga Eugenia Ustinova

Defendant

Mohammad Faam

Defendant

Junbo Ding

Defendant

Caili Zhu

Defendant

Bridget Cash

Defendant

Joseph Stanley Mitchell

Defendant

Angelica Ceccarelli

Defendant

Sean Nicholas Ridgwell

Defendant

Hogs Back Farm Limited

Defendant

Persons Unknown (already moved onto land)

Defendant

Persons Unknown (not already moved onto land)

Defendant

Thomas Chapman

Defendant

Karen Ann Denyer

Defendant

Simon William Blanchflower

Defendant

Jacqueline Valerie Blanchflower

Defendant

Virdzhiniya Pancheva Ilieva

Defendant

Barry William Doyle

Defendant

Shelia Doyle

Defendant

Catherine Rachel Aikin-Sneath

Defendant

Ruby Boyce

Defendant

Jordan Newell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment on Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether widespread unauthorised development and breaches of planning control occurred on Wanborough Fields
  2. 2 Whether injunctive relief under section 187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is necessary and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the injunction should apply to named defendants and persons unknown

Ratio Decidendi

Widespread, clear, and flagrant breaches of planning control occurred on environmentally sensitive land. Enforcement notices and lesser measures proved ineffective. Injunctive relief under section 187B is necessary, expedient, and proportionate to restrain actual and apprehended breaches, including against persons unknown. The Council considered defendants' personal circumstances, welfare, and human rights, and the order is justified and lawful. Mandatory elements apply only where defendants are responsible or able to comply; restraining elements apply more broadly. Costs excluded for certain defendants who remedied breaches or were not responsible.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted against named defendants (except Cupids Green Ltd) and persons unknown; mandatory elements limited to responsible parties; restraining elements apply broadly; costs excluded for certain defendants; adjournment for defendants with pending planning applications.

Orders

  • Final injunction restraining actual and apprehended breaches of planning control on Wanborough Fields against named defendants and persons unknown for one year.
  • Mandatory elements of injunction apply only to defendants responsible for breaches or able to comply; restraining elements apply to all defendants except Cupids Green Ltd.