Maidstone Borough Council v Brazil & Ors (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 965 (KB) (27 April 2023)

Maidstone Borough Council v Brazil & Ors (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 965 (KB) (27 April 2023)

A permanent injunction was granted against all defendants except the first and second defendants (Goliea and Moses Brazil). For D1 and D2, the court found that their personal circumstances and the lack of alternative sites, as previously recognised by the Planning Inspectorate, continued to amount to very special circumstances outweighing the planning harm. For all other defendants, the breaches were found to be flagrant, enforcement had failed, and the planning harm was significant. The claimant's consideration of personal circumstances was sufficient for these defendants. The injunction was therefore proportionate and necessary except as to D1 and D2.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 965 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Maidstone Borough Council; Defendant: Goliea Brazil; Defendant: Moses Brazil; Defendant: Bill Webb; Defendant: Dean Marney; Defendant: Percival Powell; Defendant: Robert John Nicholls; Defendant: Sharon Smith; Defendant: Person occupying caravan on land identified as plot 5; Defendant: Person occupying caravan no. 1 on land identified as plot 6; Defendant: Person occupying caravan no. 2 on land identified as plot 6; Defendant: Person occupying caravan no. 3 on land identified as plot 6; Defendant: Person occupying caravan on land identified as plot 8; Defendant: Alfie Doyle; Defendant: Ashley Doyle; Defendant: Person occupying caravan on land identified as plot 11; Defendant: Person occupying caravan on land identified as plot 13; Defendant: Person occupying caravan no. 1 on land identified as plot 15; Defendant: Person occupying caravan no. 2 on land identified as plot 15; Defendant: John Harris; Defendant: Charlie Holden; Defendant: Louisa Cooper; Defendant: Louise Prior; Defendant: Anthony Cooper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Permanent injunction granted in part
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Breach of Planning Control, Green Belt, Traveller Sites, Article 8 ECHR, Public Sector Equality Duty, Enforcement Notices
Planning Law Human Rights Law Local Government Law Injunctions Breach of Planning Control Green Belt Traveller Sites Article 8 ECHR +2 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maidstone Borough Council

Claimant

Goliea Brazil

Defendant

Moses Brazil

Defendant

Bill Webb

Defendant

Dean Marney

Defendant

Percival Powell

Defendant

Robert John Nicholls

Defendant

Sharon Smith

Defendant

Person occupying caravan on land identified as plot 5

Defendant

Person occupying caravan no. 1 on land identified as plot 6

Defendant

Person occupying caravan no. 2 on land identified as plot 6

Defendant

Person occupying caravan no. 3 on land identified as plot 6

Defendant

Person occupying caravan on land identified as plot 8

Defendant

Alfie Doyle

Defendant

Ashley Doyle

Defendant

Person occupying caravan on land identified as plot 11

Defendant

Person occupying caravan on land identified as plot 13

Defendant

Person occupying caravan no. 1 on land identified as plot 15

Defendant

Person occupying caravan no. 2 on land identified as plot 15

Defendant

John Harris

Defendant

Charlie Holden

Defendant

Louisa Cooper

Defendant

Louise Prior

Defendant

Anthony Cooper

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a permanent injunction should be granted to restrain breaches of planning control on Green Belt land
  2. 2 Whether the injunction is proportionate and just in light of the defendants' personal circumstances and lack of alternative sites
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's consideration of the Public Sector Equality Duty and personal circumstances was adequate

Ratio Decidendi

A permanent injunction was granted against all defendants except the first and second defendants (Goliea and Moses Brazil). For D1 and D2, the court found that their personal circumstances and the lack of alternative sites, as previously recognised by the Planning Inspectorate, continued to amount to very special circumstances outweighing the planning harm. For all other defendants, the breaches were found to be flagrant, enforcement had failed, and the planning harm was significant. The claimant's consideration of personal circumstances was sufficient for these defendants. The injunction was therefore proportionate and necessary except as to D1 and D2.

Court Disposition

Permanent injunction granted in part

Orders

  • Permanent injunction granted against all defendants except Goliea Brazil and Moses Brazil (D1 and D2)
  • Application for injunction against D1 and D2 refused