Chichester District Council v Sullivan & Ors (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2154 (QB) (05 August 2020)

Chichester District Council v Sullivan & Ors (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2154 (QB) (05 August 2020)

Given the extensive, intentional, and ongoing breaches of planning control on protected land, the failure of all other enforcement measures, and the Claimant's consideration of personal circumstances and human rights, the grant of a permanent injunction is necessary and proportionate. The pandemic does not justify refusal or indefinite delay of relief, but warrants an extended compliance period. The multi-defendant approach is justified by the facts and does not breach Article 8 or equality rights.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2154 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Chichester District Council; Defendant: James Cornelius Sullivan; Defendant: William Hughes; Defendant: George Eddie Smith; Defendant: Karla Smith; Defendant: Nancy Smith; Defendant: Ruby Smith; Defendant: Fraser Sibley; Defendant: Ross Alan Bridger; Defendant: Gemma Creighton; Defendant: Wayne Goddard; Defendant: George Smith (Junior); Defendant: Kimberley Goddard; Defendant: Glenn Henry George Keet; Defendant: Kathy Boyden; Defendant: Daniel Hughes; Defendant: Josie Louise Hughes; Defendant: Michael John Cooper; Defendant: Bonnie Hughes; Defendant: Della Sullivan; Defendant: Wayne Smith; Defendant: Fred Albert Smith; Defendant: Mark Goddard; Defendant: April Lamb; Defendant: Henry Ben Giles; Defendant: Gary Hopkins; Defendant: Caroline Goddard; Defendant: Katie Keet; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Claim for Permanent Injunction Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Permanent injunction granted with extended compliance period.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement of Planning Control, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Equality Act 2010, Gypsy and Traveller Rights, COVID 19 Impact
Planning Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Injunctions Enforcement of Planning Control Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Equality Act 2010 +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chichester District Council

Claimant

James Cornelius Sullivan

Defendant

William Hughes

Defendant

George Eddie Smith

Defendant

Karla Smith

Defendant

Nancy Smith

Defendant

Ruby Smith

Defendant

Fraser Sibley

Defendant

Ross Alan Bridger

Defendant

Gemma Creighton

Defendant

Wayne Goddard

Defendant

George Smith (Junior)

Defendant

Kimberley Goddard

Defendant

Glenn Henry George Keet

Defendant

Kathy Boyden

Defendant

Daniel Hughes

Defendant

Josie Louise Hughes

Defendant

Michael John Cooper

Defendant

Bonnie Hughes

Defendant

Della Sullivan

Defendant

Wayne Smith

Defendant

Fred Albert Smith

Defendant

Mark Goddard

Defendant

April Lamb

Defendant

Henry Ben Giles

Defendant

Gary Hopkins

Defendant

Caroline Goddard

Defendant

Katie Keet

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Permanent Injunction Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a permanent injunction should be granted to restrain breaches of planning control on land occupied by gypsy/traveller families
  2. 2 Whether the grant of an injunction is a proportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 Protocol 1 rights
  3. 3 Whether the pandemic justifies refusal or delay of a mandatory injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Given the extensive, intentional, and ongoing breaches of planning control on protected land, the failure of all other enforcement measures, and the Claimant's consideration of personal circumstances and human rights, the grant of a permanent injunction is necessary and proportionate. The pandemic does not justify refusal or indefinite delay of relief, but warrants an extended compliance period. The multi-defendant approach is justified by the facts and does not breach Article 8 or equality rights.

Court Disposition

Permanent injunction granted with extended compliance period.

Orders

  • Defendants restrained from further unauthorised development and occupation of the site for domestic purposes.
  • Defendants required to remove caravans, mobile homes, and associated infrastructure and restore the site to agricultural grassland.