Chichester District Council v Sullivan & Ors (Rev 1)

Chichester District Council v Sullivan & Ors (Rev 1)

The breaches of planning control are serious, longstanding, and intentional, and all other enforcement measures have failed. The public interest in upholding planning law and protecting the environment in an AONB outweighs the private interests of the Defendants, including their Article 8 rights. The lack of alternative accommodation and the impact of the pandemic are important but not decisive; the court can mitigate hardship by extending compliance periods and allowing for variation if circumstances change. Injunctive relief is necessary and proportionate in this case.

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
Civil (planning Enforcement/injunction) / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Permanent injunction granted (both prohibitory and mandatory), with staggered compliance deadlines and provision for variation in case of changed circumstances.
Legal Topics
Permanent Injunction, Breach of Planning Control, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Gypsy/traveller Accommodation, COVID 19 Impact, Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions
Planning Law Human Rights Law Local Government Law Permanent Injunction Breach of Planning Control Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Gypsy/traveller Accommodation +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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

Civil (planning Enforcement/injunction) / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a permanent injunction should be granted to restrain ongoing 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 rights
  3. 3 Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the appropriateness and timing of injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The breaches of planning control are serious, longstanding, and intentional, and all other enforcement measures have failed. The public interest in upholding planning law and protecting the environment in an AONB outweighs the private interests of the Defendants, including their Article 8 rights. The lack of alternative accommodation and the impact of the pandemic are important but not decisive; the court can mitigate hardship by extending compliance periods and allowing for variation if circumstances change. Injunctive relief is necessary and proportionate in this case.

Court Disposition

Permanent injunction granted (both prohibitory and mandatory), with staggered compliance deadlines and provision for variation in case of changed circumstances.

Orders

  • All Defendants (except D1 and D19) and persons unknown are restrained from further development or bringing caravans/living accommodation onto the Site without permission.
  • All domestic occupation and use of the Site to cease by 31 December 2020.