Basildon District Council v Anderson & Ors [2020] EWHC 3382 (QB) (09 December 2020)

Basildon District Council v Anderson & Ors [2020] EWHC 3382 (QB) (09 December 2020)

The Court held that the Council had established a strong prima facie case of deliberate and flagrant breach of planning controls on Green Belt land, that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience and public interest favoured continuation of both the prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. The Defendants' occupation was found to be legally precarious and obtained in knowing contravention of legal prohibitions. The personal circumstances of the Defendants, including children and health issues, were considered but did not outweigh the public interest in preserving the Green Belt and upholding planning controls. The power of arrest was justified due to...

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3382
Parties
Claimant: Basildon District Council; Defendant: Thomas Anderson; Defendant: William Thomas Anderson; Defendant: Charlie Anderson; Defendant: Brian McGinley; Defendant: Freddie Anderson; Defendant: Gerry (Jerry) Anderson; Defendant: Leah Ella May Foley; Defendant: Bridget McDonagh; Defendant: John McDonagh; Defendant: Patrick Collins; Defendant: Thomas Cleary; Defendant: Persons Unknown (Undertaking development on the land south of Redlands, Hovefields Drive, Wickford, Essex without a lawful planning consent and/or seeking to change the use of the land including a change in use to a caravan site without lawful planning consent)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (civil) / Interim Hearing on Continuation and Variation of Injunctions
Outcome
Application granted for continuation of both injunctions and attachment of power of arrest.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Planning Enforcement, Green Belt Policy, Article 8 ECHR, Equality Act 2010, Children's Welfare, Power of Arrest
Planning Law Public Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Planning Enforcement Green Belt Policy Article 8 ECHR 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basildon District Council

Claimant

Thomas Anderson

Defendant

William Thomas Anderson

Defendant

Charlie Anderson

Defendant

Brian McGinley

Defendant

Freddie Anderson

Defendant

Gerry (Jerry) Anderson

Defendant

Leah Ella May Foley

Defendant

Bridget McDonagh

Defendant

John McDonagh

Defendant

Patrick Collins

Defendant

Thomas Cleary

Defendant

Persons Unknown (Undertaking development on the land south of Redlands, Hovefields Drive, Wickford, Essex without a lawful planning consent and/or seeking to change the use of the land including a change in use to a caravan site without lawful planning consent)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (civil) / Interim Hearing on Continuation and Variation of Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to continue prohibitory and mandatory interim injunctions restraining development and occupation of Green Belt land without planning consent
  2. 2 Whether to vary the mandatory injunction to allow continued residence pending planning applications
  3. 3 Whether the Council and Court have properly considered the personal circumstances of the Defendants, including children and health issues

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Council had established a strong prima facie case of deliberate and flagrant breach of planning controls on Green Belt land, that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience and public interest favoured continuation of both the prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. The Defendants' occupation was found to be legally precarious and obtained in knowing contravention of legal prohibitions. The personal circumstances of the Defendants, including children and health issues, were considered but did not outweigh the public interest in preserving the Green Belt and upholding planning controls. The power of arrest was justified due to...

Court Disposition

Application granted for continuation of both injunctions and attachment of power of arrest.

Orders

  • Continuation of the First (prohibitory) Order restraining development and occupation of the land without planning consent.
  • Continuation of the Second (mandatory) Order requiring removal of caravans, mobile homes, and similar structures from the land.