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 continuation of both the prohibitory and mandatory interim injunctions is justified and proportionate due to the deliberate and flagrant breach of planning controls on Green Belt land, the inadequacy of damages, the high risk of further irreversible harm to the land and public interest, and the insufficiently compelling evidence of prejudice to the Defendants. The Defendants' occupation was legally precarious and largely established in knowing contravention of legal prohibitions. The Council and Court have given due consideration to the personal circumstances of the Defendants, but these do not outweigh the public interest in enforcement. A power of arrest is necessary due to the risk...

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3382 (QB)
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
Interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions continued; application to vary refused; power of arrest attached to orders.
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 4 Authorities cited 10 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 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 continuation of both the prohibitory and mandatory interim injunctions is justified and proportionate due to the deliberate and flagrant breach of planning controls on Green Belt land, the inadequacy of damages, the high risk of further irreversible harm to the land and public interest, and the insufficiently compelling evidence of prejudice to the Defendants. The Defendants' occupation was legally precarious and largely established in knowing contravention of legal prohibitions. The Council and Court have given due consideration to the personal circumstances of the Defendants, but these do not outweigh the public interest in enforcement. A power of arrest is necessary due to the risk...

Court Disposition

Interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions continued; application to vary refused; power of arrest attached to orders.

Orders

  • Continuation of the First Order (prohibitory injunction) against all Defendants and persons unknown.
  • Continuation of the Second Order (mandatory injunction) requiring removal of caravans, mobile homes, and similar structures from the land.