Tandridge District Council v Cash and others [2026] EWHC 1387 (KB)

This decision, handed down on 9 June 2026 following a three day trial in May 2026, concerned the unauthorised expansion of a traveller caravan site in the Green Belt. The High Court found the breaches to be persistent and flagrant. Enforcement and Stop Notices had proved ineffective (paragraph 98). This was precisely the kind of case envisaged by Lord Bingham in South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter [2003] AC 558 where the Court’s coercive powers were needed. Balancing all factors, the High Court held that it was just and proportionate to grant the injunction.

The High Court firmly rejected the Defendants' allegations that the Council had acted in bad faith or “gamed the system” by its use of section 70C powers to decline to determine retrospective planning applications, calling these “serious allegations which did not have the evidential foundation” required (paragraph 100).The Court also rejected an allegation that there had been a delay sufficient to justify withholding equitable relief. The Court also granted an injunction against Persons Unknown applying the principles from Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47.

Mark, instructed by Tandridge District Council, acted for the Council throughout the proceedings (including successfully obtaining an interim injunction at an earlier stage of the proceedings). A copy of the judgment is here.

Hillingdon LBC v Springwell Lane Metal Recycling Ltd [2026] EWHC 1676 (KB)

This decision, handed down on 3 July 2026, concerned the unlawful use of a Green Belt site within a conservation area as a scrap metal yard since 2023. An Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use had not been complied with and prosecution proceedings are ongoing. The danger posed by the use was highlighted by the fact that shortly before an interim injunction had been granted, a fire took place at the site (covered by the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrpq95l5y1o).

The High Court concluded that the unauthorised use and development of the land had not only continued but intensified after the compliance period expired, and that there had been “wilful and persistent non-compliance with the enforcement process” in the face of both a refusal of retrospective planning permission and the dismissal of the Enforcement Notice appeal (paragraph 41).

The High Court was satisfied that significant planning harm had occurred and that a final injunction was necessary to uphold the integrity of the planning system, prevent further breaches and bring existing breaches to an end. Criminal proceedings and the threat of prosecution had not proved a deterrent, and the criminal sanctions available would be limited to a financial penalty without any prohibitory or mandatory orders (paragraphs 18 and 19).

The High Court also found a compelling justification for an injunction against Persons Unknown, given that unknown individuals had been observed depositing scrap metal at the site (paragraph 54).

Mark, instructed by the London Borough of Hillingdon, acted for the Council throughout the proceedings (including successfully obtaining an interim injunction at an earlier stage of the proceedings). A copy of the judgment is here.