Injunctions to restrain breaches of planning control

The High Court (Duncan Atkinson KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) has, on 13 February 2026, handed down judgment in Guildford BC v Cupids Green Ltd [2026] EWHC 270 (KB). In that judgment, the High Court granted an injunction, pursuant to section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in relation to actual and apprehended breaches of planning control at land known as Wanborough Fields near Guildford (“the Land”). An application had been made by the local planning authority, Guildford Borough Council (“the Council”), who was concerned about the use of the land, formerly an agricultural field within the Green Belt, for residential, commercial and other purposes. Unauthorised operational development had also been carried out. An interim injunction had previously been granted by the High Court in July 2025. The Council’s claim for a final injunction was heard over two days in January 2026. The application for a final injunction against a small number of the over 40 Defendants who had ongoing planning or enforcement applications or appeals was adjourned to allow the planning process to conclude.

The breaches and enforcement history

The application for an injunction followed numerous attempts by the Council to enforce planning control by other means including 20 enforcement notices [7]-[9]. The judge set out the various breaches of planning control on the Land, including residential occupation of the Land using caravans and mobile homes (e.g. [55], [70]), storage of logs and vehicles (e.g. [67] and [81]) and the creation of hard surfacing and fencing (e.g. [76], [96]). At [98] the judge explained his overall assessment that there had been serious and repeated breaches of planning control, and that the evidence showed a real and significant prospect of further breaches.

The judge found that the Council’s characterisation of the breaches overall as “flagrant” was justified because: (i) all the breaches were carried out on land of environmental sensitivity constituting Green Belt land; (ii) some were accompanied by “intrusive and abusive behaviour”; and (iii) some occurred despite, and in the face of, enforcement notices and/or the interim injunction, [99]-[106].

Planning harm

At [110], the judge noted the Council’s Senior Planning Enforcement Officer’s description of the unauthorised development as “a deleterious transformation of the land from an attractive open green field site to a subdivided unsightly field with haphazard unauthorised development” causing landscape harm and ecological harm including to protected habitats [110]. Despite its lack of a 5-year supply of accommodation for members of the Traveller community, the Council had concluded that the ‘very special circumstances’ necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt did not exist, even if planning permission were to be granted on a temporary basis, [115]. There was also a need to enforce planning control in the public interest, [116].

Proportionality

The judge considered whether the injunction sought was ‘necessary or expedient’ and whether granting it would be proportionate in all the circumstances, or whether any lesser measure would have been sufficient to address breaches of planning control [117]-[118]. He acknowledged that enforcement notices had been ignored and had been proceeded by further breaches, and that an Article 4 direction and Community Protection Notice had both also been unsuccessful in preventing breaches [121]. The judge concluded that the Council had considered lesser measures but correctly concluded that they would be insufficient [121]-[122].

Human Rights

The judge considered the Defendants’ rights to a private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, as interpreted in Chapman v UK (2001) 33 EHRR 399 and South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2004] UKHL 33. Generally speaking, relevant factors under Article 8 included: whether the home was established in breach of planning control, especially if it is on a protected site; the availability of suitable alternative accommodation; the family’s health and education; the need to enforce planning control in the general interest; the planning history of the site; the degree and flagrancy of the breach, [124]-[126]. The judge also had regard to the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, [127].

The judge considered that an “important factor” militating against granting the injunction was the lack of alternative sites for those travellers who were making residential use of the site, and the resultant impact the injunction could have on any children [128]-[129]. The judge found, however, that the Council’s application was supported by “a careful reassessment of the balance of factors … by reference to all the information now available to them”, [131]. That information included responses to welfare questionnaires, multiple Equalities Impact and Public Sector Duty Assessments, and information relating to the impact on particular children and one of the defendants who was pregnant, [130].

The judge also took into account submissions made by defendants as to their particular circumstances. For example, Defendants 2, 13 and 36 identified themselves as working farmers, saying that the injunction would have negative impacts on animal welfare and the functioning of their farm, [133]-[134]. Defendant 5 noted that he was a 71-year-old man with a number of health issues, [137]. Defendant 9 explained that he had children who from time to time would stay with him on the site, and that he had an outstanding application for planning permission [138]-[139]. A number of other defendants had concerns over restriction of their business activities on the site and other financial hardship, [140]-[141].

Conclusions of the Judge

The judge concluded at [143] that:

• there had been widespread unauthorised development and use of the land which would continue unless restrained;
• it was necessary and expedient to prevent future breaches by injunction than another method;
• the breaches had been clear and fragrant, causing planning harm including an environmental and ecological impact, and undermining the integrity of the planning system;
• the injunction sought was proportionate to that harm, having taken into account Article 8 and A1P1 ECHR, the interests of children, and the hardship that will follow for some defendants; and
• the fact that time that would be allowed for lawful planning processes to be completed and for compliance with the mandatory terms of the order supported the decision to make the order.

The judge made each of the named defendants except Defendant 1 subject to the restraining elements of the Order, [144]. However, the mandatory elements would not be imposed on specified defendants in relation to whom it was uncertain whether they had control over land, whether they were responsible for breaches, and/or whether they actually had anything to make good on their land, [145].

In relation to persons unknown, the judge found that an order to address their activities such as fly tipping was “imperative”, [152], and that an application for a s.187B injunction was “the most effective tool” at addressing further breaches of planning control, [153]. The judge concluded that it was necessary, expedient and proportionate to make the order sought against persons unknown, [155].

Observations

This case is another example of a successful application by a local planning authority to the High Court for an injunction to restrain and remedy breaches of planning control. The judgment is of particular note for the efforts undertaken by the Council to consider human rights and personal circumstances and shows that, in appropriate cases, hardship will not be an answer to a claim for an injunction to remedy breaches of planning control.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Mark O’Brien O’Reilly is a barrister at Francis Taylor Building. Instructed by Guildford Borough Council, he acted for the Council throughout the proceedings (both at the interim injunction and final injunction stage). He is the author of  ‘A Practical Guide to Injunctions Pursuant to Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990’.