Image from Google Jackets

South Cambridgeshire DC v Gammell and 26 others

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWHC 2919 (QB), 7 December 2007. Considers the extent of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s187B, investigating the extent of the planning authority's use of it to seek an injunction against Gypsies using land for residential purposes. The claimant planning authority (C) sought an injunction against X for breaches of planning control. X had moved caravans onto land belonging to C for residential purposes. C had issued enforcement notices to prevent this breach of planning control, but the notices had expired. C sought permanent mandatory injunctions against X compelling them to vacate the land within fourteen days. "Held": X was using the land for residential purposes and so was protected by the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art 8. However X could make sensible arrangements with C to reduce hardship. It was unreasonable to expect vacation within fourteen days, despite, the continued planning breach. Three months' further residence was to be granted. Followed a previous case (ABS68049) the court had full discretion to make such decisions. Lack of attempt by C to prosecute held little weight as X were aware their actions were illegal. Judgment for the claimant.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 142709-1001

[2007] EWHC 2919 (QB), 7 December 2007. Considers the extent of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s187B, investigating the extent of the planning authority's use of it to seek an injunction against Gypsies using land for residential purposes. The claimant planning authority (C) sought an injunction against X for breaches of planning control. X had moved caravans onto land belonging to C for residential purposes. C had issued enforcement notices to prevent this breach of planning control, but the notices had expired. C sought permanent mandatory injunctions against X compelling them to vacate the land within fourteen days. "Held": X was using the land for residential purposes and so was protected by the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art 8. However X could make sensible arrangements with C to reduce hardship. It was unreasonable to expect vacation within fourteen days, despite, the continued planning breach. Three months' further residence was to be granted. Followed a previous case (ABS68049) the court had full discretion to make such decisions. Lack of attempt by C to prosecute held little weight as X were aware their actions were illegal. Judgment for the claimant.