The High Court has kept the Aldermaston planning injunction in force after rejecting claims that several families were already living on the land when the original order was made.
The court found that only the O’Brien family on plots 7–8 had been in occupation before the injunction. Other current residents had moved onto the land in breach of it.
However, the judgment did not decide that planning permission for the site must be refused. Nor did it finally establish 5th October 2026 as the date by which later occupiers must leave.
What was the Aldermaston case about?
The judgment is West Berkshire District Council v UK Land Holdings 1 Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 2304 (KB), handed down on 7th September 2026 by HHJ Sylvia de Bertodano, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.
The proceedings concern land south of Reading Road and north of Lower Stoney Ground Copse, Aldermaston, being developed and occupied as a Traveller site without planning permission.
The immediate dispute was whether the existing injunction should be varied to permit additional families to remain. Their case depended substantially on establishing that they had already been resident when the original order was made.
From the Temporary Stop Notice to the High Court
Works took place in early November 2025. West Berkshire served a Temporary Stop Notice on 4th November 2025, but the judgment records that works continued.
Cotter J granted the original interim injunction on 18th December 2025. It was sealed and served on 19th December. At the return hearing on 12th January 2026, the order was continued until the final hearing or further order.
The order restrained residential use, additional caravans and mobile homes, new structures, hardstanding, services and associated works. It contained a specific exception for the occupied caravan marked on its plan. That exception did not grant planning permission.
The order covered named defendants and a defined category of persons unknown. It also restrained acting through, encouraging or permitting others to undertake the prohibited conduct.
Being prepared to move in was not the same as living there
The court considered witness accounts alongside photographs, officers’ observations, earlier statements and other documentary evidence. The presence of a caravan, deliveries of domestic items or work preparing a pitch did not automatically establish that a family had already made its home there.
The judge accepted the pre-injunction occupation of the O’Brien family on plots 7–8. She rejected the comparable claims made for the other current residents and found that their residential occupation had begun in breach of the injunction.
That was the critical factual distinction. The court was not simply deciding whether families were living on the site by the time of the later hearing.
Why section 187B is not an automatic enforcement shortcut
Under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a council can ask the court to restrain an actual or apprehended breach of planning control. It can do so whether or not it has used other enforcement powers.
But a council’s decision to apply does not determine the outcome. The court must decide whether injunctive relief is appropriate and proportionate, taking account of the circumstances of the site and the people affected.
Here, continued development and occupation despite earlier controls explained the council’s use of the injunction route. The judgment attached substantial weight to maintaining the authority of the court’s existing order.
Our planning injunction guide explains how this differs from an ordinary enforcement notice.
Article 8 and children’s interests remained relevant
Finding that families moved in after the order did not remove the need to consider their current circumstances. The court assessed Article 8, the best interests of children as a primary consideration, welfare checks and the evidence about alternative accommodation.
Those matters did not outweigh continuation of the injunction on the facts. The judge considered it significant that the families had created their current residential situation in breach of the order.
The judgment does not establish that hardship can always be disregarded where someone has breached an injunction. It records a proportionality assessment in this particular case.
Nor does it make the same finding of a public-sector equality-duty breach that featured in the recent Blackpool v Beale injunction judgment.
Planning permission remained a different question
The court heard evidence about landscape, ecological and emergency-planning concerns, including the land’s position within the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone around AWE Aldermaston.
However, it expressly left the planning merits to the planning system. The emergency-planning concern was relevant but was not determinative of the court’s decision to continue the injunction.
The legal routes should therefore be kept separate:
- A planning application asks the planning authority to grant permission for the proposed development
- An enforcement notice alleges a breach and specifies the steps required to remedy it or its effects
- An enforcement appeal challenges that notice on the available statutory grounds; some grounds can put planning merits before an Inspector
- A Temporary Stop Notice is a separate, time-limited requirement to stop specified activity
- A High Court injunction is a court order whose terms must be obeyed unless the court varies or discharges it
A valid appeal under section 174 suspends the effect of the enforcement notice while the appeal is pending, under section 175(4). It does not automatically suspend a separate injunction.
The original enforcement notice has been replaced
The judgment describes the earlier enforcement notice served in May 2026. The council’s subsequent published position must also be taken into account.
West Berkshire’s current enforcement-appeal page states that the earlier notice was withdrawn and replaced. The earlier appeal, reference 6012015, will proceed no further, and the inquiry listed for 18th November 2026 has been cancelled.
The replacement notice is dated 21st August 2026 and specifies 21st September 2026 as its effective date unless appealed beforehand. Its requirements and compliance periods are separate from the court’s injunction.
At the time this report was prepared, a new registered appeal reference against the replacement notice had not been verified. The old inquiry date should not be presented as a forthcoming hearing.
Was 5th October a final deadline?
No—not in the judgment handed down on 7th September. The judge indicated that later occupiers should have 28 days to leave, with the O’Brien family on plots 7–8 excepted.
She invited further submissions and stated that she would rule by 4pm on 14th September 2026. The judgment described 5th October 2026 as the likely cessation date, rather than recording it as a finalised deadline.
A subsequent order must be checked before anyone relies on that date. The existing injunction was not suspended while those arrangements were being considered.
Planning Geek analysis: do not confuse the two routes
The practical lesson is that pursuing permission or appealing an enforcement notice is not permission to ignore an injunction. Anyone affected by a court order needs advice about that order as well as the underlying planning position.
This judgment also adds something distinct to Blackpool v Beale. West Berkshire established a compelling case for continued protection against persons unknown because the population of the site was changing and further breaches remained a real risk. Blackpool did not establish that need on its different facts.
Neither decision makes injunctions automatic. Each shows why the evidence, procedural history and precise terms of the order matter.
Read the judgment and original order
Read the Aldermaston case note and locally hosted judgment in our case-law library and the original sealed injunction order hosted by Planning Geek. Our case-law library contains related planning judgments.
This article distinguishes the court’s findings from the council’s later enforcement update and Planning Geek’s analysis. It provides general planning information, not legal advice on compliance with a court order.
Report prepared: 11th September 2026
0 Comments