The High Court has imposed a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, after finding repeated and deliberate breaches of planning injunctions controlling an unauthorised residential site in the Maidstone countryside.
Maidstone Borough Council v Fred King [2026] EWHC 1965 (KB) is a useful companion to the recent Blackpool section 187B case. Blackpool shows how an authority can obtain a planning injunction. Maidstone shows what can happen when a court order is then ignored.
The sentence was structured unusually. Half was punitive and half coercive, with the court giving Mr King a final period to comply with the order and restore the land.
What happened at Warren Lands?
The site, known as Warren Lands, lies north of Lenham Heath Road and east of Headcorn Road at Sandway, Maidstone. It is open countryside beside the Sandway Conservation Area. Its lawful use was an undeveloped agricultural field.
The planning history stretched back decades. A 1991 enforcement notice, upheld with amendments on appeal, required the caravan-site and residential mobile-home use to cease and the caravans to be removed.
By 2022 the council found further residential activity and works on the land. An interim High Court order made in October 2022 restricted additional caravans, structures, engineering works, changes of levels, building materials and hard surfacing. It nevertheless allowed Mr King and his dependent family to remain temporarily in one static and one touring caravan.
Planning appeals were dismissed before the final injunction
Mr King subsequently pursued planning applications for a bungalow and caravan-related development, and separately for use of the site by an extended Gypsy and Traveller family. Both were refused and the linked appeals were dismissed in October 2024.
The Inspector identified conflicts including countryside policy, landscape character, the setting of the Sandway Conservation Area, sustainability, protected habitats and highway safety. The personal circumstances of the family, Traveller-site need and equality considerations were weighed but did not outweigh the planning harm.
A final injunction followed in December 2024. It prohibited caravans and residential use and required, among other things, removal of the caravans and vehicles within one month and removal of hardstanding, a steel-framed building and lighting within three months.
The final order was not obeyed
When the council inspected in February 2025, a mobile home and three caravans remained. Various vehicles were still present, the hardstanding had not been removed and a trench had been dug. Members of Mr King’s extended family and an unrelated household were living on the site.
Mr King later admitted that important parts of the final order had not been complied with. His case was that compliance had been difficult because alternative caravan accommodation was unavailable.
Mr Justice Griffiths rejected the suggestion that the order was impossible to obey. The order had never been appealed, was capable of compliance and had to be obeyed. The court found that Mr King controlled the site and could have removed the people, vehicles and works which had been allowed onto it.
Why does breaching a planning injunction matter so much?
A planning injunction is a court order. Breach is therefore contempt of court, not merely another planning offence.
That distinction is critical. A person who ignores an enforcement notice may face prosecution and a fine. Someone who knowingly disobeys an injunction can ultimately be imprisoned.
The existing Planning Geek guide to planning injunctions explains how section 187B works and why an order must be treated differently from ordinary planning correspondence.
The court regarded the contempt as serious and deliberate
The judge described the contempts as serious, deliberate, consequential and continuing. There was also an aggravating history: Mr King had previously been subject to a planning injunction obtained by Medway Council and in 2018 had received a 24-week suspended sentence for contempt. He complied with that earlier order after sentence.
For the Maidstone breaches the judge took a starting point which produced a sentence of nine months. Credit for admissions, apologies and recent steps towards compliance reduced that to six months.
Six months, suspended for two years
The six-month sentence was divided into two equal parts:
- three months punitive, reflecting the seriousness of the contempt
- three months coercive, intended to encourage full compliance with the final order
The sentence was suspended for two years, until 29th July 2028. The court gave Mr King until 28th January 2027 to comply fully with the final order.
If full compliance is achieved by that date, the coercive three months falls away, while the punitive three months remains suspended for the balance of the two-year period. If the order is not fully complied with by the deadline, the full six-month sentence is liable to be activated.
That structure shows the point of civil contempt proceedings. The court was not simply looking backwards and deciding how much punishment was deserved. It was also trying to secure the planning outcome already ordered.
A previous suspended sentence did not prevent another chance
The court recognised that suspending the sentence was an exceptional course given the earlier Medway history. But it considered immediate imprisonment would make restoration of the site harder. Mr King was the person best placed to arrange the physical work required to comply.
The judge therefore prioritised obtaining compliance, while leaving a substantial sanction hanging over any further failure.
Practical lessons from Maidstone v King
- A planning injunction is a court order and cannot safely be treated like an enforcement notice
- If an order is impossible or unclear, the answer is to return to court, not simply ignore it
- Personal and housing difficulties can be relevant, but do not permit a party to decide for themselves whether an order should be obeyed
- Repeated or continuing breaches can lead to imprisonment for contempt
- A suspended sentence can be structured specifically to secure future planning compliance
- Starting meaningful compliance before sentence can make a practical difference, but it does not erase earlier contempt
Primary source
This article is based on Maidstone Borough Council v Fred King [2026] EWHC 1965 (KB).
Note: paragraph 107(iii) of the judgment appears to contain a date typo, referring to custody starting on 28th January 2026. Read with paragraph 107(ii) and the judgment date of 29th July 2026, the six-month compliance date is 28th January 2027, which is the date used above.
Created: 29th August 2026 | planning injunction breach
0 Comments