A West Devon injunction has been granted against named occupiers of a rural caravan site, but the High Court refused to extend the order to unidentified future arrivals. The King’s Bench judgment, handed down on 21 October 2026, draws an important distinction between preventing further unauthorised development and obtaining a wide-ranging newcomer injunction.
The case concerns about half a hectare of agricultural land at Liftondown, near Launceston. West Devon Borough Council had already issued temporary stop notices, an enforcement notice and a stop notice after caravans and hardstanding appeared. The judge concluded that an injunction against named defendants was justified because earlier enforcement had not stopped further development.
For councils and planning advisers, the useful lesson is that a serious breach of planning control does not automatically justify every form of injunctive relief. The West Devon injunction decision also highlights the weight that can be given to the shortage of authorised Traveller sites and the need to distinguish new construction from the timetable for removing an existing residential use.
What the West Devon injunction actually covers
In West Devon Borough Council v Irene Connors & Ors [2026] EWHC 2687 (KB), Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC granted relief under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The order was directed at named defendants and further actual or anticipated breaches involving the existing site and neighbouring land. It did not give the council permission to accelerate every removal required by the earlier enforcement notice.
The site was originally agricultural land beside Liftondown. In August 2025, groundworks, levelling and hardstanding began, followed by the arrival of static and touring caravans and other structures. The council served two temporary stop notices, a formal enforcement notice and subsequently a stop notice, but the court recorded continuing development after those steps were taken.
A separate Planning Inspectorate appeal was determined on 29 April 2026. Inspector Jessica Graham upheld the enforcement notice, with amendments, and rejected retrospective planning permission for the caravan site. She did allow additional time for compliance, increasing the period from six to nine months. The resulting deadline was 29 January 2027. That Inspector decision should not be confused with the later High Court injunction ruling.
Why earlier enforcement measures mattered
The High Court’s role was not to repeat the merits assessment carried out by the Inspector. Under section 187B, a local planning authority can ask for an injunction to restrain an actual or anticipated breach, whether or not it has used other enforcement powers. The court nevertheless retains a discretion over whether, and in what form, to grant the remedy.
The West Devon injunction was supported by evidence of ignored temporary stop notices, continued occupation, additional caravans and further works after the appeal. The judge considered it highly likely that development would continue without an effective restraint. He also pointed to the risk of development spreading to adjoining land, part of which had been purchased by another defendant.
There is an important procedural distinction here. A section 187B injunction is a court order, and breaching it can have consequences different from failing to comply with the ordinary planning enforcement regime. It is not a substitute planning permission decision. Nor should an authority assume that the mere existence of an enforcement notice automatically makes an injunction proportionate.
Traveller site shortage receives a pointed judicial warning
The judge asked what authorised sites were available for Traveller families elsewhere in Devon. Counsel for the council referred to possible future site allocations under a new local plan but could not provide a timetable. The judge described the response as “unsatisfactory” and expressed considerable concern that families might face years without realistic alternatives.
The West Devon injunction nevertheless survived that objection on the facts of this case. Repeated breaches, the likely continuation of works and the limited evidence offered about individual circumstances weighed in favour of relief. But the judge expressly warned that a lack of alternative Traveller accommodation could be decisive in a future injunction case. That matters well beyond Devon, particularly where councils have unmet site needs.
The legal framework includes Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life and home. The court referred to South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and Chapman v the United Kingdom. Those authorities require a careful, proportionate decision. They do not mean that occupation of land without consent must be allowed indefinitely.
Why the court rejected the newcomer injunction
West Devon also wanted an order against ‘persons unknown’, covering people who might arrive later or carry out additional unauthorised works. That is a significantly wider measure than an injunction against the existing named defendants. The judge applied Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47, which permits newcomer injunctions in appropriate circumstances but requires clear evidence of a compelling need.
For the newcomer element, the council had not supplied the necessary specific evidence. The judgment observed that four witness statements dealt with the need for an injunction generally but did not explain why an additional order against unidentified people was essential. This was one small, privately occupied site associated with an extended family, not an unpredictable sequence of transient encampments across numerous sites.
Indeed, when another family arrived, the council was able to identify those individuals and seek relief against them by name. That was powerful evidence that conventional proceedings remained workable. The West Devon injunction therefore did not extend to all future arrivals simply because more people might come onto the land.
This is not a ruling that newcomer injunctions are unavailable for planning enforcement. The result turns on the evidence and the setting. A council applying for such an order needs to identify what conventional measures would fail, why that failure is sufficiently likely and why the proposed terms go no further than necessary.
Caravan removals moved to January 2027
The judge also considered whether more recently installed caravans and structures containing laundry equipment had to be removed by 6 November 2026. Representations described the accommodation needs of a pregnant resident, children and others living on the site during the winter. Removing some of the newer structures at once could have caused hardship before the existing enforcement notice’s compliance period expired.
Instead of excusing the removals, the court moved that requirement to 29 January 2027, matching the earlier Inspector’s deadline. The West Devon injunction therefore stopped further unauthorised works without bringing forward the removal date for those specified caravans and washing facilities. The underlying enforcement notice remained in place, and no retrospective permission was granted.
What planning authorities and landowners should learn
For planning enforcement teams, the case reinforces the need for precise evidence. Officers should distinguish failures under stop and enforcement notices, the likelihood of future works, the identities of occupiers and the scope of any additional order sought. A carefully tailored injunction against named defendants can succeed even when a wider newcomer injunction fails.
For occupiers and consultants, there are equally practical lessons. Provide clear evidence about residential occupation, family needs, health, schooling and alternative sites where these affect proportionality. A bare assertion that an eviction would be difficult may carry less weight than properly documented circumstances. The High Court will not automatically revisit a planning judgment simply because a later injunction is sought.
I would also separate the council’s two objectives when considering a West Devon injunction type case: preventing new development and securing compliance with existing notices. They have different timetables and different consequences. Clear drafting helps both the court and affected residents understand what must stop immediately and what remains subject to an existing compliance period.
Planning Geek’s guides to human rights and planning enforcement and Gypsy and Traveller sites provide further context. The full approved judgment, including its site plan, is held securely in the West Devon Case Law entry for Gold members.
Original sources
The primary source is the High Court’s approved judgment of 21 October 2026, case number KB-2026-002404, particularly paragraphs 58 to 73. The relevant legislation is section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This is a High Court judgment, not an additional Inspector appeal decision. The decision and cited authorities have been checked against the original court record.
0 Comments