West Berkshire District Council v UK Land Holdings 1 Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 2304 (KB)

The Aldermaston injunction judgment concerns an application to vary an existing planning injunction so that additional families could remain on the land. It is not a judgment refusing planning permission for a Traveller site.

The High Court found that only the family of John Jude O’Brien on plots 7–8 had been living on the land before the original injunction. Other residential occupation had begun in breach of the order. The court decided that continuing the injunction was just and proportionate.

Neutral citation

[2026] EWHC 2304 (KB)

Court

High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division

Judgment date

7th September 2026

Judge

HHJ Sylvia de Bertodano, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Case number

KB-2025-004667

The original order protected a particular position

The proceedings concern land south of Reading Road and north of Lower Stoney Ground Copse, Aldermaston. Works continued after a Temporary Stop Notice served on 4th November 2025.

Cotter J granted an interim injunction without notice on 18th December 2025. It was sealed and served on 19th December, and continued at the return hearing on 12th January 2026.

The order restrained residential occupation, additional caravans and mobile homes, structures, hardstanding and associated works. There was an exception for the occupied caravan identified on the order’s plan. That exception was not planning permission.

The represented defendants sought a variation on the basis that more families had already been resident when the original order was made. Establishing the position at that date was therefore central to the application: see paragraphs 17–21 and 51–75.

Caravans and deliveries did not establish residential occupation

The court assessed the occupiers’ accounts against site photographs, officers’ observations, earlier statements and other documentary evidence. The presence of caravans, purchases of domestic items and work preparing pitches did not by themselves prove that families had already established their homes there.

The judge found that only the O’Brien family on plots 7–8 had been in occupation before the injunction. Paragraph 75 records the finding that all the other current residents had moved onto the land in breach of it.

This was a fact-specific evidential assessment. It should not be read as a rule that a particular photograph, receipt or type of witness evidence is always necessary or always insufficient.

Section 187B requires the court’s own judgment

Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority to apply for an injunction restraining an actual or apprehended breach of planning control. The court is not required to grant one merely because the authority considers it necessary.

Drawing on South Bucks District Council v Porter and subsequent authorities, the judge explained the discretionary and proportionality assessment. The planning history, the conduct of those involved, hardship and the ability reasonably to comply all matter.

Here, deliberate occupation after the injunction carried substantial weight. The court applied authorities including Mid Bedfordshire District Council v Brown on the importance of obeying court orders rather than creating the very position an order was intended to prevent.

Article 8 and children’s interests still had to be considered

The conclusion about earlier occupation defeated the argument that the original order had overlooked existing homes. It did not remove the need to consider the position of families now living on the land.

The judge considered Article 8, the best interests of the children as a primary consideration, welfare assessments and the evidence about alternative accommodation. The court found that West Berkshire had undertaken welfare checks after families moved onto the site.

The judgment’s conclusions about returning to previous accommodation depended on the evidence, and the absence of contrary evidence, in this case. They are not a universal answer to homelessness or welfare concerns in other injunction proceedings.

Unlike Blackpool v Beale, this judgment does not make a distinct finding that the council breached the public sector equality duty.

Planning merits remained for the planning system

The land’s position within the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone around AWE Aldermaston was relevant. The court heard evidence about the demands on the off-site emergency plan and the protection available to people living in caravans.

However, paragraph 99 expressly separates that assessment from deciding whether planning permission should be granted. Paragraph 108 also makes clear that the particular emergency-planning concern was not determinative of the injunction decision.

A planning application or enforcement appeal does not itself vary a separate court order. The route for challenging an injunction is through the court, using the applicable procedures for variation, discharge or appeal.

Why persons unknown remained covered

Applying Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers, the judge found a compelling justification for continuing protection against potential newcomers. The population of the site was changing and further breaches remained a real risk.

This contrasts with Blackpool v Beale, where the court was not satisfied that continuing relief against persons unknown was needed. The different outcomes illustrate the need for evidence about the particular site and threatened conduct.

5th October was an indication, not a final deadline

At paragraphs 111–113, the judge indicated a 28-day period for those who had taken up residence in breach of the order to leave. The O’Brien family on plots 7–8 remained excepted.

Further written submissions were permitted, with a ruling expected by 4pm on 14th September 2026. The judgment described 5th October 2026 as the likely cessation date. It must not be presented as a final deadline established by this judgment alone.

Status note: this case note records the judgment handed down on 7th September 2026. Any subsequent order settling the compliance period must be checked before relying on a deadline.

Read the full judgment

The full approved judgment is linked to the Planning Geek Gold Member protected download below. The judgment, rather than this summary, is the authoritative source.

The official Find Case Law record provides the original source attribution. The original injunction order, made on 18th December and sealed on 19th December 2025, is also held locally.

Related Planning Geek guidance

See our guidance on planning injunctions and planning enforcement. Our Aldermaston news report also separates the judgment from the council’s later replacement enforcement notice.

Case note prepared: 11th September 2026