Blackpool Borough Council v Beale & Ors [2026] EWHC 2237 (KB)

Blackpool v Beale is a High Court judgment on permanent planning injunctions under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The defendants were Romani Gypsies occupying an unauthorised caravan site at Marton Moss. The court granted an injunction requiring two families to leave, despite finding that Blackpool Council had failed properly to comply with the public sector equality duty at several stages.

Neutral citation

[2026] EWHC 2237 (KB)

Court

High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Manchester District Registry

Judgment date

28th August 2026

Judge

HHJ Stephen Davies, sitting as a High Court Judge

Case number

KB-2026-MAN-000196

The site had been developed despite an enforcement notice

The defendants owned land at a prominent junction in the Marton Moss Conservation Area. They had carried out hardstanding, services and other works without planning permission.

An enforcement notice was served in 2024 and an appeal was dismissed in December 2025. Rather than comply by April 2026, further works were carried out and two families moved caravans onto the site.

Blackpool obtained an interim injunction and then sought a permanent section 187B injunction at trial.

Section 187B is a discretionary and proportionate remedy

The court applied the principles from South Bucks v Porter and later cases.

The need to enforce planning control is important, but an injunction is not automatic. The court must weigh planning harm, the planning history, prospects of permission, hardship, human rights and the circumstances of those affected.

The final question is for the court: is the injunction a just and proportionate response?

The planning harm was serious and continuing

The site was protected as open land within the Marton Moss Conservation Area. The Inspector had already found harm to its character and appearance when dismissing the enforcement appeal.

The High Court considered that the later occupation and development caused further serious planning harm. On the material before it, the court also considered the prospects of the new four-pitch planning application succeeding to be extremely low.

The PSED had not been properly performed

The defendants were Romani Gypsies and therefore shared a protected characteristic. The council was required by section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the relevant equality needs.

The court found no proper equality impact assessment or equivalent recorded analysis before the enforcement notice, the interim injunction application or the decision to pursue a permanent injunction.

The duty is continuing. In particular, Blackpool should have reassessed the position when the defendants’ detailed witness statements became available before trial.

A breach of the PSED did not automatically defeat the injunction

Relying on Forward v Aldwyck Housing, the court asked whether it was highly likely that the council’s decision would have been substantially the same if the PSED had been properly performed.

On the particular facts, the answer was yes.

The court took into account the defendants’ health, family circumstances, literacy difficulties, travelling culture and the interests of their children. But it also found that there was no compelling evidence that the families had no realistic alternative pitches or accommodation, and no site-specific health or welfare need which outweighed the serious planning considerations.

Article 8 and the children’s interests were considered separately

The defendants’ caravans were their homes and their Romani Gypsy identity was directly engaged. The court therefore carried out the required Article 8 proportionality exercise.

The best interests of the children were a primary consideration, but not an overriding one.

Taking all matters together, requiring the two occupying families to leave was proportionate. The court extended the proposed 14-day period to 21 days.

No permanent injunction was made against persons unknown

Blackpool had also sought continuing relief against persons unknown.

Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers, the court was not satisfied that there was a compelling need for such an order.

The evidence showed that the named owners wanted the site for themselves and, potentially, one other connected family. The injunction against the named defendants was sufficient protection.

Why Blackpool matters

The judgment is a useful warning to both sides.

For local planning authorities, equality and human-rights duties need to be addressed properly and as a continuing exercise. A failure can put enforcement litigation at risk even where the underlying planning case is strong.

For landowners, the fact that a council has made procedural mistakes does not necessarily prevent a court granting an injunction if the court is satisfied those mistakes would not have changed the decision and the injunction itself is proportionate.

Read the full Blackpool judgment

The approved High Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.

Related Planning Geek coverage

See our news report on Blackpool’s section 187B injunction and our wider planning enforcement guidance.

Blackpool v Beale Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026