East Herts District Council v Flynn & Ors [2025] EWHC 1458 (KB)
East Herts planning injunction is a modern High Court example of a council using section 187B after an enforcement notice had remained uncomplied with for a prolonged period.
The court granted both prohibitory and mandatory relief, but only after carrying out its own proportionality assessment and balancing the integrity of planning control against the Traveller family’s accommodation needs, the interests of their children and the practical alternatives to an injunction.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2025] EWHC 1458 (KB)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division
- Judgment date
- 13th June 2025
- Judge
- Alison Morgan KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- Case number
- KB-2025-001505
What the East Herts planning injunction case concerned
The land at Long Leys, Brickendon, lay in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Brickendon Conservation Area. It was being used as a residential caravan site and contained hardstanding, a chalet-style caravan, another caravan and associated vehicles and residential items.
Planning permission had been refused and an enforcement notice was issued in February 2020. Appeals were dismissed in April 2022. The Inspector had already extended the compliance period by 16 months to reduce disruption to the family’s children.
By the time the injunction claim reached the High Court in 2025, no part of the enforcement notice had been complied with.
Section 187B gives the court its own discretion
The court applied South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and later authorities. A section 187B application is not simply a review of what the council has already decided.
The High Court has an original and discretionary jurisdiction. Even where the council considers an injunction necessary or expedient, the court must decide for itself whether relief is just, convenient and proportionate in all the circumstances.
Our guide to a planning injunction explains the practical route.
The council did not have to prosecute first
East Herts had not prosecuted the occupiers for non-compliance and had not carried out the works itself under section 178.
That did not prevent an injunction. The court accepted that prosecution would impose a criminal sanction but would not itself remove the breach, while direct action would involve substantial public expenditure. On these facts the council had good reason to conclude that those alternatives were not an effective or proportionate answer.
The court balanced planning harm against the family’s circumstances
The unauthorised use was outside the village boundary, in the Green Belt and within the conservation area. The court accepted that it caused planning harm and that conventional enforcement had failed.
Against that, the court treated the children’s needs and the family’s accommodation position as important countervailing considerations. It also recognised that the council’s current evidence showed an unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation which was less favourable than the position understood by the Inspector in 2022.
Those personal circumstances were important, but they were not determinative. There was also no evidence from the defendants establishing particular hardship beyond the general difficulty of finding another site.
The children’s best interests remained a primary consideration
The judgment applied Stevens [2013] EWHC 792 (Admin). Children’s best interests are a primary consideration, but not the paramount consideration in a planning case.
The court took account of schooling and the disruption caused by removal. The final order therefore allowed a further nine months overall: six months for removal of the caravan and other residential items, followed by three months for removal of the hardstanding.
The injunction was necessary and proportionate
The prolonged history mattered. The occupiers knew the planning position, had participated in the appeal process, had already received an extended compliance period and had been offered housing assistance, but the breach continued.
The court concluded that nothing short of an injunction would provide effective restraint. It therefore granted final relief with both prohibitory and mandatory elements.
For the wider context, see human rights and planning enforcement and our current guide to Gypsy and Traveller sites.
Read the full East Herts judgment
The approved High Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
East Herts Planning Injunction Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026