Somerset Council v Peter Richards (Senior) & Ors [2026] EWHC 2401 (KB)
Somerset Council v Richards is a High Court judgment on a final planning injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 at the Greenacres Traveller site, Oxen Lane, North Curry.
The case is useful because it shows how the court approaches section 187B after the planning merits have already been tested through a recent planning appeal. The court does not decide the planning merits again, but it must still make its own assessment of proportionality, hardship, Article 8, Traveller status, children, health and alternative accommodation.
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
- [2026] EWHC 2401 (KB)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division
- Judgment date
- 16th September 2026
- Judge
- HHJ Siddique, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- Case number
- KB-2025-002215
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
The Greenacres planning history stretched back more than 20 years
Greenacres had already been the subject of extensive planning enforcement before the occupation considered in this case.
The land was developed as a residential Traveller site in 2004 without planning permission. An enforcement notice and stop notice followed, planning appeals failed and earlier High Court proceedings eventually resulted in a final injunction in 2010. The site was then cleared and remained free from residential occupation for many years.
Traveller families reoccupied the land in October 2024 and works were carried out to create and service residential pitches. Somerset Council commenced fresh section 187B proceedings in June 2025.
A fresh planning appeal had already tested the merits
Rather than press immediately for final injunctive relief, the council allowed the occupiers to pursue retrospective planning permission.
Application 24/25/0006 sought a multi-pitch Gypsy and Traveller site. The application was refused and appeal APP/E3335/W/25/3375539 was dismissed on 1st June 2026 after an inquiry.
The Inspector had considered the planning harms alongside the shortage of Traveller pitches, the personal circumstances of occupiers and intended occupiers, children, health, equality and Article 8.
That recent appeal decision became an important part of the High Court’s assessment, but it did not determine the section 187B application automatically.
The court could not reopen the planning merits
HHJ Siddique applied the established principles from South Bucks District Council v Porter.
The court was not entitled to substitute its own view on whether planning permission should have been granted. Those planning merits had been determined through the statutory planning process.
The section 187B jurisdiction is different. The judge had to decide whether it was appropriate to grant an injunction and whether the interference with the occupiers’ rights would be proportionate.
Article 8, Traveller status and the welfare of children mattered
The court accepted that the caravans and mobile homes were the occupiers’ homes and that requiring families to leave would interfere with Article 8 rights.
The judge also accepted that authorised Traveller accommodation was in short supply, that relocation would cause real hardship and that the best interests of affected children were a primary consideration.
Health and welfare evidence was also relevant. Those matters carried substantial weight in the proportionality exercise, but they did not create immunity from planning control.
The long enforcement history carried very substantial weight
The decisive counterweight was the history of the land and the public interest in enforcing planning control.
An enforcement notice dating from October 2004 remained in force. Earlier appeals had failed. A previous High Court injunction had been required before compliance was eventually achieved. The land was then reoccupied in 2024 by people who were aware, in broad terms, of the planning history and the need for planning permission.
The occupiers had also been able to pursue a fresh retrospective application and a full planning appeal before the final injunction claim was determined.
Standing back, the judge concluded that the public interest in enforcement outweighed the hardship caused by requiring the occupiers to leave.
A final injunction was granted against named defendants and persons unknown
The court granted both prohibitory and mandatory relief.
Relief was also granted against persons unknown. Applying Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers, HHJ Siddique found a compelling need because occupation had changed during the proceedings and there was a real risk that the order could otherwise be circumvented by changes in occupiers.
The persons unknown element was territorially limited to Greenacres and time-limited until 15th September 2027 unless extended by a further court order.
The court allowed time for compliance
Immediate departure was considered disproportionate.
The mandatory provisions requiring residential occupation to cease were suspended for three months. A four-month period was allowed for removal of unauthorised development, associated items and waste, and reinstatement of the land.
The different periods reflected the court’s attempt to balance the public interest in enforcement against the practical hardship of relocation and site clearance.
Why Somerset Council v Richards matters
The judgment is a strong modern example of the proper relationship between planning appeals and section 187B injunction proceedings.
- the court does not re-decide planning merits already determined through the statutory process
- a failed planning appeal does not make a planning injunction automatic
- Article 8, Traveller status, children, health and alternative accommodation remain part of the court’s own proportionality assessment
- a long history of failed enforcement and previous injunctive relief can carry very substantial weight
- persons unknown relief still requires the safeguards identified in Wolverhampton
Read the full Somerset Council v Richards 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 Greenacres news report, our guide to planning injunctions under section 187B and our page on human rights in planning enforcement.
Somerset Council v Richards Case Law Page Updated: 20th September 2026