Margaret O’Brien, Hannie Flynn, Ann Sheridan, Nellie Quilligan, Elizabeth Sheridan & Kathleen Sheridan v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1159

South Cambridgeshire planning injunction is an important Court of Appeal judgment on equality duties when a council decides to seek a section 187B injunction against unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller occupation.

The court held that the relevant race-equality duty did apply to that enforcement decision. But the council had complied in substance because it had considered the appellants’ ethnicity, health, education, cultural aversion to bricks-and-mortar accommodation, alternative sites and the consequences of removal.

Neutral citation

[2008] EWCA Civ 1159

Court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Judgment date

24th October 2008

Judge

Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Carnwath and Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Case number

C3/2008/0042

What the South Cambridgeshire planning injunction case concerned

Six Gypsy appellants lived in mobile homes at Victoria View, Smithy Fen, in breach of planning control. Planning and enforcement appeals had already been dismissed, although the Secretary of State extended the compliance period to allow time to find somewhere else to live and to reduce disruption to children’s education.

When the enforcement notice was not complied with, South Cambridgeshire District Council applied for an injunction under section 187B. The High Court granted the injunction and the occupiers appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

A section 187B court has an original discretion

The appellants argued that defects in the council’s own decision-making meant there was no valid injunction application before the court.

The Court of Appeal rejected that approach. Section 187B gives the court an original, not merely supervisory, jurisdiction. A failure by the local planning authority to consider a relevant matter may be important to the court’s discretion, but it does not normally deprive the court of power to hear the injunction claim.

This remains an important part of the modern planning injunction framework.

The council’s race-equality duty did apply to the injunction decision

The High Court judge had considered that the statutory race-equality duty did not apply to the particular enforcement decision. The Court of Appeal said that was wrong.

A council deciding whether to seek a section 187B injunction is carrying out a public function, so the equality duty applied. The relevant legislation at the time was section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976.

That legislation is historical. The modern public sector equality duty is in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The 2008 case remains useful for its substance-over-form approach, not as a source for the current statutory wording.

Substance mattered more than a formal race-impact label

The council had not produced a separate document headed “race impact assessment” for the injunction decision. That was not fatal.

Its reports identified the occupiers as an ethnic minority, recognised disproportionate ill health and disability, considered access to education and medical services, referred to the council’s Race Equality Scheme and addressed the consequences of forcing the families back onto the road.

Later needs assessments also expressly recorded the families’ cultural aversion to houses and hostels. The Court of Appeal concluded that, in substance, the council had given due regard to the relevant equality considerations.

Section 24 gave a power to provide sites, not a duty

The appellants also relied on section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

The court held that the provision gave local authorities a power to provide and acquire caravan sites, but did not impose the old statutory duty which Parliament had repealed in 1994. More importantly, the section dealt with land and physical site provision, not with deciding which land was suitable in planning terms or obtaining planning permission for it.

The council had considered alternatives in parallel

The committee reports showed that South Cambridgeshire had considered taking no immediate action, temporary planning permission, an injunction and direct clearance. It also agreed to refresh searches of council-owned land, seek assistance from the county council and investigate other possibilities.

What the council was not required to do was postpone enforcement until its emerging Gypsy and Traveller development-plan process eventually identified new sites. The court accepted the council’s judgment that the existing landscape harm required action sooner.

The injunction ultimately remained proportionate

Because the council had considered the relevant personal and equality matters, the Court of Appeal attached considerable weight to its decision to seek an injunction.

The High Court had also considered the individual circumstances for itself. The legal error about whether the race-equality duty applied did not change the outcome because the substance of that duty had already been satisfied.

For current guidance, see human rights and planning enforcement and our page on Gypsy and Traveller sites.

Read the full O’Brien judgment

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

South Cambridgeshire Planning Injunction Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026