KING'S BENCH DIVISION
In the matter of section 222 Local Government Act 1972 and section 187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES |
Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
(1) MICHAEL CASEY (2) BRIDGET CASEY (3) SIMON DOHERTY (4) KATHLEEN BERNADETTE KATRINA DOHERTY (5) PERSONS UNKNOWN, BEING THOSE PERSONS CAUSING OR PERMITTING WORKS TO BE UNDERTAKEN, OR WASTE OR OTHER MATERIAL TO DEPOSITED ON THE LAND, AND/OR BRINGING ONTO OR OCCUPYING CARAVANS OR MOBILE HOMES ON THE LAND OR INTENDING TO DO SO, OTHER THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH A VALID GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION (6) THOMAS JUDE DOHERTY (7) THOMAS CASEY (8) MICHAEL CASEY JUNIOR |
Defendants |
____________________
Hearing date: 7 May 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge:
Legal Principles
- There must be a compelling need for the enforcement of planning control in the locality which has been sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence and on the facts of the case. Further, the Court should be satisfied that the compelling need is not adequately met by any other measures available to the Claimant.
- Within the proposed injunction there should be sufficient procedural protection for the rights of newcomers which would overcome the strong prima facie objection of subjecting newcomers to a without notice injunction made on a final basis,
- The injunction should be constrained in terms of both territorial and temporal limits, such that it does not persist longer or beyond the limits required by the compelling circumstances demonstrated.