Defendant given suspended sentence after bringing caravans onto land in breach of planning injunction

The High Court heard that Fred King, who is in his 60s, had been living on the site in Kent without permission since 2022.

In that time, he had used the land, which is an undeveloped green field, as a caravan site, stationing a number of mobile homes on the field without planning permission.

In Maidstone Borough Council v King [2026] EWHC 1965 (KB), Mr Justice Griffiths handed down the suspended sentence after finding King's breaches were "serious", "deliberate" and continued over a significant period of time.

The plot has been subject to planning restrictions under an Enforcement Notice dating back to 1991.

King took possession of the land in 2022, despite ownership of the site remaining the subject of an ongoing dispute.

He had claimed that he had occupied the land for 12 years in support of an ownership claim, but, the council said, investigators later found this to be false.

During the course of the proceedings, King submitted several planning applications and applications for Certificates of Lawfulness in an attempt to regularise development on the site.

However, these applications were refused by the council and subsequently dismissed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.

The council eventually secured an interim injunction in October 2022 to prevent additional works being carried out on the plot, with a final injunction being granted in December 2024.

Despite the injunction being in force, King continued to breach the terms of the Court Order over a prolonged period by bringing additional caravans and vehicles onto the land and carrying out further development works.

The judge ultimately sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, on the condition that he fully vacates and clears the land within six months.

In handing down the decision, Mr Justice Griffiths wrote: "The defendant’s contempts were serious. They were deliberate. They were consequential. They were not committed at the direction of or under pressure from anyone else. They were a choice made by the defendant, who knew that he was acting in breach of court orders. They were entirely his responsibility.

"They continued over a significant period of time and still continue. Culpability is high. Harm is significant but not irreversible and affects land rather than people (except to the extent that people are affected by breaches of planning control); I therefore assess harm as medium to high."

He also found that a previous, separate injunction secured by Medway Council and a previous suspended sentence the man received for breach constituted a "seriously aggravating feature" of the case.

That injunction was imposed by Dartford County Court in August 2017 and followed breaches of planning controls similar to those in the case brought by Maidstone.

The judge did note some personal mitigating factors, including the defendant's health issues and his living circumstances. The judgment also noted that the defendant exhibited a recognition of responsibility and "a commitment to put matters right".

Maidstone Borough Council's Planning Enforcement Team Leader said: "This judgment highlights the importance of following the planning process and complying with enforcement notices and Court Orders. Residents rightly expect planning rules to be applied fairly and consistently.

"While enforcement action is always a last resort, the Council will take appropriate action where serious breaches occur. We encourage anyone considering development to speak with us at an early stage and secure the necessary permissions before carrying out substantial works."

Adam Carey