Hillingdon v Springwell Lane Metal Recycling: High Court grants final injunction to halt unlawful scrap yard

The High Court has granted a final injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the closure of an unlawful scrap metal yard on Green Belt land, including a rare order binding persons unknown in a planning enforcement context.

Annabel Darlow KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, gave judgement on 3 July 2026 in London Borough of Hillingdon v Springwell Lane Metal Recycling Limited [2026] EWHC 1676 (KB). The council sought both prohibitory and mandatory relief in respect of land at Rickmansworth, sitting within the Green Belt and the Springwell Lock Conservation Area, close to the River Colne and residential property.

The site had operated as a scrap metal yard since around April 2023 without permission. A retrospective application was refused in July 2024, an enforcement notice followed in September 2024, and an appeal against it was dismissed by a planning inspector in March 2025. Rather than abating, the use intensified. The operator's director, Martin Nolan, told the council in interview and correspondence that he intended to continue trading, stating at one point that he would "go for broke" and keep operating for as long as he could. A criminal prosecution under section 179 of the Act is listed for trial at Isleworth Crown Court in March 2029.

The council's evidence, from its area planning enforcement team leader, described concrete hard surfaces being laid to enlarge the yard, an expanding footprint, a fire on 5 May 2026 that drew around 65 firefighters, and the Environment Agency's decision to de-register the site and treat it as an illegal waste operation. Three of the defendants, including the company and Mr Nolan, did not attend. Satisfied that the interim order and hearing notice had been served, the judge proceeded in their absence under CPR 39.3, finding an adjournment would serve no purpose and carry significant cost. The claim against the two landowner defendants was adjourned for up to nine months.

Applying South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558 and Ipswich BC v Fairview Hotels [2022] EWHC 2868 (KB), the judge found a clear breach of planning control through both a material change of use and unauthorised operational development. The degree and flagrancy of the breach were central. Conventional enforcement had failed over a prolonged period, the director had displayed wilful and persistent non-compliance, and the Green Belt location and environmental sensitivity reinforced the seriousness. Harm to amenity and the environment, including noise, pollution risk, and run-off into a drinking water source protection zone, was well evidenced.

Weighing the public interest against the defendants' private rights, the judge noted that no evidence of hardship had been produced despite opportunities to do so, and that the interference with qualified rights was proportionate and pursued a legitimate aim. The distant criminal trial and the limited, financial-only sanctions available to the criminal court meant an injunction was both necessary and expedient to bring the breaches to an end.

Turning to the sixth defendant, the judge applied Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47. Unidentified individuals had been recorded depositing scrap on site, the council's attempts to identify them had failed, and the threat of further breaches was real and imminent. The order was clear, geographically limited, and carried liberty to apply.

The judge granted the final injunction against the first, second, third, and sixth defendants, and awarded the council its costs against the first three on the standard basis, with payments on account of £10,000 each.