Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead v Cawley: High Court declines final injunction on return date pending welfare assessment

The High Court has declined to grant a final planning injunction against Traveller families occupying agricultural Green Belt land, holding that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead had not yet demonstrated a sufficient review of the welfare needs and personal circumstances of those on the site. Duncan Atkinson KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, instead extended the interim injunction and directed costs in the case.

The Land at the junction of Fifield Lane and Oakley Green Road had been purchased by the first defendant, Martin Cawley, in Autumn 2025. Between August 2025 and January 2026, Council officers observed progressive unauthorised development: removal of hedgerow to create access, erection of fencing, importation of hardcore, segregation of four pitches, and the bringing on of mobile homes, motorhomes and a touring caravan. A Temporary Stop Notice issued on 20 January 2026 was breached on the same evening it was erected. An interim injunction was granted without notice by Farbey J on 21 January 2026, and by the return date of 4 February 2026, eight named adult defendants had been joined, replacing the "persons unknown" element of the order.

The Council applied at the return date for a final injunction for a two-year period, submitting there was no factual dispute as to the unlawful development, that the breaches were flagrant — having occurred in the Green Belt and in defiance of a Temporary Stop Notice — and that other enforcement mechanisms would be inadequate. The defendants did not contest the continuation of interim relief but resisted the making of a final order on three grounds: that pre-hearing correspondence had proceeded on the basis of an extended interim order rather than a final one; that insufficient time had elapsed to prepare a substantive response; and that the Council had not demonstrably revisited its position in light of newly available information concerning the welfare of children and vulnerable adults on the site.

The court accepted that the factual and legal threshold for injunctive relief was plainly met. Applying South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2004] UKHL 33, there was a serious issue to be tried, damages were not an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo. However, citing Waverley Borough Council v Gray [2023] EWHC 2161 KB, the Deputy Judge held that a final order required the Council to demonstrate it had investigated and reassessed the proportionality of its position in light of emerging information — including the presence of children who had not been known to be on site when the interim injunction was granted.

The Deputy Judge declined to criticise the Council, noting the information had only recently come to light. Nevertheless, the duty identified in South Buckinghamshire — that a local planning authority must take account of the personal circumstances of defendants and any hardship a final order may cause — remained unsatisfied on the evidence before him. Consistent with the approach in Zoumbas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 74, the welfare and best interests of the children on the Land were required to be a primary consideration in any proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR.

The judgement underlines the distinction between extending an interim injunction and granting a final one. Where welfare needs, personal circumstances and PSED obligations have not been meaningfully addressed in light of current information, a return date is unlikely to be the appropriate occasion for final relief, even where the underlying breach is undisputed. The Council retains liberty to apply for a final injunction ahead of the determination of the planning permission application, provided it can demonstrate proper consideration of the circumstances of those residing on the Land.

Copyright & permissions