KB--2025-001314 - [2025] EWHC 2809 (KB)

The proposal, as summarised by an LPA Senior Planning Officer, consisted of “the demolition of the site’s existing barn and the erection of a timber dwelling house in the style of a log cabin.” Niall Mileman provided five statements on behalf of the LPA, as one of their Senior Planning Officers. He stated that the proposal was for the “establishment of timber log style cabin with ancillary living space within derelict existing barn type structure.”

The Claimant advised that the proposed development would be unlikely to be given Planning Officer support due to its location within a 7 Km buffer zone of a Special Area of Conservation and potential negative visual impacts on the landscape beauty of High Weald National Landscape. Mr. Mileman, in his first statement dated 15 April 2025, stated the location of the site also is within 400 metres of the Ashdown Forest Protection Area and a residential use of the site would not be considered acceptable.

On 30 July 2024 there was an anonymous call to the LPA complaining of works on the Land. On 8 August 2024, the Claimant wrote to the Defendants, requesting information about works, at the address that was on the Land Registry, namely a Gypsy/Travellers’ site in East Sussex. However, it transpired that this was not the address of the Defendants and that there remains an application at the Land Registry to change the address, pending from 6 June 2024. This application had been submitted by a solicitor who also was based in East Sussex. Ms. Watson, in her letter in these proceedings, dated 9 May 2025 stated that the Land Registry address was an error by the solicitor handling the Land purchase. Therefore, there was no response to the Claimant’s letter.

On 9 October 2024 the LPA visited the site and Mr. Mileman states that “it was noted that the existing track on the site had been significantly improved, and new fencing and gate had been introduced”.

However, the LPA concluded that the fencing and the gate constituted “permitted development” and the improvement works to the track potentially also was “permitted development” under Schedule 2, Part 9 Class A and E, respectively, of Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015. No further action was taken.

Matters did not end there. On the 1^st and 2^nd of April 2024, local residents contacted the LPA with concerns about further works on the Land. These included the demolition and rebuild of the derelict barn, the creation of a large area of hardstanding adjacent to the barn, a possible dog kennel and the connection of utilities. Mr. Mileman visited the site on 4 April 2025 and observed that the barn had been rebuilt, there was hardstanding and also a small shelter, agreed to be a dog kennel. There was a lawn area and laurel hedging giving the appearance of a garden and also new slightly raised base was under construction. There also was a sign on the gate, “Natures Promise” and a coil of water pipe. At some stage, a letter box for receipt of mail had been affixed on the fence next to the gate.

The Claimant wrote to the Gypsy/Travellers’ site address the same day purportedly to the Defendants, requesting a meeting. During the final hearing, it was accepted by the Mr. O’Brien O’Reilly that the letter would not have been received as the Defendants did not live at that address. The detail is developed below. There was no reply.

On 7 April 2025, The Claimant emailed the East Sussex County Council Traveller Liaison Team and also spoke to them. They advised that there was no record of the Defendants at the Gypsy/Travellers’ site. They considered photographs of the works on the Land and communicated that the LPA may experience “problems at the site soon” and advised the Claimant to contact the East Sussex Police Rural Crimes Team. On 8 April 2025 the Claimant contacted the Police. In summary the Police agreed with the concerns of the LPA and gave their view that the hardstanding was ready for a residential unit. The Police already were aware of the Land.

It was against this background that the Claimant made an application for an urgent without notice injunction which was granted on 16 April 2025. The injunction restrained the Defendants from carrying out development on the Land in breach of planning control and listed prohibited activities including laying or forming concrete bases, erecting any buildings or shelters and using any part of the Land for residential occupation.

The injunction was posted near the Land on 17 April 2025. On 22 April 2025, Ms. Watson contacted the LPA and told Mr. Mileman that she had received the injunction and was having difficulties with the timeline in the directions. She asked why she had not received letters before the injunction and confirmed in conversation that she did not live at the address recorded on the Land Registry. Ms. Watson attended court on 25^th April 2025 and made representations. She confirmed that she lived at an address in West Sussex with Mr. Devall and their children. On that date, the hearing was adjourned, and the interim injunction order was further extended with a return date of the week of the 19^th of May 2025. There was a direction for the Defendants to file any evidence by 9 May 2025.

On 9 May 2025, Ms. Watson wrote a letter, addressed to a Judge, respectfully apologising that she would be unable to attend the hearing. She set out that she had found the previous hearing stressful and that it had taken a “serious toll” on her health. She stated that she was unable to afford legal representation and requested that the injunction be discharged.

She stated that the LPA placed “highly restrictive limitations on the use of the land” and argued that the barn was restored rather than rebuilt, using the original brickwork and footings. She described that where the original material was unsafe, they were replaced with “like-for-like materials”. Further, she argued that the raised hardstanding already existed and had been cleared rather than added to the Land. Ms. Watson also stated that upon clearing the Land they discovered the derelict barn and the raised hardstanding. Ms. Watson referred back to Mr. Mileman’s email to the Rural Crime Team, on 8 April 2025, where he said that “there are only minor breaches of planning control occurring on site at the present time.”

However, in the letter, she volunteered to remove the dog kennel. Subsequently, this was carried out. Further, she pointed to the LPA’s concerns that the Land was being prepared for an unauthorised Gypsy/Traveller site as “both unfounded and discriminatory”. She said that “we have no such intentions, and it is upsetting to feel that we are being treated unfairly because of our background”.

Ms. Watson also produced photographs of the state of the Land before their works. It has the appearance of wasteland with discarded logs, a section of hardstanding and a derelict barn with a red corrugated iron exterior. The barn is clearly visible.

The Claimant relies on evidence from Mr. Mileman that the works on the barn, namely removal of bricks from the base of the original barn for cleaning before reuse, replacement of timber and new corrugated iron and door is a development as set out in section 55(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In summary, the appearance of the barn is materially different in that it now is green in colour. Further the window above the barn is different to previously and the door is different, constructed in light wood.

In relation to the hardstanding, Mr. Mileman states that he refers to the entirety of the hardstanding which included an area surfaced with tarmac planings as well as extended raised hardstanding. As to the pre-existing hardstanding, Mr. Mileman points to photographs taken on 20 September 2020 which show an absence of hardstanding for part of the area. Further, they rely on a Google Earth photograph taken of the Land on 20 May 2024 which appears to show only bare earth and no hardstanding at all. Mr. Mileman states that hardstanding is in breach of planning control. He also points to the hardstanding expansion, letter box, naming of the property, attempted laying on of domestic water supply (although it was cancelled) and development of a garden as evidence of the Defendants’ intention to use the Land for residential occupation. The Claimant points to the development happening in the face of advice that a planning application was required.

On 19 May 2025, the Defendants did not attend the hearing, and it was adjourned with a further return date of 15 June 2025. The Deputy High Court Judge required satisfaction that the Second Defendant knew of the proceedings. The injunction remained in place. The final interim injunction order was on 12 June 2025. Directions were made for the service of evidence, including that the Defendants filed evidence by 30 September 2025. The same day, copies of the sealed interim injunction Order were affixed to the entrance to the Land and also put in the letter box, as well as sent to the Defendants by email.

On 26 August 2025, the Claimant received an email and photographs from “a concerned party” suggesting that a water supply had been connected to the Land by Southeast Water. The Claimant contacted Southeast Water who responded on 9 September 2025 by way of an email detailing the works that had been carried out or were to be carried out, namely “installation of 1 x 25 mm household connection for new build coming off a 90 mm HPPE water main located in Old Forge Lane.”

The Claimant wrote to the Defendants on 9 September 2025, and a conversation took place by telephone with Ms. Watson on 15 September 2025. Mr. Mileman states that she said, “that she had called Southeast Water to cancel the works” to provide “drinking water to the site after service of the Injunction Order” and that “she had received a refund from them and so assumed the works had been cancelled”. This was confirmed by Southeast water. It appears that they decided to proactively install a communication pipe in the highway, in any event.

Mr. Mileman visited the Land on 24 September 2025 and noted vegetal growth and the removal of the dog kennel. I’ve considered the photographs, and the Land clearly is overgrown with plants growing up through the hardstanding.