The clients live in a small rural community within a designated green wedge on the outskirts of Peterborough. An adjacent agricultural field, historically used for cropping and later left as wildlife land, recently changed hands. Over the bank holiday weekend, travellers moved onto the land and immediately began extensive works: importing soil, laying hardcore, digging a trench, installing a septic tank, positioning caravans, placing portable toilets and bins, and altering the footpath for easier access. Utility markings have appeared, suggesting preparations for water connection. No planning application for change of use has been validated.
Planning enforcement officers have visited and confirmed in writing that an investigation is underway into unauthorised development, including the laying of hardcore, installation of a septic tank and siting of caravans. They have not committed to issuing an enforcement notice and are not time‑bound. Local councillors have requested enforcement action, but the authority has only confirmed that enquiries are ongoing. The clients live approximately 70 metres from the site. All neighbours are concerned, many elderlies, and the clients feel compelled to take the lead. They fear significant devaluation of their homes, estimated at £750,000–£850,000 before the travellers arrived and worry the properties may become unsellable if the site becomes established. They have no prior litigation experience and are concerned about cost and stress.
The travellers’ occupation and works constitute a material change of use and operational development without planning permission. The land lies in the centre of the green wedge, where development is tightly restricted. The local plan indicates no further need for traveller sites. The local authority has enforcement powers but may act too slowly to prevent the site becoming entrenched. If the travellers remain for four years, they may acquire immunity from enforcement. The clients wish to understand whether they can take independent action, including injunctive relief, and how to involve neighbours without undermining the council’s process. They also seek clarity on whether an injunction could restrain further works or require cessation of use.
Counsel explained that litigation is demanding, both financially and emotionally, but may be necessary if the local authority does not act swiftly. The first step would be a formal cease‑and‑desist letter to the travellers, giving them 24–48 hours to halt all works. If they fail to comply, an application for an injunction could be made to restrain further development and freeze the site pending planning determination. Although an injunction would not remove caravans outright, it would restrain continued unlawful use and operational development.
Counsel advised that evidence must be gathered: photographs, neighbour witness statements, land registry searches to confirm ownership, and correspondence with the council. A representative witness statement could be prepared on behalf of the neighbourhood. The application would argue that the development is unlawful, harmful to the locality, and causing immediate and irreparable detriment to property values. Counsel explained that the local authority could be named as a co‑defendant to “smoke out” their position. This often prompts them to clarify in writing that they do not support the development and are taking enforcement steps, which strengthens the clients’ case. The clients were advised to meet with neighbours to discuss collective funding and participation. Counsel noted that leaflet drops would only inflame emotions and not assist legally. The clients were encouraged to gather further information and await a fee estimate from counsel’s clerks before deciding whether to proceed.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy