A long-running planning enforcement dispute over an unauthorised traveller site has resulted in findings of contempt against several defendants after the High Court considered alleged breaches of an injunction intended to stop further development on protected land.
What did the High Court decide?
In Central Bedfordshire Council v McDonaugh and Others [2026] EWHC 2675 (KB), handed down on 19 October 2026, Mr Nicholas Bacon KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, considered the Council’s application to enforce an injunction through contempt proceedings.
The proceedings concerned land behind Home Farm on Dunstable Road, Tilsworth, near Leighton Buzzard. The Council alleged that defendants had continued developing and occupying the land as an unauthorised traveller site despite court orders prohibiting further development without planning permission or written consent.
The court assessed the allegations individually. Its concluding table identified allegations that were proved against particular defendants and others that were not proved. The judgment therefore does not treat every defendant as responsible for every alleged breach.
- Neutral citation 2675 EWHC 2026 (KB)
- Judgment date 19 Oct 2026
- Caravans recorded 20 Compared with eight under the injunction
How did the planning dispute arise?
The dispute began in 2023, when the Council became aware of activity aimed at establishing an unauthorised residential traveller site on the land. The site was within the Green Belt and did not have planning permission for the residential use or the development being undertaken.
A planning application seeking residential use was submitted on or around 4 August 2023, but the application was invalid. The Council subsequently issued a Stop Notice and a Planning Enforcement Notice. The latter required the cessation of residential use, removal of caravans and associated items, and restoration of the land to its former agricultural condition.
Proceedings followed in September 2023. The Council sought injunctive relief to prevent additional development and further occupation of the land while the planning dispute continued.
- Council officers became aware of activity associated with establishing an unauthorised traveller site. A planning application for residential use was submitted but was invalid.
- A Planning Enforcement Notice was issued, requiring the unauthorised development and change of use to be addressed.
- The Council commenced High Court proceedings seeking an injunction.
- The injunction was extended by HHJ Tindal, with restrictions on further development and a requirement to remove the additional caravan.
- The planning appeal was dismissed, although the Inspector varied the compliance periods for the enforcement requirements.
- The High Court heard the contempt proceedings over three days.
- Deputy High Court Judge Nicholas Bacon KC handed down judgment on the allegations.
What did the injunction require?
The injunction made on 10 November 2023 was central to the Council’s case. It prohibited the defendants from undertaking, encouraging, instructing or allowing development on the land without planning permission or written consent from the Council’s solicitor.
The order specifically addressed activities including engineering operations, changes of use, construction of buildings or structures, the importation of materials and the bringing of additional caravans or mobile homes onto the land. It also restricted occupation by people who were not living there when the order was served.
The injunction was intended to preserve the position on the site and prevent further unauthorised development.
The order also required the caravan that had arrived after 29 September 2023 to be removed by 4pm on 17 November 2023, leaving eight caravans on the land.
By the time of the contempt proceedings, it was common ground that the site had been substantially developed and that 20 caravans were present. The central question was not simply whether development had occurred, but whether the Council had proved the relevant allegations against each individual defendant.
Which allegations were proved?
The judge’s conclusions distinguished between defendants and the individual allegations. The following table summarises the findings recorded in the judgment’s concluding section.
| Allegation | Defendant(s) | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Allegation 1 | D1, D3 and D4 | Proved |
| Allegation 2 | D9, D11 and D12 | Not proved |
| Allegations 2A, 3A and 4A | D9, D11 and D12 | Proved |
| Allegations 3, 4 and 5 | D1, D3 and D4 | Proved |
| Allegations 3 and 4 | D9, D11 and D12 | Not proved |
| Allegation 7 | D4 | Proved |
| Allegations 11 and 12 | D15 and D16 | Proved |
| Allegation 15 | D20 | Proved |
The judgment identified Bernard McDonaugh, Maureen Doherty and Michael Doherty in relation to the failure to remove the additional caravan and allegations concerning further development. The judge found that they knew about specified development, including hardstanding, additional caravans, a brick structure described as a shrine and a blue plastic shed, and had allowed it to occur.
In relation to allegation 7, the judge accepted evidence that Michael Doherty had directed the unloading and positioning of a wooden shed. The allegation was proved in relation to one shed, but the judge was not satisfied to the same standard that he had been involved in installing a second shed.
The court also found allegations 11 and 12 proved against Denis Doyle and Michael Stokes, concerning development of additional plots. The judgment records evidence that the development had been undertaken for the benefit of those occupying the land.
These findings were allegation-specific. The court did not find every allegation proved against every person, and the distinction between proved and unproved allegations is an important feature of the decision.
Why did the standard of proof matter?
Contempt proceedings can result in serious consequences, including imprisonment or a fine. The judge therefore applied the criminal standard of proof to the allegations, requiring the Council to establish each necessary element beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment explains that the court had to consider whether the relevant defendant knew of the terms of the order, acted or failed to act in a way that breached it, and knew the facts that made the conduct a breach. The court also considered the evidence cumulatively, rather than treating individual pieces of evidence in isolation.
The judge examined witness evidence, documentary material, the circumstances of the site and the defendants’ respective involvement. In assessing the allegations, he distinguished between people who were shown to have allowed prohibited activity and those against whom the necessary elements had not been established.
The findings against some defendants therefore did not automatically determine the position of others. Each allegation required its own assessment against the applicable legal standard.
What does the judgment mean for enforcement?
The decision illustrates the role of injunctions in planning enforcement where a local authority alleges that unauthorised development has continued despite formal enforcement action and court orders.
For local authorities, the judgment highlights the importance of clear injunction terms, reliable evidence of service, and evidence capable of linking particular defendants to specific alleged breaches. The court considered extensive service evidence and permitted substituted service in circumstances where reasonable steps had been taken to bring the proceedings and hearing documents to the defendants’ attention.
For defendants, the case demonstrates that a breach allegation must be assessed against the precise terms of the order and the evidence relating to the individual’s conduct. The fact that development occurred on a site does not, by itself, establish every allegation against everyone connected with it.
The judgment’s conclusions establish which allegations the court found proved at this stage. The findings should not be read as meaning that every defendant was responsible for all of the development or that every allegation brought by the Council succeeded.
Frequently asked questions
What is Central Bedfordshire Council v McDonaugh about?
The case concerns alleged breaches of a High Court injunction restricting unauthorised development and occupation at a traveller site in Tilsworth, Bedfordshire.
When was the judgment handed down?
The approved judgment in Central Bedfordshire Council v McDonaugh and Others [2026] EWHC 2675 (KB) is dated 19 October 2026.
How many caravans were on the site?
The injunction required the site to be left with eight caravans. The judgment records that 20 caravans were present by the time of the contempt proceedings.
Were all the allegations proved?
No. The judge’s concluding table identifies several allegations as proved and others as not proved. The findings were made separately for the relevant allegations and defendants.
What standard of proof applies to contempt proceedings?
The judgment explains that the necessary elements of contempt must be established to the criminal standard of proof, meaning beyond reasonable doubt.
Where can I read the full judgment?
The approved judgment is available through the National Archives’ Find Case Law service using the primary-source link in the section below.