A High Court judge has granted Blackpool Borough Council an injunction requiring two Romani Gypsy families to vacate land they own, despite finding the council breached its public sector equality duty at three separate stages of enforcement action. The decision in Blackpool Borough Council v Beale [2026] EWHC 2237 (KB) addresses when equality failures by public authorities should defeat legitimate planning enforcement claims.
The Marton Moss Land Dispute
The defendants purchased land in the Marton Moss area in 2022. The site falls within an area designated as open land, inside a conservation area and covered by a neighbourhood plan. Construction activity began within weeks of the purchase, including laying hardcore, services, and footings. Pre-application advice obtained in late 2022 indicated that a proposal for bungalows would be recommended for refusal.
Related: Richardson murder appeal dismissed by Court of Appeal
An enforcement notice was issued in 2024 and an appeal was dismissed in December 2025. Two families moved caravans onto the site shortly after the compliance deadline expired. A fresh application for four permanent pitches was made in June 2026 and remains undetermined.
Council’s Equality Duty Failures
His Honour Judge Stephen Davies, sitting as a High Court Judge, found the council’s conduct regarding section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 “unsparing.” No equality impact assessment was carried out before the enforcement notice, before the interim injunction application, or before the decision to pursue a final injunction. The head of legal services made no reference to the defendants’ ethnicity, to the 2010 Act, or to the equality duty in her witness statement. The judge described her evidence that she had consciously assessed the position as undocumented and unpersuasive.
The court applied the test from Forward v Aldwyck Housing Group [2019] EWCA Civ 1334, which holds that breach of the equality duty does not automatically defeat a claim. The question is whether proper compliance would have produced a substantially different decision. The judge concluded it would not have. By the relevant stage, the defendants were legally represented and able to articulate their position fully. Their evidence about alternative options was found deeply unsatisfactory and without corroboration, with one defendant having a family pitch available elsewhere in Lancashire. The accommodation needs assessment for the Fylde Coast disclosed no significant unmet need, and a serviced site with unused permitted pitches lay a few miles away.
Related: Twickenham’s Radiant Revolution: Lab Grown Diamonds Transforming Trends in Engagement Rings
Children’s Interests and Procedural Limitations
The court accepted, following Chapman v United Kingdom, that occupation of a caravan engages ethnic identity as well as the home. Children’s best interests were treated as a primary consideration under ZH (Tanzania) but were ultimately outweighed. There was no evidence tying the children to that particular locality beyond proximity to extended family.
The judge also addressed a procedural matter of practical significance. The council’s head of development management had not been permitted to give expert planning evidence, and her opinions on planning judgement and on the prospects of the pending application were left out of account. Her evidence on policy and on matters of hard analysis was admitted.
