Court orders removal of static home ‘dumped’ on Westgate clifftop in May 2022

The dumped static home Photo Dave Tappy

A court has ordered the removal of a static caravan which was installed illegally on the cliff top at Westgate at the end of last May.

On February 23 Deputy District Judge Plant, at Canterbury County Court, ruled the mobile home must be removed and the defendant was ordered to pay Thanet District Council’s costs of £4,333.26.

The mobile home unit placed on land, known as ‘The Gardens’, next to Westgate Pavilion and defendant Sheena Daniels, of Westgate, claimed to have purchased the land and that she would provide proof of ownership. The land is owned by Thanet council.

In September 2022 Thanet District Council applied for an Injunction to remove the mobile home  and the case was heard at Canterbury County Court last week.

Photo TDC

The court initially ordered that both parties prepare for trial which would have taken place in October or November this year. The council then made a successful application for default and summary judgement – a fast track process that obtains a judgement without a trial) for the injunction.

The defendant’s claim  they had legally purchased the land was dismissed by the court and the judge ruled in favour of the council.

The court ordered Ms Daniels to pay the council’s costs of £4,333.26 and to have the caravan removed within 56 days of the hearing – by Thursday 20 April. The council will be permitted to reapply for its removal if it is still there after this date.

Cllr Ash Ashbee, Leader of Thanet District Council said: “I’m very pleased with the outcome of this case. While taking people to court is a last resort, as a council we will prosecute if people are breaking the law. The mobile home was a blot on the landscape and we were confident that the defendant had no right to put it there.

“The fact that the judge decided to award us over £4,000 in costs means that the council and local residents will not be out of pocket. This is a good result. We’ll be keeping a close eye on whether the mobile home is indeed moved within the court mandated time frame, and we won’t hesitate to pursue a follow up case if not.”