I think settling with this guy is not a good plan. I need the injunction if going to the trouble to sue him at all.

Which sort of brings me back to this idea.

Abatement

There is a general and limited common law principle that a party is entitled to enter onto another’s land in order to put an end to an interference. This is known as abatement, and it comprises of both:
A right to enter onto the servient land in certain circumstances.
A remedy of putting right the interference.
Abatement can only be used where a cause of action exists and, in the case of easements, this lies in nuisance. So, for example, abatement may be used to lawfully remove an obstruction that is blocking a right of way.
The limitations on abatement were discussed in Burton v Winters [1993] 1 WLR 1077 which are:
Abatement is only appropriate in simple cases or where an immediate remedy is needed.
If there is more than one way to abate the nuisance, the least “mischievous” method should be used as the party abating a nuisance must act in the most reasonable manner available.
The party abating the nuisance must not cause any unnecessary damage.
A claimant cannot resort to abatement if a court has already refused a mandatory injunction.
Abatement must be exercised promptly.
Unless it is an emergency, or there is no need to enter onto someone else’s land, the party abating the nuisance should give notice to the party causing the nuisance.
If a party enters property to abate a nuisance, then that party is not precluded from seeking other remedies of damages and/or a declaration in court. If the nuisance recommences, an injunction may also be sought.