Harlow District Council & Anor v Stokes & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by the claimants, Company A and Company B, for an interim injunction under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against 35 known defendants and persons unknown. Since 8 October 2013, members of certain traveller families, predominantly from two family groups, have repeatedly established unauthorised encampments within the district of The City. These encampments have been moved on by local authorities and police, only to reappear elsewhere in the district, creating a recurring cycle of occupation and eviction.

Over a 17-month period, there have been 109 encampments on a mixture of public and private land, sometimes involving up to 280 individuals with caravans, vehicles, and animals. None of these encampments had planning permission or submitted planning applications. The claimants have made numerous attempts to remove the encampments using statutory powers, particularly the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, all of which have failed.

The Planning and Development Manager of Company A provided evidence that none of the sites used are suitable for long-term occupation and that there is currently a policy gap regarding gypsy and traveller accommodation within the district. A 2014 assessment identified a need for additional pitches, and the claimants are working to bring dilapidated pitches back into use to meet this need by 2018. The defendants have not submitted any planning applications and have been advised to engage with relevant local units to explore suitable accommodation alternatives, some of which are located outside the district.

The sites occupied are inappropriate, including highway verges, school grounds, enterprise zone land, and public amenity areas, causing prejudice to short and medium term land use. The defendants’ actions have caused significant public health issues, environmental damage, antisocial behaviour, and community tension. Despite repeated interventions, the encampments continue, disrupting local services and causing complaints from residents and business contacts.

Following these events, the Head of Governance of Company A decided it was expedient to initiate the current proceedings. All defendants have been served in accordance with a prior ex parte order, but none have attended court. The claimants seek a district-wide injunction to prevent further unauthorised encampments.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it is expedient and proportionate to grant a district-wide interim injunction under the relevant statutory provisions to prevent further unauthorised traveller encampments within the district.
2. Whether the balance of convenience favors granting such an injunction given the history of breaches and the impact on the local community and public resources.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court assessed the necessity and proportionality of granting a district-wide injunction in light of the persistent and repeated breaches of planning control over a 17-month period. The court noted that prior efforts to address the issue using other statutory powers had failed, and that the ongoing unauthorised encampments had significant adverse effects on public health, local infrastructure, community relations, and the environment.

The Planning and Development Manager’s evidence demonstrated that the sites used were unsuitable and that the claimants were actively working to meet accommodation needs within the district. No personal circumstances of the defendants were presented that would outweigh the need for the injunction.

Given the small geographic size of the district and the scattered nature of the encampments, the court found a district-wide injunction to be both necessary and proportionate. The balance of convenience was held to strongly favor the claimants, as the injunction would serve the public interest and protect law-abiding residents.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the interim injunction sought by the claimants, prohibiting the defendants from establishing unauthorised encampments anywhere within the district.

The direct effect of this decision is to empower the claimants to prevent further breaches of planning control by the defendants, aiming to protect public health, safety, and community cohesion. The opinion does not establish new legal precedent but applies existing statutory powers to the facts presented.