member of the travelling community, retained one permanent residential site, which consists of 19 pitches: see paragraphs 5 to 8 of Mr Waite's witness statement.
Preliminary question (2): exhaustion of all reasonable alternatives
35. At paragraphs 189 and 203 of Wolverhampton , the Supreme Court raised the consideration that local authorities should seek to engage with gypsy and traveller communities in an attempt to encourage dialogue and cooperation and better understand the needs of the respective parties. There is some limited evidence of that having taken place. First, the toleration policy referred to above indicates that there has been some co- operation on a case-by-case basis for those seeking temporary encampments and for good personal reasons. Mr Williams gave an example of when he has sought to refer those who are forming encampments to colleagues in the housing services team who can provide advice and assistance with housing needs: see paragraph 73. However, he also gave evidence that the reality is that those forming encampments will often refuse to engage with officers of the first claimant who attend the encampment: see paragraph 107(ii) and other examples given in the descriptions of contact with those who were infringing planning permission. In his third witness statement, Mr Williams explained that the injunction is enforced by educating those in breach and providing advice where possible rather than rushing to a committal. Despite this, the claimants assert that on the whole there has not been a level of dialogue of the kind contemplated by the Supreme Court. 36. The application has been served on the appellants in the Supreme Court proceedings in Wolverhampton , those being the three organisations that represented the interests of the gypsy traveller community. That service occurred only after the making of the application and the hearing on 2 April 2024. None of the three organisations indicated that they wished to make representations on a continuation of the injunction order. The court therefore has not had the comments or reactions or observations in relation to the proposed injunction. These are all matters which the court must take into account in deciding whether or not to continue the injunction. I shall return to this later in the judgment.
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
251
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator