42. I shall refer in due course to the nature of the renewal application in any order.
43. As regards the territorial limits of the injunction, the area of just over ten per cent of the borough captures the urbanised area of Basingstoke Town as well as the outlying areas of Bramley, Sherbourne, St John and Silchester, as well as a small parcel of land at Stratfield Turgis. The land in the injunction has been identified as requiring specific protection because of the disproportionate targeting of that land by unauthorised encampments, the exacerbated harm suffered by reason of the concentration of the encampments and the nature of the land they are in. In relation to the latter, the nature of the land within the injunction area means that the harm suffered by the local inhabitants is greater than it is when encampments are outside of that area, as it includes land and facilities such as public parks, schools, sports facilities and local businesses such as supermarkets and shops. 44. At the hearing on 22 April 2024, the court inquired as to whether applying the prohibitions to 10 per cent of the borough in effect amounted to a borough-wide order when the nature and accessibility of the remaining 90 per cent of the borough was considered. In other words, if large parts of the 90 per cent are simply agricultural land, some of which being remote from urban facilities, the court inquired as to whether it was a distinction without a difference to have a borough-wide order as opposed to an order that excluded large parts of the borough where the traveller community would be unlikely to want to set up encampments. 45. Whilst the evidence of the third witness statement of Christopher Williams prepared in response to that issue stated that although 90 per cent of the borough not covered by the injunction is more rural in nature, it does contain towns such as Tadley and Whitchurch as well as many villages with amenities. Further, if it had been the case that the 90 per cent of the borough not captured by the injunction would not attract encampments, that is shown not to be the case, as is evidenced by the fact that 49 per cent of the unauthorised encampments since April 2019 have been formed outside of the injunction area. The evidence is that harm is still suffered when encampments are formed outside of the injunction area, but the less urbanised nature of the non-injunction area means that the harm does not have the same impact on the local inhabitants as it does within the injunction area.
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
255
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator