Approved Judgment
8. It is argued by the Claimants that the 334 sites were “carefully selected by reference to the Claimant’s analysis of the sites that were frequently targeted by unauthorised encampments visiting the Borough”. It is said that those sites include sensitive and vulnerable sites, such as industrial areas, sports and recreation facilities, schools and other public amenities, where it is said greater harm is suffered by the inhabitants of the Borough when unauthorised encampments are formed there. 9. The Claimant seeks the injunctive relief in the discharge of its public functions pursuant to s187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and s222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to restrain breaches of planning control, and to promote or protect the interests of the inhabitants of their administrative areas (including to restrain acts of trespass). The Claimant is the local planning authority for the Borough, such that it has the administrative function of enforcing planning control within the Borough. It is also the local highway authority, in whom the adopted highways are vested. 10. The Injunction was sought in response to the high volume of unauthorised encampments and the harm it is said resulted from those encampments. The harm caused by the encampments was serious and included risks to public health caused by the depositing of untreated human waste, threats and intimidation to the local inhabitants and financial harm to the Claimant in seeking to deter, enforce against and clean up after encampments. 11. These proceedings became part of the Barking & Dagenham litigation from October 2020 onwards, which culminated in the appeal to the Supreme Court in the Wolverhampton case. The Claimant was a successful respondent in the appeal. The Claim had been listed for final hearing on 22 November 2022, but was adjourned after the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal in Wolverhampton on 25 October 2022. 12. The Claim proceeded to a ‘final’ hearing on 21 May 2024 (although, following Wolverhampton, the relief was only ‘final’ as against the Named Defendants). I am told that throughout the period in which the interim relief was in force, unauthorised encampments continued to form in the Borough (and on Injunction Sites), but had done so less frequently, and were of limited size and duration. Butcher J granted the relief, as described above. The Evidence 13. The facts relevant to the current application are set out in two lengthy witness statements. The first is the second statement in these proceedings from Mr Stuart Morris; the second is the fourth statement of Mr Anthony Johns. It is not necessary to recite all the detail of those statement here, but the following is of particular significance. 14. Stuart Morris is the Head of Strategic Housing at Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and his responsibilities include permanent and temporary stopping provision for Gypsies and Travellers. He explains that the Council is required to make provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation within the Borough, and monitors the provision required of it by way of the Greater Manchester Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (the ‘GMGTAA’). The GMGTAA was last updated in
28
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator