This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 28th May 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
MR JUSTICE GARNHAM :
Introduction
- The claimant in these proceedings, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (hereafter "Rochdale" or "the Borough"), applies for the renewal for a further 12 months of an injunction against Persons Unknown granted by Butcher J on 11 June 2024.
- That Injunction binds 56 Named Defendants for a period of five years up to and including 7 June 2029, and the 90th and 93rd Defendants (two categories of Persons Unknown) for 12 months. The order in respect of Persons Unknown is due to expire at 00:00 hrs on 8 June 2025. No Application is made in relation to the Named Defendants.
- The Injunction is a so-called 'Traveller injunction'. It prohibits unauthorised encampments and the depositing of waste in the Borough. The Injunction is Borough-wide against the Named Defendants but, in relation to Persons Unknown, applies to 334 identified sites which I am told equates to 9.7% of the land area in the Borough.
- Subject to one matter I return to below, the Application has been served on the "Persons Unknown" in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Order of Butcher J and on three Traveller organisations, namely London Gypsies and Travellers; Friends, Families and Travellers; and the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group who were the Appellants in the Supreme Court case of the Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2023] UKSC 47 (hereafter "Wolverhampton").
- The Claimants correctly acknowledge that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Wolverhampton, an injunction against newcomer Persons Unknown is technically always sought and granted on a without notice basis, but there remains an important obligation to take all reasonable steps to draw the Application to the attention of Persons Unknown. In my judgment that obligation has been met in all cases except Site 334, where an error was made which meant the relevant steps were not taken until 14 May.
Procedural Background
- This matter was last before me on 19 February 2018 when I granted an interim injunction. On 11 June 2024, Butcher J granted the Injunction in the form now before the court against the 56 Named Defendants for a period of five years, and against Persons Unknown for a period of 12 months. Butcher J's judgment is reported at [2024] EWHC 1653 (KB). A power of arrest was attached to the Injunction.
- The Injunction (and the interim relief before it) prohibit the forming of unauthorised encampments and the depositing of controlled waste (such as fly-tipping). As against Persons Unknown, the relief was granted on an interim basis over 325 sites in the Borough. In June 2024, nine further sites were added so that the Injunction now applies to 334 sites (the "Injunction Sites"). Members of the Travelling community are not prohibited from entering the Injunction sites or encamping lawfully on those sites, nor are they in breach of the Injunction if they establish an unauthorised encampment elsewhere.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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 December 2024 with a published final report setting out the projected need for caravan pitches to 2040/41.
- As to permanent provision, he says that the council has its own site at Roch Vale which provides 27 plots and seven council provided chalets. It also leased a site at Heritage Park which was owned and managed by a Traveller family, but that site has recently been closed by the Traveller family. In December 2024, the Greater Manchester Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment was updated to take into account the new expanded definition of Gypsies and Travellers. During the current year, two further sites have been identified and are being developed. They will provide for six additional permanent pitches which it is anticipated will meet the increased need for pitches.
- Mr Morris also gives evidence about unauthorised encampments in Rochdale since the grant of the injunction by Butcher J on 11 June 2024. He says these encampments have been almost exclusively on inappropriate and unsafe locations including road verges, industrial and business premises, and car parks serving sports centres and shopping centres. He says that in each case the council has adopted an approach of engagement and negotiation with the occupiers of the sites. That policy has been effective in that, once made aware of the Injunction, Travellers have generally left the relevant site within a few hours or, at most, by the following morning. He says that that approach of engagement and tolerance has meant that it has not been necessary to take legal action to enforce the orders.
- Mr Morris explains that Rochdale has had contact with neighbouring authorities across Greater Manchester, with whom Rochdale work closely on management of Traveller sites and unlawful encampments, and none of them have raised any issue with the council regarding the displacement of encampments into other areas.
- Anthony Johns is Rochdale council's service manager for environmental action and enforcement and, amongst other functions, manages officers responsible for attending unauthorised encampments and the enforcement of the injunction. He says in his statement that the council's approach, of taking a "constructive and educational approach by advising those who are forming the encampment about the injunction" has proved effective. He says that the power of arrest is a last resort and has never, in fact, been used. But, he says, it is that power which makes the injunction "so effective".
- He says that injunctive relief was first sought in response to the high number of unauthorised encampments occurring between January 2015 and September 2017 "many of which caused significant harm to the Borough and had or were associated with... noise nuisances, anti-social behaviour, threats of violence...and fly tipping." Encampment numbers peaked at 69 in 2017, and have since dropped to single figures.
- Mr. Johns explains that the Injunction sought by the council is not Borough-wide, but is limited to the 334 sites which together cover 15.3 square kilometres. Since the Borough covers an area of 158 square kilometres that is about 9.7% of the total.
- He explains that sites were identified which required the protection of an injunction. They were chosen because they were sites where encampments would be especially harmful and where either there had been previous encampments or they were of the same nature as sites that were frequently targeted. "Typically those sites include schools, recreational areas and green spaces, business parks and industrial areas". Encampments were often associated with the depositing of waste, including fly tipping and the depositing of untreated human excrement. There was often a significant clean-up operation required, at great expense to either the council or the landowner, when the encampment was vacated.
- Mr Johns gives evidence as to the effectiveness of the interim injunction granted in 2018. He says that in 2015 there were 28 encampments, in 2016 there were 40, and in 2017 there were 69. In the remainder of 2018, after the grant of the interim injunction, there were 21 encampments. In 2019, there were 10; in 2020, 13; in 2021, 9; in 2022, 10; in 2023, 12; in 2024, 6. And in the period up until the date of his statement, 25 April 2025, there were 2.
- The duration of the encampments has also shown a significant decline since the grant of the Injunction. He attributes that to the "council's ability to move encampments on from protected land swiftly and efficiently with the use of the injunction." In 2015 the average duration for each encampment was 4.6 days; in 2016, 3.85 days; in 2017, 6.28 days; and in 2018, 1.09 days. In 2023 the average duration was 1.16 days, but for all the other years between 2019 and 2025 it was less than 24 hours.
- Data collected by the council also shows that the reduction in the frequency and duration of encampments has significantly reduced the harm caused by unauthorised encampments. "In particular, the Borough was experiencing significant fly tipping that was associated with the formation of unauthorised encampments...often on a commercial scale." I am told that the expression "commercial scale" was used to indicate both the volume of material deposited and also the fact that the fly-tipping was apparently done for profit. Clean up costs were over £25,000 in 2015; £23,000 in 2016; £87,000 in 2017; £944 in 2018 and zero ever since.
- Mr Johns says that "the Borough's business parks and industrial areas were often the main target for unauthorised encampments and… these areas suffered a disproportionate number of encampments… Following the grant of the interim injunction the Borough's business parks and industrial areas were still targeted but there was a significantly reduced number", down from 126 in 2015-2017 to 16 in 2023-2024. He explains that the Borough's business and industrial areas are important for the wealth and prosperity of the Borough.
- According to Mr. Johns, tension often arose between the settled local inhabitants and the Travelling community who were forming unauthorised encampments in the Borough. "The council often received reports of confrontations between members of these two communities...Local residents often became exasperated with the various nuisances associated with encampments." He says that the council's experience is that since the grant of the injunctions "reduced frequency and duration of encampments appears to have reduced tensions in the community." He says that since the grant of the injunction in 2024, he has received no reports from members of the public of any threatening or intimidating behaviour from those forming unauthorised encampments.
- Mr Johns also notes the disappearance of damage to green spaces or property, previously associated with unauthorised encampments, since the grant of the Injunction.
- It is acknowledged that there have been some unauthorised encampments since the grant of the Injunction in 2024. There were two in May 2024, one in September 2024, one in October 2024 and two in February 2025. But, as those figures demonstrate, these were much less frequent than had occurred hitherto. In addition, all of them were smaller in size and all were resolved in a matter of hours.
Relevant Legal Principles
- Against that factual background, I set out what seem to me the relevant legal principles on the following three topics:
(i) The Court's power to grant injunctive relief and the entitlement of local authorities to seek that relief;
(ii) The proper approach to applications against persons unknown; and
(iii) The test to be applied to renewed applications for injunctions against persons unknown.
(i) The power to grant and the entitlement to seek
- The court's power to grant injunctions is derived from the Senior Courts Act 1981, s37, which provides:
(1) The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction … in all cases in which is appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so.
- The authority of a local authority to seek injunctive relief in cases like the present stems from s187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which provides that:
(1) Where a local planning authority consider it necessary or expedient for any actual or apprehended breach of planning control to be restrained by injunction, they may apply to court for an injunction, whether or not they have exercised or are proposing to exercise any of their powers under this Part.
(2) On an application under subsection (1) the court may grant such an injunction as the court thinks appropriate for the purpose of restraining the breach.
(3) Rules of court may provide for such an injunction to be issued against a person whose identity is unknown.
(4) In this section "the court" means the High Court or the county court.
- Pursuant to s57(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 planning permission is required for the carrying out of any development of land. 'Development' is defined to include the carrying out of any building operation on, over or under land or the making of any material change of use of land (s55(1)), and the depositing of refuse or waste materials on land (s55(3)(b)). Planning permission may be obtained by way of express grant, or by way of deemed grant through permitted development rights. Carrying out development without the required planning permission constitutes a breach of planning control (s171A(1)).
- The breaches of planning control complained of are primarily the material change in the use of the relevant land to a temporary Traveller site, and the depositing of refuse or waste materials, without the requisite planning permission. The decision as to whether something is or is not a breach of planning control is a matter for the local planning authority, or the Secretary of State on appeal, and not the court (South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter & Anr [2003] UKHL 26; [2003] 2 AC 558 at [11], [20], [29] and [30]).
- That said, the court's power to grant an injunction under s187B remains a discretionary one, albeit that that discretion is not unfettered. The discretion must be exercised judicially meaning, in this context
…that the power must be exercised with due regard to the purpose for which it was conferred: to restrain actual and threatened breaches of planning control. The power exists above all to permit abuses to be curbed and urgent solutions provided where these are called for. (Porter at [29] per Lord Bingham).
- The Local Government Act 1972, s222 provides that:
1. Where a local authority consider it expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of their area –
a) they may prosecute or defend or appear in any legal proceedings and, in the case of civil proceedings, may institute them in their own name, and
b) they may, in their own name, make representations in the interests of the inhabitants at any public inquiry held by or on behalf of any Minister or public body under any enactment.
- Accordingly, s222 does not create a cause of action; instead it confers on local authorities a power to bring proceedings to enforce obedience with public law, without the involvement of the Attorney General (Stoke-on-Trent City Council v B&Q (Retail) Ltd [1984] AC 754).
- The guiding principles as to the exercise of the court's discretion under s222 are identified in City of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd [1992] 3 All ER 697 at 714 (per Bingham LJ), and include:
…the essential foundation for the exercise of the court's discretion to grant an injunction is not that the offender is deliberately and flagrantly flouting the law but the need to draw the inference that the defendant's unlawful operations will continue unless and until effectively restrained by the law and that nothing short of an injunction will be effective to restrain them: see Wychavon DC v Midland Enterprises (Special Events) Ltd (1986) 86 LGR 83 at 89.
- Where an injunction is granted under s222, a power of arrest may be attached to the injunction pursuant to the Police and Justice Act 2006, s27.
(ii) Applications against persons unknown
- In Wolverhampton, the Supreme Court, (Lords Reed, Briggs and Kitchin with whom Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones agreed), considered a number of conjoined cases in which injunctions were sought by local authorities to prevent unauthorised encampments by Gypsies and Travellers. The appeal raised the question whether (and if so, on what basis, and subject to what safeguards) the court has the power to grant an injunction which binds persons who are not identifiable at the time when the order is granted, and who have not at that time infringed or threatened to infringe any right or duty which the claimant seeks to enforce, but may do so at a later date, a class of persons referred to as "newcomers".
- At [167] the Supreme Court held that.
…there is no immoveable obstacle in the way of granting injunctions against newcomer Travellers, on an essentially without notice basis, regardless of whether in form interim or final, either in terms of jurisdiction or principle. But this by no means leads straight to the conclusion that they ought to be granted, either generally or on the facts of any particular case. They are only likely to be justified as a novel exercise of an equitable discretionary power if:
i. There is a compelling need, sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence, for the protection of civil rights (or, as the case may be, the enforcement of planning control, the prevention of anti-social behaviour, or such other statutory objective as may be relied upon) in the locality which is not adequately met by any other measures available to the applicant local authorities (including the making of byelaws). This is a condition which would need to be met on the particular facts about unlawful Traveller activity within the applicant local authority's boundaries.
ii. There is procedural protection for the rights (including Convention rights) of the affected newcomers, sufficient to overcome the strong prima facie objection of subjecting them to a without notice injunction otherwise than as an emergency measure to hold the ring. This will need to include an obligation to take all reasonable steps to draw the application and any order made to the attention of all those likely to be affected by it (see paras 226-231 below); and the most generous provision for liberty (ie permission) to apply to have the injunction varied or set aside, and on terms that the grant of the injunction in the meantime does not foreclose any objection of law, practice, justice or convenience which the newcomer so applying might wish to raise.
iii. Applicant local authorities can be seen and trusted to comply with the most stringent form of disclosure duty on making an application, so as both to research for and then present to the court everything that might have been said by the targeted newcomers against the grant of injunctive relief.
iv. The injunctions are constrained by both territorial and temporal limitations so as to ensure, as far as practicable, that they neither outflank nor outlast the compelling circumstances relied upon.
v. It is, on the particular facts, just and convenient that such an injunction be granted. It might well not for example be just to grant an injunction restraining Travellers from using some sites as short-term transit camps if the applicant local authority has failed to exercise its power or, as the case may be, discharge its duty to provide authorised sites for that purpose within its boundaries.
- At [225] the court said
One of the more controversial aspects of many of the injunctions granted hitherto has been their duration and geographical scope. These have been subjected to serious criticism, at least some of which we consider to be justified. We have considerable doubt as to whether it could ever be justifiable to grant a Gypsy or Traveller injunction which is directed to persons unknown, including newcomers, and extends over the whole of a borough or for significantly more than a year. It is to be remembered that this is an exceptional remedy, and it must be a proportionate response to the unlawful activity to which it is directed. Further, we consider that an injunction which extends borough-wide is likely to leave the Gypsy and Traveller communities with little or no room for manoeuvre, just as Coulson LJ warned might well be the case …. Similarly, injunctions of this kind must be reviewed periodically (as Sir Geoffrey Vos MR explained in these appeals at paras 89 and 108) and in our view ought to come to an end (subject to any order of the judge), by effluxion of time in all cases after no more than a year unless an application is made for their renewal. This will give all parties an opportunity to make full and complete disclosure to the court, supported by appropriate evidence, as to how effective the order has been; whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made.
(iii) The test to be applied to renewed applications
- An issue has arisen, in some recent cases at first instance level, as to the test that should be applied when applications are made to renew injunctions against persons unknown.
- In Basingstoke v Loveridge, [2024] EWHC 1828 (KB) Freedman J considered the purpose of the review hearing. He said at [55]:
the continuation of the injunction is something that has to be constrained and checked. It is for that reason that there are the constraints in respect of territorial land temporal limitations. There is a danger in a matter like this that the reaction to the Supreme Court case would be to be involved in tick-boxing so that the case would then be reviewed every year and then continued at the end of the year subject to the tick-boxing. That would fail to reflect the nature of the guidance given by the Supreme Court, that makes it clear that the remedy is to be carefully scrutinised and only granted in respect of where there is a compelling need for the protection of the rights in the locality.
- In High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB) Ritchie J, was considering an application for the continuation of an interim injunction against protesters. In addressing how a review hearing should be approached, he said:
32. … on a review of an interim injunction against PUs and named Defendants, this Court is not starting de novo. The Judges who have previously made the interim injunctions have made findings justifying the interim injunctions. It is not the task of the Court on review to query or undermine those. However, it is vital to understand why they were made, to read and assimilate the findings, to understand the sub-strata of the quia timet, the reasons for the fear of unlawful direct action. Then it is necessary to determine, on the evidence, whether anything material has changed. If nothing material has changed, if the risk still exists as before and the claimant remains rightly and justifiably fearful of unlawful attacks, the extension may be granted so long as procedural and legal rigour has been observed and fulfilled.
33. On the other hand, if material matters have changed, the Court is required to analyse the changes, based on the evidence before it, and in the full light of the past decisions, to determine anew, whether the scope, details and need for the full interim injunction should be altered. To do so, the original thresholds for granting the interim injunction still apply.
- In Arla Foods v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1952 at [128], Jonathan Hilliard KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) described the annual review process as "…allow[ing] a continued assessment of whether circumstances have changed so as make the continuation of the injunction appropriate."
- Morris J took a similar approach in Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Ors [2025] EWHC 55 (KB). At [54]-[55] he said:
In the present cases, TfL has already provided detailed evidence at a full trial and the Court has, on two occasions, already made a full determination of the issue of risk and the balance of interests. In my judgment, in those circumstances there needed to be some material change in order to justify a conclusion that the Final Injunctions should not continue. (For example, as in the HS2 case where Phase 2 of the HS project had subsequently been abandoned: see paragraph 40 above).
- This approach was approved and applied by Hill J in Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB) ('Valero') and in Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] 2 WLUK 578.
- When Basingstoke v Loveridge came back before the court on a review hearing in March 2025, a somewhat different approach was adopted by the judge. Ms Kirsty Brimelow KC, sitting as a deputy judge of this court, considered the observation of Freedman J at [56] – [57] to the effect that "As this matter goes forward, there needs to be considered the absence of a formally-negotiated stopping policy. As indicated above, at the moment there is an informal policy of limited toleration of encampments. There is only the very beginning of a negotiated stopping policy. It is very difficult to supervise an informal policy of limited toleration of encampments… The court going forward needs to scrutinise very carefully that the local authority is taking steps to procure a formal, negotiated stopping policy."
- Perhaps unsurprisingly, in those circumstances, Ms Brimelow held at [25]-[26] in her judgment that she should follow Freedman J's requirement that there be "close scrutiny of whether there remained a compelling need for the granting of a further injunction" and "in these circumstances, I consider the case should be heard de novo and so invited submissions in line with it being a de novo hearing."
- In Test Valley Borough Council & Anr v Persons Unknown (unreported), HHJ Sarah Richardson (sitting as a deputy), considered the point at length and gave a detailed ex tempore judgment of which I was provided with a note (no transcript being presently available). She held that the correct test to apply on an annual review is that identified in the authorities of HS2, TfL and Valero, namely, the Court should ask whether there has been a material change of circumstances. If there has not, and all procedural and legal rigour has been followed, the Order should be continued. If there has, only then should a full Wolverhampton assessment be conducted to determine whether the relief should be continued, and on what terms. The Judge took the view that the HS2 approach, as adopted in TfL and Valero was principled and in keeping with the Wolverhampton guidance, and was the correct approach to review hearings of this nature. The court should not perform a full Wolverhampton assessment on review unless there is a material change of circumstances that necessitates the same.
- In my judgment the correct approach is dictated by the Supreme Court's judgment in Wolverhampton and in particular in [225]. This is not a "tick box" exercise, but the matters on which evidence should be adduced and argument focused are (i) how effective the order has been; (ii) whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; (iii) whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and (iv) whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made. The parties should give full disclosure, supported by appropriate evidence, directed towards those questions.
- There will be cases, such as Basingstoke, where an issue has emerged, whether at the original hearing or in preparation for the renewed hearing, which needs to be addressed expressly at that renewal hearing. Whether that necessitates an expanded renewal hearing or what Ms Brimalow calls a de novo hearing will depend on the facts. The position may also be different where the application for further injunctive relief is not made during the currency of the previous order, but after it has expired. But the guiding light will always be the Supreme Court's judgment in Wolverhampton.
Discussion
- I address in turn what seem to me the appropriate elements of the analysis, namely:
i) The existence of any material change of circumstances;
ii) The efficacy of the order to date;
iii) The justification for its continuance;
iv) Whether any grounds for discharge have emerged;
v) The basis on which any further order ought to be made; and
vi) The other Wolverhampton requirements.
(i) Any material change in circumstances?
- In the run of first instance cases discussed above, there is frequent reference to the need for there to be no material change in circumstances if an injunction against persons unknown to is to be continued. It may well be that that expression is used to encompass the points made in [225] of the Wolverhampton case.
- In my judgment, there is indeed value in identifying whether there has been any material change of circumstances but there must then be focus on the requirements set out in the Wolverhampton case.
- Two potential changes of circumstances are mooted.
- First, there has been some significant reduction in the occurrence of unauthorised encampments. But I entirely agree with the submission of Ms Pratt that the reduction in the threat is not evidence that the threat has dissipated, but evidence that the Injunction is having its intended effect.
- Second, there is one change of circumstance from June 2024 to which, very properly, the Claimant drew expressly to the Court's attention, although it is submitted it is not material to the continuation of the Injunction. That change concerns the availability of pitches in the Borough.
- As noted above, in December 2024, the GMGTAA was updated to take into account the new expanded definition of Gypsies and Travellers. Following that update, the Claimant requires a further five permanent pitches to meet the assessed need. In consequence, there is currently a five-pitch shortfall. However, in 2025, the Council has identified and "lined up" two sites that can provide six pitches to meet the shortfall. I accept that in those circumstances the shortfall in supply of permanent pitches was only temporary, and steps have been and are being taken to meet the shortfall.
- In any event, this assessed need relates to pitches for permanent (or seasonal/semi-permanent) residence by members of the Travelling community (ie. those who are settled, or wish to settle, in the Borough). The Injunction being sought, on the other hand, is intended to apply to those persons who are transiting through the Borough, forming temporary encampments in inappropriate and harmful places, and/or undertaking harmful activities such as fly-tipping. There is no evidence that the Borough is experiencing unauthorised encampments because it has a shortfall of permanent pitches.
- In my judgment there has been no material change of circumstance that requires change to, or discharge of, the Injunction. The risk of the formation of unauthorised encampments and resulting harm persists.
(ii) The efficacy of the Order
- In my judgment it is perfectly clear on the evidence that the Injunction has been highly effective. Whilst there are still unauthorised encampments that occur in the Borough, and occur on Injunction Sites specifically, the frequency and duration of those encampments, and the resulting harm, is greatly reduced.
- As Mr Johns explains, there has been a significant reduction in the number of unauthorised encampments forming in the Borough. The reduced frequency, duration and size of unauthorised encampments has caused a significant reduction in the harm suffered by reason of those encampments. There have been no deposits of untreated human waste associated with unauthorised encampments since the grant of injunctive relief; the frequency and duration of encampments in industrial areas has reduced; there have been reduced instances of threats to and intimidation of the inhabitants of the Borough, reduced instances of community tension, and reduced instances of property damage (with no instances at all since the grant of the Injunction in June 2024).
- Incidents of fly-tipping associated with unauthorised encampments, and the cost incurred by the Claimant in clearing the same, have been greatly reduced. Clean-up costs incurred by the Claimant peaked at £87,895.63 in 2017, and have fallen to nil since 2019.
- All this evidence serves to establish that the Injunction has achieved its objectives.
(iii) Justification for the continuation of the Order
- In my judgment, it is well established on the evidence that the potential harm which prompted the application for the injunction persists. The fact that, on occasions, unauthorised encampments appear in the Borough (albeit with reduced frequency) demonstrates that continued risk.
- Furthermore, unauthorised encampments continue to occur in areas geographically close to Rochdale. The fear of the Claimant's officers that should the Injunction be discharged, those encampments will "migrate" into the Borough, and to the 334 protected sites specifically is, in my view, entirely realistic given the history. That is particularly so given that those sites appear, historically, to be especially attractive to those forming unauthorised encampments. On the evidence, it is clear that it is the existence of the Injunction, and the threat of enforcement by arrest, which discourages the establishment of unauthorised encampments, and limits their size and duration of such encampments as do occur.
- The experience of neighbouring local authorities in the Greater Manchester area supports that conclusion. Of the five local authorities that responded to enquiries from the Claimant, all but one reported a higher number of unauthorised encampments in the last 12 months than in Rochdale. By way of example, Wigan Council reported 64 encampments, which caused £124,000 in removal costs and associated expenses, and £17,248 of council officer time.
(iv) Grounds for Discharge
- I have been able to detect no possible grounds for the discharge of the order.
(v) Basis for a further order
- The basis for a continuation of the order, both legally and factually is the same as that which justified the grant of the order in 2024. The terms of the order will be similar.
(vi) The Wolverhampton requirements
- For the reasons set out above, in my judgment a full Wolverhampton assessment is not necessary on the facts of this case. I see no ground for going behind the findings of Butcher J.
- For the sake of completion I can indicate, however, that I have no doubt that there has been clear and comprehensive evidence of wrongful conduct requiring a remedy; there remains a compelling justification for the Injunction; the Claimant has complied with its obligations to consider and provide lawful stopping places for Gypsies and Travellers; the Claimant has considered all reasonable alternative means of controlling or prohibiting unauthorised encampments; and has properly attempted to engage with Gypsy and Traveller communities in an attempt to encourage dialogue and co-operation, and better understand the needs of the respective parties.
- The order I propose making includes generous liberty to apply provisions, and an obligation to take all reasonable steps to bring the application and any order to the attention of those who may be affected by any order made. It makes provision for (alternative) service (or, more accurately after the Wolverhampton 'notification') of the Order and any subsequent continuation application.
- The order is constrained by territorial and temporal limitations so as to ensure, as far as it practicable, that they neither 'outflank nor outlast the compelling circumstances relied upon'. It is not borough-wide against Persons Unknown, (nor has it or the interim relief ever been). The Injunction is appropriately limited; the 334 protected sites equate to less than 10% of the Borough and have been carefully selected. They include sensitive sites such as schools, recreational areas, green spaces and business parks, on which the formation of unauthorised encampments is especially harmful. The selected sites are sites that were either targeted frequently prior to the grant of injunctive relief, or are of the same nature as those sites that were frequently targeted.
- The order's operation is limited to one-year, with the possibility of continuation upon review. If no further application is made, the Order will expire by the effluxion of time.
- The proposed respondents are defined as precisely as possible, identified and enjoined where possible. The injunction sought by the Claimant is, in my judgment, clear and precise, it uses everyday terms, when setting out the acts that it prohibits. The prohibited acts correspond closely to the actual or threatened unlawful conduct, and extend no further than the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was granted.
- In my judgment there is no reason to depart from the usual position that no undertaking as to damages is required.
- In my judgment, the test articulated by Marcus Smith J in Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 2 and approved by Sir Geoffrey Vos MR in Barking and Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2022] EWCA Civ 13 has been subsumed into the Wolverhampton framework. The Vastint test, however, provides a useful double check. In my judgment, for the reasons set out above, this case satisfies that check. There is a strong possibility that, unless restrained by an injunction, persons unknown will act in breach of the rights which the Claimant is seeking to protect and if that happens the resulting harm would be so grave and irreparable that, notwithstanding the grant of an immediate interlocutory injunction to restrain further occurrence of the acts complained of, a remedy of damages would be inadequate.
- Finally, so far as I can judge, the Claimant has complied with the duty of full and frank disclosure throughout its evidence and submissions.
Conclusion
- In those circumstances, in my judgment, it is just and convenient to grant the injunctive relief sought.
- The error in the notification in respect of Site 334, referred to at [5] above, needs to be addressed. In my judgment, the appropriate and proportionate response to that issue is to suspend the operation of the injunction as it affects that site for 28 days. That will give any person affected sufficient time to make an application to the Court under the liberty to apply clause of the Order.
- The claimant will be granted a one-year continuation of the Injunction as against the 90th and 93rd Defendants, Persons Unknown.