Harlow District Council and Another v Stokes and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Patterson |
| Judgment Date | 03 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 953 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: TLQ/12/0314 |
| Date | 03 March 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 953 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice Patterson DBE
Case No: TLQ/12/0314
Ms Caroline Bolton appeared on behalf of the Claimants
(No representation appeared for the Defendants)
(As Approved)
This is an application by the claimants, Harlow District Council and Essex County Council, for an interim injunction under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against 35 known defendants and persons unknown.
From 8 October 2013 members of certain traveller families have come to Harlow district. Predominantly they are members of the McGinley and Stokes family, but they are not exclusively from those family groups. The pattern has been for the families to establish themselves in one encampment, the local authority and police then take action against them, move them on, the encampment disperses and then re-appears in another part of the district and then the process starts over again.
Over the last 17 months numerous attempts have been made through the use of other powers, but in particular, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to move the families on, but all attempts have failed. In total, I am told that there have been 109 encampments to date within the district of Harlow. The encampments have taken place on a mix of public and private land. At times there have been encampments of up to 280 people in 69 caravans with associated vehicles and animals, including dogs and horses. None of the encampments has had planning permission, nor has it been the subject of any application for planning permission.
Elizabeth Fitzgerald, the Planning and Development Manager of the first claimant, says in her witness statement that none of the pitches which have been used as encampments are suitable or fit for long-term occupation. She sets out in her witness statement the position with regard to the development plan and gypsy and traveller accommodation needs. It is accepted that the council is required to make provision for gypsy and traveller accommodation within the district, but at present there is a policy void on that particular issue. A recent assessment of need has been undertaken in 2014 by Opinion Research Services on behalf of the Essex Planning Officers' Society entitled 'Essex Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Show People Accommodation Assessment'. That was compiled in July 2014 with an update report in September of last year. The document identified a need for 25 additional pitches within the district by 2033, with nine of those required by 2018. The first claimant is working with the second claimant with a view to bringing 10 currently dilapidated and unused pitches back into use and looking at the potential sale of land for the use of private pitches. The delivery of those 10 pitches will satisfy, it is said, the claimants' unmet need in 2018.
Ms Fitzgerald's witness statement continues, in paragraph 12, as to the various matters that have to be had regard to in determining applications for traveller signs. In particular, they include the existing level of local provision and need for sites, the availability or lack of alternative accommodation for the applicants, other personal circumstances of the applicant, and the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy, where there is no identified need for pitches and plots, to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites. The Local Planning Authority should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections.
Ms Fitzgerald repeats that there have been no planning applications submitted by the groups of travellers since October 2013. She records that the defendants have been advised to contact the Essex Countywide Gypsy and Travel Unit with a view to discussing the merits of pitches within Harlow or making alternative arrangements with bordering the district which may be suitable. She is aware that certain meetings have been with certain of the defendants and that certain of them have, in fact, pitches elsewhere in the country, in particular in Barnsley and in Stoke.
The sites occupied to date are highway verges, grass verges, schools, enterprise zone land or public amenity land. None of those are considered to be appropriate sites for either permanent, transit or temporary gypsy and traveller pitches. In particular, Ms Fitzgerald says that they prejudice the short and medium term use of the land when it is recreational land allocated recreational use by members of the public.
Her witness statement went through the various criteria which have to be addressed and concludes that, first, in terms of the current provision within the district the council has means in hand which should enable it to deliver appropriate sites by 2018. In terms of the availability, or lack of, alternative accommodation for the applicants, she sets out that she is not aware of the defendants (or any of them) endeavouring to find any alternative suitable locations within the district. In so far as any other personal circumstances of the applicants are concerned, she has not been advised of any personal circumstances on the part of the group of defendants that would override normal planning considerations.
In terms of the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans there is nothing which indicates that it would be appropriate to grant permission on sites which have hitherto been occupied by the defendants.
So far as the other criteria are concerned:
(1) Promotion of peaceful and integrated coexistence between the site...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Persons Unknown
...injunctions has been aimed at the gipsy and traveller community. This process began in 2015 with Harlow District Council v Stokes [2015] EWHC 953 (QB). The prohibition on encampments in that borough, and the subsequent perception that the injunction had been effective, led to a large numbe......
-
Wolverhampton City Council and Others v London Gypsies and Travellers and Others
...future form that intention. 70 One of the first of these injunctions was granted by Patterson J in Harlow District Council v Stokes [2015] EWHC 953 (QB). The claimants sought and were granted an interim injunction under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 187B of the T......
-
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Bromley v Persons Unknown
...has been aimed at the Gypsy and Traveller community. This process began in 2015 with Harlow District Council v Stokes and others [2015] EWHC 953 (QB). The prohibition on encampments in that borough, and the subsequent perception that the injunction had been effective, led to a large number......
-
London Borough of Ealing v Connors
...covering the entire breadth of a local authority's area was granted by Patterson J, as it happens, in Harlow District Council and Essex County Council v Stokes and others [2015] EWHC 953 QB but she observes, firstly, that the defendants in that case were not represented nor does it seem tha......