R (Casey and Others) v Crawley Borough Council and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE BURTON |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 301 (Admin),[2006] EWHC 249 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/7434/05,CO/7434/2005 |
| Date | 01 March 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 249 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr Justice Burton
CO/7434/2005
MS C KILROY (instructed by Christian Khan) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MS J HENDERSON (instructed by Crawley Borough Council) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
The underlying issue in this application, by travellers who are unlawfully occupying, with their caravans and other vehicles, a grass verge of a narrow road leading to, and close to the entrance of, a residential development, is whether the local authority can, on the assumption that it has gone through the proper procedures, evict them without providing any alternative caravan sites for the travellers and notwithstanding that there are no other such available sites in the area.
There are factual issues, which might yet be determinative, as to whether such proper procedures have been followed, or, given the absence of special circumstances, whether it would make any difference if they had been followed, if they were not, and as to whether any legitimate expectation arises out of past events or discussions. However, an important question (not dependent upon the facts) is as to whether there is a duty on the Defendant Council not to evict the Claimants without having first found them an alternative site (which amounts in practice to a duty to provide an alternative site) where:
(i) The Council accepts that they owe a duty to consider the homelessness of the Claimants: there are no unusual personal circumstances (there are schooling needs for the children).
(ii) The Claimants are reluctant for cultural reasons to accept, on a temporary or permanent basis, any "bricks and mortar" solution, such as would ordinarily be offered to those to whom the Council owes a duty in a homelessness situation.
(iii) There are no sites available in the local area, and although the Council is considering their provision, such availability, particularly given planning considerations, may take many months.
(iv) The Claimants have been evicted regularly from other unauthorised sites and given the absence of any authorised sites in the area, are bound to continue to be so evicted from sites which are equivalently inappropriate to where they are at present.
The question upon which the assistance of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is sought, particularly given the role of that Office in respect of planning but also the publication by that Office of the "Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping", arises directly from what appears to be not simply an issue for this particular Council, but one derived from the regional and national problem of an insufficiency of sites for travellers, which inevitably leads to unauthorised camping on inappropriate sites such as the present. What provision can be made for regional or national co-operation in relation to the problem of squatting or evicted travellers?
The Guidance plainly suggests that, provided the Council has carried out the necessary balancing act, it can evict. But where eviction renders the Claimants homeless and there is no alternative caravan site, does that create a duty and/or negate the right to evict? Is there a national policy to provide for those travellers who are being constantly evicted? In practice is it in fact expected that Councils will not evict without finding/providing alternative sites (and what if, as in the present case, there are none such and what of local public opposition?)? Is it expected that travellers will modify their cultural attitudes so as at least on a temporary basis to accept accommodation in bricks and mortar as satisfaction of an evicting authority's duty to offer accommodation?
[2006] EWHC 301 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Burton
Case No: CO/7434/05
Charlotte Kilroy (instructed by Messrs Christian Khan) for the First to Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Claimants
Josephine Henderson (instructed by Crawley Legal Services) for the Defendant
Daniel Stilitz (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Interested Party
There were ten Claimants, now eight, in this action. All are Irish travellers, who follow their cultural practice of travelling around the country, by caravans and ancillary vehicles, with their families and their belongings. If possible they prefer to travel, or at any rate to encamp, in extended family groups, and these 10, now 8, together with their children, form one such. The proceedings arise out of the fact that, shortly before 5 September 2005, they encamped in two unauthorised places in the Crawley area. One encampment (“Dalewood”) is on the grass verge and pavement adjoining a narrow road (Dalewood Gardens) leading to a substantial housing estate, terminating approximately 10 metres from the entrance to that estate: this is the more important site for the purposes of these proceedings, because it is where the Claimants, and others, still remain pending these proceedings, as a result of interim injunctive relief granted to restrain the continuation of possession proceedings against them in the Horsham County Court, which the Defendant Council brought on 6 September 2005. The other encampment (“Bewbush”) is also on a grass verge at, and on the concreted access way to, a car park for the Bewbush West playing fields: this is of less relevance because the only Claimants who were at Bewbush left the site subsequent to the issue of these proceedings, two of them joining the other Claimants at Dalewood, so that the injunctive relief also granted in this action in respect of the Bewbush possession proceedings, issued by the Defendant in the same County Court on 8 September 2005, was discharged.
The Encampments
I have a description and photographs of the two encampments, which have been kept as tidy as possible; but the photographs show that, as must naturally be the case, there are on the site not only the caravans but also the accompanying vehicles, and an inevitable amount of belongings and other paraphernalia adjacent to the caravans and, since there are a number of children residing in the caravans, those who are not of school age are bound to mill or play around the caravans. As to Dalewood, the road is just wide enough for two-way traffic, but not when there are parked vehicles on the road, as there are bound to be when the grass verge has become more sodden. There is inevitable nuisance to the nearby residents, since the encampment occupies the grass verges on the approach to the housing estate, stopping just short of its entrance.
The Bewbush encampment was at the entrance to the playing fields. Although it was, save again when the conditions became more damp, largely on the grass verge, it was on or at the access way to the car parks; and the Council placed bollards in that entrance, in order to prevent access to the car park. The impact was that the car park could not be used (since the departure of the caravans, the Defendant's Counsel informed the Court that the bollards, which appear from the photographs to be removable, have been removed as and when the car park has needed to be used), access to the changing rooms for the playing fields was inhibited, and, according to the Defendant, the use of the playing fields by the Crawley and District Football League was prevented.
The Defendant Borough Council, Crawley, is responsible for a relatively small, and largely built-up, area, which includes Gatwick Airport, in the north of Sussex. It had at the material time no responsibility for education or social services, but is of course responsible for planning and development in the area, and owns the grass verges, pavements and access ways at Dalewood and Bewbush. The evidence of Mr Peter Browning, Head of Amenity Services, is that both Dalewood and Bewbush were well known to him. He was aware that Dalewood Gardens was the only road leading to a housing area, and that the playing fields at Bewbush were regularly used. On 5 September he discussed Dalewood with his Senior Community Warden, Ms Nicola Glemas, and after considering the information that she supplied and the documentation she provided, he made the decision to issue the proceedings for possession, to which I have referred. Bewbush was considered on 6 and 7 September 2005. In relation to Bewbush, discussions were with Steve Kirby, Community Warden and Security Manager, and, again on the basis of the information supplied to him and the documents he saw, Mr Browning made the decision, referred to above, to issue those proceedings.
With regard to both Dalewood and Bewbush, his evidence is that he had well in mind the Government guidance (to which I shall refer further) on managing unauthorised encampments. In addition he had the following information before him.
Dalewood
i) Ms Glemas supplied to him the information supplied to her by Stuart Hendry, another Community Warden, and by John Dale, Community Liaison Officer, who had visited both the site and Bewbush Middle School, in relation to the educational needs of the travellers' children.
ii)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doherty et al. v. Birmingham City Council, [2008] N.R. Uned. 266 (HL)
...be very wide: see R. v. Lincolnshire County Council ex parte Atkinson (1995) 8 Admin L.R. 529; R (Casey) v. Crawley Borough Council [2006] EWHC 301 (Admin)." In Atkinson Sedley, J., (at p. 534) quoted from an official circular, the quotation being repeated by Carnwath, L.J., in this ca......
-
Doran v Liverpool City Council
...can be very wide: see R v Lincolnshire County Council ex parte Atkinson (1995) 8 Admin LR 529; R (Casey) v Crawley Borough Council [2006] EWHC 301 (Admin).” 52 Having said that the question whether the council's decision was unreasonable has to be decided by applying public law principles a......
-
Doherty and Others v Birmingham City Council
...can be very wide: see R v Lincolnshire County Council ex parte Atkinson (1995) 8 Admin LR 529; R (Casey) v Crawley Borough Council [2006] EWHC 301 (Admin)." In Atkinson Sedley J (at p 534) quoted from an official circular, the quotation being repeated by Carnwath LJ in this case at para 56......
-
Manchester City Council v Pinnock (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening)
...whether to invoke its powers can be very wide: see R v Lincolnshire County Council ex parte Atkinson (1995) 8 Admin LR 529; R (Casey) v Crawley Borough Council [2006] EWHC 301 (Admin).” 52. Having said that the question whether the council's decision was unreasonable has to be decided by ap......