Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Persons Unknown (Being Members of the Travelling Community who have Unlawfully Encamped Within the Borough of Rochdale)

Hearing dates: 16 th May 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 28 th May 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

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...