The council tolerated an encampment of Travellers for a period of time but then decided to take eviction action. An attempt by SO to stop the eviction was unsuccessful on its facts.
You can find the judgment here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/1731.html
An interesting judgment, Gregory Park Holding Ltd v Hart DC [2022] EWHC 2406 (Admin), is now available. An LPA’s decision to grant planning permission for a change of use of part of land in the countryside to accommodate 2 Gypsy pitches was not unlawful. On the proper interpretation of the local plan (policy H5), applicants had to demonstrate a general need for a proposed site, not that they had a particular need for the site in question. The application for judicial review by an adjoining landowner was dismissed. You can find the judgment here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/2406.html
MBR Acres Limited and Others -v- McGivern [2022] EWHC 2072 (QB), Nicklin J, 2 August 2022.
Though this case does not involve Gypsies or Travellers, it is a very useful and important case with regard to committal proceedings where it is said that an individual or individuals may have breached a (for example) planning Injunction.
Thurrock Council v Stokes & ors [2022] EWHC 1998 (QB), 27 July 2022.
Thurrock sought an injunction to prevent unauthorised encampments and fly tipping covering all land in the council area. The application was against 106 named defendants and (as the 107th defendant) ‘persons unknown’. The claim against persons unknown stood and still stands adjourned.
Milton Keynes Council v Nathan Wilsher and Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 578 (QB), 23 March 2022.
The Claimant was the registered proprietor of Two Mile Ash Farm. The dispute concerned three fields ( ‘the Land’) that formed part of the land. The Claimant took action against the First Defendant as a trespasser. The First Defendant defended the action on the basis of adverse possession.
The relevant provisions of the Land Registration Act 2002 came into force on 13 October 2003. The First Defendant accepted that he could not satisfy the requirements of the 2002 Act so as to obtain registration on the basis of adverse possession since October 2003. However Mr Justice Eyre accepted on the evidence that the First Defendant and his father before him had been in adverse possession of the Land by grazing horses and other livestock for a period of at least 12 years before 13 October 2003.
Thanks to Tim Jones of No 5 Chambers, who acted for Mr Wilsher, for bringing this case to our attention.
[2022] EWCA Civ 13, 13 January 2022
Over the last 6 years, some 38 councils in England have obtained what have become known as ‘borough-wide’ injunctions prohibiting ‘persons unknown’ from camping on numerous sites and large swathes of public land within the boundaries of each local authority. Such injunctions have a disproportionate effect on nomadic Gypsies and Travellers, particularly given the long-standing shortage of lawful sites for them to camp on.
B Havering & ors v Persons Unknown & ors [2021] EWHC 2648 (QB)
When laying down very important principles for local authorities when seeking wide injunction orders against Gypsy and Traveller encampments in his judgment of 12 May 2021 ( see LB Barking & Dagenham & ors v Persons Unknown & ors [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB) – and see our article on this matter at https://www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/news/press-release-is-this-the-end-of-the-wide-injunction), Nicklin J was also very critical of four local authorities who, having obtained interim orders, failed to progress those to final hearings. He directed that those cases (and also a case for another local authority, Test Valley BC, where only directions were required for a final hearing) should be listed for a hearing to decided whether or not there had been an abuse of process.
The Travellers’ Advice Team at CLP were instructed by a liveaboard boater who resorts to the River Avon and the Kennet and Avon Canal. She has what Canal & River Trust (CRT) describe as a ‘continuous cruising licence’ which means she has to move her boat ‘bona fide for navigation’ in terms of the British Waterways Act 1995. This means she cannot remain in the same place for more than 14 days apart from in exceptional circumstances.
Lisa Smith -v- The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others [2021] EWHC 1650 (Admin) 17 June 2021
Between 2006 and 2015, planning policies included within the definition of ‘Gypsies and Travellers’ those who had either temporarily or permanently ceased to travel by reason of health, education or old age. By a revised planning policy issued in August 2015, the Department for Communities and Local Government modified the definition to remove the reference to those who had permanently ceased to travel for such reasons. Lisa Smith, a Romany Gypsy who lives with her extended family in caravans on a private site in Leicestershire, challenged the lawfulness of the 2015 policy following a Planning Inspector refusing her planning appeal because she did not come within the definition. As a result the Planning Inspector concluded that the application by Ms Smith did not benefit from the more permissive planning regime contained in Planning policy for traveller sites.
Mr Justice Pepperall dismissed her appeal. Originally Ms Smith appealed on another ground, aside from the challenge to the alleged unlawfulness of the definition, but she is no longer pursuing that other ground.
Since 2015, 38 local authorities in England have obtained wide injunctions against Gypsies and Travellers effectively banning them from large swathes of land in the local authority area. We believe that most of the land identified would be the only land that Gypsies and Travellers would be likely to be able to stop on if they were resorting to the area or passing through the area. Obviously this is in the context where there remains a totally inadequate supply of stopping places for Gypsies and Travellers who are exercising their nomadic way of life whether that be permanent pitches, temporary pitches or the use of land subject to ‘negotiated stopping agreements’. For many, many years Gypsy and Traveller organisations have argued that the answer to unauthorised encampments is the provision of sites and stopping places. If every local authority in England obtained such a wide injunction, where would Gypsies and Travellers go to?