R(Trower) v Elmbridge Borough Council [2025] EWHC 314 (Admin)
On 19 February 2024, the Council made a public spaces protection order (PSPO) under section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Police Act 2014 to restrict the ability of boat users to moor boats within certain defined areas of the banks of the River Thames that passed through the borough. Contravening a PSPO is a criminal offence.
Medway Council v Heron & ors, Canterbury County Court, KO1ME613
13 May 2025
In 2023, the Gypsy Defendants moved on to land owned by Medway Council ( the Council) which had previously been a park and ride car park which had been closed down at the time of the pandemic and not re-opened or re-used since then. In July 2023 the Council entered into a three month licence agreement with the Defendants. At the end of the agreement, the Council served a notice to quit. The Ds sought to defend the possession action. The Ds made an application for planning permission. This was refused. An appeal against that refusal is ongoing.
R(Trowers) v Elmbridge BC [2025] EWHC 314 (admin).
Mr Trowers, a liveaboard boater, challenged a public spaces protection order made by Elmbridge BC which adversely affected liveaboard boaters. That challenge has been successful and the PSPO is quashed.
This is the first time legal aid has been granted to appeal a PSPO, and the first time a PSPO has ever been quashed on appeal.
Well done to Mr Trowers, Sam Maher of CLP and James Stark of Garden Court North Chambers.
The judgment is here:
The Government have made welcome amendments to Planning Policy for Traveller Sites following lobbying by Gypsy and Traveller groups and others including a much improved version of the definition of Gypsy/Traveller for the purposes of planning law. Simon Ruston ( a planning consultant who represents Gypsies and Travellers) on behalf of Friends, Families and Travellers has produced a very helpful guide to all the changes. See here :- https://url.uk.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/Wx4wCp9Wyszg7jfPfvSGPlc4?domain=gypsy-traveller.org/
The successful claimant, Wendy Smith, was represented by Marc Willers KC and Ollie Persey of Garden Court Chambers. They were instructed by Chris Johnson of Community Law Partnership (‘CLP’). Chris was assisted by Andy Marlow of CLP.
Wolverhampton City Council and Others v London Gypsies and Travellers and Others
Waverley BC v Gray & ors [2023] EWHC 2161 (KB), 25 August 2023
This was an application by the council for an injunction under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s187B. It concerned several defendants (Ds) who were Gypsies and Irish Travellers who had set up a caravan site on land at Lydia Park, Waverley without planning permission albeit they were continuing to try and obtain planning permission.
The first defendant (D1) began occupying a mobile home on land now owned by the claimants in about 2001. There was never any written agreement. There was a verbal licence and rent was paid. At the commencement of D1’s licence agreement the use of the claimants’ land for the stationing of a mobile home was not authorised by any planning permission.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court’s Act (PCSCA) 2022, s83 inserts s60C into the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This makes it an offence, punishable with up to 3 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine, for someone residing on land with a vehicle to fail to comply with a request to leave the land. The offence applies if a person is residing, or intending to reside, on land without the consent of the occupier of the land, and has, or intends to have, a vehicle (including a caravan) on the land. The residents, or intended residents, must have caused, or be likely to cause significant disruption, damage or distress. The request can be made by the occupier, a representative of the occupier or a police constable.
Dean vs Mitchell & Secretary of State for Levelling-up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 1479 (KB)
Stephen Cottle of the Garden Court Housing Team represented the first defendant, instructed by Chris Johnson of Community Law Partnership.
The High Court rejected the Government’s argument that it was justified to deny security to those living in a mobile home on a protected site, and declared the Mobile Homes Act (MHA) 1983, as amended, to be incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR, insofar as it required that result.