Harlow District Council & Anor v Stokes & Ors

A district-wide injunction may be granted where persistent breaches of planning control are reasonably apprehended, public authorities’ less intrusive measures have failed, and the order is necessary and proportionate. The assessment is one of fact and degree. Relevant considerations include the duration and persistence of the breaches, the failure and cost of alternative enforcement measures, the effect on residents and public facilities, and any personal circumstances capable of outweighing the need for relief. Where those considerations strongly favour intervention, the balance of convenience supports an injunction.

Harlow District Council and Essex County Council applied for an interim injunction against known and unknown defendants under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The defendants had established repeated unauthorised traveller encampments throughout Harlow over approximately 17 months. Earlier attempts by the local authority and police, including action under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, had failed. The central issue was whether a district-wide injunction was necessary and proportionate.

1. The application was granted and a district-wide interim injunction was ordered. The order was sought to restrain further unauthorised encampments and breaches of planning control.
2. Whether a district-wide order is proportionate is a matter of fact and degree. The court considered the persistent breaches over approximately 17 months, the reasonable apprehension of further breaches, and the fact that repeated action by the public authorities had failed to resolve the problem.
3. The court also considered the financial and administrative cost of the previous measures, the effects of the encampments on public land, schools, recreational facilities, public health, safety, local infrastructure and community relations, and the wider interests of Harlow residents.
4. The defendants had been offered housing assessments and had not identified personal circumstances capable of outweighing the need for the order. The evidence also indicated that appropriate authorised sites and alternative accommodation issues could be addressed through lawful planning and housing processes.
5. In those circumstances the injunction was both necessary and proportionate. The balance of convenience lay heavily in favour of granting it.