London Borough of Redbridge v Stokes & Ors

A local authority may seek an injunction protecting private as well as public sites within its area where this promotes or protects residents’ interests. Borough-wide relief is fact-sensitive and must be necessary, just, convenient and proportionate. The court must balance the harm caused by unlawful encampments against the Convention, welfare and equality rights of persons who are, or may become, affected. Relief against persons unknown should be objectively described and should not depend on subjective intention. A borough-wide order may be inappropriate for unknown persons where their welfare needs cannot be assessed, so protection may properly be limited to identified vulnerable or sensitive sites. An equality impact assessment is not generally mandatory, but may materially assist the proportionality assessment.

The claimant local authority sought a final injunction under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 187B and Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 section 1. Interim relief had previously been granted against named members of the travelling community and persons unknown forming or intending to form unauthorised encampments. The final application concerned unlawful encampments, fly-tipping, nuisance, threats, damage and risks to public health across sites in the borough.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction under Local Government Act 1972 section 222(1), whether borough-wide relief was available against the named defendants, whether relief against persons unknown should be limited to mapped sites, and whether the proposed injunction was proportionate having regard to Article 8 rights and relevant welfare and equality obligations.

1. The court was satisfied that the defendants had good notice of the hearing and that it was just to proceed in their absence.
2. The description of persons unknown should avoid legal conclusions and subjective intentions. The appropriate description was based on objectively ascertainable conduct, namely entering or remaining on land without consent.
3. Under Local Government Act 1972 section 222(1), a local authority may institute civil proceedings to promote or protect its inhabitants’ interests, including proceedings concerning private sites within its boundaries. The power was sufficiently broad to support relief in relation to all 240 listed sites.
4. The court considered there to be no material difference in approach under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 187B and Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 section 1. The discretion had to be exercised by asking whether relief was just, convenient, necessary and proportionate, with proper regard to Convention rights.
5. For the named defendants, the evidence of repeated encampments, waste, public-health risks, threats, damage and disruption, together with the claimant’s welfare safeguards and equality impact assessment, justified borough-wide relief. It was not disproportionate merely because other local authorities might need to seek similar orders. The travelling community’s Article 8 rights were engaged, but the balance favoured an injunction.
6. For persons unknown, borough-wide relief was inappropriate because their future welfare needs could not be assessed. The claimant had reasonably and proportionately selected sites particularly vulnerable to incursion or particularly sensitive, including sites near schools.
7. The proposed injunction was appropriate, proportionate, necessary, just and convenient. An open-ended order was refused. The injunction was ordered to continue until 23 November 2021.

The claim was issued under CPR Part 8. An interim injunction was granted by Yip J on 6 June 2018. Goss J later dispensed with service of the hearing notice on the named defendants subject to specified reasonable-endeavours steps and required notice to be posted at the mapped sites. The present court proceeded to the final hearing and granted a final injunction until 23 November 2021.