Thurrock Council v Martin Stokes & Ors

A borough-wide injunction restraining future unauthorised encampments must be justified against each named defendant by evidence of an actual or apprehended breach and must be necessary and proportionate. Historic presence in an encampment, without proof of individual responsibility for damage or fly-tipping, is insufficient. The court must conduct its own structured proportionality assessment under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.187B, having regard to the seriousness, persistence and likely consequences of the breach, personal hardship, alternative sites and less intrusive enforcement measures. A local authority cannot avoid that assessment by relying on a general apprehension that Gypsies or Travellers may offend in future. Relief under s.222 Local Government Act 1972 is exceptional and requires evidence that unlawful conduct is persistent and serious and that an injunction is necessary to restrain it.

Thurrock Council brought a Part 8 claim against 107 named defendants and persons unknown, seeking interim and final injunctions concerning unauthorised encampments and fly-tipping. The claim relied principally on s.187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and s.222 Local Government Act 1972. None of the named defendants participated.

Following a five-day hearing, the court assessed the evidence against the remaining named defendants individually. It considered whether the Council had proved actual breaches of planning control, whether any defendant was responsible for aggravating conduct such as damage or fly-tipping, and whether the proposed borough-wide injunction was justified and proportionate. The central issue was whether historic, generally short-lived encampments could support a prospective injunction in the terms sought.

1. The claims against all remaining named defendants were dismissed and the interim injunction was discharged. Sixteen defendants were not shown to have formed an unauthorised encampment or committed fly-tipping. The remaining defendants had been shown, at most, to have participated in isolated or short-lived encampments. No defendant was proved responsible for fly-tipping, and evidence of damage or other misconduct did not establish individual liability.

2. Under s.187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court exercises an original and discretionary jurisdiction. The local planning authority’s decision that an injunction is necessary or expedient does not determine whether relief should be granted. The court must decide whether an injunction is just, convenient, appropriate and proportionate.

3. The court must assess the case against each defendant individually. It must consider the seriousness and flagrancy of the alleged breach, its environmental impact, urgency, persistence, previous enforcement, personal hardship, welfare issues, availability of alternative sites and whether less intrusive measures would suffice. A future injunction must not remove the need for a proportionality assessment when a later encampment occurs.

4. The court rejected the Council’s submission that it could rely on a general apprehension that Gypsies and Travellers might breach planning control in the future. Such an approach would produce unjustifiably wide orders and would treat the conduct of one person as relevant to another without proof of joint liability.

5. The principles in South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and Bromley LBC v Persons Unknown apply to injunctions against named defendants as well as persons unknown. The court must consider whether the problem can be dealt with in a less draconian way. The existing police, local authority and private-law enforcement mechanisms were functioning sufficiently in the circumstances.

6. Section 222 Local Government Act 1972 confers standing and does not create a free-standing cause of action. Injunctive relief under that provision is exceptional and requires clear evidence of persistent and serious unlawful conduct, together with a need for an injunction because other measures would be ineffective. Those requirements were not met.

7. The Council’s generalised and perfunctory proportionality assessments attracted no material weight. They did not address the individual defendants, the particular incidents, the seriousness of the alleged breaches or their personal circumstances.

First-instance decision. The judgment records that the claim against “Persons Unknown” remained outstanding and had been adjourned pending the Court of Appeal decision in LB Barking & Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2022] 2 WLR 946.