Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Persons Unknown

On review of a newcomer Traveller injunction, the court should not automatically rehear the application or merely complete a checklist. The review should address the order’s effectiveness, any grounds for discharge, continuing justification, and the basis and terms of renewal, supported by full disclosure and evidence. A material change is relevant, but its absence does not replace that analysis. Reduced unlawful encampments may show that an injunction is effective rather than that the underlying risk has disappeared. The remedy remains exceptional and must be proportionate, precise, territorially and temporally limited, and supported by procedural safeguards and liberty to apply, consistently with Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2023] UKSC 47.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council sought a further 12-month continuation of an injunction against two categories of Persons Unknown. The injunction prohibited unauthorised encampments and the depositing of waste at 334 specified sites in the Borough. The existing order had been granted by Butcher J on 11 June 2024 and was reported at [2024] EWHC 1653 (KB).

The Council relied on the order’s effectiveness, continuing risk and reduced harm. It also disclosed a temporary shortfall in permanent pitches and an error in notifying affected persons concerning Site 334. The central issues were the correct approach to annual renewal and whether continuation remained justified, proportionate and procedurally fair.

Application granted. The injunction against the 90th and 93rd Defendants was continued for 12 months. Its operation in relation to Site 334 was suspended for 28 days to allow affected persons to apply under the liberty-to-apply provision.

1. Renewal approach. The Supreme Court’s guidance in Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2023] UKSC 47, particularly at [225], required an evidence-led review rather than a tick-box exercise. The court should consider the order’s effectiveness, any grounds for discharge, proper justification for continuation, and whether and on what basis a further order should be made. Identifying a material change is useful, but the four questions remain the governing focus. An issue emerging on review may require a wider or de novo hearing; no such reconsideration was required here.
2. Application of the review test. The reduction in encampments, their duration and the associated harm demonstrated that the injunction was effective, not that the underlying risk had disappeared. The temporary shortfall in permanent pitches did not establish a need for transit encampments, and there was no evidence connecting that shortfall with the unlawful encampments. The risk of renewed encampments and migration from neighbouring areas remained realistic.
3. Safeguards and proportionality. Although a full reassessment under Wolverhampton was unnecessary, the court confirmed that there was clear evidence of wrongful conduct, a compelling justification, consideration of lawful stopping places and alternatives, and engagement with Traveller communities. Notification, generous liberty to apply, full disclosure, and territorial and temporal limits were required. The 334 sites covered less than 10% of the Borough, were carefully selected, and the order was limited to one year.
4. Other matters. The Council’s statutory bases included the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Local Government Act 1972. The Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 2 test provided a useful double check, which was satisfied. No undertaking as to damages was required. It was just and convenient to continue the relief.

This was a first-instance renewal application. An interim injunction had been granted on 19 February 2018. On 11 June 2024, Butcher J granted the existing injunction against named defendants for five years and against Persons Unknown for 12 months, reported at [2024] EWHC 1653 (KB). The present court continued the injunction against Persons Unknown for a further year, subject to the Site 334 suspension.