“In the event that the Claimant is unable to personally serve the 1st to 107th Defendants, pursuant toCPR 6.14 and 6.15 the Claimant shall be permitted to serve any such Defendants by leaving a copy (as opposed to an original) of the application notice, claim form, draft order and supporting evidence in a clear transparent envelope and affixing the same to a caravan, mobile home or other vehicle, or to the front door of any residential premises which in each case is reasonable (sic) believed to be owned or occupied by the said Defendants, or by putting such copy documents through the letter box of any such residential premises. Any such copy documents served by this method will be deemed served the second working day after service of the application notice and claim form.”
“… [The section] gives the police powers to deal with unauthorised encampments on both public and private land, providing the circumstances meet a criterion. Namely, that a senior police officer at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on the land and are there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, and that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or property on the land, or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family, or any employee or agent of his, or that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land. The police must consider the following: (1) Serious Breach of the Peace, disorder and criminal activities; (2) Is the eviction reasonable and proportionate? (3) [Are] there enough resources?”
“The following report and information within has been constructed and provided by the Thurrock Community Policing Team. It is important to understand that we are not analysts and this information has been obtained and presented by Community Policing Sergeant Rob Thompson… and therefore has been completed under his own personal search parameters using the Essex Police STORM and ATHENA system. The following statistics have been obtained by searching the Essex Police STORM system between the dates of01/01/2016 through to09/10/2018 . The search parameters consisted of all calls headed under the call type of ‘Unlawful Encampment’, under closed status and within the ward of B2 (which covers the entire Thurrock District)… Thurrock Community Team have been asked to provide evidence in the form of incident prints, Athena record prints, C126 (Eviction Rationale) and linked crime reports for all Thurrock Encampments that were on ‘Private Land’, and all reports that were subject of a Section 61 authorisation on both private and public (Council Land). However, to establish this, all incidents recorded have had to be read and analysed.”
“Somebody did come to my door. I’m not sure of the date. They asked for Declan MacLeod. I explained that he no longer lived at this address and hadn’t for some time. The man said he had to give this to him, waving something in his hand. I said he no longer lives here and I don’t know where he is. As I went inside and closed the door, he [threw] something on the ground… Any letters that come to my house for Declan I return to sender. This letter didn’t have a return to sender and as his name was spelt McCleod, I opened it. Declan is my son… when he turned 17, as I wouldn’t allow him to do certain things, he left home. I don’t know where he lives, works or anything about him. That is 7 years he’s been away.”
“In deciding whether evidence in a given case should be admitted the judge’s overriding purpose will be to promote the ends of justice. But the judge must always bear in mind that justice requires not only that the right answer be given but also that it be achieved by a trial process which is fair to all parties.”
“between 25-27 June 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number YK14 *VM formed a large unauthorised encampment in West Thurrock, that encampment using an angle grinder to gain entry to premises, fly tipped and used abuse behaviour and suspected theft.”
“It would appear that the lock to metal gates has been removed to gain access. The gates have then been closed and a combination padlock attached. This was reported at around 2030 on23 June 2016 . The only area which may be affected is a courtyard at the end which houses the waste bins, presumably for the local businesses. No other issues… Each of the caravans had waste bags attached to them. There were numerous items of property stacked behind each caravan, but these appeared to be personal items as opposed to rubbish. There are varying degrees of waste in the road leading to the site, however, the majority appears to have been there for some time. As you walk towards the entrance gates there is an area to the right which has numerous wood, metal, mattresses and other rubbish which has been dumped, but again unclear if this was present prior to the encampment being set up.”
“He has spoken to the travellers who are refusing to move”. ii) At 13.24 an entry records: “The people still on the site have said they will leave on Monday. We don’t have the resources to evict. We will liaise with the landowner.” iii) Then at 13.39: “Still waiting [to] hear from the landowners as to whether they will allow the travellers to remain until Monday. Bailiffs have the STORM ref and they will call back and update when they will be evicting and will resource if required.” iv) At 14.44, an entry records that the Bailiffs had given those on the site until 18.00 on Sunday (26 June 2016 ) to vacate the site and would return on Monday morning (27 June 2016 ) at approximately 11.00 to ensure that this has happened. v) On27 June 2016 , an entry made at 07.44, records that the site is still occupied. An officer had spoken to someone who had told the police that they were not planning to leave until Tuesday or Wednesday evening. vi) Police attended the scene from around 11am on27 June 2016 to supervise the eviction by the bailiffs. vii) The eviction then appears to have been effected and, at 12.04, there is an entry: “It appears that all 16 vehicles are leaving the scene” and, at 13.14: “All caravans have now left the site except 2 which are waiting for a towing vehicle... All police resources are now [to leave].” viii) A further entry, at 12.40, noted: “Have info that this group have been much further afield and are likely to be going out of force – they are certainly using SatNavs to plot their next route. We don’t have the resources to shadow them out of the area.”
“On27 June 2016 , a call was received that a transit van had broken the fence to gain entry to Car Craft, Weston Avenue, West Thurrock, Essex. The informant was very shocked. On arrival police recognised one of the females who had stuck her middle finger at them. There was approximately five caravans, four females, three men and six children ranging from five months to ten years old. Police noted that damage had also been [caused to] bollards to assist with entry to the land. The driver of a van on Irish plates, Martin Maughan was wanted for breaching a court order. As two of the vehicles had been at previous encampments with the area and damage had been caused, a section 61 notice to leave the land was handed to Winnie Stokes, Kathleen Ward, Lisa Stokes and Lisa Maughan requesting them to leave the land once Brian Ward and Martin Stokes had been released from custody… The vehicles present were [Table included identifying 3 vehicles and 3 registered keepers]”
“Attended the site and there are 6 or more vehicles, including caravans. The persons are on site with the intention of residing. Damage has been done to bollards to assist entry to the land. The site is not yet fully established, so no significant welfare issues identified. At least two of the vehicles – 115-D-*6273 and FG02 *RT – have been on previous encampments in the area. As a result I am satisfied that the factors are present to justify use of s.61 powers… I have served notices to leave the land on Winnie Stokes, Kathleen Ward, Lisa Maughan and Lisa Stokes. The direction is to leave within 30 minutes of the release from custody of Brian Ward and Martin Stokes. This is so the females can have assistance in removing there (sic) vehicles. The initial request to leave was made by an agent of the land owner…”
“Are there any details of the suspect who gained entry to the location?” there is an entry: “Index YK14 *VM big van. No description of the person who broke the fence, just index. The van that broke the fence was a transit van. No descriptions.”
“(a) On15 February 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number YF13 *KY formed an unauthorised encampment at Pets at Home Thurrock. (b) You and/or your vehicle registration number YF13 *KY formed the following unauthorised encampments:15/02/2016 Pets at Home, West Thurrock01/05/2018 Gordon Road, Stanford Le Hope11/05/2018 Merlin Close, Grays22/05/2018 The Haven, Grays11/06/2018 Brenan Roads Playing Field21/06/2018 Dilkes Park, South Ockendon08/08/2018 Badgers Dene, Grays”15/02/2016 Pets at Home, West Thurrock01/05/2018 Gordon Road, Stanford Le Hope11/05/2018 Merlin Close, Grays22/05/2018 The Haven, Grays11/06/2018 Brenan Roads Playing Field21/06/2018 Dilkes Park, South Ockendon08/08/2018 Badgers Dene, Grays”
“On15 February 2016 , a call was received stating that there were three caravans and one vehicle at Pets at Home. Police attended and noted that there were no adults at the site. The police had contacted the landowner who were making arrangements for the land to be cleared. The following vehicles and caravans were present: [Table included identifying 3 vehicles]”
“On1 May 2018 , three caravans encamped on Gordon Road car park, Stanford Le Hope, Essex. A section 77 notice was issued and the travellers refused to leave the land. A bailiff company was deployed and the land was vacated on9 May 2018 . The vehicles present were: [Table identifying 2 vehicles and 2 caravans]”
“On8 August 2018 , there was an incursion at Orchis Grove, Badgers Dene, Grays, Essex. The vehicles on site were [the same as the Dilkes Park incident]… A section 77 was issued and the travellers refused to leave the land. Bailiffs were deployed and the land was vacated on15 August 2018 .”
“… between 25-27 June 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number WA15 *PO formed a large unauthorised encampment in West Thurrock, that encampment using an angle grinder to gain entry to premises, fly tipped and used abuse behaviour and suspected theft.”
“… on3 October 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number PLZ*976 formed an (sic) large unauthorised encampment in Thurrock near a national security site. A forklift truck was stolen and the encampment barricaded itself into the site. Children spat at police.”
“On3 October 2016 , a call was received that there was an encampment at [REDACTED NATIONAL SECURITY]. The called stated that the gate was open and he was blocking the entrance with his van but the travellers were threatening him and banging on his van and he drove away. Counter terrorism were said to be concerned due to location next to a Critical Infrastructure site. Contingency planning held emergency details around the site next to [REDACTED NATIONAL SECURITY]. A further call was received that the travellers had stolen a fork lift truck from another unit and was driving it around doing wheelies. Travellers broke into a building and started to remove vehicles. The forklift was used to move internal and external CCTV cameras. When police attended, the travellers had barricaded themselves in and place fire extinguishers by the front entrance. The travellers stated that [they] were intending on claiming squatters rights. While in situ the travellers children were spitting at police while others were shouting abuse. The travellers said to police that they were waiting for a permanent site. The travellers had reversed a flat bed truck against the side door and were stacking chairs preventing the police from gaining entry. When the police finally gained entry to the warehouse, they found that the fork lift truck had been hotwired. Brian Stokes, John Lawrence and Edward McDonagh were arrested on suspicion of burglary.”
“On18 August 2016 , on leaving [a different site], the travellers went to a park in Grove Road, Stanford Le Hope. The manager from the Rugby Club had spoken to the travellers asking them to leave when he was told to ‘fuck off’. A section 61 was authorised and they left the following day… The vehicles present were [Table included identifying 8 vehicles]”
“Suspects unknown without authority of the landowner and after being given direction to leave have entered private land. Suspect vehicles are as follows: [identified but not including YP54 *NB]”
“… Section 61 powers were initiated by Insp Bashford. Site was given until 0900hrs on the 19th to clear, of which upon police arrival at this time they did move on. This particular… report can be closed.”
“S165 Removal YP54 *NB S165. Albert Road VEH REC” vi) Earlier on in the STORM report under a heading “ISR Relations” (a term that I do not understand and has not been explained in evidence) there are the following entries: “EXTERNAL – RECOVERY: ELVIS REFERENCE FOR YP54 *NB IS 160664 VEHICLE – S165 REMOVAL – YP54 *NB S165”
“Vehicle recovered no insurance, also Gold Toyota Avensis was displaying Irish plates 05-LK-*155”
“On8 September 2016 , a call was received that travellers had set up an unauthorised encampment at Thurrock Business Centre, Breach Road, Grays, Essex. … The vehicles present were [Table included identifying 2 vehicles]”
“On18 October 2017 , a call was received that there were caravans and vehicles at the Pumping Station, East Tilbury Road, Stanford Le Hope, Essex and the gates had been forced. Police issued a section 61 notice because one of the caravans was about five feet away from the pumping station. The pumping station is responsible for the sewage flow for the whole of East Tilbury and Linford. If this was tampered or damaged, it would lead to residents having raw sewage coming up through their drains and flowing into the street. The travellers had to leave the same day. The persons identified at the site were Michaela McKenzie [60th Defendant], Clarence Bulmer, [two children whose address was the same as Michaela McKenzie].”
“At 14.09 hours a local informant notifies Essex Police of two cars and a caravan that have forced their way onto a piece of land on the East Thurrock Road, Linford. The gate securing the compound had a large chain and padlock locking it in place. However this has been cut off recently to facilitate access. The land is owned by Anglian Water and has a key sewerage pumping station inside of the permitter. The staff member from Anglian Water drove past the site in the morning of the incident and confirmed it was locked and secured with the padlock and chain in place. The main occupier [name given, not a Defendant] is not an Irish traveller but a local resident of Tilbury. He appears to have decided to adopt the traveller way of life and take his caravan from place to place locally. There is no known history of other trespasses involving [him], his girlfriend or associates.”
“On28 September 2018 , a call was received that travellers were gaining access to the field in Cullen Square, South Ockendon, Essex, where they had previously been in Cruick Avenue. There were approximately six vehicles and four caravans. Police issued a section 61 notice and requested that they vacated the land by 1900 hours on3 October 2018 . Once the site was clear, police attended and found a large amount of fly-tipped green waste, human excrement in the bushes and a stolen caravan was recovered from the site… The vehicles present were [table identifying 8 vehicles/caravans]. On3 October 2018 , a call was received that the caravans which were previously at Cullen Square have now gone to Callan Grove, South Ockendon, Essex. Police noted that there was already an accumulation of litter and used toilet tissue on the field. A section 61 notice was served for the site to be vacated by4 October 2018 1900 hours… The vehicles present were [table showing the same vehicles as were noted in respect of the Cullen Square incident].”
“The encampment is made up of four caravans, a camper van and four other vehicles. There are a number of dogs present which were barking continuously. Even though they have only been at the site for less than 24 hours there is already a small amount of litter on the field and some used toilet tissue. These above facts will have an impact on the local community who live directly next to the field.”
“All travellers, vehicles and caravans vacated the site as requested by the bailiffs. Site left clean and tidy. Site now clear.”
“On8 May 2016 , a call was received that there were travellers on the A1014 commonly known as the Manor Way, Stanford Le Hope, Essex. The vehicles were being driven the wrong way down a cycle path onto a farmer’s field. Some of the vehicles present were: [Table included identifying 9 vehicles]”
“Travelling encampment consisting of 3 vehicles and 5 caravans”
“Attended… No persons present. Photos obtained of the site and uploaded to Athena. Not causing any obstructions to foot or vehicle traffic”
“On14 August 2017 , a call was received that there were vehicles, caravans and a horse in the car park at Dunelm Mill, The Junction, Lakeside Retail Park, West Thurrock, Essex, RM20 3LP… The vehicles were: [Table included identifying 5 vehicles]. On22 August 2017 , a call was received from security at Motherwell Way, Grays, Essex RM20 3XD that vehicles towing caravans were attending the site… The vehicles present were: [Table included identifying 7 vehicles].”
“reporting approx. 20 caravans in the car park… [The informant] saw 2 caravans and a horse tied up at approx. 1940hrs. She has now driven past and seen more caravans on site”
“The encampment has been set up on the parking area in front of a number of industrial units down a side road of the Lakeside complex. The site was accessed simply by driving on the forecourt. No gates or locks exist and as such no damage was caused. It is believed a number of the occupants have moved to this location after being evicted from a site on the lakeside area 24 hours ago… The site is currently made up of 6 caravans and 6 motor vehicles. There were no animals seen. The site was clean, tidy and well maintained… There was no evidence of defecation or industrial waste. The site is situated on the loading area of a number of industrial units which are currently unoccupied. There is no housing within the vicinity as the entire area is an industrial unit… No immediate welfare issues were identified and no access to services are currently considered necessary. Female, Madonna Doherty was spoken to as well as male occupant Patrick Doherty. They were reasonable and communicative. They advised that they intended to remain on site for a couple of days.”
“… allegations of a crime or identification of an individual suspect at an encampment should not be grounds alone for consideration of a full group eviction. This view complies fully with Human Rights legislation.The Equality Act 2010 confirms that a nomadic lifestyle is protected in law. It must be considered that there is a lack of pitches on authorised sites across the country and Thurrock is no exception. Therefore it is difficult if not impossible for travellers to avoid setting up unauthorised pitches. The presence on this site at its current location is fairly unobtrusive. The travellers have made their intention to remain in the area until tomorrow in agreement with the landowners representative. As a result any action to move them on will only likely result in a further site being established elsewhere, which may not be so inoffensive.”
“… damage has been caused to main gate to get in. Magnetic locking system and electronic automatic gate opening devices have been significantly damaged… The unauthorised encampment moved off the site at or around 28/08/17 prior to an eviction being executed.”
“On13 May 2017 , a call was received that there were caravans and vehicles at Welling Road, Orsett, Grays, Essex… The vehicles were [Table included identifying 3 vehicles].”
“On19 February 2018 , a call was received that there were eight vehicles and nine caravans on the land next to Holy Cross School, Daiglen Drive, South Ockendon, Essex. The caller goes on to say the occupants had cut the lock of the (sic) and put their own locks on the gate. A large bonfire was reported and residents were concerned it may catch the houses. Police officers gained access by climbing over the gate… The vehicles were [Table included identifying 12 vehicles].”
“Have had a call from the Council. They have witnessed fly-tipping at this location and want to go and deal. Can local officers attend and support the Council going onto the site.”
“I attended the site. With the fly-tipping present, the fire that had been started and the report of the lock being broken to allow access, I deemed s61 appropriate. Before the local inspector attended the site the travellers left the area. The council will deal with the litter and waste.”
“… on9 February 2018 , you and/or your vehicle registration number SF17 *RZ formed an unauthorised encampment at the nearby lorry park. It was a large encampment with suspected fuel theft.”
“On9 February 2018 , a call was received that there were travellers attempting to fill a 20 litre container of fuel and that there were caravans in the lorry park. There are approximately 20 to 30 caravans and the occupants have not said how long they intend to stay. The report states that it’s impossible to note down all the indexes as there are caravans and vehicles spread out across the car park… The vehicles present were [Table included identifying 15 vehicles].”
“some travellers are walking in the lorry part of the car park with container of diesel. This is 20L container.”
“Have asked [informant] multi times where he has seen the persons come from to make him think it is stolen. But he won’t answer that question. Just says they are now at the caravans in the lorry park. Appears they are just at the caravans with a container. So [informant] is assuming that it has been stolen. [He] hasn’t seen them take it from the petrol area or from any other lorries… Not put on as stolen as [informant] cannot confirm this and hasn’t even seen where this container has come from.”
“1 caravan had no index plate but was believed to be used by SF17 *RZ – silver transit. Not at scene…”
“On18 August 2016 , a call was received about an encampment near to gate 3 P&O Developments Ltd, Shell Haven, the Manor Way, Stanford Le Hope. The informant goes on to state that the travellers (sic) children are using wire cutters causing damage to the fence. The travellers left later the same day. The security staff reported that the encampment occupants were abusive and demanded money for diesel before they would leave, and threatened to ‘shit all over the car park’… The vehicles on site were [Table included identifying 6 vehicles]. On18 August 2016 , on leaving Shell Haven, the travellers went to a park in Grove Road, Stanford Le Hope. The manager from the Rugby Club had spoken to the travellers asking them to leave when he was told to ‘fuck off’. A section 61 was authorised and they left the following day. One of the travellers, [not a Defendant to the proceedings], was arrested for being wanted for questioning for grievous bodily harm s.20… The vehicles present were [Table included identifying 8 vehicles].”
“From Gold – Ch Supt O’Callaghan – I have had Thurrock Chief Exec onto my mobile. Briefed with current situation.”
“Without authority of the landowner and after being given direction to leave, suspects unknown have been verbally abusive to members of staff and have entered private land..”
“No specific aggrevating (sic) factors in terms of number of caravans or the impact on the community itself. The site was clean and tidy, however there was one small dog running loose, and a large number of children running around the car park where heavy goods vehicles turn around… This was a combination of cars, transit vans and caravans. The security staff haver reported that at the time the vehicles entered the site they were abusive to staff. Security staff approached the encampment and asked them to leave, the occupants of the encampment were abusive to the security representative demanding money for diesel before they would leave, and also being verbally abusive and threatening to ‘shit all over the car park’. The staff have reported that they felt intimidated by the occupants. The group had also been moved on from an earlier site whereby they had been abusive to the landowner and threatening towards police officers. As such it was appropriate to envoke (sic) the powers under Section 61 in order to protect the site itself in respect of the use for the parking of HGV’s, to protect the staff who felt intimidated and had been verbally abused by the staff and also to ensure the safety of those occupants on the site due to the number of children running around the site and the risk of being struck by traffic… All vehicles left the site within 10 minutes [of the s.61 Notice being served].”
“… on14 July 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number M52 *GX formed an unauthorised encampment at Moto Services in Thurrock.”
“On14 July 2016 , a call was received about caravans and vehicles being in the coach car park area of Moto Services. They left the site on15 July 2016 … The vehicles present were [Table included identifying 14 vehicles]”
“On3 February 2018 , a call was received that approximately 15 vehicles and caravans had forced entry to the derelict DHL Warehouse, Weston Road, Grays Essex by cutting a chain… The vehicles present were [Table included identifying 7 vehicles]”
“Site is clean. Couple of animals, little dogs. No signs of any [offences] yet apart from chain. No one known to have done that. They are well out of the way for community impact”
“… on18 August 2016 , you or your vehicle registration number MK12 *MX, formed an unauthorised encampment at the Grove Road in Stanford Le Hope. Members of the encampment were abusive.”
“On25 February 2018 , Police on duty identified an encampment at Moto Services, Thurrock Motoways Services, Grays, Essex RM16 3BG that there was a large encampment in the car park… The vehicles present were: [Table included identifying 8 vehicles].”
“Have spoken too (sic) Duty Manager at Moto. They are not happy with the situation and we have explained that this is private property and they have to employ bailiffs to deal and progress. The plan from the travellers is that they will leave am tomorrow to travel to KP to carry out work in the area.”
“no damage caused as all vehicles and caravans just able to drive in”
“As such a large car park there are still plenty of spaces for other members of the public to use so no impact on the economy, no fly-tipping present and at this stage no reports of any public order incidents towards the land owner. At this time, section 61 no[t] authorised although to be reviewed on a regular basis… Management from Moto’s to start their own proceedings to remove the travellers.”
“… on3 August 2016 , you or your vehicle registration number CE09 *CV formed an unauthorised encampment at the Yacht Club, in Grays. The encampment cause (sic) damage, was large and abusive resulting in community tensions.”
“On4 August 2016 , a call was received stating that there were a lot of caravans and vans queuing to get onto the playing fields by the Yacht Club, Argent Street, Grays, Essex. This location is very near to where the travellers had set up camp on3 August 2016 in Thames Road. The caller went on to say that there were approximately 100 caravans and lots of horses. When the police arrived they had blocked the entrance to the Yacht Club preventing further vehicles accessing the land and noted around 20 caravans were in fact present. Due to the damage that they had caused entering the site and being verbally abusive where a traveller had said to the police ‘if you try and remove us tonight we will fight you’. Community tensions (sic) was present, with local residents shouting at the travellers from the high rise flats. A section 61 notice was issued for them to leave the land by 11am on5 August 2016 … The vehicles on site were: [Table included identifying 35 vehicles].”
“… on15 February 2016 , you or your vehicle registration number SJ16 *XW formed a (sic) unauthorised encampment at Old Toomey Car Showroom, Thurrock.”
“On19 April 2016 , a caller rang police stating that travellers were breaking into the Old Toomey Car Showroom, Maidstone Road, Grays, Essex and were trying to set up home there. The travellers gained entry by opening a gate… The vehicles present were: [Table included identifying 3 vehicles]. ANPR records show that the vehicle SJ16 *XW had been circulating in Thurrock, in particular Moto Services and Lakeside Retail Park, Essex. The occupants stated that they were on site due to attending a wedding in London and would move afterwards. Police could not obtain any further details because the travellers had padlocked the gate. They were also obstructive and vague refusing to provide details.”
“5 caravans on site and only 1 vehicle which is associated with the site – there are two visitors from elsewhere… The site is self contained yard which used to be a garage area… The vehicle on [site] were as follows: Red Ford Transit 09D12*659… TNZ *373 White Ford Transit… Another White Ford Transit Hicube which the index was not visible. The owner refused to provide them. The males were obstructive and vague. One refused all details and the other provided John Laurence and Anthony McDonnal. They have stated that they have come from Liverpool area for a wedding in London. They intend to leave next Monday/Tuesday… There appears to be no damage though I don’t know about the security on the gates originally. And no animals.”
“… between25 June 2016 and27 June 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number GL64 *LC formed an (sic) large unauthorised encampment in West Thurrock, that encampment using an angle grinder to gain entry to premises, fly tipped and used abusive behaviour and suspected theft.”
“… on17 November 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number AU54 *JZ formed an (sic) large unauthorised encampment at Sandy Lane, Thurrock. The encampment caused fly tipping and safety risks due to chemicals”
“On21 November 2016 , a call was received that there were travellers had (sic) Sandy Lane, Aveley, Essex. FCC Environment who owned the site reported the matter which occurred at a closed landfill site. FCC raised concerns that there was methane on site along with hydrogen sulphide. There was a risk if the lines were disturbed. While the travellers were on site there was a substantial amount of commercial waste which had been fly-tipped… The vehicles present were: [Table included identifying 3 vehicles].”
“[Informant] says they need to get rid of the travellers as [Informant] has methane gas on [site].”
“… there is no immediate risk. The site is safe, but officers should have a gas alarm with them. There is also hydrogen sulphide on site, but there should be no risk unless the gas lines are tampered with…”
“I have spoke to [name redacted] and he has agreed to meet me at the site for 10.30hrs to conduct an assessment of the encampment. I have advised him that as the site is private land the onus is on him to seek to remove the travellers via court order/bailiff. To this point, no effort has been made by the landowners to instigate formal measures to see the travellers quit the land. I have given advice around this and the time scales involved. In relation to flytipping, Andy cannot provide any link between those occupying the land and the vehicles attending to tip waste. [Name redacted, but in context the same person] has been advised that it is the landowners responsibility to clear the waste. However, if the offence of flytipping is made out as assessed when police attend this will be recorded, evidenced and investigated.”
“Suspects unidentified have driven a number of vehicles onto … land used as a close[d] landfill site owned by the victim and set up an encampment”
“The site is accessed by two points. Both were originally secured gates, but both have been forced and locks and chains cut. These damaged items were not present. The initial point of entry is the smaller of two gates…. As a result of the insecure double gates persons unknown have entered the site and have been involved in flytipping on the site to an industrial scale. Whilst this cannot be linked directly to the travellers on site, their presence means the landowner is unable to secure the site and thus is unable to prevent the flytipping. The amount of waste is substantial and is a criminal offence that will be recorded on an Ath Crime Report. The clear up costs will be substantial and if left will become a public health/environmental issue… The site manager [name redacted] was on scene during my attendance and confirmed there was no CCTV evidence and that there was no evidence linking the travellers on site to the presence of the waste. The xref inc 026522/22 provides no vehicle details for those flytipping and the only vehicle description is dark blue or black lorry tipping waste. This is not consistent with the vehicles found on site…”
“… on24 August 2017 , you or your vehicle registration number KN66 *AF formed an unauthorised encampment at Martin Cosgrove, in Grays. Criminal damage and attempted theft took place, and a further encampment on 02/02/18 at Moto Services in Thurrock where there was suspected fuel theft”
“On24 August 2017 , a call was received that travellers had broken the locks and gained access to Martin Cosgrove Ltd, Euro Court, Oliver Close, Grays RM20 3EE. The travellers had put up a squatters notice and padlocked themselves in. Essex Police attended and they vacated the site the same day following negotiation. When the travellers had left, police found that the alarms had been taken down from the wall and have attempted to take out the ignition barrel from a Cherry Picker. Copper had been removed and alarms removed from wall and left on floor… The vehicles were [Table included identifying 11 vehicles].”
“the travellers have made it clear that they have no intention of moving”
“Searched inside the building. There has been an attempt to take the cooper (sic) and attempt[t] to take out ignition from a cherry picker. Alarms have been removed from the wall and left on the floor…”
“Made contact with head member of the family. They are planning to leave of their own accord. They need 1.30 hrs. The landowner is happy with [t]his. We do have damage inside and outside. Can not target individual person to this. The landowner does not wish to press charges. Just want them off his land.”
“They have all left the location. Nothing remains. No direction to leave was issued. They had listened to the landowner, crime [report] will be completed. Units will escort the travellers from the area.”
“This site was dealt with on the day. After negotiating with the travellers and the landowner they moved off before a section 61 was served. This record has been created for intelligence purposes only.”
“On14 July 2017 , a call was received that there (sic) travellers had forced entry to The Junction, Thurrock Shopping Centre, Unit 5, West Thurrock, Essex RM20 3LP by breaking the padlock. The reports (sic) states that there was a pile of rubbish in the corner… The vehicles present were: [Table included identifying 4 vehicles]. Police identified named individuals being involved in the incursion which were: [Table included identifying 4 people, 3 of whom were aged 10 below on the relevant date]. On16 July 2017 , a call was received about travellers near to Decathlon, Lakeside Retail Park, West Thurrock, Essex RM20 3LP. These were the same people who had moved from the Junction. On14 August 2017 , a call was received that there were vehicles, caravans and a horse in the car park at Dunelm Mill, The Junction, Lakeside Retail Park, West Thurrock, Essex RM20 3LP… The vehicles were: [Table included identifying 5 vehicles]. On22 August 2017 , a call was received from security at Motherwell Way, Grays, Essex RM20 3XD, that vehicles towing caravans were attending the site. Significant damage was caused to an electromagnetic locking system… The vehicles present were: [Table included identifying 7 vehicles]. On22 August 2017 , a call was received that four travellers’ vehicles had parked in the Waterglade Industrial Estate, West Thurrock, Essex, RM20 3FG. The vehicles present had been previously at other sites within Thurrock. [Table included identifying 4 vehicles].”
“Only one female on site called Madonna, who stated they were intending to stay a few more days. The Kiddicare building is still secure. There were traces of excrement in the bushes, but could not ascertain whether human or animal. Rubbish was being piled neatly in a corner. There were no obvious dangers on site such as dogs. Do not think that this still falls under sec 61. Landowner will be informed of update and advised to start civil proceedings through the courts”
“… between 10 May and13 May 2017 , you and/or your vehicle registration number YT16 *TF formed an unauthorised encampment at various sites in Thurrock.”
“On10 May 2017 , a call was received stating that there were a number of caravans and vehicles on the grass verge entrance to Uniserve, Portcentric House, Thurrock Park Way, Tilbury, Essex, RM18 7HQ… The vehicles present were [Table included identifying 2 vehicles].”
“… between 10 May and13 May 2017 , you and/or your vehicle registration number PO56 *FU formed an unauthorised encampment at various sites in Thurrock.”
“… on3 February 2018 , you and/or your vehicle registration number H67 *UJ, formed an unauthorised encampment at DHL Warehouse in Thurrock. Entry was forced. … on9 February 2018 , you and/or your vehicle registrations number H67 *UJ formed an unauthorised encampment at the nearby lorry park. It was a large encampment with suspected fuel theft.”
“… on9 February 2018 , you and/or your vehicle registrations number EF12 *ZE formed an unauthorised encampment at the nearby lorry park. It was a large encampment with suspected fuel theft.”
“… on15 February 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number TNZ *373 formed a (sic) unauthorised encampment at Old Toomey Car Showroom, Thurrock.”
“On26 September 2016 , a call was received stating that there was an unauthorised encampment at Stanley Road, Grays, Essex. The travellers had gained entry to the site by damaging the bollard. The majority of travellers had come from the previous encampments at Moto services and London Road/Gumley Road. The vehicles present were: [Table included identifying 9 vehicles]. The locations of the travellers were in a public car park preventing members of the public from parking which has a detrimental effect on the local economy. Police spoke with one of the occupants Michael Maloney who stated that he is pursuing a meeting with Thurrock Council to request land that him and his family can reside on. Due to the travellers intimidating the local community and preventing them from using the car park (sic). The police authorised a section 61 notice to be handed to the families to vacate the land by noon on29 September 2016 . The following day, police returned to the site and found that the travellers were still in situ. The police liaised with John and Michael Maloney and the site was vacated by 14.35 hours…”
“a group of travellers, 7-8 caravans with [vehicles]… have broken the barriers approx. 30min to get into the open car park next to the multistorey car park.”
“I have attended the pay and display car park at Stanley Road, Grays to determine an eviction rationale with the Maloney family. It’s pretty obvious they have snapped a padlock to get in. I attended with the County Hall Traveller Unit who served the court direction to leave notices on them. It’s the first time I have attended this site and they are taking up 20 plus car parking spaces backing on to the residential homes. Michael came back to talk to us. I have weighed up the circumstances. His is a family unit, made up of a number of males, females and children. He is seeking land from the council to officially stay on. He is still pursuing a meeting with police leaders and local authority leaders to explore the viability of this. Some of his company are intimidating and threatening. They threatened to shut the car park for example to any [member of the public]. He states that 2 of the females are pregnant which doesn’t in itself prevent them from packing up and leaving but may play a part if they enforce a stay. I do not consider that taking up of a public car part to which the public not only pay, but also have access is inflammatory and while I have some sympathy with his view, parking up in council paid areas is not the way to go about it. Thurrock is an area of low public confidence and there is a strong public resistance to travellers, particularly when they prevent the public from going about their normal daily routine. I certainly have the legality in terms of section 61, I also believe I have proportionality in that I have considered the welfare situation of the Maloney family and nothing I have seen prevents them from moving and yet they are intimidating general members of the public and preventing them from using the car park fully. There is no mess or animals. They are content to let the council exercise their powers over a longer period and see my intervention as police harassment. The necessity isn’t urgent but it is significant and their presence gone will allow the community to resume their normal daily routine. I have assured Michael I have no axe to grind and that the bigger picture is the disruption to the local community and the local authority. There has been no Inspector to visit this site during the daytime until now…”
“No aggrevating (sic) factors directly relating to the condition of the site. The site itself is clean and tidy. There were no animals present at the time and no damage had been caused in gaining access.”
“… on17 November 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number NA10 *XH formed an (sic) large unauthorised encampment at Sandy Lane, Thurrock. The encampment caused fly tipping and safety risks due to chemicals.”
“This vehicle is insured as a different make and model”
“… on3 August 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number SN15 *PP formed an unauthorised encampment at the Yacht Club in Grays. The encampment cause (sic) damage, was large and abusive resulting in community tensions.”
“… on15 February 2016 , you and/or your vehicle registration number LM10 *FZ formed an unauthorised encampment at Old Toomey Car Showroom, Thurrock.”
“(a) setting up an encampment on any land within Thurrock Council unless authorised to do so by the owner of the land; (b) setting up an encampment on any land within Thurrock Council without written permission from the Local Planning Authority, or, planning permission granted by the planning inspector, or in accordance with statutory permitted development rights; (c) entering and/or occupying any part of the Land for residential purposes (temporary or otherwise) including the occupation of caravans/mobile homes, storage of vehicles, caravans and residential paraphernalia; (d) bringing on to the Land or stationing on the Land any caravans/mobile homes other than when homes other than when driving through Thurrock Council or in compliance with the parking orders regulating the use of car parks or with the express permission from the owners of the land; (e) deposit (sic) or cause to be deposited, controlled waste in or on the Land unless a waste management license (sic) or environmental permit is in force and the deposit is in accordance with the license (sic) or permit ‘The Land’ proposed to be included in the injunction is all land within Thurrock Council…”
“7. The decision whether to grant an injunction is always solely a matter for the court, in its absolute discretion in the circumstances of any case. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the court will grant an injunction unless all the following criteria are satisfied—(1) the LPA have taken account of what appear to be the relevant considerations in deciding that it is necessary or expedient to initiate injunctive proceedings; (2) there is clear evidence that a breach of planning, listed building, or conservation area control, or unauthorised work on a protected tree, has already occurred, or is likely to occur, on land in the LPA’s area; (3) injunctive relief is a commensurate remedy in the circumstances of the particular case ... Even when all these criteria are satisfied, the court may decide that the circumstances of the case do not, on the balance of convenience, justify granting an injunction. If an injunction is granted, the court may suspend its effect until a specified later date.”
“The personal nature of injunctive proceedings “9.9 Unlike an enforcement notice or a stop notice, a planning enforcement injunction is not primarily directed at the parcel of land on which the breach of control is taking place. Injunctive proceedings are ‘personal’ in the sense that the LPA seeks to obtain an order from the court to restrain a person, or a number of people, who must each be cited by name in the LPA’s application, from carrying on the breach. It follows that, in assessing what is called ‘the balance of convenience’ in the decision whether to grant injunctive relief on the LPA’s application, the court will have to weigh the public interest (which the LPA represents) against the private interest of the person or people whom the LPA seek to restrain. This differs from, for example, the process of an enforcement appeal where the decision-maker is concerned with whether the appeal should succeed on its legal or planning merits. And, even if the court concludes that an interlocutory injunction should be granted, its effect may be suspended for a specified period so that the defendant has time in which to make suitable alternative arrangements for whatever activity is to be restrained. The court may require the plaintiff (the LPA) and the defendant to appear in person at the end of an initial period of suspension of an injunction, so that the balance of convenience can be reassessed.”
“… Whatever the position before theHuman Rights Act 1998 , the court must now address the issues arising underarticle 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights and reach its own decision on whether the Gipsies’ removal from the site is proportionate to the public interest in preserving the environment. This did not mean that the court would pay no heed to the decisions of local planning authorities: issues as to whether or not planning permission should be granted are exclusively a matter for them, and the planning history of the site, including any recent decisions, will be highly relevant. Respect should be accorded to the decisions of a democratically accountable body. But it is still for the court to reach its own independent conclusion on the proportionality of the relief sought to the object to be attained.”
“If something had gone seriously wrong with the procedure, whether in the initiation of the injunction proceedings or in any other way, it was difficult to see why the county court judge could not properly take it into account in the exercise of his discretion to grant or refuse the injunction.”
“Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the character of a community are not to be ignored in the administration of planning control. It would be inhuman pedantry to exclude from the control of our environment the human factor. The human factor is always present, of course, indirectly as the background to the consideration of the character of land use. It can, however, and sometimes should, be given direct effect as an exceptional or special circumstance. But such circumstances, when they arise, fall to be considered not as a general rule but as exceptions to a general rule to be met in special cases. If a planning authority is to give effect to them, a specific case has to be made and the planning authority must give reasons for accepting it. It follows that, though the existence of such cases may be mentioned in a plan, this will only be necessary where it is prudent to emphasise that, notwithstanding the general policy, exceptions cannot be wholly excluded from consideration in the administration of planning control.”
“From that analysis I conclude, first, that quite apart from any considerations of common humanity, the needs of these particular gipsy families were a material consideration because they had a need for this development in this location. Those personal circumstances entitled the Secretary of State to have regard to them as relevant to the decision he had to make in the public interest about the use of the land for the stationing of residential caravans. Their particular need for stability in the interest of the education of the younger children can also reasonably be seen as an aspect of the wider land use interest in the provision of gipsy sites, which interest includes the need for stable educational opportunities. There is also a public interest in the planning system providing stable educational opportunities for gipsy families, including these gipsy families.”
“These cases make plain that decisions properly and fairly made by national authorities must command respect. They also make plain that any interference with a person’s right to respect for her home, even if in accordance with national law and directed to a legitimate aim, must be proportionate. As a public authority, the English court is prohibited by s.6(1) and (3)(a)Human Rights Act 1998 from acting incompatibly with any Convention right as defined in the Act, including article 8. It follows, in my opinion, that when asked to grant injunctive relief under s.187B the court must consider whether, on the facts of the case, such relief is proportionate in the Convention sense, and grant relief only if it judges it to be so. Although domestic law is expressed in terms of justice and convenience rather than proportionality, this is in all essentials the task which the court is in any event required by domestic law to carry out...”
“[That] argument … sits uneasily with the breadth of the statutory language. The critical provision is subsection (2) which provides that the court may grant such an injunction as the court thinks appropriate for the purpose of restraining the breach. ‘May’ does not mean ‘shall’. The notion of ‘appropriate’ relief necessarily involves an exercise of judgment weighing the factors for and against the grant of an injunction. There is not a hint of the restriction of the court’s ordinary powers to consider logically relevant countervailing considerations at the stage of the grant of an injunction.”
“[a] person must not, in the exercise of a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public, do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation.”
“(1) Where a local authority consider it expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of their area— (a) they may prosecute or defend or appear in any legal proceedings and, in the case of civil proceedings, may institute them in their own name, and (b) they may, in their own name, make representations in the interests of the inhabitants at any public inquiry held by or on behalf of any Minister or public body under any enactment…” (a) they may prosecute or defend or appear in any legal proceedings and, in the case of civil proceedings, may institute them in their own name, and (b) they may, in their own name, make representations in the interests of the inhabitants at any public inquiry held by or on behalf of any Minister or public body under any enactment…”
“(1) … the jurisdiction is to be invoked and exercised exceptionally and with great caution: see [Gouriet]; (2) … there must certainly be something more than mere infringement of the criminal law before the assistance of civil proceedings can be invoked and accorded for the protection or promotion of the interests of the inhabitants of the area: see the Stoke-on-Trent case at 767B, 776C, and Wychavon District Council -v- Midland Enterprises (Special Events) Ltd[1987] 86 LGR 83 , 87; (3) … the essential foundation for the exercise of the court’s discretion to grant an injunction is not that the offender is deliberately and flagrantly flouting the law but the need to draw the inference that the defendant’s unlawful operations will continue unless and until effectively restrained by the law and that nothing short of an injunction will be effective to restrain them: see Wychavon at page 89.” [57] Upholding the grant of an injunction, Bingham LJ explained, by reference to the facts of the case (715c-e): “… The conduct which the local authority seek to restrain is conduct which would have been actionable (if not at the suit of the local authority) in the absence of any statute. Even if the conduct were not criminal, it would probably be unlawful. The contrast with the planning and Sunday trading cases is obvious. I see no reason for the court pedantically to insist on proof of deliberate and flagrant breaches of the criminal law when, as here, there is clear evidence of persistent and serious conduct which may well amount to contravention of the criminal law and which may, at this interlocutory stage, be regarded as showing a public and private nuisance. It is quite plain that the service of the notice and the threat of prosecution have proved quite ineffective to protect the residents. The local authority have issued 18 summonses but, even if convictions are obtained, the delay before the hearing will deprive the residents of Petticoat Square of any but (at best) minimal benefit. The local authority are charged with a power – and perhaps a corresponding duty – to protect their interests if their interests in the present case were left without protection. In my view the deputy judge was entitled to grant an injunction and was right to do so.” [58] s.222 empowers local authorities to seek injunctive relief to restrain a public nuisance “which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects”: Attorney-General -v- PYA Quarries Ltd[1957] 2 QB 169 , 184 per Romer LJ. Mr Bhose QC submitted that the case law demonstrates that s.222 provides a valuable and potentially powerful means by which a local authority can seek to ensure compliance with matters of public law, which all citizens have to obey for their mutual benefit. He referred to the judgment of Lawton LJ in the B&Q case in the Court of Appeal: “… [it is] in everyone’s interest, and particularly so in urban areas, that a local authority should do what it can within its powers to establish and maintain an ambience of a law-abiding community; and what should be done for this purpose is for the local authority to decide.”
“The Claimants seeks (sic) to restrain the repeated breaches of directions to leave the land, served pursuant to s.61 and 77Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 .”
“In the last three years there has been in increase in the number of unlawful encampments, leading to increased pressure on Police and Local Authority officers to utilise their powers and resources. There has also been increased pressure on private utilities to utilise their resources to secure removal of unauthorised encampments. Despite the use of these powers travellers move from location to location within the borough and revisiting old sites. Some encampments can last for significant periods of time. It is apparent that nothing short of an injunction in the terms sought in the draft order will prevent the unauthorised encampments with the associated harm are causing the population. Hence why we seek injunctive relief. The travellers conduct is a breach of planning control and cause nuisance to the settled community. They flout the law causing harassment, alarm and distress to members or the community and businesses. The Council have weighed up the travellers needs against this action in coming to this conclusion but feel it is proportionate, necessary and reasonable to seek an injunction. The council appreciate that the unlawful actions and commercially motivated fly-tipping does not represent the actions of the vast majority of the gypsy and travelling community. It represents the actions of a small, determined minority who are having a significant impact on the quality of life of those in the vicinity. No witnesses from the travelling community on these sites have assisted the Police or Council in any prosecutions and names and addresses are not generally supplied. The Council is respectfully of the opinion that as evidenced from the above, and contained in all the evidence filed in support of this claim, that it is expedient for the promotion and or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of Thurrock to seek an injunction. That there is clear evidence that harassment, alarm and distress is being caused to many of those working and living within Thurrock and the considerable costs are being incurred for evictions, clear up costs and waste left behind and the cost of target hardening.”
“The households who meet the planning definition were found on 1 public site, 1 temporary site, 2 tolerated sites and 1 unauthorised site. Analysis of the household interviews identify that there is a need for 1 additional pitch that is currently unauthorised, 4 additional pitches for teenage children in need of a pitch of their own in the next 5 years, 1 pitch that has temporary planning permission and 4 additional pitches through new household formation, using a rate of 2.00% based on the demographics of those who were interviewed. Therefore the overall level of additional need for those households who meet the planning definition of Gypsy or Traveller is for 10 additional pitches over the GTAA period to 2033.”
“5.22 Whilst it was not possible to determine the planning status of a total of 67 households as they were not on site at the time of the fieldwork, the needs of these households still need to be recognised by the GTAA as they are believed to be Gypsies and Travellers and may meet the planning definition… 5.25 [The interview data] suggests that it is likely that only a small proportion of the potential need identified from these households will need conditioned Gypsy and Travellers pitches, and that the needs of the majority will need to be addressed through other means such as the [Strategic Housing Market Assessment] or [Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment] and through separate Local Plan policies. 5.26 Should further information be made available to the Council that will allow for the planning definition to be applied to the unknown households, the overall level of need could rise by up to 13 pitches that are unauthorised, by up to 6 pitches that have temporary planning permission, and by up to 19 pitches from new household formation… Therefore additional need could increase by up to a further 38 pitches… However, as an illustration, if the ORS national average of 10% were to be applied this could be as few as 4 additional pitches.”
“Whilst there is historic evidence to suggest that there may be a need for some form of transit provision in Greater Essex, it is not recommended that any should be provided at this point in time as the robustness of the data which could indicate this is not considered to be sufficient. It is recommended that the situation relating to levels of unauthorised encampments should continue to be monitored whilst any potential changes associated with PPTS (2015) develop. It is also recommended that further work is completed to identify the need for transit provision on an Essex-wide basis. Thurrock Council is therefore recommended to engage, through the Duty to Cooperate, with the other Essex authorities in the future to ensure this work on Transit Sites can be completed. This will establish whether there is a need for investment in more formal transit sites or emergency stopping places.”
“Based upon the evidence of the unauthorized incursions which have occurred, it is highly likely that these same or similar incursions will occur in the future. These incursions will not be in the nature of those which require the need identified by the GTAA. The nature of unauthorized encampments which the council is seeking to prevent are those temporary encampments whose primary purpose appears to be to facilitate fly tipping and are not as a result of under-provision of approved plots.”
“I …………………… certify that I have considered the human rights of the Travellers presently located at ………………………………………. In approaching the matter, I have sought to have regard for their human rights (balanced with the human rights of other) and, in particular, I have sought to: i) act as fairly, openly and promptly as possible; ii) explain our procedures and requirements clearly in a language which the Travellers understood; iii) consider all matters concerning the Travellers; iv) consider any representations made on behalf of the Travellers; v) explain the reasons for our decisions. I am able to seek restriction of the application of human rights of the Travellers both on the basis that there is no human right of ‘unlawful trespass’ and that I am acting in accordance with the law and further in accordance with the following stated qualifications, namely: i) Public safety; and/or ii) The prevention of disorder or crime; and/or iii) The protection of the rights and freedoms of others. I have approached the question of necessity of my proposed interference with human rights on the basis that i) The action fulfils a pressing social need; and ii) The means that the Council employ are proportional to the aim pursued, inter alia having regard to the availability of space for Travellers in the permanent accommodation in the county. I have considered the prohibition of discrimination and I am acting on the merits of the matter without discrimination. On the matter of protection of the possessions the action that the Council is taking is in the public interest and under, and in accordance with the law. ……………………………….. Authorising Officer Dated this day of ……………………………….”
“When an encampment is reported, on the first day my team will visit the site, confirm the exact location, numbers, intention the landowner and complete welfare checks via a Human Rights Assessment Form…”
“Recommended Decision”
“Apply Essex Code for [Unauthorised Encampments] Consult ECTU Manager Use [section] 77/8Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 Use Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules [eviction of trespassers] Request Police consider their emergency powers s.61 CJPO 1994 Other.”
“The breaches are actual and apprehended breaches of planning control, and the apprehension is based on existing breaches. The Court cannot look behind that. When allegations of not only the breach but what happened on the site (intimidation, breaking and entering etc.) are relied upon, that is not a claim that needs to be proven against an individual defendant, there is no cause of action for the court to adjudicate on. They are simply aggravating factors which go towards the proportionality of the remedy sought, and evidence of impact on the environment and inhabitants of an area, which the LPA’s discharging of its public function must safeguard. Accordingly, the apprehended and actual breaches have been determined by the LPA, no defence has been provided to suggest that the court should disregard that assessment, and the only issue is proportionality of the remedy sought, the Court is not deciding the underlying cause of action and must not involve itself in it, that is for the LPA. This is where the broad evidence of impact is important”. iii) Where a local planning authority faces a large number of encampments, it is entitled to seek an injunction to restrain all those engaging in these encampments in order to balance the interest of its administrative area. This is an area, unlike private law, where broad applications are appropriate and the totality of the evidence of encampments is highly relevant, not simply the number of encampments formed by any individual Defendant. iv) As to fly-tipping, where the named Defendant is party to an encampment where waste was fly-tipped, it is not unreasonable for the local authority to apprehend that, should those members of the encampment stop on another site, the same harm will occur. The question is not whether it can be proved that they will. The question is having apprehended future breaches, is it proportionate to restrain the future breach. On balance it is reasonable to apprehend further breaches of planning control by the named Defendants. They number of the encampments by multiple named Defendants makes the remedy proportionate. v) The absence of repeated breaches of planning control is “unremarkable”