Witness Statement KM LB Enfield V Persons Unknown
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
On behalf of: Claimant Name: Karen Maguire Date: 30 September 2020 No.:1 Exhibits: “KM1”-“KM8” IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 222 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AND SECTION 187B OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 B E T W E E N : THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD Claimant -and- (1) PERSONS UNKNOWN WHO ENTER AND / OR OCCUPY ANY OF THE SITES LISTED IN THIS ORDER (“THE SITES”) FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES (WHETHER TEMPORARY OR OTHERWISE INCLUDING SITING A CARAVANS, MOBILE HOMES, ASSOCIATED VEHICLES AND DOMESTIC PARAPHANELIA (2) PERSONS UNKNOWN WHO ENTER AND / OR OCCUPY ANY OF THE SITES LISTED IN THIS ORDER (“THE SITES”) FOR THE PURPOSES OF FLY-TIPPING OR DISCARDING WASTE INCLUDING ENTERING WITH A CARAVANS, MOBILE HOMES, PICK-UP TRUCKS, VANS OR LORRIES AND ANY ASSOCIATED VEHICLES Defendants _____________________________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF KAREN MAGUIRE _____________________________________________________ p 8 I, KAREN MAGUIRE of the London Borough of Enfield, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1. I make this Witness Statement in support of the Claimant’s Part 8 Claim seeking injunctive relief but also in support of an application for an interlocutory interim injunction in the terms of the Draft Order against the Second Defendant alone. I have had shown to me the proposed Draft Order for interim relief. I understand a copy of the Draft Order will be attached as part of the Application Notice seeking an injunction. 2. It is important to note at the outset that although this witness statement is in large part supporting the Part 8 Claim, it is also supporting the specific application for an interlocutory interim injunction being sought against the Second Defendant alone. The Council are not seeking an interlocutory injunction at this stage against the First Defendants. It is intended that the Claimant seeks an injunction against the First Defendant in due course, but that application is not presently being made, but will be made either at a separate interlocutory hearing or at the final hearing of this Part 8 Claim. 3. The Application Notice also seeks the abridgement of time for service. This part of the application is necessary because of a fear that if this application is not proceeded with immediately there will be at least 21 days before the Claimant is able to obtain the relief they seek against the Second Defendants and in that time significant damage could be sustained to any number of the locations that the proposed Order seeks to protect. 4. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Personal Background: 5. I am the Lead Officer for Trespass and Encampments having been in post in Enfield since May 2018. Prior to my appointment I worked at Mears Housing Group as a Business Manager for Extra Care Housing Schemes nationally. This is not my first role at Enfield as I worked previously in Strategic Property Services focusing on Trespass and Encampments and Vacant Site Management. p 9 6. In my role as the Lead Officer I am responsible for recovering possession of sites that have been subject to trespass. However, from a more holistic perspective I am charged with reducing the fiscal pressures that were once overwhelming in the Borough associated with unauthorised encampments in addition the Council wanted to develop underlying approaches to find solutions to meet the difficulties that have previously been faced. 7. Since 2018, joint partnership protocols have been in place, which are progressing very well. I shall refer in more detail at a later stage in my evidence but for present purposes the Court should be aware that the work I have been doing with the Gypsy and Traveller Community has been invaluable, inciteful and has greatly influenced how Enfield addresses the inequalities in housing, health, education, employment and social cohesion amongst the Travelling Community and the wider community in Enfield. The Application 8. I respectfully refer the Court to the Application Notice to which this Witness Statement relates. The Application Notice seeks to an injunction against the Second Defendants in the following terms, namely forbidding the Second Defendants from entering and / or occupying any of the sites identified on the Map attached at Schedule 1 (“the Locations”) for the purposes of fly-tipping or discarding rubbish including entering with a caravans, mobile homes, pick-up trucks, vans or lorries and any associated vehicles. Identity of the Defendants 9. It will be noted that the identity of the Defendants to the Claim is very different to simply referring to Persons Unknown. The identity of the First and Second Defendants has been carefully thought about having regards to the helpful guidance developed over the course of the last year or so. What will be appreciated is that the identity has regards to the particular conduct that the Council are seeking to prevent from happening. 10. It has not been possible to identify any specific individuals to join to the proceedings. This is because the only names the Council are aware of are those that have signed an agreement to stay at a location for a short period of time under what has been termed a Leniency Agreement. As I shall explain in more detail shortly, this agreement permits persons unknown to occupy land for a short period of time as they pass through the Borough. It is the Council's view that to name a party who has been tolerated on land p 10 would not be appropriate. Further, those actively involved in the criminal activity of fly- tipping or discarding waste do not give their names. 11. Notice of the application has been posted at each of the 96 locations that the Council seeks to protect. I now have produced and shown to me marked Exhibit “KM1” a Schedule of locations and a Map that identifies the locations of the land that the Council seeks to continue to have protection for, under the proposed injunction. I also have produced and shown to me at Exhibit “KM2” the Office Copies for these locations evidencing the Council’s title to these locations. 12. The Council are very keen to protect and prevent the establishment of any unauthorised encampment; whether to prevent residential or criminal fly-tipping activity, although it is only protection against fly-tipping that this interlocutory application goes to. The of locations that the Council seeks to protect has reduced from the 128 that were protected as part of an original injunction obtained in 2017. This is because the Council have assessed the locations, having regards to the following four criteria: (i) sites where the natural wildlife, including animal habitats, flora and fauna would be significantly prejudiced; (ii) sites that are managed by volunteers who would be disproportionally distressed in the event that an unlawful occupation took place; (iii) sites, which had previously experienced serious and significant incursions, particularly by persons seeking to fly-tip building and industrial waste; (iv) sites where in the event that unlawful occupation took place, considerable disruption on the amenity and quality of life 13. It will be appreciated that the Council are not seeking a blanket-wide Borough injunction; something that the Court of Appeal were very concerned about, particularly as the cumulative effect of other Boroughs having like Orders has resulted in there being less and less places for a Gypsy or Traveller to stop, even over-night. However, the question of the cumulative effect becomes less of a concern where, as with this application for an injunction, there is no attempt to obtain blanket protection. 14. Having reduced the number of “key” sites that the Council feel must be the subject of continued protection, 32 have fallen away and are no longer to be considered as part p 11 of this application. The reasons why the locations can be removed is because they do not meet the four criteria mentioned above for various reasons. The reasons include the fact that some of the locations have had significant investment to re-affirm boundaries and access points whilst other locations have been identified as subject to a lease and the consensus is that the lessees should be responsible for these locations, however the Council have indicated that they would be prepared to assist in any trespass matters, should they wish to incur a fee. 15. The question of cumulative effect is also less of concern because a number of neighbouring Boroughs and Districts have never obtained similar injunctions. Barnet, the neighbouring Borough to the west does not have an injunction nor does the area of East Hertfordshire. I am aware that Hertsmere Borough Council to the north-west does, as does the London Borough of Waltham Forest to the east. Background to the Injunction: 16. The Court should be aware that the Claimant applied for and secured a final injunction Order in a previous action on 04 October 2017. I have been informed by the Claimant’s Legal Services Team that the evidence presented to the Court at the time that the initial application for an injunction was sought, was in the form of witness statements from Mr. Munster, Mr. Coventry and Mr. Pemberton. I can confirm that I am familiar with this evidence as I have recently re-read it, but it will be recalled that I also was engaged myself in dealing with the numerous encampments that were established on an almost daily basis, during my first employment.