Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Persons Unknown: traveller injunction renewed for fourth successive year

The High Court has renewed Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council's injunction against unauthorised encampments for a further twelve months, finding compelling evidence that the order continues to reduce both the frequency and duration of unlawful activity within the borough.

Mr Jeremy Brier KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the King's Bench Division, handed down judgement on 21 May 2026, granting the continuation sought against the 90th and 93rd Defendants, each comprising categories of persons unknown. The order, which covers 334 specified sites representing approximately 9.7% of the borough, will expire in June 2027 unless renewed.

A decade of declining encampments

The statistical picture presented to the court was striking. Between 2015 and 2017, the borough recorded between 28 and 69 unauthorised encampments annually, many accompanied by fly-tipping on a commercial scale, threats of violence and significant clean-up costs running to tens of thousands of pounds. Following the grant of interim injunctive relief in February 2018, that figure fell sharply. In both 2024 and 2025, only six encampments were recorded, with four already logged in the first months of 2026.

Average encampment duration tells a similar story. In 2017, encampments lasted an average of 6.28 days. By 2019, that figure had dropped below 24 hours, a level maintained in almost every subsequent year. The council's Service Manager for Environmental Action and Enforcement, Anthony Johns, attributed this directly to the deterrent effect of the injunction, and in particular to its attached power of arrest, which he described as "what makes the Injunction so effective" -- though notably, it has never been exercised.

Clean-up costs, which reached nearly £88,000 in 2017, have since been treated as negligible. Since the injunction came into force, no instances of untreated human waste being deposited at sites have been recorded.

The legal framework

The renewal fell to be assessed under the four-part framework endorsed by Garnham J in last year's renewal judgement ([2025] EWHC 1314 (KB)), itself derived from the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47. That framework asks whether the order has been effective, whether any grounds for discharge have emerged, whether justification for continuance exists, and on what basis any further order should be made.

Mr Brier answered each question in the council's favour. He found no material change in circumstances warranting an expanded or de novo hearing, and was satisfied that the injunction had fulfilled its intended purposes. The comparison with neighbouring authorities proved instructive: Wigan reported 27 encampments in 2025 and Bolton recorded nine between April 2025 and April 2026, neither being subject to equivalent injunctive protection.

Accommodation provision and disclosure

Two disclosure matters were addressed expressly. On the question of pitch provision, the court noted that the Greater Manchester Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, updated in December 2024, had identified a residual need for five further permanent pitches by 2027/28. Planning permission for four council-owned pitches has already been secured, with a privately-owned site still progressing through the planning process. Mr Brier considered the shortfall likely to be short-lived and, in any event, not determinative of whether the injunction should continue, given that it targets transient encampments rather than settled accommodation need.

On the question of whether the order should be converted to a true contra mundum injunction following Nicklin J's approach in MBR Acres [2025] EWHC 331 (KB), the court declined. Ms Natalie Pratt, instructed by Sharpe Pritchard for the council, submitted that such a modification would significantly expand the order's reach without justification. Mr Brier accepted that submission, noting that the council had never sought to enforce through contempt proceedings or by activating the power of arrest, and drawing support from London City Airport Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 2223 (KB) and Esso Petroleum v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1768 (KB), in which similar permission requirements were rejected.

The injunction against the 56 named defendants, bound for five years under the original 2024 order, remains unaffected and runs until June 2029.