County council secures High Court injunction over camping on Chobham common

Deputy High Court judge Aidan Eardley KC said in his judgement that the injunction would be in place until February 2027 and anyone who breached it, “will expose themselves to the risk of proceedings for contempt of court”, with penalties including up to two years in prison.

The court heard the common is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Grade 1 Nature Conservation Review Site and a National Nature Reserve and forms part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

It supports numerous protected species of plants and animals and is used for recreation by up to 300,000 people a year.

Surrey had gained injunctions over several years to prevent camping and was granted a further one for three years in February 2023.

Mr Eardley heard that encampments create the risk of damage to the infrastructure, depositing of wasteland hazards to lora and fauna.

Surrey maintains 17 permanent Gypsy, Roma and Traveller sites and no other Traveller injunctions are in place in Surrey.

The council pointed the court to three legal rights or prohibitions on which it should act. These were the common law of trespass for those parts of the common the council owns, section130 of the Highways Act 1980 where parts of the common are highways and section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972.

A small part of the common is owned by Surrey Wildlife Trust and Mr Eardley said he was satisfied that it was “plainly preferable for the council to exercise responsibility for injunctive relief across the whole common, rather than leaving the Wildlife Trust to assert its own private law rights in respect of the small, land-locked area which it owns”.

Mr Eardley said: “I am satisfied that the evidence does sufficiently demonstrate a compelling need for injunctive relief.”

This was because “the common remains an attractive place for Travellers. That is understandable given that it is open, unpopulated, and easily accessible by vehicle.

“The police statistics on unauthorised encampments in the Surrey as a whole support the inference that encampments on the common are highly likely to occur in the absence of effective prohibitive measures.

“The need to protect the common, given its environmental and recreational significance, is strong and the risk of damage arising from encampments and fly-tipping is high.”

He was satisfied that Surrey had complied with its obligations to consider and provide lawful stopping places for Gypsies and Travellers, and that it was just and convenient to grant the injunction.

Radcliffe Chambers, whose Natalie Pratt acted for Surrey, noted that “unlike many other so-called ’Traveller injunctions’, the relief was not sought and granted under s187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990”.

Mark Smulian