Name: Ian KorganDate: 5 November 2019

Statement No.: 2Exhibit: “1H8”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. QB 20 19-002493

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

BETWEEN:

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL

Claimant

-and-

(1) PERSONS UNKNOWN OCCUPYING LAND(2) PERSONS UNKNOWN DEPOSITING WASTE OR FLY-TIPPING ON LAND

Defendants

SECOND WiTNESS STATEMENT OF IAN HORGAN

I, IAN HORGAN of Surrey County Council, County Hall, Penthyn Road, Kingston-uponThames, KTY 2DN WILL SAY as follows:

Preliminary:

1. I make this, my second Witness Statement in support of the Application before thisHonourable Court brought by Surrey County Council (“the Council”) for a finalInjunction in the terms of the draft Order that I have been shown. In particular an

injunction Order forbidding (1) Persons Unknown Occupying Land and (2) Persons

Unknown Depositing Waste or Fly-Tipping from:

(1) Setting-up an encampment on Chobham Common without written permission fromthe Local Planning Authority by virtue of Article 3 of the Town and CountryPlanning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015/596 (GPDO2015) or planning permission granted by a planning inspector;

(2) Occupying any part of Chobham Common for residential purposes (temporary orotherwise) including with caravans, mobile homes, vehicles, and residentialparaphernalia without written permission from the Local Planning Authority byvirtue of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General PermittedDevelopment) (England) Order 2015/596 (GPDO 2015) or planning permissiongranted by a planning inspector;

(3) Bringing on Chobham Common any vehicle whether for the purposes of disposalof waste and materials or otherwise, other than when driving through the Countyof Surrey or in compliance with the Parking Orders regulating the use of car parksor with written permission from the Local Planning Authority by virtue of Article3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England)Order 2015/596 (GPDO 2015) express permission from the owners of the Land.

(4) Depositing any personal, domestic or commercial waste and / or fly-tipping onChobham Common.

2. Except where otherwise stated, the facts and matters to which I refer to are within my

own knowledge Where the facts and matters to which I refer are not within my own

knowledge, then I believe them to be true and the grounds of my belief and the sources

of information are set out in the statement.

3. The interim application originally came before the Court on 12 July 2019. At that hearing

Mr. Justice Nicklin granted an interim Injunction Order against Persons Unknown

Occupying Land and Persons Unknown Depositing Waste on Land, after hearing the case

put forward by the Council outlining the increasing number of Traveller encampments

on Chobbam Common. Surrey (the Common) and the harm these incursions were

causing on so many dit’ferent aspects of community life.

4. The Return Day I Final Hearing was listed for the first open date after 1st November

2t) 19. It has now been listed [or 11th November.

As part of his order paragraph 4), the learned Judge required evidence at the final hearingto address four areas, plus any other relevant information. Those areas were following:

(a) evidence of service in accordance with the terms of this Order;

(b) evidence of unlawful incursions and fly-tipping following the making of the Orderand the risks of such future potential incursions or fly-tipping;

(c) evidence as to any enforcement action taken in pursuance of this Order, includinginformal enforcement measures;

(d) evidence as to how welfare considerations of Travellers who may be affected bythe terms of this Order and any final order sought, including the interests ofTravellers wishing to come into the Council. have been or will be dealt with.

Service and Publication of Documents:

6. Following the hearing on 12th July, the sealed Order was served in transparent envelopeson 16th July, at various locations around the Common. In total, 15 sites were served. Inow have produced and shown to me marked “1118’ a true copy of a map of the Commonwith an “x” marking the approximate location of each of the Notices. In addition to theMap with the service locations marked, I produce photographs of each of the spotsserved. The Order was served by various Council officers.

7. Subsequently the Order was varied and re-sealed. This took place on the 22nd August. Iarranged for service of the sealed varied Order immediately at the same spots around theCommon. This took place on 30th August

8. A copy of the entire Court bundle together with the Order and the various Maps werecopied and supplied to the Council’s offices at Penrhyn Road, Kingston-upon-Thames.They were available for the public to view.

Unlawful Incursions or Fly-Tipping

9. Since the Council was granted the interim injunction Order on 12th July, I am delightedto report that there has been only one incident involving Persons Unknown coming ontothe Common, with a view to establishing an unlawful encampment. This encampmenttook place on Friday 20th September between 20:O0hrs and 2 1 :O0hrs. 12 caravans andassociated vehicles and other equipment gained access to the Common Roundabout CarPark via the bridleway from Chertsey Road. Surrey Police were immediately macfe

aware, but due to insufficient police resources were not able to respond at that time. The

following morning at around 1 0:O0hrs the police attended and informed the group that

there was an injunction in place and that they should move off as soon as possible.

Enquiry was made as to whether anyone wanted to claim a welfare need. No one

indicated that they did nor was it obvious that anyone was in need of welfare assistance

10. Following the request to leave, all hut two caravans left. The two remaining had broken

down so they were tolerated whilst they made arrangements for repair. On the Sunday at

approximately I 0:O0hrs an AA Van was seen in attendance with the broken down

vehicle. By 1 2:00 Midday all vehicles had moved off.

11. A small amount of green waste was left behind, however there was insufficient evidence

to implicate any particular Traveller.

12. It will he appreciated that due to the unknown persons being advised of the terms of the

Order and their good sense in swiftly vacating, there was no need for any enforcement

procedure.

13. As for addressing the welfare needs, it will be noted that one of the undertakIngs given

by the Claimant at the time that the interim Order was made was that in the event that

anyone arrived at the Common they would still be entitled to a full and proper

consideration of their welfare, health. housing and social care needs. An enquiry was

made of those who arrived on 20th September. No one stated there was any need for a

welfare assessment to be carried out and indeed they left swiftly on Saturday morning

without claiming anything from the Council.

The Benefit of the Injunction:

14. As will be recalled from the matters set out in my first Witness Statement the arrival of

Persons Unknown, seeking to establish encampments on Common land in 2017 and 2018

was causing significant difficulties and undermined the pleasure that the Common

offered to the general public. Because of the incidents of encampments, the Council

decided to invest in blockers at all the entrances to the Common. Exhibit 1117 to my

first witness statement, exhibited photographs of the blockers. The blockers were a very

effective barrier as they were strategically placed far enough apart to allow vehicles to

pass through, but sufficiently close to avoid vehicles towing trucks or caravans being

able to easily manoeuvre. The placement of these harriers did have a significant and

dramatic effect on the number of incctrsions as the Common has not had one incursionsince they were placed at all the entrances in March. However, as I made clear in my firstWitness Statement, although the blockers had addressed the visits by Persons Unknownand their caravans and vehicles and reduced the fly-tipping of green waste and domesticwaste, it had also resulted in considerable disquiet in the community as people wereextremely upset about the horrendous visual one sees when entering a Site of naturalbeauty. There was a lot of resentment surrounding the fact that the Common which is alocation open to everyone to enjoy, had been blighted with the existence of these barriers.

15. There was also a significant cost associated with the blockers. They were costing theCouncil approximately £1260 per month as the daily hire rate was £7.50 and the Councilhad hired 42 blockers. That large number of blockers were required so that they coveredall the various entrances to the Common.

16. The hope that arose from the injunction was that the blockers could be removed, so as tore-establish the aesthetic beauty of the Common without letting caravans, mobile homesand other vehicles into the Common for the purpose of establishing an encampment. Thefact that there has only been çne incursion since the granting of the interim Order (nearly4 months ago) despite the blockers having been removed is testament to the injunctionworking. I have no doubt is saying that the injunction Order has been a considerablesuccess. The Council have been able to remove the blockers and there has only been oneincursion.

17. Had the removal of the blockers resulted in a return to the previotis situation with a largenumber of incursions, the only conclusion that could have been arrived at was that theinjunction Order had not worked. In such circumstances, I would not have been seekingthe final Order that an injunction be now put in place for an extended period. Happily Iam seeking an extended Order, because the injunction clearly works and has manybenefits not just for the Council but all those who enjoy using the Common as a place ofnatural beauty and relaxation in the County of Surrey.

The Proposed Order

18. I have had shown to me the proposed Order. It is in substantially similar wording to the

interim Order save for one main respect. The final Order seeks the Order to last for a

period of 5 years. I am aware that in many cases where similar orders have been made,

the more usual order is for three years of protection. However, those orders largely relate

to Borough wide injunctions. Since this Order is simply seeking to protect one natural

beauty spot in the County, there cannot be any real prejudice to Persons Unknown if the

Order were to last for an extended period of five years, so as tro expire on 10th November

2024.

19. Of course, if the Court were against the Councils request for an extended Order for five

years and thought ii more appropriate to follow the custom that has generally been created

of orders lasting three years, we would not object.

Conclusion:

20. In all the circumstances the Borough respectfully seeks an Order in terms requested.

21. I confirm the contents of this Witness Statement is true.

Ian Horgan

Dated 5th November 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. QB 20 19-002493

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 222 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AND

SECTION 187B OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

BETWEEN:

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL

-and-

Claimant

(1) PERSONS UNKNOWN OCCUPYING LAND(2) PERSONS UNKNOWN DEPOSITING WASTE FLY-TIPPING ON LAND

EXHIBIT 1118’

Defendants

This is Exhibit “111$” referred to in the Witness Statement of Ian Horgan dated 5 November

IAN HORGAN

Dated 5 November 2019

0z0

-I

V.

mDC

01...

FCD

Jo CD0

n0

0

I

/

/

.to torn

0a

to

0

0

t‘0

:-

n0330

—

irk D

cn

I

_________

C),

_________________________

H CI— -. -‘cli -. a

TrIy

-

H

DI

.

DI

DI

DI

P.

Di

Diz0-I’

0

C

3

I,Di-I

Di-I

0

0

Di

3

0Di0

0aDi

3

II

.c)

__--_

3

,. -

U0

-.,

‘I

/N.

N

fl

a

z.

:o 0

C

5[

eIf0

n1n0

anDi-f0Cd,

0nDi

0•D

0D

Di

-p

.1!

S

03

•v03zIC03n03Z

I-n

-Ir03

a0

0-4,

003an00

03

3

-.

C -

Ciobhim Common Car Parks Injunction Notice Photo Evidence

__________

zjC) Bridle Way Land off of Staple Hill

A) pjgcross Car Park

I

B) Staple Hill Car Park

.4

-r

‘..‘

D) Jubilee Mount Car Park

E) Vacant Chobham Common Land Burrow Hill

•1

F) Vacant Chobham Common Land Chobham Place

G) Vacant Chobham Common Land on Valley end Road

j -* : -

H) Chobbam Common Land Chertsey Road Entrance

I) Monument Car Park

l,AIe1come t

‘1

J) Chobham Common Roundabout Car Park

K) Vacant Chobham Common Land North of Windsor Road

iresI’

I:.,$e_S_,.

1) 2 x Footpaths for Chobham Common off of Chertsey Road

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Claim No. QB 2019-002493

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 222 LOCALGOVERNMENT ACT 1972

SECTION 187B OF THE TOWN ANDCOUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

BETWEEN:

SURREY COUNTY COUNCILClaimant

-and-

(1) PERSONS UNKNOWN OCCUPYING LAND(2) PERSONS UNKNOWN DEPOSITINGWASTE OR FLY-TIPPING ON LAND

Defendants

SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF TANHORGAN

Surrey County Council,Legal Services DepartmentCounty Halt,Penrhyn Road,Kingston-upon-Thames,VT1 )flM