A local authority was entitled to an order requiring owners of boats moored on the River Lea and occupying temporary structures on its land to cease occupation by a specified date to prevent disruption to an extensive housing project.
The High Court has granted the claimant local authority relief in The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Snell and others [2024] EWHC 1206 (KB).
The Meridian Water Regeneration Project was a development of 10,000 new homes on freehold land owned by the claimant local authority traversed by a stretch of the River Lea over which a bridge would be built. The project covered the area occupied by the defendants, the first, second and fourth of whom lived on narrow long boats moored on the relevant stretch of the river. The fifth defendant occupied a shack/shed on the claimant’s land.
The claimant had a contract with a construction company for essential preparatory works, development of the river embankment and related construction works, which commenced in December 2023. Mooring licences on the relevant stretch of the river were suspended by the Canal & River Trust for a year from February 2024 and the claimant had agreed with the CRT options to move the defendants elsewhere on the River Lea Navigation System and also provided them with advice and support.
The contractor required access to the waterfront for works for the bridge construction from 28 February 2024. On 29 January 2024, the contractor served the claimant with an early warning notice referring to the presence of boaters and encampments on the bank. On 5 March 2024, it notified the claimant of a compensation event identifying the claimant’s failure to allow access to and use of the site due to the presence of illegal boaters. The claimant sought an injunction against the defendants for trespass, nuisance and antisocial behaviour.
The court was satisfied that the claimant had a strong case that the continuing presence of the defendants was an actionable trespass as well as a nuisance and ordered them to cease occupation of the area by 12 June 2024. While the contractor had not yet claimed a specific amount in compensation, the claimant was on risk of such a claim and there were further risks to longer-term funding arrangements if this phase of the project did not progress or complete to time. The interference with the defendants’ rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and The Equality Act 2010 was justified and proportionate.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
