Dacorum Borough Council has secured a High Court injunction compelling travellers to vacate an unauthorised encampment on green belt land near Flamstead, Hertfordshire, within one month. The ruling, delivered by Deputy High Court judge Mr Justice Kennedy last Friday, brings a partial resolution to a protracted legal battle that has seen the council incur substantial costs.
The council initiated legal action against more than 20 named defendants and "persons unknown" after development on the land began over the Easter bank holiday weekend. The site, which is also an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, saw families living there oppose the council's application, having themselves applied for retrospective planning permission to establish a "gypsy site."
During proceedings at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Kennedy found "flagrant" breaches of interim orders designed to halt development. He concluded that the granting of a final injunction was both "just and proportionate," noting that there had been no residential occupation of the site when the council first began legal action. The judge also stated that defendants had "misled" previous judges and attempted to "circumvent" planning regulations.
The legal fight has proved costly for Dacorum Borough Council, which amassed £51,000 in legal bills. While the council won its case, the judge ordered the travellers to contribute £15,000 towards these costs. Billy Pither, chairman of Flamstead Parish Council, expressed significant relief following the verdict, stating, "We are delighted, to say the very least. It seems that justice has prevailed." He added that the local community had experienced "surprise" and "anger" when the development commenced.
Lawyers representing the defendants argued that the land should be considered "grey belt" rather than green belt and that their planning application had strong prospects of success. They also emphasised the cultural context, stating that travellers consider their caravans as their homes. However, the council's legal team maintained that there was no occupation prior to the initial injunction and complained about a "lack of candour" from the defendants throughout the process.