High court injunction continued for travellers in Essex
They've been banned from living at a caravan site in Braintree
A group of travellers, who drew complaints from shadow housing secretary, Sir James Cleverly, after they built a caravan site in his constituency, have been given a court order prohibiting them from living there.
The group put up a “rapid” site near Braintree, Essex, for 12 families and retroactively applied for planning permission, the High Court was told on Thursday.
Uttlesford District Council learned of the construction around the beginning of May and an injunction against occupation was first granted on May 7.
Posting on X, Sir James shared a letter he sent to the Government on May 3 where he said the travellers were “exploiting” enforcement laws by beginning construction on a bank holiday Friday after council offices had closed.
He also said local residents were facing “significant disruption”, adding that the timing of the work was “clearly deliberate”.
Caroline Bolton, for the council, asked a High Court judge on Thursday to continue the injunction, saying there was nobody living on the site at the time it was originally granted.
In written submissions, she said it is “fanciful” to suggest that the families were on the site when the injunction was granted.
She said: “It is the claimant’s position that at the time of applying for the injunction, the site was under construction, not an occupied site.
“The defendant’s position, in essence, is that there are 12 families with children all in occupation of the land prior to the injunction being served.”
She continued: “Regardless of the defendant’s position, they are in flagrant breach of the court order and they remain so if their evidence is to be accepted that they are currently in occupation of the land.”
Tahseen Choudhry, for the group of travellers, said they should be allowed to stay because of their right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
She told the court: “Why would someone carry their home around if they did not want to be living in it, if they did not want to be sitting in it?
“That caravan is a home, that mobile home is a home, to the gypsy travelling community.”
She also said the council had described the caravans as “shabby”, adding: “As gypsies and travellers, that is their home, it is how they live.
“It can be shabby, broken down, derelict, anything, that is their preference. No one can judge that.”
She continued: “My defendants are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and have protected characteristics due to their ethnicity.
“Any reference to their homes, property or lifestyle has to be carefully defined.”
Mr Justice Ritchie described photos that had been given to the court as looking like a “rapid-action, pitch-building operation with heavy machinery”.
He also said it appeared to be a “let’s-do-it-quick-before-the-council-catches-us operation”.
He added: “There is no evidence that men, women or children were living, sleeping, eating, toileting or going to work at the site at that stage.”
In granting a continuation of the injunction, he said “residence at the land is prohibited”.
The judge continued: “I find the defendants’ evidence of residential occupation is full of holes.
“It is as leaky as a sieve.”