Travellers on green belt wait for High Court ruling

Travellers living on green belt land near a village are waiting to hear whether they have won a High Court fight.

Dacorum Borough Council took legal action after an "unauthorised encampment" was set up near Flamstead, Hertfordshire, in early April.

A High Court judge then made an order, "prohibiting any unauthorised works or use of the site", at Friendless Lane, on 5 April - Easter Sunday - following an application by council officials.

But travellers, who want retrospective planning permission to turn the site into a camp, have challenged that order and complained that their human rights were not considered.

Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Glasson has considered opposing arguments from lawyers representing travellers and Dacorum Borough Council.

The judge, who oversaw a hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice complex in London on Thursday, said he would deliver a ruling on a date to be fixed.

Barrister Alan Masters, who represented about 20 adults living on the seven-acre site, asked Judge Glasson to alter or discharge that injunction.

Barrister Caroline Bolton, who represented Dacorum Borough Council, disputed travellers' arguments and said the order should continue.

Masters, who said his clients own the land, argued that council officials knew that mothers and children were living on the site when they sought the order.

But he said families' rights to respect for family life - enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - were not taken into account.

He said there was "plenty of evidence" that caravans "were there" before the order was served.

Masters said families' Article 8 rights were engaged "well before" they were served with the injunction.

He said children on the site could not be "ignored".

Masters suggested that the council officials had thought, "oh, these gypsies, they do all these things, and isn't it awful?"

He said officials had not understood the "vulnerability" of traveller families.

"They were gypsies and travellers," he told the judge.

"The law requires specific consideration to their way of life, not turn a blind eye to it and do nothing and pretend they are not there."

Bolton said there was no "credible evidence" that families were living on the site when the order was made and told the judge that the order had been breached.

She said the site was a "large agricultural field" and "Article 8" was "not in play".

Bolton said witness statements from people who said they were living on the site and had "nowhere to go" were "too similar to be credible".

She suggested that arguments were being made to "bolster" a retrospective planning application - and any planning appeal.

"Their lack of candour has been so extreme," she told the judge.

"The balance of convenience must be to maintain the order."

Bolton suggested that travellers had not followed proper procedure and had taken the law into their own hands.

She said the site was an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and told the judge that work carried out had caused harm.

Bolton argued that the judge would be condoning breaches of the order if he ruled in favour of the travellers.

The council was not making an "eviction" application because when the order was made, there was "no occupation of the land", she said.

Do you have a story suggestion for Beds, Herts or Bucks? Contact us below.

Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.