A High Court judge has extended an order to ban further development and placing caravans on a small Travellers’ site in south Essex.

Basildon Council took eight named people and nine unnamed people to court after a small but permanent Traveller site was created without planning permission on land off Lower Avenue, Bowers Gifford.

The council has sought a final injunction to stop further development of the site by removing two defendants and their family members from the land. The court found there were “flagrant” breaches of planning rules with caravans being added to the site and groundworks to prepare the area for further homes.

The court also found residents had not tried to find alternative accommodation. It comes as a planning appeal relating to caravans and associated works on the site is being considered and the judge decided the court would not give a final injunction with this process underway.

It comes after works at the site took place, including groundworks such as laying hardcore and installing internal fencing to mark out four pitches for Gypsy and Traveller occupation pitches, without planning permission. The council then served a temporary stop notice on the works and land.

The defendants did not comply with the notice and further works took place over the bank holiday weekend in May, including further groundworks with the laying of hardcore; installing of further internal fencing to mark out pitches, a mobile home had been placed on one of the pitches, a touring caravan had been placed on another of the pitches; and a further mobile home was waiting to be placed on a third pitch.

One of the defendants in the case submitted a planning application for change of use of land for the creation of four Gypsy and or Traveller pitches. The council refused the planning application, an appeal against that decision was lodged and the outcome is pending.

The judge decided the council may well return to Court at a later stage for a further ruling, depending on the outcome of that planning appeal, or for other appropriate relief.

The judge also ruled that the council did not attempt to conduct a welfare assessment once evidence emerged from one of the defendants and residents, and the judge concluded there has not been an evaluative exercise properly required before seeking a final injunction.

The decision states: “I agree with the claimant that the breaches by way of operational development can be regarded as flagrant. I further agree that the breaches were committed in a coordinated way, timed over a bank holiday and that the work continued despite the temporary stop notice service.

“The breaches occurred on land in the green belt. The operational development was being undertaken to facilitate a material change of use to the land which would also be in clear breach of planning control.

“No proactive justification for the extent of the operational development has been advanced, nor any proactive planning application. No attempts had been made by the active defendants either to seek alternative accommodation or to assert an inevitable roadside existence in the event that they were evicted.

“I agree with the claimant that the removal of natural vegetation and the extensive spreading of hard-core represents a significant intrusion, and although not immediately visible from the wider area, an urbanisation of the site that impacts the spatial and visual openness of the area.

“I consider a continuation of the second order as against all defendants is just, proportionate and appropriate, pending resolution of the current planning appeal process relating to the Land. Given the history, connections with the land and related families, I consider it just and proportionate that defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 remain as named defendants. So, too, in relation to defendants 6 and 8. Defendants 5 and 7 retain the same right to remain on the land that they currently enjoy under the second order.

“As for persons unknown, the claim for injunctive relief has been carefully framed and limited with regard to the small site and area of Land covered, and the activities are limited and clearly defined. Accordingly, the injunction is also justified on a continuing basis in the terms of the Second Order. 

“Given my finding that the claimant did not attempt to conduct a welfare assessment once evidence emerged from D5, I conclude that there has not been an evaluative exercise properly required before seeking final injunctive relief.”

A Basildon Council spokesman said: “Following Basildon Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for the proposed change of use of land at Bowers Gifford, a planning enforcement notice was issued. The matter is now pending an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, with a date for the appeal hearing yet to be set.

“The court order remains in place, protecting the land from any further unauthorised development. 

“Basildon Council is committed to taking swift and robust action to protect the green belt from harmful unauthorised development. The council has successfully obtained a High Court injunction and has fully utilised its enforcement powers under the Town and Country Planning Act.”

 A report by Friends, Families and Travellers in February 2020 found that the majority of councils in South East England had not identified enough land for Travellers to live on, indicating a severe shortage of legal Traveller sites across the region.