IRISH TRAVELLERS living on the Dale Farm caravan site in Essex lost their legal battle to stay in their homes, following an appeal court ruling in London yesterday.
In a lengthy ruling, Lord Justice Sullivan found against the Travellers on every count, saying their lawyers had not shown why a decision taken by Basildon borough council in May to evict them could be challenged.
The lands at Dale Farm had been considered again and again for planning permission by the authorities, he said, and “on every occasion” it was decided “that planning permission would not be appropriate” for a Travellers’ encampment.
The present application that they should be given permission to remain there temporarily – while their housing needs were assessed by the council – was “simply not a realistic proposition bearing in mind the length of time this matter has been outstanding”, he said.
The argument that they should be allowed to stay at Dale Farm until planning decisions are made on two possible sites elsewhere did not have merit, since one had already been rejected. A formal planning application for the second had yet to be made.
While the judge had sympathy for the Travellers, he said the argument that the evictions should not go ahead because of the effect it would have on their children had already been considered and rejected by the secretary of state for the environment.
“The interests of the children have been given very considerable weight in the decision-making process,” he said, but the secretary of state had decided that the children’s interests did not “outweigh” the need to ensure that planning laws are obeyed.
The Travellers had been in breach of planning laws and of the criminal law since 2005 and Basildon borough council had been “trying to remedy the situation for the last six years”, Lord Justice Sullivan said.
The Travellers’ legal team should have challenged the May decision within three months on the grounds that it was disproportionately harsh on them, rather than leaving it until last month.
Basildon borough council’s planning committee had debated all the issues before its May decision, he said, adding that the committee had then instructed the council’s solicitors to carry out the evictions, not to engage in negotiations with the Travellers.
The ruling by Lord Justice Sullivan was not a surprise, given the emphatic rejection of the Travellers’ case last by Mr Justice Ouseley in the High Court. He rejected the Travellers’ argument that the action was disproportionate, in a three-hour judgment.
The court of appeal, said Lord Justice Sullivan, was not there to judge the merits of the council’s action against the Travellers, but rather “the lawfulness of the decision made by it on May 17th and subsequent decisions”.
Equally, he rejected the argument that the evictions should not go ahead because some occupants cannot be removed, and also the contention that there was no point in going ahead with the evictions because some of the other plots cannot be restored to green belt status.
