High court upholds injunction for Flamstead traveller site

The injunction was granted over The Easter Weekend, after an "unauthorised encampment" was erected on land to the north of Friendless Lane.

It prohibits further development of the area already designated within the Green Belt and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Travellers argued for retrospective planning permission, suggesting their human rights had not been considered.

They sought permission for 14 residential gypsy and traveller pitches, each including one mobile home, two touring caravans, and a day room.

(Image: Submitted.)

Yesterday, a judgement was made by the court, dismissing an appeal against the injunction served by Dacorum Borough Council (DBC).

The judge found the development “deliberately timed” to coincide with the Easter weekend, and thought it was conducted in "flagrant defiance" of the injunction served.

The court heard how the development unfolded, beginning with heavy vehicles and construction equipment entering the site without planning permission.

Ms Caroline Durrant, principal planning enforcement officer at Dacorum Borough Council (DBC), said in a statement: "On Saturday, April 4, 2026, the council was in receipt of numerous reports of extensive activity within the land.

"At approximately 11.30am I drove past the site and could see diggers in operation, a large expanse of hardcore had been laid and fencing was being erected.

"The reports also included the laying of services such as water pipes and septic tanks."

Ms Durrant confirmed that a planning application had been submitted the previous day, but described it as “not yet validated or determined".

She said: "As the works had the ‘potential to cause significant and irreversible harm to both the Green Belt and the National Landscape area’ a decision had been made to serve a Temporary Stop Notice to stop the works while the planning application was determined."

Despite this notice, photographic evidence presented to the court showed works carried out in breach of planning control.

"A vast expanse of hardcore had been laid," Ms Durrant added.

(Image: Submitted/Canva)

A group of men at the site reportedly refused to engage with officers or accept service of the Temporary Stop Notice.

Further enforcement action, including the April 5 injunction, was based on continued development.

A return hearing took place on April 15 at the Royal Courts of Justice where the court confirmed the injunction should stay in place. 

In court, the council applied to add 22 named individuals as defendants.

These included Geraldine McDonagh, Michael Ward, Martin McDonagh, Charlene McDonagh, Thomas McDonagh, Martin Ward, Cindy Ward, among others.

The defendants applied to have the injunction discharged or amended to allow temporary occupation of the site until their planning application was decided.

(Image: Submitted/Canva)

On May 7, a further hearing was conducted as the court listened to evidence from both sides.

The defendants argued they had begun occupation on April 3, before the injunction was issued.

However, Mr Jonathan Glasson KC ruled that there was no credible evidence to support claims of occupation prior to April 5.

He explained: "Those assertions are flatly contradicted by the photographic evidence.

"The intended defendants have not come to the court with clean hands."

The Intended Defendants also cited Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (privacy) and said welfare factors should lead to variation of the order, but the judge said those factors carried limited weight because the land “has never been their home or only became their home after service of the injunction.”

The judge believed living conditions on site were poor too, and that making the site habitable would itself require further works amounting to further planning breaches.

He added: "They cocked a snook at the court.

"They did so in order to steal a march on the council and to achieve the very state of affairs which the order was designed to prevent.

"No explanation or apology for the breaches of the court order was offered to the judge or to this court."

(Image: Submitted.)

Yesterday, the High Court refused the Intended Defendants’ bid to discharge or vary the injunction and instead continued it pending a final hearing. The judge also added the Intended Defendants as parties to the case and ordered a speedy trial.

Judge Mr Jonathan Glasson KC said: "I am satisfied that development has been carried out without obtaining planning permission on green belt land

"The fact that an application for planning permission was uploaded on an internet portal on Good Friday and the works began immediately thereafter indicates a deliberate attempt to circumvent and defy planning laws.”