Borough council secures injunction over site near Aldermaston nuclear facility

HHJ Sylvia de Bertodano, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, heard the case brought against 71 named people and persons unknown.

She said the list of defendants had been added to and subtracted from over time, and comprised persons who had some interest in the site.

The court was told that in August 2025 suspicious activity was reported, which suggested development was intended.

In November 2025 West Berkshire received a planning application for 13 pitches but later that month senior planning enforcement officer Fenella Woods visited and served a temporary stop notice.

Work did not stop, and in December 2025 Cotter J granted West Berkshire an interim injunction prohibiting defendants from living on the site, and from bringing items onto it and building structures. Works continued and a second injunction was served the following month after which some defendants applied to the High Court for a variation.

HHJ de Bertodano said in the meantime there were 16 applications for planning permission, all of which were incorrectly completed and invalid. Work had continued throughout the period since the service of the orders last winter and there were now a large number of families Lon the site occupying at least 22 pitches.

The deputy judge said there was no evidence that any of the families were present in the area before their occupation of the land as they had claimed.

“They were not people towards whom [West Berkshire] had any obligations in advance of their travelling to this local authority area and taking up residence on the land,” she said.

"I also note that [West Berkshire] has demonstrated a five-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites.”

She said evidence from the defendants purporting to show longer occupation was “entirely unconvincing. It is in each case unsupported by any convincing documentary or photographic evidence.”

The deputy judge added: “I also take into account the fact that the defendants have produced no evidence of occupation beyond their own accounts…it is incredible that if these families had all moved in over the preceding weeks they are not able to produce one photograph, personal message, or social media post to show that this momentous event in their lives had taken place.”

Defendants argued they were seeking planning permission, which was likely to be granted.

But West Berkshire said any application was likely to fail due to loss of green infrastructure, ecological harm, landscape harm, drainage, intentional unauthorised development, and overall conflict with the development plan.

A complicating factor is that the site is very close to the entrance of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and the court heard from an anonymised witness from the plant’s management that it could not operate if its Off Site Emergency Plan (OSEP) is inadequate. This concerns moving people to safety in the event of a nuclear accident.

He said people in caravans were classed as being more vulnerable under the Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Public Information Regulations 2019 as these provide less protection than brick structures.

Development of the site would place people in very close proximity to the nuclear facility with no adequate shelter.

Ms de Bertodano concluded West Berkshire had fulfilled its obligation to undertake welfare assessments since the families moved onto the land.

She dismissed the defendants’ argument that being required to leave would disrupt their children’s education.

“It is always disruptive to move children from the home at which they have settled,” she said.

“However, it cannot be right that those who deliberately breach court orders can use the fact that they have brought children onto a site in disobedience to an injunction as a trump card to defeat its purpose.”

The deputy judge went on to explain:”I have considerable sympathy with the difficulties experienced by these defendants and other members of the travelling community in finding sites on which they can set up permanent homes.

“However, it cannot be right that if they ride roughshod over the orders of this court, they will succeed in defeating their purpose. If the defendants, having breached the injunction, are now permitted to remain, the effect would be to render injunctions in such cases entirely toothless.”

She gave the defendants 28 days to leave, with the exception of one family that had established earlier occupation.

Mark Smulian