Travellers Ordered to Vacate Site Opposite UK Nuclear Weapons Facility

A group of travellers must leave an illegal site opposite one of Britain's largest nuclear weapons factories within two weeks, a High Court judge has ruled. The travellers had constructed 13 static homes on the land adjacent to the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE)'s Aldermaston site in Berkshire in 2025.

Anxious local residents had expressed fears for their safety and urged their local council to intervene. A petition signed by hundreds of people was initiated after construction began near the sprawling campus, a key location for the production of British nuclear warheads. West Berkshire District Council had initially issued a temporary 'stop notice' to the developers in November 2025, but the unauthorized construction continued.

Legal Proceedings and Ruling

Following a legal challenge, a judge has now ordered that all residents, with the exception of two specific caravans, must vacate the land by October 5. Furthermore, they are prohibited from bringing any additional structures or caravans, including portable toilets, onto the site. The travellers have also been forbidden from conducting any further infrastructure work, such as sewerage, fencing, roadworks, or electricity installation.

Failure to comply with the court order could result in a Contempt of Court charge, leading to a fine or imprisonment. Judge Sylvia de Bertodano stated that the families had disregarded the initial injunction, deeming their actions as riding "roughshod" over the court's orders. She emphasized that allowing them to remain would render future court orders ineffective.

IMAGE2:

The court heard that the development could potentially strain critical emergency arrangements designed to protect the local population in the event of a nuclear accident.

Site Development and Injunction Breaches

West Berkshire Council had issued a temporary stop notice in November 2025. After the work persisted, the council obtained an injunction on December 18, which was served the following day. This injunction restricted residential occupation and further construction, with a minor exception for a single family's caravan.

Despite the order, work continued, and the site expanded to accommodate families on at least 22 pitches. The travellers attempted to amend the injunction, claiming families had resided there before its granting and asserting the original order was based on incorrect facts and failed to consider their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They wished to remain until their planning application was finalized.

IMAGE3:

However, the judge rejected the travellers' account of their occupation, favoring the council's evidence, which included photographs of extensive construction. The judge described the residents' claims of occupation as "entirely unconvincing" and unsupported by credible documentary or photographic evidence. She found that, apart from one family present since December 19, 2025, all other individuals who moved onto the land had breached the injunction.

Security Concerns and Judicial Considerations

The proximity of the illegal site to the nuclear weapons factory raised security concerns for AWE Aldermaston. A senior civil servant from the Defence Nuclear Organisation stated that increased population density on the site would escalate pressure on the critical facility. An AWE witness noted that caravans offer less protection than brick buildings and that the development placed vulnerable individuals near the nuclear facility without adequate shelter.

Carolyn Richardson, manager of the joint emergency-planning unit for three councils, indicated that while the Office for Nuclear Regulation had not deemed the plan inadequate, she harbored serious concerns about population increases. She warned that an emergency could necessitate diverting resources from long-term residents to address the caravan site.

IMAGE4:

While a representative for the residents argued the risks were minimal, the judge stated this did not significantly alleviate her concerns, though she clarified that nuclear emergency issues were not the sole determinant of her ruling. She acknowledged the travellers had made the land their home and considered their rights to private and family life, as well as the best interests of the children present. Nevertheless, she concluded it was unacceptable to use the presence of children on a site in defiance of an injunction as a means to circumvent its purpose. The judge noted that there was insufficient evidence to suggest the families could not return to previous accommodation during the planning process, and thus, the balance favored upholding the injunction.