Travellers are ordered to leave illegal site opposite Britain's nuclear weapons factory where they built 13 static homes

A group of travellers have been ordered to leave an illegal site opposite one of Britain's largest nuclear weapons factories, a High Court judge has ruled. The group had built 13 static homes on the land opposite the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE)'s Aldermaston site in Berkshire in 2025. Last year, 'anxious' locals said they were left 'fearing for their safety' and had called on their local council to step in and stop the group from building. Hundreds signed a petition after construction began next to the sprawling campus, which is the largest of three locations where Britain makes nuclear warheads. West Berkshire Council had issued a temporary 'stop notice' to developers when an application was submitted for the works in November 2025.However, this was later ignored, and unauthorised construction continued on the site, a spokesman confirmed last December. Now, a judge has found that families 'rode roughshod over' a court order after they deliberately moved onto the land.The judge added that allowing the families to remain on the land after breaching the injunction would render future orders 'entirely toothless'. Despite the order, one family remains exempt from the ruling as they lived on the site before the order was served. Other residents were given 28 days to leave the land, Judge Sylvia de Bertodano ruled. October 5 was given as a likely departure date. A final deadline, however, remains subject to further submissions. A group of travellers have been ordered by the High Court to leave an illegal site opposite Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE)'s Aldermaston site in Berkshire The group had built 13 static homes on the land opposite the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE)'s Aldermaston site in Berkshire in 2025 West Berkshire Council had issued a temporary 'stop notice' to developers when an application was submitted for the works in November 2025, but works continued The court heard that the development could put pressure on critical emergency arrangements intended to protect locals in the event of a nuclear accident.The judge extended her sympathies to the difficulties faced by the defendants and other members of the travelling community in finding sites for 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,' she added.It comes after a temporary stop notice was issued by West Berkshire District Council in November 2025. After the work continued, the council obtained an injunction on December 18, which was served the following day. The injunction restricted residential occupation on the site as well as further works, with an exception for a caravan occupied by a single family. The order was continued into January, but the judgment indicates work carried on and the site grew to accommodate families on at least 22 separate pitches.The travellers sought to amend the injunction, arguing that families had been living there before it was granted. They also said the original order had been made on incorrect facts and without proper consideration of their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The group wished to remain until their planning application was finally determined.However, the judge rejected their testimony of when they had moved, preferring the council's evidence.The council had photographs showing extensive construction activity but little evidence that the group were living there. The judge described the residents' evidence about their occupation as 'entirely unconvincing'. She found that 'it is in each case unsupported by any convincing documentary or photographic evidence'. A High Court judge has now found that families 'rode roughshod over' a court order after they deliberately moved onto the land She also said that, aside from one family who had been living on the site from December 19, 2025, all others who had moved onto the land were in breach of the injunction. The illegal site caused issues for AWE Aldermaston due to the construction's proximity to the nuclear weapons factory, the court heard.Tom Bennington, a senior civil servant in the Defence Nuclear Organisation, gave evidence that the site was already under significant pressure.He added that as the population density increases, so does the pressure on the site, placing the critical facility's operation at risk. An AWE witness, identified in the judgment only as AE, said caravans provided less protection than brick buildings.They also added that the development placed vulnerable people close to the nuclear facility without adequate shelter.Carolyn Richardson, who manages the joint emergency-planning unit for three councils, told the court that the Office for Nuclear Regulation had not declared the plan inadequate. However, she had expressed serious concerns about population increases, warning that an emergency could require resources to be diverted towards the caravan site and away from long-term residents.Meanwhile, Dr Pearce, on behalf of the residents, argued the actual risk was minimal as the number of additional homes was relatively small.He said the issues with the emergency plan could be addressed by improving the plan and adding resources. But the judge said his evidence did not significantly reduce her concerns; however, she stressed the nuclear-emergency issues were not decisive in her ruling. In reference to the off-site emergency plan, she said it was 'clear' the travellers occupation would have 'knock-on concerns' for the safety of other locals.'I make it clear that this factor is not determinative of my decision, but it is right that I should refer to it as a particular concern,' she added.The judge acknowledged that families had made the land their home and considered their rights to respect for private and family life, alongside the best interests of children living there.But she added that it could not be 'right' to allow bringing 'children onto a site in disobedience to an injunction as a trump card to defeat its purpose'.The court had little or no evidence about where the families had previously lived. The judge said that, without evidence to the contrary, she was entitled to assume they could return to their previous accommodation while the planning process took its course.She added: 'It is absolutely clear that all these children are part of loving families who are caring for them and will continue to do so when they move off the land.'In those circumstances, the best interests of the children have been properly considered by the court, and the balance remains in favour of the continuation of the injunction.'Sixteen planning applications submitted in May were incorrectly completed and invalid, the judgment detailed.There was also no valid application before the council when the case was heard, it said. The judge did not determine whether planning permission should be granted, but she said any application would face serious obstacles because of the location.The judgment, handed down on September 7, leaves the precise leaving date to be settled after further written submissions. The judge added that she would rule on that issue by September 14.She added: 'Defendants should be aware that the likely date by which they must cease occupation is 5 October 2026.'