A COUNCIL has voted to take High Court action against a traveller to remove him from land in North Yorkshire.

Hambleton District Council has taken the unusual step of applying for a High Court Injunction to remove the man from an unauthorised residential plot of land in Great Broughton near Stokesley.

On Tuesday, June 6, members of the council cabinet agreed to the action and to prevent re-occupation on other land at the wider Ings Lane site.

They also agreed to take direct action to restore the land in accordance with the terms of the 2013 Enforcement Notice appeal decision.

Councillors also agreed to allocate £30,000 to cover potential costs.

Members of the cabinet were told the council has been embroiled in a battle with the resident for 11 years and taken previous enforcement action and prosecutions, but the man still remains living in his caravan on the land.

Speaking after the meeting, councillor leader, Cllr Mark Robson said: “This has gone on for far too long – it is time we reached a resolution and saw this man moved off this land.

“He is living there illegally – he has lost previous appeals and still hasn’t moved on. The council has now exhausted all conventional enforcement options and is left with no alternative but to seek a court injunction to have him removed from the site and prevent re-occupation.

"If the injunction is approved and he fails to move – or returns – he could go to prison.

“This may seem tough action but the council has planning rules for a reason and the public rightly expect us to enforce those rules.

"The entrance to this site is dangerous – it is an accident waiting to happen. We cannot take that risk - this unauthorised occupation must come to an end.”

Councillors were told that there have been unauthorised developments on several of the Ings Lane plots which have all been dealt with – only that at number 11 is still ongoing.

A planning inspector who dismissed appeals against previous enforcement notices said the plot would cause an ‘unacceptable loss of highway safety’ and that site access was ‘so hazardous’ it put highway users at ‘persistent and serious risk of accident.’

The resident of the site could not be contacted for a comment.