Lake protesters lose court battle

4:31pm Wednesday 18th April 2007

Comments (2)   Have your say »

Protesters have lost their latest fight against a ban on demonstrations over dumping of power station ash at Thrupp Lake.

A court order banning on-site protests against the plans to fill Thrupp Lake with spent fuel ash from Didcot Power Station will stay in place following a hearing at the High Court yesterday.

RWE npower, which owns the lake, secured an emergency injunction in February banning protesters from picketing, setting up camp or taking photographs of workers at the site after complaining of squatters in a house by the lake.

This week, they took the case to the High Court in London to ask Mr Justice Teare to extend and vary the court order.

Although the judge said he would not give a formal judgment until a later date, he indicated that he would grant a continuation of some form of banning order.

His decision to delay the formal ruling, to allow protesters' and npower's legal teams to agree the exact wording of the order, means the terms of the original injunction will remain in place, at least for the time-being.

Speaking after the hearing, Didcot A Power Station manager, John Rainford said: "Whilst it is a shame to have to go down this route, we are pleased with the outcome.

"This is the second High Court judge to agree an injunction is needed to protect our people from harassment, the site from trespass and our lawful work from disruption.

"We will now discuss one or two details with the protesters' legal team and look forward to a formal ruling, hopefully in the next week or so."

Tim Lawson-Cruttenden, representing the electricity giants, had earlier argued that an order was necessary to protect staff and contractors from being "harassed" and obstructed in their work.

He asked for amendments to be made to the original injunction to limit the geographical scope of the order and to allow photography and filming around the lake, as long as it did not identify workers.

However, his proposed order would still ban the protesters from entering onto the land.

Stephanie Harrison, appearing for the protesters, argued the site had long been used by the local community as recreational land and that no one should be banned from going there.

She also argued that the wording of the proposed order could have the effect of making it applicable to almost anyone in the community, effectively banning them from the site.