Traveller family to be evicted from site earmarked for Scottish Galleries facility

A judge has given permission for an Irish traveller family to be evicted from a site landmarked to be the new home for Scotland’s national art collections.

Lady Tait issued a decision on Thursday at the Court of Session in Edinburgh relating to a case which was brought before her by the Scottish Ministers.

Lawyers for the government sought an order from the nation’s highest civil court ordering the eviction of a traveller who lives on the site at Waterfront Avenue in Granton, Edinburgh, with his partner and 11 children.

Lady Tait heard how the family – and a number of “itinerant workers” who live nearby – have “no right or entitlement to occupy the site”. The court heard how the family live at the site in three caravans.

Lawyers for the ministers wanted an order which would compel the “occupants to remove themselves, their caravans and all other goods from the site” and to prevent the family from re-entering the site.

However, lawyers for the family argued that removing the family from the site without providing a “culturally appropriate” alternative would breach their rights under articles eight and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the rights to a family life and the right to not be unlawfully discriminated against.

They also argued that it would breach the children of the family’s rights under a piece of legislation called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024.

Richard Pugh KC, for the family, told Lady Tait that any decision made by the court would not only have to consider the rights of the ministers to take possession of the land, but would also have to take into consideration the family’s right under human rights laws.

However, in a judgment issued on Thursday, Lady Tait ruled in favour of the Scottish Ministers. She acknowledged that the human rights of the travellers were engaged by the proposed eviction, but concluded that interference in their rights was justified and proportionate.

Lady Tait wrote: “I conclude that there is no less intrusive measure than eviction and that the importance and urgency of the petitioners’ objectives outweigh the severity.

”In the circumstances of the present proceedings in which an order is sought for recovery of possession of the site, it cannot be said that any interference with the children’s rights under Article 16 would be arbitrary or unlawful.

“Having then regard to the children’s rights under the UNCRC, I conclude that there is no less intrusive measure than eviction and that the importance and urgency of the petitioners’ objectives outweigh the severity of the effect of the eviction.”

The Art Works is a major £100m venue which is planned for North Edinburgh and is part of a wider regeneration of the area.

It will allow visitors to see approximately 130,000 works of art, which are usually kept in storage by the National Galleries of Scotland.

The scheme has also been awarded £8.5m of National Lottery funding.

However, in recent months, locals have complained about the traveller site at the proposed development.

The judgment published by the court on Thursday tells of how the father of the family said he and his loved ones had “struggled” throughout their entire lives to find safe sites to stay on and had encountered racism.

The respondent said that there was no waste collection at the Granton site and this left them with no other choice but to burn household waste. He said they didn’t burn any tyres, vehicles or any “PVC to get copper cabling”.

The court heard that the family did have “occasional campfires”, which are “central to traveller culture”.

The court also heard there are no traveller sites with spaces in the Edinburgh area.

Summarising the respondent’s evidence, Lady Tait wrote: “The police have not spoken to the family about the children having weapons. If the children do wrong, the respondent deals with it.”

However, Lady Tait said the Scottish Government’s need to recover the land was legitimate.

She concluded that Edinburgh City Council had an obligation to provide support to the family following eviction.

Lady Tait wrote that it wasn’t in the best interests of the children to remain at the site.

She added: “The children do not have access to basic sanitation. Their current living arrangements give rise to concerns for their safety as they live on an insecure site, occupied by an itinerant community, and they require to go outside for the toilet at night.”

She concluded the family should leave the site with “immediate effect”.