Travellers are fighting to expand the site at Smithy Fen

Cottenham Residents' Association's Rick Bristow told the inquiry villagers' rights had been "trashed".

But a spokesman for the travellers said their presence did not affect the villagers' human rights, but evicting them would affect theirs.

The travellers are appealing after South Cambs Council refused permission for new plots on traveller-owned land.

"We have given evidence openly and honestly," said Mr Bristow.

'Justice and fairness'

"We have tried to emphasise the damage and disruption to the lives of residents of the village caused by some members of the travelling community."

He asked the planning inspector to "recognise and protect in full" villagers human rights but insisted the people of Cottenham were not "traveller-bashers".

Mr Bristow repeated his call for the maximum of 38 plots at the site, but said residents did not want to see travellers being forcibly evicted from their homes.

Who is to say 38 is the magic number? Alan Masters, representing the travellers

He demanded the �300,000 set aside for evictions be used to resettle the travellers elsewhere in Cambridgeshire. In exchange, he said the district council should take over ownership of the Smithy Fen land.

Alan Masters, representing the travellers, told the inquiry his clients needed to live at Smithy Fen to provide a stable base for themselves and their children.

They were a large group, he said, who had trouble finding places to stay and that was why they had bought the land.

He said: "Who is to say 38 is the magic number? Is a village the size of Cottenham with 5,000 residents going to be limited to 38 gypsies? Is this some form of apartheid."

A travellers' site has existed at Smithy Fen for 40 years, housing between 30 and 40 families.

Judicial review

Over the past year scores more have arrived and set up camp illegally and residents claim the problem of anti-social behaviour has grown.

In a separate action earlier this month the travellers won the right to take High Court action over the council's plans to evict them.

The full judicial review is not expected to be heard until January. Until then, the council may not take action against anyone living on the site.

The inquiry's decision is expected to be published in the spring.