| Author |
Messages |
|
Moderator
Posts:680
 |
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 29 May 2010 18:29 |
|
Tories to crack down on Traveller sites
16 February 2010 | By
Emily Twinch
Conservative Party proposals to stop
Gypsies and Travellers applying for planning permission retrospectively
have sparked anger. The party’s green paper on planning, not yet published but
seen by Inside Housing, proposes a new criminal offence of intentional
trespass. The paper also says councils should be compensated for
providing new Traveller sites. The Human Rights Act would also be
replaced by a ‘British Bill of Rights’, which would stop Travellers
using the Act to prevent evictions. Bob Neill, shadow local
government and planning minister, has written a blog entry on the
official Conservative Party website that says: ‘For too long a small
minority of Travellers and squatters have been given the green light to
exploit the rules and occupy illegal or unauthorised sites, which are
often on green belt land. ‘The British public wants to see fair
play for all, but Labour’s changes to the planning system have
undermined community cohesion by creating a legitimate sense of
injustice for those affected by illegal development.’ However,
organisations working with Gypsies and Travellers said these plans will
increase the problem of illegal sites. Emma Nuttall, advice and policy
manager at charity Friends, Families and Travellers, said: ‘Some
Travellers don’t know you need planning permission to live in a caravan
on your own land. If they can’t do this they will camp on fields and
parks and potentially cause more problems to the community.’ John
Denham, communities secretary, said: ‘There are already tough measures
in place for local authorities to use where development takes place
without planning permission. Most complaints come from areas where
councils have failed to use them.’ |
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 29 May 2010 18:31 |
|
Government to slash HCA funding by £230m
 The Homes and Communities Agency
has confirmed its funding for existing housing projects is due to be
slashed by £230 as part of the sweeping £6.25bn cuts announced
yesterday, and a further £610m funding is in doubt.
Today, the HCA announced £230m of immediate cuts to 2010-2011
programmes, including a £50m cut to Kickstart Round 2 funding, £100m off
the £2.4bn National Affordable Housing budget, £30m off the Gypsy and
Traveller site grant and £50m off the £311m Housing Market Renewal
pathfinders schemes.
In addition, the HCA has been forced to place on hold projects for
which funds are not yet committed, affecting the National Affordable
Housing programme, Kickstart Round 2 and any local authority new-build
programmes which have not reached financial close. This amounts to
£610m.
The freeze on new commitments will continue until at least the
emergency Budget on 22 June.
The project savings are revealed after it was announced yesterday
that parent body, the Department for Communities and Local Government,
would be cut by £780m in the current financial year.
As part of the cuts, the HCA will be forced to find 10% savings in
its running costs, 3% on additional operating costs, and a 2% cash
standstill, meaning budgets will not account for inflation.
A spokesperson said: “We have had to place a number of commitments on
hold, and will look to manage down the cuts through renegotiating
contracts.”
Chief executive Sir Bob Kerslake said: “This represents the HCA’s
contribution to Government saving on both programmes and efficiencies,
and we will aim to implement these in a way that minimises impact.”
Yesterday, the Treasury has indicated that it will reinvest £170m of
the its savings back into the Agency to fund social rented housing.
To see which Kickstart projects are to be put on hold, click here: Kickstart
Round 2
To see which Local authority new build projects are to be put on
hold, click here: Local
authority new build
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 29 May 2010 18:33 |
|
The above post shows that it not just Travellers site cuts there are cuts across all housing sections and will affect many people. As the above statement says a £30 Million cut to Gypsy sites and not that it was stopping them? but I will try and find out more as the E Petition is a Independant post.
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 29 May 2010 18:53 |
|
Conservatives to unveil plans to stop illegal gypsy encampments
Gipsies who set up camp on private land without permission would face
jail if
they refused to move on, under plans to be unveiled by the
Conservatives
today.
By Rosa Prince,
Political Correspondent
Published: 6:00AM GMT 12 Feb 2010
Launching a package of new “fair play” measures designed to stop
travellers
abusing the planning system, the party will promise to strengthen the
rights
of land owners.
There has been growing concern that gipsies have been taking advantage
of
planning and human rights laws to avoid eviction from land which they
do not
have permission to camp on.
The Tories say that if elected they will take action against the “small
minority” of travellers abusing the system.
The package includes a proposal to create a new criminal offence of
“intentional trespass,” similar to laws in place in the Republic of
Ireland,
which would give the police the power to arrest trespassers who
refused to
move on after being asked to do so by a uniformed officer.
At present, unless an act criminal damage takes place, trespass is
treated as
a civil offence, meaning landowners are forced to go to court to
remove
unwelcome gipsy encampments.
The new law would also be open to home owners seeking to evict
squatters.
In addition, the Conservatives will pledge to close a loophole which
allows
planning permission to be applied for retrospectively.
Under current rules, gipsies cannot be evicted from land if planning
permission has been requested, meaning travellers can move in and
begin to
lay down concrete on green spaces on weekends and bank holidays, and
then
avoid expulsion by submitting a planning application before council
officials can be sent to the site to shut it down.
The party will also promise to scrap what shadow ministers describe as
“unfair
Whitehall planning rules” introduced by John Prescott, the former
deputy
prime minister, which they say are forcing councils to build legal
traveller
camps on the Green Belt and compulsory purchase land to find sites.
Bob Neill, the shadow local government and planning minister, said: "The
British public want to see fair play for all, rather than special
treatment
being given to some.
“Labour's changes have undermined community cohesion by creating a
legitimate
sense of injustice in the planning system.
“Law-abiding citizens understandably have to jump through many hoops to
build
in rural areas.
“Yet it's wrong that certain groups have been given a green light to
bypass
those rules and concrete over the Green Belt when no one's looking."
In addition, the party will promise to fund more authorised sites from
central
government budgets, rather than laying the burden on local taxpayers.
This
is likely to lead to confusion, however, as the party has repeatedly
promised to slash Whitehall budgets in order to tackle the deficit.
In addition, the Conservatives will say that they will stop gipsies
using
human rights laws by scrapping the Human Rights Act and replacing it
with a
“British Bill of Rights”.
However, Dominic Grieve, the shadow justice spokesman, recently admitted
that
the Conservatives may not be in a position to repeal the Act in their
first
term in office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 29 May 2010 19:10 |
|
Gypsies and Travellers: camp sites and trespass
Standard Note:
SN/SC/1127
Last updated:
21 May 2010
Author:
Christopher Barclay
Section
Science and Environment Section
•
This note describes some law relating to Gypsies (Roma) and Travellers. It mainly covers issues relating to camp sites and trespass, including the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. The issues arising when Travellers buy land and undertake unauthorised development upon it are covered in another note – Gypsies and Travellers: unauthorised development.
•
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 removed the obligation upon local authorities to supply caravan sites and introduced strict provisions to allow local authorities or the police to move on trespassers.
•
Many councils have been reluctant to use the 1994 Act provisions, partly because Government guidance required full attention to be paid to the welfare needs of all the trespassers.
•
It is probably not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights to evict trespassers who have nowhere to go.
•
The Labour Government pressured councils to make adequate provision for Gypsies, partly through the Housing Act 2004 and partly through Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks.
•
The Conservative Party announced its intention to abolish regional planning, to create a new offence of “intentional trespass”, and to give tougher “stop notice” enforcement powers to councils with authorised sites.
•
The Conservatives wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act so that the European Convention would no longer apply in British courts. National human rights legislation would replace it. The Coalition Government has announced that the Human Rights Act will be considered by a Commission.
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required.
This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.
Contents
1 Introduction 2
2 The present legal position 2
2.1 The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 2
2.2 The European Convention on Human Rights Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3 Difficulties faced by Gypsies 3
3 The Anti-Social Behaviour Act and the 2004 Government Guidance 4
3.1 The Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 4
3.2 The guidance on managing unauthorised camping, 2004 4
4 Does current law allow greater action against illegal encampments? 5
5 The Housing Act 2004 and the Planning Circular 2006 6
6 Problems remained after the 2006 Circular 7
7 Conservative Party proposals, February 2010 8
1
Introduction
There are many aspects of the Travelling Community about which Parliament might be concerned, including problems that Travellers face in gaining access to education and social services. Unfortunately, most concern derives from illegal camping. Clearly that does not do justice to the Travelling Community. However, it does reflect serious problems in particular areas.
2
The present legal position
2.1
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
The 1994 Act:
•
Removed local authorities’ obligation to provide caravan sites
•
Allowed Gypsies to be moved on, even when sites were not available
•
Gave local authorities and the police the power to remove trespassers
•
Created an offence for failure to comply with the direction or re-entry
•
Introduced a new offence of aggravated trespass for intimidation or obstruction
However, local authorities and police have often been reluctant to use these powers:
•
Eviction requires many police and can result in violence, especially if whole families resist; 2
•
Government guidance required the welfare position of all the trespassers to be considered, presenting problems when there is a shifting population;
•
Eviction might infringe the European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention on Human Rights
Article 8
1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Under the Human Rights Act 1998 the European Convention can be used in British courts. Eviction of people with nowhere else to go infringes the Convention unless great care is taken over those who are evicted.
2.2
Difficulties faced by Gypsies
Some newspaper articles imply that evictions cannot take place at all, but that is not correct. In an adjournment debate on 19 May 2004, John Battle described how difficult the position of Travellers often is:
We cannot toughen up the law to move Travellers on if there is nowhere for them to go. Recently, in the neighbourhood of Wortley in my constituency, 12 caravans were parked on the Oldfield Road football pitches, which were moved off. They moved to Farnley park over the Easter weekend, making local football and cricket impossible. They were evicted and moved down to Hunslet, where they were evicted again and moved to another public park, Western Flats, in Wortley. They have been driven off the Western Flats and are now at Wortley recreational ground. They have received a notice to move on Friday.
Those 12 caravans belong to one family, who have lived in Leeds for generations. The family group includes an elderly man with Alzheimer's, a young child with pneumonia, a two-month-old baby who has never received appropriate medical attention because of the constant movement of the family, and a mother who recently collapsed and was in hospital for two days. Some of the children go to local schools in my constituency and are taken there every day by the Travellers education support unit. Since January, the caravans have been moved 50 times, so the children do not know where they are going home to after school. That is quite apart from the fact that the caravans are on sites without water or toilets, and are thus insanitary and quite inappropriate for families.
The endless round of court notices and eviction enforcements mean that families are pushed from pillar to post. Everybody, from settled neighbours to Travellers and their families becomes totally exasperated, and council officials and the local police are caught in the middle of many angry conflicts. The cause of the problem is the shortage
3
of sites or pitches on which the caravans can stop. In practice, 30 per cent of Travellers in Britain are hounded from one unauthorised place to another, with all the associated problems of unofficial camping, clean-up costs and no chance of proper education for the children. Furthermore, poor living conditions have a detrimental impact on the health of Traveller families, who have the lowest life expectancy and the highest child mortality rates of any group in Britain.1
3
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act and the 2004 Government Guidance
3.1
The Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003
Parts of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 amended the 1994 Act to give the police powers to move on Gypsies or Travellers if there was a pitch on a relevant camp site (defined as one in the area of that local authority). In a sense the police already had similar powers. However, the new wording made it easier for them to satisfy the courts that the Gypsies would not lose out on their social security and education entitlements.
3.2
The guidance on managing unauthorised camping, 2004
On 1 March 2004, the Government issued Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping, to coincide with bringing s.60 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act into force.2 It Guidance recommended that local authorities develop local policies for dealing with unauthorised camping:
The objectives of the policy are:
•
To balance the rights and needs of resident communities with those of Gypsies and Travellers.
•
To manage unauthorised encampments in an efficient and effective way taking account of the potential level of nuisance for local residents and the rights and responsibilities of Gypsies and Travellers.
•
To work with partners in other authorities, the voluntary sector and the Police to address issues of social exclusion amongst Gypsy and Traveller communities.
The Guidance states that all local authorities should review the provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. Gypsies and Travellers should be involved in site planning and design. The provision of sites should be part of the policy of coping with unauthorised camping.
The following passage indicates the response considered appropriate by the Government in relation to unauthorised camping, although the full Guidance provides far more detail;
5.5 Wherever possible, local authorities and/or police should seek to prevent Gypsies and Travellers from establishing an encampment in an unacceptable location. Where this proves impossible, they should attempt to encourage the unauthorised campers to move to an authorised site where available. Identification of possible 'acceptable' sites could assist local authorities and the police in the management of unauthorised encampments in circumstances where there are no available pitches on authorised sites. If the unauthorised campers refuse to move from an unacceptable location, eviction processes (including appropriate welfare enquiries) should be commenced. 1 HC Deb 19 May 2004 cc1070-1
2 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/guidancemanaging
4
5.6 To be effective, such an approach requires a very swift response from the local authority and/or police. Ideally, initial contact should be made within 24 hours of the encampment being established.
A passage follows about the need to make welfare enquiries. The Guidance then considers the process if the local authority decides to go ahead with eviction. It describes the powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and also the civil powers available to a landlord. He can obtain a possession order from civil courts requiring the removal of the trespassers from property, including land.
In other words, the Guidance seeks to strike a balance between the interests involved. It is not just a new procedure to allow easier eviction.
4
Does current law allow greater action against illegal encampments?
In 1997 Edward Garnier QC described how the law operated in his constituency when Gypsies set up an illegal encampment in a lane between fields. They caused considerable problems including drug dealing, noisy parties and dogs killing sheep, until the fields could no longer be used for grazing. He then argued that the 1994 Act could be used more often than it is.
Local authorities and the police are misleading themselves about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and recent case law. Section 61 gives the police a power to direct trespassers to vacate land. That power arises if the police believe
"that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and-
(a) that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening . . . behaviour towards the occupier . . . or
(b) that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land".
The police need only have reasonable grounds for believing the persons concerned to be trespassers… Section 77 enables a local authority to serve a direction requiring persons to vacate land, the failure to comply with which may also constitute a criminal offence. However, there are some important differences between section 77 and section 61. The power in section 77 arises if persons are residing in only one vehicle on land in an authority's area. The requirement of at least six vehicles does not apply. It applies if vehicles are located on highway land, unoccupied land or occupied land without the consent of the occupier.
Even for an occupation of fewer than six vehicles, there is no requirement that any of the criminal conduct referred to in section 61 should have occurred for section 77 to apply. An offence is committed under section 77 when a person knowing of the direction fails to leave the land as soon as practicable…
Local authorities and police forces have placed reliance on the case of R. v. Lincolnshire county council and Wealden district council ex parte Atkinson, which was decided by Mr. Justice Sedley in 1996. They have also been influenced by the Department of the Environment circular 18/94. That case and that circular gave some police forces the false impression that the same principles enunciated by the judge in the Wealden case apply to orders issued by the police or local authorities under the 1994 Act. Some police forces think that inquiries about education, housing, social service needs and similar matters have to be made before a local authority direction 5
can be made, and that, before the police can invoke their powers under the Act, account should be taken of the personal circumstances of the travellers.
The judge in the Wealden case did not analyse section 61 of the 1994 Act in detail. His decision was based as much on the statutory duties placed on local authorities under the Children Act 1989 and the Housing Act 1985, as well as the obligation on local education authorities to provide education for all children of school age in their area. The Wealden judgment does not support the view that a local authority or chief constable owes a duty of care to trespassers who are the subject of action under section 61. The function of the police is to enforce the law. It is not their primary duty to take a view on social welfare. There is no legal basis for asserting that the police are under a legal duty to take social factors into account before acting under section 61. The annexe to the Home Office circular 45/94 does not suggest that the Wealden case is relevant, or that any such duty applies... 3
A subsequent adjournment debate summed up the problem neatly, with the constituency member describing the extensive disruption caused by the unauthorised Gypsy encampments. The Minister pointed out that the site had been derelict for 25 years, described the legal options that had not been taken up and regretted that the council was making no provision for authorised sites in its district plan.4
In a Westminster Hall Debate on 15 January 2002, the Minister (Angela Eagle) stressed that Travellers should be accorded the same human rights as others. She argued that human rights considerations did not prevent the use of law to prevent illegal trespass leading to antisocial or criminal behaviour.5
5
The Housing Act 2004 and the Planning Circular 2006
The Housing Act 2004 s.225 requires that every local housing authority must, when undertaking a review of housing needs in their district under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68), carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their district. They must take this strategy into account when exercising their functions.
This fits in with the Government’s Planning Policy Statement 3; Housing. In particular:
Achieving a mix of housing
20. Key characteristics of a mixed community are a variety of housing, particularly in terms of tenure and price and a mix of different households such as families with children, single person households and older people.
21. Regional Spatial Strategies should set out the region’s approach to achieving a good mix of housing. Local Planning Authorities should plan for a mix of housing on the basis of the different types of households that are likely to require housing over the plan period. This will include having particular regard to:
– Current and future demographic trends and profiles.
– The accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families with children, older and disabled people. 3 HC Deb 16 July 1997 cc 367-373
4 HC Deb 10 May 1999 cc 84-96
5 HC Deb 15 January 2002 cc 67-69 WH 6
– The diverse range of requirements across the area, including the need to accommodate Gypsies and Travellers.6
In other words, planning authorities have to take into account the needs of Gypsies and Travellers when preparing plans. Planning Circular 01/06: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites explained how the planning system would ensure adequate site provision.
6
Problems remained after the 2006 Circular
An adjournment debate in January 2008 raised doubts about reliance on site provision as a solution for unauthorised camping:
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab): In my experience, the problem is that when we provide camps for travelling people or Gypsies, they then trash the camps. If there is a camp they have to live in it, but they want to travel throughout the country. The legislation means that if a camp is provided, they have to go to it. In my experience, they trash the camp so that they can go wherever they want in the community.7
Brian Donohoe gave examples of the problem:
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) has mentioned litter already, but another problem is the dumping of waste. For example, the local authority in my area gave Travellers Portaloos, but they were dumped in the skips that the authority had supplied for their rubbish and set alight. That is the sort of person that we are dealing with: I know that there are some good ones among them, but that story is typical of our experiences with them. Other problems include people on the beach park at Irvine being intimidated while out running or walking their dogs, and being told that they have no right to be there. Constituents of mine have been shot at by the travelling people, and the House would find it hard to believe the sort of debris—from building work being undertaken on their behalf—that has been left when Travellers leave a camp. Also, Travellers are guilty of selling items without having a trading licence, and we have sometimes found that their caravans have been illegally imported, with no duty paid.8
The Minister, Iain Wright reiterated Labour Government policy on site provision and included a passage on enforcement:
Our task group on site provision and enforcement—chaired by Sir Brian Briscoe, a former chief executive of the Local Government Association—has reviewed the operation of enforcement powers and taken evidence from local authorities and others involved in using the powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire asked whether we need more legislation. In its final report, “The Road Ahead” published in December, the group concluded that the scope and nature of existing enforcement powers are sufficient, but that considerable improvements could be made to the way in which they are used. We are committed to ensuring that those improvements are made.9
In July 2009, a DCLG progress report called for further action at a local level: 6 DCLG, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, 2006
7 HC Deb 30 January 2008 c439
8 HC Deb 30 January 2008 c440
9 HC Deb 30 January 2008 c445 7
8
The current position on site delivery remains unsatisfactory. It is clear that local authorities need to increase the pace at which suitable locations are identified that can be used as Gypsy and Traveller sites. Although the Government recognises the difficulties that can arise, it considers that with strong leadership at the local level, authorities can make rapid progress in addressing what is, in numerical and land-use terms, a relatively small level of need. The identification of suitable locations for authorised sites will help to reduce the number of unauthorised developments and encampments can create tensions between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled population.10
7
Conservative Party proposals, February 2010
Shadow Planning Minister Bob Neill proposed a considerable change in the treatment of unauthorised camping:
The proposals will include plans to:
•
Create a new criminal offence of intentional trespass. Trespassers who refuse to move after being asked to do so by a uniformed police officer will face arrest. This will allow both squatters and travellers occupying property without permission of the landowner to be removed quickly.
•
Curtail the ability to apply for retrospective planning permission. This will stop the practice of people laying down concrete on weekends or bank holidays and then putting in a planning application.
•
Scrap John Prescott’s unfair Whitehall planning rules, which are compelling councils to build traveller camps on the Green Belt and compulsory purchase people’s land to find sites.
•
Give tougher ‘stop notice’ enforcement powers to councils with authorised sites, and support central funding for councils to build authorised sites – rather than it failing to local taxpayers.
•
The Human Rights Act will be replaced with a British Bill of Rights to prevent 'human rights' lawyers sidestepping the planning system and demanding special treatment.
Neill added that whilst it's understandable that law-abiding citizens have to "jump through many hoops" to build in rural areas, "it’s wrong that certain groups have been given a green light to bypass those rules and concrete over the Green Belt when no-one’s looking".11 10 DCLG, Progress Report on Gypsy and Traveller Policy, July 2009
11 Conservative Party Press Release, Ending exploitation of the planning system, 12 February 2010
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 29 May 2010 19:13 |
|
| Some long posts but I thought it would give people who are not aware of the situation a better insight into the present situation. |
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 29 May 2010 19:16 |
|
UK NEWS
GYPSY CAMP CRACKDOWN
GYPSY: Government have pledged to end illegal 'Bank Holiday
land-grabs'
By Eugene Henderson
THE new Government last night warned
troublemaking travellers and gypsies: “The good times are over.”
After years of setting up illegal campsites by
exploiting legal loopholes they have been told they have reached the end
of the road – and that includes “Bank Holiday land-grabs”.
Tough new legislation will create a
criminal offence of intentional trespass. Travellers who refuse to move
could be arrested by police or forcibly evicted.
It is understood the new approach will not face opposition from the
Tories’ coalition partners, the Lib Dems.
Travellers will be labelled “trespassers” if they
set up home on other people’s land.
Those who actually buy plots of land, often in
Green Belt country, then begin building work before applying for
retrospective planning permission will find that loophole closed.
Typically,
travellers moved on to the sites late on Fridays when councils were
closed for a Bank Holiday weekend. They started building the next day,
then applied for retrospective planning permission. If they failed to
secure it, they often claimed their human rights as travellers were
being infringed. The
Tories say Labour’s
former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott’s softly softly approach
gave some gypsies the “green light” to trespass and illegally develop
sites. The changes will be
warmly greeted by people across Britain. The
latest battleground has been in Meriden, Warwickshire, where
quick-thinking locals formed a human blockade to prevent travellers
dumping 18,000 tons of hardcore after they moved in over the May Day
bank holiday. Last Friday, the protesters won a High Court injunction
to stop the travellers building on land they own in the village.
The
travellers, who began work without planning permission, will still have
their planning application considered by Solihull Council.
At
Cottenham in Cambridgeshire, the council has been seeking to remove an
illegal settlement of some 800 travellers who have occupied 20 acres
since 2003. Close to
Chobham in Surrey, 100
travellers are staying put pending a planning inquiry. It is the same
story at North Cerney in Gloucestershire, Bredon Hill in
Worcestershire, North Moreton in Oxfordshire, and at Crays Hill in
Essex, where a warehouse has been built, and near Pangbourne, Berkshire.
In
one village in the heart of Jane Austen country in Ropley, Hampshire,
locals raised more than £200,000 to buy back a 13-acre field that
travellers had bought for £150,000 from a retiring farmer last
October. To date the
travellers’ activities have been only a civil offence, forcing
landowners to have to purse them through the courts.
The
new legislation will change all that and aims to curtail the ability to
apply for retrospective planning permission. Under a secret Labour
directive regional planning officers had been told to favour allowing
travellers to establish rural sites in direct contradiction of
planning rules, even on Green Belt land where no one else can build.
The
Department of Communities’ guidelines said the human rights of
travellers took precedence over upset residents. Last night a Tory
Party insider said: “Travellers beware, all bets are off. We’re not
saying they can’t own land, they just can’t build on it as and when
they like.” Last night Eric
Pickles, Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government, said: “The last
government’s policies have undermined community relations and
increased tensions. “We
will work to tackle the legitimate sense of injustice.”
|
|
|
|
|
pompey
Posts:6
|
| 30 May 2010 08:20 |
|
| WELL SAID JACK !!! YOU SAID IT ALL !!! MERIDAN VILLAGERS GOOD LUCK!! |
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 31 May 2010 09:57 |
|
Welcome to the board pompey ! Sorry but the member Jack asked for his posts to be deleted so thats why his posts are gone ,i would like to assure members both Romany and non Romany that your posts regardless on what side of the fence you stand will be allowed and not censored by the board providing of course they are with in the boards guidlines and are polite and non abusive etc.
i am sorry jack felt he might get abuse for speaking his mind ,but please be assured that all sides ae respected and all opinions are allowed this board is not just for the Romany side of things it's for both
sides as we all have to live together and get along and so a balanced view and to air the differences is the only way forward and to make progress so that we can all get along !:))
The board takes no side, and nor do i ,I am merely here to mediate and not to take sides either way hope members can now feel reassured to post any civil comments on any topic with out fear of getting "got at"
I think you can see that the above posts showing ALL comments and not just one side clearly proves this . |
|
|
|
|
pompey
Posts:6
|
| 31 May 2010 13:36 |
|
| Well I didn't see anything wrong in Jacks post in fact a change to see well reasoned reply and some good points thanks for explaining mod. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
| Contact Forum Moderator. *Note* Please use the Contact Us box in the above drop down menue if you have not received a verification code, any technical problems or public outreach. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
| NTForums
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 05/29/2010 6:29 PM |
|
Tories to crack down on Traveller sites
16 February 2010 | By
Emily Twinch
Conservative Party proposals to stop
Gypsies and Travellers applying for planning permission retrospectively
have sparked anger. The party’s green paper on planning, not yet published but
seen by Inside Housing, proposes a new criminal offence of intentional
trespass. The paper also says councils should be compensated for
providing new Traveller sites. The Human Rights Act would also be
replaced by a ‘British Bill of Rights’, which would stop Travellers
using the Act to prevent evictions. Bob Neill, shadow local
government and planning minister, has written a blog entry on the
official Conservative Party website that says: ‘For too long a small
minority of Travellers and squatters have been given the green light to
exploit the rules and occupy illegal or unauthorised sites, which are
often on green belt land. ‘The British public wants to see fair
play for all, but Labour’s changes to the planning system have
undermined community cohesion by creating a legitimate sense of
injustice for those affected by illegal development.’ However,
organisations working with Gypsies and Travellers said these plans will
increase the problem of illegal sites. Emma Nuttall, advice and policy
manager at charity Friends, Families and Travellers, said: ‘Some
Travellers don’t know you need planning permission to live in a caravan
on your own land. If they can’t do this they will camp on fields and
parks and potentially cause more problems to the community.’ John
Denham, communities secretary, said: ‘There are already tough measures
in place for local authorities to use where development takes place
without planning permission. Most complaints come from areas where
councils have failed to use them.’ |
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 05/29/2010 6:31 PM |
|
Government to slash HCA funding by £230m
The Homes and Communities Agency
has confirmed its funding for existing housing projects is due to be
slashed by £230 as part of the sweeping £6.25bn cuts announced
yesterday, and a further £610m funding is in doubt.
Today, the HCA announced £230m of immediate cuts to 2010-2011
programmes, including a £50m cut to Kickstart Round 2 funding, £100m off
the £2.4bn National Affordable Housing budget, £30m off the Gypsy and
Traveller site grant and £50m off the £311m Housing Market Renewal
pathfinders schemes.
In addition, the HCA has been forced to place on hold projects for
which funds are not yet committed, affecting the National Affordable
Housing programme, Kickstart Round 2 and any local authority new-build
programmes which have not reached financial close. This amounts to
£610m.
The freeze on new commitments will continue until at least the
emergency Budget on 22 June.
The project savings are revealed after it was announced yesterday
that parent body, the Department for Communities and Local Government,
would be cut by £780m in the current financial year.
As part of the cuts, the HCA will be forced to find 10% savings in
its running costs, 3% on additional operating costs, and a 2% cash
standstill, meaning budgets will not account for inflation.
A spokesperson said: “We have had to place a number of commitments on
hold, and will look to manage down the cuts through renegotiating
contracts.”
Chief executive Sir Bob Kerslake said: “This represents the HCA’s
contribution to Government saving on both programmes and efficiencies,
and we will aim to implement these in a way that minimises impact.”
Yesterday, the Treasury has indicated that it will reinvest £170m of
the its savings back into the Agency to fund social rented housing.
To see which Kickstart projects are to be put on hold, click here: Kickstart
Round 2
To see which Local authority new build projects are to be put on
hold, click here: Local
authority new build
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 05/29/2010 6:33 PM |
|
The above post shows that it not just Travellers site cuts there are cuts across all housing sections and will affect many people. As the above statement says a £30 Million cut to Gypsy sites and not that it was stopping them? but I will try and find out more as the E Petition is a Independant post.
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 05/29/2010 6:53 PM |
|
Conservatives to unveil plans to stop illegal gypsy encampments
Gipsies who set up camp on private land without permission would face
jail if
they refused to move on, under plans to be unveiled by the
Conservatives
today.
By Rosa Prince,
Political Correspondent
Published: 6:00AM GMT 12 Feb 2010
Launching a package of new “fair play” measures designed to stop
travellers
abusing the planning system, the party will promise to strengthen the
rights
of land owners.
There has been growing concern that gipsies have been taking advantage
of
planning and human rights laws to avoid eviction from land which they
do not
have permission to camp on.
The Tories say that if elected they will take action against the “small
minority” of travellers abusing the system.
The package includes a proposal to create a new criminal offence of
“intentional trespass,” similar to laws in place in the Republic of
Ireland,
which would give the police the power to arrest trespassers who
refused to
move on after being asked to do so by a uniformed officer.
At present, unless an act criminal damage takes place, trespass is
treated as
a civil offence, meaning landowners are forced to go to court to
remove
unwelcome gipsy encampments.
The new law would also be open to home owners seeking to evict
squatters.
In addition, the Conservatives will pledge to close a loophole which
allows
planning permission to be applied for retrospectively.
Under current rules, gipsies cannot be evicted from land if planning
permission has been requested, meaning travellers can move in and
begin to
lay down concrete on green spaces on weekends and bank holidays, and
then
avoid expulsion by submitting a planning application before council
officials can be sent to the site to shut it down.
The party will also promise to scrap what shadow ministers describe as
“unfair
Whitehall planning rules” introduced by John Prescott, the former
deputy
prime minister, which they say are forcing councils to build legal
traveller
camps on the Green Belt and compulsory purchase land to find sites.
Bob Neill, the shadow local government and planning minister, said: "The
British public want to see fair play for all, rather than special
treatment
being given to some.
“Labour's changes have undermined community cohesion by creating a
legitimate
sense of injustice in the planning system.
“Law-abiding citizens understandably have to jump through many hoops to
build
in rural areas.
“Yet it's wrong that certain groups have been given a green light to
bypass
those rules and concrete over the Green Belt when no one's looking."
In addition, the party will promise to fund more authorised sites from
central
government budgets, rather than laying the burden on local taxpayers.
This
is likely to lead to confusion, however, as the party has repeatedly
promised to slash Whitehall budgets in order to tackle the deficit.
In addition, the Conservatives will say that they will stop gipsies
using
human rights laws by scrapping the Human Rights Act and replacing it
with a
“British Bill of Rights”.
However, Dominic Grieve, the shadow justice spokesman, recently admitted
that
the Conservatives may not be in a position to repeal the Act in their
first
term in office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 05/29/2010 7:10 PM |
|
Gypsies and Travellers: camp sites and trespass
Standard Note:
SN/SC/1127
Last updated:
21 May 2010
Author:
Christopher Barclay
Section
Science and Environment Section
•
This note describes some law relating to Gypsies (Roma) and Travellers. It mainly covers issues relating to camp sites and trespass, including the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. The issues arising when Travellers buy land and undertake unauthorised development upon it are covered in another note – Gypsies and Travellers: unauthorised development.
•
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 removed the obligation upon local authorities to supply caravan sites and introduced strict provisions to allow local authorities or the police to move on trespassers.
•
Many councils have been reluctant to use the 1994 Act provisions, partly because Government guidance required full attention to be paid to the welfare needs of all the trespassers.
•
It is probably not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights to evict trespassers who have nowhere to go.
•
The Labour Government pressured councils to make adequate provision for Gypsies, partly through the Housing Act 2004 and partly through Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks.
•
The Conservative Party announced its intention to abolish regional planning, to create a new offence of “intentional trespass”, and to give tougher “stop notice” enforcement powers to councils with authorised sites.
•
The Conservatives wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act so that the European Convention would no longer apply in British courts. National human rights legislation would replace it. The Coalition Government has announced that the Human Rights Act will be considered by a Commission.
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required.
This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.
Contents
1 Introduction 2
2 The present legal position 2
2.1 The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 2
2.2 The European Convention on Human Rights Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3 Difficulties faced by Gypsies 3
3 The Anti-Social Behaviour Act and the 2004 Government Guidance 4
3.1 The Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 4
3.2 The guidance on managing unauthorised camping, 2004 4
4 Does current law allow greater action against illegal encampments? 5
5 The Housing Act 2004 and the Planning Circular 2006 6
6 Problems remained after the 2006 Circular 7
7 Conservative Party proposals, February 2010 8
1
Introduction
There are many aspects of the Travelling Community about which Parliament might be concerned, including problems that Travellers face in gaining access to education and social services. Unfortunately, most concern derives from illegal camping. Clearly that does not do justice to the Travelling Community. However, it does reflect serious problems in particular areas.
2
The present legal position
2.1
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
The 1994 Act:
•
Removed local authorities’ obligation to provide caravan sites
•
Allowed Gypsies to be moved on, even when sites were not available
•
Gave local authorities and the police the power to remove trespassers
•
Created an offence for failure to comply with the direction or re-entry
•
Introduced a new offence of aggravated trespass for intimidation or obstruction
However, local authorities and police have often been reluctant to use these powers:
•
Eviction requires many police and can result in violence, especially if whole families resist; 2
•
Government guidance required the welfare position of all the trespassers to be considered, presenting problems when there is a shifting population;
•
Eviction might infringe the European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention on Human Rights
Article 8
1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Under the Human Rights Act 1998 the European Convention can be used in British courts. Eviction of people with nowhere else to go infringes the Convention unless great care is taken over those who are evicted.
2.2
Difficulties faced by Gypsies
Some newspaper articles imply that evictions cannot take place at all, but that is not correct. In an adjournment debate on 19 May 2004, John Battle described how difficult the position of Travellers often is:
We cannot toughen up the law to move Travellers on if there is nowhere for them to go. Recently, in the neighbourhood of Wortley in my constituency, 12 caravans were parked on the Oldfield Road football pitches, which were moved off. They moved to Farnley park over the Easter weekend, making local football and cricket impossible. They were evicted and moved down to Hunslet, where they were evicted again and moved to another public park, Western Flats, in Wortley. They have been driven off the Western Flats and are now at Wortley recreational ground. They have received a notice to move on Friday.
Those 12 caravans belong to one family, who have lived in Leeds for generations. The family group includes an elderly man with Alzheimer's, a young child with pneumonia, a two-month-old baby who has never received appropriate medical attention because of the constant movement of the family, and a mother who recently collapsed and was in hospital for two days. Some of the children go to local schools in my constituency and are taken there every day by the Travellers education support unit. Since January, the caravans have been moved 50 times, so the children do not know where they are going home to after school. That is quite apart from the fact that the caravans are on sites without water or toilets, and are thus insanitary and quite inappropriate for families.
The endless round of court notices and eviction enforcements mean that families are pushed from pillar to post. Everybody, from settled neighbours to Travellers and their families becomes totally exasperated, and council officials and the local police are caught in the middle of many angry conflicts. The cause of the problem is the shortage
3
of sites or pitches on which the caravans can stop. In practice, 30 per cent of Travellers in Britain are hounded from one unauthorised place to another, with all the associated problems of unofficial camping, clean-up costs and no chance of proper education for the children. Furthermore, poor living conditions have a detrimental impact on the health of Traveller families, who have the lowest life expectancy and the highest child mortality rates of any group in Britain.1
3
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act and the 2004 Government Guidance
3.1
The Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003
Parts of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 amended the 1994 Act to give the police powers to move on Gypsies or Travellers if there was a pitch on a relevant camp site (defined as one in the area of that local authority). In a sense the police already had similar powers. However, the new wording made it easier for them to satisfy the courts that the Gypsies would not lose out on their social security and education entitlements.
3.2
The guidance on managing unauthorised camping, 2004
On 1 March 2004, the Government issued Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping, to coincide with bringing s.60 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act into force.2 It Guidance recommended that local authorities develop local policies for dealing with unauthorised camping:
The objectives of the policy are:
•
To balance the rights and needs of resident communities with those of Gypsies and Travellers.
•
To manage unauthorised encampments in an efficient and effective way taking account of the potential level of nuisance for local residents and the rights and responsibilities of Gypsies and Travellers.
•
To work with partners in other authorities, the voluntary sector and the Police to address issues of social exclusion amongst Gypsy and Traveller communities.
The Guidance states that all local authorities should review the provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. Gypsies and Travellers should be involved in site planning and design. The provision of sites should be part of the policy of coping with unauthorised camping.
The following passage indicates the response considered appropriate by the Government in relation to unauthorised camping, although the full Guidance provides far more detail;
5.5 Wherever possible, local authorities and/or police should seek to prevent Gypsies and Travellers from establishing an encampment in an unacceptable location. Where this proves impossible, they should attempt to encourage the unauthorised campers to move to an authorised site where available. Identification of possible 'acceptable' sites could assist local authorities and the police in the management of unauthorised encampments in circumstances where there are no available pitches on authorised sites. If the unauthorised campers refuse to move from an unacceptable location, eviction processes (including appropriate welfare enquiries) should be commenced. 1 HC Deb 19 May 2004 cc1070-1
2 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/guidancemanaging
4
5.6 To be effective, such an approach requires a very swift response from the local authority and/or police. Ideally, initial contact should be made within 24 hours of the encampment being established.
A passage follows about the need to make welfare enquiries. The Guidance then considers the process if the local authority decides to go ahead with eviction. It describes the powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and also the civil powers available to a landlord. He can obtain a possession order from civil courts requiring the removal of the trespassers from property, including land.
In other words, the Guidance seeks to strike a balance between the interests involved. It is not just a new procedure to allow easier eviction.
4
Does current law allow greater action against illegal encampments?
In 1997 Edward Garnier QC described how the law operated in his constituency when Gypsies set up an illegal encampment in a lane between fields. They caused considerable problems including drug dealing, noisy parties and dogs killing sheep, until the fields could no longer be used for grazing. He then argued that the 1994 Act could be used more often than it is.
Local authorities and the police are misleading themselves about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and recent case law. Section 61 gives the police a power to direct trespassers to vacate land. That power arises if the police believe
"that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and-
(a) that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening . . . behaviour towards the occupier . . . or
(b) that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land".
The police need only have reasonable grounds for believing the persons concerned to be trespassers… Section 77 enables a local authority to serve a direction requiring persons to vacate land, the failure to comply with which may also constitute a criminal offence. However, there are some important differences between section 77 and section 61. The power in section 77 arises if persons are residing in only one vehicle on land in an authority's area. The requirement of at least six vehicles does not apply. It applies if vehicles are located on highway land, unoccupied land or occupied land without the consent of the occupier.
Even for an occupation of fewer than six vehicles, there is no requirement that any of the criminal conduct referred to in section 61 should have occurred for section 77 to apply. An offence is committed under section 77 when a person knowing of the direction fails to leave the land as soon as practicable…
Local authorities and police forces have placed reliance on the case of R. v. Lincolnshire county council and Wealden district council ex parte Atkinson, which was decided by Mr. Justice Sedley in 1996. They have also been influenced by the Department of the Environment circular 18/94. That case and that circular gave some police forces the false impression that the same principles enunciated by the judge in the Wealden case apply to orders issued by the police or local authorities under the 1994 Act. Some police forces think that inquiries about education, housing, social service needs and similar matters have to be made before a local authority direction 5
can be made, and that, before the police can invoke their powers under the Act, account should be taken of the personal circumstances of the travellers.
The judge in the Wealden case did not analyse section 61 of the 1994 Act in detail. His decision was based as much on the statutory duties placed on local authorities under the Children Act 1989 and the Housing Act 1985, as well as the obligation on local education authorities to provide education for all children of school age in their area. The Wealden judgment does not support the view that a local authority or chief constable owes a duty of care to trespassers who are the subject of action under section 61. The function of the police is to enforce the law. It is not their primary duty to take a view on social welfare. There is no legal basis for asserting that the police are under a legal duty to take social factors into account before acting under section 61. The annexe to the Home Office circular 45/94 does not suggest that the Wealden case is relevant, or that any such duty applies... 3
A subsequent adjournment debate summed up the problem neatly, with the constituency member describing the extensive disruption caused by the unauthorised Gypsy encampments. The Minister pointed out that the site had been derelict for 25 years, described the legal options that had not been taken up and regretted that the council was making no provision for authorised sites in its district plan.4
In a Westminster Hall Debate on 15 January 2002, the Minister (Angela Eagle) stressed that Travellers should be accorded the same human rights as others. She argued that human rights considerations did not prevent the use of law to prevent illegal trespass leading to antisocial or criminal behaviour.5
5
The Housing Act 2004 and the Planning Circular 2006
The Housing Act 2004 s.225 requires that every local housing authority must, when undertaking a review of housing needs in their district under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68), carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their district. They must take this strategy into account when exercising their functions.
This fits in with the Government’s Planning Policy Statement 3; Housing. In particular:
Achieving a mix of housing
20. Key characteristics of a mixed community are a variety of housing, particularly in terms of tenure and price and a mix of different households such as families with children, single person households and older people.
21. Regional Spatial Strategies should set out the region’s approach to achieving a good mix of housing. Local Planning Authorities should plan for a mix of housing on the basis of the different types of households that are likely to require housing over the plan period. This will include having particular regard to:
– Current and future demographic trends and profiles.
– The accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families with children, older and disabled people. 3 HC Deb 16 July 1997 cc 367-373
4 HC Deb 10 May 1999 cc 84-96
5 HC Deb 15 January 2002 cc 67-69 WH 6
– The diverse range of requirements across the area, including the need to accommodate Gypsies and Travellers.6
In other words, planning authorities have to take into account the needs of Gypsies and Travellers when preparing plans. Planning Circular 01/06: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites explained how the planning system would ensure adequate site provision.
6
Problems remained after the 2006 Circular
An adjournment debate in January 2008 raised doubts about reliance on site provision as a solution for unauthorised camping:
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab): In my experience, the problem is that when we provide camps for travelling people or Gypsies, they then trash the camps. If there is a camp they have to live in it, but they want to travel throughout the country. The legislation means that if a camp is provided, they have to go to it. In my experience, they trash the camp so that they can go wherever they want in the community.7
Brian Donohoe gave examples of the problem:
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) has mentioned litter already, but another problem is the dumping of waste. For example, the local authority in my area gave Travellers Portaloos, but they were dumped in the skips that the authority had supplied for their rubbish and set alight. That is the sort of person that we are dealing with: I know that there are some good ones among them, but that story is typical of our experiences with them. Other problems include people on the beach park at Irvine being intimidated while out running or walking their dogs, and being told that they have no right to be there. Constituents of mine have been shot at by the travelling people, and the House would find it hard to believe the sort of debris—from building work being undertaken on their behalf—that has been left when Travellers leave a camp. Also, Travellers are guilty of selling items without having a trading licence, and we have sometimes found that their caravans have been illegally imported, with no duty paid.8
The Minister, Iain Wright reiterated Labour Government policy on site provision and included a passage on enforcement:
Our task group on site provision and enforcement—chaired by Sir Brian Briscoe, a former chief executive of the Local Government Association—has reviewed the operation of enforcement powers and taken evidence from local authorities and others involved in using the powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire asked whether we need more legislation. In its final report, “The Road Ahead” published in December, the group concluded that the scope and nature of existing enforcement powers are sufficient, but that considerable improvements could be made to the way in which they are used. We are committed to ensuring that those improvements are made.9
In July 2009, a DCLG progress report called for further action at a local level: 6 DCLG, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, 2006
7 HC Deb 30 January 2008 c439
8 HC Deb 30 January 2008 c440
9 HC Deb 30 January 2008 c445 7
8
The current position on site delivery remains unsatisfactory. It is clear that local authorities need to increase the pace at which suitable locations are identified that can be used as Gypsy and Traveller sites. Although the Government recognises the difficulties that can arise, it considers that with strong leadership at the local level, authorities can make rapid progress in addressing what is, in numerical and land-use terms, a relatively small level of need. The identification of suitable locations for authorised sites will help to reduce the number of unauthorised developments and encampments can create tensions between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled population.10
7
Conservative Party proposals, February 2010
Shadow Planning Minister Bob Neill proposed a considerable change in the treatment of unauthorised camping:
The proposals will include plans to:
•
Create a new criminal offence of intentional trespass. Trespassers who refuse to move after being asked to do so by a uniformed police officer will face arrest. This will allow both squatters and travellers occupying property without permission of the landowner to be removed quickly.
•
Curtail the ability to apply for retrospective planning permission. This will stop the practice of people laying down concrete on weekends or bank holidays and then putting in a planning application.
•
Scrap John Prescott’s unfair Whitehall planning rules, which are compelling councils to build traveller camps on the Green Belt and compulsory purchase people’s land to find sites.
•
Give tougher ‘stop notice’ enforcement powers to councils with authorised sites, and support central funding for councils to build authorised sites – rather than it failing to local taxpayers.
•
The Human Rights Act will be replaced with a British Bill of Rights to prevent 'human rights' lawyers sidestepping the planning system and demanding special treatment.
Neill added that whilst it's understandable that law-abiding citizens have to "jump through many hoops" to build in rural areas, "it’s wrong that certain groups have been given a green light to bypass those rules and concrete over the Green Belt when no-one’s looking".11 10 DCLG, Progress Report on Gypsy and Traveller Policy, July 2009
11 Conservative Party Press Release, Ending exploitation of the planning system, 12 February 2010
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 05/29/2010 7:13 PM |
|
| Some long posts but I thought it would give people who are not aware of the situation a better insight into the present situation. |
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 05/29/2010 7:16 PM |
|
UK NEWS
GYPSY CAMP CRACKDOWN
GYPSY: Government have pledged to end illegal 'Bank Holiday
land-grabs'
By Eugene Henderson
THE new Government last night warned
troublemaking travellers and gypsies: “The good times are over.”
After years of setting up illegal campsites by
exploiting legal loopholes they have been told they have reached the end
of the road – and that includes “Bank Holiday land-grabs”.
Tough new legislation will create a
criminal offence of intentional trespass. Travellers who refuse to move
could be arrested by police or forcibly evicted.
It is understood the new approach will not face opposition from the
Tories’ coalition partners, the Lib Dems.
Travellers will be labelled “trespassers” if they
set up home on other people’s land.
Those who actually buy plots of land, often in
Green Belt country, then begin building work before applying for
retrospective planning permission will find that loophole closed.
Typically,
travellers moved on to the sites late on Fridays when councils were
closed for a Bank Holiday weekend. They started building the next day,
then applied for retrospective planning permission. If they failed to
secure it, they often claimed their human rights as travellers were
being infringed. The
Tories say Labour’s
former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott’s softly softly approach
gave some gypsies the “green light” to trespass and illegally develop
sites. The changes will be
warmly greeted by people across Britain. The
latest battleground has been in Meriden, Warwickshire, where
quick-thinking locals formed a human blockade to prevent travellers
dumping 18,000 tons of hardcore after they moved in over the May Day
bank holiday. Last Friday, the protesters won a High Court injunction
to stop the travellers building on land they own in the village.
The
travellers, who began work without planning permission, will still have
their planning application considered by Solihull Council.
At
Cottenham in Cambridgeshire, the council has been seeking to remove an
illegal settlement of some 800 travellers who have occupied 20 acres
since 2003. Close to
Chobham in Surrey, 100
travellers are staying put pending a planning inquiry. It is the same
story at North Cerney in Gloucestershire, Bredon Hill in
Worcestershire, North Moreton in Oxfordshire, and at Crays Hill in
Essex, where a warehouse has been built, and near Pangbourne, Berkshire.
In
one village in the heart of Jane Austen country in Ropley, Hampshire,
locals raised more than £200,000 to buy back a 13-acre field that
travellers had bought for £150,000 from a retiring farmer last
October. To date the
travellers’ activities have been only a civil offence, forcing
landowners to have to purse them through the courts.
The
new legislation will change all that and aims to curtail the ability to
apply for retrospective planning permission. Under a secret Labour
directive regional planning officers had been told to favour allowing
travellers to establish rural sites in direct contradiction of
planning rules, even on Green Belt land where no one else can build.
The
Department of Communities’ guidelines said the human rights of
travellers took precedence over upset residents. Last night a Tory
Party insider said: “Travellers beware, all bets are off. We’re not
saying they can’t own land, they just can’t build on it as and when
they like.” Last night Eric
Pickles, Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government, said: “The last
government’s policies have undermined community relations and
increased tensions. “We
will work to tackle the legitimate sense of injustice.”
|
|
|
|
|
pompey
Posts:6
|
| 05/30/2010 8:20 AM |
|
| WELL SAID JACK !!! YOU SAID IT ALL !!! MERIDAN VILLAGERS GOOD LUCK!! |
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Posts:680
|
| 05/31/2010 9:57 AM |
|
Welcome to the board pompey ! Sorry but the member Jack asked for his posts to be deleted so thats why his posts are gone ,i would like to assure members both Romany and non Romany that your posts regardless on what side of the fence you stand will be allowed and not censored by the board providing of course they are with in the boards guidlines and are polite and non abusive etc.
i am sorry jack felt he might get abuse for speaking his mind ,but please be assured that all sides ae respected and all opinions are allowed this board is not just for the Romany side of things it's for both
sides as we all have to live together and get along and so a balanced view and to air the differences is the only way forward and to make progress so that we can all get along !:))
The board takes no side, and nor do i ,I am merely here to mediate and not to take sides either way hope members can now feel reassured to post any civil comments on any topic with out fear of getting "got at"
I think you can see that the above posts showing ALL comments and not just one side clearly proves this . |
|
|
|
|
pompey
Posts:6
|
| 05/31/2010 1:36 PM |
|
| Well I didn't see anything wrong in Jacks post in fact a change to see well reasoned reply and some good points thanks for explaining mod. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|