Memorandum by Cottenham Residents Association
(GTS 09)
(A) We are the Committee of the Residents
Association, Cottenham, Cambridgeshire and we ask that you consider
our evidence, given on behalf of the Association, as part of your
enquiry into the "Provision and Management" of gypsy
and traveller sites as detailed by the ODPM Press Notice Session
2003-04, 28 April 2004.
(B) We contest that as a general principle:
"All persons swearing allegiance to Crown
and Country, and all other persons simply residing in this country
by permission of same, must be governed and equally treated by
the same laws of this land."
(C) We accept and understand that:
1. Laws will be made for the specific benefit
of certain sections of society including: the aged and infirm,
ethnic minorities, gypsies and travellers. Such laws confer special
rights based upon special needs and are intended to reflect an
understanding of how life is different for such persons, but such
laws should neither infer nor confer any right to undermine or
flout the fundamental laws by which the majority are governed.
2. The purpose of the Select Committee is
to evaluate certain gypsy and traveller issues, the "header
points" for which are clear from the Notice. However, we
protest the absence from these "headers" of any reference
to Law and Order for, quite simply: whether liked or not, whether
deemed "too sensitive" or not, this is a major issue.
(D) At present, and per circular 1/94, a
gypsy/traveller is anyone who wishes to pursue a nomadic way of
life. Per ODPM circular 1/94 the onus on local authorities to
provide public sites disappears, in part, but they are advised
to "identify suitable sites for traveller occupation"
and "to discuss same with travellers" and, via this
and a combination of PPG3 and 12, to "assess quantitative
needs".
These "notes of advice" are beginning
to cause chaos; they do not have the power of statute yet their
contents (especially when linked to 1998 Human Rights legislation)
are being used to over-ride local authority powers as vested by
such as the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
(E) Gypsies and Travellers have a right
to expect that land will be available for their use; a right to
health and education and other such essential services. Just as
such "rights" are available to others so must they be
there for those who choose: "the nomadic way of life".
We have no argument with these principles providing there is neither
deception nor deliberate abuse of the system which seeks to help
and provide for these rights.
(F) We regret to advise that there is nationwide
"abuse" of the system, and this is causing unrest, creating
distrust, and undermining the social fabric of many communities.
The insensitivity of some representative groups, the ineptness
of local authorities, the under-resourced police forces, and the
lack of response from the DPM is creating a breeding ground for
a return to bigotry founded upon the simple slogan: "This
is simply not just!"
What is happening?
(F) 1. Crime and Disorder. It is a matter
of public record, across the country, that wherever travellers
reside there are instances of all/some of the following being
reported to the police:
(i) extreme littering and fly-tipping;
(ii) defecating and urinating on private
and public lands;
(iii) verbal abuse and intimidation;
(iv) various traffic offences including obstruction,
speeding, illegal parking, drunken and under-age driving.
(v) general anti-social behaviour.
"It is simply not just" that:
(vi) travellers make no contribution to clean-up
costs;
(vii) non-travellers, especially the aged,
become frightened to the point of not leaving their homes;
(viii) non-travellers businesses suffer hardship
as customers avoid areas affected by unlawful occupation;
(ix) family and friends defer visits for
fear of own safety;
(x) property prices are adversely affected,
and especially adjoining land values;
(xi) good policing is virtually impossible
(rural England is left unprotected by the "tick-box"
strategy of the Home Office and its dependence on the National
Intelligence Model) as reported "incidents" are rarely
followed up and are thus able to be omitted from regional crime
figures. Result: non-travellers are without protection from, and
travellers perceive themselves as beyond, the law. There is reluctance
to use the Police Reform Act 2003 and powers of confiscation because
the police have little/no means to remove vehicles and private
firms fear reprisal. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 seems to
need co-operation between police and local authorities, but same
it seems is not forthcoming as local authorities refuse to acknowledge
any responsibility under this Act. The Anti-Social Behaviour Legislation
is, we are told, cumbersome and unworkable failing, as it does,
to allow action against groups.
(F) 1. (xii) In some areas there may be
"nimbyism", in some areas deep rooted bigotry, but no
matter where the area, or what its misguided beliefs, no area
should be obliged to tolerate the indignities described above
and, for the record, mirrored in towns/villages such as:
Cottenham, Billericay, Chelmsford, Runneymede,
Nuneaton, Bedford, Woking, East Coker and now starting in Denton,
a small village in South Norfolk.
We repeat our earlier statement: "Law &
Order issues must be part of your remit". Were there no history
or evidence of such behaviour, then no such consideration would
be necessary—but there is and it is commonplace and, therefore,
must be part of your inquiry.
(F) 2. Planning and the Civil Law issues
(i) The average "John Bull" cannot
afford to contemplate the huge expense of legal action and so
in matters legal he invariably conforms, avoids the risk and potential
cost of failure. True, underprivileged, travellers have, in the
past, tended to behave likewise. For travellers, however, times
have changed.
(ii) As inferred above and courtesy of well
meaning ODPM circulars, planning laws/regulations are in chaos.
Whose fault?
"Government is the cry" and indirectly
correct in that having offered advice (circular 1/94 et alia)
it has made no attempt to fully legalize its strategy.
(iii) The uncertainty of the system is now
being exploited and used in the following manner:
(a) A select number of travellers identify
likely sites and seek planning consultant advice;
(b) such travellers find a willing vendor
of land (arable or otherwise) complete the purchase and move on
to the land with hard-core and adopting other services (electricity
etc) as required;
(c) these travellers then "plot"
the land. Example: 1 acre will plot to 6 and subdivide to 24 pitches,
thus to 24 families and between 48 and 100 persons. Land is bought
at, perhaps, three times the arable value and several thousands
of pounds are required to hardcore etc, but with plots without
planning permission being sold at £20,000 each—or with
at £60,000 each—the profit to the traveller developers
is £100,000 or so per acre;
(d) the travellers having purchased
lawfully but developed unlawfully, will be confronted with local
authority Enforcement and Stop Notices. Both will be breached
with, initially at least, impunity (the breach of a stop notice
is a criminal offence but a Magistrate will not seek/aid/support
prosecution "whilst the planning process remains unresolved".
Likewise High Court Judges may refuse to pursue a breach of injunction
(a contempt of court) whilst planning matters remain unresolved.
Such Magistrate, or High Court Judge, action (or lack of) is applied,
it seems, only to traveller activities;
(e) the travellers tend to apply for
retrospective planning and appeal against the Enforcement notice(s);
(f) travellers "counsel" will
use: children's education; ill health; livelihood and dependence
on the area; no impact on the rural outlook or general community;
Human Rights legislation; to support claims to stay. Laughably,
we are informed, local authorities can only protest "land
use" and cannot offer any protection to non-travelling residents
by arguing human rights, anti-social behaviour and/or criminal
action prevention;
(g) the Bristol Inspector hears the
evidence and adjudicates. There is no appeal against an Inspector
unless he has erred in law—this should be changed. Civil
law is borne of obiter and judicial interpretation thus where
appropriate an Inspector's "interpretation" should be
capable of challenge. However, and notwithstanding the onward
appeals process, if the Inspector finds for the Traveller then
Mr Average has to accept the decision and courtesy of a ruling
on costs indirectly pays the Traveller's legal fees via local
taxation . . . the travellers break the rules but Mr Average pays;
(h) Conversely the Inspector finds for
the Authority and "all hell" lets loose: shouts of "racism",
"persecution", bonfires are lit and local authorities
have to spend tens, nay hundreds, of thousands of pounds of non-traveller
money to simply: "Up-hold the law". Mr Average pays
again.
(iv) The fact is that the system is a shambles,
it is unjust. Mr Average is being penalised whatever the outcome
and yet those directly responsible are beyond reproach. For 10
years local authorities have failed to adopt 1/94 leaving Inspectors
almost no option but to look at traveller sites, despite the unlawful
occupation of land, and say:
"there is, simply, nowhere else for these
people to go"
This does NOT excuse Inspectors' refusals to
consider the criminal aspects of many cases but the planning mess
is a result of civil servant failure, and in the future they must
be held accountable.
(G) Travellers must be accommodated, and
properly looked after. Letters have been written to the DPM (but
remain unanswered). Similarly recommendations have been made to
the ODPM and have been acknowledged as "valuable". We
offer the select committee the following in an effort to have
equality restored to our legal system:
(i) The "Law" should adopt the
actual beliefs of travellers themselves that the size of a site
should be proportionate to the local community; that the optimum
size of a site is between 10 and 15 plots and never in excess
of 20. Their rationale is based upon the belief that: proportionate
balance gives stability to the community, reduces the risk of
traveller in-fighting, gives travellers sufficient numbers to
protect themselves against marauding bigots, and allows proper
provision of services and policing if necessary.
(ii) The "Law" should make it
mandatory that local authorities, alone, provide the land to accommodate
traveller "site needs". Such sites to be widespread
throughout a county or district, such to allow private ownership.
No district be asked to provide sites for more than a maximum
of 200 families. Six plots to the acre, each plot to allow a maximum
of: 1 static, 1 touring, 1 utility block. Maximum size of any
site, then, 4 acres.
With sites/plots to be provided/sold by local
authorities it ensures that such are affordable and helps to prevent
property development scams such as exist at Billericay, Cottenham
and Runnymede.
(iii) The "Law" should place an
onus on travellers. To prevent abuse of the system, to ensure
equality for all: travellers need to have a single identity; travellers
should be means tested in that those with properties abroad/elsewhere
in England or having sound financial resources do not "need"
the protection of preferential planning regulations (non-travellers,
it should be remembered, are means tested to determine, such as,
eligibility for free nursing home accommodation etc); travellers
having demonstrated a "need" to reside in any community
should be seen to be contributing (paying) their share.
(iv) The "Law" which offers preferential
Civil "care" to some groups or families should likewise
offer special Criminal "protection" to those who are
at risk from, or in fear of, such groups.
In conclusion we ask the Select Committee to
understand that presenting evidence to such a body is not a daily
occurrence for such as ourselves, and we therefore request that
the Committee show tolerance of any impropriety or lack of protocol.
R L Bristow
Chairman
Cottenham Residents Association
|
