Memorandum by Histon Parish Council, Cambridgeshire
(GTS 32)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Council, in responding to the ODPM
Press Notice 28 April 2004, draws upon experience of "traveller"
problems over recent years. It is noted that the Committee has
resolved not to deal with individual cases but the following comments
are based upon actual case records or direct experience of Council
Members and residents and can be verified by oral evidence and/or
documentation.
1.2 In taking evidence the Committee, with
respect, should be quite clear as to the distinction, by definition,
of the various groups of people with an itinerant lifestyle. The
Council's evidence refers in the main to groups, who frequent
and reside on private land or Council run sites, in mobile homes/caravans
or semi permanent buildings. The adults are often "technically"
unemployed but in practice operate a number of "businesses"
such as scrap metal reclamation, tree surgery, garden maintenance,
tarmac drive surfacing, furniture import and sales etc, etc. The
children generally attend infant and primary schools but rarely
move on to secondary education. School attendance can, however,
diminish from 40-50 pupils to zero overnight when for some reason
there is a mass exodus to another location in the UK or the Republic
of Ireland. The "Travellers" may actively resist any
form of integration or community involvement except when demanding
to use public services or claiming benefits.
1.3 "Travellers" as described
above should not be confused with Gypsies of Romany extraction
who have traditionally over the centuries travelled in horse drawn
and later motor hauled caravans, seeking seasonal employment in
agriculture and local trades. With changes in agriculture the
numbers of Gypsies has decreased. Seasonal agricultural employment
and housing of temporary workers, mostly from abroad, raises other
issues, currently being addressed in Parliament, concerning the
so called "Gangmasters" and illegal immigrants, which
presumably do not come within the Committee's terms of reference.
1.4 The other travelling group category
in the county are showmen (ie) fair or circus proprietors who
travel extensively, mainly during the summer season. Generally
the showmen are well known and occupy winter quarters on licensed
sites with planning permission, paying council tax, integrating
with local communities and causing few problems. They move between
regular established venues and their children generally make use
of the special education provisions when away from their home
village.
2.0 DEMAND FOR
AND USE
OF SITES
2.1 In Cambridgeshire a number of Council
run sites have been established and subsequently closed due to
unbelievable levels of vandalism and damage at the hands of the
occupiers. One site in the adjoining parish has been surrounded
by burnt out vehicles and contaminated by large quantities of
waste of all descriptions. Effective management and control of
another site in a nearby village proved to be impossible following
incidents of burning cars and with copper pipework and fittings
in newly erected toilet buildings being stolen and buildings severely
damaged. The site is currently closed along with another located
to the south of the City of Cambridge. The authorities in Cambridgeshire
have tried to meet demand but have ended up with official sites
becoming uninhabitable. This is coupled with violent and threatening
behaviour towards Council staff.
3.0 THE GYPSY
SITE REFURBISHMENT
GRANT SCHEME
3.1 The Council has no detailed knowledge
of this scheme but given the experience above would ask the Committee
to give some thought as to the practicalities of site management.
How would criminal behaviour be prevented? Should sites be permanently
staffed or could there be some form of self policing or management
with returnable cash deposit, as protection for site owners, when
occupiers are booked in and when leaving the site? Many of these
families are not destitute and appear to have unlimited cash resources
to develop private sites without planning permission. Provision
and repeated re-furbishment of sites without effective management
and control for the use of non taxpayers is deeply resented by
the law abiding local population who pass by these sites daily
and see their taxes being spent removing large quantities of waste
and on the repair of buildings and facilities.
4.0 MANAGEMENT
OF UNAUTHORISED
CAMPING
4.1 The Council in common with many parish
councils locally has become involved, as statutory consultees
in the planning system, with the development of unauthorised sites.
The Committee should be aware that the illegal activities and
grossly anti social behaviour of this group of travellers is causing
grave concern in Cambridgeshire. The Committee will no doubt be
aware of the adjournment debate on 19 November 2003 initiated
by Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Hansard Column
313WH). Residents in the area are now extremely angry in that;
(a) the ever increasing levels of crime and anti
social behaviour are destroying their quality of life and peaceful
enjoyment of their own property and community facilities;
(b) the destruction of the environment (waste
dumping etc) is causing loss of property value, leaving residents
or land owners wishing to sell or leave the area, with no choice
but to sell to travellers who then extend the illegal sites;and
(c) the apparent inability, under present law
and with current resources, of the police, County and District
Authorities, to respond effectively despite recent large increases
in the level of Council Tax.
4.2 With regard to Police action, at a regional
neighbourhood watch meeting, a Histon Parish Councillor raised
the matter of travellers lawless behaviour in Histon and Cottenham
directly with the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire, Mr T. Lloyd.
He was warned that matters were heading towards disaster with
the possibility of civil unrest etc. Tragically, the following
day a murder was committed in a public house in Cottenham (almost
exclusively used by Irish travellers). At a subsequent Police
Consultation Meeting in Cottenham, chaired by the Police Authority
Chairman, Councillor Reynolds, a number of questions were asked
by residents.
4.3 In response Inspector Howell, Histon
Sector, stated that there had been 25 persons in the pub on the
night of the murder and that all 25 had been interviewed three
being visited in the Republic of Ireland. A bill of around £250,000
was anticipated for forensic services. To date no charges have
been forthcoming. Local residents had observed a mass exodus of
caravans leaving the Smithy Fen site in the hours following the
murder and the national press reported detention of three persons
about to board the ferry from Swansea. A resident reported that
the police had recorded over 300 incidents in the Cottenham area
in the months preceding the murder. However, these were not included
as crimes as they had not been investigated. This must cast doubt
upon the Police statistics.
4.4 Committee members will understand the
anger and apprehension felt by residents when travellers from
Cottenham moved on to a site within the Green Belt in Histon without
applying for planning permission and carrying out extensive works
on site and on neighbour's access roads. A retrospective planning
application was filed incorrectly in that land ownership certificates
were not completed. As is typical in these cases enforcement notices
and refusal of permission have been ignored but then subsequently
appealed by solicitors acting for appellants. In the meantime,
whilst awaiting an appeal hearing, work continues on sites with
heavy plant being used and building materials delivered daily.
This is a typical pattern of behaviour at many locations in this
district. The cost to Local Authorities and the taxpayer is not
acceptable.
4.5 Land ownership is difficult to prove
since, despite compulsory registration, not all transactions are
recorded at the registry. In some cases ownership although recorded
by name may give the address of the owner as being care of a solicitor,
who may or may not be prepared to disclose the whereabouts of
the registered owner, or indeed be prepared to accept injunctions
or enforcement notices on their behalf. The Committee may wish
to consider the legal and professional implications for solicitors,
chartered surveyors, contractors and suppliers particularly where
large sums of money are exchanged in cash payments.
4.6 At a meeting on 20 May 2004, called
by South Cambridgeshire District Council, involving Parish Councils
and residents affected by travellers, the opinion was expressed
that the cases in Cambridgeshire were possibly part of a Europe
wide criminal organisation, the proceeds being invested in land
being subsequently split into plots and resold or let to others
entering the UK. The Committee may reflect that inexplicable planning
decisions by appointed inspectors, are being given based upon
human rights legislation and not on planning law! Residents of
Cambridgeshire are surely entitled to ask the question "what
about our human rights?".
Conclusion based on local feedback on recent issues
in our own village
For travellers who move from place to place
and squat on other people's land the issue is the time it takes
to move them on. Nowadays Councils believe that 10 days after
being informed they can obtain the necessary paperwork through
the courts and serve them. The cost to the local tax payer is
too much. As well as the cost of the environment departments having
to clean up the mess left. Let us assess the likely cost:
Court processing £1,000 costs and officers'
time.
Police time £250.
Environmental Health £500.
Total per visit £1,750. In the last two
months locally there were six incidences reported in the local
papers. Assuming about 1,000 local authorities that means a cost
to the country of over £63 million per year. More than £1
for everybody in this country.
So. How do we stop it? If travellers park on
your property you should be able to go to the police station with
your land registry documentation showing you legally own the site.
The police should then be required to move the travellers on within
24 hours. If they have not moved on within that period then the
land owner should be able to go to court and obtain an order for
costs to be levied on any goods on that site whoever the purported
owner. It should then be up to the travellers to go to court,
at their own expense, to have such an order overturned.
Now to deal with the travellers who acquire
land and start building on it without planning permission. Recent
planning inspector decisions have been based on human rights legislation
and have allowed deviation to local planning regulations based
on travellers' rights to stay on land where they can show that
they have made themselves dependant on local services such as
schools and hospitals. Thus, if one buys land in the green belt,
sticks up a house and gets one's wife pregnant one should be allowed
to stay on that land and profit from the worth once planning permission
has been granted. Or, one gets oneself on the local hospital list
for a new hip. Buy some green belt land and profit from being
able to remain. Human rights legislation is not drawn up to favour
the individual over the community. It is designed to give them
both an equal opportunity. It should also favour those who pay
Council Taxes for services over those that avoid contributing
to local taxes.
Where individuals deliberately flout the planning
law there are some draconian measures available to punish them
already. It should be widened to include confiscation of property
(including land) where appropriate to pay legal bills etc. Local
Councils need the ability to avoid the long, expensive, march
through the courts which the tax payer ends up paying either through
legal aid or through the Council Tax. The Government should allow
fast track appeals through the planning appeals system in cases
where Councils can show evidence of building taking place prior
to planning being granted.
| 
