Details of Item

            Meeting: Overview and Scrutiny Committee (County Hall, Durham - Committee Room 2 - 21/07/2003 01:00:00 AM 30/12/1899 10:00:00 AM)

                  Item: A4 Unauthorised Encampment at Belmont

         

---

Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee 21 July 2003 Unauthorised Encampment: Belmont

Report of Head of Overview and Scrutiny

Purpose of Report

1. To introduce a working group report.

Background

2. At the request of two local members, a small working group was set up to review the Council’s approach to an unauthorised encampment of Travellers at Belmont in April 2003.

3. The report of the working group is attached.

Recommendation

4. You are recommended to consider the report. If the report and its recommendations are approved, it will be submitted to Cabinet.

Contact: Ian Mackenzie Tel: 0191 383 3506

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE


BACKGROUND

1. At the request of two local Members, a small working group of Members was convened to review the events which occurred in April 2003 relating to an unauthorised encampment at Belmont near Durham City.

BASIC FACTS

2. At the end of March 2003, a significant number of Travellers arrived at Coxhoe with their vans and caravans. Some of the Travellers were moved on by a local landowner but ten vans remained on that site. Those Travellers who were moved from Coxhoe transferred to a site at Black and Decker near Spennymoor. On the 16th April, these Travellers were moved on by the police from the Black and Decker site. The Travellers, that day, moved on to a playing field site at Belmont. The local County Council Member made representations about the presence of these Travellers on Thursday, 17th April 2003. At that stage, the Council’s Gypsy Liaison Officer was on leave. Friday, 18th April was Good Friday and the following Monday – 21st April was Easter Monday. No action, therefore, was possible over this extended holiday weekend. On the 22nd April, those Travellers who had remained at Coxhoe arrived at the site at Belmont. On the 22nd April, the Council’s Gypsy Liaison Officer carried out an assessment of the position which is a requirement of any eviction process. Notices requiring the Travellers to leave the site giving 24 hours’ notice were served. On Monday, 28th April, twelve days after the Travellers arrived on the site at Belmont, they left, leaving significant amounts of waste materials which had to be cleared up at public expense.

DISCUSSION WITH THE WELFARE RIGHTS TEAM MANAGER
AND ONE OF THE COUNCIL’S SOLICITORS

3. The Members of the working group had an open discussion with Scott McInally the Welfare Rights Team Manager and Pat Holding, a solicitor experienced in these matters, from the Corporate and Legal Services Department about the particular circumstances at Belmont and the wider issues.

4. Scott McInally indicated that, at the time of the incident at Belmont, there were also three other unauthorised encampments in the County – at Birtley, St. Helens Auckland and Beacon Lane in Sedgefield.

5. In terms of causation, Scott pointed out that the authorised sites for Travellers in the County were full. Accordingly, when the Travellers were moved from the site at Black and Decker, there was no legally authorised site which could accommodate them within the County. Evicting the Travellers, therefore, from any site inevitably moved the problem to a different location without necessarily addressing the causation.

LOCAL RESIDENTS’ PERCEPTION

6. Scott McInally gave his own view about the local residents’ perception. This appeared to be in accord with the views of the local Members in this case. These are set out below:-

· Law breaking was going unpunished
· Travellers appeared to be above the law
· The County Council appeared inactive and unresponsive
· There appeared to be a lack of coherent response from the agencies
· There appeared to be a lack of information from agencies
· There was no apparent plan for dealing with the aftermath
· The behaviour of the Travellers was more offensive than their presence.

THE LOCAL RESIDENTS’ RESPONSE

7. The response of local residents was summarised as:-

· Frustration at perceived failings of the agencies
· Pressure on elected Members
· A public meeting was demanded to express discontent and to force progress
· A complaint was made to the local Member of Parliament.

TRAVELLERS’ PERCEPTION

8. Scott McInally analysed the Travellers’ perception as follows:-

· They are being harassed and harried from place to place
· There was no recognition or understanding of their different lifestyle
· There was insufficient provision of sites or areas where they can safely camp
· There was hostility and hatred from the settled community.

9. Scott McInally’s analysis of the position was follows:-

· There was a view that law-breaking was largely going unpunished during this incident
· The Council was active but lacking in resources due to multiple illegal encampments
· The Council’s ability to intervene swiftly was limited by legislation
· There was a need to improve co-ordination between the relevant agencies
· There was little information from agencies to assist the public
· There was a lack of a transparent plan for dealing with the aftermath
· The preventative measures at Belmont failed (this site had been occupied by Travellers in the past)
· There was a failure to meaningfully engage with Travellers.

LEGAL ISSUES

10. Pat Holding explained in some detail the legal issues which need to be borne in mind in relation to taking action to remove Travellers encamping without authority. She pointed out that whilst the local authority and the police had powers to remove Travellers from land, the due process of law had to be followed. This required a welfare assessment before any Travellers were evicted. In relation to the Travellers at Belmont, it was understood that there were three small babies amongst the Travellers’ community. Formal notice needs to be served on the Travellers and this can only be enforced, in practice, if a court order is obtained and enforced by the bailiff. In short, immediate removal action against the wishes of the Travellers is not an option and the legal process, inevitably, takes some time.

11. ISSUES CONSIDERED BY THE WORKING GROUP

o A balance needs to be struck between the interests, rights and welfare of the Travellers and those of the settled community.

o The issue of the adequacy of sites is, perhaps, a regional one and it was noted that Durham County currently provides a substantial number of ‘pitches’ in the north-east.

o The engagement with the Travellers is an important issue to try to gain a better understanding of this difficult issue.

o The Members of the working group did, however, concentrate on a number of issues of concern to any local Member who might be faced with a problem similar to that which arose at Belmont. In particular, it was clear that, whilst processes to deal with this situation were in place, there is currently no formal forward planning in relation to this type of incident. It was also clear that there was a need for more co-ordination and better information both between agencies and available to local Members and the public.

o The same situation appears to apply after the Travellers leave. There is no clear advice or strategy available to deal with the important issue of clearing a site.

12. The working group recognised how difficult these incidents can be, but, for that very reason, there was a need for some clear advance planning between the agencies and by the County Council to ensure that, in the context of this problem, the public and local Members could be assured that an effective and transparent process was in place.

RECOMMENDATIONS

13. Accordingly, we recommend that Cabinet be requested to ensure that:-

i. An overall contingency plan to deal with future incidents of unauthorised encampments is put in place.

It is recognised that this would need to be flexible bearing in mind the individual circumstances of groups of travellers but the County Council, District Councils and the Police should meet together to work out a general advanced strategy. This should include a clear communication strategy for local Members and the public.

The planning strategy should also consider the best method of clearing sites and disposing of a variety of waste (eg. clinical, domestic, builders) and putting in place preventative measures to avoid repetition in the future.

ii. Consideration is given to ensuring that back-up arrangements are put in place so that there is no delay in the local authority taking action in the event of a future incident.

The working group was concerned that, in the absence of the Gypsy Liaison Officer, no alternative arrangements appeared to be in place to assist Members in this sensitive area. It was recognised that the resource would only be required on a relatively small number of occasions during the year.

This incident, which was at its height over the Easter weekend, also illustrates the need to ensure that some arrangements are put in place during out of hours.

14. The working group, for its part, is seeking good practice from other authorities which it can feed into the strategy consideration. It was noted that the London Borough of Newham had made a number of suggestions including representations to change legislation to assist local authorities in dealing with this type of issue.

15. These proposals have been subject to some degree of public consultation by the local Members involved in this incident.

16. The working group will review the position in six months’ time to assess progress.

17. Finally, we do agree with the view that, if possible, there should be a dialogue with the Travellers involved in the incident at Belmont to try to build up more understanding. We appreciate that a meaningful dialogue with such a hard-to-reach group is not easy but the working group thought that this is essential if there is to be any longer term strategy in this area.

Members of the Working Group

Councillor J Armstrong (in the Chair)
Councillors Barker, Howarth and Pye


IAM/VL
09/07/03


Attachments

 Item No. 4.doc