Patrick Hall, MP for Bedford and Kempston, is rounding up letter writers to inundate me over my failure to immediately adopt his pet scheme of finding temporary transit sites for travellers. One of the irritating things about these letters is that they seem to believe that he is the only one thinking about the problem.
It all stems from the public meeting on September 11 when he once again trotted out his scheme. I had to point out that, like most issues involving travellers, it wasn’t quite as easy as it sounded, but I outlined the various moves we were making which at last seemed to be having some success.
Here is my speech almost in its entirety:
‘I welcome this meeting as an opportunity to respond to people who, in understandable frustration, accuse the borough council of doing nothing to deal with this summer’s incursions on to council-owned land by travellers.
Although travellers are a problem common to all local authorities with open land within their boundaries, there can be no doubt that in Bedford this year the problem has gone beyond the norm of a few illegal encampments a year to what appears to be a concerted invasion of groups of travellers.
Last week I asked Chief Inspector Mark Everett how many illegal encampments there were in the borough at that time. The answer was six. That goes well beyond the norm.
I would not want you to believe that it is only within the past week or two that the borough has tried to get something done. The first item in my personal file regarding illegal encampments this year is 27 of March. That was when Iain Wright, under secretary in the department of communities and local government, attended a meeting at the home of the chairman of The Wentworth Drive Action Group. Patrick Hall was present as were three councillors and a senior officer of the council, Gordon Johnston. Inspector Mark Everett of Bedfordshire Police also attended.
It was pointed out that the borough could not simply round up the travellers and move them out of the borough. For each eviction a process had to be gone through involving the borough, the county council, the education department and the Primary Care Trust, all charged with making sure they were fit to be moved. Only after these hoops had been jumped through could we go to court to get an eviction order.
But, as we know, no sooner had they been moved on than they would find another open space in the same area and the whole weary process had to be gone through again.
All of this was wearing down the various agencies involved and the process was getting slower and slower. In the county there was a split between two departments as to who had responsibility. One of them was normally stood down during school holidays so that caused yet more delays. The PCT was also getting battle weary.
The answer, I suggested to Mr Wright, was that an eviction order applied within the borough should be valid for a period of time anywhere within the borough – say a year. Mr Wright appeared to like the idea and said he would report back. Nearly a month later I received a reply which said that the Government Task Force looking at the problem had concluded that present powers were sufficient. It referred to a traveller family in the North Yorkshire Area where a troublesome traveller group, which had persistently breached a High Court order, had been served with an ASBO. Iain Wright recommended going down that route.
Two things wrong with that: One was that this family had been a nuisance in that area for nine years before the ASBO was served. Second, it lasted only a month before a court ruled that ASBOs were not designed for this set of circumstances and it was rescinded.
We have been told that more transit sites are the answer. They may well be, but they are certainly not a quick answer. For a transit site to be designated it has to go through the planning procedure. People will remember the furore among the people of Bletsoe when it was proposed to build a privately-owned site in a field next to the village. If there is one thing you can guarantee it is that the mere mention of a potential travellers’ site will unify a community in opposition. Getting planning permission for a travellers’ site is a long haul, at least two years and usually more. A planning appeal is a racing certainty. The people who are suffering from these incursions cannot be expected to continue putting up with them while the planning process is wending its leisurely way.
Even emergency transit points require planning permission. We are looking at possible sites in the ownership of borough and county council but you won’t find any communities willing to host them within their boundaries. Nevertheless, the borough does recognise the necessity to define a transit site for 15 family pitches, while remembering that the government will require regular expansion of the numbers catered for.
After this bleak picture I can tell you that there is some light. We have consulted other authorities for their experience and advice, and last week this produced some results. Police do have powers to move travellers more quickly on under certain circumstances. These are known as s61 powers and can be applied when there is a threat of public disorder or an impairment of the right of the public to go about its business in peace. Using this, the police warned the large illegal encampment on Goldington Green to move on within 24 hours and they did so, splitting into two groups. One went into a car park in Mowsbury Park where their presence made it impossible for members of the public to use it. They too were told to be off within 24 hours and they went.
The other group got across defences on Longholme Way because bollards needed to complete them had not yet been installed. I asked the police to use their s61 powers here as well but they said that as there was no threat to the public and no houses nearby, that illegal encampment did not qualify. Still, two out of three in three days wasn’t bad going and, even better, they haven’t come back.
We are also looking for the enquiries that have to be made before an eviction to be streamlined. This is in relation to powers of the local authority, not the police. As I have already told you, there are many hoops that have to be gone through and there has been a tendency for this to be done one after the other. We have found that other authorities have a process in which the enquiries are carried out in parallel and reckon to be able to close an illegal encampment within four days.
Finally, it is my intention that from April 1 2009, when we become unitary, we will have a traveller’s department of our own with a remit to take enforcement action. They will have until April 1 2009 to establish a best practice procedure including identifying emergency and transit sites.
The most important thing is that the word gets out among the travelling community that Bedford will not tolerate a repeat of this year and if you camp here illegally, don’t bother to unpack.’
Present at that meeting was Mr Cliff Codona of the National Gypsy Council who lives in this area. Before the meeting he told me he knew of 50 pieces of land in the county owned by gypsies who would be delighted to use it for a transit site if they could get planning permission. I asked him, to let me have a list of all those in the borough. I haven’t heard from him since.
Identifying a site is not the end of it. There is still the local community to deal with. It only needed a passing mention in the press that council-owned land at Cople might be suitable for locals to start protesting. There was also mention of a stub end of the road near the new Wells and Young distribution plant near the A600 at the southern edge of town as a temporary site. I said that Wells and Young might have something to say about that and might feel the need to double their security (A friendly police officer told me I shouldn’t have made that last comment). I am certain that a so-called ‘temporary’ site would cause at least as many problems as it solved.
The borough is caught between the desire of its residents not to have to put up with traveller sites - legal or illegal (and the cost of clearing the latter) - and the Government’s determination to coerce local authorities into providing them.
Patrick Hall seems to have picked on this as a suitable campaign. I wonder if he’s right.