1.1 Sue Pangbourne opened the meeting by explaining that she understood the concerns over gypsy sites in the district and in particular in the area, she confirmed she would explain what is happening on the site so far, what the Council’s action is and has been, and what the Council’s action hopes to achieve.
1.2 Sue went on to explain the relevant planning legislation namely the Stop Notice and Enforcement Notice, when they both took affect, what they precluded, and what the maximum fine in the Courts was for breaching the Notices if found guilty. Sue explained the wider issues, that as well as being a breach of planning control, the council also needed to address the permanent pitches that were required by the GTAA in this district since July 2008 and the details laid down in the emerging regional spatial strategy for the South West. She also explained that the planning process was lengthy.
2.1 Peter Williams gave a basic introduction to the issues on site and then went on to read out answers to the questions that had been presented to the planning section over the last few weeks.
2.2 Why were all communications and warnings of the impending establishment of a travellers dwelling ignored?
Answer - Officers did visit the site and take photographs on more than one occasion, and letters were sent to the owners of the site. No immediate action was taken due to insufficient evidence.
2.3 Why was a Stop Notice not issued on Tuesday morning after the bank holiday, as work was still continuing and resulted in the destruction of agricultural land?
Answer - we needed to visit the site to establish facts and to report back. Needed enforcement notice to be served first.
2.4 Are companies allowed to develop the site if there is no planning permission? Could they be prosecuted?
Answer - It is not unlawful unless a Notice has been served and, therefore, a prosecution is not possible unless notices served.
2.5 What kinds of things are likely to render a planning application invalid? What does one then need to validate it?
Answer - Insufficient submission of information relating to the application can invalidate an application. Each application is, for example, required to have a Design and Assessment Statement. If this is not present then the application will be invalid. If the correct fee is not received this will also invalidate the application.
To validate the application the additional information required needs to be sent to the Local Planning Authority. However, specialised information may have to be obtained from a professional in the field e.g. to establish whether bats may be roosting in a building on the land or a food risk assessment needs doing.
2.6 Is a time limit placed on validating an application? Will the residents in Southend Lane be informed when it is validated?
Answer - No time limit and yes residents will be informed of any new application.
2.7 What will happen if the planning application is not validated and an appeal is lodged in the meantime against the enforcement notice?
Answer - The appeal will be dealt with in the absence of an application, but if a ground (a) appeal that is a deemed application.
2.8 What happens if an enforcement notice is not responded to and what is the timescale for a response?
Answer - The recipient of an Enforcement Notice has 28 days in which to lodge an appeal against its issue. If no appeal is lodged then the Notice b becomes valid and he has to comply with the requirements of the Notice in the time specified. If he fails to do this he can be prosecuted in the Magistrates court where the maximum fine is £20,000.00.
2.9 What happens if a Stop Notice is not responded to and what are the consequences of a breach?
Answer - Similarly, if a Stop Notice is not responded to, i.e. they refuse to stop, a criminal offence occurs and they can be prosecuted immediately in the Magistrates Court and again fined up to £20,000.00.
2.10 A previous planning application for the erection of a detached retirement bungalow was refused due to an increase in traffic in a small rural lane.
Answer - Application DF28994/E was refused 10/08/05 - contrary to Policy FF4 of the District Local Plan which restricts new dwellings in the open countryside; road serving the site is substandard and unsuitable for proposed development; sporadic residential development outside a defined settlement.
2.11 Can the Council be sued for damages suffered by gypsies, and breach of contract with the contractor?
Answer - Yes
3.1 Marie Rosenthal explained to the meeting why the council was unable to get an injunction on the gypsy site over the bank holiday weekend of the 23/24 May. She went on to explain that she had been instructed Saturday morning to seek an injunction using evidence provided by Cllr Len Lawton and the local residents of the action taken by the gypsies on the site over the Friday evening.
3.2 An emergency application was then prepared and a telephone application sought using the High Court Out of Hours service. The Court Clerk approached a Duty Judge. However, the Duty Judge was unwilling to consider the application unless the action on site related to danger to life and limb. On that basis the emergency application was withdrawn and an urgent meeting to review the position was held on Tuesday 26 May when it was agree to serve a stop notice and Enforcement notice.
Question: The gateway has been widened since the Stop Notice was issued and took effect on Friday 5 June. What happens now?
Answer (PW): the Council visited the site on Friday 5 June 2009. This established a ‘baseline’ against which any further works could be assessed. An officer had visited the site today (8th), however the Enforcement Officer who inspected had not been spoken to since this time, and it was confirmed that the Council would check to see exactly what had been undertaken over the weekend. It was confirmed that if it was found that the Notice had been breached that we could take a prosecution to the Court for this breach. Legal input would be required and the Council would have to consider the public interest issue.
Question: What are the potential grounds for Appeal?
Answer (PW): There are six (turned out to be seven) grounds for appeal, the first whether planning permission be granted, the second the breach has not occurred, third there is no breach of planning control, the fourth at the time of the Notice it was too late to take action, fifth the Notices were not served properly on all persons with an interest in the land, sixth the steps required by the Notice are excessive and the seventh, that (t)he time to comply is too short.
The Council felt that grounds two, three, four and five were unlikely to be challenged at Appeal, and that four (?five is) unlikely as it was served on all the caravan owners at the time and also the landowners specified in the office copy entries retained at Land Registry.
Question (PH): Are the present travellers on the site already included in the GTAA count or not? Do we know where they come from? The Shipton-on-Stour case was mentioned.
Answer: There was a county wide assessment undertaken in 2007 where the Forest of Dean District Council’s needs were assessed it was noted that they required 30 pitches in addition to 31 already included. It was confirmed that the task was to note 30 additional pitches in the district.
Question: Some 40 years ago this person lived in Cinderford. Why isn’t the Cinderford site used again?
Answer (PH): The Cinderford site was not being used because it is at present damaged and also the gypsies did not want to live there.
Paul Kenyon from Gloucestershire County Council who is the Gypsy Liaison Officer confirmed that the Cinderford site is owned by Gloucestershire County Council. It was his understanding that the site had not been repaired as it was to be considered in the regeneration scheme for Cinderford.
Question: They have dug a big hole, they have bought the land they are on, they didn’t want the Cinderford site and they are now near amenities in Newent, it is costly to take them to court. Where are we at?
Answer (PW): The action the Council’s taken is subject to risk. If they (the gypsies) are successful at Appeal and on Stop Notice then the council may have to pay compensation. The Council will defend that position. Furthermore it was clarified they were only notified of the need for the additional amount of pitches from the GTAA in 2008.
The two sites that were granted planning permission recently at Cooks Lane and Foscombe Hill were mentioned and were noted that they had already been granted planning permission. This was confirmed to the meeting that these decisions were made on appeal not by the local planning authority.
Question: The Council has confirmed they are told they have to find sites. What resources are the Council using to find these sites?
Answer (PH/PW):
Statement: A member of the public confirmed that he was an ex councillor of the Rural District Council as it was previously, and that he ran the travellers site mentioned at Cinderford. He confirmed that it was at the bottom of Station Street next to Valley Road and was incredibly unpopular with both public and the travellers, and they had extensive vandalism, which occurred over many many years and indeed recently. He said it never worked, it was very costly and it was difficult to work with the gypsies. He advised that we consider secluded sites for the district.
Question: With regard to provision of sites. Gloucestershire County Council have responded to residents that grants may be available for the sites. Does the Council know that grants are available to the Council to find sites for gypsy sites in their area?
Answer (PH): To qualify for a grant the Council will have to find land with planning permission. If this site was taken into consideration it wouldn’t qualify this year, and the(y) could try and be in a position next year for the grant. Yes they were aware that grants were required (?available) but needed to be on land with planning permission.
Question: Are there not more brown field sites available?
Answer (PH): Gloucestershire County Council own a lot of land in the district but these are tied up in long leases. It is a difficult problem to overcome. The Forest of Dean District Council does not own a lot of land. Please don’t vent your anger on planners regarding this issue, we have to try and please everyone.
Question: I have recently had experience of installing a septic tank, it was quite a difficult and protracted job with building regulations, environment agency and I had to give evidence of what had been done and exactly what I had completed on the site. I am concerned that health and safety are not thought of where there are septic tanks in this instance with regard to potential ground water contamination. There may be an environmental issue.
Answer (PW): The Council will get the building control surveyors to visit the site to check on compliance with building regulations with regard to the septic tanks. When this Council contacted the Judge to potentially issue an injunction against the site, the issues considered were immediate harm to life and limb. Environmental pollution is a separate issue. Any environmental pollution did not get taken into consideration at that stage as there was no evidence to support.
Question: The Council must know that there are several families on site and that (they) must have known that this was going to happen. I still feel that the environment agency need to be involved as there could be a real health hazard to the families on the site if the septic tanks aren’t dealt with correctly. It is not just an environmental issue; it is a question of life and health.
Answer (PW): The Council did not have evidence to substantiate that this development was going to take place. We will make sure that the site is investigated to prevent environmental damage.
Question: On the timescales that the Council appears to be suggesting, then the gypsies could be down there for at least five years?
Answer (PW): An appeal takes a number of months to come to fruition and in terms of temporary or permanent planning permission on the site this would be a matter up to the planning inspectorate to determine. The Council have issued the Enforcement Notice and the Stop Notice on the basis that it is not acceptable on highways and visual amenities grounds grounds. It was clarified that the minimum period would likely be six months. This was on the basis that the gypsies appealed the Enforcement Notice and that they had 28 days from the date the Notice took effect to make the appeal.
Question: With regard to further clarification of septic tanks. Who has the Council got who is qualified to do drainage and cover environmental issues as I have had previous problems as an adjacent landowner?
Answer (PH): The Council has a qualified land drainage engineer who deals with the ‘run off’. The water thereafter is a matter that the environmental agency deals with. With regard to building inspection and building regulations to do with the installation of septic tanks. This would be dealt with by a building inspector from this authority.
Question: When the Council served the Notices, weren’t they robust and would they have allowed scalpings in that week if they had actually come into force in that week? It is within your powers and it is believed that some 300,000 tons of scalpings were delivered in that week, and that the vast majority had come locally.
Answer (PW): The Enforcement Notice and Stop Notice were served on 29 May 2009 and they were formally withdrawn shortly thereafter, The reason for this was it was felt that they could be potentially open to challenge and success at any appeal against the Notices. The Council took the view that they wouldn’t be able to prosecute against the Notices issued if there was non-compliance with them by the gypsies, and it was therefore felt they needed to be reissued correctly with the proper wording so that they would be robust and stand up to any appeal.
Question: Can we have a ‘stop’ on any more hardcore/scalpings coming in on the site?
Answer (PW): Yes, the Stop Notice came into effect on 5 June 2009 and from this date no more were allowed to be brought onto site. If they were, then they would potentially be open to a prosecution for non-compliance with the Notice.
Question: If three extra caravans were taken off the site and then three more come on to replace them, does that breach the Notices in place?
Answer (PW): No. Council officers visited the site at the end of the day on 5 June 2009 and noted how many caravans and their positioning on site, and also the scalpings and remaining paraphernalia at the time. If three were taken off and then replaced with a further three then that same number would be as at the compliance date of 5 June 2009. If any more are brought on site then the Notice will be breached.
Question: If caravans leave the site, can they come back on?
Answer (PW): The Stop Notice is a position in time, if they went off and then came back on, or the same amount replaced those that had left, it would be difficult for the Council to prosecute and it may also be construed as unreasonable.
Question: It is not a traveller’s site it is an agricultural field. Where is the legal standing to call it a traveller’s site?
Answer (PW/PH): You are correct. It is agricultural land with unauthorised use and that is explained clearly in both the Stop Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Question: For clarity, who will be prosecuting for non-compliance of the Notice and who will be prosecuted?
Answer (MR): Everyone who has been served with the Notice will be prosecuted.
Question: The local education authority calls the site ‘The traveller’s Site at Southend Lane’. Do they get their bins emptied?
Answer (PH): The gypsies have paid to get their bins emptied once and it is the Councils intention to negotiate a price and invoice them for further collections. The prime concern has to be public health issues. It was further clarified that clearing the bins does not mean that the council accepts that the site has changed use, and is a lawful use for a gypsy site.
Question: With regard to issues of environmental health, there are still six inches of standing water by the septic tank. Has anyone tested this?
Answer (PW): The Council visited the site on Friday 5 June 2009 in the evening and there was no standing water in the roads around at the time.
It was clarified by one of the residents that there is now and that somebody from the Council should undertake a visit to attend the site after the meeting to look at issues of potential flooding in the area.
Question: Are the drainage experts on board taking records? And what is being done?
Answer (PW): The Council will look to see if there is an immediate harm. They will look at the ongoing evidence as at the base point on Friday 5 June 2009. With regard to the Enforcement Notice, the Council will look at the harm that occurs in relation to the visual harm and the highways amenity grounds for which the Enforcement Notice was served
Question: There are also environmental issues on the site with regard to the harm to the wildlife and environment. Why haven’t these been taken into consideration when issuing the Notices?
Answer (PW): The Council has to defend the position taken on the grounds used when serving the Notice and it was impossible for the Council to look at the environmental impact at the time when serving the Notice, there was not sufficient time to look at these issues before issuing the Notice and the reasons for doing so. These are issues that would be considered in any planning application should one be made.
Question: Was a temporary Stop Notice considered?
Answer (MR): It was looked at but was felt that the only course of action was injunctive and then followed up by a Stop Notice if this was unsuccessful.
Question: Are the Council aware that there is already one traveller’s site at Horsefair Lane, Newent.
Answer (PH): Yes. The Council are aware there is a site at Horsefair Lane at present.
Question: Environmental issue. There is an application in fir Onslow Road, Newent where it is known that water flows downhill from the traveller’s site onto Onslow Road. Were the Council aware of this and what’s the intention to deal with the matter?
Answer (PW): Planners are aware of the issues and will look at the bigger picture in the sites in the Newent are with regard to flooding issues.
The questioner urged the Council to look in a seamless way at the applications in the area because the flooding was a big environmental issue in Newent. The balancing ponds in the area do not work and it needs to be considered in the round in Newent. The Council confirmed that there was a series of regulatory bodies that they used and would rely upon these bodies to address the flooding issues and other drainage issues in and around the Newent area in the round.
Question: Are all these questions being written down, and are they to be addressed by the Council? Can these be checked to ensure that the issues are being addressed by the Council?
Answer (SP/MR: Yes the Council will make notes of the meeting and these will be available to SLAM to disseminate to anyone in the meeting who has an interest. It was further clarified by the Council that these would be available on the Internet.
Question: The value of the properties alongside the gypsy site now surely will be devalued. Is the Council prepared to revaluate the houses for council tax purposes?
Answer (MR/PW): The value of the properties is dealt with by the district valuer. Any devaluatin of properties is not a material consideration when looking at the planning merits of any application that is received.
Statement: To remind people it has been 20 years since the properties in the area have been valued. It may well therefore not be worth individual people having their homes revalued.
Question: I was at the site at 4.00pm this afternoon and it is noted that another access is being made opposite the original, and there is six inches of standing water, six inches to one foot, and I therefore suggest someone checks the site tonight to see if there is standing water.
Answer: Yes the Council will check the site on their way home from the meeting this evening.
Question: How many pitches are there?
Answer (PW): There are 13 pitches laid out on the site and delineated by post and timber rail fences. The caravans are 22 in number and they are all of the touring variety with no static ones.
Question: If there are 13 pitches on the site, then these technically will account for approximately half of the amount of pitches required in the district and will therefore deal with the Forest of Dean District Council’s requirements for gypsy sites?
Answer (PW): Yes.
Question: The answer is to find another site for them to go to. If there are eastern Europeans who are travellers, is there a priority over our gypsies?
Answer (PH): This is perceived as a future problem and should be one that is directed to your MEP, as a European issue.
Question: Are the Council aware that there may be businesses being run from the site?
Answer (PW): The Notices specify that action is take against the residential use of the site. It does not address business uses. The Council are not aware of any businesses at present running from the site. Lots of contractors have work vans but doesn’t necessarily mean they are running from the site.
Question: They are running a business from the site. If the Council check the vans on site the Company’s called Rooftec Limited and the vans clearly demonstrate Rooftec Ledbury on the side. Also the gypsies appear to come from the Bromsborrow site to Southend Lane. They have moved.
Answer (PW): The Bromsborrow site is purely a transitory site and allows for gypsies to remain there for a short period of time, it is believed that the transit site allows for a stay no longer than six months at any one time.
Question: Has the Council had much experience of gypsy’s encampments? The Council should have been proactive.
Answer (PW): The Council has not been aware of any other unauthorised camps this large in the district previously; however, there have been one or two. It is accepted that the Council could have been proactive in respect of the drainage issues, but not the establishment of the site.
Question: What are the Council doing about the water sewerage?
Answer (PH): We have people in the Forest of Dean District Council who are dealing with the water and the sewerage issues from Environmental Health.
Question: The Stop Notice arrived last Friday, what has the Council done since then?
Answer (PH): The Council feels offended that the meeting believes that the Council have not been proactive in dealing with this matter. The Council has to operate within the requirements of the law and noting that the gypsies are the landowners. The Council will follow up all points that have been raised.
Question: The Environmental Agency have not received an application for discharge license for the sewerage. They have also portaloos on site as well. What is the Council doing about this?
Answer (PH) : The license to discharge sewerage is within the Environment Agency remit and not the Councils.
Question: When it was noted that bleach was brought on to the site in large containers, why did this not trigger any action from the Council? Rather it was not bleach it was sodium hydrochloride. (This last sentence has been noted incorrectly, the substance was sodium hypochlorite which is a bleach and the Council denied all knowledge of it. They have not really answered the real question i.e. why didn’t this ring warning bells? see answer)
Answer (PW): This is a matter for the Environment Agency to deal with and is not a Council issue from a planning perspective. The matter was brought to the attention of the Environment Services but they said that they had not sufficient evidence to act on.
Question: Has the Health and Safety Executive been called in? Is it their area?
Answer:
Question: What can we do to help? If we see anything happening, is there a telephone number that we can contact straight away to let people know at the Council?
Answer (PW/PH/SP): If you suspect that there is something going on, then please contact the Council. However, there is no out of hours emergency cover for planning or any other service that is related to the gypsies. If there is a breach of the Stop Notice i.e. if thee is any engineering operation to be dealt with and it is covered over, the question the Council will ask you at the meeting is; are you prepared to come forward to give evidence in Court? From the Council’s point of view, we would like to see the lines of communication kept open. I would therefore suggest that either you contact SLAM or Cllr Len Lawton in the first instance, but make sure that dialogue is kept going.
There is likely to be a planning enquiry if the gypsies appeal against the Enforcement Notice, where any party has the right to speak at the planning inquiry and to make their objections known to the planning inspector. The Council may be in the criminal courts if there is evdence beyond all reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed if the Notices have not been complied with. This depends what else goes on but it could go through civil courts also. ?? did we say this
Question: These people have to have somewhere to live. He hopes that they are local or Gloucestershire or UK travellers. What are the District Council doing to get permanent sites in the area? If one is disused then we should get one back.
Answer (PA): Peter Amos introduced himself and confirmed to the meeting that he has been dealing with gypsies from a local plan perspective and he has been involved in getting a policy in place that deals with gypsies. He confirmed that we as the Council are doing something and that there is a legal requirement for the Council to find pitches in the district but that this will take time.
Question: Is there anything done to allow communications between the gypsies and the Council?
Answer (PH): The gypsies haven’t asked for any communication, although he thinks that the Council should meet them. It was confirmed by the Council that Paul Kenyon as the Gypsy Liaison Officer is happy to liaise between the Council and the gypsies, and that it may be helpful in talking to him.
The meeting was finished at 8.15 pm with Cllr Lawton confirming that the Council would do all they could to help.