Gypsy Camp Action
CLA | 15.11.2004 16:12
As the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister released today the latest gypsy and traveller site figures, the Country Land & Business Association (CLA) called for confirmation of Government guidance on how authorities should deal with illegal encampments.
As the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister released today the latest gypsy and traveller site figures, the Country Land Association (CLA) called for confirmation of Government guidance on how authorities should deal with illegal encampments.
'It is all very well debating what it proposes to do in the future, but the Government would go some considerable way in resolving the disputes between local authorities, travellers and settled rural communities if it clarified what its existing policy is,' said CLA President Mark Hudson
'Last February the Government issued its Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping. This document, produced following consultation with all parties involved in the issue, set out what the various public bodies are to do when faced with an illegal encampment. It may not have been perfect but at least it let everyone know where they stood.
'We assumed it was the Government's agreed policy - certainly there was nothing to suggest otherwise in the statements made by the Housing Minister and the Home Office Minister,' continued Mr Hudson.
However, on 2 November 2004 the Housing Minister Keith Hill stated in response to a written question from Anthony Flook MP that:-
the final version of the joint Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/Home Office guidance document, "Managing Unauthorised Camping" will be published in the near future
Mr Hudson concluded 'The status of the Government's guidance must be clarified. Rural communities are entitled to know what they can expect from those responsible for dealing with travellers and to be able to hold them to account if they fall short.
'The issue is particularly pressing in view of the number of claims being made in the media following a recent decision by the Court of Appeal involving Chichester District Council. It has been claimed that the case held that travellers have a human right to set up sites wherever they wish. This is incorrect; they do not. The Court's decision was specific to the facts, principally that Chichester DC had failed to follow both its own and national planning policies
'It is all very well debating what it proposes to do in the future, but the Government would go some considerable way in resolving the disputes between local authorities, travellers and settled rural communities if it clarified what its existing policy is,' said CLA President Mark Hudson
'Last February the Government issued its Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping. This document, produced following consultation with all parties involved in the issue, set out what the various public bodies are to do when faced with an illegal encampment. It may not have been perfect but at least it let everyone know where they stood.
'We assumed it was the Government's agreed policy - certainly there was nothing to suggest otherwise in the statements made by the Housing Minister and the Home Office Minister,' continued Mr Hudson.
However, on 2 November 2004 the Housing Minister Keith Hill stated in response to a written question from Anthony Flook MP that:-
the final version of the joint Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/Home Office guidance document, "Managing Unauthorised Camping" will be published in the near future
Mr Hudson concluded 'The status of the Government's guidance must be clarified. Rural communities are entitled to know what they can expect from those responsible for dealing with travellers and to be able to hold them to account if they fall short.
'The issue is particularly pressing in view of the number of claims being made in the media following a recent decision by the Court of Appeal involving Chichester District Council. It has been claimed that the case held that travellers have a human right to set up sites wherever they wish. This is incorrect; they do not. The Court's decision was specific to the facts, principally that Chichester DC had failed to follow both its own and national planning policies
CLA