On Friday, I announced new policies to tackle the growing problem of illegal development, something which has proliferated under the Labour Government.
For too long a small minority of travellers and squatters have been given the green light to exploit the rules and occupy illegal or unauthorised sites, which are often on Green Belt land.
The Government’s own figures show that as of January 2009, a massive 1,279 unauthorised travellers are ‘tolerated’ and court decisions, coupled with weak planning enforcement powers, have created precedents that give travellers the green light to establish encampments on greenfield land.
The British public want to see fair play for all but Labour’s changes to the planning system have undermined community cohesion by creating a legitimate sense of injustice for those affected by illegal development.
To address this we would:
Introduce a new criminal offence of intentional trespass, which would be enforced by the police, as is already in place in the Republic Of Ireland. This is designed to ensure that landowners don’t have to go through the civil courts to evict travellers and squatters, which is an extremely slow and expensive process.
We would also curtail the ability to apply for retrospective planning permission. This will stop the practice of people laying down concrete on weekends or bank holidays and then putting in a planning application (currently, planning enforcement cannot commence whilst an application is pending).
John Prescott’s unfair Whitehall planning rules, which are compelling councils to build traveller camps on the Green Belt and compulsory purchase people’s land to find sites, would also be scrapped.
And, as we have already announced, The Human Rights Act will be replaced with a British Bill of Rights to prevent ‘human rights’ lawyers sidestepping the planning system and demanding special treatment
Law-abiding citizens understandably have to jump through many hoops to build in rural areas but there are too many loopholes that let a small minority exploit the law. I am confident that our proposals to rebalance the system will bring fair play back into the planning system.
( 13 comments ) Tags: green belt, illegal developments, planning, squatters
Comment by Steve Willis on February 15, 2010 at 11:27 am
I like the concept behind this, but foresee major difficulties with its practical application:
“Introduce a new criminal offence of intentional trespass, which would be enforced by the police, as is already in place in the Republic Of Ireland. This is designed to ensure that landowners don’t have to go through the civil courts to evict travellers and squatters, which is an extremely slow and expensive process.”
At what level do you set the test of “intent”? I’m assuming this, even in criminal cases, would have to be left to the courts, in which case immediate clearance of all trespassers might prove to be impoossible.
Consider also the situation where a group of people are involved and only one person breaks down the barrier or forces entry and all the others arrive after the event. I suspect difficulties would arise, particularly where some of those late arrivals are children under the age of criminal consent. What happens in this scenario?
I think you need to do more work on the detail of this proposed legislation.
Comment by Tom I Balmain on February 15, 2010 at 2:46 pm
I consider it is long overdue when all planning applications should be decided locally and most should be heard by the local elected planning committee. There have been quite a number of cases when the applicant has appealed against the decision. Only for the cecision to overturned by an unelected civil servant/planning inspector who resides down south. I consider it is unfair for an elected councillor to be penalised because of his local knowledge of an application under the present sytem. I would welcome any proposal that puts planning decisions back into the court of local councils rather than being dictated by central government.
From reading your blog Mr Neill that is exactly what the next conservative government will do.
Comment by Ron Gobell on February 15, 2010 at 6:20 pm
At last, long overdue. Please do not do a U-turn or postpone action on this proposed policy after the general election. I am presuming that there are other cutting edge policies in the pipeline that will increase David Camerons credentials and poor poll ratings that will ensure an overall majority win. I presume that there is a “typo” in the blog, should it read …..1,279 unauthorised encampments…. or is it ……individual unauthorised travellers….?
Comment by Simon Ruston on February 15, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I am a researcher who specialises in Gypsy & Traveller Planning issues at the University of the West of England. I would appreciate some clarification on certain issues. I have contacted Central office, but they have been unable to provide any further details. I will go through each of the five proposals.
• Create a new criminal offence of intentional trespass. Trespassers who refuse to move after being asked to do so by a uniformed police officer will face arrest. This will allow both squatters and travellers occupying property without permission of the landowner to be removed quickly.
Where do you intend for such people to go? Especially those who may have children and / or health considerations.
Do you intend to allow any amount of time for people to seek alternative accommodation?
How do you intend to pay for the likely increased costs of Police evictions?
Have you made any costings for this proposal?
If the adults of a family are arrested, what will happen to any dependent children?
Do you intend to arrest all the adults?
• Curtail the ability to apply for retrospective planning permission. This will stop the practice of people laying down concrete on weekends or bank holidays and then putting in a planning application.
Will this restriction apply solely to Gypsies & Travellers?
How exactly do you intend to curtail retrospective planning permission?
• Scrap John Prescott’s unfair Whitehall planning rules, which are compelling councils to build traveller camps on the Green Belt and compulsory purchase people’s land to find sites.
Could you refer to the exact policy within Circular 01/06 which compels Councils to build on Greenbelt, and compulsory purchase land?
• Give tougher ‘stop notice’ enforcement powers to councils with authorised sites, and support central funding for councils to build authorised sites – rather than it failing to local taxpayers.
I was led to believe that it is the Homes and Communities Agency (a National body) which currently provides funding for Local Authorities to build authorised sites, could you explain how this falls to Local Taxpayers?
• The Human Rights Act will be replaced with a British Bill of Rights to prevent ‘human rights’ lawyers sidestepping the planning system and demanding special treatment.
Please could you provide me with some specific instances, and also could you explain your position regarding the belief that the Planning System is a higher form of law in comparison to the Human Rights Act?
It will be interesting to see more detailed proposals and the evidence base from which these policies have been devised.
Comment by Sally Woodbury on February 15, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Well i would like to state that if a planning officer recomends permmission be Granted and the planning Commitee go against his wishes becouse they are worried they will not be voted in next time if they give permmision to a Gypsy site Why cnt Gypsy Families apeal.
I would allso like to say the Conservatives if they get in to power have all agreed to the Circuler 1/2006 they have also agreed that Gypsy and Traveller site need to be provided so when are they going to let the puplic no this when they get into power.
and the only land that has been bought by a Councill by conpulsive perchace was from Gypsies that they would not give planning to, the then built 2 pitches on the land for £6000000.
So i think they need to tell the public exacly what they have planned befor they make half hrted statments to win votes.
Comment by Anon on February 16, 2010 at 12:20 am
I’ve been a surveyor for nearly a decade and have never heard of people putting down foundations deliberately over a weekend or bank holiday, there’s not much advantage in starting a development covertly and applying for retrospective planning, it can still be refused. Often developers start development without planning becuase applications take too long to be registered and once registered determined and common sense dictates to just start on site pending planning, sometimes to prevent the building being vandalised or decaying further. The government say it should be 8 weeks, i am involved with an application that’s taken 2 years and still not determined. I dont think developers are so devious, these entrepreurs are often crippled and stifled by the planning system. The other side needs regulation such as the planners practice of taking 4-6 weeks to register an application and adding that to the 8 weeks the gov’t say they’re allowed, and taking many months before asking for a “missing” peice of information, such as a north symbol on a plan or defect in a red line drawing, a long time after the applications been registration, thereby justifying the delay in a decision, lengthening the time they have to make a decision, and making the developer look at fault. End
Comment by marie birch on February 16, 2010 at 1:27 am
have u ever heard that charity starts at home ?if i came from another country with five kids you would get me a nice new house an give me benefits ! how about the thosands of travellers that vote for you and keep you in a job ? my moto is live and let live on the earth the good lord gave us, the travellers you r talking about are spending ther own money not the goverments as most of the mp’s do to help them selves ! charity starts at home so help them that want to help them selves.
Comment by Lisa Bruton on February 16, 2010 at 10:22 am
Hello,
I read with a sunken heart that these are the plans you are thinking of for Gypsies and Travellers in your area. The opportunity for an intelligent, properly informed and historically located discussion about the situation of Travellers in the UK today seems to have been lost.
Unlike the “law breaking scoundrels” that the media (The Mail, The Sun and so on) so love to depict, most Gypsies and Travellers actually have very very dire housing prospects. They can either go into housing where they are cut off from their friends and families, surrounded by hostile neighbours and unable in many ways to live a life that suits them and corresponds with a hundreds year old tradition, with health outcomes plumetting down (up to 25 years less life expectancy for Travellers in some parts of the UK), or if they are lucky, find a pitch on an official sight (one in a million), or go along with government promises to do local housing needs assessments and then provide appropriate dwelling places. Councils have been notoriously retarded in providing sites, resulting in a situation where there are officially 25,000 homeless Travellers today which have no other alternative to stop in illegal (not to say dangerous) places and then get aggression for doing this.
The goverment’s promise that Travellers could buy their own land and then apply for planning permission is a good idea in theory but in practice virtually all of the applications are rejected and people spend huge amount of resources and time trying to appeal these with little gain.
Do you think people really want to illegally tarmac places, fight tooth and nail for a place to stop, spend years of their life and face constant abuse, just to be able to live in peace? No.
It is a real shame that you are not taking the time to think more broadly about the context within which the situations you are describing take place. Ironically, much of what Conservatism purports to be about, is very close to what Gypsy and Traveller culture is about – family, self supporting communities, strong community links, belief in tradition and so on.
A few points to think about. I work for a national Gypsy and Traveller charity and have learnt alot since working there about the social and material realities that underpin and produce the situations you are worried about. Solutions lie in appropriate site provision and proper facilities, not more laws that just squash people that have been squashed enough,
Comment by J Whalley on February 17, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Will a Conservative Government look at at shifting power away from labour’s beurocratic system and giving local residents and experts the power to exercise their views more effectively?
A prime example is the current usage of ETSU-R-97 in determining the noise limits of wind farms. As a mechanical engineer and party member I see not only the technical problems but also the political problems that arise from a badly constructed document that is not fit for purpose – i.e. the document permits noise emissions to be louder in the night than in the day.
Comment by David on February 18, 2010 at 8:56 pm
As someone who works in the planning system, this is yet another example of bady thought populist policymaking. Leaving aside the current reality that discrimination against gypsies remains the last acceptable form of racism and the grossly inhumane approach taken by planning committees across the country in refusing gypsies the right to have a home, the Conservatives want to initiate a NIMBY approach to local development and yet fail to explain how they will implement national policy. Planning is about the management of development not the prevention and until the Tories understand that, their policies will remain doomed to failure.
Comment by Chris D on February 21, 2010 at 10:49 am
Sad fact is that a gypsy camp near ANY established residential area forces the property prices down. Perhaps discussions ought to be had with estate agents; after all, they are the ones who suggest the selling prices for properties. In the end, though, people tend not to choose to live near gypsy camps and thus wont pay the property prices asked. And, another sad fact is that many camps ARE dirty and ill-kept; when they can learn cleanliness and tidiness, they might become more acceptable.
Comment by Martin Harrall on February 22, 2010 at 2:00 pm
I’m worried that this legislation might end up being used for other purposes other than that for which it is intended. Landowners that have riparian rights to rivers flowing through or past their land may attempt to use the new intended trespass law to prosecute canoeists, kayakers, wild swimmers, and other people simply trying to enjoy the countryside. In a country where obesity is an ever increasing problem, access to the outdoors and the freedom to exercise should be very much encouraged. Additional barriers should not be put in the way. This new law needs to be carefully considered and worded to ensure that it is only used in the manner described above.
Comment by S on April 18, 2010 at 2:09 pm
The number of gypsy sites going onto green belt land is increasing dramatically. There are many examples of this and anyone who googles unauthorised development by gypsies will find them! We CANNOT allow our greenbelt to disappear under hundreds/thousands of caravans just because gypsies have a hard time finding somewhere to live. They must follow the rules – indeed NO ONE should be allowed to develop green belt or rural fields and then apply for retrospective planning. These inevitably go to appeal and it can take 12 months minimum – in many cases years, to get the land returned to its original state – that is if the appeal is dismissed. It is also true that Gypsies are being permission where the settled population wouldn’t. Sites are needed for gypsies but I have personal experience where gypsies turn down authorised sites because they prefer to live on a nice green belt field in our beautiful countryside, rather than a council run site. We can’t do nothing on this issue – changes must be made!!!