As you may recall I asked the council a list of the most regularly asked question of me on the Traveller Issue in Chaddlewood, Here is their response (Anything in brackets are my comments to expand a point). The Myth buster document remains substantially accurate and whilst it was not republished it was most recently reviewed in 2010. it is on the work programme to carry out a further review this year it will take account of the sorts of questions you are being asked. i/ Why cant the Police use section 61/62 of the Criminal Justice Act to get them to move? Regards s.61 I believe you were advised of the rationale for this in an earlier email I have attached a copy (please note I havent actually had a legal reason why it couldnt be used, just that the current policy was agreed earlier this year and it was deemed by Cabinet to be seen as being heavy handed approach). Regards s.62 – in order to ask the Police to use s.62 we must first have a transit site or other lawful suitable facility to which the travellers can be directed. ii/ Why are travellers treated differently to everyone else because if I was to park my Caravan on the field I would be made to move it straight away? (usually quote the recent article about the young campers in Plymbridge Woods as Evidence of this) – We have a published Gypsy and Traveller Unauthorised Encampments procedure. This has recently been the subject of a scrutiny review which concluded that it was appropriate in terms of ensuring that UE’s are moved on without undue delay. I am not able to comment on the article about the teenagers camping in Plymbridge woods which we had no part in managing however a private individual parking a caravan on public land would be likely to be subject to a similar procedure. iii/ Will they be made to pay for the cleanup of the area and provision of the Port-o-loos? No we supply the toilets free of charge because it reduces the cost of cleaning up after they have gone. As the landowners we are responsible for keeping the area clean – we can take action on littering and fly tipping but it requires indisputable evidence and a significant amount of officer time, it is rarely practical. iv/ Why arent we prosecuting them for Criminal Damage and Polluting the Environment? We can only prosecute when we have evidence that is adequate to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt of an individual(s) culpability the fact that the travellers are in the vicinity when it happens would be regarded by the courts as circumstantial evidence. v/ What about our welfare (Local residents) as we feel like prisoners in our own homes? We do our best to respond to resident’s concerns. We are taking action in accordance with our policy to remove them as quickly as we can. Whilst we understand that residents will fear an increased level of crime the reported crime statistics do not bear this out and there is no reason for residents to feel they can’t leave their properties in circumstances where they ordinarily would. Residents will no doubt feel they cannot use the fields as an amenity in the way they usually would however they have the right to do so if they wish.
Posted on: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 09:51:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015