Travellers' fresh hope over eviction (From Echo)

THIS IS TAKING THE P!!!!!SSS, im lost for words now. HELP!

I agree with billericay boy, what sort of cowboy solicitors are employed by the council.

shallotman wrote:
I agree with billericay boy, what sort of cowboy solicitors are employed by the council.

DiD Find One. Were there’s a blame there’s a claim. Legal AID Crap.

The residents that live next to this slum have suffered long enough.

What will make me personally happy is when they sue the Council for all their suffering.

AND THAT WILL HAPPEN !!

Only then will other Councils deal with weeping sores properly.

Check the facts if a mistake has been made issue new notices simples.

Thier leagal teams must be laughing all the way to the bank...

Exactly , a "technicality" which at worst will add a small delay to the eviction.
That's if it even holds water.
Them buggers are going come what may and most with the size 11 jackboot of one of those rather large bailiiffs/security men/bouncers what ever they are, up there freckled posteriors.

Saddam, Gaddafi,Gippo Puxon . All the same. Sorry! We Need Help From NATO, Because Our council are not up to it. Can't even repair my pot hole.

When do the supporters of the travellers arrive, and where will they be staying for the duration? If on local plots of land without planning permission, can they be evicted?

shallotman wrote:
I agree with billericay boy, what sort of cowboy solicitors are employed by the council.

What sort of technicality did the travellers exploit to illegally develop that land.

Get them out now and move them on to their other homes.

Bring in the bulldozers now!

The only technicality would be that there is something wrong with the Council's enforcement notices. If this is the case the Council would be unable to do anything.

Yawn....this is so tiresome...
.
Can't we just pave over them like what's happening to Southend ?

I understand it’s being claimed that 2 of 8 Enforcement Notices issued in 2002 were quashed but not reinstated but this allegation does not appear to be correct.

The two notices were re-issued in September 2003 and were the subject of
further appeals, which were heard in March 2004. The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeals and upheld the notices as issued with the issue of his decision letter of 8 April 2004.
The time for compliance was set at 13 May 2005 to coincide with the earlier decision by John Prescott.

This information is freely available and should have been picked up and reported by the Echo to provide context and balance. Poor show.

Good old Basildon Tory Council! Why did anyone vote them in AGAIN? With the mistakes they make, the money they waste, the sellouts with regard to the studpidly named "Sporting Village" and all the other c--- ups, they should have been booted out by the electorate.

spectator wrote:
Good old Basildon Tory Council! Why did anyone vote them in AGAIN? With the mistakes they make, the money they waste, the sellouts with regard to the studpidly named "Sporting Village" and all the other c--- ups, they should have been booted out by the electorate.

I guess that the Conservatives were voted back for several reasons.

1/ Local Labour policy was to allow the Travellers to remain and giove them huge wedges of benefits for life.

2/ Labour had proven nationally they couldn't run a bath without hiring dozens of expensive consultants and detailed instructions.

3/ Every Labour controlled Local Authority has proven itself to be utterly incompetant and ruinously expensive, and that matters to those of us who actually PAY council tax.

4/ Gord was and is an 'Ocean Going Weirdo'. Blinky Balls is the chap who despite a written warning from the civil service went on to waste 90 BILLION of our cash. Gone ...wasted.

5/ Labours only solution is/was to keep taxing the working stiffs into penury. Well some of us had enough of being mugged by HMG and wanted a change.

Sadly Cameron so far has turned out to be nothing more than Blue Labour. Blair lite....another set of expense guzzling dodgy dealers, just like the last lot of thieves in charge of the country.

Deadjim wrote:
I understand it’s being claimed that 2 of 8 Enforcement Notices issued in 2002 were quashed but not reinstated but this allegation does not appear to be correct.

The two notices were re-issued in September 2003 and were the subject of
further appeals, which were heard in March 2004. The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeals and upheld the notices as issued with the issue of his decision letter of 8 April 2004.
The time for compliance was set at 13 May 2005 to coincide with the earlier decision by John Prescott.

This information is freely available and should have been picked up and reported by the Echo to provide context and balance. Poor show.

If there were new notices issued in September 2003 this would be identified in the Secretary of States and COUNCIL's OWN REPORTS.

and there would not be other issues..

While all this is going on another site being created just off 127 hehehehe... You have the responsibility to respect other people's rights, and they must respect yours. hehehehe... Human Rights folks hehehehe..

anjou wrote:

Deadjim wrote: I understand it’s being claimed that 2 of 8 Enforcement Notices issued in 2002 were quashed but not reinstated but this allegation does not appear to be correct. The two notices were re-issued in September 2003 and were the subject of further appeals, which were heard in March 2004. The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeals and upheld the notices as issued with the issue of his decision letter of 8 April 2004. The time for compliance was set at 13 May 2005 to coincide with the earlier decision by John Prescott. This information is freely available and should have been picked up and reported by the Echo to provide context and balance. Poor show.

If there were new notices issued in September 2003 this would be identified in the Secretary of States and COUNCIL's OWN REPORTS. and there would not be other issues..

I was simply correcting an error in the Echo’s reporting, which clearly says that the two notices have not been re-served.

If you look, you’ll see that one of the Council’s own reports does identify that new notices were issued in September 2003.

What “other issues” are you referring to ?

I would expect the Council to identify other issues once it has read its notices and then looked at the Secretary of States decisions. Otherwise I'm sure that additional issues will be identified to them.

Beats me why the Council did not check its notices to start with !

It would have saved a lot of money.

anjou wrote:
I would expect the Council to identify other issues once it has read its notices and then looked at the Secretary of States decisions. Otherwise I'm sure that additional issues will be identified to them. Beats me why the Council did not check its notices to start with ! It would have saved a lot of money.

This particular Echo story (on-line and hard copy versions ) has caused unnecessary and avoidable confusion.

The facts as I understand them are that 2 of the enforcement notices issued in 2002 were “nullified” as part of The Secretary of State’s (Prescott) 2003 decision to reject the travellers appeals and uphold the Council’s decision.
As I've pointed out, the 2 faulty notices were re-issued, the travellers appeals against the new notices were rejected by the Planning Inspectorate and so at face, they are valid.
The Council’s report that sets this out in detail includes the Planning Inspecorate’s decision letter of April 2004.
The Council report was a key document in the Court of Appeal decision of January 2009, that the Council had acted lawfully.

In summary, the Council were in error in 2002 but corrected things in 2003 and the Court of Appeal accepted that correction.

There may be other issues about other notices but the Echo has not detailed them and as to the former use of the site as a scrap yard, my understanding is that the scrap yard use in planning terms lapsed some time ago and may therefore no longer be an issue.

My understanding is that the Council divided dale farm into 5 sites, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

The notices affecting Sites 1,2,3 (the Council call these sites the horseshoe) were subject to appeal decisions in 2003. The notices did not include sites 4 and 5. Two of the notices affecting this land were declared a nullity, and one was modified to take account of lawful use. THESE NOTICES WERE NOT REISSUED. A Council has 4 years to reissue notices after which they can't.

In 2005 notices against sites 4 and 5 were appealed. The Council call these sites the "island". This is the middle bit of the horse shoe. The notices and appeal did not include sites 1, 2 or 3 or all the sites on 4 and 5 (the island).

The Court of appeal examined the issues.. and decided in 2009 that the Council had notices against sites 4 and 5. Sites 1, 2, and 3 were not subject to appeal.

The Court (LJ Lloyd) in 2009 warned the Council that:

"The decision was that officers should be authorised to take such action as was deemed necessary to allow the council to secure compliance with the enforcement notices, under section 178. It was not a decision as to what action should be taken, or when."

NB Compliance with the enforcement notices..

Some of the land is able to revert to its last lawful use (about a third) - scrapyard.

The Council in 2007 identified that there had been total compliance with the industrial use of the land. I would guess that about 30 per cent of the visible hardstanding at Dale Farm was used to support the industrial use, and as such is lawful. There is also an "industrial building" still on the site.

As I said.. I would have thought it would have been wise for the Council to check its notices and also what it was actually taking enforcement against..

Just cannot believe that the legal team at Basildon Council have got this wroing but, if so then the council are incompetent. If not, then this is just one more of the infamous Grattan Puxons stalling tactics, he really should be silenced as the false hope and incitement to disobey the law is criminal.

Everyone wants them gone and it is so unfair on the legal law abiding residents of Crays Hill.

I think the mischief is that because the notices that were identified as a nullity in 2003 included the grounds of appeal that the site was covered in hardstanding in 2001 were identified as not existing.. the Council by not reissuing the notices denied the occupiers a right of appeal to the Secretary of State to state the obvious... that the land was covered in concrete and was a scrap yard used to store cars by the Council itself.

The Council then appears to have collectively forgotten that some of its notices were a nullity.. and spent about £1 million.

What is shocking is that about £6 million has been made available to Basildon based on a telephone call from a Basildon Cllr to a Conservative minister whose own department identified that there were issues with the Council's notices.

This was a few weeks after the Liberal member of the coalition government had refused to let Basildon have the money and was doubtless after they had checked the situation

anjou wrote:
My understanding is that the Council divided dale farm into 5 sites, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The notices affecting Sites 1,2,3 (the Council call these sites the horseshoe) were subject to appeal decisions in 2003. The notices did not include sites 4 and 5. Two of the notices affecting this land were declared a nullity, and one was modified to take account of lawful use. THESE NOTICES WERE NOT REISSUED. A Council has 4 years to reissue notices after which they can't. In 2005 notices against sites 4 and 5 were appealed. The Council call these sites the "island". This is the middle bit of the horse shoe. The notices and appeal did not include sites 1, 2 or 3 or all the sites on 4 and 5 (the island). The Court of appeal examined the issues.. and decided in 2009 that the Council had notices against sites 4 and 5. Sites 1, 2, and 3 were not subject to appeal. The Court (LJ Lloyd) in 2009 warned the Council that: "The decision was that officers should be authorised to take such action as was deemed necessary to allow the council to secure compliance with the enforcement notices, under section 178. It was not a decision as to what action should be taken, or when." NB Compliance with the enforcement notices.. Some of the land is able to revert to its last lawful use (about a third) - scrapyard. The Council in 2007 identified that there had been total compliance with the industrial use of the land. I would guess that about 30 per cent of the visible hardstanding at Dale Farm was used to support the industrial use, and as such is lawful. There is also an "industrial building" still on the site. As I said.. I would have thought it would have been wise for the Council to check its notices and also what it was actually taking enforcement against..

All my comments in this string have centered on what the Echo has reported or omitted .
I’ve already said that there may well be other Notices and other issues.
Clearly, you think there were and you seem to be implying that the Council’s report in December 2007 was incorrect/inaccurate
/incomplete (or worse).

If you’re right in all you say, it’s a real surprise to me that the Court of Appeal allowed the Council’s appeal and that subsequently the House of Lords found that there was no point of law for them to consider.
Were the travellers lawyers were not sufficiently thorough ?

Incidentally, not everyone would share you interpretation that LJ Lloyd was issuing a warning to the council.

Did the Council fail to give disclosure ?

and

did the Council make decisions based on negligence that was not reported?

My view is that any Cllr going to evict someone should at least look at the mortgage deed (that is what the enforcement notices are) themselves, and also all the changes required by the Secretary of State .

My understanding is that the Cllrs have not. If they had this situation would probably not have arisen and a whole lot of money and stress would have been saved!

LJ Lloyds words are his own.. and their meaning can only be determined through actual examination of the enforcement notices.. by the Council itself..

anjou wrote:
Did the Council fail to give disclosure ? and did the Council make decisions based on negligence that was not reported? My view is that any Cllr going to evict someone should at least look at the mortgage deed (that is what the enforcement notices are) themselves, and also all the changes required by the Secretary of State . My understanding is that the Cllrs have not. If they had this situation would probably not have arisen and a whole lot of money and stress would have been saved! LJ Lloyds words are his own.. and their meaning can only be determined through actual examination of the enforcement notices.. by the Council itself..

My, my, this is strong stuff .
I’d be interested to see if and how are you going to put it to the test.

Your view on how some of LJ Lloyds words can be determined fits your overall theme. Unsurprisingly perhaps, I’m more influenced by his previous sentence in the Appeal Court judgement :
“I agree that the council's decision taken on 13 December 2007 to enforce under section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was lawful and was properly reached, and that these appeals should therefore be allowed."

There is I think no dispute that the Council have some valid notices, as well as some that are a nullity, and that some of the site is lawful due to the scrap yard and industrial use. There are other errors.

The question is what is the Council actually seeking to take enforcement against. What do the notices allow ?

All hardstanding from the industrial use is lawful, as is the industrial building (about 40 per cent of the site). The Council said so in 2007.

My understanding is that it is lawful to station caravans on large areas of the site, and use them residentially (about 60 per cent of the site) as the notices requiring this activity to cease were identified as a nullity and not reissued. It is lawful to deposit hardcore and road scalpings (about 30 per cent of the site) as the notices requiring this activity to cease were identified as a nullity and were not reissued. About 30 per cent of the site can be lawfully used as a scrap yard. The Council also appears not to have actually issued enforcement notices against all the land.

There is a patchwork of different land uses. The majority of the site based on the Council's notices appears to be lawful. The Council has at any rate not made a decision to take enforcement.. there are no notices requiring the land use to cease. and it now can't issue notices it falls outside the timecale allowed by the planning acts.

The Council can take different enforcement actions against each of the six sites that it has created through its planning notices that now form Dale Farm..

It is understood that the travellers have invited the Council to go round the site so that the things that the Council can take enforcement against (based on their notices) are identified on a site by site and pitch by pitch basis.. and consensus is obtained.

I don't personally see this as a major issue as the notices (or their lack) and the land use are just a fact. The Council and travellers should cnsequently be able to arrive at consensus quite easily.

I'm sure that Basildon will review their notices.. and then go and have a look... prior to any 28 day notices being issued and agree with the travellers what the Council actually have notices against, and what it can take enforcement against. This would be the easiest and most sensible course of action. It is understood that this is all the travellers have actually requested.

I'm sure that the travellers would have no problem with both Cllrs and the local MP being present at a consensus meeting to identify any unreasonable claims and to arbitrate if required between the travellers and the Council's officers. It is understood that this has been requested, and that the police have already identified that this approach is sensible.

I expect the Council will have a different take on this but your views are very interesting.
I'm still very surprised that your information,if it's as damaging to the Council's position as you imply,was not picked up by the travellers lawyers a long time ago and put before the courts.

I don't think the information is damaging to the Council. The issues appear to be reasonably clear.

The Court has determined that the Council can take a s178 action and put a mortgage on the land if it chooses.

The Council have applied for grant aid it is assumed to avoid having to put a mortgage on the land, and recover its REASONABLE costs from the land owners.

The Council's mortgage has to be registered at Land Registry. The process of registration converts the Council's statutory rights to a private right.

The issue appears to me to be that decision makers (Cllrs) have not considered what the notices enable, and what they wish to claim costs for enforcement for as a private right of the Council.

All that the travellers seem to be asking is that there is consensus as to what the Council can take action against.. and what they can't. Development of the consensus should save a lot of time and money. It will also probably show that some in the Council might wish to go beyond the notices.

shallotman wrote:
I agree with billericay boy, what sort of cowboy solicitors are employed by the council.

You only get Cowboy Solicitors working for any Council,if they were any good in the first place they would be working either in their own or a large practise earning considerably more no doubt

anjou wrote:
I don't think the information is damaging to the Council. The issues appear to be reasonably clear. The Court has determined that the Council can take a s178 action and put a mortgage on the land if it chooses. The Council have applied for grant aid it is assumed to avoid having to put a mortgage on the land, and recover its REASONABLE costs from the land owners. The Council's mortgage has to be registered at Land Registry. The process of registration converts the Council's statutory rights to a private right. The issue appears to me to be that decision makers (Cllrs) have not considered what the notices enable, and what they wish to claim costs for enforcement for as a private right of the Council. All that the travellers seem to be asking is that there is consensus as to what the Council can take action against.. and what they can't. Development of the consensus should save a lot of time and money. It will also probably show that some in the Council might wish to go beyond the notices.

The place to test the Carta report, on which I think you’ve based your assumptions and assertions, is not here or behind closed doors in Westminster but in the Courts where Basildon Council can, if necessary, defend itself .
The report is not in the public domain so I still hold to my kick-off point that the Echo story was misleading. I have nothing more to add.
Over and out .

Deadjim wrote:

anjou wrote:
I don't think the information is damaging to the Council. The issues appear to be reasonably clear. The Court has determined that the Council can take a s178 action and put a mortgage on the land if it chooses. The Council have applied for grant aid it is assumed to avoid having to put a mortgage on the land, and recover its REASONABLE costs from the land owners. The Council's mortgage has to be registered at Land Registry. The process of registration converts the Council's statutory rights to a private right. The issue appears to me to be that decision makers (Cllrs) have not considered what the notices enable, and what they wish to claim costs for enforcement for as a private right of the Council. All that the travellers seem to be asking is that there is consensus as to what the Council can take action against.. and what they can't. Development of the consensus should save a lot of time and money. It will also probably show that some in the Council might wish to go beyond the notices.

The place to test the Carta report, on which I think you’ve based your assumptions and assertions, is not here or behind closed doors in Westminster but in the Courts where Basildon Council can, if necessary, defend itself .
The report is not in the public domain so I still hold to my kick-off point that the Echo story was misleading. I have nothing more to add.
Over and out .

I understood that the Carta Report merely wished to identify consensus as to what was lawful and what was not at Dale Farm, and that the only reason it is not in the public domain is because Basildon have as yet failed to identify any points of disagreement. It is based entirely on the documents supplied by the Council's (closed doors?) as being the Council's entire case.

There should be no need for the Courts involvement - as I doubt that either side wants to act unreasonably. The Council has said it wants a mortgage over the land. It is important that the acts proposed by the Council are identified.

Here we go again!
Anyone else thinking that this eviction will never take place?

Ake30li wrote:
Here we go again! Anyone else thinking that this eviction will never take place?

I’m sure your not alone in thinking that way but I doubt this story or what’s behind it will make the slightest difference to the prospects or timetable.
And it's not just me uncomfortable about misleading journalism on this topic …
http://www.essex.pol
ice.uk/news_features
/dale_farm/news_and_
updates/chief_consta
ble_sends_letter_t.a
spx