Home > Terrible Tories > Lancashire’s Dale Farm

Lancashire’s Dale Farm

On the day that the goverment gives a Tory council at least £18 million in taxpayer money for the forced eviction of travellers from Dale Farm in Essex, it is worth reprising the history of a Tory council which has, for many years and in contravention of  any democratic norm, opposed the eviction of travellers from an illegal site.

It is now getting on for four years since West Lancashire Borough Council’s Planning Committee made the decision (17 January 2008) that an enforcement notice for the clearance a traveller caravan site bang next to the M58 motorway in Skelmersdale, but in greenbelt land, should be executed. 

The site  is in the ownership of the residents, and has been developed (hardstandings etc.) and occupied without planning permission for some years previous.

Specifically, the planning committee stated in its decision:

 That no time extension be granted for compliance with enforcement notice E/2004/0050.’

That was early 2008. On two separate occasions since then, this decision by democratically elected local councillors has been ignored by the council administration. 

First, in October 2008, a confidential report was brought to the planning committee setting out why the decision could not be enforced, and seeking a further extension on the enforcement period to 31 December 2009.   I cannot comment on what that report contained, other than to say they related to specific personal circumstances.

Then, in 2010, and nearly two months after the revised notice should have been enforced, a further confidential report  was brought to planning committee, seeking another 12 month deferral until December 2010, bringing it to three years since the original decision to clear the site.

This was voted through by the Tory majority on planning. 

It might seem odd, in the light of Dale Farm events, that a council under Tory control should go to such lengths not to enforce a planning committee decision relating to a traveller site.  But this is where the plot thickens.

The reason given for the second deferral was that, because a permanent site for travellers and gypsies needed to be established somewhere in West Lancashire anyway under the government’s (2006) planning policy guidance on the establishment of permanent, managed sites for gypsies and travellers, it is now not worth removing this site because it was likely to be adopted (with planning permission) as the new permanent site under this policy anyway.

Thus, a consistent refusal by the current users of the site to seek planning permission on greenbelt land, and a consistent refusal to comply with enforcement notices was now being handsomely rewarded by the Tory administration by seeking to award it permanent status through the cynical use of the 2006 planning guidance.

More importantly, such a cynical move made a total mockery of the due democratic process of identifying where a suitable permanent site should be placed, through the development of the next West Lancashire Local Development Plan and in the context of the North West Regional Spatial Strategy Partial Review.

It is clear that the administration was keen that it should be at the M58 site, because it was a politically expedient move. Put simply, it means that it could ‘tick the boxes’ for provision of a permanent site without having to go anywhere near the proper process of actually identifying the most suitable location for a site.

Naturally, it is very far from clear whether a site bang next to a motorway, cut off by it from the town, and in private ownership by one particular section of the traveler community, is in fact the most appropriate site in a large borough.

In terms of travellers’ own needs, it is a long way from services e.g. schools, and there are also legitimate questions to be asked, given the current ownership, of whether the wider traveling community will ever have any access to the site – this being a key rationale for the whole site identification process.  

None of these issues were examined, because the Tory administration was not interested in the findings.

The Tories’ democratically illegitimate decision is likely to mean, in time, more illegal use of sites by travellers, not less, as travellers coming to the area find no legal site for them to stay at.  Thus, the whole idea that local tensions might be lessened through the difficult but necessary process of identifying permanent sites is subverted, with tensions likely to rise instead. 

Instead of seeking a sensible preventative way forward through the provision of legal sites, the Tories’ (national) solution is simply to criminalize travellers unable to find a legal site. 

And hence…..Dale Farm

 

About these ads
Categories: Terrible Tories
  1. Mike
    September 25, 2011 at 1:50 pm | #1

    It is possible that in time many LPA’s will have their own Dale Farm.

    I expect the WLBC planning committee decision in 2008 to bar any extension of time for compliance might have been to avoid any similar consequences to the John Prescott decision in 2003 to allow 2 further years for compliance at Dale Farm – between 2003 and 2005,it doubled in size.

    Clearly, the October 2008 report was brought on behalf of the travellers and at face, the request for an extension of time was agreed by WLBC, probably on travellers ill-health grounds.
    What you seem to be suggesting is that it would have preferable for the travellers on that site to have been enforced against and perhaps forced on to the roadside in order to achive some sort of purity of approach .

    The position in the WLBC is by no means unique.
    Many LPA’s in the Eastern Region, especially those with large areas of land, have for some years been deliberately “tolerating” unauthorised developments on poor quality land – mainly small and largely hidden from view,they do not arouse loud protest from the settled community.
    These LPA’s intend that if and when they are forced by whatever government to provide additional authorised pitches, they will simply authorise where currently they tolerate. Labour government ministers, presiding over their Circular 01/2006 and RRS based site provision strategy were well aware but chose to do nothing.

    Many people, including traveller-friendly politicians, have urged Basildon Council to grant planning permission at Dale Farm.
    Such action would have easily fulfilled any foreseeable obligation for BC to provide more sites but it would have denied availability to the wider traveller community and Dale Farm itself would never have been subjected to any objective test of suitability,environmental impact and it would have driven a coach and horses through national green belt policy .

    It seems to me therefore that what you would have preferred in West Lancashire is supportive of Basildon Council’s determination to remove travellers at Dale Farm – eiher that or you are seeking to have your cake and eat it.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: