The Dale Farm Evictions

As we await the latest court judgment, Marina Sergides analyses the legal and social aspects of the Dale Farm case

Contrary to the ill-informed views expressed almost daily in the right-wing press, supporters of Dale Farm are not ‘just’ left wingers, students or anarchists. Despite widespread hostility from locals towards the Travellers, the story of Dale Farm has received an astonishing amount of international support and recognition. Advocates cut across the political spectrum because this eviction is unlawful, unfair and morally unjustifiable.

In 1994 the then Conservative government overturned a legal requirement for local authorities to provide adequate sites for Travellers and Gypsies. This shortage of sites, coupled with the extremely low success rates of planning applications made by Travellers and Gypsies, has resulted in the gradual erosion of their way of life. The new Localism Bill, sponsored by a Conservative MP, will further compound this problem. It promises to outlaw retrospective planning permission, which has been virtually the only way in which Gypsies and Travellers have managed to get sites approved. The Gypsy and Traveller Sites Grant, launched in 2008, provided funding for local authorities and registered social landlords to create new sites and refurbish existing sites. This programme, with its stated aim of creating new, permanent, sites to “tackle the inequalities experienced by Travellers … one of the most disadvantaged [groups] in the country”, led to the building of just four new sites, with a total of 37 pitches. 62 new pitches were created on existing sites and 178 pitches were refurbished. Rather predictably, the present government has since scrapped the grant and provided only half of the funding to provide sufficient sites.

In the Dale Farm case, the response of the local authority to this shortage was not to offer sufficient suitable sites to preserve the traditions of this evicted group, but to offer “bricks and mortar” accommodation in a number of different areas. There was a complete failure to recognise that separation of the community represented a complete affront to their way of life.

Furthermore, the exhortations from international bodies to recognise the needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities have been completely ignored.  The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has condemned the Dale Farm eviction as ‘unwise and immature’. The UN was joined by Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, who warned there was a great risk of human rights violations if 86 families and 100 children were forcibly removed. The UN proposed a peaceful and appropriate solution in which negotiations would take place between all parties. This would include identifying culturally appropriate accommodation, with full respect for the rights of the children and families involved. According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission the life expectancy of Gypsies and Travellers is 10 years lower than the national average, while mothers are 20 times more likely to experience the death of a child. Despite this compelling evidence of socio-economic disadvantage, those proposing the removal of the Dale Farm residents, the single largest eviction to be undertaken in Britain in modern times, have not shown any willingness to protect this vulnerable part of society.

The approach of Basildon Council, whilst grossly unfair, might be at least partly understandable if the argument based on green belt land had any substance. But prior to the Travellers’ purchase of Dale Farm the land was used as a scrapyard and held no significance for the local authority. It is baffling how anybody can possibly advance environmental considerations as some sort of justification for the action currently being taken.

DALE FARM: ITS COMPLICATED LEGAL HISTORY

Dale Farm is the largest Traveller site in the country. Irish Travellers own all of the land on Dale Farm; however part of the site is ‘greenbelt’ land. Approximately 400 Travellers live on this part of the site, but they have not obtained the required planning permission. Basildon Borough Council has served a number of enforcement notices relating to the occupation of this unauthorised site, and the council have also sought to take direct action under the section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1980 in order to secure compliance with these enforcement notices.

The main aspects of the site’s history are as follows:

  • In 1996 scrapyard owner Ray Bocking, denied permission to carry on his business, sold Dale Farm to an Irish travelling family for £122,000.
  • By 2001, a growing number of families were moving in and various planning breaches were reported, but no action was taken by Basildon Council.
  • Between 2002 and 2004, Basildon Borough Council served eviction notices.
  • In 2008 the High Court held that the council’s decision to take direct action under section 178 was unlawful because (1) the council had failed to consider that enforcement action could be taken against some of the occupants but not all of them; (2) the council should have given further consideration to the issue of whether alternative sites could be found for the Travellers ;and (3) the council had failed to consider whether there were any individual families whose circumstances were such that an eviction would be disproportionate.
  • Basildon council appealed. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision and found in favour of the council. The Court of Appeal held that the council had given sufficient consideration to the case of each person and there was no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Chapman v United Kingdom applied. Chapman stated that a court would be slow to protect those who, in conscious defiance of the law, established a home on an environmentally protected site. The Court of Appeal held that the persistent breaches of both planning control and the criminal law by the Travellers legitimately formed the basis of a decision to take direct action under section 178. Therefore, in light of all these factors, the action taken was lawful and the council could legally evict the Travellers living on the unauthorised site.
  • In August 2011 the Travellers failed to win a last-minute injunction in the High Court in an attempt to halt the eviction. The case largely hinged on the circumstances of an occupant of Dale Farm, 72 year-old Mary Flynn, who had suffered a serious deterioration in health since the Court of Appeal decision. However, the judge was told by the council that this fresh material would be considered before proceeding against her. The judge ruled that the planning system had been efficient and fair.  He stressed that it was in the public interest that there should be finality to the litigation and there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify the reopening of the judgment given by the Court of Appeal
  • Basildon council set 19th September 2011 as the date for the eviction of residents of the unauthorised site on Dale Farm. However, on that very day the High Court granted the Travellers an emergency injunction restraining the council from clearing structures on the site pending a further hearing at the High Court on 23rd September. The crux of the judge’s decision was that the residents had not been sufficiently informed about what was allowed on each pitch and what must be removed. He held that the council had to inform residents, on a plot-by-plot basis, as to the enforcement measures which were being proposed.
  • On 29th September 2011, at a further High Court hearing, the Travellers argued that Basildon could not achieve a full-scale site clearance that would restore the site to greenfield. At best it could only be a partial clearance. As such, eviction was disproportionate.

On 3rd October 2011, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart ruled that most of the caravans at the Dale Farm Traveller site can be removed. Basildon now has permission to remove 49 out of 54 plots but, because of the wording of the eviction notice, it cannot remove the walls, fences and gates. The Council’s stated hope of “clearing” the site and returning it to green belt land is not, therefore, apparently possible. But, given the complexity of the arguments, who knows where the fate of Dale Farm lies. The permission to evict granted on 3rd October cannot begin immediately, as Travellers wait to hear about three separate judicial reviews concerning the legality of the eviction and an injunction preventing any removal from the site is expected to remain in force until at least a week. If the Dale Farm residents’ claim for a judicial review into the legality of the entire eviction fails, Basildon Council must then decide whether to spend £22 million on a partial eviction

In response to Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart’s decision, Dale Farm resident Kathleen McCarthy said:

“This will leave Dale Farm as a patchwork of concrete and fences, not the green belt the council are claiming it will be. Where are we supposed to go? They are separating families and ruining so many lives here, and for what? To turn Dale Farm into a scrapyard again. It’s ridiculous.”

Ridiculous indeed.

This entry was posted in Housing, Human Rights, News. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Dale Farm Evictions

  1. An interesting article, but you miss a few important points.

    • Firstly, you misrepresent the terms of what is “greenbelt land”. Greenbelt land is not, as it is often misrepresented in the media, an area of fields and valleys. Rather, it is an area where industrial and residential development is restricted (note – not prohibited, which is why only half the site is being cleared). Using this definition and not the mis-applied one, then it understandable why the Dale Farm site was considered to be inappropriate.

    • Secondly, you omit the fact that it is only half the site that is being cleared. The half which has planning permission is being kept in its current state. with no threat of eviction from the Council. To hurl accusations that Basildon Council are attempting to remove all the Travellers and return the site to a scrapyard (in what is often referred to by their supporters as “ethnic cleansing”) is therefore utterly erroneous.

    • Thirdly, you imply that the the Gypsy and Traveller Sites Grant of 2008 was the last piece of legislation put forward by the Government that was intended to positively affect the lives of travellers. This is incorrect. As recently as this April, Eric Pickles put forward a series of planning reforms which included:-

     1) Stronger rights for residents of authorised council sites – Travellers on official Council sites will benefit from changes to legislation that will give them the same protection against eviction as residents on other mobile home sites and other rights and responsibilities. At the same time Councils will be able to take swift action against any travellers who flout the terms of their pitch agreements and they will be able to obtain possessions orders with less risk of legal challenge.
     2) New incentives to build authorised sites – Councils will be given incentives through the New Homes Bonus scheme to deliver new housing. This will include authorised Traveller site so that Councils will get financial benefits for providing sites where they are needed.
     3) Pitch Funding – The Government is providing £60 million of funding that Councils and other registered providers can use to provide new authorised sites for Travellers. Councils and other registered providers can apply to the Home and Communities Agency to use the funding.

    • Fourthly, you criticise Basildon Council for offering them “bricks and mortar”. Basildon Council provides 113 traveller sites, far and away more than any other Council in the local area, it is simply unfair for Basildon Council to continually provide more and more traveller sites when other local Council’s provide none. In any case, the “bricks and mortar” was only to be a temporary, not a permanent, solution whilst a more appropriate site was to be found. There are over 3700 families on the waiting list for housing in Basildon and yet the Council was prepared to prioritise the needs of the Travellers, but suggesting that the Council must magic a new fully furnished Traveller site out of thin air is as unrealistic as it is ridiculous.

    • Lastly, it is interesting that at no point in your article do you deny the fact that the Travellers have broken the law with regards to planning control (note – not the legality of eviction). Indeed it states:

    “The Court of Appeal held that the persistent breaches of both planning control and the criminal law by the Travellers legitimately formed the basis of a decision to take direct action under section 178.”

    Therefore you do not address the issue of one law for the majority and another for the Travellers. People should live in the knowledge that the law is a constant. If the Travellers are allowed to disregard planning law if and when they so wish, then how is that a fair and constant application of the law?

    • Jack Weir says:

      “Rather, it is an area where industrial and residential development is restricted (note – not prohibited, which is why only half the site is being cleared).”

      The other half was not permitted development either – it received retrospective planning permission, under a different council administration.

      “Basildon Council provides 113 traveller sites, far and away more than any other Council in the local area, it is simply unfair for Basildon Council to continually provide more and more traveller sites when other local Council’s provide none.”

      Entirely false, Basildon Council provides 0 Traveller sites. Essex County Council provides 1 in Basildon, and the other 112 are private.

      “In any case, the “bricks and mortar” was only to be a temporary, not a permanent, solution whilst a more appropriate site was to be found.”

      Basildon Council has not identified any sites for even a single pitch in the past 13 years. Why do you expect this to change?

      “People should live in the knowledge that the law is a constant.”

      This is nonsense. The fundamental basis of planning law since 1990 has been Local Plans, Basildon’s LP1998 allocates seven areas for growth of bricks-and-mortar housing, and zero areas for growth of Travellers’ housing, that is the root of the inequality and the basis of the enforcement notices.

  2. Sean says:

    “Advocates cut across the political spectrum because this eviction is unlawful, unfair and morally unjustifiable.”

    Unlawful? Really? I thought this was a serious blog from a Barristers’ Chambers. If the High Court has ruled the eviction is lawful and is not in breach of ECHR rights, perhaps you could explain why the eviction satisfies any of those criteria.

    You may be philosophically opposed to the eviction (and the tenor of the article makes it clear you are) but you ought not confuse your own personal opinion with concepts of lawfulness. Most people would also suggest that the application of the laws of the country in an equal manner to all is not immoral, but proper.

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