|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 11:39:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 12:00:25 GMT
Exclusive to FMUK, here is a copy of the guide for your reference:
Dealing with illegal and unauthorised encampments: a summary of available powers This guide sets out the robust powers councils and landowners now have to clamp down quickly on illegal and unauthorised encampments.
As part of the Government’s commitment to protecting the nation’s green spaces, these powers will help protect Green Belt land and the countryside from illegal encampments. In addition to the powers which are available to councils to remove unauthorised traveller sites, protest camps and squatters from both public and private land, new Temporary Stop Notices now give councils powers to tackle unauthorised caravans, backed up with potentially unlimited fines. With the powers set out in this guide available to them, councils should be ready to take swift enforcement action to tackle rogue encampments and sites. Recent experience has shown us the problems that can be caused for communities by the illegal occupation of land. It is often thought that local authorities and other enforcement bodies have limited powers available to tackle illegal and unauthorised encampments and the nuisance that they can cause. In fact there are extensive powers which are summarised below.
Whilst there is a clear leadership role for local authorities in tackling illegal and unauthorised encampments, they will some times need to work collaboratively with others, such as the police or the Highways Agency, depending on where the most appropriate powers sit.
This summary of powers is primarily aimed at local authorities but also intended to be helpful to land owners and others involved with illegal and unauthorised encampments.
Being prepared and acting swiftly:
Questions local authorities will want to consider: ? Is there land particularly vulnerable to unlawful occupation/trespass? - What is the status of that land? Who is the landowner? - Do any special rules apply to that land (e.g. byelaws, statutory schemes of management, etc) and, if so, are any of those rules relevant to the occupation/trespass activity? - Has a process been established for the local authority to be notified about any unauthorised encampments? ? If the police are notified of unauthorised encampments on local authority land, do they know who in the local authority should be notified? ? If the power of persuasion by local authority officers (wardens/park officers/enforcement officers) does not result in people leaving the land/taking down tents, is there a clear decision making process, including liaison with local police forces, on how to approach unauthorised encampments? At what level of the organisation will that decision be made? How will that decision-maker be notified?
To plan and respond effectively, local authorities should consider: ? Working with local police to identify vulnerable sites. ? Working with landowners to physically secure vulnerable sites where possible. ? Preparing any necessary paperwork, such as applications for possession orders or injunctions, in advance. ? Working with private landowners to inform them of their powers in relation to unauthorised encampments, including advance preparation of any necessary paper -work. ? Developing a clear notification and decision-making process to respond to instances of unauthorised encampments. ? The prudence of applying for injunctions where intelligence suggests there may be a planned encampment and the site of the encampment might cause disruption to others. ? Working to ensure that local wardens, park officers or enforcement officers are aware of who they should notify in the event of unauthorised encampments. ? Working to ensure that local wardens or park officers are aware of the locations of authorised campsites or other alternatives. ? Working with the police to identify sites where protests could be directed / permitted.
A summary of the powers available to local authorities and the police to tackle unauthorised encampments is set out below:
Local Authority Powers
Temporary Stop Notice
Section 171E of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 stops any activity that breaches planning control for a period of 28 days. This allows the local planning authority time to decide whether further enforcement action, such as issuing an enforcement notice, possibly with a stop notice, should be taken. Penalty for non-compliance is a fine of up to £20,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on indictment (section 171G). A temporary stop notice differs from a stop notice (see below) in that it does not have to wait for an enforcement notice to be issued and the effect of the temporary stop notice is immediate. The Town and Country Planning (Temporary Stop Notice) (England) Regulations 2005 were revoked on 4 May 2013. The revocation removes a previous restriction on the use of Temporary Stop Notices; this allows Local Planning Authorities to decide if enforcement action against a caravan, used as a main residence, is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. Injunctions to protect land from unauthorised encampments If a local site is particularly vulnerable and intelligence suggests it is going to be targeted for unauthorised camping, causing disruption to others going about their day-to-day lives, local authorities could consider applying to the courts for a pre-emptive injunction preventing unauthorised camping (and/or protests) in a defined geographical area. The local authority will be required to point to an underlying claim on which the injunction application is based. The following are examples of possible bases: 1. the relief from trespass or public nuisance; 2. the prevention of obstruction of the highway (see “Public Highway” section); 3. the prevention of a breach of planning control (section 187B, Town and Country Planning Act 1990); and 4. the prevention of environmental damage.
Licensing of caravan sites
The Caravan and Control of Development Act 1960 prohibits the use of land as a caravan site unless the occupier holds a site licence issued by the local authority. A caravan site includes anywhere a caravan (including mobile or 'park' home) is situated and occupied for human habitation including touring sites and single sites. However, it does not include sites where caravans are kept for storage only (driveways, retailers, storage parks) or where a caravan is used as additional accommodation for an existing dwelling. Violation of licensing terms brings a £100 fine for a first offence, and a £250 fine for any subsequent offence.
Tent site licence
Section 269 of the Public Health Act 1936 gives the local authority powers to control the use of movable dwellings and to license the use of land as a site for such as a dwelling. If the land is to be used for more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, planning permission must be obtained. A site which is used for more than 42 days consecutively or 60 days in total in any consecutive 12 months, must have a site licence for the area concerned. The local authority may also decide to license tented areas on existing sites which operate within the 28 day planning allowance period. Violation of licensing terms brings a £2 fine per day.
Possession Orders
A possession order under Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules can be obtained by both local authorities and private landowners who require the removal of trespassers from property including land. The claim must be issued in a County Court which has jurisdiction over the affected land/property. A claim can be issued in the High Court in exceptional circumstances where there is a risk of public disturbance and harm to persons or property that requires immediate determination. Local authorities should also be prepared to advise private landowners about their rights to recover land from trespassers through the courts or using common law powers. It is also possible that local authorities may be called upon to assist other Government bodies such as the Highways Agency. The “ordinary” possession order may be used regardless of whether the property is a building or open land, and regardless of the type of squatter or trespasser. The landlord may combine the application for the possession order with suing the squatter for damages and/or an occupation rent for the period of squatting as well as the court fees. A possession order may be secured quickly against trespassers (a minimum of 2 days’ notice before a hearing can take place if the property is non-residential, or 5 days for residential property), but not as quickly as an interim possession order, and is not backed up by criminal sanctions, unlike the interim possession order (see below).
Interim Possession Order
If trespassers have occupied premises (rather than open land), a local authority or private landowner could also consider applying (under Section III of Civil Procedure Rules Part 55) for an interim possession order, an accelerated process for regaining possession of property. Once the court has granted such an order and it has been served, trespassers who fail to leave within 24 hours of service of the order or return to the premises within the currency of the order are guilty of an offence under section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The interim possession order has the obvious advantages of speed and being backed up by the criminal law. It is, however, not a final order, and there is a return date at which the court will decide whether to make the order final. If the court decides that the interim order was not justified, the landlord may have to pay damages. The interim possession order is also more restricted in that it may only be used where the property is or includes a building, not open land, and may not be used where the landlord also wishes to claim damages and/or an occupation rent.
Local Byelaws
Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 enables the local district council or London borough council to make byelaws for the good rule and governance of the whole or any part of the district or borough and for the suppression and prevention of nuisances. Such byelaws include noise in streets and other public places, urinating in a public place etc. Section 150 (2) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 enables local authorities to attach powers of seizure and retention of any property (which could include tents and sleeping equipment) in connection with any breach of a byelaw made under section 235 and enables the courts to order forfeiture of any such property on conviction for contravention of any byelaw. Local authorities could use this byelaw as a pre-emptive tool to prohibit encampments, if the local authority considers it has an area at risk of encampment protest. This will save having to go through costly injunctions after any encampments have been set up. Local authorities should consider this option as part of their local risk assessment and mitigation plan; as such a byelaw would still be required to go through the normal processes for amending or introducing new byelaws. Westminster City Council has already introduced such a byelaw, which came into force for a specified area around Parliament Square on 30 March 2012. Power of local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land
Where people are residing in vehicles (including caravans) on land the section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives local authorities in England and Wales power to give a direction to leave the land. The power applies only to land forming part of a highway, any other unoccupied land or occupied land on which people are residing without the consent of the occupier. It is an offence to fail to comply with such a direction. If the direction is not complied with, the local authority can apply to a magistrates' court for an order requiring the removal of vehicles and any occupants from the land (section 78). Responsibility for eviction lies with the local authority. Officers or agents of the local authority may use reasonable force to evict. It is usually recommended that the police attend such evictions in order to prevent a breach of the peace. Please note this power does not apply to other campers i.e. those sleeping under canvas.
Addressing obstructions to the Public Highway
If tents are erected on the public highway, so as to constitute a “nuisance”, the relevant highway authority may serve a notice requiring their removal under the Highways Act 1980 (England and Wales only). If the recipient fails to comply, the highway authority can apply to the Court for a removal and disposal order. The key issue is the need to demonstrate that the tents etc that are deposited on the highway are causing a clear, actual obstruction (a “nuisance”). The Highways Act provides other grounds on which highway authorities may take action in relation to protest activity on the highway. For example, under sections 1 and 263 of the Act, the freehold title of a highway maintained at public expense is vested in the highway authority. This means that, in some circumstances they could seek a possession order through the courts. Under section 137, it is the duty of the highway authority to protect the rights of the public regarding the use and enjoyment of the highway and to prevent the obstruction of the highway. This allows the authority to seek an injunction in relation to protests on the highway that restrict public use or create an obstruction. Normally a highway authority would take the time to initiate a dialogue with any party that is potentially causing an obstruction and would only use court procedures if it was obvious the party causing the obstruction won’t back down. However, as with section 149 of the Highways Act 1980 (Removal and disposal orders) if the object, e.g tents, was causing a danger then there is a provision for their immediate removal. The power won’t be effective where the obstruction is temporary and formal proceedings are likely to be frustrated by the voluntary removal of the object before any court proceedings can bite. In these circumstances liaison and persuasion are the best option.
Planning contravention notice
Section 171C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides the power to serve a planning contravention notice. This may be used where it appears that there may have been a breach of planning control and the local planning authority require information about the activities on the land or to find out more about the nature of the recipient’s interest in the land. A notice can therefore be used to invite its recipient to respond constructively to the local planning authority about how any suspected breach of planning control may be satisfactorily remedied. These notices enable local planning authorities to take action quickly following complaints and may be sufficient to reach a solution to the problem without taking any further formal action. Penalty for noncompliance is a maximum £1,000 on summary conviction (section 171D). A second conviction for continuing non-compliance can be penalised by a daily fine. A false or misleading response to a planning contravention notice (either deliberately or recklessly) is subject to a maximum fine of £5,000.
Enforcement Notice and Retrospective Planning
Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the power to issue an enforcement notice, requiring steps to be taken to remedy the breach of planning control within a given period. The steps can include demolition and restoration of a site or alterations to a building. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice (section 174). If the notice is upheld, the penalty for failure to comply is a fine of up to £20,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on indictment (section 179). An enforcement notice should be written in plain English and should enable every person who receives a copy to know – • exactly what, in the local planning authority’s view, constitutes the breach of planning control; and • what steps the local planning authority require to be taken, or what activities are required to cease to remedy the breach. If an enforcement notice has been issued, the local planning authority may decline to determine a retrospective planning application for development that would grant planning permission for any of the matters specified in the enforcement notice (section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as inserted by section 123 of the Localism Act 2011).
© Crown copyright, 2013 Copyright in the original typographical arrangement rests with the Crown
Copyright to this typographical arrangement rests with FMUK. Please link here if using this information in this form.
Reproduced under under the terms of the Open Government Licence.
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 12:16:33 GMT
Stop Notice
Section 183 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 This has the effect of quickly stopping any activity which contravenes planning control guidelines and where there are special reasons which justify doing this: for example to prevent further environmental damage or to stop the construction of an unauthorised building. A stop notice may only be served with or after an enforcement notice relating to the same activity. Penalty for non-compliance is a fine of up to £20,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on indictment (section 187)
Breach of Condition Notice
Section 187A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a breach of condition noticed to be served where there is a failure to comply with any condition or limitation imposed on a grant of planning permission. Penalty for non-compliance is a fine of up to £2,500 on summary conviction.
Powers of entry onto land
Sections 196A, 196B and 196C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides powers of entry for authorised officers of the local planning authority for them to obtain information required for enforcement purposes. This may be without a warrant at any reasonable hour (with 24 hours’ notice for a dwelling house), or with a warrant if access has been or is expected to be refused, or it is an emergency. Wilful obstruction of an authorised person is an offence: penalty is a fine of up to £1,000 on summary conviction.
Police Powers
Power of the Police to direct unauthorised campers to leave land
When can the power be applied? Should trespassers refuse to adhere to a request to leave the land, sections 61- 62 of Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives the police discretionary powers to direct trespassers to leave and remove any property or vehicles they have with them. The power applies where the senior police officer reasonably believes that two or more people are trespassing on land with the purpose of residing there, that the occupier has taken reasonable steps to ask them to leave, and any of the following: 1. that any of the trespassers have caused damage to land or property; 2. that any of the trespassers have used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of the occupier’s family or an employee or agent of the occupier; or 3. that the trespassers have between them six or more vehicles on the land. Failure to comply with the direction by leaving the land as soon as reasonably practicable is an offence. Similarly it is an offence for a trespasser who has left the land in compliance with an order to re-enter it as a trespasser within three months of the direction being given.
Police Powers to direct trespassers to an alternative site
Police have powers under sections 62 A-E of Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to direct both trespassers and travellers to leave land and remove any vehicle and property from the land where there is a suitable pitch available on a caravan site elsewhere in the local authority area.
Offence of squatting in a residential building
The offence of squatting in a residential building, which comes into force on 1 September 2012, was created by section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The offence will be committed where a person is in any residential building as a trespasser, having entered as a trespasser, knows or ought to know he or she is a trespasser, and is living in the building or intends to live there for any period. Although the new offence does not cover squatting in non-residential buildings or on land, squatters who have broken into those premises, removed items or caused damage might be guilty of other offences such as criminal damage or burglary and should be reported to the police.
Post site clean up powers
Power To act in respect of Flytipping
When can the power be applied? Fly-tipping is the illegal deposit of waste on land that does not benefit from an appropriate environmental permit contrary to section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and local authorities and the Environment Agency may prosecute for the offence. There is an associated offence relating to the unlawful deposit of waste from a motor vehicle whereby the person who controls or is in a position to control the vehicle shall be treated as knowingly causing the waste to be deposited whether or not he gave any instructions for this to be done. Prosecution may be taken by the local authority or in more serious cases by the Environment Agency where there is evidence that a person either deposited the waste or knowingly caused or permitted the deposit. This power is ineffective where it is uncertain whether the waste is controlled waste under Environmental Protection Act 1990. Such uncertainty might arise where the waste is not considered household, commercial or industrial.
Removal of waste from land
Local authorities are under an obligation to remove fly-tipped waste from public land, but on private land it is the responsibility of the landowner to remove the waste and dispose of it legally. Landowners are therefore often the victims of fly-tipping. Local authorities should advise landowners what local facilities are available to enable them to clear flytipped waste. Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows local authorities and the Environment Agency to require owners or occupiers of land to remove waste they knowingly caused or permitted to be deposited illegally. If the waste is not removed, the local authority or the Environment Agency can enter onto the land to clean up the waste and can charge the landowner the costs incurred. This power is effective where a person is still in occupation of land or where a landowner has refused to take steps to prevent fly-tipping or has allowed fly-tipping to occur (in most cases the landowner is the victim). However, it cannot be used against the offender unless they are the occupier or landowner or where there is doubt whether the deposit is an illegal deposit.
Power to remove any thing abandoned without lawful authority
Section 6 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 provides a general power for local authorities to remove “any thing in their area, other than a motor vehicle, [which] is abandoned without lawful authority on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway”, provided that they have given notice to the occupier of the land and they have not objected within 15 days, in accordance with the Removal of Refuse Regulations 1967. The local authority may be entitled to recover the costs of removal from the person who deposited the articles.
Harm to public health Local authorities have certain duties and powers to control “statutory nuisances” pursuant to sections 79 to 81 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended). Various matters constitute “statutory nuisances” under this legislation. These include any premises and land that are in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. Something will be ‘prejudicial to health’ if it is ‘injurious or likely to cause injury to health.’ A ‘nuisance’ is unacceptable interference with the personal comfort or amenity of the nearby community. The statute requires local authorities to inspect their areas for statutory nuisances and to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate complaints of statutory nuisance made by residents in their areas. A local authority has a duty to serve an abatement notice if it is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur. The abatement notice should generally be served on the person responsible for the statutory nuisance but can be served on the owner of the land if the person responsible (e.g. a tenant or leaseholder) cannot be found or if the nuisance has not yet occurred or recurred. If the abatement notice is not complied with, the local authority has the power to take further steps to deal with the nuisance (but it not obliged to take these steps). A local authority may abate the nuisance itself. In doing so the local authority may do whatever may be necessary in execution of the notice and may be able to recover expenses from the landowner, if necessary through a charge on the land. A local authority also has the power to take criminal proceedings against a person who fails to comply with an abatement notice if it considers that doing so is in the interests of the inhabitants in its area. If the local authority considers that the criminal procedure is inadequate (e.g. in an emergency) it has a power to seek an injunction in the High Court to deal with the statutory nuisance. Overall this power is effective in tackling statutory nuisance issues that may arise from illegal occupation (e.g., noise, smells, accumulation of material, fumes, dark smoke). The statutory nuisance regime cannot be used to require people who are responsible for a statutory nuisance to move from a site, even if they are occupying the site illegally.
Clearing of land
The scope of works under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local authority to make good the loss of public amenity. If it appears that the amenity of an area is being adversely affected by the condition of neighbouring land and buildings these powers allow local authorities to serve a notice on the owner requiring that the situation be remedied.
Power to deal with accumulations of rubbish in the open air
The Public Health Act 1961 gives local authorities powers to deal with accumulations of rubbish in the open air. In particular, section 34 of the Public Health Act creates a power for local authorities to remove rubbish on land in open air which is seriously detrimental to the amenity of the neighbourhood. For the power to be exercised a number of conditions must be met: 1. There must be rubbish. “Rubbish” is defined to mean “rubble, waste paper, crockery and metal, and any other kind of refuse (including organic matter)”, however “any material accumulated for, or in the course of, any business” will not fall under this definition. 2. The rubbish must be on “land in the open air” in the local authority’s area. 3. The presence of the rubbish must be “seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood.” 4. The local authority must have given 28 days prior notice to the owner and occupier of the land requiring the removal of the specified rubbish. 5. The recipient of a notice has the right to serve a counter-notice stating that they will remove the rubbish themselves. If a counter-notice is served the local authority must not remove the rubbish unless the person who served the counter-notice fails to take or complete the steps in the counter-notice within a reasonable time. 6. The recipient of a notice may appeal to the magistrates’ court on the grounds that the authority should not take action under section 34 (for example, if they allege the rubbish is not seriously detrimental to the amenity of the neighbourhood) or the steps proposed in the notice are unreasonable. If an appeal is brought against the notice, the local authority must not remove the rubbish unless and until the appeal is finally determined its favour or withdrawn. This power could be used to deal with the accumulation of rubbish on land resulting from illegal occupation. This power does not extend to removing “material accumulated, for or in the course of, any business.” Therefore, where illegal occupants are carrying on a business careful consideration will need to be given to whether the items the local authority wishes to remove fall under this exclusion. This power could not be used to evict the occupants from the unauthorised encampment.
Power to seize a vehicle
Where a vehicle has been used in the commission of an offence relating to the illegal deposit of waste or other waste offences a local authority or the Environment Agency on application to a court may seize a vehicle and its contents in accordance with the provisions of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 and the Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizure of Vehicles) Regulations 1991. This power is effective where a vehicle is known to have been involved in the commission of an offence e.g fly-tipping, but there is insufficient information concerning who committed the offence. It can also be used to ‘flush out’ owners where it is unclear who is the registered keeper. This power is ineffective if there is no link between the vehicle and a waste offence.
Contacts
Illegal Occupation issues Sheldon Ferguson Sheldon.ferguson@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Joanna Hahn Joanna.hahn@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Traveller issues Ian Naysmith Ian.naysmith@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Planning Enforcement issues Robert Segall Robert.segall@communities.gsi.gov.uk
© Crown copyright, 2013 Copyright in the original typographical arrangement rests with the Crown
Copyright to this typographical arrangement rests with FMUK. Please link here if using this information in this form.
Reproduced under under the terms of the Open Government Licence.
|
|
|
Post by seanrua on Sept 6, 2013 13:12:41 GMT
Yep,Firefox, most of that is the same old shit that I put up in the thread about whether facts matter or not. It's just a widespread worsening of the Bill ( Kill the Bill?) from the Nineties. They've had to do it to try to legalise their desire to get folk off their own land, or, off anywhere they say we cannot go. As it happens we are well aware of P from events at Oak Lane. I don't care if i get banned from the whole universe and every forum in it, but the truth is Prickless is a right tosswank bastard; one of the very worst of a very bad bunch. www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J17R5EFAv0sean rua.
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 13:53:07 GMT
True! I thought it was worth publishing the full guidance as it can be used in our favour. In the case of a major action they have probably got it all checked out. But in the case of smaller ones, those enforcing may be unaware of the finer points. If someone is moving every one or two nights this could give needed breathing space if faced with a snotty council official
|
|
|
Post by robmac on Sept 6, 2013 14:00:18 GMT
Yep,Firefox, most of that is the same old shit that I put up in the thread about whether facts matter or not. It's just a widespread worsening of the Bill ( Kill the Bill?) from the Nineties. They've had to do it to try to legalise their desire to get folk off their own land, or, off anywhere they say we cannot go. As it happens we are well aware of P from events at Oak Lane. I don't care if i get banned from the whole universe and every forum in it, but the truth is Prickless is a right tosswank bastard; one of the very worst of a very bad bunch. www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J17R5EFAv0sean rua. Stop beating about the bush and say what you mean Sean!
|
|
|
Post by kangooroo on Sept 6, 2013 15:42:52 GMT
Legalities etc aside and with direct reference to wild-camping...
Isn't wildcamping all about being discreet, largely unseen, causing no nuisance and not upsetting anyone? Surely, if we're having to refer to such legislation or risks of any of this being implemented, then something is going wrong somewhere and the basic principles of consideration to others and causing no nuisance are not being adhered to?
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 16:17:06 GMT
Legalities etc aside and with direct reference to wild-camping... Isn't wildcamping all about being discreet, largely unseen, causing no nuisance and not upsetting anyone? Surely, if we're having to refer to such legislation or risks of any of this being implemented, then something is going wrong somewhere and the basic principles of consideration to others and causing no nuisance are not being adhered to? Not really - knowledge is power. You can be in a position of being discreet, largely unseen, causing no nuisance and not upsetting anyone and still have someone trying to move you on. If they are acting against the law, and sometimes police or councils don't have full knowledge of the law, then it's as well to have the facts on your side. I'd also rather be in possession of a working knowledge of the law when assessing possible places to park up. It's useful to know the legal positions before you even select a place, as it isn't always possible to assess if you are going to upset anyone at the time of viewing a site or parking there.
|
|
|
Post by seanrua on Sept 6, 2013 17:08:47 GMT
I am not sure about the effectiveness of being able to quote the niceties of the law, especially as the way it reads to me there is very little that anyone can do in GB that is 100% legal. In my experience, the richest man wins at Law ( ie in court) unless he is completely stupid and doesn't use the right brief. The only thing that those actually enforcing clearances fear is a counter-claim that is well-documented. How the hell would a man manage that? You-tube is already chokka with home-made videos etc etc. The best that can be hoped for is a temporary staying order. This may well be enough for genuine wild-campers, but I would imagine that at least 90% of motorhome owners wouldn't want the aggravation in the first place and would be put off or deterred. The whole point is that a man can be gunned down on a tube train or knocked to the ground on a pavement and, regardless of any existing law, a way round it can be found for the powers that be. Actually, anyone who actually believes in government wouldn't really want it any other way, imo. I know that if, heaven forbid, I were to suddenly convert to a belief in state rule, and, even more outrageously were to somehow come to power, the last thing I'd want would be "petty" folk getting in my way and being irritating nuisances to my grand scheme. Those who are actually pulling the strings for real, and wielding tangible power over others, do this instinctively in practice, without giving it a second thought. Sure, hundreds of lawyers and politicians and activists do get involved with wading through the charade of "democratic" and "legal procedure", but in reality this is no more than well-paid lips-service, or, futile, ineffective, gesturing, that probably does slow the juggernaut a wee bit for a wee while, but, eventually, gets thrown out of the tyre-treads like so many squashed cats or hedgehogs. The Machine is relentless. It makes its own laws to justify whatever path it takes. Good luck to any who decide to stand in the way! www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsEwK69LXjQ&feature=player_embeddedsean rua.
|
|
|
Post by Pollik on Sept 6, 2013 19:17:03 GMT
I will have to read all this stuff later.
Pickles has been stumbling around with daft idea after daft idea for a quite a while, hoping one will stick.
I think he may have hit paydirt...with the bonus that it gives them someone else to hate
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 19:30:01 GMT
There's nothing really new here, Pollik . Just a summary for councils on what powers they have on "illegal" encampments. My guess is that is prompted by the recent opposition to fracking. The direct action has had a huge chilling effect on Cuadrilla's operations and the Gov are running scared on it, so someone probably told Pickles to get off his big ass and do something
|
|
|
Post by X on Sept 6, 2013 19:36:54 GMT
I am suprised the local police do not use the 6 vehicle rul more than they do ? If I was a local in many seaside towns I would be kicking up a right stink with some of councils and police . Wiltshire do use it as we know !
|
|
|
Post by Pollik on Sept 6, 2013 19:51:18 GMT
You are probably right, Vernon. If they are scared, something is working.
The downside is that a animal is most dangerous when cornered...this government is not done with us, yet.
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 19:55:57 GMT
Technically there has to be criminal damage and/or aggressive/abusive behaviour as well which may not always be the case. The Police power is a nasty one as they can move you on ASAP.
Interesting that local authorities have a similar power on highways land but in this case they have to apply to a magistrate's court order which gives some breathing space. In practice one would probably be safe to leave the next morning eg Stonehenge on Byway 12. Unless of course they had applied for the order in advance.
|
|
|
Post by kangooroo on Sept 6, 2013 19:59:20 GMT
Legalities etc aside and with direct reference to wild-camping... Isn't wildcamping all about being discreet, largely unseen, causing no nuisance and not upsetting anyone? Surely, if we're having to refer to such legislation or risks of any of this being implemented, then something is going wrong somewhere and the basic principles of consideration to others and causing no nuisance are not being adhered to? Not really - knowledge is power. You can be in a position of being discreet, largely unseen, causing no nuisance and not upsetting anyone and still have someone trying to move you on. If they are acting against the law, and sometimes police or councils don't have full knowledge of the law, then it's as well to have the facts on your side. I'd also rather be in possession of a working knowledge of the law when assessing possible places to park up. It's useful to know the legal positions before you even select a place, as it isn't always possible to assess if you are going to upset anyone at the time of viewing a site or parking there. I think it's better to avoid getting into this sort of situation in the first place. Regardless of any legalities, if someone is trying to move you on then this means your presence has caused some annoyance and IMO it's simply better to do so and leave rather than quote the Law or risk an argument, damage to van etc. Surely the objective of wilding is to cause no trouble or local aggravation if only by your presence? If I were asked to move on then I would do so, although in 24 years of wilding this has never happened yet.
|
|
|
Post by X on Sept 6, 2013 20:14:15 GMT
Technically there has to be criminal damage and/or aggressive/abusive behaviour as well which may not always be the case. The Police power is a nasty one as they can move you on ASAP. Interesting that local authorities have a similar power on highways land but in this case they have to apply to a magistrate's court order which gives some breathing space. In practice one would probably be safe to leave the next morning eg Stonehenge on Byway 12. Unless of course they had applied for the order in advance. Well we also know they do that too ! Big Steve (Mr Fatboy ) had only just pulled up and got evicted ! I just kind of accept that what we do is really not understood by many and am so pleased that most are scared to do it so just take it as it comes . Best not to get into a row with anyone and just say well we have been drinking or the motor is broken own but we will be away in the morning !
|
|
|
Post by ross on Sept 6, 2013 20:17:20 GMT
Am I still allowed to wild camp on my driveway then? And if I had a really really big driveway and invited 5 other friends to come and wild camp too would the cops still be able to move us on with 6 rule law even though it's private land? What a "Pickle" up! Worth spending out on a ticket to the continent just for a sanity check. The grass may not be greener, but the aires are numerous, and facilities often free.
|
|
|
Post by X on Sept 6, 2013 20:21:07 GMT
Am I still allowed to wild camp on my driveway then? And if I had a really really big driveway and invited 5 other friends to come and wild camp too would the cops still be able to move us on with 6 rule law even though it's private land? What a "Pickle" up! Worth spending out on a ticket to the continent just for a sanity check. The grass may not be greener, but the aires are numerous, and facilities often free. No you cannot use your driveway ! Well not for more than 28 nights ! Makes you wonder how they could really prove it ? But then again with the old curtain twitcher brigade (neighbourhood watch ) They probably could !
|
|
|
Post by kangooroo on Sept 6, 2013 20:52:50 GMT
Technically there has to be criminal damage and/or aggressive/abusive behaviour as well which may not always be the case. The Police power is a nasty one as they can move you on ASAP. Interesting that local authorities have a similar power on highways land but in this case they have to apply to a magistrate's court order which gives some breathing space. In practice one would probably be safe to leave the next morning eg Stonehenge on Byway 12. Unless of course they had applied for the order in advance. If the police become involved or court orders are being applied for then this really isn't helping our cause for wild-camping. It's merely reinforcing those opinions that we're out to cause trouble or be antagonistic. Surely it has to be a better option to avoid all of this in the first place by being more responsible??! (Or am I missing something here??)
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 21:02:40 GMT
Am I still allowed to wild camp on my driveway then? And if I had a really really big driveway and invited 5 other friends to come and wild camp too would the cops still be able to move us on with 6 rule law even though it's private land? What a "Pickle" up! Worth spending out on a ticket to the continent just for a sanity check. The grass may not be greener, but the aires are numerous, and facilities often free. No you cannot use your driveway ! Well not for more than 28 nights ! Makes you wonder how they could really prove it ? But then again with the old curtain twitcher brigade (neighbourhood watch ) They probably could ! You can use your driveway for your own vehicle if it is used for an extra room/habitation "within the curtailage of your dwelling" (ie A dwelling you own which has planning permission) You can also have one other unit staying for up to two nights with your permission for no more than 28 days in any year (exception to the 1960 Caravan site act) But you can't have 5 units staying even with your permission. Now you are giving effective permission for use as a campsite and the land owner is liable for prosecution under the 1960 etc. In practice, pub owners with big car parks get away with this all the time, but you or a pub owner or any land owner would be liable if a complaint was made and a planning contravention notice served, with which you didn't comply.
|
|
|
Post by X on Sept 6, 2013 21:12:57 GMT
I would not worry too much about the council as in Wiltshire my friend has a campsite which has been going for 12 or more years but the council still say she has no planning ! The enforcement officer admits himself that he is the only one left and she will not come to the top of the pile again for at least 5 years ! Mind it probably helps that she is an ex councillor !
|
|
|
Post by ross on Sept 6, 2013 21:13:20 GMT
No you cannot use your driveway ! Well not for more than 28 nights ! Makes you wonder how they could really prove it ? But then again with the old curtain twitcher brigade (neighbourhood watch ) They probably could ! You can use your driveway for your own vehicle if it is used for an extra room/habitation "within the curtailage of your dwelling" (ie A dwelling you own which has planning permission) You can also have one other unit staying for up to two nights with your permission for no more than 28 days in any year (exception to the 1960 Caravan site act) But you can't have 5 units staying even with your permission. Now you are giving effective permission for use as a campsite and the land owner is liable for prosecution under the 1960 etc. In practice, pub owners with big car parks get away with this all the time, but you or a pub owner or any land owner would be liable if a complaint was made and a planning contravention notice served, with which you didn't comply. Blimey! The older I get the more complicated & expensive "just living" gets. Depressed now. Any laws against sinking a bottle of red in my own home (will draw the curtains & dim the lights)?
|
|
|
Post by kangooroo on Sept 6, 2013 21:14:58 GMT
No you cannot use your driveway ! Well not for more than 28 nights ! Makes you wonder how they could really prove it ? But then again with the old curtain twitcher brigade (neighbourhood watch ) They probably could ! You can use your driveway for your own vehicle if it is used for an extra room/habitation "within the curtailage of your dwelling" (ie A dwelling you own which has planning permission) But you can't have 5 units staying even with your permission. Now you are giving effective permission for use as a campsite and the land owner is liable for prosecution under the 1960 etc. In practice, pub owners with big car parks get away with this all the time, but you or a pub owner or any land owner would be liable if a complaint was made and a planning contravention notice served, with which you didn't comply. The above stands in relation to parking on your own drive/garden if there are no restrictive covenants preventing vans etc being parked on the driveway or estate but, as part of the consent, planners are likely to add various provisos, the most usual of which is that no cooking must take place within the van/caravan and, often, it must not be connected to mains water/drainage but an EHU is allowed. In my experience, planners do tend to make spot checks on this and I've done one myself!
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 21:15:39 GMT
If I were asked to move on then I would do so, although in 24 years of wilding this has never happened yet. Same here; not been moved on in 24 years except once by forestry commission for sleeping overnight, but was leaving anyway in an hour or so. I would generally move on if asked, but if had had a couple of drinks or was tired, would not want to move on till next morning, so I would be looking for an excuse to stay till next morning. That's what you are "missing" to quote your other post. So I would like to know my rights with regard to any particular piece of land, and what the various powers are. Also, while I would strive avoid conflict, I would like to know when selecting some land to park up on, what the situation is with regard to being moved on, as that would have an influence on what piece of land I choose. Thus I would rather be in control of the law, rather than ignorant of it, and know what my rights technically are. These provisions are aimed at long term camps, not one vehicle or one/two nights wild camping, so unlikely to come across but they *could* be used by an over zealous council official in error. In practice the fracking thing and council interest will likely blow over within a couple of months. They have got enough on their plates without wasting time harassing the odd camper here and there.
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 21:21:13 GMT
The above stands in relation to parking on your own drive/garden if there are no restrictive covenants preventing vans etc being parked on the driveway or estate but, as part of the consent, planners are likely to add various provisos, the most usual of which is that no cooking must take place within the van/caravan and, often, it must not be connected to mains water/drainage but an EHU is allowed. In my experience, planners do tend to make spot checks on this and I've done one myself! There's a covenant about boats and caravans on my front garden and drive. At which both I (and you!) have stayed on, I hasten to add. In practice, it is a load of cobblers. I have stayed there a lot in the van but I am in and out, and when I am there, nobody knows if I am in the van, or if it just parked. Therefore impossible to enforce. Not connected to mains drainage, but sometimes is on hook-up through the letterbox
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 21:24:39 GMT
ross - It is complicated. Lots of acts and exceptions and rules. 95% of the time you can break them (within reason, not disturbing anyone, consideration etc) and get away with it. It's as well to know what they are though. No law against a bottle of red wine beind closed curtains, as far as I know, which I'll be doing later tonight
|
|
|
Post by kangooroo on Sept 6, 2013 21:27:50 GMT
There's a covenant about boats and caravans on my front garden and drive. Restrictive Covenants can be difficult and expensive to enforce but they're generally not a Council issue so they would have no interest. But, using a cara/van as additional living space does require planning consent and the normal term as part of the consent is that it must not be used for cooking (this has to take place within the property) and usually not connected to mains water/drainage. Your situation is a little different and it is also very discreet!
|
|
|
Post by Firefox on Sept 6, 2013 21:33:44 GMT
Yes I think there is something about cooking. It is for bedroom and living only. Not sure about bathroom. In practice the cooking bit is also almost totally unenforceable. That's why they had to get rid of the poll tax because it was not collectable.
|
|
|
Post by kangooroo on Sept 6, 2013 21:37:00 GMT
Yes I think there is something about cooking. It is for bedroom and living only. Not sure about bathroom. In practice the cooking bit is also almost totally unenforceable. That's why they had to get rid of the poll tax because it was not collectable. Spot checks are made at typical mealtimes and to ensure there is no gas supply to the cooker.
|
|
|
Post by X on Sept 6, 2013 21:41:08 GMT
Yes I think there is something about cooking. It is for bedroom and living only. Not sure about bathroom. In practice the cooking bit is also almost totally unenforceable. That's why they had to get rid of the poll tax because it was not collectable. Spot checks are made at typical mealtimes and to ensure there is no gas supply to the cooker. This will not happen in reality as in the case I have said about it would have taken half a dozen police cars accompanying any council official which after 10 years they really got fed up with !
|
|