OPINION: Felsted Parish Council stands by decision to keep schtum over known threat of unlawful traveller development at Willows Green over Bank Holiday

WHEN an army of travellers used the cover of darkness to start constructing a new unlawful caravan site on a wildlife haven at Willows Green, Felsted, on Friday, they knew what they were doing.

The "attack" on the countryside was akin to a military operation and would have involved weeks, if not months, of planning to coordinate about 30 vehicles, including construction machinery, and tens of workers on site at the same time.

They also knew by doing it after the council offices closed they were unlikely to be disturbed. This is a modus operandi that has been used by some members of the traveller community for the last 25 years at least.

So, it was not as if the authorities, such as Uttlesford Council, did not know how it would pan out.

What makes it worse is that both Uttlesford Council and Felsted Parish Council were warned about a month ago that it was on the cards.

But, on Thursday, when UK News and Investigations asked about any preparations or counter strike, the council's response was like a shrug of acceptance, adding that there was nothing that could be done until any unlawful work actually started.

What appears worse still is that no residents were warned and the district council appears to have asked the parish council, which is there to fight for locals at grass roots level, to stay schtum.

So, Uttlesford Council appears to have just closed its doors on Friday afternoon and effectively hoped for the best - that it may not happen.

Its response to what was the looming military operation we saw, appears to have been worse than that of Dad's Army.

But, is it really true there was nothing the council could do? What about considering an Article 4 Directive, which prevents any usually lawful development, such as putting up fencing. This was used successfully by Basildon Council when it identified a similar threat.

Or what about seeking an emergency injunction - again a tactic successfully deployed by Basildon Council?

But, even if Uttlesford did not believe either of those would work, why on Earth did it not seem to have a contingency plan if it did happen?

Such as an emergency hotline for residents and planning enforcement officers on standby over the weekend to serve a Stop Notice halting any further development.

By the time the council reopens tomorrow the site could be well underway and a retrospective planning application will probably arrive.

James Cleverly, the Tory MP who represents the constituency (above in a still from his video), appears to have been the only public servant to have taken an interest.

He attended the site on Saturday to record a video and then posted a letter he wrote to Steve Reed, the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government, asking questions about changes needed to the law.

But, should he also be questioning the district council's response and whether there are laws in place that could have been used and were not?

I have been covering the unlawful traveller issue for 24 years and about every five years someone jumps up and demands a law change, which happens, such as the introduction of stop notices in 2005, yet the same problem continues.

No doubt Uttlesford will join the chorus of calls for new laws and say it was caught out and left powerless, but was it really asleep at the wheel?

The questions below have been sent to both the district and parish councils who have been asked to respond by the end of Wednesday so that this article can be updated.

Let's now wait and see what they do and if that retrospective planning application arrives.

QUESTIONS FOR UTTLESFORD COUNCIL

1. When did Uttlesford Council (UC) become aware of the threat to the site please? (I believe it was following information from Felsted Parish Council).

2. What did UC do once it received this information? By this I mean were any private meetings convened and, if so, who between, such as planning enforcement? What was the outcome of this or these meetings please?

3. Felsted Parish Council said on Saturday, after unlawful work started at the site, that UC had asked the parish council not to make any public comments on the matter.

a) Why would a district council tell a parish council how to respond to a situation? Surely UC accepts this should not be happening?

b) What was the motivation for keeping the threat of this development from the public?

4. Residents have said they had no idea this was in the pipeline and the first they learnt of it was when work began on Friday evening. Why did UC not alert residents to the possibility of this, so that they could have taken action to block access to the site?

5. UC said there was nothing it could have done ahead of work starting. Is this actually true?

a) Why was no consideration given to placing an Article 4 Directive on the land once UC learnt of the threat. I ask this because in 2005, after Basildon Council became aware that members of the travelling community bought extra land in Crays Hill, that had been sold in the same manner by dividing it into small plots, an Article 4 Directive was served on the land and it never saw any unlawful development.

b) Why was no consideration given to applying for an interim injunction against any development once UC learnt of the threat. I ask this because in 2005, after Basildon Council became aware that members of the travelling community bought extra land in Kennel Lane, Billericay, that had been bought by some members of that community, it was able to convince the court the site was at threat and an injunction was secured and it never saw any unlawful development.

c) Could UC not have argued in support of an interim injunction that one was required due to a credible threat and the fact that this has been a modus operandi of some members of the traveller community to strike after hours on a Bank Holiday weekend, for the last 25 years.

6. Despite question 5 above, why was there no strategy in place to deal with the events as they unfolded? UC appears to have been asleep at the wheel in respect of this. Is that a fair assessment, and, if not, why not please?

7. Did UC consult with Essex Police after learning of the threat in connection with any coordinated action that could take place?

8. Why did the council not have an emergency phone number in place that residents could have used to alert the council out of hours to the unlawful development?

9. Was any consideration given to having enforcement officers on standby and in the area after hours on Friday so that an immediate Stop Notice could have been served once vehicles entered the site. This could have been done with police backup could it not?

10. Failing 8 above, why did the council not have enforcement officers in place out of hours to respond to the incident on Saturday morning so that a stop notice could have been served - or at any point after that during the Bank Holiday weekend. Residents have said that councillors who they contacted said there was nothing they could do until Tuesday.

11. Considering UC knew there was press interest in the situation on Thursday, why did it not have a media strategy or out of hours press officer on duty to respond to press enquiries, of which there will have been many over the weekend?

12. What unfolded from Friday evening was akin to a military operation. The council response appears to have been worse than "Dad's Army". Considering this modus operandi has been around for 25 years or more and the council was forewarned of the threat, and there were a number of options as outlined above, does UC accept it failed residents and was asleep at the wheel in response to this incident? If, UC does not agree, please explain why.

13. What does UC intend doing about this situation once it reopens on Tuesday please?

QUESTIONS FOR FELSTED PARISH COUNCIL

1) Why did the parish council take instruction from the district council on how to respond to this incident?

Felsted Parish Council did not take ‘instructions’ from UDC on how to respond to this incident. As a matter of routine, the FPC discusses planning matters with the Planning Authority and its experienced officers and agrees a course of action which it considers to be in the best interests of the community.  This is what happened.

2) Does that not go against the function of a parish council which is to best represent the interest of its residents?

Response is as above. The Parish Council comprises members of the community who are also affected by the incident and would never knowingly act against the community’s interests.

3) What did the parish council do when it first became aware of this threat?

The Parish Council reported our limited knowledge of the rumoured activity to Uttlesford District Council (UDC).  The PC have no power to do anything more.

4) Was any consideration given to notifying residents and, if so, and this was ruled out, why was it ruled out please?

The only information that the Parish Council had was an unsubstantiated rumour about the ordering of materials. Our priority was to advise UDC as the responsible authority.  We considered that the statutory authorities were best placed to deal with the matter without exposing local people to potential confrontation. 

5) In hindsight, does the parish council accept the response could have been better and that residents should have been altered to the threat and the parish should have pushed for more action from the district council?

No.  The legal and safest options for local people were the same as those available to the Parish Council and are limited to reporting the matter to the Local District Council as the responsible authority.  Once reported there is no mechanism for the Parish to measure or monitor what measures are being taken. UDC were informed by local people that works had commenced.

The PC also involved our District Councillor who attended the site with our MP on more than one occasion.