Basildon faces further legal challenge over Traveller site clearance

It would have set “a very dangerous precedent” if Basildon Borough Council had not agreed to evict Travellers from an unauthorised camp at Dales Farm in Crays Hill, the local authority’s leader has insisted.

Earlier this week, councillors at Basildon voted in favour of action to clear the site – thought to be Britain’s largest camp – at a cost of up to £8m. However, it has since emerged that Davies Gore Lomax, the law firm acting for the Travellers, has sent a pre-action letter warning of its intention to apply for judicial review.

It is the latest stage in a ten-year battle. Basildon first became aware of planning breaches in 2001. After service of appropriate notices, the then Secretary of State John Prescott rejected the Travellers’ appeals but extended the period for compliance by two years.

In June 2005 the council’s development control and traffic management committee resolved that direct action was needed to secure compliance. This decision, which was reconsidered in December 2007, became the subject of judicial review proceedings.

The High Court ruled that Basildon’s decision to proceed with direct action was unlawful. However, this ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal. In June 2009 the Travellers were refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords.

The council claimed that since then it has sought to find a means by which the travellers could leave the site, without the need for a forced eviction. The site is on green belt land, although Davies Gore Lomax have previously pointed out that as a former vehicle scrap yard, it is “far from green”.

A background report prepared for this week’s council meeting said the clearance would be an operation “of unprecedented scale, risk and complexity” and “beyond the normal business of any council”. The direct action will affect 51 pitches and 100 families, and is expected to take at least six to eight weeks in total.

The council expects the direct operation cost of site clearance to be £5m, including £2.2m payable to bailiffs Constant & Co and £1m for temporary accommodation.

Basildon also estimates that post-site clearance costs will reach £1.5m. These include the costs of pre-emptive protection of other green belt land through legal instruments, and potential further litigation.

The report revealed that the council is already facing a challenge in the Court of Appeal over its offer of “bricks and mortar” to three traveller applicants with a cultural aversion to living in houses.

“No date has yet been set for a hearing but should this appeal be determined before the completion of the action and if it is upheld….such a decision could have significant ramifications for the council in meeting its homelessness duty and therefore have a direct impact on the commencement or completion of the proposed clearance operation,” it said.

The Court of Appeal challenge and further litigation is likely to lead to a delay in the clearance action, the report admitted. Delays could also occur if the council’s decision this week is subject to judicial review proceedings.

Keith Lomax, a partner at Davies Gore Lomax, told Local Government Lawyer: "The council has time to respond, and can yet avoid further litigation, and take the positive approach of enabling the residents of Dale Farm to move onto lawful alternative sites. We await the council's response to the pre-action letter."

In a statement Cllr Tony Ball, Basildon’s Leader, said: “No one wants a forced clearance of this site and we have spent ten years asking the Travellers to work with us to seek a peaceful resolution. However, it is important the law is applied equally and fairly to all people and if we do not take action in this case, we would have little moral right as a planning authority to take action against future unauthorised developments. That would set a very dangerous precedent.”

Cllr Ball claimed that instead of using the two-year period granted by the Secretary of State to find land they could occupy legally, more and more Travellers moved to the site and developed it further.

“They did this knowing they were breaking the law and that the council would take action,” he said. “We have tried to work with the families concerned to find a peaceful resolution but, after ten years of continued and illegal development of the green belt, we must draw a line under the matter and take action.”

Cllr Ball said that “even at this late stage” he was still open to constructive conversations with the Travellers on the site.

The Gypsy Council accused the council of posturing. Vice-chair Candy Sheridan told The Guardian she had been in negotiations with the council about obtaining planning permission for other brownfield sites.

“We can save them an absolute fortune by finding alternative sites,” she said. “The way they are going about things will cost a huge amount in jobs and services.”

Philip Hoult