Minutes:
The following questions 1-5 were submitted by Councillor John Belsey. Questions 6-7 were submitted by Councillor Sweatman.
1) In terms of prevention of future incursions could the leader please inform us whether in light of the increased number of incursions this summer as a council we will be taking steps to accelerate our protection measures and at what cost this will be to the council?
Response from the Leader of the Council:
Since 2013/14, the Council has spent £20k every year on improving security across its parks and open spaces. So that is a total of £130k on a range of measures to try to prevent incursions , like installation of height barriers, more robust vehicle gates, bollards and ditches.
The £20k allocated for 2018/19 has already been spent on permanent and temporary security works.
In light of the recent spate of illegal incursions, Cabinet approved, at its meeting on earlier this week, to allocate over £170k in order to accelerate the programme of security works over the winter in preparation for the next travelling season. This is a very significant increase in resources for the protection of sites in direct response to recent events.
2) Can the council leader also confirm that we will review our strategy across the District to ensure we have considered potential sites of incursion and what protection, if any, is appropriate for each site - recognising that our towns and villages are lovely places to live and there is a balance between complete protection and living in a place that looks more like Fort Knox than Mid Sussex.
Response from the Leader of the Council:
The Council has been taking the approach you outline since 2012. The Council identifies sites that may be at risk of incursions and uses the £20k allocated each year to undertake the works necessary on these sites.
The additional funding allocated by Cabinet on Monday will allow us to accelerate this work and further security measures will be implemented this winter.
However, I must emphasise that our public open spaces are just that and so they are, by their nature, difficult to protect entirely.
3) Alongside the physical protections the council could put in place, many people have questioned why the council doesn't seek to ban either specific people from the District or, copying Croydon Council, banning traveller incursions in their entirety from our District. Please could you update us whether these options have been considered and whether it is or is not possible to introduce them?
Response from the Leader of the Council:
The large scale injunctions you refer to are a new development this year. The test Courts will apply before granting such an injunction is fairly significant in terms of the number of incursions and the impact on local communities. But it is a development we will be following closely and may consider if we believe the Court will support our request.
4) Regarding the process of dealing with the travellers and the process, one of the key frustrations felt by residents of East Grinstead was that it was not clear to the public what steps were being taken and where we were with the process, please could you confirm that in future, the Council could seek to issue a press release on a regular basis during an incursion explaining where we are in the process, this is particularly important on incursions in the centre of towns like East Grinstead where there are heightened tensions in the town during the period of incursion.
Response from the Leader of the Council:
I understand and share your frustrations. As I’m sure you’ll appreciate, press releases are not the most efficient method for getting sensitive information across in a timely manner.
When there is an incursion, officers issue a twice daily briefing for relevant Ward Members, Cabinet members and the relevant Town and Parish Councils. We also use social media. For the public, both the West Sussex County Council website and our own website provide regular updates when incursions occur.
5) Although on each occasion in East Grinstead the police looked at using their powers of eviction on no occasion did they feel able to despite being on grounds used by the public, for example forcing football matches to be postponed. I know the legislation on this is extremely complex and I understand that the government may be looking at this again this Autumn, but could you assure us that there is and will continue to be strong lines of communication between the police and the council officers ensuring the basis for the police decisions are known and understood by council officers and that this dialogue continues as the situation develops. Regardless of the police decisions does the Council straight away begin the process for obtaining a court order?
Response from the Leader of the Council:
Officers and the police work together from the outset to decide which powers to use. This starts as soon as an incursion is reported. Of the 9 incursions in this District during 2018, the Police used their powers on 4 occasions. On every incursion, officers work closely with the police to gather the evidence and also rely on the public to help. This is why reporting issues to the police or the Council rather than just posting on social media is required. The public can use the Council’s website to report issues in connection with incursions and this information is used by officers and by the police.
6) I have also been given to understand that the police are sometimes unable to move travellers on as the comparatively small West Sussex transit site near Chichester does not have capacity to take them. As leader of East Grinstead Town Council I would request that MSDC writes to East Sussex, West Sussex and the authority in Brighton to allow travellers sites to be used across Sussex so that the capacity of the other transit sites can also be taken into account, thus potentially making it easier to move the travellers on - please confirm whether this is something that Mid Sussex District Council will be doing?
Response from the Leader of the Council:
Unfortunately at the moment a legal framework does not exist to enable the Police to send travellers to transit sites outside the County. The legislation only allows the police to use their powers under S62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Act to move travellers to a transit site within the county area. This is a frustration for officers and the police. However, it is possible we may be able to lobby for a change in the law on this matter but I think the prospect of a change maybe fairly unlikely.
7) Finally, one of the residual problems that we have to deal with is the waste that is often left behind. I understand from the police that it would be for the council to consider fining anyone leaving rubbish behind as that is within the council's responsibility. Is this something that could be looked into further to see if this would be possible? It is something that residents find extremely difficult to bear that they end up bearing the clear up cost.
Response from the Leader of the Council:
Whilst it is extremely frustrating, it is unfortunately very difficult to take action against travellers in respect of the litter and fly tipping following an incursion. Travellers are, by their nature, a transient population, and therefore, identifying and pursuing them is challenging and enforcement would be extremely difficult.
We, of course, recognise that residents find it difficult that the cost of clear-up is ultimately met by the Council Tax payer. The clear-up costs associated with this year’s incursions are £6,000, however, this is considerably less than the cost of pursuing enforcement action, the budget for which this year is £15,000.