Agenda item

Inspector John Turner (20 mins)

Police Sergeant (PS) Mike Yates attended on behalf of Inspector John Turner who had been named on the agenda. 

He would aim to provide the committee with a better understanding of the Police powers when dealing with unauthorised camping, as well as commenting on proposed legislative amendments aimed at improving the effectiveness of enforcement against unauthorised encampments.  

Members were referred to Gloucestershire Constabulary’s (GC) ‘Unauthorised Encampments Policy’, as circulated with the agenda.  In summary, he explained, unauthorised camping was a civil offence and not necessarily a Police issue, though they would deal with supporting interested parties (occupiers of the land and landowners), in order to prevent breach of the peace and threats to person or property.  In most instances, the lead authority would be the District Council in respect of District Council owned land and privately owned land or common land where there was no identified owner. 

When negotiations or civil remedies had been deemed unsuitable or failed, police would consider becoming involved in bringing about the prompt and lawful removal of unauthorised encampments, including the use of police powers under Section 61 and 62 of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994.  Section 61 could be applied once one or more of three conditions were met: damage to the land or property on the land; the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of their family, an employee or an agent for the occupier, or; there are six or more vehicles on the land.  However, other considerations would also include whether action was proportionate and necessary, and resources would be a consideration given the level of resources that would be required were the direction to leave not be heeded.  It was noted that decisions to evict would be made by an Officer not below the rank of Inspector.  If the unauthorised campers had not left by the date and time specified, or, if they were to return to the same site within a three month period, then they would be referred to the Magistrates court where they could be given a fine or sentenced to up to three months in prison.  Section 62 was not as prescriptive on the conditions to be met but stipulated that a suitable alternative location must be available in the same local authority area.

In terms of the proposed legislative amendments, at this stage there had been nothing more than a government circular and therefore it wasn’t possible for him to comment on how effective proposed changes might be.  However, regardless of any amendments, there would be a need for any action to be proportionate and to give consideration to resources.  Ultimately, he suggested, any action would simply move the problem from one place to another. 

PS Yates gave the following responses to member questions:

·      STORM was the name of the incident log system used by the police.

·      Unfortunately he had no recent experience of dealing with unauthorised encampments in the Borough and therefore couldn’t give a view on how the council could work more closely or effectively with the police, however, he was of the opinion that the two needed to engage at an early stage. 

·      A member indicated that the proposed legislative amendments included changes to the threshold from 6 down to 2 vehicles, with no return within 12 months rather than 3 months.  PS Yates suggested that encampments often comprised of more than six vehicles and as such he was unsure what this amendment would achieve, though he did feel that extending the no return period to 12 months would prove a useful preventative measure.

The Chairman thanked PS Yates for his attendance.