Agenda item

To receive the report of the Strategic Director for Corporate Resources.

 

 

The Chair invited the representative from Isca Bowling Club to present their evidence, which they did making the following points:

a)     the club had an elderly demographic who were quite concerned when they could not get through between caravans, dogs were running look or when there were greater numbers of travellers in the car park;

b)     there had been 7 or 8 caravans in the smaller car park beside the bowls centre and sometimes it had not been possible to get through due to excrement;

c)     there had been a lot of rubbish and some abuse;

d)     one member of the bowling club had been bitten by a dog and children had thrown eggs;

e)     during the Ladies World Cup there had been an order in place preventing parking there as the gym had been used by rugby players and he asked why that order could not remain and why a special order was required each time;

f)       his priority was the welfare of club members;

g)     he was aware that height restriction barriers were coming but they were not in place as yet but he wondered if travellers would then park on the road leading to the arena;

h)     it would be good to have better communication with the council to know what was happening as they were only aware of the current issues from discussion with the travellers on site; and

i)       he didn’t wish to put club members through these issues and believed that it was the Council’s responsibility to tell them they were able to park there.

 

The Bowling Club representative answered Members’ questions in the following terms:

a)     he didn’t think that welcoming travellers and discussing their needs would work as there was currently the option to park in the large arena car park yet the small one was used;

b)     the club would like the council to contact their secretary who liaised with the council over other matters;

 

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources commented that the Council’s position was not to tolerate and that this was the first time. He stated that in every other instance an immediate decision had been made not to tolerate but time was often taken to go through the process which had caused delays.

 

The Chair stated that she was aware that the height restriction barriers had been ordered and would likely be installed in the first half of this year.  There would be four barriers, two at the entrances to the car park and the other two perhaps at Exhibition Way.

 

The Chair invited TravellerSpace to the table to present their evidence.

 

TravellerSpace presented making the following points:

a)     that the organisation had twenty years of experience supporting gypsies and travellers;

b)     the issues heard had been around for decades and different approaches had not worked therefore everyone must work together;

c)     it was understood that everyone found it difficult people appeared on their doorstep;

d)     there was a list of reasons why unauthorised encampments were negative and across the country more effort was needed to create recognised safe stopping places, especially for those with significant welfare issues and those who were vulnerable;

e)     it was known that gypsies and travellers had a lower life expectancy than settled residents, as well as other low health indicators showing that these communities were not thriving but they had a right to live and travel in this country; and

f)       TravellerSpace would act in the interests of gypsies and travellers and would not share information without consent.

 

TravellerSpace responded to Members’ questions making the following points:

a)     it was important to consult with gypsies and travellers over safe areas as there were differing needs dependent on the community and their needs;

b)     TravellerSpace were able to facilitate conversations about appropriate stopping places and there were other authorities such as Leeds and Bristol who had experimented with different approaches;

c)     nationally there were less places to park therefore travellers ended up parking in places which were unpopular with residents;

d)     examples of good practice would include agreement for people to stop for approximately three months and arrangements for waste, litter, foul drainage as well as agreement to leave the area tidy. A welfare assessment would be carried out upon arrival with signposting as a result. This would allow their lifestyle to be pursued without constant conflict;

e)     another option would be a permanent authorised site with eight to ten pitches meeting appropriate planning regulations;

f)       Bristol had meanwhile sites which had varying success as some communities like them whereas others find them more difficult especially if they want their children to be in school as they would like to stay longer than the rules allow;

g)     it would be helpful to plot communities as they moved through different districts, especially to map seasonal movements;

h)     if people knew that there was somewhere safe to park they would be interested unless there were too many barriers;

i)       people would feel safer if there was a recognised place they could be for a period of time; and

j)       Cornwall had transit sites.

 

 

The Chair stated that there was some provision for sites within the local plan.

 

The Chair invited officers to update on the status of renewing the injunction at the Arena.

 

The Estates Surveyor explained that she was the point of contact for traveller encampments and there had been an increase in unauthorised encampments but these were not all gypsy or travellers, some were people experiencing homelessness with nowhere safe to go. She stated that in 2022/23 there had been 10 unauthorised encampments, in 2023/24 15 and 2024/25 33 with 11 instances at the Arena. She also explained that Teignbridge and Devon County Council had permanent sites with the County one having 11 pitches which had all been full for thirty years.

 

The Team Leader – Housing and Litigation made the following points:

a)     the Council had a duty under the Equality Act and used agents to determine the needs of an encampment which was fed back to Heads of Service who would decide whether to tolerate or not;

b)     one issue was a lack of space in Exeter so often operational land was targeted and due process must be followed;

c)     travellers usually left of their own volition and proceedings were withdrawn;

d)     the women’s rugby world cup was a specific instance where it was known that groups often stopped at the Arena and the importance of the world cup and would cause disruption to the city and there was legal precedent in the Midlands which led to the council seeking an injunction with powers of arrest for a short period of time;

e)     there was trespass in other areas but not all conditions for an injunction would be met;

f)       extending the injunction at the Arena was being investigated but this would not be possible across the whole city;

g)     injunctions could not go on forever but if an injunction was successful in reducing ASB an injunction could still be renewed but a balanced approach must be taken; and

h)     relevant stakeholders had been contact with regards to the potential of renewing the current injunction, Devon County Council, Teignbridge District Council and Plymouth City Council as well as the barrister who had assisted previously.

 

The Chair stated that Basingstoke had two or three sites on a rolling programme. She also pointed out that the section on the Council website pertaining to homelessness and reporting, had a drop-down list which didn’t appear to have a relevant choice for encampments. The officer explained that she was not aware of encampments being reported through homelessness logs.

 

During discussion Members’ made the following points:

a)     there were a number of threads within discussions, which were: protected characteristics, a growing number of homeless van-dwellers, and residents making contact who were unhappy;

b)     it would be good to identify a temporary or seasonal site with appropriate consultation but in the context of LGR officers may have a different focus and it may be useful to convene a meeting of relevant stakeholders;

c)     it was source of great shame not to have a transit site in Exeter especially as a Welsh consultation showed that the ideal size for a site was that of a football pitch and the Council should be investigating the means to provide such a space;

d)     height barriers were all very well but these had been cut in the past and it would be better to have a feasibility study looking at how and where a site to offer sanctuary could be provided;

e)     there was not EQIA included and there could be targeting of those with protected characteristics but it was difficult to find alternatives when there was no safe stopping place;

f)       negotiated stopping could be more effective than reviewing the policy;

 

 

The Team Leader – Housing and Litigation and Apprentice Solicitor set out the costs:

a)     £47,000 spent internally over the last 3 years;

b)     £404 per application in court fees;

c)     £150 process service fees;

d)     532 hours spent over the last 3 years at a rate of £35 per hours; and

e)     Estates costs and cleanup were difficult to determine as these were included in service budgets but this had been separated out since September 2025 therefore greater detail would be available in future.

 

The Monitoring Officer clarified for the committee that police also had powers to deal with travellers or trespassers on land should there be any damage, disruption or distress caused. The police could direct people to leave the land.  In addition, section 62a of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act have additional power to police if there was no evidence of ASB but only where there were alternative transit sites.

 

Following discussion and consensus being sought, Councillor Miller-Boam proposed, seconded by Councillor Moore, the following recommendations:

a)     the definition of an unauthorised encampment in the protocol be reviewed;

b)     officers are asked to note the evidence given today both written, verbal, from the community and organisations and members, to inform work on the protocol going forward; and

c)     that the Executive explore the viability and impact of a negotiated stopping policy.

 

Following a vote the recommendations were unanimously CARRIED.