UPDATED: THE illegal travellers encampment at Chapelford has vacated the land at Dakota Park.
They had been served with a section 77 notice by Warrington Borough Council.
The encampment arrived at Dakota Park, Chapelford, yesterday, sparking outrage from local residents.
Local Cllr Faisal Rashid, who visited the site at 8.30am this morning reports that the travellers have now left without leaving any mess.
“I met officers at the site this morning and have been continuously in touch and can confirm they have now left the area,” he said.
Meanwhile a second encampment at Woolston Park has also been served with a section 77 notice and must vacate the land by 2pm tomorrow.
Meanwhile on Sunday travellers parked up at Silver lane Risley but were forced to move on.
The incident have sparked a war of words between Warrington North MP Helen Jones who was angered when the council wouldn’t take any action at the Silver lane site until “after the weekend,” while the council say they prefer a “common sense approach” rather than a “knee jerk reaction.”
The council’s welfare officer and police visited the Chapelford and Woolston Park sites, to serve the notice to quit orders.
4 Comments
Have to say I’m quite impressed to read that all 3 groups were/are being moved on so quickly with Section 77 notices. Well done WBC and maybe they wont see Warrington as such a soft touch now. Does as section 77 just apply to the actual spot they stopped at (meaning they could just move up the road) or does it mean they have to move on and out of Warrington boundary area as a whole?
Good to read that the group at Chapelford didn’t leave any mess behind as that is unusual so some credit is deserved to them for that too I guess.
Section 77 Unauthorised Encampment – The Powers in Summary
Common law powers
• can only be used by the landowner;
• are used to regain possession of land;
• does not require the involvement of the courts;
• enforced by the landowner and/or private bailiffs where necessary;
• does not provide any sanctions offence for the return of trespassers onto land.
Part 55 Civil Procedures Rules
• can only be used by the landowner;
• are used to regain possession of land;
• require civil court procedure;
• possession is enforced by county court bailiffs, where necessary;
• do not provide any sanctions for the return of trespassers onto land.
Sections 77-78 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
• can only be used by a local authority;
• can be used on any land within the local authority’s area, irrespective of ownership;
• are used to remove identified individuals from land;
• only require the involvement of the courts when unauthorised campers do not leave when directed to do so;
• possession is enforced by local authority officers or private bailiffs employed by the local authority;
• the return of unauthorised campers and/or their vehicles to the location within three months carries criminal sanctions.
Sections 61-62 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
• can only be used by the police;
• can be used on any land except the highway;
• are used to remove identified individuals and/or their vehicles from land;
• there must be two or more persons trespassing on the land before the power can be used;
• do not require the involvement of the courts;
Is it more likely that the travellers have moved on because they weren’t intending to stay long and are travelling to another location?
We’ve had this type before and they were genuine travellers on their way to a horse market to sell their ponies and were only staying a couple of days in each location on the way. They were polite and friendly, caused no trouble and left no litter.
However, the site (as it was open to the public) had to be inspected and cleansed (toilet areas). I think the cost of this was around £400.
When it comes to council owned land it appears that WBC would rather continue paying clean up costs than deal with the controversial issue of where to locate a permanent site. Tough on other landowners though who have to pay the clean up bill themselves.
A decision needs to be made re allocating a permanent site.
Sha, if there is a permanent transit site do you think every group who passes though will happily pay to stay there though ? Also what if like this week there are a few groups and there’s not enough space on the transit site. Surely some will still continue to park up wherever they like.
I’d forgotten that Appleby Horse fair was on last week/this week? so yes maybe that’s why we have had so many since weekend. Good thinking 😀