Decision details

This item had not appeared on the agenda, and had not been in the public domain for five clear working days.  However, because of the need to consider the Councils options after 4^th June 2004, and the adverse implications of waiting until the Committee’s next meeting on 7^th July 2004, the Chairman agreed to allow consideration of the item as a matter of urgency.

The Deputy Director of Development Services summarised the facts relating to a single site in Cottenham that had culminated in the High Court confirming an Injunction in favour of the Council.  The compliance period expired on 4^th June 2004.

The Council had concluded that, should the terms of the Court Order not be complied with, it would need help from external sources in taking further (direct) action.  Two separate organisations had provided initial advice, including guidance on procedure and estimate of costs. 

The Head of Legal Services stressed the need for careful and confidential planning of future action.  In particular, the Cabinet would need to address the question of securing the site to prevent further incursion thereto.  He informed Members that, were they to consider a bund to be the most appropriate form of security, then there would be a cost involved in acquiring the site through compulsory purchase, and in compensating the present owners of that land on the basis of planning land use value.  Further alternatives would be an application for the committal to prison of defaulters, or their prosecution.  The Head of Legal Services advised the Council that these were circumstances where it was entirely right to pursue the committal and prosecution measures straightaway, and to plan for bailiff-led direct action in, say, two to three months’ time. 

Despite a contrary point of view requesting more immediate action, the Chairman commended to the Committee the Head of Legal Services’ suggestion that committal, prosecution and bailiff action be pursued concurrently.

Members discussed the following points:

·                      extent of the Injunction

·                      the availability of expertise in-house

·                      the need to act proportionately

·                      the need for any Compulsory Purchase Order to cover an appropriate area of land in order to secure its longer term status as open land

·                      the need for an additional access to the site in the interests of the security of those acting in pursuance of authorised action

·                      timing

All members present having considered the Human Rights checklist, the Committee

RESOLVED   

(1)               to recommend to Cabinet that Cabinet review the Council’s options including, specifically, that of compulsory purchase, and that further consideration of direct bailiff action be deferred until after that meeting; and

(2)               At the discretion of the Head of Legal Services, after considering all the up-to-date circumstances, to take appropriate Magistrates’ Court             proceedings for the prosecution of the owners and occupiers for breaches of the extant enforcement notices, to make application to the County Court for committal in breach of the injunction and to pursue as necessary to recover the legal costs ordered by the Court.