17/10/2011 Inside Out East

Welcome to the start of a new series. I am in Essex, near Dale

Farm. I will be finding out just why this area became so attractive

to travellers. I meet the professor who helped the

first travellers make their homes here, 30 years ago. I did the first

appeal. He was the legal consultant to have the original families get

permission to live here. All so on the programme, quite

burning rubbish might be a waste of money. They have to feed this for

25 years. Clearly, they will not be recycling but burning. And we

examine compelling evidence that tiny creatures are responsible for

destroying part of our coastline. There is a crab in here! That's

To just a mile or so from here is Dale Farm. I have been looking into

why it became the largest travellers' site in Britain. He it

is the largest travellers' site in Europe.

In August this year, after 10 years of battle with the council, the

travellers are on the brink of eviction. In the interests of

health and safety, is there anything I can say or do that will

persuade you to remove yourself in an orderly manner? Back at the 11th

hour, the clearance stops in its tracks. Arguments are submitted by

the travellers at the High Court. Every submission means more delays.

Feelings are running high among travellers and local residents.

have put in twice for planning permission and been turned down

twice, and I have accepted it because that is what the law has

said. See if they go ahead and stay there I will have the biggest house

you have ever seen on the smallest plot of land, and I don't care!

What we think, how we feel, is not relevant. It is against the law. It

is that simple. Not long before that first eviction attempt, I went

to Dale Farm to find out why they came, and to meet the man who

helped them make this their home in the first place. It is just two

weeks to go until the deadline for the eviction. But residents are

determined to fight and stayed. The site is a large rectangle, 150

metres by about 350 metres. It is all owned by the travellers, but

about half of them do not have planning permission. The other half,

those but live on this side, too have planning permission. Basildon

council plan to remove everything on the so-called illegal side, but

now, the High Court has ruled even some of those homes are in fact

legal. Tensions are running high. And surprisingly, all visitors are

viewed with suspicion -- unsurprisingly. My name is Robert

home, I did the first appeals. These travellers might not remember

him, but this is the man who played a large part in starting it all. 30

years ago, he was a legal consultant to help the original

families get permission to live here. So it is all my fault! I

started it! I was first involved when to gypsy families wanted

planning permission for single family plots here. And we fought it

against Basildon council, and we were successful. And they were I

think the first ever gypsy caravan pitches to be allowed here. Also in

the Green Belt. And then the Dale Farm development started later.

Where we are standing now, what was that like nearly 30 years ago?

not as developed as it is now, not as many of these brick walls and so

on. But there were houses down in this part that were actually in the

Green Belt, and a mixture of uses - small rural businesses. It is quite

a mixed area. And then the gypsy caravans came in. But there had

always been gypsy caravans in and around Basildon. Until 1994,

councils had a legal obligation to provide travellers sides. The law

changed when they were encouraged to buy their own land and applied

for planning permission. I came here in 2001. I came with no babies,

now I have four. Did they go to school here? Yes. Dale Farm has

been described as a honeypot. Because some families had

permission, others followed. All of us in politics know that you put a

travellers' site anywhere, it is going to be unpopular with the

local residents. But it does not mean we should not make that

revision. We have responsibilities. And that is the decision Basildon

took. But in terms of where we are soft touch, I do not think we were.

But we were probably perceived by the travellers to be a soft touch.

This part of Dale Farm, this looks like this is the area that has

planning permission. Do they have planning permission? Not here, no.

It is down the other end. But they had been here a number of years,

which is why it looks established. They had built brick walls. But if

they ever got planning permission, they would want to make

improvements, make it look better. The ones that got planning

permission got it in the 1990s on appeal. And when it came to this

part of the site, the council basic be said, enough is enough. We will

not allow any more. And there was a lot of public pressure on them as

well. 19th September. Eviction days. The world media is waiting, ready

for the moment the bailiffs move in. Activists move in and chain

themselves to the barricades. But it is stalemate. There will be no

eviction today. An injunction has been granted at the High Court, at

the last minute. And weeks of legal argument follow.

If this had happened anywhere else, it might have been argued out of

the public's view, and not people - - not many people would have known

what was going on. But the whole world is watching. What happens

here could influence the way councils deal with illegal

traveller sides in the future. Two weeks ago, as yet another

hearing is held, Professor home is there, seeing how the legal

arguments might change future actions. I think the main impact

would be on the accommodation assessment of what gypsies and

travellers need. And whether you can move against an unauthorised

encampment, if there is no alternative accommodation. And that

is what the United Nations is interested in. That you do not

forcibly evict people and less there are alternatives for them.

Finding alternatives is getting more difficult, and no one has come

up with an answer. If the travellers leave Dale Farm, where

will they go? I have spoken to leaders and members from other

authorities. And a number have said privately that, if it was a case of

at having to find 12 or 15 pictures, we could do it. But we saw what

happened at Oak Lane in Basildon. You provided it doesn't, you now

have the biggest site in Europe. We are not prepared to run that risk.

So actually, by abusing the planning law, the travellers have

damaged their prospects of getting local authorities to be on their

side. It is something where I think, if we look back on it, there is

very little that we could have done differently. You can always find

something you could change, but it would be at the fringes, rather

than anything at the core of the strategy. We have done the right

thing, we have done it for the right reasons. And I would do It

Again if we were now in 2002 again. October 12th, nearly a month after

the first attempt to move on to Dale Farm by the bailiffs. I judge

has thrown out their case for a judicial review. He said he found

it astonishing that they had delayed until nearly the day or

removal before making a legal challenge. The last chances at the

Court of Appeal. This afternoon, Monday 17th October, the hearing

came to an end. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal

against the eviction. At Dale Farm, residents and their supporters

reinforce the barricades and fences, and that the entire site in to lock

down in order to resist eviction. Basildon council says the eviction

will go ahead, at a time of their choosing.

Since his first involvement 30 years ago, Robert home has troubled

-- study travellers across the country, and says the issue has

been blown out of proportion. Gypsies are about one 10th of a %

of the population. And the most reliable figures, there is a need

for 1,200 pictures. That is a tiny figure in relation to the general

housing targets that are being produced. You could fit those

numbers on to one District Council's housing target. When you

first got involved, did you ever anticipate it would grow to the

size it is now? I would not have imagined that the problem would

still be running, all these years later. But looking back in

retrospect, it is not such a surprise.

For all the latest developments, lit East at 6:30pm on weekdays. If

there is something you think we should investigate, you can you may

look -- e-mail me. Later, are crabs responsible for

destroying our retreating Shore's? It is resisting! Almost certainly,

they are involved. The Bangkok as it is like a Swiss cheese.

More than half of our waste is thrown into landfill, it is

expensive and bad for the environment. But what are the other

options? We could recycle more, or dump less rubbish into the ground.

We could burn instead of burying. Across the East of England, we have

a big and very expensive problem. Rubbish, and how to get rid of it.

Dumping it in the ground has become too expensive. One solution is to

burn it. This industrial site on the outskirts of King's Lynn is

where Norfolk County Council plans to burn our household rubbish by

using a private company to build over here. Local people don't want

the incinerator on their doorstep, because of pollution concerns. But

the council is pushing ahead because it believes it will save

millions once it is up and running. Cory-Wheelabrator, a private

company, is to build the plant. And the council will sign a 25 year

contract costing �500 million. Once built, it will burn 170,000 tonnes

of Norfolk's waste every year. If you are having trouble imagining

how much rubbish is going to go up in smoke, take this bag and

multiply it by 200,000. That's how much will go to the incinerator

every week - a massive 170,000 tonnes. But there are some who

believe that generating this amount of rubbish to go to the incinerator

could have an effect on recycling. The Knights family have a farm near

the incinerator site. They are proposing to build it literally two

miles in that direction, just past the trees. Mike spear-headed the

campaign against the incinerator over worries about pollution. He's

now more concerned about the long- term impact on recycling. So, what

do we have in here? It serves the purpose of being the campaign

headquarters. We are having some of our meetings in here, and preparing

some of our stuff. This county is not very impressive with what it

recycles. They are well down in the pecking order. Others are far

better. We could be much better, but if you know that you have to

meet 170,000 tonnes and you're running short. Well, the obvious

thing is not to keep improving your recycling rate to feed this beast.

We will get penalised for not They will not be recycling, they

will be burning. In a recent case, a rigid a finance

agreement was struck in Stoke for an incinerator. The city council is

in a wrangle after being sold at built by the contractor for not

earning enough waste. In Norfolk, 43 % of household

rubbish is recycled. Next door, Cambridge recycles more than half

its ways. It's that their best council in the country. It has

reduced the amount it sent to landfill, because it reduces the

food they end up in Arab bins. 70,000 tons of it. I had been

invited to a site where the food is turned into something useful.

is a kitchen and food waste from households in Cambridge. We turn it

into compost. We taking about 70,000 tonnes a year. So you are

bringing in rubbish, 70,000 tons of it, you were turning it into

something useful? Rubbish is a strong word! It is good, organic

material. There is a small amount of contamination you can see around

you in the plastic that comes in. But it is all good base material.

And it goes straight back out onto the farmland. It goes into food

production, back into the loop. Pack into the household of

Cambridgeshire. Norfolk county council say it is encouraging

districts to recycle more food waste, and offering financial

incentives. Unfortunately, and the two councils are operating the

scheme. Our long-term target is to meet 50 % of all recycled waste.

And we are putting more money forward for district councils in

kitchen waste recycling. Kitchen waste and food waste is a long-term

plan? If effect is the case, had come only two councils are working

in that area. It is up to each local council to make its decision

about what it wants to do. We spoke to the other district

councils. They said that even with the financial incentive, it is too

expensive. Some of that still has a long way to go to up its recycling

target, which is why its landfill costs are so high.

Dr Chris Edwards thinks the council could save more money if it simply

recycled more. If you push forward with a recycling plant, you can

recycle up to 65 %, at least. Many of the best councils in the UK are

doing that. There is no reason why you cannot recycle something like

60 or 65 % by the end of this decade, each 2020. That means that

the amount that has to be put in landfill reduces. He believes the

councillor's -- has to dust -- the council has adjusted its forecast.

What the council has done, from about November 2010, it has changed

its forecast. Because it realised that it needs 170,000 tonnes to go

to the incinerator. So it has forecast a recycling rate of 47 %.

We ought to be doing much better than that. But that conveniently

leaves the amount for incineration. At over 200,000 tonnes, or well

over 170,000 tonnes. It squares the circle. The council say what they

sent to the incinerator will not change their recycling initiatives.

Tell me why that figure was 50 % a couple of years ago, and has gone

down. For that is based on what is happening now a. To get to 50 and

above, we would need more recycling to be done, and to make the money

available for kitchen waste collections. The council believes

that they are burning -- their burning contract will work. And

even if it falls short, it will still be cheaper than dumping it in

the ground. Is there a penalty per tonnage if you do not hit the

target? No. So there is no compensation that can change hands

between yourself and the company if you do not hit the target? No, but

we would have to pay a fixed charge for the facility, which would be

expensive. That would still be cheaper than having waste disposal.

Even if they fall short of household waste, they say

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 51 seconds

commercial waste is always there to fill the gap. Rather than the waves

hitting hard sea walls, the salt marsh takes the energy out of the

waves with the tides constantly filling and emptying these creeks

and gullies. But this is a landscape in deep trouble. You

don't have to look far to see that, in places, the salt marsh is

vanishing fast. I've lived near the River Deben all my life, and there

are now changes happening that I do not understand. So, Robert - how

long have you lived on the river? Well, I've lived beside the river

all my life, I've been on it since I was a small boy. If you go up and

down it enough, you get to know it very well. People would normally

know their garden. I know the river, all the bits of the river. And a

lifetime spent on the Deben has led Robert to a startling conclusion.

The destruction of the salt marsh could be down to the humble crab.

Crickey - a lot! They are like maritime rabbits. Really, they

burrow everywhere and they breed like mad. You can usually see the

crab holes, you can see the whole side is burrowed out.

You are going against what the Environment Agency said, which is

at sea level rise is to blame for the demise of the salt marshes, and

their whole policy is based around that fact. The government and the

civil servants in London have got fixated on sea level rise, global

warming. They have not bothered to look at anything else. In fact,

they have refused to discuss anything else. He is not alone in

his suspicions. Richard Stewart devotes much of his retirement to

studying salt marsh loss. He also what -- believes that crabs are the

culprit. These are photographs from other estuaries, showing

significant levels of erosion of the salt marsh. And in this

particular photograph, you can see that at least 50 % of the marsh has

been eaten away. In this one even more so. This is a photograph of

this river, it also shows very significant salt marsh loss. So, an

alarming decline? And the reason, in your view? It certainly is not

sea level rise. You say that, but sea levels are rising year after

year. And we are told it is squeezing the salt marsh and that

is why we are losing it. It has not risen any more than it has done in

the last 400 years. It is exactly the same, roughly 3.4 mm per year.

His point is that although sea levels are rising, the rate is

small. So the salt marsh should be able to keep up with it, providing

a natural defence. Instead, areas are being destroyed, leading him to

only one conclusion. Two shore crab erosion. The trouble with all of

this is that it is just a series. Richard and Robert might be onto

something. Shore crabs could be the culprits. But there is no real

science behind what they say. So we have asked Dr Rob Hughes to come

down and find out what is going on. What are you looking for?

foreshore crabs. I am looking for ragworm. We know that ragworm are

responsible for salt marsh erosion. And we know that these animals,

these worms had increased in abundance. Over the last 15 years.

The ragworms burrow into the mud and feed on plant seedlings,

stopping you salt marsh growing. What about numbers? Why have they

increased? We now know that there are large population densities

around sewage outfalls. And we know from looking on their -- at their

food that they are feeding on Aldi that has been enriched by nitrogen

comic from sewage. We do not have the evidence, but the suspicion is

that the shore crabs are feeding on the same Aki as the ragworms, and

they may also be feeding on them. So it could beat that pollution is

fuelling an increase in shore crab numbers? Yes, and there is

anecdotal evidence from local fishermen who no longer bother to

come here because the crabs steal their bait. While we have been

looking at the worms, Richard has found a barrel. There is a crab in

here! There is a crab! There is definitely a chamber, and I know

there is a crabber there. It is resisting. Do you think Richard is

on to something here? Do you think that shore crabs are to blame for

the demise of the Shure? Almost certainly they are involved. You

can see they are destabilising the marsh. We know they are capable of

making these burrows, we do not know why they do it or if they are

permanent or temporary. If you look at the bank opposite, you can see

that it is like a Swiss cheese. the rate of salt marsh loss

continues as it is at the moment, how serious will that be? The first

thing that needs to be appreciated either causes of the loss. As

Richard said, it is not sea level rise. It is internal disintegration,

caused by the Russian. And we know the invertebrates are involved. --

erosion. You seem to be saying that the government is not listening to

science. It is peddling or pursuing another story. That is right. They

had the idea that Saltmarshe loss is due to civil -- sea level rise.

Nowhere in the world is there an ecologist at believes that. It is

well established that they agreed with sea level. So why is the

government ignoring your view? not know. I do not understand it.

If salt marsh loss is not due to sea level rise, then it is big news

for the east coast. Millions of pounds are being spent trying to

create new areas of salt marsh to replace those being lost. Does

anyone in authority believe crabs are the problem? They could be in

some areas, but not all areas. You have to look at the big picture. We

have played around with the rivers, put in walls and developments. The

channels change all the time. That is why the estuaries are dynamic

force of so what should they do? They simply feel that no one is

listening to them if people have benefited idea is, they can always

come and ask, tried to develop ideas and see if they can get some

funding. Local studies may be welcome, but the Environment Agency

said it would not be feasible to carry out a detailed study to

assess the sole effect of crabs. It says are the victors -- factors are

considered, and sea level rise remains its focus. It

responsibility is to respond to man-made activities. But what if

they have got it wrong? government agency believe it is sea

level rise. We know that is not so. We need to convince them there are

other options, other reasons. Other options for management. And take it

from their. We need to do more science.

If they are right, it would not be the first time that a couple of

enthusiastic amateurs that challenged the received wisdom

turned it on its head. Until we know, I think I will give this

That's it for this week. If you have missed any of the programme,

have missed any of the programme, it is on the i-player. If you want

to contact us about any stories, e- to contact us about any stories, e-

to contact us about any stories, e- to contact us about any stories, e-

mail me. See you next week. The programme next week is all about

saving money. We asked if I degree saving money. We asked if I degree