lgtuplanning@yahoo.co.uk
An organisation that I belong to, the Churches Network for Gypsies, Travellers
and Roma has prepared a more detailed response. Here it is in full.
Response to
Consultation: planning and travellers
Please note that this response will need to be read in
conjunction with the Consultation paper at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/355840/current_con_doc_in_publication_format_140917.pdf
Q1 – Do you agree
that the planning definition of travellers should be amended to remove the
words or permanently to limit it to those who have a nomadic habit of life? If
not, why not?
No.
It is no use talking about planning permission for people
who are travelling (“have a nomadic habit of life”) if it is impossible to
travel.
It is at present so difficult to follow a nomadic way of
life that most Gypsies and Travellers are unable to do so. There are no stopping places, few transit
sites, no emergency sites and families on the roadside face constant eviction.
(See, for example, Hargreaves and Brindley, 2011, “Planning
for Gypsies and Travellers: The Impact of Localism”, Irish Traveller Movement).
Families have therefore been forced into housing because here aren’t enough
sites. Those who are on sites cannot
easily travel due to the risk of losing their pitch. Nevertheless, the vast
majority of people who call themselves Gypsies or Travellers are referring to
an ethnic identity which is very meaningful to them, and looking forward to the
possibility that their children will be able to live a way of life that
respects their caravan-dwelling culture. One impact of this proposed change
will be that families will have to move onto unauthorised encampments so that
they are counted as needing a pitch.
This will increase the social exclusion which has been
demonstrated by many studies of health and educational standards.
Cemlyn at al. reported in 2009 that:
“Niner (2004a) found that in the absence of
culturally-specific accommodation
(predominantly residential Gypsy and Traveller sites), the
shortfall in accommodation is met by unauthorised encampments which often fail
to provide even remotely adequate living standards for Gypsies and Travellers,
and which perpetuate social exclusion through a lack of access to education and
health care. In an influential report from the Institute for Public Policy
Research (IPPR), Crawley (2004) emphasised the appalling inequalities
experienced by Gypsies and Travellers in relation to health and education, and
called for the development of a high-level unit, advised by a Traveller Task
Force, to oversee the delivery of adequate sites (specifically through local
development frameworks) within the new planning regime which was coming into
force at that time.”
(Cemlyn, S. et al., 2009, Inequalities experienced by Gypsy and Traveller communities: a review,
University of Bristol ,
Buckinghamshire New University
That the situation has not improved is demonstrated by
recent reports:
·
Ryder, Cemlyn and Acton, 2014, Hearing the Voices of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities: Inclusive
Community Development, Bristol :
Policy Press
·
Lane, Spencer and Jones, , 2014, Gypsy, Traveller and Roma: Experts by
Experience, Anglia
Ruskin University
·
British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, 2014, Travellers, Gypsies and Roma: access to
public services and community relations
·
Ryder and Cemlyn, 2014,Civil Society Monitoring: on the Implementation of the National Roma
Integration Strategies Decade of Roma Inclusion Secretariat Foundation,
To quote the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups,
“The NFGLG found that mainstream polices in the areas of
discrimination, accommodation, education, employment and health have
consistently failed Gypsies and Travellers in the past and are continuing to
fail these communities today”.
Ryder and Cemlyn moreover
identified a worsening of the situation as a result of policies being
implemented by the coalition government which increase the likelihood of
exclusion.
The proposed change will make it even less likely that the
historic undersupply of sites which is mentioned in paragraph 1.1. of your
Introduction will be successfully addressed.
Another impact will be that a planning system which is
already heavily biased against Gypsies and Travellers will become even more
unjust. The 2009 report explained that:
“Over 90 per cent of planning applications for private (usually self- or
family-owned) Gypsy sites are refused at first hearing, often following
orchestrated campaigns by aggrieved (sedentary) local residents, though
permission is overwhelmingly granted on appeal
(CRE, 2006a; Williams, 1999).” The figure of 90 per cent is supported
by recent research carried out by the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison
Groups.
Applying a definition that depends on nomadic lifestyle can
and does lead to the ridiculous situation that a parent may qualify but, if
their planning application is successful, their children will not. ( Traveller
Movement, 2014, “A Place
Q2 – Are there any
additional measures which would support those travellers who maintain a nomadic
habit of life to have their needs met? If so, what are they?
Yes.
Provide sufficient secure stopping-places.
An Independent Task Group set up by the Department for
Communities and Local Government, and reporting in 2007 concluded that:
“real improvements cannot be made while the provision of
authorised sites remains woefully inadequate for the needs of Gypsies and
Travellers.”
This remains the case, and there has been some incentive for
local authorities to respond. The
proposals in this proposed Planning Policy Guidance remove what few incentives
there were, and fail to propose monitoring of local authorities’ provision for
Gypsies and Travellers to ensure that those limited duties that do remain are
fulfilled.
Some local planning authorities, such as for example those in Essex, have begun to put into their local development plans forward planning for Gypsy and caravan site provision. It is important not to curtail these positive developments.
Some local planning authorities, such as for example those in Essex, have begun to put into their local development plans forward planning for Gypsy and caravan site provision. It is important not to curtail these positive developments.
We urge the Government to reconsider its proposals, which
will significantly worsen an already very difficult and stressful environment
for both Gypsies and Travellers and Local Authorities who seek to fulfil their
public sector equality duty under S149 of the Equality Act 2010 as well as
upholding and enforcing planning policy.
Relevant to the current duty to foster good relations, the
Independent Task Group pointed to the myths and misinformation that fuel local
opposition to the provision of sites:
“The most significant stumbling block is opposition from members of the settled community, fuelled by negative perceptions of living near to a Gypsy and Traveller site.
“The most significant stumbling block is opposition from members of the settled community, fuelled by negative perceptions of living near to a Gypsy and Traveller site.
“A key challenge, then, must be to address those fears. This
may be a difficult task, but it is not a hopeless one. Work undertaken by the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation on the experience of neighbours of three newly
established Gypsy and Traveller sites showed that, a year after the development
had been completed, members of the settled community said that most of their
concerns had been entirely groundless. These are the stories that need to be
told, and developers – whether local authorities, Registered Social Landlords
or Gypsies and Travellers themselves – must be ready to tell them.”
Relevant to the upholding and enforcement of planning policy
the ITG wrote:
“At the heart of the issue lies the provision of adequate, decent quality
accommodation to meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers.
During the lifespan of the Task Group,
we met with several local authorities with differing policies on enforcement.
It became obvious that those authorities
that had already made progress on site provision had better results than those
that resorted only to enforcement action. To take perhaps the clearest example,
Bristol City Council saw enforcement costs fall from around £200,000 to less
than £5,000 per year following the provision of a transit site costing
£450,000. With the Commission for Race Equality citing estimates of around £18m
spent on enforcement action every year, new sites in many areas will
effectively pay for themselves in the short to medium term.
“Conversely, even the most effective enforcement team will
only be able to apply a sticking plaster to a gaping wound if site provision is
inadequate.”
Q3 – Do you consider
that
a) we should amend the 2006 regulations to bring the definition of “gypsies and travellers” into line with the proposed definition of “travellers” for planning purposes, and
a) we should amend the 2006 regulations to bring the definition of “gypsies and travellers” into line with the proposed definition of “travellers” for planning purposes, and
b) we should also amend primary legislation to
ensure that those who have given up travelling permanently have their needs
assessed? If not, why not?
a) No
We believe that to change the definition would be to abandon
the principle that local authorities should carry out their functions in a way
that serves everyone in their area, since it will prevent them from considering
the needs of ethnic Travellers who live in bricks and mortar, however
unwillingly.
Furthermore, taken together with the proposed change to
planning policy guidance, this in our view amounts to the planned destruction
of a culture, and the forced assimilation of ethnic minority groups. Therefore
the Government would then be in contravention of Article 5 of the Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities, which states:
1. The Parties
undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national
minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential
elements of their identity, namely their religion, language, traditions and
cultural heritage.
- Without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of their general
integration policy, the Parties shall refrain from policies or practices
aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against
their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such
assimilation.
Additionally, this
proposal could also be in breach of article 27 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, which states:
“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.”
“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.”
b) No
No meaningful assessment of need could possibly take place
in a context where, by refusing to acknowledge people’s ethnicity, the
Government prevented needs from being met.
Gypsy and Traveller communities have stressed to us the high
importance that they place on being able to live in closely-knit communities in
caravans or mobile homes. One family,
for example, told us that when they first moved into a house, their father
predicted that it would kill him, and, in their words, “It did.” In no circumstances will this family ever
agree to live in a house again.
Q4 – Do you agree
that Planning Policy for Traveller Sites be amended to reflect the provisions
in the National Planning Policy Framework that provide protection to these
sensitive sites? If not, why not?
No
Some of the designations mentioned already have sufficiently
strong protection.
It is inequitable that developers should be allowed to build
huge new developments on the Green Belt (5,600 dwellings approved last year,
according to Glenigan Construction Insight) while the small-scale and low
impact sites proposed by individual Gypsy families are specially targeted in
this planning policy guidance. This is discriminatory.
It is noted that the lack of a 5 year planned supply of
sites/pitches is currently one of the most significant material considerations
for approval of sites in the Green Belt. If sufficient sites were provided, the
problem would not arise. Removing this policy without first ensuring that need is met by supply will
worsen homelessness among Travellers, which is already disproportionately
higher than that of non-Travellers.
Q5 – Do you agree
that paragraph 23 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites should be amended to
“local authorities should very strictly limit new traveller sites in the open
countryside”? If not, why not?
No
A site in the countryside may be the only land that is both
available and affordable for most Travellers, and such a setting is also consistent
with their tradition and culture.
Q6 – Do you agree
that the absence of an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites should
be removed from Planning Policy for Traveller Sites as a significant material
consideration in the grant of temporary permission for traveller sites in the
areas mentioned above? If not, why not?
No
Everyone needs to live somewhere, and if local authorities
are not providing sufficient sites, Gypsy and Traveller families are left with
little choice if they seek to educate their children and care for those with
health and social care needs.
Q7 – Do you agree
with the policy proposal that, subject to the best interests of the child,
unmet need and personal circumstances are unlikely to outweigh harm to the
Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances? If
not, why not?
No.
The statement about the best interests of the child at 3.11 is unhelpful, since it could be taken
to imply the forced removal of children from their parents and family.
If the best interests of children were to be fully
considered, policy should encourage the approval of small-scale family sites,
in order that there might be more security for Gypsy and Traveller Families,
and any children needing foster parents able to care for them and adequately
respect their ethnicity might be found placements within the Gypsy and
Traveller community.
We would further point out that, when a Traveller site is
established on a derelict site within the Green Belt, there may be a planning
gain as opposed to harm to the Green Belt. Roman Road , Mountnessing on the site of a previous eyesore dump is
an example.
Q8 – Do you agree
that intentional unauthorised occupation should be regarded by decision takers
as a material consideration that weighs against the grant of permission? If
not, why not?
No
This proposed planning policy guidance would create a
situation in which a family could under no circumstances remain within the law
and also plan to provide their own site.
In order to qualify for planning permission for a Traveller site, they
would need to be nomadic, which would make any employment insecure, and would
militate against the education, health and well-being of their children, as
well as leading to unauthorised encampments and constant evictions. If the family nevertheless managed to save
sufficient funds to purchase their own land and settled on it, in order to meet
their basic survival needs, as well as following their traditional way of life,
they would become ineligible for planning permission. This is a perverse situation.
It should also be noted that “unauthorised” does not mean
“illegal.” If it is open to the settled
population to apply for retrospective planning permission or a certificate of
lawful use, this opportunity should also be available to Travellers.
Q9 – Do you agree
that unauthorised occupation causes harm to the planning system and community
relations? If not, why not?
No.
It is a symptom of the planning system’s failure to meet
Travellers’ needs. As described in the response
to question 2, it is poor community relations that lead to unauthorised
occupation, not the other way round.
Q10 – Do you have
evidence of the impact of harm caused by intentional
unauthorised
occupation? (And if so, could you submit them with your response.)
No
On the contrary, we are aware of a number of peaceful
occupations which, although unauthorised, have led to acceptance and support by
the local community, and enabled Traveller children to settle and flourish in
school.
Q11 – Would amending
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites in line with the proposal set out in
paragraph 4.16 above help that small number of local authorities in these
exceptional circumstances? If not, why not? What other measures can Government
take to help local authorities in this situation?
This proposal does not cite any evidence, and would create a
perverse incentive to local authorities to argue that their case was
exceptional, and they should therefore be able to evade their responsibilities.
We consider that adequate enforcement
powers already exist.
Q12 – Are there any
other points that you wish to make in response to this consultation, in
particular to inform the Government’s consideration of the potential impacts
that the proposals in this paper may have on either the traveller community or
the settled community?
This proposed policy change would have adverse impacts on
disabled and chronically ill people, older people, single women who are carers and children, particularly children with
disabilities. It would also impact disproportionately on women, who are less
likely to be able to engage in employment suited to a nomadic lifestyle.
Even more families will be pushed into housing and denied
their ethnic culture and way of life.
For the Gypsy and Traveller communities the impact will be
that they will need to move onto unauthorised encampments in order to be
counted as needing a pitch. This is
likely to have an adverse effect on community relations. In times when community relations are poor –
or poorer than usual – large encampments become more likely, in order to
provide protection from perceived external threats. This is likely to further
escalate tensions.
For the settled community, the housing crisis will become
even more acute, as the settled community seeks to accommodate in bricks and
mortar a group of people for whom it is a punishment, rather than a dream, as
well as those families who genuinely want to be housed.
Furthermore, we believe this proposed guidance undermines
the Government’s own Localism policy, by restricting the discretion of local
planning authorities to use local knowledge in creating practical solutions.
Q13 – Do you have any
comments on the draft planning guidance for travellers (see Annex A)?
It is our view that the guidance will not to address the
historic and severe under-provision of Traveller sites, but will make a
difficult situation worse.
The way in which the questions in this consultation have
been framed indicates to us a denial of the human rights of Travellers.
