102. In chapter two we described some aspects of the legislative background to current accommodation provision policies for Gypsies and Travellers. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) repealed the duty of the 1968 Act which required councils to provide caravan sites for Gypsies/Travellers residing in or resorting to their areas. Circular, 1/94 'Gypsy Sites and Planning' provided revised guidance on planning controls relating to Gypsy caravan sites. It required local authorities to produce structure plans setting out strategic policies and providing a framework for site provision. Local planning authorities were expected to quantify need for Gypsy accommodation in their districts, and where possible identify locations suitable for development as sites. Where this was not possible, they should set out clear, realistic criteria for suitable locations. The intention was that this policy would encourage Gypsies and Travellers to develop private sites and reduce the need for local authority provision.

103. The current under provision of accommodation is testament to the fact that planning policies, such as circular 1/94, are not producing sufficient numbers of sites:

Charles Smith, the Gypsy Council for Education, Culture, Welfare and Civil Rights: "Few if any local authorities have obeyed Government requirements under 1/94 to put land use need for Gypsy and Traveller families into their structure plans and into the district planning development. Gypsy and Traveller families are seen by local authorities as such a tiny group that there is no real need to include them. This has to be challenged and changed otherwise the Government is simply agreeing with the racism."[112]

NALC: "Principal Local Authorities need to have a clear understanding of what is expected of them in addressing Traveller accommodation needs. Planning policies need to be consistent. […]. Another tool needs to be a move from the rigid criteria of 1/94, which is perceived as providing the rational for refusing the majority of site applications."[113]

ODPM: "The Government believes that 1/94 is not working effectively in many areas to identify enough appropriate sites, which is why it is now being revised."[114]

104. In "The Provision and Condition of Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller Sites in England", Pat Niner discovered that only 30% of local authorities had a written Gypsy/Traveller accommodation policy and fewer than 40% of authorities had conducted or planned a Best Value review of Gypsy and Traveller services. She concluded that:

"In part this reflects the lack of a specific duty to consider Gypsy/Traveller needs, and in part a tendency to equate Gypsy/Traveller accommodation with site provision - so an authority without a site has no policy. Where policies exist, they are not always comprehensive and integrated. […]. History and individual personalities seem to have an influence on the approach taken locally. Most policies have been developed without input from Gypsies and other Travellers."[115]

105. Those local authorities which do have Gypsy and Traveller policies tend to focus on private site provision and adopt criteria-based planning policies which are widely criticised by Gypsies and Travellers as inconsistent and impossible to meet[116]:

"The most frequently used criteria are closeness to facilities and services, minimal impact on amenities, acceptable vehicular access, potential for screening or landscaping, capable of being serviced, not located in protected areas, and minimal impact upon environment or countryside. The development control system allows wide variations and inconsistencies of approach, with central government policy on the subject being sometimes ambivalent. A concern with protecting the rural character of the countryside (and other planning considerations) has to be balanced against the accommodation needs of a small minority group, and the system operates on a case-by-case basis."[117]

ACERT believe criteria-based policies generate speculative, misconceived planning applications indicative of the desire of some Gypsies and Travellers to secure their own site:

"[…] it seems as though the percentage of misconceived planning applications, where, for example, according to policy an applicant has a very limited chance of success, has not diminished. Approximately one third of all refused applications [of 114 studied by ACERT] and appeals took place within green belt land."[118]

106. Hughie Smith, President of the Gypsy Council (Romani Kris), told us that many existing local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites would not pass the criteria-based policies of local authorities if considered for planning permission today. He believes local authorities use criteria-based policies because they lack the political will to identify potential land for development as Gypsy/Traveller sites:

"One of the things which we have suggested in respect of the proposed revision of circular 1/94 is that stronger advice should be issued to local authorities to identify in their local plans either specific locations or areas of land which they consider suitable for the future development of Gypsy sites, whether by the public or private sector. As the situation stands, the circular provides authorities with a 'get out clause', namely the alternative of including within their plans a list of criteria against which future planning applications for Gypsy sites will be judged. As we have commented to ODPM, from the number of local plans which we have seen, the majority of authorities have 'taken the easy way out' by choosing the 'softer' option - presumably to avoid any political backlash on the part of their electorate were the seen to be 'grasping the nettle' and actually identifying sites - but in doing so have compiled lists of criteria which it is impossible for any site (even their own existing sites, were they to come up for consideration under the new criteria) to met in full."[119]

ACERT agree commenting: "If an authority cannot identify land suitable for Gypsy site development what chance has the average Gypsy?"[120]

107. The Gypsy Council for Education, Culture, Welfare and Civil Rights estimate that 80% of planning applications from Gypsies and Travellers are rejected, as opposed to 20% from the settled community. This has lead to a situation where many Gypsies and Travellers are buying land, developing a site and then appealing for planning permission retrospectively:

"Not only does the typical applicant have little choice in where they live, but they often have little planning knowledge or input into the formulation of planning policies. With such clear difficulties for the applicant, it is no wonder the majority of applications are retrospective. For many Gypsies, applying retrospectively offers the only alternative to camping on the roadside. By buying and occupying their own land and applying for permission - even if refused - an appeal can offer valuable time and a chance of success. This method of provision is haphazard, costly and lengthy for both the applicant and authority. Private Gypsy site provision is an areas of planning where the need for a fair and reasonable plan-led approach is severely lacking."[121]

108. This causes great frustration for the settled community, local authorities and planners:

Phillip Plato, a Chartered Planning Surveyor: "[…] circumstances have resulted in people claiming to have Gypsy status acquiring land in areas of development restraint policy, setting up unauthorised private camps and then seeking planning permission retrospectively. The justification for such planning applications is often based on the wording in Circular 1/94, together with claims that land use economics (and human rights issues of the Gypsy families involved) satisfy the test of "very special circumstances" in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) regarding development in the Green Belt. This results either in costly planning appeals that often revisit the same issues heard elsewhere and thereby add burden to the public purse or occasionally in restricted conditional consent being granted in inappropriate areas. Such reactionary policy on site provision is not in the best interests of either local authorities, Gypsies or the settled community. […]. The inability of planning system to expedite applications and particularly appeals, frustrates matters and is also unhelpful to neighbouring settled communities, especially where an unauthorised site is causing nuisance. For example, a retrospective planning application at an unauthorised site will take at least 2 months to be determined locally. If refused, the applicant has up to 3 months in which to appeal and thereafter the Planning Inspectorate may take a further 6 months or longer to set an appeal date. The decision may then take a further couple of months (or more if referred to the ODPM). Over a year may pass before the matter is determined and this is in no-ones best interest other than the growing number of people previously referred to seeking to abuse the planning process."[122]

Rick Bristow, Chairman of Cottenham Residents Association: "I am talking private sites here ­ what is tending to happen is that Travellers with money are identifying sites which they feel would be suitable for their own occupation, so they are buying the land quite lawfully, they may be paying slightly over the odds for it, but having taken the land they simply move on, bring in the hard core and provide services ­ water, electricity, et cetera ­ and then at about that stage they will run into trouble with the local authorities. Those authorities then, as I have explained in my note, tend to issue enforcement and stop notices et cetera, but they are breached. At that point civil law says it is wait and see until such time as the appeals process is followed through. During that time there is a PPG 1/94 that is, broadly speaking, ignored by the local authorities ­ there is no argument about that - and as a consequence we find that the local communities are simply staring in on something which is broadly unlawful and stays unlawful until such time as an appeals process says otherwise."[123]

Councillor Susie Kemp, West Berkshire Council and Chairman of the Local Government Association Planning Executive: "Residents cannot understand why a group of Travellers are able to come into a field in the middle of outstanding natural beauty that they own now - they have bought it from a farmer - and concrete it over on Bank Holiday Saturday and there is absolutely nothing we can do because a planning application has been simultaneously submitted to the authority."

109. The planning framework is established to regulate development and use of land in the public interest and there must be good reason to give individuals or groups preference within a system, which is not usually concerned with the identity or personal circumstances of the developer. Cottenham Residents Association argues that Gypsies and Travellers who apply for planning permission retrospectively are given preference within the system because, despite unlawful development of the land, planning inspectors are frequently unable to evict groups because they have nowhere else to go.[124] Dr Robert Home also highlights this potential inequity:

"The growing number of applications for private Gypsy sites raised the possibility that a Gypsy could gain a valuable benefit from a public authority in the form of a planning permission to live in the countryside, even in the Green Belt, thus enjoying a 'privileged' position relative to members of the 'settled' community. With the rising price of housing land, this benefit could be substantial, and the loophole significant enough to be felt worth challenging by local authorities."[125]

A Regional Approach

110. Many witnesses suggested that a regional approach towards assessment of need could boost site provision. Assessment of need conducted at local level often fails to reveal the wider picture, and may relate more to those that reside in an area than those who resort to the area. This makes assessment for purposes of site provision, especially transit sites, more difficult. For example, a local study may suggest significant levels of demand in an area based on unauthorised encampment figures, but the demand may not relate specifically to the study area, but to a wider area.[126] Hence the support for a regional approach:

The National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Officers: "Based on accurate figures, the shortfall in accommodation will be more accurately assessed thus enabling the needs of the Gypsy community within regional areas to be assessed and included in regional plans for the provision of such accommodation."[127]

Phillip Plato: "Planning Circular 1/94 needs updating and revision. […].The advice should remove the recommendation that Local Planning Authorities conduct quantitative assessments on a local level and be replaced by an obligation that they should participate in regional assessment of Gypsy needs."[128]

Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London: "[…] I see regional progress on this issue [site provision] very much within the national and local context. […]. There is a need for a national lead and regional coordination of site provision, to prevent local authorities fearing that 'honeypotism' might follow voluntary provision under the current regime. […]. At a regional level I am keen to work with Government to provide a London assessment, within a national context"[129]

Local Government Association: "The LGA suggests that the Government puts in place a system of Traveller needs assessments for Traveller accommodation throughout the country by region, much as it plans permanent housing provision. There needs to be an objective and robust means of assessing need and a requirement to do it. In areas where there is demonstrated to be no need, there needs to be a definite timescale for review because Travellers' travelling patterns can often change. Despite the small numbers in land use terms we believe new Regional Spatial Strategies should include site needs assessment as part of regional housing assessments in order to help overcome barriers and improve site provision. Identification of the location of sites should be determined by local or sub-regional delivery mechanisms."[130]

Lee Searles, Programme Manager for Planning and Transport at the Local Government Association: "We think that if the Government made that [needs assessments] an element of regional spatial strategies and regional spatial strategies therefore then included some kind of strategy which would set out the need for some kind of assessment of need based on known and anticipated flows and tradition, through a brokering process with sub-regional planning, through councils working together - which we have identified a strong desire for - then you can arrive at a sensible provision which would be supported both by councils and by Travellers because it would meet their needs."[131]

The Commission for Racial Equality: "[…] sites are provided for in the same way as other forms of housing: Gypsies' and Travellers' accommodation needs are assessed within or alongside the housing needs assessment and reflected in the Regional Housing Strategy, site requirements are set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy and locations/areas for sites are identified in local development documents, and a 'mainstreaming plus' element is added at each stage of the process: an independent verification of the needs assessment is conducted, Regional Housing Boards are given particular priorities in relation to Gypsies and Travellers, Regional Spatial Strategies are only approved where they reflect adequate site numbers and inspectors are tasked with rejecting local development documents that do not identify sufficient sites, even where they are otherwise in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy."[132]

111. The Minister of State for Housing and Planning believes that a revised planning system with more of a regional focus will bring about the necessary changes to ensure increased site provision:

Rt. Hon Keith Hill, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: "I do think that one of the ways in which we need to go forward is by the new housing needs assessment and the new planning framework particularly at the regional level. I could expand on that if that would be helpful. Let me remind the Committee that we will be introducing in 2005 a new housing needs assessment and we would expect on the basis of that that the local housing strategies developed would feed into regional housing strategies which in their turn will guide regional planning. We would expect the regional spatial strategies to indicate the numbers of accommodations required in each local authority and it would be for the local authorities to identify appropriate sites, presumably which Gypsies and Travellers might purchase and develop.[…]. I do think that the whole issue would benefit from a slightly more systematic approach than we have had heretofore and I think that the new regional spatial strategies do offer the possibility of a more managed approach and an agreed approach between authorities on this issue. It remains the fact that we will have a clearer idea of what the local need is on the basis of the new methods of assessment and we will be arming the local authorities with the methodology to make that assessment more effective and we do have, of course, a continuing programme of site refurbishment and investment in new transit sites."[133]

John Stambollouian, Head of Planning Directorate Division, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister explained the department's approach:

"We have asked the University of Cambridge to develop a new housing needs assessment approach and that will specifically include provision for Gypsies and Travellers as part of that needs assessment. What we are doing is mainstreaming housing provision for Gypsies and Travellers alongside our general housing provision. Local authorities will have to produce their housing needs assessment in line with this approach which will then be quality assured by the regional housing boards. It will become part of the regional spatial strategies and the regional spatial strategies will allocate provision - the need to make provision - either on a sub-regional basis or on an individual local authority basis and then the local development documents which are produced locally will have to be in compliance with the regional spatial strategies so they will have to make provision."[134]

He went on to explain when the new system would emerge:

"We are hoping to publish the new needs assessment methodology before the end of this year and we would expect local authorities and regions to begin coverage by the middle of next year and there to be reasonable coverage by the end of next year. Once those assessments are in place they will become a material consideration on appeal so if there are sites being made and Gypsies come forward with proposals for Gypsy site development then one of the material considerations will be the assessment of need."[135]

112. However Terry Holland, Gypsy Services Manager of Buckinghamshire County Council identifies problems with such a needs based system:

"A big problem with the needs assessment at the moment is the fact that there is nothing at the national level to work down from in the way that there is in, say, housing assessment for the general community. There is a lack of information on Gypsies, although one may assume that there is some reference in there to Gypsies as part of the overall global numbers. Certainly they are not identified other than as an optional add­on reference within the centres but not separately grouped. People are not asked to identify if they are Gypsies, they can put it down if they want to. Working out from that most authorities face the problem when looking at needs assessments of trying to decide exactly what they are looking at. To start with are they looking at Gypsies in terms of their ethnic definition, which arguably would exclude people like Scots and Welsh Travellers, or are they looking at people in terms of people actually on the road, which may not include a number of Romany Gypsies or Irish Travellers who are settled permanently. When it gets down further than that you are looking at people with a variety of travelling patterns. Many want to look for a settled base from which they can work daily, perhaps replacing the relatively small routes that would have been occupied in the past when transport was not so easy, when it was horse­drawn or whatever. Others work on a national basis perhaps on the motorway network and have various relations between them. So local authorities have to decide in looking at needs assessment whether there is a need to meet their natural way of live to live in their area or whether it is a purely a local need, a sub-regional county need, a regional need or a national need. The background information on that is not available and it is actually very difficult to identify. The information is probably easiest garnered currently at county level where there are counties or at unitary level in that there is an ability to bring things together perhaps more easily because you have got education and social services support. Many authorities have working arrangements which allow them to combine with the districts but that information has got to be put together on a wider basis if there is going to be a proper allocation of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers and that accommodation, as we have heard before, is very greatly needed."[136]

113. In addition to the issues raised by Terry Holland, there is a question of what would happen if despite requirements for local authorities to conduct needs assessments and produce regional spatial strategies, local authorities still fail to deliver more sites. We pursued this with the Minister in oral evidence:

"Chris Mole MP: You were talking earlier on about the role of regional or local structures and regional spatial strategies. Where they [local authorities] do not have sufficient allocation for land for Gypsy and Traveller sites, is the Government going to jump in and challenge the inadequacy? Are you going to be a brave minister I suppose is the question?

Rt Hon Keith Hill MP: […]. I think, if I might say so, it is a slightly premature question and you will remember that Harold Wilson quite rightly always used to say that he would never answer hypothetical questions, but I will observe that it is open for the Secretary of State to comment and react to a Regional Spatial Strategy."[137]

The Secretary of State had the ability to force local authorities to provide sites under the 1968 Caravans Act, yet this power was rarely used, so it is not surprising that Gypsies and Travellers remain unconvinced by the Minister's proposals.

114. There is wide support for a regional approach towards assessment of need and provision of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. However any new system, including that of housing needs assessments and regional spatial strategies, will take time to have an effect and will need monitoring to ensure production of real change on the ground. We are not convinced that the Minister's proposals will bring about increased provision of sites. Provision of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers remains too political an issue. If the department pursues this approach, the Secretary of State will need to show strong leadership and reject all regional development plans that fail to make adequate provision for Gypsies and Travellers.

113   Ev 85 [National Association of Local Councils] Back

114   Ev 6 [ODPM] Back

115   Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of Birmingham, The Provision and Condition of Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller Sites in England, 2002 , pg 11 Back

116   HC 63-III, Ev 92, [The Gypsy Council for Education, Culture, Welfare and Civil Rights] Back

117   Ev 89 [Dr Robert Home] Back

118   ACERT and Toby Williams, Private Gypsy Site Provision, 1999 Back

119   HC 63-III, Ev 67, [Hughie Smith, President of the Gypsy Council (Romani Kris)] Back

120   ACERT and Toby Williams, Private Gypsy Site Provision, 1999, pg xii Back

121   ACERT and Toby Williams, Private Gypsy Site Provision, 1999, pg xii Back

122   HC 63-III, Ev 87 [Phillip Plato] Back

123   Q 177 Back

124   Ev 31 [Cottenham Residents Association] Back

125   Ev 90 [Dr Robert Home] Back

126   GTS B/P03 [WS Planning] Back

127   HC 63-III, Ev 79 , [National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Officers] Back

128   HC 63-III, Ev 87 [Phillip Plato] Back

129   HC 63-III, Ev 97 [Greater London Authority, Mayor's Office]  Back

130   Ev 94 [Local Government Association] Back

131   Q 293 [Lee Searles, Programme Manager for Planning and Transport at the Local Government Association Back

132   Ev 69 [Commission for Racial Equality] Back

133   Q 322 and 324 [Rt. Hon Keith Hill, a Member of the House, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister] Back

134   Q 324 Back

135   Q 330 Back

136   Q 217 Back

137   Q 372 Back