Site Size

148. The Committee has heard differing views on site size; some witnesses have argued that the size doesn't matter as long as the site is effectively managed. However many more, including both residents groups and Gypsies and Travellers themselves, have argued that smaller sites are more manageable and integrate better with the local community:

Hughie Smith, President, The Gypsy Council (Romani Kris): "We have always advised local authorities that there should be a maximum of 15 families on a caravan site - it is much better for everybody concerned. What I should state here quite clearly is that we do not support multiple applications where 30 families perhaps buy a piece of land and try and develop it."[192]

Cottenham Residents Association: "The 'Law' should adopt the actual beliefs of Travellers themselves that the size of a site should be proportionate to the local community; that the optimum size of a site is between 10 and 15 plots and never in excess of 20. Their rationale is based upon the belief that: proportionate balance gives stability to the community, reduces the risk of Traveller in-fighting, gives Travellers sufficient numbers to protect themselves against marauding bigots, and allows proper provision of services and policing if necessary."[193]

The Traveller Law Reform Coalition: "The consensus of opinion is that some local authority sites have failed because they have been too large. Many believe that the ideal size for a site is one that can accommodate a large extended family, regarding local authority pitches the ideal size would be in the region of ten pitches."[194]

Ian Cairns, Gypsy Liaison Officer, Somerset County Council: "It is my personal belief that smaller sites of six to eight pitches are the way forward."[195]

149. Charles Smith of the Gypsy Council for Education, Culture, Welfare and Civil Rights argues that large sites develop because Gypsies and Travellers' accommodation needs have not been met:

"These large sites that people are complaining about are a direct result of government inaction to deal with the accommodation needs of Travellers. It is as simple as that. That is the answer. Deal with our accommodation needs and these sorts of things will not happen."[196]

150. In the report "The Provision and Condition of Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller sites in England" Pat Niner outlines research which shows that population densities on Gypsy and Traveller sites are higher than average household size in the settled community:

"Sites included in the management survey housed up to 183 people. Expressed as persons per pitch (the nearest approximation to household size possible) there was a range between1 and 10.5 persons (an Inner London Borough). The median number of persons per occupied pitch was 3.13 persons, higher than the 1999 average household size among the English population as a whole of 2.36 persons. Child density on sites are often higher than is normal in the settled community (on almost two-thirds of sites children make up more than a third of the population)."[197]

This means that even small sites can add considerably to the population of an area, with the resulting impact on services such as healthcare and education. With large numbers of children, Gypsies/Travellers told us that sites need to be able to expand as children get older:

"Parents of School Age children, the elderly, the disabled and those with bad hearts need and want permanent, preferably family sites, with room to add a few extra caravans when boys and girls grow old enough to need separate caravans or when they get married. Planning law should allow for this expansion"[198]

"We have 121 pitches that are always full and we have 97 families on the waiting list with nowhere to go. Every day we are facing the situation where young people are growing up on site. I have worked in this area for 17 years and I was part of the original provision of sites under the 1968 Caravan Site Act and the children who were small then are growing up now and I am being forced to evict young people from the sites in Worcestershire because of the planning permission. Quite rightly, because of the fire hazard and health and safety, they cannot remain on parents' plots so we are forcibly evicting people on to the roadside with nowhere to go and no further provision."[199]

But local residents argue that site numbers should be maximised:

"A maximisation of the site at Cottenham. That would be personal and the same might apply elsewhere in the country. There are now 37 lawful pitches as a consequence of appeal, we have got 18 more under appeal, 11 more planning applications in, and then possibly another 30 or 40. It would be nice to have the size of the site capped at, say, 40 and then we can all try and settle down with our new neighbours. It is as simple as that. Even when you have transit sites, I can only flag the warning because I heard the lady before talk in terms of allowing relatives to visit, et cetera, you have got to be careful about the unlawful assembly bit because when there are too many, it is a bit like having a football crowd, they run riot, even for a short period of time, and it can be terribly disruptive."[200]

Gypsies and Travellers themselves suggest that site numbers need to be controlled because of health and safety risks, especially in the winter when families wish to cease travelling. They argue that provision of more sites would lead to reduced numbers on sites:

"[…] there is also concern in some areas that fire prevention regulations are not adhered to, this is a consequence of there not being enough sites passed and many sites let more on in the winter than they should do. We know this of concern to fire chiefs as we have been contacted by both residents and fire chiefs, worried that there may be a fire. All sites should come up to certain safety standards, we feel that some authorities turn a blind eye as the know that there are not sufficient pitches for families in winter time. These problems would again be rectified overnight with more sites being passed."[201]

151. The Minister of State for Housing and Planning, the Rt. Hon Keith Hill MP, appears to be in favour of smaller sites:

"[…] one of the things which has actually struck me as I have reflected on these matters is that the Gypsy and Traveller community itself seems not actually to be very enthusiastic about exceptionally large sites. On the whole they communities prefer to travel and to co-exist with people of what might be described as the extended family. I think part of the rationality that one would like to see prevail on this subject is to argue that you are not looking to the creation of Cottenhams; Cottenham is an expression of failure rather than success and therefore we do need to think on a relatively small scale in terms of encouraging local authorities to think about appropriate site provision."[202]

As does John Stambollouian, Head of Planning Directorate Division, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister:

"There is a question about what the Gypsies and Travellers themselves prefer; there is also a question about proportionality with the facilities available in the communities alongside which these sites are located. I think we will be seeking to give guidance in the Circular but we do not want to hand down tablets of stone because one of the key conclusions of Pat Niner's research was that the really important thing is that the Gypsy and Traveller groups themselves should be involved in this. In some cases larger sites may be appropriate but generally we accept what you say."[203]

152. Most of the witnesses to this inquiry argued that smaller Gypsy and Traveller sites integrate better with the local settled community, and are easier to manage. In the Committee's view permanent sites should have no more than 18 pitches. We therefore recommend that all sites should be small and not disproportionate to the size of the community in which they are placed. We suggest that when planning permission is given for a site, a cap should be placed on the number of people who are resident on the site, whilst allowing some flexibility for natural increase. The number of long-term visitors on a site should be controlled by planning powers and enforced by the site manager.

Site Locations

153. Many Gypsies and Travellers have complained to us that sites are poorly located, sometimes in dangerous places:

Tom Sweeney, Co-Chair of the Irish Traveller Movement Britain: "I have just spent three days with members of the Deputy Prime Ministers Office over in Ireland going through sites and I think you should know what was found as working there and what is not working. What is working over there are small sites. And they are not placed under flyovers or pylons, or beside sewers, canals or tips; they are placed on proper positioned land, bang within the middle of a settled community, and they are working."[204]

The Traveller Law Reform Coalition: "We would make a strong plea for safeguards to be put in place to ensure that future site development is not located in polluted or hazardous locations, as we have already indicated that many sites are. Not only does this have a negative impact on Gypsies and Travellers health and access to services but it has a profound impact on how they feel they are perceived and treated by the wider community, likewise such locations reinforce the prejudiced perceptions that many in the settled community have of Gypsies and Travellers, such locations are therefore a major impediment to the social inclusion of Gypsies and Travellers."[205]

Dr Home: "In the early days, after 1968, councils put these sites as far away as they could from the centre. They are on the border with the next county. You sometimes find two sites in two districts just facing each other over the border. They wanted to get them out of the way. I think some of the sites need to be relocated."[206]

154. The report "The Provision and Condition of Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller Sites in England" estimates that 70% of sites included in their 2002 survey were located in "marginal space". Over 50% were located near polluted, hazardous or other undesirable space where housing development would never be considered. The most common source of problems was motorways or major roads (26% of sites), followed by railways (13%); rubbish tips (12%); industrial or commercial activity (8%) and sewage works (3%). This offers some support for the view that Gypsy/Traveller sites are more likely than permanent housing to be located near to unpleasant landuses or activities.

155. Several Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officers told us that sites in poor locations often dated back to the requirement for local authorities to provide sites under the 1968 Act. Local authorities had to find land for sites quickly and frequently chose locations where the site would be subject to less controversy because it was marginal land, such as alongside a railway, a rubbish dump or under an electricity pylon. Terry Holland, Gypsy Services Manager of Buckinghamshire County Council explained that such locations would not be permitted today:

"Certainly the ones built at the start of the Caravan Sites Act legislation tended to be poor quality because those authorities that wanted to follow up that legislation wanted to find sites quickly and ideally those which were not fought tooth and nail by the general public. So, in all honesty, you put them in a place where nobody else would live because there is not going to be a lot of objection to that and if you cannot find a site like that you put it on the edge of the boundary so at least it affects somebody else half the time. There is a history of that over most of the first sites that were provided. I think that people have realised very much now that that was probably wrong but we are still living with the legacy of that. To some extent this is one of the problems we talked about earlier. This is one of the reasons why, certainly in my case, the costs of managing sites are greatly higher than they are on comparable ones because they are happening in places that mains drainage cannot reach or people build motorways. I do not think it is true now. I think there has been a realisation that Gypsies and Travellers are human beings with the same demands and same needs as everybody else and, in fact, in one or two cases there have actually been authorities that may go out of their way, for example by allowing Gypsies to build at an area of higher ambient noise level than, say, you or I."[207]

George Summers, Gypsy and Traveller Service Manager for Hampshire County Council and Secretary of the National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officers, added that Gypsies and Travellers need to be consulted about the location of a site:

"It is the location of the sites, which goes back to your previous question, which will determine that and you need to talk to the Gypsies and Travellers about where they want the sites. There is no point in spending vast amounts of money on a site and nobody wants it there. That has been the problem in the past. Local authorities have come up with ideas for sites, normally on tips and under pylons because that is the only available piece of land and they will say, "We will put it here and that will discharge our duty", when did have a duty. We cannot really do that. We need to find out via the count and the travel patterns where people want to live and build sites appropriate to their needs where they want them as much as we can. Then once they are built we need to have an overview of it to ensure that the standards are maintained all the time. In the past central government has shelled out millions and millions of pounds to build sites and never once come down and checked up on the sites to make sure they are built properly or if they are being managed properly. That is a waste of money. We do not have that and that is what we need."[208]

156. Gypsies and Travellers want to be integrated into the local community, but argue that marginal site locations make this difficult. "The Provision and Location of Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller sites in England" estimates that 68% of sites are more than 1 kilometre from a primary school and 55% are more than 1km from a post office. Over a third (38%) are over 1km from public transport. The National Association of Teachers of Travellers also make this point:

"From a Traveller education perspective, the current provision and location of sites/accommodation is woefully inadequate and works against access to public services and education, and against social inclusion."[209]

The National Association of Gypsy and Traveller officers argues that:

"Gypsy and Traveller families often wish to have small compact and well-managed sites located in areas where they have historically resided and have a network of local family support. Local authorities have in the past tended to provide accommodation in inappropriate areas and the sites have therefore not always been used to their full potential. As with the settled community, Gypsy families prefer clean well-managed sites where there is no fear of retribution from problem families and they can enjoy a peaceful coexistence. […]. Caution should be used when seeking locations for sites to ensure that they are based on need in a particular area and not the availability of inappropriate land for alternative uses. Traditionally, Gypsy sites have been located on land which is inappropriate for alternative uses and this, in itself, has caused problems both for the Gypsy community and for Site Managers."[210]

157. The locations of many existing Gypsy and Traveller sites are poor in respect of isolation from services and/or proximity to noisy or polluting land uses. It is important to remember that Gypsy and Traveller sites are residential. We recommend they should be located only in areas considered appropriate for general residential use. Sites should be within realistic access of services and allow interaction between the Gypsy and Traveller and settled communities.

Site Design and Facilities

158. The Traveller Law Reform Coalition are critical of the design and facilities on many sites:

"Local authority sites are often provided, designed and managed with the control and containment of the residents as the aim - there appears to be no commitment to providing safe and healthy places for families to live or to ensuring the appropriate provision of services to families who live on the sites."[211]

They add:

"Facilities on transit sites are especially poor, sometimes only a tap for running water is provided. Dangerous conditions on unauthorised sites and lack of basic services such as water and sanitation are a major cause of concern."[212]

159. Cliff Codona, Chair of the National Travellers' Action Group, believes that disability discrimination legislation is contravened by many sites which fail to cater for the disabled:

"There is something else I am desperate to say as well, about disability. On our authority sites in this country - and I travel all over the country - there are no disabled facilities on any authority site in this whole country. No more sites should ever be allowed to be built again unless they have adequate disabled facilities. There are many, many elderly people with hip problems who cannot walk, with arthritis, with heart problems - with many, many disabilities in our community - and they are just not on these sites and something has to be done about it."[213]

160. The National Association of Gypsy and Traveller Officers calls for more Government advice on the design of Gypsy and Traveller sites. They comment:

"There is an urgent requirement for guidance on site characteristics from central government on the layout, spacing and amenity block requirements of a standard site. These should include a dayroom and kitchen facilities which are required by the modern Gypsy Traveller. The majority of well-managed permanent sites have developed from the basic requirements and guidance issued in the Model Standards (1989). The Model Standards relate to permanent residential mobile home sites and there has been no guidance on Gypsy caravan sites for over 20 years. If the Government is serious in its intention to investigate accommodation for Gypsy Travellers, then there is a requirement to ensure the standard of accommodation available is attractive to the needs of the travelling community. Site characteristics will vary with accommodation provided and permanent accommodation should include the provision not only of toilets and washing facilities, but additionally a day room/kitchen area so that families may enjoy a more settled existence.

There is also a requirement to ensure that private and work vehicles used by the travelling community can be accommodated on site, and that sites have fire fighting equipment and are compliant with modern health & safety legislation. Sites should be viewed as a provision of accommodation to enable families to settle if they wish rather than just a place that families go for a temporary period.

Transit sites or short stay accommodation will obviously require a lesser degree of infrastructure, but nevertheless, require the basics of waste disposal, toilet requirements and water. There will also be a requirement for hardstanding on temporary sites. The facilities required should be stated in Government guidance and grant aid should be provided on condition that a certain standard of facilities is provided."[214]

Pat Niner agrees:

"In terms of should the design guide be revised, then yes I think it should. It is 25 years since the last one was produced for Gypsy sites. An awful lot has happened in that period. Settled community space standards have changed, expectations of space standards have changed and I think that is equally true of Gypsies and Travellers. That would affect the greater likelihood of now having a mobile home to be accommodated on the pitch, more vehicles, larger vehicles, and just a desire to have more space on the plot. Also the design of some of the amenity units on sites is now extremely mean and there is virtually no space - a shower and a WC and that is it - and I think that again space expectations should be reflected in revised guidance on the sort of size of living space that might be provided within an amenity unit as a norm. If we are ever going down the route of again having some sort of grant funding for residential sites, then some sort of design standards would seem to be essential as a basis for that to know what sort of projects would be appropriate."[215]

161. In oral evidence, officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister told us that they planned to update the design guide:

"It is woefully out of date and is quite inadequate. We now have a great deal of experience under out belt through the Gypsy sites refurbishment grant. We have a lot of good practice evidence to draw on and also the Irish Government has produced an excellent design guide from which we will be borrowing heavily."[216]

Other research highlights the following as important:

• Involvement of Gypsies and other Travellers as potential users in site design.
• Limitation of site size to between 12 and 20 pitches.
• Generous pitch sizes to allow families to have several trailers and use the pitch flexibly. Larger pitches mean that family visitors can stay with trailers for short periods, thus easing transit accommodation needs.
• Larger amenity blocks, with day rooms.
• Appropriate site layouts which give residents privacy, but also generate a feeling of community. Children's play space should be centrally located where it can be overlooked by parents and residents for security.
• Better site environments, and boundary and surface treatments which feel less like a prison camp and more like a normal residential area.

162. In oral evidence Gypsies and Travellers described the type of facilities they wanted on sites. However Charles Smith of the Gypsy Council for Education, Culture, Welfare and Civil Rights concluded the discussion:

"I think to some extent we are missing the point really, because we are asking for the same facilities as people have in houses."

This view echoed that of the Traveller Law Reform Coalition who told us that:

"Standards of management and maintenance should be set and monitored in the same way as the central government initiative in housing ' A Decent Home For All' (this does not currently include Gypsy and Travellers sites)"[217]

163. The current guidelines relating to site design and standards urgently need updating in the light of modern space standards and services, health and safety provisions and requirements for catering for disability. Guidance should cover both residential sites and transit sites and stopping places. We are pleased that the Government has recognised the need for swift action on this issue. Given the amount of research and literature already available, not least the Republic of Ireland's design guide, we recommend that the Government publish a draft revised guide for consultation along with the response to this report.

193   Ev 29 [Cottenham Residents Association] Back

194   Ev 34 [Traveller law Reform Coalition] Back

195   Q 233 Back

196   Q 86  Back

197   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 28 Back

198   HC 63-III, Ev 105, [Ann Dean] Back

199   Q 233 [Pat Weale, Gypsy Services Manager for Worcestershire County Council] Back

200   Q 195 [Rick Bristow, Chairman, Cottenham Residents Association] Back

201   HC 63-III, Ev 95 [The Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group] Back

202   Q 373 Back

203   Q 374 Back

204   Q 84 Back

205   Ev 34 [Traveller Law Reform Coalition] Back

206   Q 23 [Dr Robert Home] Back

207   Q 249 Back

208   Q 250  Back

209   HC 63-III, Ev 93, [National Association of Traveller Teachers] Back

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

211   Ev 42 [Traveller Law Reform Coalition] Back

212   Ev 42 [Traveller Law Reform Coalition] Back

213   Q 57 Back

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

215   Q 169 [Pat Niner, Senior Lecturer in the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of Birmingham and Gypsy and Traveller researcher] Back

216   Q 346  Back

217   Ev 34 [Traveller Law Reform Coalition] Back