| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
14 July 2009 : Column 65WH—continued
"due to its location in the open countryside outside of defined settlements"
and was deemed "unacceptable in principle". Just a normal house was a no-go. In 2005, there was a change of use application for the stationing of one residential caravan for the personal use of the applicants. That was refused and a subsequent appeal was turned down because the applicants were not Gypsies or Travellers. Members of the settled community are not allowed to live in caravans in such rural areas because it interferes with the rural landscape.
Two years later, an application was submitted for five Gypsy caravan pitches with five hard-standings, five day rooms and driveways. A pitch could include a permanent caravan, a mobile caravan, a day room, driveways and so on, so five pitches could involve 15 or 20 caravans and buildings. After six years of enforcement action and the refusal of applications for a bungalow and a single caravan, the council recommended the acceptance of an application for five pitches.
Interestingly, council policy H12 for Gypsy and Traveller sites states that
"preferably sites should be within a reasonable distance of local services and facilities such as shops, doctors' surgeries and primary schools, though more remote sites may be acceptable".
The site in question is not a reasonable distance from any of those services and facilities. The council officer said that the statement that
"more remote sites may be acceptable"
offered a get-out clause, so that he could ignore all the desirable features of sites and approve the site. The site has shocking drainage. My understanding from the papers is that the sewage would be drained into a ditch. Although it is not a good place for a site, the council recommended approval and suggested a condition that
"the land is not occupied by persons other than gypsies and travellers. The criteria for considering the provision of a Gypsy and Traveller site is assessed against different criteria."
The officers recommended approval principally because of an "urgent unmet need" for such sites.
Despite the Government policy document on Gypsy and Traveller sites that states that everyone has the same rights and responsibilities, residents of villages see Gypsies and Travellers being treated differently in relation to green belt developments. Residents near Hall End have seen a piece of land that they could not put a bungalow or a residential caravan on being recommended for approval by the council for five pitches because it was a Gypsy and Traveller application. One can see why people become resentful-not because they object to Gypsies and Travellers having somewhere decent to live, but because they want one rule to apply to everybody. That is not happening.
In particular, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Hall End site was earmarked in the draft planning document, which in theory will not be finalised until 2010. It appears as though anyone who applies for a site that might be earmarked in that document will get planning permission. Perversely, there is now such pressure to give permission that the sites are not being prioritised through a systematic, rational and strategic system. Instead, pretty much anyone who applies will get approval to fulfil the unmet need.
Such approval conflicts with the Government's Gypsy and Traveller site strategy of May 2008, "Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide", which outlines 23 recommendations, one of which is that
"poorly located sites, with no easy access to major roads or public transport services"
should be avoided. That describes the Hall End site. The document advises that there should be
"Easy access to local services, and to social contact with other residents".
There will not be any at this site. It says that
"locations that are inappropriate for ordinary residential dwellings"
should be avoided. An application for a bungalow on the site was turned down. It even says that Travellers do not like isolation or great distances to facilities. The Hall End application therefore goes against not only what the settled population wants, but the preferences of Travellers. The applicant was not a Traveller, but the application was made for a Traveller site because other uses had been turned down. The document states:
"Sewerage for permanent sites should normally be through mains systems."
There is no mains sewerage on the Hall End site.
We can start to see how the Government's guidelines, policies and values seem right when we read them but, when it comes to an individual application, they get overridden because of the unmet-need figure. One resident has said that he thinks the whole development plan document process has been undermined. The local ward councillor and my Liberal Democrat colleagues-a group of people who are generally known for being sympathetic to the needs of Gypsies and Travellers and who are not know for being hostile-all opposed the decision to approve the application, because they felt that it was the wrong site. However, on the committee, they were outvoted
by one by councillors from a completely different place in the authority. Again, in terms of local accountability, local residents feel that they have been ignored.
In the context of the DPD, the resident I mentioned told me in a letter that the decision to approve the application
"has seriously damaged the Council's reputation and members of the public now feel that the DPD exercise is purely a PR exercise and that all of the sites will now go through without consultation".
What set out to be a consultative and strategic process is being undermined, and I do not think that the Government ever intended that to happen. I think that they wanted a process, consultation, iteration, eventual approval and for things then to move forward, but what is happening is that the gun is being jumped almost daily.
So what about the DPD process? That process is now degenerating into what I would call planning anarchy-that is the sort of situation that we are in. How great is the unmet need? The Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment calculated that we needed an extra 73 pitches: 32 because of household growth, 18 based on unauthorised developments, nine from unauthorised encampments, 12 as a result of additional identified need-basically, from waiting lists-and two from people moving from houses on to sites. That gives a total of 73 pitches, which, minus the 15 vacancies, leaves 58 pitches as the target. However, that was two years ago. One of the problems is that things have changed since then, and because private authorised sites are being given the go-ahead all the time in our area, the council is working towards a target of 58 that is now out of date.
The target of 58 included sites that were unauthorised when the count was done, but because those sites are now authorised, double counting is going on. The needs of families have been met by authorising the site, but they have not been taken off the total because it was based on measuring unmet need and looking at unauthorised sites.
Within the authority area, as those private sites have become authorised, the illegal encampments have come down. In January 2008, there were 19 families on unauthorised sites, with 46 caravans. In January 2009-a year later-there are only 11 families on unauthorised sites, with 14 caravans. So there are half as many families, with a third the number of caravans. That is a sign that the unmet need is being met, yet the total target is still that from two years ago. In a sense, the authority is saying not that there is no unmet need, but that the figures are out of date and do not reflect what has happened since then, as private sites have become authorised. I hope that the Minister is willing to consider whether the authority has been given the right target. Likewise, when the assessment was done in October 2007, the council had 33 private site pitches. There are now 50 families living on authorised private sites with planning permission. So provision is being made, but no account is being taken of that in the process.
I should like to mention a couple of other sites in relation to which there are concerns that things are not being done consistently. A new supersite on Tanhouse lane, which is north of Yate, has come forward as a result of the classic case of the owner of the land applying for planning permission and, on being turned down, saying, "Right. I'll put it forward for a Gypsy or
Traveller site." There is talk of having 10 to 12 pitches, which could involve up to 50 caravans, outbuildings and all the rest of it in, again, an unsuitable place. The residents do not feel confident that the unsuitability of the site will have any bearing on the decision, because they have seen what happened down the road with the Hall End site.
In addition, my colleague, Councillor Claire Young from Westerleigh ward, has alerted me to a proposed transit site on an industrial estate. There are good arguments for why there are problems with that site, yet residents and business people do not feel that they will be listened to, because of the drive to hit the numerical targets, which we question. Another example of how there seems to be one rule for one and one rule for another can be found in relation to the existing site at Bank road, Pilning in my constituency. Down the road, an additional site has been earmarked for consultation. As soon as it was included in the draft planning document, people with caravans moved on to the site, where they should not be. When we challenged the council, it said:
"the uncertain planning position of the site...means that it is not currently expedient for the planning enforcement team to pursue formal enforcement action against the number of caravans and/or pitches on the site."
In other words, once something is in the draft document, people move on and the council says, "Well, technically, we should move them off, but the land might get permission or be earmarked in a years' time, so we won't do anything." Residents are therefore saying, "Hang on a minute. This is a consultation document, yet the council is acting as if these sites have been given permission already and is not taking enforcement action." The site on Bank road is on a floodplain, and permission would never be given to build a house out of bricks and mortar there, so why is the site appropriate for Travellers? Again, there is a sense that the rules are not being applied evenly.
The underlying problem is the DPD process and the target that the council has been given. The figures are having unforeseen consequences, and I query them for two reasons. First is the reason that I have already given: over the past two years, private sites have been given the go-ahead, but they are not coming off the total that the authority is being asked to meet, so there is double counting. The other reason is that the main driver of the extra numbers is an assumption of 3 per cent. growth a year in Gypsy and Traveller numbers. My maths tells me that 3 per cent. compound interest for 24 years would double the Gypsy and Traveller population. Will the Minister clarify whether everywhere in the country is being asked to assume a 3 per cent. growth rate in the Gypsy and Traveller population? Presumably, if that is the assumption, the Gypsy and Traveller population should double in 24 years. The settled population will clearly not double in 24 years, so why is that the assumption for the Gypsy and Traveller population? Presumably, the figure would then double again in another 24 years. That number seems hard to understand or justify, yet it is driving what I call planning anarchy across the authority.
So where do we go from here? The DPD process is good in principle-it is right to try to be proactive and to identify future sites-but it is creating resentment among the settled community; people feel that there is one rule for one and one rule for another. Sites that are
not good are getting the go-ahead, which was surely never the intention, and the deliberative, consultative engagement process is being second-guessed on the ground.
I appreciate that I have spoken for slightly too long, but I ask the Minister whether he is willing to reflect on what I have said and whether he will meet me, council leaders and officers from the area to go through exactly what is happening on the ground. There is, quite properly, a willingness to identify sites for the legitimate needs of Gypsy and Traveller families, and rightly so, but the process is not working as it should. I was nervous about even choosing the topic for debate, because it is so easy to get it wrong. I am concerned that, if people such as the Minister and I say nothing about these issues-I believe that he, too, values equality and fairness-when there is legitimate concern among local residents, we will create a void into which something much more unsavoury will come. We all have a responsibility to ensure that that does not happen.
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Shahid Malik): It is a pleasure to be engaging in this debate under your stewardship, Mr. Cummings. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb)-I hope that I have pronounced his constituency correctly; we were discussing how to say it earlier-on securing the debate.
The location of sites for Gypsy and Traveller caravans is important to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and I understand the concerns that he is articulating on their behalf. As he has said, it is vital that we discuss these issues constructively, in the context of the fair, decent and tolerant society in which we all wish to live. I completely accept his argument that it is important for people who believe in fairness to engage in such discussions. I think that he alluded to the fact that, if dealt with inappropriately, such matters can become quite toxic.
Fairness is what the Department for Communities and Local Government-my Department-and the Government are all about, but fairness does not mean treating everybody equally; it means addressing the different needs of different people. The need to provide adequate site provision for Gypsies and Travellers is a challenging one for local authorities, but that is just one of the many challenges that authorities regularly deal with, to provide balanced and fair services to all in their locality.
The hon. Gentleman will have considered the needs of his Gypsy and Traveller constituents alongside his constituents in the settled community. At the heart of the issues debated today is the shortage of authorised sites, which forces many Gypsies and Travellers on to unauthorised sites. The Government believe that everyone in the community should be given the opportunity to have a decent place to live. In England, that opportunity is not yet available to about one in five Gypsy and Traveller families who have no authorised place to live.
We are committed to increasing the number of authorised, good-quality sites, just as we are to increasing the supply of quality conventional housing, focusing in particular on the kind of local families who the hon. Gentleman mentioned, such as the young who want to stay in the area and the elderly. Increased site provision,
alongside the effective use of enforcement powers and a joined-up approach between the various organisations with a role in Gypsy, Traveller and broader housing issues is critical to addressing the issues that we are debating today.
There are incentives for everyone-Gypsies and Travellers, local authorities and the settled community-to increase site provision. That will reduce unauthorised camping and the tensions that that can cause with the settled community. It will reduce the need for, and cost of, enforcement action, which is estimated to cost local authorities £18 million a year, thus leading to savings for local taxpayers.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some of his concerns about the maths, as carried out by his local authority. The regional spatial strategy will take full account of the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment, provide the strategic framework for pitch allocations and advise on the number of pitches needed in each local authority. That recommendation will take account of new permissions granted. Councils can certainly take account of new permissions granted after the regional spatial strategy figures are agreed.
Members will appreciate that, given the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role in the planning process, I can comment on neither the individual planning cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, nor the current position with regard to the regional spatial strategy in the south-west, in relation to which the Secretary of State is considering responses to the proposed changes published last year.
I am aware that there is a perception that the planning system is biased in favour of Gypsies and Travellers, and that is certainly the perception of many people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I would like to make it clear that the law applies equally in that regard to Gypsies and Travellers and to those in settled communities.
There is considerable evidence of a significant underlying need for site provision in south Gloucestershire. That is supported by several data sources, including independent research commissioned by South Gloucestershire district council as part of the west of England partnership that fed into the regional spatial strategy. I know that that was not the hon. Gentleman's primary argument, which was that some of the unmet need has, in fact, been satisfied. Therefore, it is an issue of the local authority and its maths. As I have pointed out, the local authority ought to be taking stock of those areas where permission has been granted.
The evidence shows that there is a clear and immediate need for more authorised sites, so I am pleased by the progress being made by the district council in preparing an allocations development plan document, which will identify appropriate locations for sites. I am aware that the consultation has just closed on some additional sites that the council had suggested, and no doubt there will be further consultation once it has decided which sites should be included. I very much hope that local residents and Gypsy and Traveller groups will play a full part in those consultation processes, as that is the best way to ensure a fully informed policy. Policies cannot always please everyone all the time, but if we can be confident that everyone has had the chance at least to contribute to the debate meaningfully, the council will be able to develop the plans fully, aware of all the facts.
In the interim, there remains a significant need for accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers in the district. I do not accept the view that applications for planning permission should not be considered until the development plan document has been completed. Even with the best endeavours of all concerned, that might take some time. In the meantime, proposals for Gypsy and Traveller sites should be considered by the local authority against existing development plan policies that are relevant. That is exactly what would happen with any other type of development in similar circumstances.
Steve Webb: When officers look at those applications, they list the emerging development plan document as a relevant factor, so the fact that it is even being consulted on is given weight. Therefore, the entire process is being second-guessed. We will get to the end of the consultation process, but most of the sites in the document will already have come on stream. Does not that undermine the consultation process itself?
Mr. Malik: I fully understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I hope that I have dealt with some of his genuine concerns about how the maths works within the local authority. He asked me to meet him and other colleagues to discuss that in more detail, which I am certainly willing to do, because not only is that issue affecting the council in his constituency, but there are things that we can glean for elsewhere.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman has come to the debate in a genuine and responsible manner. It is an issue that many MPs are concerned about and that we have to get right. There are often issues of cohesion and community harmony at stake, and there are many misconceptions. He would be the first person to try to disabuse people of views that were not only repugnant in some cases, but simply wrong factually, and that element of incorrectness leads to some of the more distasteful comments that we sometimes hear in our communities. He is right to focus on fairness, because ultimately the challenge for us, in positions of responsibility, is to get the message across that things are occurring fairly, and where they are not, to deal with them in a way that gives people confidence that we are serious about fairness.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |