Current items of interest covering our campaigns
Click here to download this file
Planning Inspectorate dismiss appeal for 12 Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Colchester Essex. Reasons include 'I consider that the
domination of the settled community, together with the harm to the character and visual amenities of the area and to neighbouring occupiers’ amenities from the scale of the proposal is such as to outweigh the need for pitches. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.' Read appeal decission here;
www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.1334934&NAME=/2105020%20Decision.pdf
www.essexcountystandard.co.uk/news/4683737.Crockleford_Heath__Gypsy_appeal_dismissed/ 161009
www.essexcountystandard.co.uk/news/4085838.Crockleford_Heath__Controversial_travellers__plans_rejected/
www.golfmagic.com/localiser/MyForum.asp?sp=&v=1&memno=75142 Jack Barker Golf
Essex County Council, Development Involving County Matters.
www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/ECCWebsite/content/binaries/documents/Planning396/Development_Involving_County_Matters_-_Email_version.pdf?channelOid=null
A recent EFDC application at Netherhouse Farm, Sewardstone E4 7RJ has been referred to County
'County Matters application for the importation of 297,219 cubic metres of inert waste to facilitate the construction of an 18 hole public, pay and play golf course with associated hard and soft landscaping to include practice facilities, clubhouse, maintenance building and associated car parking [ECC decision ESS/20/09/EPF - refused 07/07/09].'
Essex CC has refused the application - read the refusal reasons here;
Click here to download this file
www.golfinlondon.co.uk/
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/letterlandscapingwaste.pdf
stalbans.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=306&NoBdr=1&NoBdr=1&NoBdr=1
www.stalbans.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/press-room/items/2009/September-2009/councilchallengesmixofgypsypitches.aspx
Conservatives consider RSS and DPD revocation
letter from Caroline Spelman MP
SHADOW SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES & LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Click here to download this file
www.lgcplus.com/policy-and-politics/economic-development/tory-leaders-told-to-delay-property-developments/5005746.article
www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115316719497.html
CPRE Survey:New housing targets: a green light for urban sprawl 300709
www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/627
www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/ECCWebsite/content/binaries/documents/Planning396/Development_Involving_County_Matters_-_Email_version.pdf?channelOid=null
Essex County Council - Development Involving County Matters March 2009
14th July 2009
www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-07-14a.64.0
Steve Webb (Northavon, Liberal Democrat) I begin with a quote:
"members of the gypsy and traveller communities should have the same rights and responsibilities as every other citizen."
That is a statement of Government policy, as set out by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in circular 01/2006. I endorse that statement wholeheartedly. I recognise the important and diverse needs across our communities from Gypsies and Travellers to the settled population. I agree with the Government that both groups have the same rights and responsibilities.
I initiated this debate because I wanted to alert the Minister to the way in which the implementation of that strategy is failing on the ground. It appears to be an entirely proper process. Unmet need should be identified systematically and sites for Gypsies and Travellers found proactively and strategically. However, there is a feeling among the people who have contacted me that people do not have equal rights and responsibilities, but that there are separate rules and outcomes for different groups. The Government's goal of fostering community cohesion and undermining conflict is not being achieved because of that perception. I want to consider how the situation could be improved.
I will begin with the example of green belt development on the edge of communities. Many villages in my constituency are surrounded by green belt. When the children of families in such villages grow up, there is often nowhere in their village for them to live. When a house becomes available, it is unaffordable for a young adult. Such people would dearly love to buy a piece of land on the edge of the village, build a house and live there, but they cannot because it is green belt. All too frequently, such land is sold to a Gypsy or Traveller family because the land is cheap. It is cheap because it is not possible to get planning permission to build on it, otherwise it would be expensive.
In some cases, the Gypsy or Traveller family will move on to the land at 5 o'clock on a Friday night, just as the council is clocking off. By Monday morning, there are hard-standings, driveways and connections to mains services. When the council enforcement process grinds into action, a planning application for a residential pitch is submitted. Because there is a planning application, the council holds off on enforcement. The application grinds through the process of site visits and so on over many weeks and months and is eventually turned down. The applicant then appeals and the case goes to the Planning Inspectorate, which says that although the land is green belt, there are not enough proper Gypsy and Traveller sites in the authority, and it therefore gives permission. That happens time and again in my area.
Many Gypsy and Traveller sites are immaculate. I can think of one not far from where I live that looks lovely and is well maintained. We are not always talking about some scruffy caravans down the road. Some sites are a credit to the area that they are in. However, the problem is the sense that such things would not be allowed for the settled The Minister might say in his response that, if the council had provided enough sites in the first place, such things would not happen. In 2006, my local authority, South Gloucestershire council, was directed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to produce a Gypsy and Traveller development plan document. The goal was for 53 residential pitches and 25 transit caravans, based on the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment. We are halfway through the two-year consultation, but that process is being forestalled and undermined because sites that have been submitted as potential sites are suddenly coming forward for planning permission.
The Minister's office kindly contacted me before the debate to ask what I wanted to raise, and I mentioned the application at Hall End in Rangeworthy. That site has a complex history, but, in a nutshell, the council has been taking enforcement action for six years. It started when someone moved a caravan on to the site and started operating a transport business. They created track and hard-standing in a rural area. An appeal was dismissed in 2004. Even the High Court ordered enforcement by July 2008. For five or six years, the council has said that this is not a good site for caravans or buildings.
There have been planning applications for the site. In 2004, there was an application for a bungalow. That was rejected
"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.
community and that a different set of rules apply for Gypsies and Travellers.
Shahid Malik (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Dewsbury, Labour)
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.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the population growth figures. In the absence of any locally available evidence, research has concluded that 3 per cent. growth is reflective of the population growth in that community. I cannot tell hon. Members how good that research is because I have not seen it—I passed a message back to my officials and they sent one back to me, and Members know how it works. I am more than happy to look at the figures as well, because it is important that people have confidence in them. Where there is a lack of confidence, that needs to be dealt with—it cannot be left to one side because it is convenient.
The framework put in place by the Government does not require local authorities to provide the sites, but simply to identify suitable locations. As with the settled population, many Gypsies and Travellers prefer their own sites. Some of them, however, will not have the necessary resources, so access to social rented sites will be necessary. That information should be incorporated within the authority's Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment. The Government provide significant resources to fund the capital cost of providing local authority or registered social landlord sites. Between 2006 and 2008, we approved £54.6 million of funding that will deliver over 400 additional pitches and refurbish 120 sites.
The south-west region has been allocated £9 million between 2009 and 2011. The grant is now administered by the Homes and Communities Agency, which will enable it to factor in the needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities as part of its single conversation with local authorities and delivery partners. Bids for funding in 2009-10 have now closed, but I encourage local authorities and registered social landlords to begin the work now to prepare bids for next year. The framework that we have put in place is crucial to making progress on site provision and, coupled with effective enforcement action and a joined-up approach on the those issues, will help to create the kind of fair, tolerant and cohesive communities that both the hon. Gentleman and I would like to see.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman once again on securing the debate and reiterate my commendation for the efforts being made in south Gloucestershire to address the issues discussed today and, importantly, to address them responsibly, which both he and I are equally aware of.
Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11)).
Accomodaton for Gypsy and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in the East of England, a Revision to the Regional Spacial Stratergy for the East of England. Published on 20th July 2009
www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/687221/
Click here to download this file
Golf Ecology News www.golfecology.co.uk/
www.golfecology.co.uk/articles/landfill.html
An article by Jim Arthur
No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
The other day my eye was caught by an article advocating the use of land-fill as a source of income as well as a method of raising' 'unsuitable' land or creating features on flat golf courses. Admittedly, the article contains warnings about unscrupulous elements, but frankly - and I speak from experience - the risks are enormous, the penalties draconian and my advice is that tipping is never worth that risk.
We are not talking about building golf courses on old land-fill sites, though the experiences of many will confirm that this is a risky venture and, in the past, only when all concerned have taken on board what might and often did happen, would I advise going ahead on such terrain. Some risks are obvious, e.g. methane gas emissions, instability, underground fires and toxicity problems.
I well remember the problems on one Pennine site with one hole unavoidably built on a massive industrial tip which was on fire. Snow never lay in that area and we had to build rafts to avoid the possibility of a green - and golfers - being swallowed by the inferno ! That was some years ago and the fire burnt itself out eventually.
The problem is basically one of human nature. Because landfill tax is not payable where recreational facilities would be improved by tipping, such cheaper tipping sites can and will corner the market for all available fill. Unscrupulous developers have been known to collect income without having the slightest intention of building a golf course on the filled site - a condition of consent. One such character to my knowledge was made to cart away all the fill at his expense - an astronomical loss.
Raising low, badly drained areas by tipping is nearly always a mistake. Drainage problems are still there and not likely to be improved by being covered by several metres depth of impermeable fill. I know of very few wet areas which cannot be drained - in fact, in the Netherlands one new course was well below sea level and the solution, as at many other low wet sites in the UK, was to pump, even at St Andrews !
Creating features is also a dubious justification - unless done extremely skilfully such mounds and ridges always look unnatural, but worse , unless an adequate depth of top soil is expensively imported, they never develop a healthy sward. County waste management officers are very diligent and make frequent and unannounced calls. If they find something wrong, they have almost unlimited powers - with hugely expensive repercussions. Control is therefore vital on virtually a 24 hour basis.
Whilst honest operators may exert care in control at their end, others may not or cannot do so. Remember that what is seen on top of the tipper load of fill may be totally different from the bulk ! The more clever crooks sandwich the dubious material in the middle ! The developer or Club will therefore have to provide a qualified, alert and strong supervisor all day (and all night unless the site can be secured).
By definition, the land-fill material is hardly likely to be homogenous. Pockets of rubble mixed in with infertile and impermeable clay sub-soil does not lead to good drainage. The cost of importing (and finding !) up to 300mm of good top soil overlay soon knocks the gilt off the gingerbread. Economising initially leads to much higher costs later.
All these snags and we have not even considered such problems as toxic wastes, banned materials or fly tipping ! Even an absence of five minutes gives an illegal tipper a chance to drop his load of rubbish - it takes a lot longer to collect it and find a legal home for it !
Asbestos is currently the No 1 baddie. Asbestos, where undisturbed, presents no problems, but disposal of both old sheeting and of insulation can be hazardous and consequently is heavily controlled. This leads to illegal dumping with inherent pollution risks. Not only are voids left but toxicity is permanent and it is the unfortunate landowner who gets the clearing-up bill.
There are other aspects of this tipping problem, exemplified by cases where Clubs have to dispose of waste fill, e.g. when excavating foundations for new buildings or disposing of subsoil when creating water features/reservoirs. One case comes to mind, when this 'spare subsoil' was used to build out a massive raised tee straight onto a steep slope, without any anchoring. It was in such imminent danger of avalanching down the hill that the Health & Safety inspector would not even venture onto it !
Tipped areas tend to be flat (unless contours are expensively built in from the start by architectural supervision. Constant traversing over the site creates severe compaction. This combination produces massive drainage problems, almost impossible to resolve. One cannot mole-drain let alone run drains through such a mixed base. Importing good top soil over such an impermeable foundation results in turning it into slurry. Sloping the site helps a little but only on small areas.
Just dumping spoil to make features on flat terrain needs to be done with extreme care and under the constant supervision of a qualified golf course architect. There are too many cases of 'improved' holes looking like football pitches running through huge railway cuttings - yet still we see these costly errors repeated ! Natural contours can be achieved only by 'hands-on' supervision.
Current debates on the viability of many of our new courses relate equally to extensions. If only the financial feasibility had been properly and independently assessed, with less unjustified optimism, there might be fewer projects, including extensions, in their present straits. Building courses on fill involves too many imponderable risks, when there are too many known ones !
My advice based on hundreds of case histories over more than 30 years of course construction is firmly to have nothing to do with land-fill, however attractive the bait may seem, for it in always ends in tears before bedtime
A report commissioned by Thornwood Action re the Consultation on Options: Devlopment Plan Provision for Gypsies and Travellers in Epping Forest District.
www.thornwoodaction.com/documents/Consultation_Response_-_Stansgate_Report.doc
www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115316689207.html
Refusal of an appeal to continue to import and crush inert material for the development of a golf course. Read the Inspectors report here;
www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.854404&NAME=/Appeal%20Decision.pdf
A new planning application to be considered by EFDC on 9th June 2009 for 4 new Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Roydon.
rds.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Published/C00000298/M00005746/$$Supp2623dDocPackPublic.pdf?ku=27369921$SPT
Gypsies and Travellers, Race Relations
Click here to download this file
Accommodation for Gypsy and Travellers and Travelling Show People in the East of England. The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to the Draft Revsion to the Regional Spacial Strategy and Statement of Reasons.
Click here to download this file
EFDC Fact File of sites 20b and 20c
www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Library/files/planning/gypsies_and_travellers/Site_Fact_Files/20b%20Coopersale%20Lane%20Theydon%20Bois.pdf
www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Library/files/planning/gypsies_and_travellers/Site_Fact_Files/20c%20Abridge%20Road%20Theydon%20Bois.pdf
ODPM Circular 1:2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circulargypsytraveller
Essex County Council Traveller Education
www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/ECCWebsite/dis/guc.jsp?channelOid=16355&guideOid=16869&guideContentOid=107308
Regional Spatial Strategy Single Issue Review Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation in the East of England October 2008, published 18th December 2008.
www.goeast.gov.uk/goee/docs/193657/193668/ReportfinalrevDec08.pdf
www.goeast.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/687221/
Extract from Hansard 18 November 2008
4. Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): What progress has been made in increasing site provision for Gypsy and Traveller families. [236265]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Sadiq Khan): Between 2006 and 2008, the Government have awarded grants to provide more than 400 additional socially rented pitches, and 120 sites have been refurbished. The timetable for allocating suitable land for Gypsy and Traveller sites is set out in local authorities’ local development schemes. However, where there is a clear and pressing need, work should begin now on identifying land for sites.
Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate the Government on their initiative in trying to provide an adequate number of Gypsy and Traveller sites. Does he believe that there is a net increase in the number of pitches being provided? In some situations, refurbishment leads to a reduction in the number of pitches because it expands the size of individual pitches. Does he feel that there is an expansion in the number of pitches that are being provided by local authorities at the moment?
Mr. Khan: I congratulate my hon. Friend; as chair of the all-party group on Gypsy and Traveller law reform, she has been the catalyst for much of the progress that has been made. She raises a serious point about whether, in our enthusiasm for investing in refurbishment and providing additional pitches, some may be lost in other parts of the country. The important point for local communities and local authorities to recognise is the benefit that the provision of well-managed, authorised sites can offer. They help to reduce the number of unauthorised sites and mean that there are more levers at the disposal of local authorities when it comes to removing unauthorised sites. We will ensure that we encourage local authorities to continue to provide additional pitches and to refurbish those pitches that are already in existence, as they should do.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): Does the Minister agree that the rules and laws of this country should apply to everybody equally? If so, does he understand how my constituents in the villages of Wilburton and Haddenham feel at the prospect of another 14 Traveller pitches being granted permission? That permission is being granted not because those sites are wanted there and not because the district council wants them, but because the council is being forced to grant permission on land for which it would not otherwise do so, because of pressure from the Government and from the regional planning policy. One of the two sites has already been rejected for use in building conventional housing. The other is a greenfield site. If anybody else applied to carry out normal development, they would not have a prayer.
Mr. Khan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that demonstration of his prejudice against Gypsy and Traveller sites—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is in order. How he replies to a question is up to him.
Mr. Khan: Gypsies and Travellers are bound by the same planning laws and human rights legislation as everyone else, which means that they should apply for planning permission before moving on to or developing land that they own. In the same way as everyone else, they are subject to enforcement action if the proper planning processes are not complied with. Local authorities, rather than the Government, should decide what happens in local communities.
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): Traveller provision might not be politically popular, but does my hon. Friend agree that if every local authority made good provision for Traveller families there would be an overall saving, as illegal sites would not be used, saving all the money that dealing with them frequently costs—not to mention the rental income that would come from official sites?
Mr. Khan: I thank my hon. Friend for that sensible question. The independent taskforce on site provision and enforcement concluded that the Government’s policy framework was sound, but her point is very important. The provision of additional well-managed and authorised sites will help to reduce the number of unauthorised sites. Authorised sites also enable rent and council tax to be created and utility bills to be paid. I hope that we would all welcome that.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): The Minister must recognise that no one on the Opposition side of the House objects to reasonable rights being given to Gypsies and Travellers. However, he and his Government are taking away the rights of other people in my constituency. Decent, normal, law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying people are under threat of having the little pieces of land right next to their houses taken away by his Government, by compulsory purchase, to provide sites for Gypsies. What about the rights of the decent, hard-working taxpayers in my constituency?
Mr. Khan: Let me deal with the hon. Lady’s first point. Local authorities spend £18 million a year on enforcement action on unauthorised sites. If we can reduce the number of unauthorised sites by encouraging local authorities to provide authorised sites, that will reduce that bill. Secondly, I know from a letter that I have been passed by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), that the hon. Lady has been involved in a campaign that some would characterise as scaremongering about compulsory purchase orders in her community. There is no truth in the headlines. There is no requirement for local authorities to compulsorily purchase land for Gypsy or Traveller sites. I would ask, caution and counsel hon. Members to use their words carefully and to temper them when it comes to spreading stories that are factually incorrect and misleading.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Leicestershire lies at the heart of England and is very well served by the motorway network, including the M6, M1 and M42, but the county has much more than its fair share of unauthorised Traveller encampments on both private and public land. Would my hon. Friend like authorities to share best practice in respect of how rapidly they deal with such concerns? Northamptonshire, for instance, has a far better record than Leicestershire in that regard. Does he plan to give authorities greater powers in legislation to move Travellers on rather more quickly than they can at the moment?
Mr. Khan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he is doing with his local community. I should be more than happy to visit examples of good practice, and MPs who articulate it. He is of course aware that the police have greater powers to move Gypsies and Travellers from unauthorised encampments if there are suitable pitches available for them to move to. I hope that the examples of good practice in his community will be adopted elsewhere in the country.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): The Minister will be aware of how controversial this issue is. He said that the point about compulsory purchase made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) was unreliable, but will he confirm that in 2006 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued guidance instructing councils to meet their regional targets for Traveller camps by using compulsory purchase powers? Does he appreciate the ill-feeling that that advice and guidance has aroused, and the harm that such heavy-handed, top-down state interference has caused to community relations?
Mr. Khan: Frankly, the hon. Lady should know better. Compulsory purchase orders are entirely a matter for the local authority. If a local authority wished to compulsorily purchase any land, it would have to demonstrate that there was a compelling case in the public interest before confirming a compulsory purchase order. Such an order should be a last resort that is used only when efforts to purchase land by agreement have failed. However, it is a basic courtesy—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has been asked a question, and hon. Members should let him reply. [Interruption.] I do not see what is difficult about it: people should just keep quiet while the Minister replies.
Mr. Khan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to end by saying simply that it is a basic courtesy to listen to the answer when a question is asked.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): The Minister will be aware of how controversial this issue is. He said that the point about compulsory purchase made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) was unreliable, but will he confirm that in 2006 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued guidance instructing councils to meet their regional targets for Traveller camps by using compulsory purchase powers? Does he appreciate the ill-feeling that that advice and guidance has aroused, and the harm that such heavy-handed, top-down state interference has caused to community relations?
Westminster Hall debates
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Gypsies and Travellers (Epping Forest)
www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2008-10-22a.124.0
Looking Back, Moving Forward, Assessing the housing needs of Gypsies and Travellers in Essex.
www.castlepoint.gov.uk/Documents/departments/Planning/devFramework/Looking%20back%20moving%20forward%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20FINAL3.pdf
Report to EFDC: A Consultation Document with Gypsy and Traveller Communities regadng the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan August 08
Click here to download this file
The Road Ahead: Final Report of the Independent Task Group on Site Provision and Enforcement for Gypsies and Travellers
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/roadahead.pdf
Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green belts
Legislation and policy, Good practice and guidance
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/155499.pdf
Planning Inspectorate Appeal APP/J1535/A/99/1017660 EPF/960/98
Click here to download this file
Gypsy and Traveller Accomodation Assessments
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/143933.pdf
Brentwood Borough Council challenges gypsy plan directive
www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1111424866976.html
N.SMITH Appellant - and - THE FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE MID-BEDFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
www.bailii.org:80/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/859.html&query=2005+ewca+civ+859&method=all
www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/rss/east_of_england_gypsy/documents/NP569-1B.pdf
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/pdf/2142.pdf
www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/2142.asp
www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2138-gypsy-traveller-sites.pdf
Local Authority Gypsy / Traveller Sites in England
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138832.pdf
Tackling Homelessness Amongst Ethnic Minority Households
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/137881.pdf
Definition of the term 'gypsies and travellers' for the purposes of the Housing Act 2004
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/143747.pdf
Gypsies and Travellers - Facts and Figures
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/158454.pdf
Developing Services for Gypsies and Travellers: Improving Sites and Well-Being
www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/corporate/developing-services
Draft Guidance on the design of sites for Gypsies and Travellers - A Consultation Paper
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/322684.pdf
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/156558.pdf
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/pps2annex1.pdf
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/rtf/pps23annex1.rtf
www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/planning/regional_planning/687221/
CHANCE TO HAVE YOUR SAY: PLANS FOR GYPSY AND TRAVELLER ACCOMMODATION IN THE EAST OF ENGLAND
www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/news/newsarchive/654498/
Last chance to comment on proposals for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the East of England
www.gos.gov.uk/goeast/news/newsarchive/686595/
Examination in Public (EiP) - Regional Spatial Strategy Single Review: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation in the East of England
www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/rss/east_of_england_gypsy/index.htm
East of England Examination in Public (EIP) - Review of Additional Pitch Requirements for Gypsies and Travellers in the East of England
Core Documents
www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/rss/east_of_england_gypsy/ThePlanningInspectorate-EastofEngland-GypsyCaravanRSS-DocumentList.htm