murdoch planning limited’s submission in relation to the ... · then, in 2009, the equality and...

Murdoch Planning Limited’s Submission in relation to the emerging Hart Local Plan as

it relates to the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites

1. Put shortly: the evidence underpinning the proposed Gypsy and Traveller policy is not

robust, is not consistent with national policy and is unsound. I will explain why I have

reached these conclusions below. The submission is divided into 2 parts: in the first

section I address the issue of the definition of Traveller relied upon in the evidence

base for the DPD and in the second I go on to consider some of the many

shortcomings with the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment [GTAA]

upon which the DPD relies.

2. It is clear that the evidence that the Council is putting forward to justify this policy is

the August 2016 GTAA which is derived from the amended definition of Traveller

that was adopted on 31 August 2015 when the Secretary of State for Communities

and Local Government (SSCLG) issued a new planning policy entitled Planning

Policy for Traveller sites (the 2015 PPTS):

…

3. The 2015 PPTS replaced earlier guidance bearing the same title, issued in 2012 (the

2012 PPTS) with immediate effect. Importantly, the 2015 PPTS amended the

planning policy definition of ‘gypsies and travellers’ by deleting the words ‘or

permanently’ from both the definitions which had previously been included in the

2012 PPTS.

4. The new planning policy definition is set out in the Annex to the 2015 PPTS, where it

is explained that any reference in the policy to ‘gypsies and travellers’ means –

‘Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such

persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’

educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily [or

permanently], but excluding members of an organised group of travelling

showpeople or circus people travelling together as such’.

5. The words in square brackets were included in the 2012 PPTS definitions but deleted

from the 2015 PPTS definitions.

6. These changes to the planning definition are having a very damaging effect upon the

most vulnerable members of the Travelling communities. Gypsies, Travellers and

Travelling Showpeople who have stopped travelling permanently, for example,

because of ill-health or old age, or because they care for people who can no longer

travel because they are too old or ill to do so, will no longer:

a) fall within the new planning policy definition of ‘gypsies and Travellers’;

b) be able to rely upon the positive planning policy in the 2015 PPTS which has

been issued by the SSCLG in order to promote site provision.

7. It is clear that the revised definition indirectly discriminates against disabled and/or

elderly Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers and single women who are more likely to

act as carers for the disabled and elderly members of their families and/or are less

likely to travel than men. This discrimination is entirely contrary to the Public Sector

Equality Duty [PSED] and the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, a Development Plan

Document that relies upon the revised definition is itself unsound, not robust and not

consistent with national policy as expressed in the PSED.

8. The new definition also violates rights protected by Article 8 of the European

Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) - including the State’s positive

obligation to facilitate the Gypsy way of life - and breaches rights protected by Article

14 of the Convention for reasons that are explained below.

The vulnerable position of Gypsies and Travellers

9. The vulnerable position of Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers, as ethnic minority

groups living in our society, has long been acknowledged. The following extracts

from ‘Gypsies and Travellers: Britain’s Forgotten Minority’ [2005] EHRLR 335

written by Sarah Spencer, one of the Commissioners of the former Commission for

Racial Equality (‘CRE’), highlight the difficulties faced by Gypsies and Travellers in

Britain today:

“‘The majority of the 15,000 caravans that are homes to Gypsy and Traveller

families in England are on sites provided by local authorities, or which are

privately owned with planning permission for this use. But the location and condition

of these sites would not be tolerated for any other section of society. 26 per cent are

situated next to, or under, motorways, 13 per cent next to runways. 12 per cent are

next to rubbish tips, and 4 per cent adjacent to sewage farms. Tucked away out of

sight, far from shops and schools, they can frequently lack public transport to reach

jobs and essential services (p.337).

In 1997, 90 per cent of planning applications from Gypsies and Travellers were

rejected, compared to a success rate of 80 per cent for all other applications… 18 per

cent of Gypsies and Travellers were homeless in 2003 compared to 0.6 per cent of the

population… Lacking sites on which to live, some pitch on land belonging to others;

or on their own land but lacking permission for caravan use. There follows a cycle of

confrontation and eviction, reluctant travel to a new area, new encampment,

confrontation and eviction. Children cannot settle in school. Employment and health

care are disrupted (p.337). Overt discrimination remains a common experience…

There is a constant struggle to secure the bare necessities, exacerbated by the

inability of many adults to read and write, by the reluctance of local officials to visit

sites, and by the isolation of these communities from the support of local residents ...

But we know that these are communities experiencing severe disadvantages. Infant

mortality is twice the national average and life expectancy at least 10 years less than

that of others in their generation (pp.338-9).’

10. The vulnerable position of Gypsies and Travellers in our society has also been

recognised by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and led it to hold in

Chapman v United Kingdom [2001] 33 EHRR 18 (at paragraph 96) that:

‘The vulnerable position of gypsies as a minority means that some special

consideration should be given to their needs and their different lifestyle both in the

relevant regulatory framework and in reaching decisions in particular cases..… To

this extent, there is thus a positive obligation imposed on the Contracting States by

virtue of Article 8 to facilitate the gypsy way life …’.

11. As part of its programme of work, developed in order to fulfil its statutory duty, the

CRE adopted a three year strategy (2004-2007) in relation to race equality and the

Gypsy and Traveller community. The CRE also conducted a major research project

into how local authorities in England and Wales were promoting equality of

opportunity and good race relations in their work relating to site provision for Gypsies

and Irish Travellers. The findings of that research were published on 15th May 2006 in

the report ‘Common Ground: Equality, Good Race Relations and Sites for Gypsies

and Irish Travellers’ (‘Common Ground’).

12. Then, in 2009, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (‘EHRC’) published a

report entitled ‘Inequalities experienced by Gypsy and Traveller Communities: A

review’ and a briefing entitled ‘Gypsies and Travellers: Simple solutions for living

together’. It is worth noting that in the executive summary of the ‘Inequalities’ report

the authors stated that:

‘Many Gypsies and Travellers are caught between an insufficient supply of suitable

accommodation on the one hand, and the insecurity of unauthorised encampments

and developments on the other: they then face a cycle of evictions, typically linked to

violent and threatening behaviour from private bailiff companies. Roadside stopping-

places, with no facilities and continued instability and trauma, become part of the

way of life. Health deteriorates, while severe disruptions occur to access to education

for children, healthcare services and employment opportunities. In order to avoid the

eviction cycle or to access vital services, many families reluctantly accept the

alternative of local authority housing. They are however, typically housed on the most

deprived estates, sharing the wider environmental disadvantages of their neighbours

and exposed to more direct and immediate hostility focused on their ethnicity or

lifestyle. This also involves dislocation from their families, communities, culture and

support systems, leading to further cycles of disadvantage.’

13. More recently, in 2015 the EHRC published a report entitled Is Britain Fairer and in

2016 it published another report entitled Is England Fair as well as a spotlight report

entitled England’s most disadvantaged groups: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. In the

latter report, the EHRC identified the most up to date evidence and statistics on the

education, employment, living standards and health, of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma

as well as the negative attitudes and hostility that they experience from the general

public, police and other authorities, fuelled by political rhetoric and the media.

Having done so the EHRC concluded that little had changed since the Inequalities

report had been published in 2009.

The shortage of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers

14. The fact that there is a significant shortfall in accommodation for Gypsies and

Travellers in England is indisputable.

15. Below is a brief summary of the relevant legislation and policy which demonstrates

how the shortfall has arisen and how successive governments have tried to address the

issue.

i. In 1960 Parliament passed the Caravan Sites and Control of Development

(CSCDA) 1960. That Act was designed to regulate and control private caravan

sites. It provided that no occupier of land could use it as a caravan site without a

site licence and that a site licence could not be obtained unless planning

permission had been granted for the use of the land for such a purpose.

ii. Section 23 of the CSCDA 1960 also gave local authorities the power to close

common land to Gypsies and other Travellers. This power was used

enthusiastically by local authorities. Section 24 of the CSCDA 1960 also gave

local authorities the power to provide caravan sites to compensate for the closure

of the commons. However, local authorities failed to make use of this collateral

power and it became increasingly difficult for the Gypsy and Traveller population

to carry on their nomadic way of life.

iii. In 1968, having recognised the problems caused by the 1960 Act, Parliament

passed the Caravans Sites Act (CSA) 1968. It came into effect on 1 April 1970

and was designed to convert the section 24 CSCDA 1960 power into a duty

imposed on County Councils to provide caravan sites for Gypsies and Travellers

resorting to or residing in their area.

iv. Though sites were built as a result of the CSA 1968 a number of authorities failed

to comply with their duty and there remained a significant shortfall in authorised

accommodation. As Sedley J. (as he then was) noted in R v Lincolnshire CC ex p

Atkinson (1997) JPL 65:

‘For the next quarter of a century there followed a history of non-compliance with

the duties imposed by the Act of 1968, marked by a series of High Court decisions

holding local authorities to be in breach of their statutory duty, to apparently little

practical effect.’

v. Then in 1994 the government issued Circular 1/94, which urged Councils to

encourage private site provision on the basis that Gypsies and Travellers should

help themselves. Circular 1/94 also advised local authorities to assess the need for

Gypsy sites in their areas and to identify land on which such sites could be

developed wherever it was possible to do so.

vi. In 1994 Parliament also passed the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act

(CJPOA). The CJPOA 1994 repealed much of the CSA 1968, including the duty

imposed on County Councils to provide authorised sites. Though the section 24

CSCDA 1960 power to provide sites has been retained it has not been utilised and

as a consequence the number of local authority sites has fallen.

vii. At the same time the CJPOA 1994 gave both the Police and local authorities

additional powers to remove Gypsies and Travellers when they park their

caravans on unauthorised encampments: see sections 61 and 77 of the CJPOA

1994 respectively.

viii. Few, if any, local authorities complied with the advice in Circular 1/94. The

accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers were not assessed and land was

not identified for their residential use. As a consequence Circular 1/94 failed to

deliver sufficient sites for Gypsies and Travellers living in England. Moreover, the

effect of the repeal of the CSA 1968, coupled with the changes to planning

guidance, and the enforcement powers given to local authorities and the Police by

the CJPOA 1994, has been to render it virtually impossible for those Gypsies and

Travellers without an authorised site to continue living their traditional way of life

within the law.

ix. On 2 February 2006 the Government issued ODPM Circular 1/06 ‘Planning for

Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites’ (Circular 1/06). The new Circular replaced

Circular 1/94. The Government decided that it was necessary to issue new

planning advice precisely because the evidence showed that Circular 1/94 had

failed to provide adequate sites for Gypsies and Travellers in many areas of

England over the previous 12 years.

x. In paragraph 5 of Circular 1/06 the Government referred to the poor health and

low level of educational attainment amongst Gypsies and Travellers. In the same

paragraph the Government expressed the view that the new Circular should

enhance their health and education outcomes.

xi. In paragraph 12 the Government indicated that it was intended that Circular 1/06

would, inter alia:

a) create and support sustainable, respectful and inclusive communities where

Gypsies and Travellers have fair access to suitable accommodation,

education, health and welfare provision;

b) reduce the number of unauthorised encampments and developments;

c) increase significantly the number of Gypsy and Traveller sites in appropriate

locations with planning permission in order to address under-provision over

the next 3 – 5 years;

d) recognise, protect and facilitate the traditional travelling way of life of gypsies

and travellers, whilst respecting the interests of the settled community;

e) underline the importance of assessing needs at regional and sub-regional level

and for local authorities to develop strategies to ensure that needs are dealt

with fairly and effectively;

f) identify and make provision for the resultant land and accommodation

requirements;

g) promote more private Gypsy and Traveller site provision in appropriate

locations through the planning system, while recognising that there will

always be those who cannot provide their own sites;

h) help avoid Gypsies and Travellers becoming homeless through eviction from

unauthorised sites without an alternative to move to.

xii. Circular 1/06 explained that it applied to ‘gypsies and travellers’ who were to be

defined as:

Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such


educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or

permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling

showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.’

xiii. Circular 1/06 explained how it was intended that the planning system would work

in the context of the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites and made it clear that

local planning authorities (LPAs) should begin the process by assessing the

accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers and produce Gypsy and

Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments (GTANAs).

xiv. The information from GTANAs was then to be fed to the Regional Planning

Boards (RPBs) who were to be responsible for preparing Regional Strategies

(RSs) which would identify the number of pitches required (but not their location)

for each LPA and a strategic view of needs across the region.

xv. Subsequently, individual LPAs were required to produce their own Development

Plan Documents (DPDs) which set out site specific allocations for the number of

pitches that the RSs had specified they needed to accommodate within their areas.

xvi. However, RSs were revoked by the Localism Act 2011 and then, in 2012, Circular

1/06 was replaced by PPTS. Due to the slow rate of site provision by LPAs’ when

1/2006 was in force, it would take a further 18 years to meet the accommodation

needs of Travellers

xvii. Paragraph 3 of the 2012 PPTS stated that the government’s ‘overarching aim is to

ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the

traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of

the settled community.’

xviii. Paragraph 4 of 2012 PPTS explained that the government’s

‘… aims in respect of traveller sites are:

a) that [LPAs] should make their own assessment of need for the purposes of

planning

b) to ensure that [LPAs], working collaboratively, develop fair and effective

strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites

c) to encourage [LPAs] to plan for sites over a reasonable timescale

d) that plan-making and decision-taking should protect the Green Belt from

inappropriate development

e) to promote more private traveller site provision while recognising that there

will always be those travellers who cannot provide their own sites

f) that plan-making and decision-taking should aim to reduce the number of

unauthorised developments and encampments and make enforcement more

effective

g) for [LPAs] to ensure that their Local Plan includes fair, realistic and inclusive

policies

h) to increase the number of traveller sites in appropriate locations with

planning permission, to address under provision and maintain an appropriate

level of supply

i) to reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities in plan-making

and planning decisions

j) to enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can

access education, health welfare and employment infrastructure

k) for [LPAs] to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local

environment.’

xix. The 2012 PPTS adopted the same definition of the term ‘gypsies and travellers’ as

had been used in Circular 1/06.

xx. The 2012 PPTS was replaced by the 2015 PPTS on 31 August 2015. Most of the

advice in the 2012 PPTS was retained in the 2015 PPTS. The key amendment so

far as the Traveller DPD is concerned was that the 2015 PPTS adopted an

amended definition of the meaning of ‘gypsies and travellers’ to that in Circular

1/06 and the 2012 PPTS, by deleting the words ‘or permanently’ so that the

definition now reads:

‘For the purposes of this planning policy “gypsies and travellers” means:

Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such


educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but

excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus

people travelling together as such.’

xxi. Significantly, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

commented in paragraph 24 of its August 2016 report upon the position of

Gypsies and Travellers in the United Kingdom and noted its concern that:

‘ … the change in the definition of Gypsy or Traveller in the Planning Policy for

Traveller Sites in England adopted in August 2015 may adversely impact the

enjoyment of rights by those who have stopped travelling permanently due to

factors such as illness or old age, and may further restrict the ability of Gypsy and

Traveller communities to access culturally appropriate accommodation and

stopping places. . ..’

16. The soundness of the Hart Traveller policy is undermined by the reliance on the 2016

GTAA produced by ORS because the revised definition upon which it is based itself

discriminates against ethnic Gypsies and Travellers who are too old or too ill to travel

anymore by denying them the opportunity of having their accommodation needs met

within the Traveller policy process. This discrimination offends both Article 8 and the

PSED. To fully understand why this is so there is a need to first consider briefly the

jurisprudence on ‘Gypsy status’ before going on to consider the other manifest short-

comings in the 2016 GTAA.

WHO IS A ‘GYPSY’?

17. It is well established that the nomadic people we have come to call “Gypsies” - the

Romanies – left North West India about 1500 years ago (evidenced clearly in their

Sanskritic languages still used to this day) and had reached our shores by the 16th

Century at the latest. Arguably the term “Gypsy” itself is a misnomer as it derives

from the word “Aegyptian” whence Tudor society erroneously imagined these groups

originated.

18. Nonetheless, the term “Gypsy” has persisted and in modern times we can see the

repeated legislative incorporation of the word: under s127 of the Highways Act 1959

a ‘Gipsy’ could be prosecuted for pitching a booth or stall on the highway, a term

which the courts and Parliament at the time considered should not refer to Gypsies as

members of a particular ethnic minority group but as a lifestyle issue. In Mills –v-

Cooper [1967] 1 QB 459 reinforced the view that Gypsy status for the purposes of the

Highways Act was not determined by ethnicity or birth but by how one lived one’s

life.

19. One year after Mills v Cooper was decided, the definition of Gypsy as nomad entered

the statute books by way of s16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968: “persons of a nomadic

habit of life, whatever their race or origin.” Back in 1960 the Caravan Sites and

Control of Development Act 1960 had given Local Authorities (County Councils) the

power to create Gypsy caravan sites in compensation for the closure of the commons

to Travellers by s23 of the same Act.1 Following the failure of the 1960 Act to create

a sufficient number of such sites2 s16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 placed those

same Local Authorities under a statutory duty to provide adequate caravan sites for

‘Gypsies residing in or resorting to’ their area. The definition of Gypsy adopted at

that time remains extant to this day, has not been repealed nor amended by statute.

20. In London Borough of Greenwich v Powell [1989] 2 WLR 7 (1988) the House of

Lords held that a person might fall within the s16 definition if s/he led a nomadic life

only seasonally and notwithstanding that he regularly returned for part of the year to

the same place, at which he might be said to have a fixed abode or permanent

residence. See also Maidstone v Dunn where the Court found Mr Dunn to have a

nomadic habit of life given that he travelled to the horse fairs annually for work for a

couple of months, notwithstanding that for most of the year he was engaged in

gardening work in the local area. I will return to the significance of Dunn in the

context of the mis-application of the law by ORS in the GTAA, a factor that

further undermines the robustness of the evidence that underpins the DPD.

21. In 1994 the Court of Appeal [R v South Hams DC, ex parte Gibb and Ors] reviewed

the law with respect to the statutory definition holding that the term ‘nomadic’ within

the definition imported the requirement that there be some recognisable connection

between one’s travelling and the means by which one made or sought one’s living.

22. When the 1968 Act duty to provide sites was repealed by the Criminal Justice and

Public Order Act in November 1994, the s16 definition of Gypsy was retained (via

s80 of that Act). This was the definition to be applied when Gypsies and Travellers

thereafter applied for planning permission to legitimise their own caravan sites under

circular 1/94 “Gypsy Sites and Planning” which had been issued in the January of

1994.

23. Since then over the years, case-law has repeatedly confirmed that to satisfy the

definition of ‘nomadic’ it is not necessary to be perpetually travelling but that one

could settle and remain a Gypsy in law. In R v Shropshire County Council ex parte

1 R v Wealdon DC ex parte Atkinson. 2 Only 9 sites were built between 1960 and 1968.

Bungay [1990] 23 HLR @196 Otton J dismissed a challenge brought by an aggrieved

local resident to the granting of planning permission for a family to reside on a private

site. That challenge to ‘Gypsy’ status concerned the fact that the family had settled

down when their father had become too ill to continue traveling and had not then

travelled for some 15 years (up until the date of the application to the Court). The

challenge was - how could they be ‘nomadic’ if they no longer travelled? The answer

the Court gave is that as Gypsies are ‘persons of a nomadic habit of life whatever

their race or origin’, then one had to look wider than just at their current situation but

at the individual’s “habit of life”. Otton J held that in a situation where people have

stopped travelling in order to care for their relatives, then it could be said that their

nomadic habit of life was in abeyance and had not been abandoned.3

24. In O’Connor –v- The First Secretary of State and Bath and North East Somerset

Council [2003] JPL 1128 a successful challenge was made to an Inspector’s decision

to dismiss a Planning Appeal4 for a Gypsy site for a single family in the Bristol Green

Belt because (in the Inspector’s view) the Appellant had failed to demonstrate Gypsy

status as a consequence of her current inability to travel through her children’s

educational needs, child care responsibilities and her own health problems. I was

instructed in both the Planning Appeal and subsequent legal challenge, where the

High Court held that:

“it was not enough as this Inspector had done to merely look at the travelling

being done at the time of the Inquiry but that one had to look at the whole life,

to look at the reasons why one had ceased travelling at the moment and

likelihood of travelling resuming in the future.”

25. In the case of Wrexham County Borough Council –v- The National Assembly for

Wales and Berry [2002] EWHC 2414 Sullivan J heard an application to quash

planning permission granted to a Gypsy site in a situation where the head bread-

winner had ceased travelling due to serious, life-threatening ill health. Sullivan J

dismissed the council’s application stating that

3 R –v- Shropshire County Council ex parte Bungay [1991] HLR 195. 4 S78 TCPA.

“to find that someone who had been a Gypsy all their life had lost that status once

they had become too old or too ill to continue to work [was] inhuman pedantry that

defied common sense and common humanity and fell foul of the duty to facilitate

the Gypsy way of life as provided for by Article 8.”5

26. Such an approach was supported by the (then) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

[‘ODPM’] Select Committee in 2004 after it took evidence from interested parties in

relation to Gypsy and Traveller policies, where the definition was one of the critical

issues examined. I too was called to give evidence to the Select Committee. Chapter 3

of the Select Committee’s subsequent Report is devoted to this matter.

27. The government too supported a definition which embraced those “Gypsies and

Travellers [who] stop travelling permanently or temporarily because of health

reasons, or caring responsibilities but still want to maintain their traditional caravan

dwelling lifestyle…” (ODPM January 2005, pp2-3).

28. In Basildon DC v the First Secretary of State and Cooper the court held that the lack

of sites justified a Gypsy family being unable to travel in the manner that they had

previously: “…what is the reason for this [ceasing travelling]?The lack of temporary

sites is the answer. ‘They had only moved onto the site when it became too difficult for

them to live on the roadside.’ … do they intend to resume travelling? I quote again

from the report ‘They would like to do so but are frustrated by the lack of temporary

sites.’ ”

29. In February 2006 Circular 1/94 was repealed and replaced by Circular 1/2006

Planning for Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites. In 1/2006 and elsewhere6 the (then)

DCLG grasped the issue of people remaining within the definition if force of

circumstance prevented them from travelling for work. Paragraph 15 of 1/2006

defined ‘Gypsies and Travellers’ as

5 I was instructed in both O’Connor and both Berry cases, as well as to subsequent policy changes introduced by the government in this area of law. 6 For example, in the definition of ‘gypsies and travellers’ for the purposes of s225 of the Housing Act 2004.

“Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such


educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or

permanently…”

30. That definition was imported verbatim into Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller

Sites (2012). As we saw above, in August 2015 the definition was amended such that

the words “or permanently” were deleted such that one would remain within the

revised definition if one ceased travelling temporarily for reasons of old age, ill health

or the educational needs of one’s children but not if one stopped travelling

permanently.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF BEING AN ETHNIC GYPSY OR TRAVELLER

31. Whilst there is no need to be an ethnic Romany Gypsy or an Irish Traveller to come

within the PPTS definition, the fact that one is from either of those groups does has

implications for both race relations legislation as well as under the European

Convention on Human Rights [‘ECHR’]. This is because Romany Gypsies and Irish

Travellers have been held to be racial groups (in the Commission for Racial Equality

v Dutton; and Allied Domecq, respectively so far as the Equalities Act 2010 is

concerned).

32. In Chapman v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 399 the European Court of Human

Rights said:

“73. The Court considers that the applicant’s occupation of her caravan is an

integral part of her ethnic identity as a gypsy, reflecting the long tradition of that

minority of following a travelling lifestyle. This is the case even though, under the

pressure of development and diverse policies or from their own volition, many gypsies

no longer live a wholly nomadic existence and increasingly settle for long periods in

one place in order to facilitate, for example, the education of their children.

Measures which affect the applicant’s stationing of her caravans have therefore a

wider impact than on the right to respect for home. They also affect her ability to

maintain her identity as a gypsy and to lead her private and family life in

accordance with that tradition.”(emphasis added).

33. In the Court of Appeal case of Wychavon DC v the Secretary of State and the Butlers

where Lord Justice Pill held:

“I say at once that in my view the judge was wrong, with respect, to treat the words

“very special” in the paragraph 3.2 of the guidance [PPG2] as simply the converse of

“commonplace”. Rarity may of course contribute to the “special” quality of a

particular factor, but it is not essential, as a matter of ordinary language or policy.

The word “special” in the guidance connotes not a quantitative test, but a qualitative

judgment as to the weight to be given to the particular factor for planning purposes.

Thus, for example, respect for the home is in one sense a “commonplace”, in that it is

an aspiration shared by most of humanity. But it is at the same time sufficiently

“special” for it to be given protection as a fundamental right under the European

Convention. Furthermore, Strasbourg case-law places particular emphasis on the

special position of gypsies as a minority group, notwithstanding the wide margin of

discretion left to member states in relation to planning policy (see Chapman v UK 33

EHRR 399; and the comments of Lord Brown in Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] 2 AC

465 para 200). Thus, in Chapman the Strasbourg court recognised that the gypsy

status did not confer “immunity from general laws intended to safeguard the assets of

the community as a whole, such as the environment”, but added:

“…the vulnerable position of Gypsies as a minority means that some

special consideration should be given to their needs and their different

lifestyle both in the relevant regulatory planning framework and in

reaching decisions in particular cases… To this extent, there is thus a

positive obligation imposed on the Contracting States by virtue of

Article 8 to facilitate the Gypsy way of life…” (para 96, emphasis

added)

The special position of gypsies in this respect is reflected in the 2006 guidance.

Against this background, it would be impossible in my view to hold that the loss of a

gypsy family’s home, with no immediate prospect of replacement, is incapable in law

of being regarded as a “very special” factor for the purpose of the guidance.”

34. All of the respondents to the Hart GTAA are Gypsies and Travellers in the ethnic

sense of those words, thereby bringing into consideration the PSED and the duty to

facilitate the Gypsy way of life under the Human Rights Act 1998. The revised

definition of Traveller is inconsistent with those matters because it indirectly

discriminates against those ethnic Gypsies and Travellers who are too old or too ill to

continue to travel for work, as well against women (in particular single parents) who

do not go out to work but raise a family instead. In addition, the definition is absurd:

how can one stop travelling temporarily due to old age? If you’ve become too old to

work at, say 65 years of age, you’re not likely to resume working at 70.

35. The comparator in my view would be agricultural workers: when they become too old

or ill to continue work, they do not lose their status and are thereby denied the

opportunity to live on an agricultural holding. Nor for that matter are their spouses or

widows and widowers of such workers. Why should Gypsies and Travellers in similar

situations fare worse than agricultural workers who retire on grounds of health or age?

THE HART GTAA 2016

36. Firstly, it is plain from the GTAA that the revised definition has been misapplied by

ORS: after detailing some of the case-law on this issue – including Maidstone v Dunn

- in the section on the “definition of travelling” at paragraph 1.18 it states that:

1.18 …the implication of these rulings in terms of applying the new definition is that it

will only include those who travel (or have ceased to travel temporarily) for work

purposes and in doing so stay away from their usual place of residence. It can include

those who have a permanent site or place of residence, but that it will not include

those who travel for purposes other than work – such as visiting horse fairs…”

37. This is repeated at section 6.17:

6.17Figure4shows that forGypsiesandTravellersonly4householdsmeetthenewdefinitionofaTravellerinthattheystatedduringtheinterviewthatthey travel for work purposes and stay away from their usual place of

residence, or have ceased to travel temporarily. A total of 29 Gypsy andTravellerhouseholdsdidnotmeetthenewdefinitionastheywerenotabletoprovideinformationthattheytravelawayfromtheirusualplaceofresidenceforthepurposeofwork,orthattheyhaveceasedtotraveltemporarilyduetochildrenineducation,illhealthoroldage.Somedidtravelforculturalreasonstovisitfairs,relativesorfriends,andothershadceasedtotravelpermanently–thesehouseholdsdidnotmeetthenewdefinition.

38. It is useful now to refer to part of the “Site Record Form” which ORS use in their assessments:

39. Thus, the GTAA is designed in such a way as to exclude from Gypsy and Traveller

status all those who answer that they travel to the fairs. The irony of this is that Mr

Dunn, the eponymous Gypsy in Maidstone v Dunn, worked as a landscaper locally all

year apart from his annual travelling to the traditional horse fairs, this latter activity

being that which confirmed his Gypsy status in law. Therefore, the only nomadising

that Mr Dunn practised was travelling to the horse fairs, the very activity that the Hart

GTAA considers precludes Gypsy Traveller status! In my view, had Mr Dunn been

asked question F3 of the GTAA site record form he would have most likely ticked the

“fairs” box and it is clear that the ORS approach would have excluded him from

being within the definition.

40. By these means, the GTAA asserts that of the 31 households assessed on existing

Gypsy and Traveller sites in Hart (out of an asserted total of 47 households) only 4

come within the revised definition (Figure 3 p21) meaning that more than 65% of the

existing population of residents on existing Gypsy and Traveller sites are not

considered by ORS to be Gypsies and Travellers. The utter absurdity of that position

is stark indeed and vitiates the reliability of the assessment and consequently the

emerging policy itself.

41. I have been professionally involved in Gypsy and Traveller planning matters for

nearly two decades and consequently am very familiar with the process of considering

the robustness of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments both as part of

the Local Plan process as well as in individual Appeals. I have given evidence at

Examinations in Public into such assessments since 2008 when I appeared before

(former Chief) Inspector Burley in relation to the evidence base underlying the South

West RSS Gypsy and Traveller needs assessments.

42. On the basis of this experience, the first thing that struck me when reading this

particular GTAA was that the time period for data collection was inappropriate in

terms of the time of year when the survey took place. In the section on the “Timing of

the Fieldwork” on p12, although ORS state that they:

“..are fully aware of the transient nature of many travelling communities and

subsequent seasonal variations in site and yard occupancy. As such all of the

fieldwork was undertaken during the non-travelling season, and also avoided

days of known local or national events. Fieldwork was completed between

May and 2016.”

43. Travellers tend to travel for work between May and the end of October annually as

these are when the traditional Gypsy horse fairs start. There is thus a built-in

deficiency with the baseline data as many Traveller families would have been away

travelling for work at the time that the fieldwork was undertaken who would have

been present had the survey taken place in the winter or early spring. This in turn

further undermines the reliability of the of the evidence base for the emerging policy.

44. The GTAA fails to refer to the CLG Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs

Assessments Guidance (20077) [‘the CLG Guidance’] (Appendix 1). Paragraph 33

refers to “important [matters] to consider” continuing at 38:

“It is also essential to ensure that the process has credibility and acceptance

within the local Gypsy and Traveller community. This can best be achieved by

involving members of the local Gypsy and Traveller communities from the

very outset of the process, both to advise and help ensure that the culture and

traditions of the communities and their accommodation needs are fully

7 Although the 2007 Guidance has been withdrawn, no replacement document has been issued and therefore it remains a useful document in this regard,

understood by those conducting the assessment, and to ensure that the process

is properly explained. This should help ensure the communities have trust in

the objectivity of the proceedings and encourage a willingness to participate.”

The “timing of the survey” is raised as an issue in the CLG Guidance from paragraph 81

onwards where it is recommended that:

“Careful consideration shouldbegiven to theappropriate timing for

thesurvey.Thecaravancountconsistentlyshowshighernumberson

unauthorised encampments, and lower numbers on permanent

residential sites, in the summer. It is likely thatnumbers inhousing

willalsobelowerinthesummer.

82. The local authority or partnership will need some knowledge of

travelling patterns and the local Gypsy andTraveller population before a

decision can sensibly be made. For example, if Gypsies and Travellers

moving during the summer come from the local area, they may be

easier to access during the winter in their permanent residential

bases.Ifontheotherhandtheycomefromoutsidethearea,thesurveywill

needtobecarriedoutduringthesummeriftheirneedsaretobeassessed–

and account should also be taken of the fact that some Gypsies and

Travellersnormallyresidentintheareamaybeawaytravellingthemselves.

Experience has shown that a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation

NeedsAssessmentisbestconductedoverasixtoninemonthperiodto

identifytheeffectofseasonalmigration.”

45. In the light of the clear advice from the CLG Guidance above it is striking that the

survey was conducted in the summer months only. These manifold shortcomings

detailed in this and other respects (discussed below) undermine the robustness of this

GTAA.

46. The traditional annual Gypsy and Traveller horse fairs run from May through to

October – with Wickham Fair at the beginning of May, followed by the first Stow

Fair also in May and then what is probably the largest fair, Appleby in Cumbria in the

first week in June, with the second Stow fair ending the season in October. To

conduct the survey during this period was therefore bound to coincide with a great

many Gypsies and Travellers being absent from their sites and homes working.

Indeed, many of the Gypsy families I have worked with in Hart have been heavily

involved with these fairs for generations. Whether the choice of timing for the

fieldwork was accidental or otherwise, it nonetheless raises doubts about the evidence

base. Some Travellers went so far as to state that asking the Council to assess the need

for Gypsy sites was like asking the foxes to count the chickens.

47. It is important to understand that Gypsies do not simply travel between their base and

fairs on the days before and after the fair. They travel more slowly, working on the

route there and back. For example, some travel by horse-drawn wagons that can only

cover about twenty miles a day and thus take a long time to reach the fairs. Even

motorised Gypsies leave for the fairs days sometimes weeks beforehand not only to

ensure they are guaranteed a good spot on site but also to visit friends and relatives -

as well as find other work - on the way there and on the way back. For many

Travellers the road trip to the fair is every bit as important as the fair itself. I know of

many Gypsies who don’t make it back to their home base for the whole season,

leaving in May and returning only once the second Stow fair has closed in October.

None of these people - all of whom would have been away travelling for work at the

time of the GTAA - would have been considered to come within the definition as

applied by ORS as they were travelling to the fairs which ORS considers precludes

Gypsy and Traveller status.

48. In contrast to this GTAA that took place at the very time of year when many

Travellers would be away working including at the fairs, other assessments elsewhere

in the country have been far more robust. For example, the Somerset Gypsy and

Traveller Accommodation Assessment was an extremely robust piece poof work that

was had community buy-in from the Traveller and settled communities and was not

challenged at EIP or at Appeals. The Somerset GTAA took evidence over a full 12

month period, thereby ensuring that seasonal variation was precluded, in turn

increasing the reliability of the results obtained.

49. From the evidence above, I conclude: the CLG 2007 guidance recommends that

surveys take place over a 6-9 month period to allow for seasonality and that some

GTAAs cover a full 12-month period (such as the Somerset GTAA) and that most

seem to take place outside of the time when Travellers are away travelling. The Hart

GTAA falls short on every one of these measures and in this way artificially reduces

the real extent of need.

50. A further short-coming the GTAA is the failure to factor in any need arising from

Gypsies and Travellers in bricks and mortar housing who would wish to live on a site

if only one was available. There is a substantial such community of housed Gypsies in

the Hart of at least 65 households (6.19) on 2 were interviewed and none of them

were considered by ORS to be Gypsies and Travellers. The Commission for Racial

Equality’s 2006 report Common Ground: Equality, good race relations and sites for

Gypsies and Irish Travellers suggested that the housed population could be around 3

times the trailer-based population. To fail to factor in need from this part of the Gypsy

and Traveller community raises significant doubts as to the GTAA’s robustness.

51. In other GTAAs between 10% and 30% of the overall Traveller population in housing

are considered to form part of the element of need. In this assessment ORS factor in a

figure of zero. This is not robust, is not justified and undermines the soundness of the

emerging policy.

52. An additional consideration is the issue of supply. In Figure 5 p 33 the sources of

“additional supply” are derived from so-called “vacant public and private pitches” –

2 pitches - as well as pitches vacated by people allegedly either moving out of the

District or into bricks and mortar over the Plan period (6 pitches). Firstly, there are no

public pitches in Hart, all such public sites having been sold by the County Council

“to a private management company in 2015.” Furthermore, relying on people actually

leaving the area or into housing in the future is an unreliable source of supply. That

these are the only sources of supply speaks volumes as to the GTAA’s reliability.

53. Furthermore, the whilst the emerging policy seeks to reduce the level of need

disclosed in the GTAA by reference to planning permissions permitted since the base

line date of August 2016 – without establishing how many of those permissions were

personal, temporary or permanent – it fails to do the corollary and factor in

unauthorised sites that have arisen since that date.

54. This issue was considered by Inspector Dignan at paragraph 27 of the DL attached at

Appendix 2 where he stated:

“There is also the question of how the current occupiers of the appeal site are

accounted for. The GTAA survey period finished just before the occupants moved

onto the site, and hence their absence from the GTAA model and output is

justifiable. The GTAA output represents a point in time. However, when it comes

to [a policy] which draws directly from the …GTAA, it is difficult to see why they

should not be seen as adding to need.”

55. In addition, the GTAA (Figure 5, p33) fails to factor in any need arising from

unauthorised developments. My clients in this matter – Mr and Mrs Collins – are one

such household who live in their Hobby caravan on an unauthorised development site

within Hart. Moreover their now adult sons add to the figure of 1 concealed

households living with relatives in bricks and mortar housing against their culture and

traditions due to the lack of sufficient authorised sites.

56. Furthermore, the way that the GTAA deals with those Travellers who ORS were

unable to interview is open to serious question:

6.24Whilstitwasnotpossibletodeterminethetravellingstatusofatotalof16householdsastheyeitherrefusedtobeinterviewed,orwerenotonsiteatthe time of the fieldwork, the needs of these households still need to berecognised by the GTAA as they are believed to be ethnic Gypsies andTravellersandmaymeetthenewdefinitionasdefinedinPPTS.

57. I attach at Appendices 3 and 4 two very recent Appeal Decisions where criticisms I

have made of other GTAA’s where similar issues have been raised. In the first dated

18th July 2018 Inspector Campbell considered the robustness of a GTAA where need

had been reduced from 81 to 65 based on the revised definition:

“7. Sybil is registered disabled. She and her husband stopped travelling for work because of her disability and although it was their intention to resume, they now accept that due to her ill health and their age and infirmity, they will not be able to do so. Whilst she is a Romany Gypsy and he is an Irish Traveller, nether meet the revised definition of gypsies and travellers for planning purposes as set out at Annex 1 of the 2015 national Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS) as it now excludes those who have ceased to travel permanently.”

58. From paragraph 21 onwards Inspector Campbell considers the issue of need in the

context of the very recently adopted Local Plan:

“21. The national need for more gypsy and traveller sites is not in dispute. Nor was it argued at the hearing that there is not a need for more sites regionally. With regard to need within Swale, the Council’s 2013 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) identified a need for 85 pitches. Following publication of the 2015 PPTS with the revised the definition of gypsies and travellers, that figure was reduced to 61. The revised figure was accepted by the Local Plan Inspector who, after taking into account sites completed and with planning permission, agreed that the very small remaining identified need could come forward as windfalls assessed against the criteria based policy DM 10. 25. In addition to this current requirement to re-assess need, the Council’s response at the hearing to concerns raised about need arising from inmigration and from expiry of temporary planning permissions was far from satisfactory. With due respect, it is quite incorrect to say that these matters should not be factored in in the calculation of need. Notwithstanding the current position with regard to the five year supply, I was given no reason to reach a different conclusion to that of my colleague Inspectors in recent appeal decisions referred to me1, that there is evidence (from caravan counts and from the expiry of temporary permissions) of unmet need for gypsy and traveller accommodation on the ground. 26. However, in the circumstances of this particular case, need and provision for gypsies and travellers who meet the PPTS definition has limited relevance since the site primarily provides for three people who do not meet that definition. … 27. The 24 households subtracted from the 2013 GTAA assessment of need2 when the definition of gypsies and travellers changed in 2015 are households no less in need of accommodation. These people will be caught by the recently introduced duty in the Housing Act 19853 for Councils to consider the needs of people residing in or resorting to their district in respect of caravan sites and houseboats. The Local Plan Inspector indicated that those needs would be best addressed as part of the early review of the Local Plan. The principal occupiers of the appeal

site fall within this group. They are ethnic gypsies and travellers who, I heard, have a cultural aversion to living in conventional bricks and mortar. As yet there appears to be no assessment of need for this group and no provision made for them.

59. Concluding from paragraph 32 onwards the DL found:

“…Notwithstanding the position in relation to the five year supply, a need on the ground for more gypsy and traveller sites for those who meet the PPTS definition has been identified. Perhaps of greater significance, however, is that in the main the Appellant family group do not meet the PPTS definition although they clearly are ethnic gypsies and travellers by background. Despite the duty to do so, the needs of this ethnic group who fail the PPTS definition have yet to be assessed or addressed even though there is an indication from the 2013 GTAA that there are at least 24 households in need. 35. Whilst the Local Plan Inspector indicated that their needs would be best addressed as part of the early review of the Local Plan, the current inequality of housing opportunity for this group of people adds weight to the proposition that a temporary permission might be granted to allow for this situation to be redressed. When considered along with the personal circumstances of the occupiers of this site and the lack of any suitable alternative to which the group could go, the balance tips in favour of the grant of a temporary planning permission. I have no evidence of any substantive progress having been made on the early review of the Plan despite a year having elapsed since adoption and in these circumstances it seems to me that five years would not be an unreasonable period to enable the needs of persons who do not meet the PPTS definition but who nonetheless require caravan pitches to be assessed and addressed and so achieve equality of opportunity for all.

60. In the second DL, dated 16th July 2018 Inspector Preston considered my criticisms of

the Winchester emerging Traveller DPD thus:

“16. The Winchester District Local Plan Part 2: Development Management and Site Allocations (LPP2) was adopted as recently as April 2017. Policy DM4, entitled “Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpersons”, states the following: Planning permission will be granted for pitches to meet the accommodation needs for the area covered by this Plan for people falling within the definition of ‘travellers’, of about 15 gypsy/ traveller pitches and about 24 travelling showperson’s plots between 2016 and 2031. Sites will be identified and consent granted as necessary to meet identified traveller needs in the Plan area which could not otherwise be met, subject to the criteria outlined in Policy CP5. Proposals for transit

sites will be considered on an individual basis, following the criteria of CP5. 17. The figure of ‘about 15’ gypsy/ traveller pitches derives from the Winchester Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment – Need Summary Report which was published in October 2016 (the 2016 GTAA). That report was before the Local Plan Inspector and the Plan would have been subject to consultation. Although I have not been provided with the Inspector’s comments, it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence was properly considered as part of the plan making process. 18. As a result of that process, the figures within policy DM4 now form part of the adopted development plan and, in line with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan remains the starting point for the assessment of planning applications. 19. The LPP2 does not allocate sites to meet the needs identified in policy DM4. That is the aim of the emerging Winchester District: Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (the Traveller DPD). From information given at the Hearing I understand that the document has been subject to consultation and has now been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination. An Inspector has been appointed but no dates for the examination have been set. As noted in the SoCG there are outstanding objections to the DPD, including an objection from Dr Murdoch, the agent for the appellant in this case, regarding the robustness of the data that underpins the assessment of need. 20. It is a moot point whether those matters would be re-examined in relation to the Traveller DPD which has a specific aim of allocating sites. However, the precise scope of that examination will be a matter for the relevant Inspector. I cannot pre-judge any of those matters and, as such, cannot draw any meaningful conclusions on the likely outcome of the examination. Accordingly, the weight that I can attach to the Traveller DPD is limited, having regard to paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 21. Therefore, at the present time, no sites have been identified in the development plan to meet the need identified in policy DM4. Nonetheless, the Council maintains that it can demonstrate a five year supply of sites based on a combination of predicted windfall sites that it expects to secure planning permission within the next five years, and a site that is currently vacant. Table 8, produced in the “Local Planning Authority Response to Appellant’s Hearing Statement and Landscape Statement” identifies a five year requirement of an additional 2 pitches for the five year period from September 2017 to August 2022. Whilst the appellant disagrees with the Council’s conclusions on the need for sites and the methodology of the 2016 GTAA, he was satisfied that the mathematics behind the data produced at Table 8 was accurate, if based on the Council’s own figures. 22. Against that requirement for 2 pitches, the Council maintains it can demonstrate a supply of 6 pitches, 1 vacant site and 5 windfall sites. In

line with footnote 4 to paragraph 10 of the PPTS to be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development and be achievable with a realistic prospect that development will be delivered on the site within the next five years. 23. No details of the vacant site have been provided. It does not necessarily follow that it is available because it is vacant and that may depend on the ownership of the site and whether any former occupants intend to re-use the site in future. Consequently, on the information before me, there is uncertainty in that regard. 24. Furthermore, reliance upon an assumed windfall of sites that may achieve planning permission in the future is not consistent with those criteria. I am not satisfied that the sites without planning permission are “available now”. The three windfall sites relied upon are sites put forward by the Council within the Traveller DPD4. As stated above, that has yet to be examined and the Inspector will no doubt have to consider each site, taking account of any representations received. Whether the sites will be considered acceptable for inclusion within the DPD is unknown. 25. At the Hearing, the Council did provide an update to state that planning permission has now been granted for three permanent pitches at ‘Ourlands’, which is one of the sites put forward in the Traveller DPD. I was not provided with a copy of the decision but have no reason to doubt that is the case. On the Council’s assessment that permission would be sufficient to meet the five year need for 2 additional pitches, with a marginal surplus of 1. 26. However, I am mindful that the figure of ‘about 15’ additional pitches was considered to be the minimum of what would be required within the 2016 GTAA. A key component of the assessment of future need was based upon interviews carried out with existing gypsy and traveller households. Those interviews were used to assess whether the households fell within the definition of gypsies and travellers set out in Annex 1 of the PPTS and to assess the likely future needs of those households. 27. The subsequent analysis of need within the 2016 GTAA only related to those considered to fall within the PPTS definition. How the Council anticipates meeting the needs of those who may be ethnically gypsies or travellers but do not fall within the definition is not clear. As a result of the interviews 20 households were determined to fall within the new definition, 18 were considered to be outside the definition and 11 were ‘unknown’, either as a result of a refusal to take part or because the households could not be contacted5. 28. Of the interviews that did take place, approximately half of the households were considered to fall within the PPTS definition. However, an allowance of only 10% is made for the 11 ‘unknown’ households within the 2016 GTAA i.e. only one in ten is considered likely to fall within the definition. The report suggests that the 10% figure is based on the national average of surveys carried out by ORS – the consultants who prepared the 2016 GTAA – but no analysis of those figures is provided. I

can see no obvious reason why the proportion would be so much lower than that for other local households, or why a national figure should be preferred over more localised evidence, especially when the issue in question is one of local needs. It seems likely to me that significantly more of the ‘unknown’ households would fall within the PPTS definition. 29. Seven of those unknown households were living on unauthorised sites. The 2016 GTAA concludes that the overall level of need could rise by up to 11 pitches if information was made available to the Council that those ‘unknown’ households did meet the PPTS definition (based upon the existing seven pitches plus an additional 4 from new household formation)6. In other words, the figure of ‘about 15’ within policy DM4 may need to rise if additional evidence of unknown need comes to light. 30. Five of the ‘unknown’ households occupy sites that are put forward by the Council within the Traveller DPD, four at The Piggeries and one at land adjacent to Gravel Hill7. Clearly, the intention of the Traveller DPD is to allocate sites to meet the needs of gypsies and travellers who meet the definition. In putting forward The Piggeries and land adjacent to Gravel Hill the Traveller DPD states that “this strategy will, however, not only secure the planning status of the sites for the current occupants, contributing to the specified need (my emphasis), but also provide certainty in relation to the delivery of sites to meet the needs in Policy DM4”8. 31. In other words, there appears to be an acceptance within the Traveller DPD that the present occupants of those sites contribute to the need for gypsy and traveller sites within the area. However, those occupants were not considered to contribute towards need within the 2016 GTAA because they fell into the ‘unknown’ household category. If those households do fall within the definition, as seems likely having regard to the Traveller DPD, the overall need would be greater than the figure of 15. Thus, the Council is putting forward those sites to meet future needs but does not appear to have factored in the needs of the present occupants in determining the overall pitch requirement. 32. If those households are added to the assessment of need, or an appropriate allowance is applied to the ‘unknown’ households, the need would be greater than that identified by the Council. That need would also appear to be an immediate need, given that the households are already resident in the area. Having regard to those matters, it appears to me that the five-year need is likely to be somewhat greater than the 2 additional pitches, based upon the Council’s own approach and methodology. Given my comments on the limited available supply of sites, as set out above, I am not satisfied that the Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable sites to meet that need. 33. As noted, my conclusions in that regard are based purely on an analysis of the Council’s own data, including the 2016 GTAA and the Traveller DPD. None of those documents take account of the needs of the present occupants of the site. The families were not interviewed as part of the 2016 GTAA and their needs were not accounted for in that

assessment. The Council does not explicitly dispute that the families have accommodation needs relating to the local area. 34. The planning application had been submitted in October 2016 and the surveys and interviews conducted to inform the 2016 GTAA were completed early in October 2016. Had the application been made a few weeks earlier, the Council would have been aware of the appellants’ circumstances and that may well have prompted ORS, who produced the 2016 GTAA to interview them as part of the process. It strikes me that assessing local needs is not an exact science and there will be cases, particularly where travelling families are involved, when particular households may be missed in surveys. That does not dictate that their needs should not be taken into account, particularly if those families have a local connection and local need relating to their circumstances. 35. From the information provided by the Gypsy Liaison Officer (GLO) at the County Council the families have roots in the local area. The GLO also noted that there were no vacancies on sites in Hampshire which were previously owned by the County Council and that the one remaining Council owned site had six applicants on the waiting list but was also “in the wrong area to satisfy the accommodation needs of these families”. Having regard to that and the other information before me I am satisfied that the needs of the families are for accommodation in the local area. Therefore, it is reasonable take account of their needs for a permanent residential base in the local area into account when assessing need more generally. 36. That approach is consistent with the recommendation in the 2016 GTAA and paragraph 11 of the PPTS, that Council’s should develop criteria based policies for assessing applications in relation to unknown households who provide evidence that they meet the definition. 37. In terms of policy DM4 of the LPP2, the approval of four pitches at the appeal site may result in slightly more than 15 pitches being approved over the plan period if the currently envisaged sites in the Traveller DPD also secure permanent planning permission. However, the wording of the policy contains a built in degree of flexibility in that it states that permission will be granted for “about 15” pitches. The evidence base behind the 2016 GTAA also acknowledges that the level of need may be greater depending on the status of the ‘unknown’ households. The policy does not expressly state that permission should be refused for any pitches over that number and, in view of the flexibility within the policy and the evidence base, an approval of four pitches at the appeal site would not be of such a scale as to increase numbers materially beyond what was envisaged in the development plan. 38. Moreover, the policy states that “sites will be identified and consent granted as necessary to meet identified traveller needs in the Plan area which could not otherwise be met, subject to the criteria outlined in policy CP5”. I have concluded that there is an unmet need for additional permanent gypsy and traveller pitches and am not satisfied that the Council is able to demonstrate a five-year supply of sites to meet that need. The Council does not allege any conflict with the criteria based

policy CP5 and, on that basis, I find no conflict with the aims of policy DM4. 39. In reaching those conclusions I have based my decision on the adopted planning policy position and the evidence base that underpinned that policy. I appreciate that Dr Murdoch has raised a number of objections relating to the methodology and conclusions of that evidence base. The matters raised include, amongst other things, concern that the interview questions led to a fundamental miscalculation whether people met the gypsy and traveller definition; concerns that the surveys were carried out at the wrong time of year during the travelling season; a failure to take account of any allowance for people living in bricks and mortar; and a failure to make an allowance for families living on unauthorised sites.

61. Finally I attach at Appendix 5 the very recent GTAA for the Royal Borough of

Windsor and Maidenhead where the assessment considered the issue of how non

PPTS Gypsies and Travellers was considered in a way that I would respectfully urge

in the Hart emerging Plan in the following way:

“ …evidence of Gypsy and Traveller pitch need over the next five years (2017/18 to 2021/22) equating to 70 pitches under the cultural definition, or 20 pitches under the PPTS 2015 definition of Gypsy/Traveller. 2.22 Chapter 5, ‘Delivering a sufficient supply of homes’, sets out the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes including meeting the needs of groups with specific housing requirements (paragraph 60). It states that in determining the minimum number of homes needed, strategic plans should be based upon a local housing need assessment. This should be conducted using the standard method unless there are exceptional circumstances and also taking into account any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas (paragraph 61).

2.23 It is then set out in paragraph 62 that:

‘Within this context, policies should identify the size, type and tenure of homes required for different groups in the community (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes.’

2.24 An additional footnote to the word ‘travellers’ provides further definition:

‘Travellers who do not fall under the definition of “traveller” in Annex 1 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The latter sets out how travellers’ accommodation needs should be assessed for those covered by the definition in Annex 1 of that document.’

2.25 In other words, the Draft Revised NPPF requires local planning authorities to consider the needs of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople households who do not fall under the PPTS 2015 definition by virtue of their travelling habits. It requires a broader, ‘cultural’ definition. This approach has been adopted in this study, as discussed further below. Planning policy context and methodological implications

2.26 Further to the publication of updated PPTS in August 2015, the 2007 GTAA Guidance was withdrawn and there was considerable confusion regarding what accommodation needs should be assessed and the best methodological approach.

2.27 The Housing and Planning Act 2016 deleted Sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act 2004, effectively removing some of local planning authorities’ duties in relation to the accommodation needs assessments of Gypsies and Travellers. However, the Housing and Planning Act inserted some additional requirements into Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, including the duty to consider the provision of sites for caravans and moorings for houseboats when undertaking housing needs assessments. As referred to above, draft Guidance was published in March 2016 to explain the interpretation of these legislative changes. However, this remains in draft form at the present time.

2.28 As discussed, the PPTS 2015 definitions of ‘Gypsy and Traveller’ and ‘Travelling Showperson’ now exclude those that have stopped travelling on a permanent basis. The ‘clarification’ in Annex 1 (paragraph 2) of PPTS 2015 refers to a ‘nomadic habit of life’ and whether the person in question previously led a nomadic habit of life; the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life; and whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances. This suggests that persons (or households) should be assessed on an individual basis, to determine whether they meet the PPTS 2015 planning definition.

2.29 Some people adopted the view that the revised PPTS 2015 definitions (excluding Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople who have ceased travelling) allow local planning authorities to manage their needs numbers downwards. This approach has always been treated with caution by arc4, however, and our GTAA studies have instead adopted an approach which includes a consideration of PPTS-defined need (pitch numbers to meet the needs of those who travel) and a wider ‘cultural’ definition of need (pitches to meet the needs of

all Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople who are identifiable within the relevant study area).

2.30 The publication of the Draft Revised NPPF (March 2018) gives a strong policy

basis to the approach that we apply, ensuring that the accommodation needs of all of the

Travelling community are considered within the GTAA process.”

62. For these amongst other reasons, the emerging Hart Local Plan as it relates to

Traveller is not sound as it is not justified and is not based on robust up-to-date

evidence and is inconsistent with national policy.

63. I would very much welcome the opportunity to appear in person at the EIP so that

matters can be further clarified and explained during the session.

Dr Angus Murdoch

Murdoch Planning Limited

July 2018

Guidance

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments

Guidance

October 2007Department for Communities and Local Government: London

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments

Communities and Local GovernmentEland HouseBressenden PlaceLondon SW1E 5DUTelephone: 020 7944 4400Website: www.communities.gov.uk

© Crown Copyright, 2007

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.

Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email: [email protected]

If you require this publication in an alternative format please email [email protected]

Communities and Local Government PublicationsPO Box 236WetherbyWest YorkshireLS23 7NBTel: 08701 226 236Fax: 08701 226 237Textphone: 08701 207 405Email: [email protected] online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk

October 2007

Product Code: 07 GTU 04793

3

Contents

Page

Chapter 1

Introduction 5

Chapter 2

Assessing the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers 7

Chapter 3

Carrying out the assessment 13

Chapter 4

Making use of the assessment 23

Annex

Possible topic list 27

5

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1. The assessment of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs when carrying out a periodical review of housing needs under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 is a statutory requirement under section 225 of the Housing Act 2004. Local authorities may also be required, under section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003 (as amended), to produce a strategy that addresses the need identified, including that of Gypsies and Travellers. The assessment and the strategy will need to be informed by a full understanding of their accommodation needs. A Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment will be required either as part of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment in respect of the local community generally, or separately where a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is not being conducted at that time.

2. The Government’s policies on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and enforcement are set within a framework of rights and responsibilities, in which everyone’s rights must be respected but where, at the same time, equal standards of behaviour are expected from all. Creating and sustaining strong communities is at the heart of the Government’s Respect agenda and will have benefits for the settled and Gypsy and Traveller communities alike.

Aim of the guidance

3. The guidance aims to provide advice on carrying out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. It is not exhaustive or prescriptive. While it is recommended that the basic principles outlined here should be followed, the exact approach will need to be adapted to local circumstances.

4. This guidance sets out:

• why the Accommodation Needs Assessment has to be done;

• what it should produce;

• whom it should survey;

• key differences between the Gypsy and Traveller community and others, and the practical implications of these differences;

• how ‘accommodation need’ for Gypsies and Travellers differs from that for the settled community;

• timescales for carrying out and updating the assessment.

5. In addition, it provides advice on carrying out the assessment, including:

• partnership working;

• deciding who should carry out the assessment;

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments – Guidance

6

• the use of existing data sources;

• the use of specialist surveys, including survey techniques and questions;

• how to identify and communicate with the Gypsy and Traveller community.

6. This supplements guidance on the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and should be read in conjunction with it.

Who should use the guidance?

7. The guidance is provided for those within local authorities who have responsibility for ensuring that section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 is acted upon, and who will be undertaking, arranging or commissioning the Accommodation Needs Assessment for Gypsies and Travellers.

8. It is also recommended that local councillors are made aware of the requirement to conduct an Accommodation Needs Assessment in respect of the Gypsy and Traveller community, and of this guidance. Gypsy and Traveller accommodation can be a sensitive issue within communities and it may be helpful to ensure that council members are fully briefed at an early stage.

7

CHAPTER 2

Assessing the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers

Why assess Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?

9. In the past, the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers (especially those who live in caravans or mobile homes) have not routinely formed part of the process by which local authorities assess people’s housing needs. The consequences of this have been that the current and projected accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have often not been well understood.

10. The introduction of the new planning system provides for an evidence-based, strategic and regional system, in which the needs and wider demand of the Gypsy and Traveller communities for suitable accommodation can be considered and met equally and fairly alongside other sectors of the community.

11. Regional Planning Bodies and Planning Inspectors will require local authorities to produce Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment reports which are clearly expressed and provide a robust and credible evidence base. These should demonstrate that the assessment process has been conducted properly and fairly, giving details of the methodology used to ascertain levels of need. This guidance is intended to support that process.

12. Gypsies and Irish Travellers are distinct ethnic groups and all the duties on public bodies under Race Relations legislation apply. The accommodation needs of all Gypsies and Travellers, including the above groups as well as new travellers and travelling showpeople, should be identified, understood and addressed through the planning framework and housing strategy on the same basis as other sectors of the community. Only in this way can the needs of each sector of the community be understood and appropriate allocation of resources ensured. This will help to ensure that future planning and investment decisions are based on well informed and accurate data, that they gain acceptance from local communities, and are defensible if challenged.

13. An understanding of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation issues is essential to make properly planned provision and avoid the problems associated with ad-hoc or unauthorised provision. A comprehensive Accommodation Needs Assessment and strategy to meet the need which is identified will greatly strengthen the ability of local authorities to respond swiftly and firmly to inappropriate unauthorised developments and encampments.

What is ‘accommodation need’ for Gypsies and Travellers?

14. In Planning Policy Statement 3, housing need is defined as ‘the quantity of housing required for households who are unable to access suitable housing without financial assistance’ and housing demand ‘the quantity of housing that households are willing and able to buy or rent’.


8

15. In many cases, this definition will also be appropriate for Gypsies and Travellers, particularly those living in bricks and mortar housing. However, the distinctive accommodation requirements of some Gypsies and Travellers will give rise to similar types of need, but in a different context, for example:

Caravan dwelling households:

• who have no authorised site anywhere on which to reside;

• whose existing site accommodation is overcrowded or unsuitable, but who are unable to obtain larger or more suitable accommodation;

• who contain suppressed households who are unable to set up separate family units and who are unable to access a place on an authorised site, or obtain or afford land to develop one.

Bricks and mortar dwelling households:

• whose existing accommodation is overcrowded or unsuitable (‘unsuitable’ in this context can include unsuitability by virtue of proven psychological aversion to bricks and mortar accommodation).

16. It should also be recognised that the shortage of sites and local hostility, as well as lack of income, may prevent Gypsies and Travellers exercising their free choice in the accommodation market – and that there may in fact be no ‘local accommodation market’ in sites.

17. Once the Accommodation Needs Assessment has been carried out for Gypsies and Travellers on unauthorised sites, it will be possible to identify whether their presence on those sites indicates a need for permanent site accommodation within that area, or for temporary accommodation there to help facilitate a desire to travel elsewhere for economic or cultural purposes. The lifestyles and cultural traditions of Gypsies and Travellers often give rise to patterns of nomadism or semi-nomadism. Some of those on unauthorised sites may have permanent bases elsewhere and hence not be ‘in need’ in the strict sense set out above. However, it should be recognised that there is a lifestyle and cultural tradition of travelling within these communities, and the need for transit or stopping place sites should be addressed to facilitate this, and minimise the disruption it can cause.

Why do Gypsies and Travellers need a separate Accommodation Needs Assessment?

18. Gypsies and Travellers will typically form only a very small percentage of the population in any given area. The total population is estimated to be about 0.6% of the total UK population, of which only a proportion are living in, or seeking, caravan site accommodation. This means that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment is unlikely to yield results that are statistically robust for Gypsies and Travellers as a separate group.

9

19. Cultural differences, a reluctance of some members of these communities to identify themselves as Gypsies or Travellers, or a disinclination to participate in a process with which they are not familiar, mean that the main Strategic Housing Market Assessment process is likely to be markedly less successful in accessing this group than others. In addition, the particular lifestyle and culture of Gypsies and Travellers may give rise to distinctive accommodation needs, which the main assessment will be unlikely to pick up.

What should the Accommodation Needs Assessment produce?

20. The aim of the assessment is to provide data which will identify Gypsy and Traveller accommodation need separately from wider demand and aspiration, in the same way as for the rest of the population. As in the case of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, it should expressly identify all accommodation need which has been revealed, whether resources are currently available to meet it or not.

21. A key aim of the wider Strategic Housing Market Assessment is to provide the basis on which to allocate resources, including for Gypsy and Traveller provision. A Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment, founded on a robust and credible evidence base, will mean that a local authority will be able to produce one combined strategy for addressing accommodation need across the whole community.

22. It should enable Gypsy and Traveller accommodation need to be quantified in terms of:

• site accommodation on private sites;

• site accommodation on socially rented residential sites;

• site accommodation on transit sites;

• bricks and mortar housing for owner occupation by Gypsies and Travellers;

• affordable bricks and mortar housing.

Whom does the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment cover?

23. The definition of ‘gypsies and travellers’ for this purpose is specified in ‘The Housing (Assessment of Accommodation Needs) (Meaning of Gypsies and Travellers) (England) Regulations 2006 ’.

24. The following definition of “gypsies and travellers” should now be used:

(a) persons with a cultural tradition of nomadism or living in a caravan; and

(b) all other persons of a nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, including:

(i) such persons who, on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependant’s educational or health needs or old age, have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently; and

Chapter 2: Assessing the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers


10

(ii) members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people (whether or not travelling together as such).

25. The intention of this definition is to cover all those whose distinctive ethnicity, cultural background and/or lifestyle may give rise to specific accommodation needs, now or in the future, which need to be assessed and planned for.

26. A broad definition is necessary to achieve a full understanding of the accommodation needs of this community, and to put appropriate strategies in place to meet it. For example, Gypsies and Travellers, and their children and other relatives, in bricks and mortar housing may form part of the source from which future site need and aspiration may arise, and it will be essential to understand this. On the other hand assessing the needs of housed Gypsies and Travellers will also help identify the ways in which housing may be made to work better for them, and made more attractive to Gypsies and Travellers in general. This could reduce the numbers who leave or wish to leave housing for sites, and encourage some of those currently on unauthorised sites to move into, or back into, housing.

27. In some parts of the country new travellers form a substantial section of the travelling population. Although these people have adopted a nomadic lifestyle relatively recently, their needs should be assessed alongside those of the more traditional Gypsy and Traveller groups. To do otherwise would be to neglect the needs of part of the community, and lead to practical problems and potential legal challenge.

28. It may not always be clear-cut where a particular group falls within the definition. However local authorities are reminded that the accommodation needs of the whole community must be assessed under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985. Therefore if the local authority decides that accommodation needs of a particular group should not be assessed under this guidance in the context of section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 they are nonetheless under a duty to assess those needs as part of the wider section 8 requirement.

29. The inclusion of someone within a survey as a ‘Gypsy’, ‘Traveller’, ‘New Traveller’ or ‘Travelling Showman’, within the definition set out in paragraph 24 above, does not in itself imply that that person ‘should’ live on a site, or that they have ‘gypsy status’ for planning purposes, nor does it carry any presumption about how identified needs should be met. Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs may be met in a variety of ways, including:

• standard owner-occupied bricks and mortar housing;

• affordable housing, or group lets of affordable housing;

• provision of group housing (small groups of purpose-built bungalows designated for use by Gypsies and Travellers);

• socially rented site accommodation of various kinds;

• privately rented site accommodation;

• Gypsies’ and Travellers’ own provision of authorised accommodation providing legal and licensed sites on their own land.

11

How will it differ from assessing the housing needs of the settled community?

30. The aims of Accommodation Needs Assessment for Gypsies and Travellers will be the same as for other sectors of the community. However, the shortage of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, as well as the distinctive lifestyle and culture of Gypsies and Travellers, will mean that some aspects of the process may need to differ. Unlike other sectors of the community, Gypsies and Travellers reside in three main types of accommodation:

• bricks and mortar housing;

• authorised local authority, RSL or private caravan sites;

• unauthorised sites (either unauthorised encampments, on land they do not own, or unauthorised developments, on land they do own).

31. The accommodation needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities may differ from the rest of the population because of:

• their nomadic or semi-nomadic pattern of life;

• the preference for caravan-dwelling;

• movement between housing and caravans;

• their presence on unauthorised encampments or developments.

32. Mobility between areas may have the following implications for carrying out an assessment:

• a need to work at a sub-regional level (although not necessarily the housing market level, which is the basis of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment) both in carrying out assessments and delivering solutions;

• the timing of the Accommodation Needs Assessment for Gypsies and Travellers will need to be considered (see paragraphs 81-82);

• different questions may need to be asked (see paragraphs 86-87);

• different data sources may need to be used.

33. It is important to consider:

• how you identify and engage with those to be surveyed (see paragraphs 67-70);

• how interviewers put questions (see paragraphs 79-80)

Chapter 2: Assessing the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers


12

34. If a local authority has little knowledge of, or reliable data on, Gypsies and Travellers, the results of the initial assessment may be less precise than for other groups, and long-term forecasting may be more difficult. If this is the case, it will be important for the assessment to be regularly updated. In any event, the assessment should be revisited and updated from time to time, to take into account, household change, movement in and out of the area and natural demographic changes generally.

Timescales for carrying out the Accommodation Needs Assessment

35. In line with ODPM Circular Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites, ODPM 01/2006, Regional Planning Bodies will be preparing Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and local planning authorities will be preparing Development Plan Documents (DPDs)on the basis of pitch requirements identified by local Accommodation Needs Assessments.

36. Local planning authorities are producing DPDs which need to contain policies and site allocations for Gypsy and Traveller sites. It is therefore essential assessments provide data on pitch numbers as soon as possible to inform the specific site allocations in these DPDs, and the pitch allocations for each local planning authority in Regional Spatial Strategies.

13

CHAPTER 3

Carrying out the Accommodation Needs Assessment

Preparation

37. The degree of sensitivity that often surrounds Gypsy and Traveller issues will make it very important to achieve buy-in to the Accommodation Needs Assessment process, from local politicians and the settled community. If the process is not seen as legitimate, it will be much harder to get support for the later stages of providing Gypsy and Traveller accommodation to meet those needs.

38. It is also essential to ensure that the process has credibility and acceptance within the local Gypsy and Traveller community. This can best be achieved by involving members of the local Gypsy and Traveller communities from the very outset of the process, both to advise and help ensure that the culture and traditions of the communities and their accommodation needs are fully understood by those conducting the assessment, and to ensure that the process is properly explained. This should help ensure the communities have trust in the objectivity of the proceedings and encourage a willingness to participate.

Responsibility for the process

39. The Accommodation Needs Assessment process should be led by the local authority housing department working closely together with the planning department. Those responsible should have suitable seniority to take ownership of the outcome and ensure that policies are adopted across the local authority as a whole.

40. While the responsibility to carry out the assessment rests with individual local authorities, it is strongly recommended that local authorities work in partnership with others. The potential benefits of such an approach are particularly relevant in relation to the Gypsy and Traveller communities because of their mobility and travelling patterns, which are liable to cross local authority boundaries, and which must be understood if appropriate provision is to be made. For example, a network of transit sites along well-used routes will be far more useful than a single isolated transit site.

41. Partnership working should help to deliver:

• a bigger sample size, hence more accurate results;

• a better understanding of migration into, out of, and within the survey area;

• a better understanding of travelling patterns, particularly where they cross administrative boundaries;

• a common approach and consistency across that area;

• economies of cost and scale;

• reduced risks of double counting;


14

• opportunities to work together to devise a concerted and strategic approach to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation shortages and enforcement against unauthorised sites.

42. Early discussions should take place with other local authorities in the region to identify the scope for partnership working, and the most appropriate areas to be involved. Some local authorities have already formed successful partnerships for assessing Gypsy and Traveller accommodation need and demand.

43. The area to be covered will largely depend on travel and movement patterns within the region, and local authorities will generally have some experience of these. County councils are often involved in Gypsy and Traveller provision, and if appropriate should be invited to be involved in the partnership.

44. Although partnership working is strongly recommended, it is essential that the data arising from jointly conducted assessments remain capable of disaggregation to the local authority level, to ensure each partner retains ownership of its own information base and can produce this information in circumstances involving a planning inquiry or appeal specific to the situation within that local authority area alone.

45. The picture of where Gypsies and Travellers live and want to live may have become distorted by different approaches to provision and enforcement adopted by different local authorities over the years. Where this is the case the local authority responsible for the area where the need is currently found will need to work closely with other local authorities in the region to find a shared solution. In some cases, local authorities which currently show a low level of need may have to accept that they will have to play a greater part in meeting regional need particularly where respondents express a wish to reside in that area.

Working arrangements

46. A steering group for the work will help to ensure that the process is informed by all available expertise, and links in as far as possible with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the rest of the community. It is important that key stakeholders are aware and involved from the outset, for example:

• representatives from the Housing and Planning Departments;

• representatives from the local Gypsy and Traveller communities;

• representatives from the BME and/or Gypsy and Traveller Service and other services such as education who work closely with the Gypsy and Traveller communities.

47. It may also be useful to include:

• someone with detailed knowledge of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the settled community;

• someone with detailed knowledge of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments in another geographical area.

15

48. As well as considering specific issues to do with the design of the assessment, this group will also have an important role in publicising the assessment within their respective constituencies and ensuring that its results are taken seriously and properly acted on. In particular local authority Housing and Planning Department representatives on the steering group will need to work closely together to ensure the outcome of the assessment process, and subsequent actions and policies arising from it, are closely co-ordinated across their respective Departments and across the local authority as a whole.

Stakeholder engagement

49. Wider consultation on the design and conduct of the assessment should also be undertaken with local agencies and the local Gypsy and Traveller communities. Advice on how to assess the accommodation needs of ethnic minority groups in general is provided within the Communities and Local Government guidance on the Strategic Housing Market Assessment.

50. It is crucial that the purpose of the work is fully explained to the Gypsy and Traveller communities before the assessment begins. A community liaison group could be formed for this purpose, with the help of the Gypsy and Traveller representatives on the steering group, which could also provide advice on other matters, including the conduct of the assessment itself. Representatives of the Gypsy and Traveller community would be able to advise on this. They could also help interpret and comment on the results emerging from the assessment, the conduct of a specialist survey where undertaken and generally help encourage greater trust and community buy-in for the overall process.

Ensuring a high quality assessment

51. Given that the results of the assessment are a crucial aspect of the evidence base for both planning and housing purposes, it is essential that the exercise is conducted properly and contains a high quality evidence base. The process involved in conducting the assessment should be transparent, with clearly documented evidence of assumptions made, and decisions taken, to ensure that others can understand how the results have been reached.

52. In the event of challenge or judicial review during the LDF process or planning appeals, it is essential for a planning inspector to have access to a properly conducted assessment of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs, and a clear picture of the basis on which the local authority is intending to address it. This will help to ensure that the local authority’s actions and decisions are defensible in these circumstances otherwise there is a risk that appeals could be lost simply on grounds of insufficient evidence or a lack of demonstrable effort in providing suitable authorised site accommodation elsewhere.

Carrying out the assessment

53. Once it has been decided what area the assessment should cover, the local authority or partnership will have to decide who will have overall responsibility for the conduct of the assessment. In addition, each local authority will have to appoint someone who will take ownership of the outcome and responsibility for securing agreement to it within that local authority.

Chapter 3: Carrying out the Accommodation Needs Assessment


16

54. The local authority or partnership will also need to appoint those who will be managing the assessment itself. There are several options for the latter, which include:

• in-house staff, either within the Gypsy and Traveller section or the housing department of the local authority;

• county council staff, if they are leading an assessment across several districts;

• consultants.

55. It may be sensible for different groups to be involved at different times – for example, in-house staff analysing the existing data, and specialists being brought in to do more detailed assessments.

56. In reaching a decision on the way forward, a local authority or partnership will wish to consider:

• the capacity and expertise of in-house staff;

• the qualifications and track record of consultants;

• how effective each option might be in reaching the target group (e.g. whether in-house staff are also responsible for enforcement action, and hence might be seen negatively by Gypsies and Travellers, or whether the use of Gypsies and Travellers themselves may be helpful in obtaining access to the community and secure the trust of those being assessed);

• the perceived independence of the process, which will be vital for securing public acceptance of the results;

• the credibility of each option with both Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community;

• costs.

57. Where consultants are employed, particular care should be taken to ensure that all parties have a clear and detailed understanding of what service the consultant is expected to provide, the methodology to be used and the outcome to be delivered. Members of the steering group should be involved in production of a specification for the purpose of appointing a consultant, and to ensure the subsequent process is best planned to secure an accurate evidence base and analysis of accommodation needs in the area concerned.

58. In the event that a local authority or partnership proceeds to commission a consultant, the management of the process can be assisted if one person is appointed as the client representative, responsible for contractual matters, issues concerning the consultant’s brief and co-ordinating comments and responding to queries.

59. The guidance on Strategic Housing Market Assessments gives further advice about the use of consultants.

17

60. The next step will be to implement the assessment itself. This is likely to have two separate components:

• an analysis of existing data sources;

• conducting a specialist survey.

61. Local authorities are reminded of their duties under the Data Protection Act 1998, which covers personal information provided to them as part of the Accommodation Needs Assessment process. It is essential that the privacy of those who participate is safeguarded. No personal information relating to specific individuals should be made public, and no individual should be identifiable through the description of where or how they live or their other circumstances. Further information on data protection is available from the Information Commissioner’s Office, on 01625-545745, or at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.

Existing data sources

62. Some information is currently held by local authorities or other agencies, and subject to data protection requirements, can be used to inform the assessment. For example:

• the number of Gypsy and Traveller caravans and type of site on which they are located are recorded by the local authority via the Gypsy and Traveller caravan count every January and July. Until January 2005, the caravan count also recorded numbers of families. This data is publicly available on the Communities and Local Government website;

• information should also be available from local authority site management records. These may provide information about site licensee households, pitch turnover or length of licences, site waiting lists and transfer applications and movement between site accommodation and bricks and mortar housing or vice versa;

• information relating to private authorised sites should include the number of caravans permitted on each site, whether the planning permission was granted on a permanent or temporary basis, and whether it restricted occupancy to named individuals;

• local authorities should also gather data on unauthorised encampments and unauthorised developments in their area. This should include the number of caravans and family groups on each site, length of occupation, and the up to date position regarding planning applications, appeals and/or enforcement action, planning applications for Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites which have been refused planning permission by the local planning authority over the previous 5 years, the outcomes of any appeals, and those where enforcement action has been taken;

• a local authority may also have additional sources of data about local Gypsy and Traveller populations, subject to personal confidentiality safeguards, via service providers, such as health workers, Supporting People staff, and the Traveller Education Service (TES). The TES will have information on Gypsy and Traveller pupil numbers via the Pupil Level Annual School Census but, as with all personal data, any transfer will need to comply with the Data Protection Acts;



18

• Gypsy Liaison Officers and others working with the community have detailed records of encampments which are useful in assessing the need for transit provision. They may also have much more detailed personal knowledge of the communities, and local authorities or partnerships may want to draw on this when designing and carrying out their assessment.

63. However, for some groups there is likely to be very little secondary data. Although more than half of the Gypsy and Traveller communities are thought to be residing in bricks and mortar accommodation, housing records are unlikely to identify who or where they are. Ethnic monitoring categories often do not identify Gypsies and Travellers separately, and where they do, Gypsies and Travellers in housing may be reluctant to identify themselves as such for fear of reprisals. Similarly, housing waiting lists are unlikely to identify Gypsies and Travellers as a BME category. The records held by other service providers cannot be assumed to be comprehensive either, as they will only record those accessing the service, and it is known that Gypsies and Travellers frequently do not take up available services, for a variety of reasons.

64. It is unlikely that existing data alone will be sufficient in carrying out a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment, as such data is not likely to be comprehensive or detailed. For example, while the caravan count data can provide a proxy for the amount of unmet need for authorised pitches, it will be a crude proxy, as it says nothing about the number of households or individuals in those caravans, the adequacy of their accommodation, their needs, their preferences, their travelling patterns or their reasons for living where they do. It will not establish the need for pitches among those housed in bricks and mortar, or whether some of those on unauthorised sites would prefer to live in bricks and mortar if they could access it.

65. Fuller information is needed to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller accommodation need is adequately identified and plans put in place to address it. It is therefore recommended that the local authority or partnership conduct a specialist survey and/or qualitative research to obtain further more detailed information.

Conducting a specialist survey

66. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment guidance sets out general guidance on these assessments and on commissioning a survey. However, there are several aspects unique to Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments which will need to be considered.

Identifying the communities

67. To ensure that the sample surveyed is as representative of the population of Gypsies and Travellers as possible, existing data about the community should be used to inform the selection of sites and the households visited. It is likely that the best quality data will be held about Gypsies and Travellers on authorised sites, and these are likely to be the easiest group to identify and approach.

68. Gypsies and Travellers on unauthorised developments can be identified via the appropriate local authority planning department. Those on unauthorised encampments may be well known to the local authority, as regular and perhaps tolerated visitors, or may be less well known, and less easy to identify.

19

69. Existing data about Gypsies and Travellers in bricks and mortar housing is likely to be incomplete. Techniques which are used to contact other ‘hard to reach’ groups may be adapted for use with this community. In these cases, Gypsy Liaison Officers, Traveller Education Services, health workers or other voluntary agencies may be able to assist with identification of these groups.

Difficulties in accessing the community

70. Even where the local Gypsy and Traveller community has been identified, approaching the community to undertake a specialist needs assessment survey may not be straightforward. There may be a reluctance to provide information, or a suspicion about the purposes to which the information will be put. Some Gypsies and Travellers may be unwilling to co-operate. Gypsy Liaison Officers and other service providers who may have the trust of the various Traveller communities, along with Gypsy and Traveller representatives can play an important role in preparing the ground and encouraging participation, explaining the purpose of the survey and introducing researchers.

Survey coverage and response rates

71. The survey will need to cover a sufficiently representative sample of each type of site accommodation existing in the local authority or each of the partner authority areas. Ideally those sites selected for survey interviews should include both the more and less popular sites, where this can be ascertained by occupancy, waiting lists and local experience. Coverage should be sought in respect of Gypsies and Travellers in each of the accommodation circumstances mentioned in paragraph 29 of this guidance.

72. The steering group should decide the degree of survey coverage at an early stage, bearing in mind that the evidence base and the process by which conclusions are drawn from it should be clearly identifiable to the public, planning inspectors and others and be sufficiently robust to be properly defended against any subsequent challenge. Good survey coverage will help to achieve these qualities.

73. To help ensure the assessment is valid and based on robust evidence, surveys should be conducted on a statistically representative proportion of the Gypsy and Traveller community. Where it is known that the population of site based Gypsies and Travellers in a survey area is relatively small, and perhaps concentrated in one or two locations, almost 100% coverage should be possible. Efforts should be made to try and contact everyone on the sites concerned (see paragraphs 83-85). Participation rates are obviously subject to the willingness of the community to be involved but significant response rates could be reached in these circumstances.

74. Where larger or more widespread Gypsy and Traveller communities are concerned it will necessary to strike a more realistic balance between coverage and economy of scale, but care should be taken to ensure that subsequent interpretations and analyses of data are based on statistically representative samples.

75. Gypsy and Traveller communities are not equally distributed between individual local authorities in a given area, and where a partnership arrangement is in place care should be taken to ensure that a proper evidence base has been achieved for each individual sub-region and each type of accommodation is covered. Projections and



20

assumptions on a small evidence base, perhaps gathered in one or two locations only, may not be representative of communities elsewhere in the area.

76. A crucial objective of the survey process is to identify and interpret those aspects of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation need which are less well understood. This can often manifest itself in the case of unauthorised and private authorised sites and bricks and mortar housing. Special effort may be needed to ensure that a similar amount of evidence is available as for local authority owned sites for which more information may already be available. This may imply a higher percentage sample size coverage.

77. It can be very helpful for those conducting the assessment to hold a stakeholder event at key stages to present emerging findings and to have early warning of any differences of understanding or interpretation which may arise from that of the local Gypsy and Traveller community. Members of the community liaison group, if formed, would be able to help encourage participation in this. In the event that the steering group has doubts about the degree or quality of data which has been obtained, it may be necessary to consider whether a booster survey should be conducted to improve the evidence base.

Managing expectations

78. In conducting the survey, it should be emphasised to those taking part, that this exercise is designed to gain a clearer understanding of the scale of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation need (as defined in paragraphs 14-17 of this guidance) which is to be addressed by the local authority, and to help it develop a strategy to meet it. However it should also be emphasised that there is no obligation on the local authority to address the needs identified in precisely the way the respondent would prefer.

Cultural sensitivities

79. Cultural sensitivities should be carefully researched and considered during the design of the survey. They may affect both the questions asked, and the way the survey is carried out. Questions should be carefully phrased to avoid those which could cause offence, while at the same time secure necessary data in the same way that it is from others in the population generally. Advice should be sought from the communities themselves, and those who work with them, about the cultural sensitivities or language which may be problematic.

80. There may be cultural sensitivities to do with age and gender. Women may not wish to speak to male researchers about some issues. Where extended families are interviewed together, family members should be given the opportunity to respond separately and in confidence if they wish.

Timing of the survey

81. Careful consideration should be given to the appropriate timing for the survey. The caravan count consistently shows higher numbers on unauthorised encampments, and lower numbers on permanent residential sites, in the summer. It is likely that numbers in housing will also be lower in the summer.

21

82. The local authority or partnership will need some knowledge of travelling patterns and the local Gypsy and Traveller population before a decision can sensibly be made. For example, if Gypsies and Travellers moving during the summer come from the local area, they may be easier to access during the winter in their permanent residential bases. If on the other hand they come from outside the area, the survey will need to be carried out during the summer if their needs are to be assessed – and account should also be taken of the fact that some Gypsies and Travellers normally resident in the area may be away travelling themselves. Experience has shown that a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment is best conducted over a six to nine month period to identify the effect of seasonal migration.

Survey techniques

83. Traditional survey techniques, such as sending a mail shot to random addresses, are very unlikely to deliver sound results. Levels of literacy within the community are generally lower than among the settled community, and given the need to build trust, interview surveys will yield much higher response rates and more reliable data.

84. Once on a site it would be best to interview as many residents as are present and willing to be interviewed. Where possible it is useful to achieve an even gender split among interviewees. Given that male members of the families are often away during working hours consideration should be given to some surveying later in the day.

85. One possible approach is to organise detailed discussions or consult with a group of individuals believed to be representative of a particular group. Studies of this type have been used successfully in this area and can often produce useful insights and additional information. Group interviews need to be facilitated by someone who has a good understanding of the research objectives, the Gypsy and Traveller community and the issues involved. These groups should be small and care is needed with composition to ensure for example that family hierarchies do not sway opinion unduly and inhibit younger members of the community from expressing their own individual views.

Survey questions

86. Where possible, the questions asked of Gypsies and Travellers, both on sites and within housing, should be the same as those asked of the settled population, where surveys have been undertaken for a Strategic Housing Market Assessment, to ensure that results are comparable. To be most effective questionnaires should be developed in consultation with representatives of the local Gypsy and Traveller communities. They may include a mix of tick-box closed questions and more open questions where respondents are encouraged to expand their answers.

87. Questions will need to be adapted in some ways:

• questions about current accommodation and facilities need to reflect the differences between living in a house and living in a caravan (both on an authorised site, where there will be separate pitches and amenity blocks, and on an unauthorised site, where there may not be);



22

• questions about needs and preferences for type of accommodation should cover a range of options: standard bricks and mortar housing, group housing, permanent residential sites, transit sites or stopping place sites;

• questions about accommodation needs should ascertain whether there are different needs at different times of the year – travelling is usually concentrated during the summer;

• where travelling forms part of the lifestyle of a household, it will be important as far as possible to find out travelling patterns. Respondents should be asked what areas they travel to and where they tend to seek accommodation. If this is in another area they can be asked whether they are prevented from doing so by shortages of suitable accommodation in that area. Where this is the case, it should be recorded in the Accommodation Needs Assessment, and the relevant local authority should also be notified so that the data can also be included in their own assessment.

23

CHAPTER 4

Making use of the Accommodation Needs Assessment

88. It is important to be able to identify both current and future accommodation needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities by use of local data. This should be provided in the assessment report in sufficient detail to explain the process of analysis that has been applied and to differentiate between the specific groups defined in paragraph 12.

89. Data contained within the assessment report should also make clear the individual needs for each of these communities in terms of the type of accommodation they currently occupy (see paragraph 30).

Current need

90. The data collected through the Accommodation Needs Assessment process should enable the local authority or partnership to derive overall figures by which to identify accurately the current levels of Gypsy and Traveller households and the accommodation needs existing in that area.

91. It should be possible to identify:

• the number of Gypsy and Traveller households that have or are likely to have accommodation need to be addressed, either immediately, or in the foreseeable future;

• a broad indication of where there is a demand for additional pitches;

• the level and types of accommodation required for this need to be suitably addressed (eg socially rented/private site provision, transit sites or stopping places, bricks and mortar housing);

• the level of unauthorised development which, if planning permission is not approved, is likely to swell the scale of need.

Future Need

92. Accurate projections of future needs are likely to be more difficult. Current levels of satisfaction with existing accommodation will provide some indication of whether households are likely to stay in that accommodation. Analysis of changing demand (which may be expressed through unauthorised sites, or low demand for authorised sites) will provide further information.

93. Information on the likely rate of household formation and assessments of future accommodation need should be based primarily on locally gathered evidence, rather than average national estimates which may not reflect the position in the survey area concerned. Local trends should be identifiable from the current demographic profile of the community obtained from the local survey, from agencies working directly with local Gypsy and Traveller communities and from figures previously given for the caravan count. Gypsy and Traveller community representatives on the steering group


24

should also be able to advise. In the event that local data does not provide a clear picture it should be noted that average national estimates range between 3-4%.

94. In the case of Gypsies and Travellers it will probably not prove realistic to try and forecast need for up to 15 years ahead, as is recommended within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment guidance for the rest of the community. However, the most accurate projections possible covering the next 5-10 years should be made.

95. It should be possible to identify:

• the intentions of those households planning to move which may free up spare pitch or bricks and mortar capacity;

• the likely rate of household formation and annual population increase;

• travelling patterns within the survey area and in and out of surrounding areas.

96. An illustration of how current and future need might be calculated is set out below.

An estimate of need for residential site pitches: 2005 – 2010

For example, on the basis of need identified from a survey of Gypsies and Travellers in a local authority or partnership area, the following approach could apply.

a. Current residential supply (based on 1 pitch per household) Pitches

Current supply of occupied local authority residential site pitches in local authority/partnership area 300

Current supply of occupied authorised privately owned site pitches in local authority area/partnership area 200

Total Households = 500

Number of unused local authority pitches, and vacancies on privately owned sites available in local authority/partnership area (1) 15

Number of existing pitches expected to become vacant in near future (local authority and privately owned) (2) 5

Number of households in site accommodation expressing a desire to live in housing 3

[New local authority pitches already planned in year 1] 10

[Existing applications for private site development/extension likely to gain

planning permission during year 1] 20

Total pitch provision available = 553

25

b. Current residential demand

Households

– seeking permanent site accommodation in the area (3) 12

– on unauthorised encampments 5

– on unauthorised developments for which planning permission is not expected 30

– currently overcrowded (4) 15

– new households expected to arrive from elsewhere (5) 5

i. new family formations expected to arise from within existing households (4) 4

ii. in housing but with a need for site accommodation (5) 2

Current shortfall = 20 pitches

iii. family formation 2005 – 2010 = 88 households (6)

Thus extra pitch need 2005 – 2010 = 108 pitchesNotes

(1) Including closed local authority sites which could be brought back into use

(2) As identified in the assessment of Gypsy and Traveller need

(3) Based on waiting lists and results of survey

(4) Overcrowding – eg where family numbers have grown to the extent that there is now insufficient space for the family within its caravan accommodation and insufficient space on the pitch or site for a further caravan

(5) As identified in the survey, on a waiting list for site accommodation and trends from the caravan count.

(6) 553 families @ 3%* year on year for 5 years.

*NOTE. The 3% family formation growth rate is used here as an example only. The appropriate rate for individual assessments will depend on the details identified in the local survey, information from agencies working directly with local Gypsy and Traveller communities, and trends identified from figures previously given for the caravan count.

Using the Accommodation Needs Assessment

97. Once the Accommodation Needs Assessment has been completed, the local authority will need to begin considering how to meet the accommodation needs identified in the assessment. Needs can be met in a variety of ways, through the socially rented or commercially rented sectors, through private ownership of sites, or through bricks and mortar housing. The assessment will provide the data on which decisions about the appropriate mix of provision can be made.

98. The local authority lead will therefore need to disseminate the results of the Accommodation Needs Assessment to all relevant people and departments within the local authority and partner organisations (such as RSLs), and begin the process of facilitating or providing the necessary provision. This could for example require the identification of land for sites, or an application for central government funding from the Gypsy and Traveller Sites Grant. As with the assessment itself, it will be important to involve the right people at a sufficiently high level to drive the agenda forward.

99. The assessment also fits in to more formal local and regional processes, as set out below, and the local authority lead will need to ensure that it is fed into these appropriately. However, these processes should not be seen as a substitute for urgent action where this is needed.

Chapter 4: Making use of the Accommodation Needs Assessment


26

100. At a local level the assessment:

• will be an essential element in the preparation of the Gypsy and Traveller component of the local authority’s housing strategy, which will itself inform investment decisions. The Housing Act 2004 requires local authorities to include the needs of ‘gypsies and travellers’ in any housing strategy they produce in line with section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003.

• will also form a key part of the evidence base underpinning the preparation of Local Development Frameworks, which must set out policies to address the particular accommodation needs of specific groups such as Gypsies and Travellers and allocate land to meet those needs. One of the tests of the soundness of a draft Development Plan Document at its examination will be whether it is based on robust and credible evidence. Further guidance on planning for Gypsy and Traveller provision can be found in the Planning Circular Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites, ODPM 01/2006.

101. The Accommodation Needs Assessment also has a key role in establishing regional needs and plans.

• It feeds into the Regional Housing Strategy, which identifies key priorities in each region, and provides a basis on which decisions on housing capital investment can be made.

• It will also be a component in the overall assessment of need which informs the housing policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The RSS should identify the number of pitches required (but not their location) for each local planning authority in the light of the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment and a strategic view of needs across the region. Development Plan Documents must be in conformity with the RSS.

102. The Accommodation Needs Assessment will also inform the wider housing work of the local authority and its partners, by providing a clearer understanding of the accommodation issues faced by Gypsies and Travellers. These issues are not confined to the need for more sites. The assessment will help to show what support may be needed by Gypsies and Travellers to access and maintain stable accommodation, how homelessness may be prevented, and how bricks and mortar housing can be made to work better for the Gypsies and Travellers who live there.

103. In addition it may help inform wider work on improving Gypsy and Traveller access to services, for example in the field of health, education and employment. It should be possible to identify any aspects of existing accommodation provision which occupants consider to be leading to poor health problems, and local authorities may wish to consider whether provision of this information, subject to data protection principles, could assist local NHS bodies and Local Strategic Partnerships for health planning purposes. Similarly, evidence of difficulties experienced with access to education may assist local education providers target these problems.

27

ANNEX

Possible topic list

In conducting Gypsy and Traveller surveys the general guidance set in the appendices of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment guidance should be followed, particularly the suggested list of topics to be covered when conducting a survey interview. Given the particular culture and lifestyle of the Gypsy and Traveller communities, some of these questions may need to be amended, and others added.

The list below is not prescriptive. Local authorities or partnerships will wish to tailor their approach in the light of local circumstances and refine supplementary questions depending on initial answers given.

As a guide however the suggested subject areas listed below are indicated as “key issues” (in the context of identifying need) or “additional issues” (suggested follow up issues or those helping to increase awareness of longer term or supplementary accommodation demand).

1. GENERAL HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION

a. In respect of individual members of the household

Key issues

Ethnic origin (English Roma, Irish Traveller etc)

Age by band eg below 5; 5-10 etc

Gender

Relationship to the head of the household

Frequency of travel

Additional issues

Type of work and availability in the area

Location and distance of work place

b. In respect of the household generally

Key issues

Size of household, number of dependent children (but see note on cultural sensitivities, at paras 79-80 of this guidance).

Number of caravans/mobile homes occupied on pitch


28

Rent payable (excluding council tax and bills, but including any rent currently met by housing benefit)

Is your accommodation affordable?

Whether housing benefit received

Does anyone in your household have a disability or serious illness?

Does anyone in the household have health needs for special or adapted accommodation which need to be addressed?

Is the proximity of a hospital or doctor a reason why household lives where it does?

Additional issues

Any instances of harassment or neighbour disputes/discrimination, and were they dealt with satisfactorily?

What sort of work would they like their children to do when older?

2. INTENTIONS AND PREFERENCES

Key Issues

Do you want to live in this area – if not, where?

Are you residing in current accommodation by choice or because nowhere else to go?

Where would you prefer to live/travel ? Why are you not living/travelling there?

Which places do you normally travel to for work, and for roughly what period?

For what type of work?

Would relatives living nearby travel with you?

Does the household plan to move to another location in the next 1-5 years?

If so, main reason for moving

Do you know if there is accommodation available there?

Would you wait until it was available if not?

Any members of the household likely to want independent accommodation in the next 1-5 years? If so, will they wish to live in the same area or elsewhere?

Will they wish to live on a permanent residential sites and/or travel, or live in bricks and mortar housing?

Are you on a waiting list for a local authority, private or RSL site, or a housing register in that area?

29

To live in the new area would you be prepared to move to site accommodation/bricks and mortar housing, instead of what you already have (as appropriate)?

Area preferred – elsewhere in the neighbourhood or further afield

Likely to be a short term/long term move

Would this involve a change of accommodation type and/or tenure, e.g. private to public site; caravan to housing; authorised to unauthorised development or site?

What steps taken or planned so far? Have you experienced problems in finding accommodation there?

Is there a need for extra sites to be developed? If so

Where needed?

What sort (permanent or transit)?

What size, in terms of numbers of caravans and/or pitches?

Do you wish to develop your own site, and could you afford to?

If so, where? Will you/have you sought planning permission?

Restrictions which impact on employment, need to travel further for work?

If you wish to develop your own family site how much could you afford to pay for the land? e.g. £5,000, £5-10,000……… £50,000 (probably realistic upper limit)

What size, in terms of numbers of caravans and/or pitches?

If transit sites needed

Where and why needed?

Would you use them if available?

If not, why not?

Additional issues

Have you had to stay in an unauthorised camp in the past, if so in which area?

Was this just for the short term, would you have chosen permanent site accommodation if it was available?

Which of the following types of accommodation would be acceptable, or not acceptable, for your household;

A private site owned by you and your family

A site owned by the local council, and if so what size

A site owned by another Gypsy or Traveller

A house or bungalow rented from the local council

A house or bungalow that you own yourself

Annex: Possible topic list


30

3. SPECIFIC ACCOMMODATION CIRCUMSTANCES

a. Gypsies and Travellers currently residing in caravan accommodation on authorised sites

General household information etc as for sections 1 and 2 above, plus the following additional question areas –

Key issues

Type of accommodation eg caravan, mobile home

If moved into present site within last year –

reasons for move

location of previous home (within present local authority boundaries?)

was this from caravan or bricks and mortar accommodation?

Any relatives living on site nearby, would you wish to all live on the same site if possible?

Additional issues

Type of tenure of present home

Length of residence in caravan accommodation

Length of residence on present site/pitch

AMENITIES AND CONDITIONS

Key issues

Are essential services available? (e.g. water, electricity, heating etc)

Is there a separate amenity block? (with toilet, bathroom kitchen) – or shared facilities?

Is there a land line telephone or the opportunity to have one?

Are there good fire safety arrangements?

Are general site conditions satisfactory?

Are you worried about health and safety aspects?

Is size of site and of pitch too big/too small/sufficient to accommodate family needs eg desired number of trailers?

Is there overcrowding in the caravan which cannot be safely rectified by placing another caravan on the pitch?

31

Is there overcrowding on the site generally, e.g. more caravans on pitch than permitted by fire regulations?

Is the site under used? If so, why do you think that is?

Do you and your household plan to move again from the site eg within one, three or five years? If yes, why?

What would you hope to move to in terms of type, size or location of accommodation?

Would you stay where you are if there were improvements made to your existing site or accommodation? If so, what improvements are they?

Additional issues

Pitch location e.g. urban/rural location; near industrial areas, dumps, sewage works.

Potential health hazards arising from contaminated land, noise levels, fumes, close vicinity of traffic on motorways or major trunk roads.

Any other aspects or shortcomings which are leading to instances of ill health

Effective management and security on site?

Is there convenient access to the site?

Is layout of site spacious or cramped? State of security arrangements, fencing, adequate site management arrangements.

Is there room for a visiting caravan?

Good access to other services eg public transport, shops/leisure facilities – would you use them if available?

Need for repairs? Are there difficulties in getting these done?

Sufficient parking facilities?

Are there facilities for keeping animals?

Are there working restrictions on site?

Is there room for storage of equipment?

Are meeting/social rooms available?

Provision for children (on-site play areas)?

Sufficient outside lighting?

Regular refuse collections?



32

Access to GP, hospital services and specialist treatment?

Good access to schools?

Access to training or adult education desired? Are there barriers to this?

b. Gypsies and Travellers residing on unauthorised private sites

Key issues

General household information as for sections 1 and 2 above, plus the following additional question areas –

Have the local authority made any attempt to move you on?

How often have you been moved in the past year?

What is the longest you have managed to stay in one place?

How many times have you had to attend court proceedings to do with your living situation?

What has your children’s pattern of schooling been?

Are you registered with a doctor’s surgery?

Are you en route to another area or looking for permanent accommodation in the area?

What would be the ideal accommodation for you, were we able to provide it?

Would you accept site or bricks and mortar accommodation as a temporary or permanent solution?

Additional issues

What sort of accommodation respondents had before their current home

Where was this

Why left it

33

c. Gypsies and Travellers residing on unauthorised encampments, roadside etc

Key issues

General household information as for sections 1 and 2 above, and those for unauthorised private sites above, plus the following additional question areas –

Where residing; on roadside, in lay by, on playing fields, private or public land.

Do you travel throughout the year or would you prefer to have settled accommodation? If so, what type and where?

What areas are you planning to travel to?

If there were a network of authorised transit sites would you use them and where should they be?

Additional issues

Did you previously live in bricks and mortar housing or on a residential site?

Do you have access to electricity, water and WCs?

Do you have access to local services, including doctors and education facilities?

d. Gypsies and Travellers currently residing in bricks and mortar housing

Key issues

General household information as for sections 1 and 2 above, suggested list of topics set out in the guidance for Strategic Housing Market Assessments, plus the following additional question areas –

Do you live in a house by choice or only in the absence of suitable site accommodation?

Additional issues

If site accommodation was available in another area would you be happy to move there, or must it be in the near vicinity?

What do you like about living in a house, and this house in particular?

What do you not like about living in a house and/or this house?

Have you suffered harassment from your neighbours or other members of the settled community?



34

e. Travelling showpeople

Key issues

General household information as for sections 1 and 2 above, from section 3a-d as appropriate, plus the following additional question areas -

Is your pitch always occupied, or only at certain times of the year?

Is there sufficient provision available for storage of equipment?

Is the storage provision easily accessible and secure?

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decisions Inquiry held on 15-18 December 2015

Site visit made on 18 December 2015

by Paul Dignan MSc PhD

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 14 April 2016

Appeal A: APP/J1860/C/14/2223436

Land to the west of the M5 at Baughton, Earls Croome, Worcestershire, WR8 9DX.

The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as

amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

The appeal is made by Mr Gary Smith against an enforcement notice issued by Malvern

Hills District Council.

The Council's reference is 14/01382/ENF.

The notice was issued on 20 June 2014.

The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is the construction of driveways,

service areas and hardstanding on the land and the installation of a septic tank; the

positioning on the land of amenity buildings; and the laying and installation of water

drainage and electricity supplies.

The requirements of the notice are: Cease constructing driveways, service areas and

hardstanding on the Land; and Permanently remove the driveways, service areas,

hardstanding, septic tank, amenity buildings and water drainage and electricity

supplies, and associated fencing from the land and all materials and debris arising there

from and restore the Land to its former condition as level grassland.

The periods for compliance with the requirements are 24 hours for the first requirement

and 5 months for the second requirement.

The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a) and (g) of the

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. The application for planning

permission deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended

also falls to be considered.

Appeal B: APP/J1860/C/14/2223438

Land to the west of the M5 at Baughton, Earls Croome, Worcestershire, WR8 9DX.

The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as


The appeal is made by Mr Gary Smith against an enforcement notice issued by Malvern

Hills District Council.

The Council's reference is 14/01375/ENF.

The notice was issued on 20 June 2014.

The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is the use of the land for the

stationing of caravans for residential purposes.

The requirements of the notice are: Permanently cease the use of the Land for the

stationing of caravans for residential purposes; Permanently remove from the Land all

caravans used for residential purposes together with associated services and all amenity

buildings with associated drainage; Permanently cease the use of the land for the

purposes of residential purposes.

The period for compliance with the requirements is 5 months.

Appeal Decisions APP/J1860/C/14/2223436 & 2223438 and APP/J1860/W/15/3005906

2

The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a) and (g) of the

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. The application for planning

permission deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended

also falls to be considered.

Appeal C: APP/J1860/W/15/3005906

Land near Baughton, Worcestershire, WR8 9DX.

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Mr Gary Smith against the decision of Malvern Hills District

Council.

The application Ref. 14/00628/FUL, dated 23 May 2014, was refused by notice dated 19

February 2015.

The development proposed is Change of use of land to 12 No. Traveller Family Pitches

and associated works including 12 No. mobile homes, 12 No. touring caravans, 12 No.

day rooms, 12 No. septic tanks and hardstanding.

Decisions

Appeal A

1. The appeal is allowed on ground (g), and it is directed that the enforcement notice be varied by the deletion of 24 hours for the first requirement and 5

months for the second requirement, and the substitution of 9 months as the period for compliance. Subject to these variations the enforcement notice is

upheld and planning permission is refused for the construction of driveways, service areas and hardstanding on the land and the installation of a septic tank; the positioning on the land of amenity buildings; and the laying and installation

of water drainage and electricity supplies, on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended.

Appeal B

2. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the use of the land shown as Pitches 1-6 on Drawing No. 1429/02D (Document 9 submitted at the Inquiry)

and the land to the west of Pitches 1-6, and planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990

Act as amended, for the use of the land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule to this decision.

3. The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld as insofar as it relates to the land to the east of Pitches 1-6 on Drawing No. 1429/02D, and

planning permission is refused for the use of the land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended.

Appeal C

4. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the land shown as Pitches 1-6 on

Drawing No. 1429/02D (Document 9 submitted at the Inquiry) and the land to the west of Pitches 1-6 and temporary planning permission is granted for Change of use of land to 6 No. Traveller Family Pitches and associated works

including 6 No. mobile homes, 6 No. touring caravans, 6 No. day rooms, and hardstanding at Land near Baughton, Worcestershire, WR8 9DX in accordance

with the terms of the application, Ref. 14/00628/FUL, dated 23 May 2014, and


3

the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development

hereby permitted, and subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule to this decision. For clarity, planning permission is not granted for any septic tank

shown on the approved drawings.

5. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the land to the east of Pitches 1-6 shown on Drawing No. 1429/02D.

Application for costs

6. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Mr Smith against Malvern

Hills District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Background and preliminary matters

7. The appeal site is a former agricultural field outside Baughton. In May 2014

some hardstanding was laid, fencing erected, services installed and caravans moved onto the site for residential purposes. The Council was granted an

injunction to prevent further development. That leaves 6 pitches formally laid out at the western end of the site, 3 either side of the access road, with caravans stationed on them. The remainder of the site has road access, fencing

and services installed, but it is not formally laid out and has no caravans stationed on it. The original application was for a total of 16 gypsy/traveller

pitches, but this was subsequently reduced to 12 by agreement with the Council prior to determination of the application. I have used this revised description in the banner above. A revised layout plan, Drawing No. 1429/02D, has also been

submitted, showing the proposed children’s play area at the western end of the site rather than at the eastern end. I am satisfied that determining Appeal C on

the basis of this revised layout causes no injustice.

8. Although there are caravans stationed or in use on only 6 of the 12 pitches shown on the Appeal C revised layout plan, I have determined the deemed

planning application in Appeal B on the basis of a 12-pitch site. The principal difference therefore between the Appeal C and Appeal B developments is that

Appeal C includes a proposed dayroom on each pitch, whereas the Appeal B deemed planning application is for what is there already.

National Planning Policy

9. The Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) aims, amongst other things, to ensure that local planning authorities develop effective

strategies, to meet gypsies’ and travellers’ needs, promote more private traveller site provision, increase the number of sites in appropriate locations, address under-provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply, and enable

gypsies and travellers to access education, health and other services. It requires that local policies on these matters be fair, realistic and inclusive. It includes

advice on traveller sites in rural areas and the countryside, which indicates that they can be acceptable in principle. However, local planning authorities are also

advised that they should very strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements (paragraph 25). PPTS was first issued in March 2012, but the word “very” was only added to

paragraph 25 (previously paragraph 23) in August 2015, following public consultation. The change is intended to give greater protection to the

countryside1.

1 Planning and travellers: proposed changes to planning policy and guidance.


4

10. PPTS advises that development plan policies should be consistent with the

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and PPTS. Development management policies should be based on robust evidence of local needs and

should identify at least a 5-year supply of specific, deliverable sites, along with developable sites or broad locations for years 6-10 and beyond. Where there is no identified need, criteria-based policies should be used to provide a basis for

decisions in case applications nevertheless come forward.

Development Plan

11. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the time of the Inquiry the development

plan included the saved policies of the Malvern Hills District Local Plan (LP), which was adopted in 2006. Relevant policies were Policy DP1, which applied

strict control on development in the open countryside, Policy DP2, which required development to reflect the principles of sustainable development, and Policy DS3, which sought, amongst other things, to ensure that development

provided a satisfactory level of amenity for occupiers. The LP had no saved policies specific to gypsy or traveller site provision, and was thus inconsistent

with national policy in that respect. The emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan (DP), which by then had reached an advanced stage, set out in Policy SWDP17 an approach to traveller site provision consistent with PPTS.

Policy SWDP 17 sought to direct traveller sites to within, or to the edge of, towns or designated rural villages with at least one key service, such as a shop

or primary school, and access to a minimum level of public transport service. There remained outstanding objections to Policy SWDP 17 in respect of the evaluation of need for gypsy and traveller pitches, but in all other respects,

including the criteria to be used to assess sites required to meet identified need and sites coming forward as planning applications, the Inquiry proceeded on the

basis that Policy SWDP 17 could be accorded substantial weight.

12. The SWDP was subsequently found to be sound, subject to modifications, and was adopted, effective from 25 February 2016. It now carries full development

plan weight and supersedes the LP policies. Policy SWDP 17 was adopted in the form considered at the Inquiry. Other relevant policies include Policy SWDP 1,

which sets out sustainable development principles, SWDP 2, which sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy, based on principles including safeguarding the open countryside and focusing most development in areas with

good access to services, Policy SWDP 21 which seeks a high quality of design, Policy SWDP 25, which aims to protect landscape character, Policy SWDP 29

which seeks to minimise flood risk and protect water quality, and Policy SWDP 31, which seeks to avoid adverse impacts from pollution. In view of the change

in the development plan position after the close of the Inquiry the main parties were given an opportunity to comment on the implications, but made no further submissions.

Main Issues

13. The main issues in this case are as follows:

- whether the site can be considered as sustainably located, having regard to access to services and facilities, and the location of the site in the open countryside;


5

- Whether the development provides, or can provide, satisfactory living

conditions in terms of noise and disturbance;

- whether adequate provision can be made for foul water drainage; and

- whether there are any material considerations to outweigh any harm identified.

Reasons

Location

14. The appeal site is approximately 1 ha of former agricultural land adjoining the

M5 to the east and an embanked section of A4104 to the south. It is in the countryside about 100m outside the settlement of Baughton, a small hamlet of approximately 50 houses. Baughton has a pub, but nothing in the way of shops

or other services. The nearest settlement with a range of key services is Upton-upon-Severn, over 4 km away, and the nearest bus stop is 2.1 km away.

Children living at the site attend a primary school in Defford, 4.7 km away, and a special needs school in Evesham, some 19 km away. For the Evesham school, a school bus collects the children from the site, and I understand that there is

also a school bus service to Defford. Otherwise, day-to-day travel to access services is likely to be reliant on private cars, although there is car sharing on

school trips and some shopping can be incorporated into school runs. The village pub is within easy walking distance, but there are no footways on the busy A4104 between the site and the edge of the village, and the walk is likely

to be intimidating for pedestrians, particularly at night.

15. The proximity of the site to Baughton means that it is not in an isolated position

in the open countryside, and hence attracts some support from paragraph 25 of PPTS, insofar as it relates to protection of the countryside. Nonetheless, the DP does not regard Baughton as a sustainable location for development due to the

lack of key services and poor public transport links. Sustainability is not just a consideration of distances to services and facilities, and whether the site is

within or on the edge of a settlement with key services or public transport options is just one of the assessment criteria for traveller sites set out in Policy SWDP 17. The wider benefits of the provision of a settled base that reduces the

need for long distance travel and provides easier access to health and education services benefits must be put in the balance, as must the potential for the

promotion of peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

16. It is acknowledged by the Council that there are no alternative sites at present

that would be available to the current or prospective site occupiers, and it is evident that the site has provided the occupants with good access to health

services, schools and employment in the locality. The children currently on the site appear to have integrated exceptionally well in their schools, and access to

medical services has been demonstrated. The Defford primary school is welcoming and supportive, and the families on the site have registered with local GP and dental practices. Those with health problems have also already

been able to benefit from having a settled base from which to access appropriate services. However, given the scale of the development proposed, I

consider that the lack of sustainable transport choices for what would probably be a considerable number of people could not be considered as sustainable in


6

the long term. It would not amount to a sustainable pattern of development as

sought by Policies SWDP 2 and SWDP 17, and by the NPPF.

Residential amenity and drainage

17. Noise from traffic on the M5 has the potential to significantly harm residential amenity on the site. The planning application reasons for refusal focus on the plots nearest to the M5, plots 11 and 12. Briefly, the detailed noise assessment

provided by the Council indicates that the internal noise environment in the mobile homes/static caravans on those plots would be likely to be well below

acceptable daytime and night-time standards. The outdoors noise environment on those plots would also be sub-standard. Even accepting the appellant’s noise consultant’s proposed relaxations of the standards, which, had the development

been in a more sustainable location, might be justified having regard to the alternative prospect of roadside encampments, the noise environment would be

likely to be sub-standard. As such, without adequate mitigation it would fail to satisfy criterion (vi) of Policy SWDP 17, which requires consideration of whether there is any significant impact on residential amenity for site residents.

18. It is agreed that a satisfactory noise environment could be achieved at the site by the provision of an acoustic fence between the motorway and the residential

plots. In the absence of sufficiently detailed ground survey data upon which to base noise mitigation calculations, I agree with Mr Hunter’s conclusion that a full line of sight solid fence would probably be required along the eastern and part

of the northern boundaries to provide a satisfactorily residential environment. Even if I were to accept Mr Olver’s suggestion that a marginal line of sight fence

would possibly suffice, it was accepted by the parties that this would probably need to be higher than 2m.

19. In respect of foul water drainage, the application was for 12 septic tanks. The 6

occupied plots currently share 2 septic tanks. However, a drainage report prepared for the appellant in November 2015 found that the ground conditions

are not suited to septic tank drainage, and it is no longer proposed. Two solutions are suggested, the installation of a cesspool or a package treatment plant. The latter is the preferred solution and the land in the south-west corner

of the site, between the A4104 and the site access driveway, is proposed as a suitable location.

20. The proposed solutions to both noise and drainage are operational development which requires planning permission.

Need for additional sites for gypsies and travellers

21. The most up-to-date assessment of the need for gypsy and traveller site provision in the district is the Worcestershire Gypsy and Traveller

Accommodation Assessment (GTAA). The main report was published in November 2014, based in part on surveys conducted between August 2013 and

March 2014. It covers the six Worcestershire local planning authority areas and was carried out by arc4. At publication the need identified for Malvern Hills for the period 2014/15 to 2018/19 was minus 3, an oversupply in other words. For

Worcestershire as a whole the need identified for that period was minus 7.

22. In the arc4 GTAA model, a significant driver of the estimate of supply is the rate

of turnover on existing authorised sites. This is derived from survey data on when occupants moved on to their current pitch. The GTAA assumed rate of


7

turnover of pitches within the first 5 years of the prediction period is directly

derived from the number of households on authorised pitches who had moved to their pitch from within the study area, or who had connections with the area,

in the 5 years before the GTAA survey. For Malvern Hills this was 91%. The Inspector examining the DP found most aspects of the GTAA to be sound, but felt that the Malvern Hills turnover rate of 91% was unusually high. He

considered that it would be unsafe to assume that this rate would be sustained over the next 5 years and recommended a reduction to a 60% turnover rate,

based on turnover over a 7 year period at the only public site in the district, a small 5 pitch site. This rate is still far higher than the county-wide rate, and the 5-year turnover on this site was 1 pitch, which would have given a turnover rate

of just 20%. He also found fault with the treatment of existing households who expressed an intention to move to another pitch in the area in the next 5 years,

which were not factored in to the total need.

23. The adjustments he recommended resulted in the revision of the minimum requirement for permanent traveller pitches in Malvern Hills, now set out in the

adopted Policy SWDP 17, to 4. In the context of the number of authorised sites in the district, 20, this is a substantial adjustment which results from what I

would characterise as a non-contextual application of the turnover component of the GTAA methodology. Having said that, the robustness of the arc4 approach to the turnover component of its model will be most appropriately

assessed at the end of the relevant 5-year period.

24. The coverage and accuracy of the GTAA survey was also queried at the Inquiry.

A number of the authorised site/pitches included in supply have either personal permissions or lack a gypsy/traveller restrictive condition, and it is argued that they should not be included in supply. However, if the households occupying

such sites are, as here, included in total need, then to exclude the sites from the supply side of the balance would result in a distorted picture. Nonetheless,

there is substance in a number of the matters raised.

25. A mobile home on one site turns out to have been replaced by a bungalow. Regardless of whether or not this was occupied by a gypsy or traveller, it is not

a gypsy or traveller pitch and should not therefore appear as contributing to the current supply of pitches. A number of other sites were identified where the

number of pitches on the site authorised by planning permission or lawful development certificate was less than the number used in the GTAA. It seems that the information on the number of pitches on the authorised sites was

provided to arc4 by the Council, but upon examination it appears that the pitch numbers have more of a basis in the DCLG bi-annual Caravan Count numbers

than in planning history. Looking solely at the relevant planning history, which I consider to be the more robust approach, the 14 households on authorised sites

should be 8. There are implications both for the current supply of authorised pitches in the GTAA, which I consider to be clearly overestimated, and for the turnover component, which must be in error.

26. There is also the question of how the current occupiers of the appeal site are accounted for. The GTAA survey period finished just before the occupants

moved onto the site, and hence their absence from the GTAA model and output is justifiable. The GTAA output represents a point in time. However, when it comes to Policy SWDP 17, which draws directly from the 2014 GTAA, it is

difficult to see why they should not be seen as adding to need.


8

27. As it stands, the Council cannot identify a 5-year supply of deliverable sites to

meet its local minimum requirement of 4, which indicates a failure of policy, and that requirement is derived from a GTAA that may be based upon inaccurate

data. The 6 families at the appeal site represent additional need above that estimated by the GTAA in any case. Hence there is a clear and unmet need for additional pitches to accommodate gypsies and travellers in the district. That

there is a need for additional pitches in the wider area is not disputed.

The personal needs and circumstances of the site occupants

28. The site has been laid out as 6 demarcated pitches at the western end with some infrastructure installed for the other six. There are 6 families on the site, including 18 children, 15 aged 16 or under. The older children work with their

parents, and the younger children of school age attend the Defford primary school or the special school in Evesham. Letters from the schools attest to how

well they are doing and how important the settled base is for their continuing progress. The harmonious relations with the Defford and Evesham schools reveal significant positive integration with the local community.

29. Three of the children in one family have an incurable and life-limiting condition associated with severe learning difficulties and high care needs. Two of the

adults have serious, or potentially serious, health problems which have proved difficult to manage without a settled base.

30. Five of the families on the site are related, three of the adults are sisters and

another is a first cousin. The families provide mutual support. These living arrangements, whereby related families live together for mutual support, is

characteristic of the gypsy way of life, and the proposal would therefore be consistent with the Government’s aim of facilitating the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers.

31. Dismissing the planning appeal and upholding the enforcement notices would mean that the six families would have to leave the appeal site. In the absence

of alternative sites there must be a significant likelihood that the families would have to resort to roadside camping. That is the only option open to them at the moment. Roadside camping has very significant adverse social and

environmental impacts, and it is known to create disharmony between the travelling and settled community. There are also general health problems

associated with roadside living, which are well documented, and the education opportunities of the children would be seriously compromised, with potentially very negative implications for their life prospects. The children have clearly

benefited greatly from having a settled base, and it would be in their best interests to continue living at the appeal site provided that the environmental

shortcomings could be overcome. In the case of the children with disabilities, roadside living would be extremely harmful to their well being, and almost

impossible to countenance.

Conclusions

Appeals B and C

32. I have found that the site is not in a sustainable location for its purposes. In addition, the site would not provide a satisfactory residential environment

because of the impact of noise from the M5 and the lack of a sustainable foul drainage solution, which also has significant environmental implications. There


9

is conflict with Policy SWDP 17 in that the amenity provided to occupiers of the

development would not be adequate, and with Policy SWDP 31 in terms of the risk to their health and wellbeing, and to the environment, in the absence of

proper drainage.

33. There is no doubt that these matters could be resolved by the erection of acoustic screening and the installation of appropriate sewage plant. These are

matters that crop up occasionally in applications or appeals concerning gypsy or traveller sites, and they are often dealt with by means of conditions requiring

the submission of further details. I have been directed to a recent decision2 in respect of a 4-pitch site where such a condition was used to overcome a similar drainage issue, and I am aware of other cases where the approach was

considered appropriate. In this case however I consider that these are not matters that should be dealt with in this way.

34. The Council has drawn my attention to the case of Wheatcroft3, which established the principle that where a development under consideration is different in some way from that applied for, the main criterion in determining

whether a grant of conditional planning permission would be to grant permission for a development that was not in substance that for which permission has been

applied for is whether to do so would deprive those who should have been consulted on the changed development of the opportunity of such consultation. The required size of the acoustic fence has not been established, but it is

accepted that it could well be up to 3m high and of considerable length. A 2m high fence could be erected without the need to apply for planning permission,

but a 3m high solid fence would be a much more substantial structure which could have significant visual and landscape impacts well beyond that of a 2m fence. Similarly, a sewage package treatment plant or cesspool capable of

meeting the needs of a 12 pitch site is likely to be a substantial structure. Located in the position suggested, close to the A4104 on visually exposed land,

I consider that it could well have a significant visual impact.

35. There is no power to modify an application or appeal, but a degree of alteration can be achieved by the use of conditions provided that it does not substantially

alter the nature of the development applied for. In my view the considerable additional built development on the site that would be likely to be necessary to

provide a satisfactory long term residential environment would substantially alter the nature of the development. I consider that it goes beyond what can reasonably be dealt with by condition.

Planning Balance

36. Material considerations in favour of the development are the identified unmet

need for gypsy and traveller sites, the lack of alternative sites, a failure of policy and the lack of a five year supply of sites, personal circumstances, including the

best interests of the children, human rights considerations, and the public sector equality duty. These carry substantial weight, particularly since a consequence of dismissing Appeal B is that those living at the appeal site would become

homeless. However, my findings on noise and foul drainage means that the site is simply not suitable for permanent residential occupation as it stands. It

follows that they do not outweigh the harm identified and a permanent planning permission should not be granted.

2 Appeal Reference APP/X1355/C/14/2222375 3 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1982) 43 P&CR 233


10

37. In the context of a temporary permission for the site as a whole, the overall

harm is time-limited and therefore considerably less. Nonetheless, within the Wheatcroft constraints I see no way of overcoming the residential and

environmental harm. However, those who are at risk of becoming homeless only occupy the furthest part of the site from the M5, where the noise environment would be better, and a package treatment plant half the size of

that required for a 12-pitch site would suffice, with greater scope within the site for positioning it so as to avoid visual impact. The currently occupied 6 pitches

are both physically and functionally severable from the other 6 pitches at the eastern end, and it is open to me to consider granting planning permission for part of the development only. In this case I consider that that approach is

justified. Residential use of pitches 1-6, at least on a temporary basis, would not require the provision of an acoustic screen that would itself require planning

permission, and I consider that incorporating the provision of a package treatment plant of this smaller scale in the development on a temporary basis by condition would not prejudice anyone’s interests, and hence it would not fall

foul of the Wheatcroft test. Further, PPTS advises that the absence of a 5 year supply of deliverable sites, as is the case here, should be a significant material

consideration when considering applications for a grant of temporary planning permission, and there are very significant personal considerations, including the best interests of the children.

38. Regarding temporary permission for pitches 1-6, therefore, I consider that the very substantial overall weight of the considerations in favour of the appeal

outweighs the time-limited harm. To justify a temporary permission, there must also be a reasonable prospect of alternative sites coming forward by the end of the temporary period. I consider that this requirement is met in this case. A site

allocations development plan document is in the early stages of preparation and is expected to be in place by 2017. The district requirement of 4 pitches by

2019 is expressed as a minimum, but in the light of the evidence before me it would not suffice to meet the actual current unmet need, and hence should not be treated as a target. However, there is ample time to address contemporary

need through the site allocations document. To allow for possible timetable slippage and the inevitable lag between allocation and delivery of sites with

planning permission, I consider that an appropriate temporary period would be 5 years. Restricting permission to a temporary period would still represent an interference with the rights of the occupants under the Human Rights Act 1998.

However, taking into account all material considerations, I am satisfied that this interference is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.

39. This is not the outcome that the appellant sought, but the alternative would be to refuse planning permission altogether, and it is still open to him in any case

to make a more comprehensive application for the larger site. No injustice arises from this approach.

40. I shall therefore grant temporary planning permission for pitches 1-6, that is

those currently occupied, on Appeals B and C. The personal circumstances of the occupants have been decisive and hence a condition restricting occupancy

to the current occupiers is necessary, as is a condition to restrict the use to gypsies and travellers, in view of the weight attached to PPTS. The permission is for a temporary period of 5 years and a condition shall be imposed to reflect

this and to ensure removal of the caravans and other items, and to secure the restoration of the site, at the end of the period. In the interests of the character

and appearance of the site and surrounding area, and to safeguard residential


11

and visual amenity, I shall impose a condition requiring the submission of a Site

Development Scheme, covering the internal layout of the site, including the position of the caravans and any ancillary structures, the extent of

hardstanding, parking and amenity areas, external lighting, surface water and foul sewage disposal, landscaping and boundary treatments, including details of all trees to be retained on the site and measures for their protection during

construction works, and the restoration of the site. For the same reasons I shall limit the number of pitches and the number of caravans on each pitch, preclude

commercial activity and regulate the keeping of commercial vehicles on the site. A condition requiring the provision and maintenance of a safe site access is also necessary in the interests of highway safety, and it is necessary to ensure that

the development provides a safe pedestrian evacuation route in case of flooding, in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. In respect of

Appeal C I shall require that the development be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans, so far as they are relevant, for the avoidance of doubt, and that the Council approve the external materials of the dayrooms, to safeguard

the character and appearance of the area.

Appeal A

Ground (a)

41. This concerns the enforcement action against the operational development that has taken place. In view of my conclusions above, there is no justification for

the retention of the operation development at the eastern end of the site, that is on the land to the east of Pitches 1-6. It is also undisputed that the existing

septic tanks serving plots 1-6 must be removed. The grant of planning permission for the developments comprising plots 1-6 on Appeals B and C includes a condition requiring the provision and approval of details of the

infrastructure necessary for the development. Hence there is a grant of planning permission for the details approved. Section 180(1) of the 1990 Act provides that

where, after the service of a notice, planning permission is granted for any development carried out beforehand, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as inconsistent with that permission. In this case, because some of the works enforced

against must be removed, rather than specify them at this stage it is better to uphold the notice and rely on section 180(1) to provide clarity on what should be retained. I shall therefore dismiss Appeal A on ground (a).

Ground (g)

42. That part of the requirements of the operational development notice that is not

inconsistent with any details approved under the permissions granted, and the requirements of the change of use enforcement notice relating to pitches 7 to 12, must still be complied with. The 5 months set out in the notice may not be enough

to ensure that the necessary approvals are in place, so I shall extend the time for compliance for all of the requirements to 9 months. I consider this to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Paul Dignan

INSPECTOR

APPEARANCES


12

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Timothy Jones of Counsel, instructed by Ruston Planning Ltd He called

Trevor Olver SLR Consulting Fallon Miller Appeal site resident

Anthony Lamb Appeal site resident Jane Buckland Appeal site resident Dr Simon Ruston Ruston Planning Ltd

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Gary Grant of Counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for Malvern

Hills District Council He called Dr Michael Bullock arc4 Ltd

David Hunter Hunter Acoustics Paul Sedgwick Sedgwick Associates

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Jim McBride Earls Croome Parish Council DOCUMENTS

1 Council’s letter of notification, plus addressees.

2 Statement of Common Ground 3 Bullock - supplementary proof of evidence, plus appendices 4 Hunter – rebuttal proof of evidence

5 Application plan – site location 6 Addendum sheet - appellant

7 Email exchange re planning history at The Paddocks 8 Appeal decision APP/X1355/C/14/2222375 9 Revised site layout plan – Drawing No. 1429/02D

10 Local Plan 1996-2011 (July 2006) Policies 11 South Worcestershire Development Plan submission document (tracked

changes version to 7 October 2015) 12 Opening submissions - Council 13 Bundle of letters of support - appellant

14 Caravan panel sound reduction test results - Olver 15 Bundle of maps - Council

16 South Worcestershire Development Plan (Draft) Annex D Settlement Hierarchy 17 Letter of support – NHS Health Visitor 18 Draft costs application - appellant

19 Explanatory Note - Bullock 20 Traveller site allocations DPD timetable plus consultation note - Council

21 Appellant’s revised supply table plus need and supply calculations 22 Email re occupancy of Malvern Meadows traveller site - Council 23 Suggested noise condition - Council

24 Closing submissions (plus legal cases) - Council 25 Closing submissions (plus legal case extract) – appellant

26 Costs application response - Council 27 Bundle of letters of objection


13

28 D Wickens – written submission

29 Appellant’s post-inquiry comments on documents 27 and 28


14

Schedule of Conditions

Appeal B - APP/J1860/C/14/2223436

1) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and

travellers as defined in Annex 1:Glossary to Planning Policy For Traveller Sites, or any subsequent revision or replacement.

2) The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr Gary Smith, Ms

Lacey Brazil, Mr Anthony Lamb, Mrs Charmaine Lamb, Mr Rueben Buckland, Mrs Jane Buckland, Mr Dean Jones, Mrs Marie Jones, Mr Jordan Miller, Mrs

Fallon Miller, Mr Lou Ayres, and Mrs Rose Ayres, and their resident dependent children, and shall be for a limited period being the period of 5 years from the date of this permission, or the period during which the premises are occupied

by them, whichever is the shorter.

3) When the land ceases to be occupied by Mr Gary Smith, Ms Lacey Brazil,

Mr Anthony Lamb, Mrs Charmaine Lamb, Mr Rueben Buckland, Mrs Jane Buckland, Mr Dean Jones, Mrs Marie Jones, Mr Jordan Miller, Mrs Fallon Miller,

Mr Lou Ayres, and Mrs Rose Ayres, or at the end of the specified 5 years, whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease, all materials and equipment brought on to the premises in connection with the use shall be

removed and the land restored to its former condition.

4) No more than 2 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of

Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, of which no more than 1 shall be a static caravan, shall be stationed on any pitch at any time, and no more than 12 caravans, of which no more than 6 shall be a static

caravan, shall be stationed on the land at any time.

5) The use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, structures,

equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within 28 days of the date of failure to meet any one the requirements set out in (i) to (iv) below:

i) within 3 months of the date of this decision a scheme, hereafter referred to as the Site Development Scheme, including details of:

proposed and existing external lighting on the boundary of and within the site; the internal layout of the site, including the siting of caravans; the means of foul and surface water drainage of the site;

areas of hardstanding; fencing and other means of enclosure, along with details of existing fencing, means of enclosure and hardstanding

to be removed; tree, hedge and shrub planting, including details of species, plant sizes and proposed numbers and densities; and the restoration of the site, shall have been submitted for the written

approval of the local planning authority and the said scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation.

ii) within 6 months of the date of this decision the site development scheme shall have been approved by the local planning authority or, if the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme, or fail to

give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of

State.


15

iii) if an appeal is made in pursuance of (ii) above, that appeal shall have

been finally determined and the submitted site development scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State.

iv) the approved scheme shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable, and works comprised in the scheme shall be thereafter retained for the duration of the

development.

6) No more than one commercial vehicle per pitch shall be kept on the land

for use by the occupiers of the caravans hereby permitted, and it shall not exceed 3.5 tonnes in weight.

7) No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the

storage of materials.

8) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates or walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected, and no areas of hardstanding

installed, other than those approved under condition 5 above.

9) Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a scheme shall be

submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing showing how a safe pedestrian evacuation route can be provided in case of flooding. The approved scheme shall be implemented within 2 months of written approval.

10) Within 3 months of the date of planning permission, visibility splays shall be provided from a point 0.6m above ground level at the centre of the access

to the application site and 2.4 metres back from the near side edge of the adjoining carriageway, (measured perpendicularly), for a distance of 43 metres to the west, and 160m to the east along the nearside edge of the

adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected and/or allowed to grow on the triangular area of land so formed which would obstruct the

visibility described above.

11) Any new access gates/doors shall be set back 10 metres from the adjoining carriageway edge, and shall be made to open inwards only.

Appeal C - APP/J1860/W/15/3005906

1. The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and

travellers as defined in Annex 1: Glossary to Planning Policy For Traveller Sites, or any subsequent revision or replacement.

2. The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr Gary Smith, Ms

Lacey Brazil, Mr Anthony Lamb, Mrs Charmaine Lamb, Mr Rueben Buckland, Mrs Jane Buckland, Mr Dean Jones, Mrs Marie Jones, Mr Jordan Miller, Mrs

Fallon Miller, Mr Lou Ayres, and Mrs Rose Ayres, and their resident dependent children, and shall be for a limited period being the period of 5

years from the date of this permission, or the period during which the premises are occupied by them, whichever is the shorter.

3. When the land ceases to be occupied by Mr Gary Smith, Ms Lacey Brazil, Mr

Anthony Lamb, Mrs Charmaine Lamb, Mr Rueben Buckland, Mrs Jane Buckland, Mr Dean Jones, Mrs Marie Jones, Mr Jordan Miller, Mrs Fallon

Miller, Mr Lou Ayres, and Mrs Rose Ayres, or at the end of the specified 5 years, whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease, all


16

materials and equipment brought on to the premises in connection with the

use shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition.

4. Insofar as it relates to the land for which planning permission is granted, the

use hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans; location plan scale 1:2500 reference GS14-SLP date stamped 5 June 2014, proposed site layout plan 1429/020D, proposed day room plan and

elevations ref 1429/03.

5. No more than 2 caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of

Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, of which no more than 1 shall be a static caravan, shall be stationed on any pitch at any time, and no more than 12 caravans, of which no more than 6 shall be a static

caravan, shall be stationed on the land at any time.

6. The use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, structures,

equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within 28 days of the date of failure to meet any one the requirements set out in (i) to (iv) below:

i) within 3 months of the date of this decision a scheme, hereafter referred to as the Site Development Scheme, including details of:

proposed and existing external lighting on the boundary of and within the site; the internal layout of the site, including the siting of caravans; the means of foul and surface water drainage of the site;

areas of hardstanding; fencing and other means of enclosure, along with details of existing fencing, means of enclosure and hardstanding

to be removed; tree, hedge and shrub planting, including details of species, plant sizes and proposed numbers and densities; and the restoration of the site, shall have been submitted for the written

approval of the local planning authority and the said scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation.

ii) within 6 months of the date of this decision the site development scheme shall have been approved by the local planning authority or, if the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme, or fail to

give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of

State.

iii) if an appeal is made in pursuance of (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted site development scheme

shall have been approved by the Secretary of State.

iv) the approved scheme shall have been carried out and completed in

accordance with the approved timetable, and works comprised in the scheme shall be thereafter retained for the duration of the

development.

7. The amenity blocks hereby permitted shall not be erected until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the

amenity blocks and full details of their finished floor levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

8. No more than one commercial vehicle per pitch shall be kept on the land for use by the occupiers of the caravans hereby permitted, and it shall not

exceed 3.5 tonnes in weight.


17

9. No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of

materials.

10.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates or walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected, and no areas of

hardstanding installed, other than those approved under condition 6 above.

11.Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a scheme shall be submitted

to the local planning authority for approval in writing showing how a safe pedestrian evacuation route can be provided in case of flooding. The approved scheme shall be implemented within 2 months of written approval.

12.Within 3 months of the date of planning permission, visibility splays shall be provided from a point 0.6m above ground level at the centre of the access to

the application site and 2.4 metres back from the near side edge of the adjoining carriageway, (measured perpendicularly), for a distance of 43 metres to the west, and 160m to the east along the nearside edge of the

adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected and/or allowed to grow on the triangular area of land so formed which would obstruct the

visibility described above.

13.Any new access gates/doors shall be set back 10 metres from the adjoining carriageway edge, and shall be made to open inwards only.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision Hearing Held on 17 October 2017

Site visit made on 17 October 2017

by Lesley Coffey BA Hons BTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 01 February 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/W/17/3176865 Windmill Farm, Yaugher Lane, Hartlip, Sittingbourne, ME9 7XE



The appeal is made by Mrs G Cooper against the decision of Swale Borough Council.

The application Ref 16/505491/FULL, dated 27 June 2016, was refused by notice dated

31 January 2017.

The development proposed is the renewal of temporary planning permission

SW/13/0277 “Change of Use for the siting of two mobile homes; the erection of two

utility blocks; and associated fencing, parking and landscaping for use by a Gypsy

family.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the siting of two

mobile homes; the retention of the existing utility block; and the erection of an additional utility block; and associated fencing, parking and landscaping for use by a Gypsy family at Windmill Farm, Yaugher Lane, Hartlip, Sittingbourne, ME9

7XE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 16/505491/FULL, dated 27 June 2016, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions

in the attached schedule.

Preliminary Matters

2. The appeal seeks to continue the use of the site for the siting of two mobile homes. Planning permission for the use was first granted in 2013 for a temporary period of three years. An application to continue the use of the site

was refused in January 2017 and that application is the subject of this appeal.

3. The Swale Borough Local Plan was adopted by the Council on 26 July 2017 and

the policies within it supersede those referred to in the Council’s decision. I have considered the appeal accordingly.

4. The appellant is a Romani gypsy. Evidence was submitted to show that the

family travel for work for a significant part of the year. They also attend various fairs and horse fairs. The Council accepts that the appellant and her

family have gyspy status for the purposes of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) and having regard to the submitted evidence I have no reason to disagree.


Appeal Decision APP/V2255/W/17/3176865

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Main Issues

5. I consider the main issues to be:

Whether occupants of the site would have satisfactory access to services; and

Whether any harm would be outweighed by other material considerations including the general need for and supply of gypsy sites, the accommodation needs and personal circumstances of the appellants, to lead to the grant of a

permanent planning permission.

Reasons

6. The appeal site is located on Yaugher Lane, south of Hartlip. It is accessed via a private drive and is occupied by 2 static caravans/mobile homes and a day room. The previous consent included a second day room/utility block but this

has not yet been constructed. There is a parking area to the eastern end and a hedgerow has been planted along the northern boundary with the adjacent

field.

7. Policy DM10 of the Local Plan sets out the Council’s policy in relation to the provision of gypsy and traveller sites. Part B states that the Council will grant

planning permission for sites subject to a number of criteria. The Council consider that the proposal would conflict with criterion 1, which requires

proposals to accord with the settlement hierarchy at ST3. Policy DM10 allows for some exceptions to criterion 1, including where there are exceptional mitigating and/or personal circumstances and where the appellant has

demonstrated that a particular site is required to meet their needs and where there is no overriding harm to the locality.

8. Policy ST3 adopts a hierarchical settlement strategy and directs most development to Sittingbourne, followed by Faversham and Sheerness. In locations within the open countryside, such as where the appeal site is located,

development is not permitted unless it is supported by national planning policy.

9. Policy DM14 sets out general development criteria. The Council consider that

the proposal would fail to comply with criterions 1 and 10. Criterion 1 requires proposals to comply with other development plan policies. Criterion 10 requires safe vehicular access, convenient routes and facilities for pedestrians

and cyclists, enhanced public transport facilities and services.

10. PPTS provides the national planning policy context for traveller sites. Although

it does not preclude gypsy and traveller sites within the countryside it states that local planning authorities should very strictly control new traveller sites within the open countryside that is away from existing settlements. Whilst

PPTS seeks to promote more private sites and reduce the number of unauthorised developments/ encampments, it also states that such sites should

be in an appropriate location and to have due regard to the protection of the environment.

11. The proposal does not accord with the settlement strategy at policy ST3. The appeal site is relatively small and is not visible from Yaugher Lane. There are more open views towards the north, but these are a considerable distance

away. In views from the A2 the appeal site is almost indiscernible due to the distance and intervening trees and other vegetation. The appellant has planted

a mixed hedgerow along the northern site boundary, and although this has




established, at the present time it provides only a limited degree of screening.

As it matures it would mitigate any limited views of the mobile homes from the surrounding countryside. The Council is satisfied that there would be no

significant harm to the character and appearance of the wider area and I share this view.

12. The Council considers the site to be remote from services and facilities. It

contends that occupants would be reliant on the use of a private car in order to meet their day-today needs. The appeal site is located about 1.9km from

Hartlip, which benefits from a primary school, village pub, church, and a playground. The appellant submits that the appeal site occupies a sustainable location and is close to a range of facilities at Farthing Corner motorway

services. The services are located about 2km from the appeal site and can be accessed by local roads. The facilities available include a petrol station, a M&S

Food store, a bakers and a WH Smith.

13. The Council acknowledged that it is common for gypsy and traveller sites to be located within the countryside, but the preference is for sites with good access

to services and facilities, rather than more remote locations such as the appeal site.

14. The appellant referred to an indicative map of accessibility to services which formed part of the evidence base for the Local Plan. The key provides average distances to a range of services in the south east. The appellant submitted

details of the distance of the appeal site from a range of facilities and these are generally lower than average distances shown on the accessibility map.

15. The appellant stated that the facilities at the motorway services are accessible by a PROW across the fields and therefore occupants of the site would not necessarily be reliant on the use of a car. Whilst walking across the fields may

be an option on some occasions, there will be many times when it is not suitable due to weather or the time of day. The roads in the vicinity of the

appeal site are generally narrow and unlit and therefore are not likely to be attractive to pedestrians. I therefore consider that residents of the site would be reliant on the use of a car to meet their day-to-day needs and to access

many services including the school. However, the site is located about 4 km from Newington and Rainham, both of which have a range of shops and

services and therefore the journeys would not be particularly long.

16. I agree with the Council that the motorway services are unlikely to meet the day-to-day needs of the family due to the limited range of goods available and

the high cost of goods at such outlets. Moreover, the use of these services would be likely to involve the use of a car for many of the trips. Nevertheless

the proximity of the services would allow the family to meet some of their needs close to the appeal site.

17. I therefore conclude that whilst the occupants of the site would be able to access some services, they would be largely reliant on the use of the car and in this regard the proposal would not comply with Policies ST3 and DM10 of the

Local Plan.

Need for Sites

18. The Gypsy and Travelers Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) published in 2013, identified a need for 85 pitches for the period 2013 - 2031. It formed




part of the original evidence base for the Local Plan. Following revisions to

PPTS in August 2015, the Council reviewed the GTAA in order to establish the implications of the revised definition of gypsies and travellers for pitch

provision. It concluded that many of those living in Swale no longer come within the PPTS definition and consequently the need for sites was much reduced. The review found that there was a need for 61 pitches for the period

up to 2031. It considered that the immediate need had been met and the balance could be met from windfall sites.

19. The Council state that since the base date of 2013 it has permitted 56 pitches and 51 of these are now completed or occupied. It considers that on the basis of the outstanding requirement for 10 pitches it has a 7.1 year supply of

pitches. The appellant is critical of this figure, both in terms of the overall assessment of need and the number of pitches delivered since 2013.

20. The Council’s approach to the reduction in the extent of need was endorsed by the Local Plan Inspector as a well-reasoned and pragmatic solution to ensure that the Local Plan aligned with the updated PPTS. It is not a matter for this

appeal to re-visit the approach endorsed by the Local Plan Inspector. The appellant submitted an extract from a statement by Ms Heine in respect of a

recent appeal at Meads Farm Elverland Lane. This explained her concerns in relation to the Council’s approach and was considered by the Local Plan Inspector.

21. The 2013 GTAA found that there were about 48 private authorised sites within Swale. These accommodated 160 permanent pitches and 32 temporary

pitches. There were also 7 unauthorised pitches which were not tolerated and these added to the need for sites. The GTAA found a need for 35 additional pitches for the period up to 2017/18. Of these 19 arose from temporary

planning permissions due to expire in before 2017/18, and 7 were to meet the need from unauthorised development.

22. If only 19 of the 35 additional pitches required for the period up to 2017/18 were to meet the need arising from temporary pitches, it would seem that there were 13 temporary pitches where the planning permission extends

beyond 2017/18. The GTAA indicates a total need for 10 pitches for the period 20/17/18 – 2020/21. This would be insufficient to meet the remainder of the

need arising from temporary pitches, regardless of any requirement generated by new household formation or other causes. Whilst it is possible that a temporary permission granted in 2013 or before extended beyond 2020/21, in

my experience this would be very unusual. I therefore consider that it is probable that the pitch requirement for the period 2013/14 – 2020/21 exceeds

the 45 pitches identified by the GTAA.

23. The appellant referred to a number of sites with temporary planning permission

which were not represented in the GTAA. These include the appeal site where planning permission was first granted in July 2013. It is not shown in the GTAA as either an authorised pitch or an unauthorised pitch. Other sites

include One Acre and One Half Acre at Bredgar, and the Retreat at Elverland Lane. Together these sites, including the appeal site, would add a further 6

pitches to the need assessed by the GTAA.

24. The Council’s assessment of the number of pitches required was based on a review of the evidence in the GTAA. However, for the reasons given above, it

would seem that the GTTA significantly under-estimates the number of pitches




required. Consequently, the Council’s review which informed the Local Plan

examination is likely to have carried these errors forward and the need for pitches is likely to be greater than the 61 assessed by the Council. I am aware

that the Council is in the process of commissioning a new GTAA in conjunction with other Kent authorities. This should provide a more robust PPTS compliant assessment of need.

25. Since the base date of the GTAA the Council has permitted a total of 56 pitches; of which 51 have been implemented and are now occupied; 5 pitches

are yet to be implemented and form the supply.

26. The implemented pitches include 19 at Brotherhood Wood Yard, Dunkirk. At the hearing the Council explained that the permission was for 16 permanent

pitches and 3 transit pitches. Mr Jones disputes that the permission has been implemented. He contends that the site is laid out as a mobile home park and

is used to accommodate workers from abroad, and therefore the permitted scheme has not been implemented. In support of this view he submitted a site survey note from Mrs Annie Gibbs and an aerial photograph of the site.

27. Mrs Gibbs recorded that the site had no gardens or play areas, and there was a single utility block on the site. In addition, the individual pitches were not

defined. She was told that there were no children currently living on the site. She also noted that there were no UK nationals on the site and a number of cars had number plates from outside of the UK. The submitted aerial

photograph shows a formally laid out site with one large amenity block, and few, if any, touring caravans. Mr Jones also referred to a letter to the Council

from the police stating that the pitches were rented to workers from Europe.

28. There is currently an application with the Council for a layout similar to that shown on the aerial photograph submitted by the appellant. The intended use

is described as a gypsy and traveller site. The Council acknowledged that at the present time the site has not been laid out in accordance with the approved

plans and that the pitches were smaller than those permitted. The Council has served a Planning Contravention Notice on the owner of the site. This has been completed and the matter is currently under consideration.

29. The evidence presented to the hearing in relation to this appeal is recent and verified by more than one source. I consider it to be credible. It is more

substantive than that available to the Local Plan Inspector. On the basis of the submitted evidence it would seem that the Brotherhood Wood Yard site is not currently occupied by gypsies and travellers or available to them. Indeed, on

the basis of the evidence submitted to the hearing it seems doubtful that the 19 pitches relied upon by the Council were ever implemented.

30. The Council is currently investigating the situation at Brotherhood Wood Yard. The implications of its investigation are unclear at the present time, and it

could take some considerable time for this matter to be resolved. Therefore the site is not available now. Due to uncertainties regarding both the current and future use of the site I do not consider that at the present time it should be

included in the supply of available gypsy and traveller sites. Consequently the existing need for sites should be increased by 19 pitches. This represents a

residual need for at least 24 pitches based on the GTAA requirement.




31. I am aware that the Brotherhood Wood Yard site was considered at the Land at

Blind Mary’s Lane, Bredgar1 appeal and the Hawthorns, Greyhound Road appeal2. The evidence submitted to these appeals indicated that the site was

occupied by Irish Travellers and it was not excluded from the supply. It would seem that the concerns as to the manner in which the site is occupied was also brought to the attention of the Local Plan Inspector by Ms Heine. Although this

matter is not explicitly addressed in her report, it would appear that the evidence before her was less extensive that that submitted to this hearing.

She did however note that the plan would require an early review and this would necessitate both the need for and supply of traveller sites to be addressed soon after adoption.

32. For the reasons given above, and having regard to the evidence within the GTAA, and that submitted to the hearing, it would seem probable that the

GTAA considerably underestimates the true scale of the need for pitches. Consequently, when taken together with the absence of pitches on the Brotherhood Wood Yard site the need for pitches is likely to significantly exceed

that identified by the Council.

33. The evidence submitted to the hearing suggests that there is currently a supply

of 5 pitches set against a need for at least 29 pitches.3 If the appellant’s need for two pitches is included, as well as those at the other sites with temporary planning permission but not included in the GTAA, the residual need would

increase to 35 Pitches. The pitches with temporary planning permissions identified in the GTAA, but not included in Table 11.1 of the GTAA could add to

this need. Therefore the Council does not have sufficient land to provide a five year supply of pitches and the need for and supply of sites weighs in favour of the proposal.

34. I am aware that I have reached a different conclusion from the Local Plan Inspector regarding the extent of the need for pitches, however, her

conclusions were based on the submitted evidence. Whilst she endorsed the approach taken by the Council in terms of its review of the GTAA, it does not seem that there was any evidence before her to suggest that the GTAA may

have under-estimated the extent of the need.

Personal Circumstances of the Appellant

35. The appellant has a need for two pitches. One for herself, her husband and son, and one for her daughter Katy Davies and her family. I have had regard to the family’s health situation and that adds significant weight to the need for

a settled base for access to specialist health services, as well as to education.

36. The Council is sympathetic to the family’s compelling personal circumstances.

The majority of sites in Swale are privately owned sites and the Council does not suggest that there are other sites available to the appellants.

37. It recognises that should the appeal be dismissed and the family required to leave the site there would be no alternative to roadside camping for the family. It stated that it would not be minded to commence enforcement proceeding

until Katy’s health had recovered.

1 Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/A/14/2222135 2 Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/W/16/3153751 3 10 identified by the GTAA + 19 to compensate for those at Brotherhood Woodyard)




38. A settled base would enable the family to access to health services, and

education. This would be in the best interest of the children, particularly the new baby who may need on-going medical care. The personal circumstances

of the family are compelling and add substantial weight in favour of the proposal.

Overall Balance

39. I found above that the site does not benefit from good access to services. In this respect it would not comply with the settlement hierarchy set out at policy

ST3. However, criterion 1 of policy DM10 provides for exceptions where there are exceptional mitigating and/or personal circumstances and where there is no over-riding harm to the locality. The Council is satisfied that the proposal

would not harm the character and appearance of the area, and for the reasons given above I take a similar view. The appellant’s personal circumstances are

compelling and exceptional. In the absence of a fixed base Katy Davies would be unable to access either the essential medical care she requires or benefit from the support of her family. I therefore conclude that the proposal would

come within the exceptional circumstances at criterion 1a. of policy DM10. Consequently the proposal would comply with policy DM10 as a whole.

40. The need for additional pitches within Swale and the absence of alternative pitches add further weight in favour of the proposal. I therefore conclude that the proposal would comply with the development plan as a whole.

Human Rights

41. Representations were made to the effect that the human rights of the appellant

and his family would be violated if the appeal were dismissed. As I have decided to allow the appeal, I do not need to deal with this matter.

Conditions

42. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in the light of the advice at paragraphs 203 and 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework

and the Planning Practice Guidance.

43. The Council suggest a temporary condition for a period of three years due to the unsustainable location of the site. It would seem that the GTAA

significantly underestimates the need for sites. At the present time there are no alternative sites available to the appellant within Swale. In order to secure

an alternative private site would involve selling their existing site. I consider this would place a considerable emotional and financial burden on the family at a time when it has other more pressing priorities. Therefore in the absence of

any harm to the wider area, I consider that a permanent permission is justified.

44. The occupation of the site should be limited to those gypsies and travellers who

meet the definition within PPTS to ensure that the site continues to contribute to meeting the need for sites within the area. In reaching my decision I have

had regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances and therefore consider that the permission should be limited to the appellant and her family. In the interest of visual amenity the site should be restored once the appellant and

her family vacate it.

45. I agree that the number of caravans on the site should be restricted in the

interests of visual amenity. No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes should be kept on the




site and no commercial activities should take place on the site in order to

protect the character and appearance of the area. In addition, the parking and turning area should be permanently retained in the interests of highway safety.

46. Whilst I understand the Council’s desire to limit the extent of light pollution, the appeal site has been occupied for a number of years and the Council has not objected to any of the existing lighting on the site. No evidence has been

submitted to suggest that the appellant intends to erect additional external lighting, and therefore I consider that a condition in relation to lighting is not

necessary.

Conclusion

47. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Lesley Coffey

INSPECTOR




APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT: Joseph G Jones

Joseph P Jones Genty Cooper


Ross McCardle

Shelly Rouse

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Councillor John Wright

DOCUMENTS

1 Update in relation to Katy Davies health issues submitted by the appellant

2 3

4

5 6

7

8

Note of Annie Gibb’s visit to Brotherhood Wood Yard Site submitted by the appellant Traveller caravan count January 2017 submitted by the appellant

Aerial photograph and layout plan for Brotherhood Wood Yard site submitted by the appellant

Additional health information in relation to Katy Davies submitted by the Council Methodology for the Swale Borough SHLAA (2009) submitted by

the Council Indicative map of accessibility to services submitted by the

Council Schedule of private gypsy sites in Swale submitted by the Council




Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/W/17/3176865

Schedule of conditions

1) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and

travellers as defined in Annex 1: Glossary of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (or its equivalent in replacement national policy).

2) The occupation of the site hereby permitted shall be carried on only by

the following and their resident dependants: Gentilia Cooper, Mr Colin Davies, Mr Luke Davies, Mrs Katy Davies and Mr Stephen Hatton.

3) When the land ceases to be occupied by those named in condition 2 above the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, structures, materials and equipment brought on to or erected on the land, and/or

works undertaken to it in connection with the use, shall be removed and the land shall be restored to its condition before the development took

place.

4) There shall be no more than 2 pitches on the overall site and on each of

the 2 pitches hereby approved no more than two caravans (as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 as amended), shall be stationed at any time, of which only

one caravan shall be a static caravan.

5) No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the

storage of materials.

6) No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on this site.

7) The area shown on plan 461/02E as vehicle parking and turning space shall be permanently retained and kept available at all times for the

parking of vehicles.

8) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans 461/02E and 461/03A.



Appeal Decisions Hearing Held on 13 June 2018

Site visit made on 13 June 2018

by Chris Preston BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 16 July 2018

Appeal A Ref: APP/L1765/C/17/3184051 Appeal B Ref: APP/L1765/C/17/3184052 Appeal C Ref: APP/L1765/C/17/3184053

Appeal D Ref: APP/L1765/C/17/3184054 Land adjacent to Berkeley Farm, Durley Street, Durley, Hampshire

The appeals are made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as


The appeals are made by Mr T Keet (Appeal A), Mr B Keet (Appeal B), Mr J Saunders

(Appeal C) & Mr T Castle (Appeal D) against an enforcement notice issued by

Winchester City Council.

The enforcement notice was issued on 15 August 2017. The Council’s reference number

is 17/00166/CARAVN

The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is:

Without planning permission, the material change of use of the Land from agricultural

use to use as a site for caravans for residential use together with ancillary operational/

engineering development including but not limited to:

i) The construction of day rooms (shown marked in their approximate position with

an “X” on the attached plan;

ii) The erection of fences;

iii) The installation of areas [of] decking;

iv) The laying of rubble and gravel to create hard standings and a track (shown in its

approximate position shown hatched in green on the attached plan); and

v) The installation of water supplies and drainage

The requirements of the notice are:

i) Cease the use of the Land as a residential caravan site;

ii) Remove from the Land all caravans (static/mobile homes and touring caravans),

vehicles and trailers, and all residential and domestic paraphernalia;

iii) Remove from the Land the fences that divide each plot;

iv) Remove from the Land the day rooms and all areas of decking;

v) Dig up and remove the track, hardstandings, rubble and gravel from the Land;

vi) Remove the water supply and drainage from the Land and refill the resulting holes

following the removal of the water supply and drainage;

vii) Return the Land to its condition and appearance as agricultural land that is clear,

level and seeded to grass after compliance with steps (i) to (vi).

The period for compliance with the requirements is: Steps (i) and (ii) 6 months after

the notice takes effect; Steps (iii) to (vi) 7 months after the notice takes effect; and

Step (vii) 8 months after the notice takes effect.

Appeal A is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a) and (g) of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Since an appeal has been brought on

ground (a), an application for planning permission is deemed to have been made under

section 177(5) of the Act. Appeals B, C & D are proceeding on ground (g). Since the

prescribed fees have not been paid within the specified period in respect of Appeals B, C

& D, the appeals on ground (a) and the applications for planning permission deemed to


Appeal Decisions APP/L1765/C/17/3184051, 52, 53, & 54 & APP/L1765/W/17/3184059


have been made under section 177(5) of the Act have lapsed in relation to those

appeals.

Appeal E Ref: APP/L1765/W/17/3184059 Land opposite Forge Cottage, Durley Street, Durley, Winchester



The appeal is made by Mr T Keet against the decision of Winchester City Council.

The application Ref 16/03090/FUL, dated 25 October 2016, was refused by notice dated

30 May 2017.

The development proposed is: The use of land as a gypsy and traveller caravan site

consisting of 4 no. pitches, each containing 1 no. mobile home, 1 no. touring caravan; 1

no. semi-detached utility building; play area; and associated development.

Decision on Appeal A

1. It is directed that the enforcement notice be varied by the deletion of the time periods for compliance set out in section 6 and the substitution for the

following time periods: For step (i) 6 months after this notice takes effect and, For steps (ii) to (vii) 12 months after this notice takes effect. Subject to these variations the appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld, and

planning permission is refused on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended.

Decisions on Appeals B, C & D

2. It is directed that the enforcement notice be varied by the deletion of the time periods for compliance set out in section 6 and the substitution for the

following time periods: For step (i) 6 months after this notice takes effect and, For steps (ii) to (vii) 12 months after this notice takes effect. Subject to these

variations the appeals are dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld.

Decision in Relation to Appeal E

3. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the use of land as

a gypsy and traveller caravan site consisting of 4 no. pitches, each containing 1 no. mobile home and 1 no. touring caravan and for the erection of 2 semi-

detached utility buildings, a play area and associated development at Land opposite Forge Cottage, Durley Street, Durley, Winchester in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 16/03090/FUL, dated 25 October 2016, and

the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions that are appended to this decision.

Preliminary and Procedural Matters

4. Five appeals are before me for determination and I have referred to them as appeals A, B, C, D and E, as set out in the banner heading above. Four of

those appeals are made against the Council’s decision to serve an enforcement notice and the fifth is made against its decision to refuse to grant planning

permission. The relevant fee was only paid in relation to one of the enforcement appeals, as is often the case where multiple appellants appeal against the same notice. Accordingly, the appeal on ground (a) will only be

considered in relation to Appeal A and Appeals B, C and D will proceed on ground (g) alone.




5. In terms of chronology, the planning application was submitted to the Council

before any development took place and the site was occupied shortly after the decision to refuse the application. The description of the site address on the

application form was different from the address used by the Council in relation to the enforcement notice. However, although there is a minor difference between the red line boundary on the site location plan which depicts the

application site and the red line boundary on the plan attached to the enforcement notice, the two are broadly similar and cover the same site.

6. The description of development given on the application form in relation to Appeal E refers to the use of land. The proposed utility buildings would amount to operational development and, for clarity, I have amended the description of

development in my formal decision to include reference to the ‘erection of’ those buildings.

7. Where an appeal against an enforcement notice is made on ground (a), it is necessary to consider whether to grant planning permission for the matters stated in the enforcement notice. As described above, those matters relate to

a material change of use to use as a caravan site for residential use, with ancillary operational and engineering operations. The operational development

and engineering works are specifically listed within the notice and the scope of the appeal on ground (a) is defined by that description.

8. There are a number of differences between the development that has taken

place and the layout put forward in the “site layout & detailed landscape proposals plan” (the site layout plan) that was submitted with the application1.

The number of pitches is the same but the exact position of those pitches is different. As a result, the fences and hedges demarcating the pitches are not as shown on the site layout plan and the areas of hardstanding have not been

developed as shown. Decking areas have been erected around the static caravans whereas none were shown on the site layout plan. Wooden sheds/

huts have been erected for use as storage/ for day rooms and those are different to the day rooms shown on the site layout plan in terms of their materials, design and location. The central play space has not been created as

shown and the soft landscaping shown on the site layout plan has not been carried out.

9. Individually, those components are relatively small but the cumulative effect is that the development as undertaken is quite different in terms of its character when compared to that proposed in the application. The appellant indicated

that the differences were due to the fact that the families did not wish to invest in more permanent day room facilities or undertake other landscaping without

knowing whether planning permission would be granted for the use of the site. That is an understandable position. Nonetheless, I must consider the appeal

on ground (a) on the basis of the description of development as set out in the enforcement notice and the development that was on the ground at the time the notice was issued.

10. The agent for the appellant accepted at the Hearing that the current layout has caused some harm in terms of landscape impact and suggested that the layout

could be made to comply with that shown on the site layout plan through the imposition of conditions, if I was minded to grant planning permission. However, in line with the view of the Council, I have reservations about that

1 Drawing number TDA.2219.05 revision A




approach. In essence, the question is whether the suggested conditions would

change the scope of the appeal under ground (a) to such a degree that it would amount to the approval of a different form of development than that described

in the notice.

11. On balance, I consider that would be the case in this instance due to the cumulative effect of the various differences between what has occurred and

what was proposed. The use of the land may be the same but the layout, buildings and hard surfaces are materially different. The suggested conditions

in relation to the appeal on ground (a)2 would also require elements of development to be carried out that fall outside of the description of the breach, including the construction of the day rooms; buildings that would undoubtedly

require planning permission in their own right. That reinforces my view that the suggested conditions seek to secure a remedy by way of developing a

scheme that is quite different to that enforced against. The correct place to consider that scheme is in relation to the appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission. Likewise, the correct approach to assessing the appeal on

ground (a) is to consider the development as undertaken and that is how I shall proceed.

12. I appreciate that there may be circumstances where the imposition of a ‘site development scheme’ condition may be appropriate to secure alterations to existing site layouts. The appellant has referred to an enforcement appeal

decision relating to a site in Sevenoaks where the Inspector imposed such a condition3. However, the question of whether the changes are so substantial

as to amount to a different scheme will always be a matter of fact and degree in any given case. I cannot be certain of the specific details of the Sevenoaks case and it does not alter my conclusion on the correct approach in this

instance.

13. In terms of the structure of my decision, the main issues in relation to Appeal A

on ground (a) and Appeal E are the same. The issue of the need for, and supply of, gypsy and traveller sites is common to both and my conclusions on those matters are not affected by the differences in layout described above.

Consequently, I have considered that issue first. Following that I have considered each appeal individually in terms of the other main issues due to

the differences between the two schemes, starting with Appeal E.

14. Within the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) the parties agree that all of the residents on site fall within the definition of “gypsies and travellers” as set

out at Annex 1 of the Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (August 2015) (PPTS). Having regard to the information before me, including the

assessment of the County Council’s Gypsy Liaison Officer, the families are ethnically Romany Gypsies falling within the definition and I have no reason to

doubt the agreed position.

Appeal A on Ground (a) and Appeal E

15. The main issues in respect of both are:

i) Whether there is a need for additional gypsy and traveller sites in the area and, if so, if there is sufficient provision to meet those needs;

2 As appended to the Statement of Common Ground 3 APP/G2245/C/15/3134905, APP/G2245/C/15/3134906, APP/G2245/W/15/3025094




ii) The effect of the development on the landscape character and

appearance of the countryside;

iii) Whether the development is contrary to the relevant policies of the

development plan and, if so;

iv) Whether the conflict with the development plan is outweighed by other material considerations to the extent that planning permission should be

granted.

Whether there is a need for additional gypsy and traveller sites in the area

and, if so, if there is sufficient provision to meet those needs – As Applicable to Appeal A on Ground (a) and Appeal E

16. The Winchester District Local Plan Part 2: Development Management and Site

Allocations (LPP2) was adopted as recently as April 2017. Policy DM4, entitled “Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpersons”, states the following:

Planning permission will be granted for pitches to meet the accommodation needs for the area covered by this Plan for people falling within the definition of ‘travellers’, of about 15 gypsy/ traveller pitches and about 24 travelling

showperson’s plots between 2016 and 2031.

Sites will be identified and consent granted as necessary to meet identified

traveller needs in the Plan area which could not otherwise be met, subject to the criteria outlined in Policy CP5. Proposals for transit sites will be considered on an individual basis, following the criteria of CP5.

17. The figure of ‘about 15’ gypsy/ traveller pitches derives from the Winchester Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment – Need Summary Report

which was published in October 2016 (the 2016 GTAA). That report was before the Local Plan Inspector and the Plan would have been subject to consultation. Although I have not been provided with the Inspector’s comments, it is

reasonable to conclude that the evidence was properly considered as part of the plan making process.

18. As a result of that process, the figures within policy DM4 now form part of the adopted development plan and, in line with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan remains the starting

point for the assessment of planning applications.

19. The LPP2 does not allocate sites to meet the needs identified in policy DM4.

That is the aim of the emerging Winchester District: Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (the Traveller DPD). From information given at the Hearing I understand that the document has been

subject to consultation and has now been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination. An Inspector has been appointed but no dates

for the examination have been set. As noted in the SoCG there are outstanding objections to the DPD, including an objection from Dr Murdoch, the

agent for the appellant in this case, regarding the robustness of the data that underpins the assessment of need.

20. It is a moot point whether those matters would be re-examined in relation to

the Traveller DPD which has a specific aim of allocating sites. However, the precise scope of that examination will be a matter for the relevant Inspector. I

cannot pre-judge any of those matters and, as such, cannot draw any




meaningful conclusions on the likely outcome of the examination. Accordingly,

the weight that I can attach to the Traveller DPD is limited, having regard to paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

21. Therefore, at the present time, no sites have been identified in the development plan to meet the need identified in policy DM4. Nonetheless, the Council maintains that it can demonstrate a five year supply of sites based on a

combination of predicted windfall sites that it expects to secure planning permission within the next five years, and a site that is currently vacant. Table

8, produced in the “Local Planning Authority Response to Appellant’s Hearing Statement and Landscape Statement” identifies a five year requirement of an additional 2 pitches for the five year period from September 2017 to August

2022. Whilst the appellant disagrees with the Council’s conclusions on the need for sites and the methodology of the 2016 GTAA, he was satisfied that the

mathematics behind the data produced at Table 8 was accurate, if based on the Council’s own figures.

22. Against that requirement for 2 pitches, the Council maintains it can

demonstrate a supply of 6 pitches, 1 vacant site and 5 windfall sites. In line with footnote 4 to paragraph 10 of the PPTS to be considered deliverable, sites

should be available now, offer a suitable location for development and be achievable with a realistic prospect that development will be delivered on the site within the next five years.

23. No details of the vacant site have been provided. It does not necessarily follow that it is available because it is vacant and that may depend on the ownership

of the site and whether any former occupants intend to re-use the site in future. Consequently, on the information before me, there is uncertainty in that regard.

24. Furthermore, reliance upon an assumed windfall of sites that may achieve planning permission in the future is not consistent with those criteria. I am not

satisfied that the sites without planning permission are “available now”. The three windfall sites relied upon are sites put forward by the Council within the Traveller DPD4. As stated above, that has yet to be examined and the

Inspector will no doubt have to consider each site, taking account of any representations received. Whether the sites will be considered acceptable for

inclusion within the DPD is unknown.

25. At the Hearing, the Council did provide an update to state that planning permission has now been granted for three permanent pitches at ‘Ourlands’,

which is one of the sites put forward in the Traveller DPD. I was not provided with a copy of the decision but have no reason to doubt that is the case. On

the Council’s assessment that permission would be sufficient to meet the five year need for 2 additional pitches, with a marginal surplus of 1.

26. However, I am mindful that the figure of ‘about 15’ additional pitches was considered to be the minimum of what would be required within the 2016 GTAA. A key component of the assessment of future need was based upon

interviews carried out with existing gypsy and traveller households. Those interviews were used to assess whether the households fell within the definition

of gypsies and travellers set out in Annex 1 of the PPTS and to assess the likely future needs of those households.

4 The Piggeries, Ourlands and Land adjacent Gravel Hill, Swanmore




27. The subsequent analysis of need within the 2016 GTAA only related to those

considered to fall within the PPTS definition. How the Council anticipates meeting the needs of those who may be ethnically gypsies or travellers but do

not fall within the definition is not clear. As a result of the interviews 20 households were determined to fall within the new definition, 18 were considered to be outside the definition and 11 were ‘unknown’, either as a

result of a refusal to take part or because the households could not be contacted5.

28. Of the interviews that did take place, approximately half of the households were considered to fall within the PPTS definition. However, an allowance of only 10% is made for the 11 ‘unknown’ households within the 2016 GTAA i.e.

only one in ten is considered likely to fall within the definition. The report suggests that the 10% figure is based on the national average of surveys

carried out by ORS – the consultants who prepared the 2016 GTAA – but no analysis of those figures is provided. I can see no obvious reason why the proportion would be so much lower than that for other local households, or why

a national figure should be preferred over more localised evidence, especially when the issue in question is one of local needs. It seems likely to me that

significantly more of the ‘unknown’ households would fall within the PPTS definition.

29. Seven of those unknown households were living on unauthorised sites. The

2016 GTAA concludes that the overall level of need could rise by up to 11 pitches if information was made available to the Council that those ‘unknown’

households did meet the PPTS definition (based upon the existing seven pitches plus an additional 4 from new household formation)6. In other words, the figure of ‘about 15’ within policy DM4 may need to rise if additional evidence of

unknown need comes to light.

30. Five of the ‘unknown’ households occupy sites that are put forward by the

Council within the Traveller DPD, four at The Piggeries and one at land adjacent to Gravel Hill7. Clearly, the intention of the Traveller DPD is to allocate sites to meet the needs of gypsies and travellers who meet the definition. In putting

forward The Piggeries and land adjacent to Gravel Hill the Traveller DPD states that “this strategy will, however, not only secure the planning status of the

sites for the current occupants, contributing to the specified need (my emphasis), but also provide certainty in relation to the delivery of sites to meet the needs in Policy DM4”8.

31. In other words, there appears to be an acceptance within the Traveller DPD that the present occupants of those sites contribute to the need for gypsy and

traveller sites within the area. However, those occupants were not considered to contribute towards need within the 2016 GTAA because they fell into the

‘unknown’ household category. If those households do fall within the definition, as seems likely having regard to the Traveller DPD, the overall need would be greater than the figure of 15. Thus, the Council is putting forward

those sites to meet future needs but does not appear to have factored in the needs of the present occupants in determining the overall pitch requirement.

5 Figure 3, produced at page 21 of the 2016 GTAA 6 Paragraph 5.23 of the 2016 GTAA 7 Figure 1 of the 2016 GTAA 8 Paragraph 4.9




32. If those households are added to the assessment of need, or an appropriate

allowance is applied to the ‘unknown’ households, the need would be greater than that identified by the Council. That need would also appear to be an

immediate need, given that the households are already resident in the area. Having regard to those matters, it appears to me that the five-year need is likely to be somewhat greater than the 2 additional pitches, based upon the

Council’s own approach and methodology. Given my comments on the limited available supply of sites, as set out above, I am not satisfied that the Council is

able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable sites to meet that need.

33. As noted, my conclusions in that regard are based purely on an analysis of the Council’s own data, including the 2016 GTAA and the Traveller DPD. None of

those documents take account of the needs of the present occupants of the site. The families were not interviewed as part of the 2016 GTAA and their

needs were not accounted for in that assessment. The Council does not explicitly dispute that the families have accommodation needs relating to the local area.

34. The planning application had been submitted in October 2016 and the surveys and interviews conducted to inform the 2016 GTAA were completed early in

October 2016. Had the application been made a few weeks earlier, the Council would have been aware of the appellants’ circumstances and that may well have prompted ORS, who produced the 2016 GTAA to interview them as part

of the process. It strikes me that assessing local needs is not an exact science and there will be cases, particularly where travelling families are involved,

when particular households may be missed in surveys. That does not dictate that their needs should not be taken into account, particularly if those families have a local connection and local need relating to their circumstances.

35. From the information provided by the Gypsy Liaison Officer (GLO) at the County Council the families have roots in the local area. The GLO also noted

that there were no vacancies on sites in Hampshire which were previously owned by the County Council and that the one remaining Council owned site had six applicants on the waiting list but was also “in the wrong area to satisfy

the accommodation needs of these families”. Having regard to that and the other information before me I am satisfied that the needs of the families are

for accommodation in the local area. Therefore, it is reasonable take account of their needs for a permanent residential base in the local area into account when assessing need more generally.

36. That approach is consistent with the recommendation in the 2016 GTAA and paragraph 11 of the PPTS, that Council’s should develop criteria based policies

for assessing applications in relation to unknown households who provide evidence that they meet the definition.

37. In terms of policy DM4 of the LPP2, the approval of four pitches at the appeal site may result in slightly more than 15 pitches being approved over the plan period if the currently envisaged sites in the Traveller DPD also secure

permanent planning permission. However, the wording of the policy contains a built in degree of flexibility in that it states that permission will be granted for

“about 15” pitches. The evidence base behind the 2016 GTAA also acknowledges that the level of need may be greater depending on the status of the ‘unknown’ households. The policy does not expressly state that permission

should be refused for any pitches over that number and, in view of the




flexibility within the policy and the evidence base, an approval of four pitches

at the appeal site would not be of such a scale as to increase numbers materially beyond what was envisaged in the development plan.

38. Moreover, the policy states that “sites will be identified and consent granted as necessary to meet identified traveller needs in the Plan area which could not otherwise be met, subject to the criteria outlined in policy CP5”. I have

concluded that there is an unmet need for additional permanent gypsy and traveller pitches and am not satisfied that the Council is able to demonstrate a

five-year supply of sites to meet that need. The Council does not allege any conflict with the criteria based policy CP5 and, on that basis, I find no conflict with the aims of policy DM4.

39. In reaching those conclusions I have based my decision on the adopted planning policy position and the evidence base that underpinned that policy. I

appreciate that Dr Murdoch has raised a number of objections relating to the methodology and conclusions of that evidence base. The matters raised include, amongst other things, concern that the interview questions led to a

fundamental miscalculation whether people met the gypsy and traveller definition; concerns that the surveys were carried out at the wrong time of

year during the travelling season; a failure to take account of any allowance for people living in bricks and mortar; and a failure to make an allowance for families living on unauthorised sites.

40. As noted above, those matters would more appropriately have been submitted at the consultation stage relating to the LPP2. How the examining Inspector in

relation to the Traveller DPD deals with the submissions will be a matter for him or her. However, I see no reason to address those matters here because there is no suggestion that the current evidence over-estimates the need for

sites. Given that I have concluded that there is an unmet need based upon that evidence consideration of the matters raised would not lead me to a

different conclusion.

CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL E

The effect of the development on the landscape character and appearance

of the countryside

41. The appeal site relates to a roughly rectangular parcel of land, formerly used as

a paddock for horse grazing, situated to the west of Durley Street, adjacent to Berkeley Farm. Durley Street is a linear settlement with houses and farmsteads strung out along the roadside. The majority of the built

development is situated to the south and east of the road although a number of farms and houses are scattered more loosely to the north and west. The site is

located within the countryside for the purposes of the development plan but is not subject to any particular landscape designation in terms of planning policy.

42. The Council has produced the Winchester District Landscape Character Assessment (2004) (the WDLCA) which breaks down the district into broad landscape types and more local character areas. The area falls within the

‘Mixed Farmland & Woodland Landscape Type’ and the ‘Durley Claylands’ character area. I took the opportunity to view the site from surrounding roads

and footpaths and walked a number of other footpaths around the settlement to appreciate its character. The small paddock at the appeal site and the




surrounding fields and woodland is typical of the local landscape as described in

the WDLCA, as is the low density and sprawling nature of the settlement.

43. In particular, I noted a predominance of small enclosed fields on either side of

the main road adjacent to the village and a tendency for the enclosures to become slightly larger as one moves further into the countryside. The effect of that pattern of development is an intimate association between the built form

of the village and the surrounding fields. When combined with the mature trees and hedgerows, the low lying and gently undulating topography limits

views of the site from the wider area.

44. In terms of visual impact the primary vantage points of the site are from the road to the front and the public footpath which passes to the north and east.

The proposed layout plan shows that the pitches and the associated caravans and built development would be situated well within the confines of the site,

surrounded by existing and proposed landscaping. Gaps in the hedgerow would be filled with native species and a buffer zone of native understorey planting would be created to the rear of the existing hedgerow. The retention

and reinforcement of the hedgerow would ensure that a key feature of the local landscape would be retained.

45. Whilst some views of the internal areas would be possible, particularly in the winter months, the density of caravans and buildings would be low. In addition, the site layout plan indicates that the caravans and buildings would

be sited towards the south-western edge of the site, adjacent to the existing buildings at Berkeley Farm. That would help to minimise views from the

footpath to the north, as would the internal planting that is designed to delineate the plots within the site. The low density nature of the development and careful attention to the siting of units and buildings would ensure that the

built form did not dominate the surrounding character. From the outside looking in I am satisfied that the prevailing sense would be of a paddock with

some buildings within it.

46. That would not be unduly out of character with the surrounding landscape, particularly the fields and paddocks immediately adjacent to the settlement

where stables, agricultural buildings and other structures are relatively common. By virtue of their design and materials, the caravans would

undoubtedly have an appearance that is at odds with the more rustic feel of the other buildings referred to above. The development would also have a suburbanising effect through the introduction of structures and hard standings.

Nonetheless, I am satisfied that careful siting and landscaping as proposed would avoid any undue harm. The low roof height of the structures would help

in that regard.

47. Furthermore, the site is closely adjacent to existing buildings and the linear

nature of the settlement is one of its defining features. A small and well-planned addition in an enclosed paddock would not bring about any major change to the prevailing character of the village. The site is adjacent to a well-

used rural road adjacent to other houses. As such, I see no reason why the residential use would lead to a noticeable loss of tranquillity and any lighting

scheme could be controlled through condition to ensure that no harmful effects arise in that regard.

48. For all of those reasons I find that the development would not cause harm to

the landscape character of the area or to the character and appearance of the




settlement. In those respects it would conform to the aims of policies DM15,

DM23 and CP5 of the LPP2 and with paragraph 25 of the PPTS which states that sites in rural areas should respect the scale of and not dominate, the

nearest settled community.

Whether the development is contrary to the relevant policies of the development plan

49. For the reasons given, I find no conflict with the aims of policy DM4 on the basis that there is an identifiable need for the development and a shortage of

available and suitable alternative sites. Policy MTRA4 of the Winchester Local Plan Part 1: Joint Core Strategy (2013) (the LPP1) relates to development in the countryside and states that the local planning authority will only permit

specified types of development. The use of land as caravan sites for gypsy and traveller families is not a type of development listed within the policy.

50. Nonetheless, the Council does accept that such sites may be appropriate in countryside locations, depending upon need. I understand that all of the sites put forward within the Traveller DPD are within the countryside. That provides

an indication that the Council do envisage that development in the countryside will be necessary to meet the needs of gypsies and travellers in the district.

51. The Council does not allege that the proposal would contravene any of the criteria within policy CP5 and I concur with that view. The site is well related to the existing settlement and the development is of a modest scale such that it

would not dominate the existing village. It is accessible to local services, having regard to its rural context, adequate utility provision can be secured by

condition and no objection has been raised from the highway authority in terms of highway safety. I find that adequate visibility splays are available and the nature of the road is such that on-coming drivers would have adequate notice

of vehicles pulling out from the site. In fact, there are many driveways and access points along the road, many of which no doubt would not meet modern

standards but no accident records have been presented to indicate that there is a highway safety problem in the locality. I note concerns expressed by a neighbouring resident regarding the future maintenance of the visibility splays,

including the suggestion that land immediately to the north-east of the point of exit is not in the ownership of the appellant. That may be the case but there is

no reason to suppose that the grass verge is likely to be put to any other use such that it would impair visibility. That sliver of land is set below the level of the adjacent field to the front of the hedgerow. In practical terms it forms part

of the highway verge and it is difficult to see what other purpose the land could be put to. As such, that matter does not alter my conclusions on the safety of

the access arrangements.

52. Therefore, whilst policy MTRA4 does not provide for an exception for caravan

sites, I am satisfied that the development would not be contrary to the aims of the development plan when read as a whole.

Other Matters

53. Given that I have concluded that the development would comply with the relevant policies of the development plan it is unnecessary to undertake a

detailed balancing exercise in relation to the personal circumstances of the families who reside at the site. Nonetheless, I understand that a number of the children attend school and a letter from the educational advisor at the County




Council has been provided to that effect. Having a settled base would assist

those children in continuing their education. I am also mindful of the medical condition of one of the children who needs to attend hospital regularly. A

stable home would no doubt be a benefit in that regard. Consequently, the needs of the families, particularly the needs of the children, are factors that add weight in favour of the development.

Conditions

54. A list of suggested conditions has been forwarded by the parties as part of the

statement of common ground. If I am minded to allow the appeals I will attach those conditions that meet the tests set out in paragraph 206 of the Framework, making corrections to the wording, where necessary, for clarity

and to avoid repetition. A number of conditions would require further information to be submitted and approved in writing by the Council. Although

the scheme that has been implemented on site is not the same scheme as that put forward in Appeal E, the residential use of the site has commenced and the caravans are occupied. In view of that, rather than imposing conditions which

require information to be submitted ‘prior to first occupation’, I have worded the conditions to allow a reasonable period for the submission of further

details, and the subsequent implementation of the required details, ensuring that the conditions remain enforceable in the event of non-compliance.

55. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area conditions are

necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the plans submitted with the application and to ensure that existing planting is

retained and new landscaping is carried out in accordance with the submitted plans. For the same reason and in the interests of providing satisfactory residential environment conditions are needed to ensure that the play area is

laid out and maintained as shown on the submitted plan.

56. It is also necessary to attach a condition to ensure that the site is occupied by

gypsies or travellers, as defined in Annex 1 of the PPTS because my conclusions on need for that type of accommodation and compliance with the development plan are based upon use by people falling within that definition.

It is also necessary to limit the number of pitches to 4 because the suitability of the layout is based upon the plan depicting how that number of units can be

accommodated without causing harm to the character and appearance of the area. Similarly, it is necessary to attach a condition to ensure that the utility buildings are used for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the caravans

to ensure that those buildings serve the four families in the interests of providing satisfactory living conditions and to regulate the residential use of the

site.

57. I am satisfied that the suggested conditions to prevent commercial activity on

the site and to limit the size and number of vehicles that can be parked or stored at the site are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to ensure that the development does not have a

harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, or residents of the site itself. The condition seeking to prevent any materials being burnt on

the site seems unnecessary and onerous to me. Many homeowners will often have fires to burn garden waste and cuttings and that may well be necessary on this site from time to time given the extent of vegetation.




58. A condition to prevent the installation of external lighting unless details of such

lighting have first been submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority is required to prevent unnecessary light spillage in the interests of the

character and appearance of the area. Also for that reason I agree that a condition is required to remove permitted development rights for the erection of walls, fences and other means of enclosure. The suggested conditions

relating to the provision of bird and bat boxes, the protection of nesting birds, badgers and trees are all necessary to conserve and enhance biodiversity, in

line with the aims of paragraph 118 of the Framework. In the interests of highway safety conditions are necessary to ensure satisfactory visibility splays are maintained and to provide a surface water receptor adjacent to the site

entrance to avoid run-off onto the highway.

59. Finally, details of how foul and surface water will be disposed of should be

submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority to avoid the risk of pollution and neighbouring amenity and a condition to secure a waste management plan detailing measures for the collection of waste and recycling

is necessary in the interests of the appearance of the site and the living conditions of its residents.

Conclusion in Relation to Appeal E

60. For the reasons given above I am satisfied that there is an identified need for the proposed development taking account of the evidence base presented by

the Council and also the specific needs of the families concerned. The proposed site layout plan has been carefully considered and would mitigate the

effects on the surrounding landscape to a satisfactory degree and provide a suitable residential environment for the occupants of the site, without harming the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The proposal would meet the

criteria set out in policy CP5 and it represents a suitable scheme of a modest scale in a suitable location.

61. Any other matters can be adequately mitigated by the imposition of appropriate conditions and, subject to those conditions, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted.

CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL A ON GROUND (a)

The effect of the development on the landscape character and appearance

of the countryside

62. As noted above, the agent for the appellant accepted at the Hearing that the current layout has caused harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Mr Crandon, the appellant’s landscape architect, assessed the impact upon landscape character to be ‘moderate adverse’ without mitigation. I concur with

that assessment of the current impact. In particular, the layout of the site is markedly different to that submitted with the application in relation to the

position of the units and associated buildings. The unit on the most northerly pitch is situated closer to the site boundary and the timber sheds that have been erected in association with that unit are directly adjacent to the

hedgerow9.

63. Those timber buildings are specifically referred to in the notice and form part of

the scheme for consideration under ground (a). The position of the buildings

9 As depicted in photograph 14 at Appendix C to the Council’s statement




and the caravan is such that they are clearly visible from the footpath which

runs to the north of the site and, from those angles, the accumulation of buildings and the caravan presents a somewhat cluttered appearance within

one of the more noticeable parts of the site. That impact also detracts from the ability to appreciate the hedgerow itself which is a key feature of the local landscape.

64. I am not satisfied that impact could be adequately mitigated by additional planting due to the proximity of the buildings to the boundary of the site.

Moreover, the arrangement within the site is unregulated at present which provides an ad-hoc appearance in contrast to the layout shown on the plan where the caravans and associated fencing and landscaping would be carefully

situated.

65. As I have already explained, the required changes to make the existing layout

conform to the site layout plan submitted with the application would go beyond what could be considered to fall within the scope of the ground (a) appeal. Effectively, the layout considered in relation to Appeal E is a different scheme.

Given my conclusions in that regard, no workable alternative plan is before me to demonstrate how the adverse impact could be adequately mitigated. In the

absence of such a plan it would be difficult for the Council to monitor and enforce any changes in layout that may occur in future if caravans were moved to different locations on the site.

66. Consequently, having regard to the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area and the surrounding landscape I find that the current

layout is contrary to the aims of policy DM15 and DM23 of the LPP2, particularly with regard to the visual intrusion and proximity to the hedgerow which is a key characteristic of the landscape. The failure to maintain visual

amenity is also contrary to one of the criteria set out within policy CP5 of the LPP1.

Whether the development is contrary to the relevant policies of the development plan

67. Whilst I am satisfied that there is an established need for the development and

that the principle of developing a gypsy and traveller site within the countryside is acceptable, it is clear that the currently unregulated layout has

caused harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to relevant policies of the development plan. In addition, whilst not a point raised by the Council, the current layout fails to provide the play space shown on the

proposed layout, contrary to one of the requirements of policy CP5.

Whether any conflict with the development plan is outweighed by other

material considerations to the extent that planning permission should be granted

68. As above, the personal circumstances and best interests of the children are matters that weigh in favour of the development. Nonetheless, having regard to my conclusions in relation to Appeal E those needs could be met equally well

if the site was laid out such that it did not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, as put forward in the proposed site layout plan. I have

resolved to approve that scheme and the appellant and the other families on site would have the option to implement that development. They have




indicated a willingness to do so. In those circumstances, I see no justification

in approving the current layout.

69. I am also mindful of the fact that the site was occupied immediately following

the refusal to grant planning permission. Having regard to the Written Ministerial Statement of December 2015 intentional unauthorised development weighs against a grant of planning permission because the development took

place without an opportunity to limit or mitigate the harm caused.

Conclusion in Relation to Appeal A on ground (a)

70. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the balance of material considerations weighs strongly against the grant of planning permission for the development. I am not satisfied that the harm caused to the character and

appearance of the area can be adequately mitigated by conditions and, having regard to my decision in relation to Appeal E, I can see no justification for

approving a harmful layout when the needs of the families could be met through the development of the site in accordance with a scheme that would not cause harm. Thus, the harm caused would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits of granting permission and I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.

APPEALS A, B, C AND D ON GROUND G

71. The time periods for compliance with the requirements of the notice were phased such that the use should cease and the caravans be removed within 6

months, all buildings and fences, hard surfaces etc were to be removed within 7 months and the land restored to its former condition within 8 months. At the

Hearing, and as agreed subsequently within the SoCG, the Council indicated a willingness to extend those periods to 12 months, 18 months and 24 months.

72. The reason for that change of position was due to the personal circumstances

of the families and their need to find alternative accommodation. That circumstance will not arise as a result of my decision in relation to Appeal E.

Under the terms of section 180(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, if planning permission is granted for any development carried out before the grant of that permission, a notice shall cease to have effect so far as

inconsistent with that permission. In other words, the notice would not take effect in relation to the use of the site but would continue to take effect in

regard to those elements of the development that are inconsistent with the approved scheme. Thus, the buildings, fences, hardstandings, decking areas and drainage arrangements that are not consistent with the planning

permission granted would need to be removed.

73. In effect, the question for consideration under ground (g) is what amounts to a

reasonable period for that to occur. The agreed position between the parties allowed for a 12 month period between the cessation of the use and the

reinstatement of the land to its former condition.

74. Prior to implementing the approved scheme the appellants would need to submit details to the Council with regard to a number of conditions and have

those details approved. It seems likely that they would wish to have those details agreed before removing the unauthorised elements of the scheme so

that work on complying with the enforcement notice and implementing the planning permission could be carried out simultaneously such that they




wouldn’t be faced with a long delay without day rooms, hard surfaces or

drainage arrangements. Consequently, I find that 12 months would be a reasonable period of time to require the unauthorised elements of the scheme

to be removed because that period would also enable the relevant conditions to be discharged in relation to the approved scheme.

75. Therefore, the appeals on ground (g) succeed to that extent and I shall vary

the terms of the notice to extend the period for compliance with steps (ii) to (vii) to 12 months.

Overall Conclusion in Relation to Appeal A

76. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. I shall uphold the enforcement notice with variations and refuse to grant

planning permission on the deemed application.

Overall Conclusion in Relation to Appeals B, C and D

77. For the reasons given above I conclude that a reasonable period for compliance with steps (ii) to (vii) would be 12 months. I will vary the enforcement notice accordingly, prior to upholding it. Appeals B, C and D under ground (g)

succeed to that extent.

Chris Preston

INSPECTOR




APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Dr Angus Murdoch BA(Hons) MSC MA PhD MRTPI

Mr Rhodri Crandon Mr Tony Keet Jnr

Planning Consultant

Landscape Architect Son of Mr T Keet Snr (appellant)


Mr Stephen Cornwell Mr Steve Opacic

Mr Stuart Dunbar-Dempsey

Planning Officer Strategic Planning Projects Officer

Landscape Officer INTERESTED PERSONS:

Ms Hazel Richardson Mr Toby Ross

Mr Sam Charles Mr David McLean

Local resident Local resident

Local resident and Chair of Durley Parish Council District Councillor

Documents Submitted at the Hearing

1) Winchester District: Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document ‘Traveller DPD’, Publication (pre-submission)

version, January 2018




Appendix: Conditions in Relation to Appeal E

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

2) The site shall not be occupied by any person other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites dated August 2015 (or its equivalent in replacement national policy).

3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the detail shown on the approved drawings: TDA drawing entitled

Site Location Plan drawing number TDA.2219.03 dated September 2016; TDA drawing entitled Site Layout & Detailed Landscaping Proposals drawing number TDA.2219.05 revision A dated September 2016; TDA

drawing entitled Proposed Semi Detached Day Rooms (Plans Elevations) drawing number TDA.2219.06 dated September 2016; and TDA drawing

entitled Tree Survey Plan drawing number TDA.2219.01 dated September 2016.

4) No more than 4 pitches shall be formed on the site. A maximum of 8

caravans, as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (as amended), of which no

more than 4 shall be a static caravans / mobile homes, shall be stationed on the site at any time, the dimensions of which shall not exceed those shown for the mobile homes on the TDA drawing entitled Site Layout &

Detailed Landscaping Proposals drawing number TDA.2219.05 revision A dated September 2016.

5) The internal layout of the site including the subdivision into the four pitches, the siting of the mobile homes and the touring caravans, the day rooms, hard surfaces, boundary treatment, parking and the provision of

the play area shall conform with the details as shown on the TDA drawing entitled Site Layout & Detailed Landscaping Proposals drawing number

TDA.2219.05 revision A dated September 2016.

6) Any day room or amenity building shall only be used for ancillary purposes to the main caravan/mobile home on the respective pitch or

caravan they are associated with and intended to serve. They shall not be used to provide permanent, temporary or occasional residential overnight

accommodation by any person who is a resident occupier or visitor to the pitch or site.

7) Excluding the single tree identified to be removed on TDA drawing

entitled Tree Survey Plan drawing number TDA.2219.01 dated September 2016 all the remaining perimeter vegetation ranked A, B & C on the

above plan and annotated as "existing trees retained" on TDA drawing entitled Site Layout & Detailed Landscaping Proposals drawing number

TDA.2219.05 revision A dated September 2016 shall be retained hereafter.

8) Within the first available planting season following the residential use of

any of the mobile homes hereby permitted the site shall be landscaped in accordance with the details shown on the Site Layout & Detailed

Landscaping Proposals drawing number TDA.2219.05 revision A dated September 2016, unless an alternative timetable for implementation is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the

implementation of that planting, a schedule setting out the seed mix and




proposed seed coverage for the wildflower margins, the area of ruderal

vegetation and the proposed ornamental grass areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

9) If, within a period of 5 years after planting or seeding, any seeded area or tree or plant is removed, dies or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority seriously damaged, defective or diseased, new seed of

the same variety or another tree/plant of the same species and size as that originally approved shall be sown or planted (as appropriate) at the

same place, within the next sowing or planting season, unless the local planning authority gives it written consent to any variation.

10) Prior to the commencement of any work involved in the construction of

any of the buildings or hard surfaces hereby approved, details of a scheme for the installation of bird and bat boxes on trees within the site

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted for approval shall include details of the materials, size and design of the bird & bat boxes, the identification of

the trees where the boxes will be located, the height above ground, the orientation of the box, how the box will be attached to the tree and a

timetable for the installation of the boxes. Thereafter, the boxes shall be installed in accordance with the details so approved.

11) Prior to the commencement of any work involved in the construction of

any of the buildings or hard surfaces hereby approved, details for the installation of a surface water interceptor to be located at the entrance to

the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include details of how the intercepted water will be disposed of, measures relating to the treatment

of the access into the site to ensure that the operation of the interceptor is not inhibited by loose material, and a timetable for implementation.

Thereafter, the interceptor shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

12) No commercial activities, including the storage of materials, shall take

place on the land.

13) No more than 4 commercial vehicles shall be parked, stationed or stored

on the land for use by the occupiers of the caravans hereby permitted, and they shall not exceed 3.5 tonnes in weight.

14) Within the first available planting season following the commencement of

the residential use hereby permitted the play area as shown on the on the TDA drawing entitled Site Layout & Detailed Landscape Proposals

drawing number TDA.2219.05 revision A dated September 2016 shall be created and seeded with grass. Thereafter, that area shall be retained in

accordance with the details shown on the approved plan.

15) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order

revoking and re-enacting that Order) no other means of enclosure shall be erected within the site other than those sections of post & rail fencing

shown on the TDA drawing entitled Site Layout & Detailed Landscape Proposals drawing number TDA.2219.05 revision A dated September 2016. The lower rail shall be fixed to offer a minimum unrestricted

clearance to the ground of 300mm.




16) No external lights, fixed or freestanding, shall be installed on the site

unless details of their number, position and power have first been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The submitted

details shall include the provision to minimise light spillage and all lighting must be directional, downward facing and away from natural features.

17) Prior to the commencement of any work involved in the construction of any of the buildings or hard surfaces hereby approved an environmental

management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include an updated walk over report on the presence of badgers on the site prepared by a

competent person. In the event that badgers are found to use or occupy the site then a methodology for undertaking any work shall be submitted

to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority including details of the formation of roadways or hard surfaced areas, concrete bases, laying of pipes or installation of septic tanks) within 30 metres of the

badger sett and specifying the time of year the work will be undertaken (avoiding December through to June inclusive). Thereafter, the works

shall be undertaken in accordance with the details so approved

18) No vegetation clearance work shall be undertaken during the bird nesting season (April -September inclusive) unless the proposed work has been

assessed by a competent person and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. In that event only the approved

work shall be undertaken.

19) Within 12 months following the first use of any of the caravans hereby permitted (unless consent for a different period is first granted in writing

by the local planning authority) waste and recycling bins and storage areas shall be provided in accordance with details that have first been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

20) Within 12 months of the first use of any of the caravans hereby permitted (unless consent for a different period is first granted in writing by the

local planning authority) a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water generated from the development shall have been implemented in

accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

21) The access track as shown on the approved plan shall be constructed of

permeable material. Before its construction through any root protection area as shown on TDA drawing entitled Tree Constraints Plan drawing

number TDA.2219.02 dated September 2016, details of the proposed method of construction to ensure no harm occurs to the tree roots shall

be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any construction shall then be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

22) Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use, visibility splays of 2.0 metres by 43 metres shall be provided at the

junction of the access and public highway. The splays shall be kept free of obstacles at all times.


Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showperson

Accommodation Assessment 2017/18

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council

Final Report

May 2018

Main Contact: Dr Michael Bullock Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 612 9133 Website: www.arc4.co.uk

© 2017 arc4 Limited (Company No. 06205180)

http://www.arc4.co.uk/

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead GTAA – Final Report Page | 2

May 2018

Please note that in this report some of the tables include rounded figures. This can result in some column or row totals not adding up to 100 or to the anticipated row or column ‘total’ due to the use of rounded decimal figures. We include this description here as it covers all tables and associated textual commentary included. If tables or figures are to be used in-house then we recommend the addition of a similarly worded statement being included as a note to each table used.

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

arc4 Limited accepts no responsibility or liability for, and makes no representation or warranty with respect to, the accuracy or completeness of any third party information (including data) that is contained in this document.

Registered Address: arc4, 41 Clarendon Road, Sale Manchester M33 2DY Email:[email protected]

arc4 Limited Registered in England & Wales 6205180 VAT Registration No: 909 9814 77 Directors - Helen Brzozowski – Michael Bullock

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


May 2018

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 10

GTAA 2017/8 aims .......................................................................................................... 10

Who the study covers ..................................................................................................... 10

Report structure .............................................................................................................. 11

Further notes on pitches and households ...................................................................... 12

2. Policy and local context ....................................................................................................... 13

Government policy and guidance ................................................................................... 13

Planning policy context and methodological implications ............................................. 17

Strategic context ............................................................................................................. 18

Local context ................................................................................................................... 18

3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 20

Phase 1: Literature/desktop review and steering group discussions ............................. 21

Phase 2: Fieldwork survey and interviews with Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople .................................................................................................................... 21

Phase 3: Stakeholder and site/estate manager survey .................................................. 24

Phase 4: Needs assessment and production of report ................................................... 24

4. The current picture: the Traveller population and existing pitch/plot provision ............... 27

2011 Census population estimates ................................................................................. 27

Caravan Count information ............................................................................................ 27

Local information ............................................................................................................ 29

5. Household survey findings ................................................................................................... 34

Population characteristics............................................................................................... 34

Accommodation .............................................................................................................. 37

Travelling practices ......................................................................................................... 41

Provision of sites ............................................................................................................. 46

Moving plans ................................................................................................................... 48

6. Stakeholder consultation ..................................................................................................... 52

Overview ......................................................................................................................... 52

General support for the communities ............................................................................ 52

Provision of accommodation .......................................................................................... 53

Unauthorised encampments .......................................................................................... 56

Planning policy ................................................................................................................ 57

Movements and cross-boundary issues ......................................................................... 58

Site manager consultation .............................................................................................. 60

Houseboat moorings provider consultation ................................................................... 61


May 2018

Interviews with houseboat occupants ............................................................................ 62

7. Gypsy and Traveller pitch, Travelling Showperson plot and transit site need .................... 63

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 63

Pitch need model overview ............................................................................................ 63

Description of factors in the 5-year need model ............................................................ 64

Longer-term pitch need modelling ................................................................................. 68

Planning Policy for Traveller Site definition .................................................................... 68

Overall plan period pitch need ....................................................................................... 69

Turnover on sites ............................................................................................................ 69

Potential capacity for Gypsy and Traveller pitches ........................................................ 70

Travelling Showperson plot need ................................................................................... 71

Description of factors in the 5-year need model ............................................................ 71

Transit site need.............................................................................................................. 74

Moorings ......................................................................................................................... 74

8. Conclusion and strategic response ...................................................................................... 75

Meeting permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitch need ..................................................... 75

Meeting permanent Travelling Showperson need ......................................................... 75

Meeting transit site/stop over need ............................................................................... 75

Good practice in planning for Gypsy and Traveller provision ........................................ 76

Concluding comments .................................................................................................... 76

Appendix A: Legislative background ........................................................................................... 77

Appendix B: Review of policy, guidance and best practice ........................................................ 80

Appendix C(a): Gypsy and Traveller Fieldwork Questionnaire ................................................... 92

Appendix C(b): Travelling Showperson Questionnaire ............................................................. 114

Appendix C(c): Houseboat Questionnaire ................................................................................ 135

Appendix D: Glossary of terms ................................................................................................. 157

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Responses achieved to the Household Survey 2017 by tenure and type of accommodation ..................................................................................................... 23

Table 4.2 Bi-annual Traveller caravan count figures January 2015 to January 2017 ............. 28

Table 4.3 Annual Travelling Showpeople caravan count figures January 2014 to January 2017 29


May 2018

Table 4.4 Traveller and Travelling Showpeople caravan sites provided by local authorities and registered providers in Windsor and Maidenhead, January 2017 ......................... 29

Table 4.5 List of Gypsy & Traveller sites and Travelling Showperson yards (as at May 2017) 31

Table 5.1 Gender of respondents ........................................................................................... 34

Table 5.2 Age of respondents ................................................................................................. 35

Table 5.3 Economic activity of respondent ............................................................................ 35

Table 5.4 Ethnicity of respondents ......................................................................................... 36

Table 5.5 Household composition .......................................................................................... 37

Table 5.6 Accommodation type .............................................................................................. 38

Table 5.7 Number of bedspaces ............................................................................................. 38

Table 5.8 Overcrowding of home or trailer ............................................................................ 39

Table 5.9 Overcrowding of pitch ............................................................................................ 39

Table 5.10 Duration of residence ......................................................................................... 40

Table 5.11 Previous address ................................................................................................. 40

Table 5.12 Nature of pitch/plot on initial occupation .......................................................... 41

Table 5.13 Travelled in the last year ..................................................................................... 42

Table 5.14 Travelled previous to the last year ..................................................................... 42

Table 5.15 Reasons for travelling ......................................................................................... 43

Table 5.16 Intention to travel in the next year..................................................................... 44

Table 5.17 Intention to travel for the next five years and/or beyond ................................. 44

Table 5.18 Duration of travel ................................................................................................ 45

Table 5.19 Reason for no longer travelling ........................................................................... 46

Table 5.20 Need for transit sites .......................................................................................... 47

Table 5.21 Preferred management of transit sites .............................................................. 47

Table 5.22 Need for new permanent sites ........................................................................... 48

Table 5.23 Preferred management of permanent sites ....................................................... 48

Table 5.24 Intention to move in the next five years ............................................................ 49

Table 5.25 Potential for further expansion .......................................................................... 49

Table 5.26 Potential for sub-division .................................................................................... 50

Table 7.1 Summary of demand and supply factors: Gypsies and Travellers – 2017/18 to 2021/22 ................................................................................................................. 677

Table 7.2 Future pitch need based on the assumption that 50% of children form households on reaching 18 ...................................................................................................... 688

Table 7.3 Overall plan period Gypsy and Traveller pitch need .............................................. 69


May 2018

Table 7.4 Addressing Gypsy and Traveller pitch need.......................................................... 700

Table 7.5 Summary of demand and supply factors: Travelling Showpeople – 2017/18 to 2021/22 ................................................................................................................. 733

Table 8.1 Overall plan period Gypsy and Traveller pitch need ............................................ 766

List of Maps

Map 4.1 Location of sites and yards in the RBWM ............................................................... 33


May 2018

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM hereafter) Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) analyses the latest available evidence to identify the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, Travelling Showpeople and houseboat dwellers from across the area.

The RBWM GTAA (2017) has comprised the following evidence sources:

A review of existing (secondary) data,

An online survey of key stakeholders yielding 27 responses and telephone interviews with site/estate managers, and

Interviews with 48 Gypsy and Traveller households (46 living on pitches and two living in bricks and mortar accommodation) and eight Travelling Showpeople households living on yards. In addition, 6 interviews were secured with households on unauthorised encampments and 2 interviews with households living on houseboats.

This data has been analysed to provide a picture of current provision and activity across the RWBM and an assessment of future need. The findings of the study provide an up-to-date, robust and defensible evidence base for policy development.

Current provision and activity

The bi-annual DCLG Traveller caravan count indicates an average of around 94 caravans over the last five counts. Of these, around half are on private authorised sites, one-quarter on social rented authorised sites and one-quarter on unauthorised sites. The annual Travelling Showperson caravan count (undertaken each January) indicates the presence of between 10 and 13 Travelling Showperson caravans each year for the past four counts (2014-2017).

There are two authorised permanent Council-owned Gypsy and Traveller sites in RBWM. In addition, there are six authorised permanent private sites, two temporary private sites, 16 tolerated private sites and several unauthorised sites. There are three Travelling Showpersons’ yards, all are tolerated on private land.

The triangulation of secondary data, Council records and fieldwork survey has identified a total of 62 occupied Gypsy and Traveller pitches and 17 occupied Travelling Showperson plots (note this is pitch/yard and not caravan data)

The 2011 census identified a total of 54 households living in bricks and mortar (house, bungalow, flat, maisonette or apartment).

Planning policy requirements for needs assessments

Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS)(first published in March 2012 and updated in August 2015) requires an assessment of the current needs of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling


May 2018

Showpeople and a projection of future needs. The calculation of pitch/plot need in the GTAA 2017 is based on established DCLG modelling methodology, as advocated in Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment Guidance (DCLG, 2007). Although this Guidance was formally withdrawn in December 2016, in the absence of any updated guidance on the subject it continues to provide a standard approach for needs modelling employed by most local planning authorities and also confirmed by inspectors at public inquiries.

This approach comprises an assessment of the current needs of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople and a projection of future needs. The Guidance advocates the use of a fieldwork survey to supplement secondary source information and derive key supply and demand information.

A major change in planning policy, introduced by PPTS 2015, was the amended definition of the group to which the policy applies. The definitions of both ‘Gypsy and Traveller’ and ‘Travelling Showperson’ have been amended to exclude, for planning purposes, anyone who has stopped travelling on a permanent basis. It continues to include those who have ceased to travel temporarily. Essentially, this created a more restricted ‘PPTS 2015’ definition which applies to those who follow a nomadic habit of life.

The Draft Revised (for consultation) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2018) requires local planning authorities to identify the size, type and tenure of homes required for different groups in the community, expressly including Travellers who do not fall under the PPTS 2015 definition.

As this study is based on comprehensive interviews with members of the Travelling community living within the RBWM, it is possible for arc4 to determine through analysis which households meet the PPTS 2015 definition (on the basis of the travelling practices) and those who do not travel but fall under the new, broader ‘NPPF’ definition of Traveller. The study includes this wider group in the needs analysis under a ‘cultural’ definition which accords with the Housing and Planning Act Section 124.

Gypsy and Traveller pitch need

The GTAA 2017 has found evidence of Gypsy and Traveller pitch need over the next five years (2017/18 to 2021/22) equating to 70 pitches under the cultural definition, or 20 pitches under the PPTS 2015 definition of Gypsy/Traveller.

For the remaining Local Plan Period (2017/18 to 2032/33) the GTAA has identified a cultural need for 90 pitches and a PPTS need for 26 pitches. However, taking into account a small level of turnover on local authority sites, a residual pitch need of 85 (cultural definition) or 21 pitches (PPTS definition) is suggested.

Travelling Showperson plot need

The GTAA 2017 has evidenced a total cultural need over the next five years (2016/17 to 2021/22) for 16 plots. As most Travelling Showpeople (87.5%) met the PPTS definition (i.e. have not ceased travelling permanently), this equates to a PPTS need for 14 plots. All of the existing provision is on private yards that are tolerated and there is no authorised supply of plots. As a


May 2018

result, there is an outstanding need for between 14 (PPTS definition) and 16 (cultural definition) plots.

Transit site need

On the basis of limited evidence of unauthorised encampment activity, the GTAA 2017 recommends that the Council considers transit need with neighbouring Councils and considers the use of temporary stopping areas.

Houseboat dweller mooring need

Evidence would suggest there are relatively few residential moorings in the RBWM. It is recommended that the Council engages with the Canals and Rivers Trust to establish the feasibility of increasing the number of residential moorings in the RBWM.


May 2018

1. Introduction

GTAA 2017/8 aims

1.1 In April 2017, arc4 was commissioned by Windsor and Maidenhead Council (RBWM) to undertake a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) to identify the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, Travelling Showpeople and houseboat dwellers from across the RBWM.

1.2 The overall objective of the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment is to form a clear evidence basis to inform the development of planning policies relating to Gypsy and Travellers, Travelling Showpeople and houseboat dwellers.

1.3 The aims of the GTAA 2017/8 are:

To identify the current accommodation provision for members of the Travelling community within the RBWM;

To identify current levels of need for accommodation arising from within the community, including from concealed households and those living in bricks and mortar;

To project future accommodation needs for pitches, plots and moorings using a clear and transparent methodology in order to create a robust evidence base for the next five years and the full Plan Period to 2032/33; and

To inform the development of housing and planning policies for the Council and its strategic partners.

Who the study covers

1.4 The GTAA 2017/8 adopts the definition of ‘Gypsies and Travellers’ set out within Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS), which was published by the Government in August 2015. This sets out the following definition of ‘Gypsies and Travellers’:

‘Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excluding members of an organised group of Travelling Showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.’1

1.5 In addition, PPTS 2015 provides the following ‘clarification’ for determining whether someone is a Gypsy or Traveller:

‘In determining whether persons are “gypsies and travellers” for the purposes of this planning policy, consideration should be given to the following issues amongst other relevant matters:

a) whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life

1 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites August 2015 Annex 1, para 1


May 2018

b) the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life

c) whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances.’2

1.6 The following definition of ‘Travelling Showpeople’ is set out in PPTS 2015:

‘Members of a group organised for the purposes of holding fairs, circuses or shows (whether or not travelling together as such). This includes such persons who on the grounds of their own or their family’s or dependants’ more localised pattern of trading, educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excludes Gypsies and Travellers as defined above.’3

1.7 The Draft Revised (for consultation) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)(March 2018) expressly includes Travellers ‘who do not fall under the definition of “traveller” in Annex 1 of the Planning Policy For Traveller Sites’. Hence, this GTAA 2018 study includes a consideration of both PPTS-defined need (households who travel) and a wider, culturally-defined need.

1.8 In addition:

‘For the purposes of this planning policy, “pitch” means a pitch on a “gypsy and traveller” site and “plot” means a pitch on a “travelling showpeople” site (often called a “yard”). This terminology differentiates between residential pitches for “gypsies and travellers” and mixed-use pitches for “travelling showpeople”, which may/will need to incorporate space or to be split to allow for the storage of equipment.’4

1.9 For the purposes of this study, therefore, Gypsies and Travellers live on pitches on sites, whilst Travelling Showpeople live on plots on yards.

1.10 As the RBWM includes watercourses that are suitable for the mooring of houseboats, the GTAA 2017 expressly includes a consideration of the existing activities and needs arising from members of the houseboat dwelling community within the study area.

Report structure

1.11 The GTAA 2017/8 report structure is as follows:

Chapter 1 Introduction: provides an overview of the study;

Chapter 2 Policy and local context: presents a review of the policy context which guides the study, including a consideration of the specific local context of the RBWM;

Chapter 3 Methodology: provides details of the study’s research methodology;

Chapter 4 Review of current Gypsy and Traveller population and provision of pitches/plots: reviews estimates of the Gypsy and Traveller and

2 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites August 2015 Annex 1, para 2 3 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites August 2015 Annex 1, para 3 4 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites August 2015 Annex 1, para 5


May 2018

Travelling Showpeople population across RWBM and the scale of existing site provision;

Chapter 5 Household survey findings: presents relevant data obtained from the household survey research;

Chapter 6 Stakeholder consultation: summarises views of stakeholders expressed through the online survey and findings of telephone interviews with the site/estate managers of council-owned Gypsy and Traveller sites and houseboat moorings and marinas within the Borough;

Chapter 7 Pitch/plot/transit need: focuses on current and future pitch/plot need. This chapter includes a detailed assessment of drivers of demand, supply and current shortfalls across the study area; and

Chapter 8 Conclusion and strategic response: concludes the report, bringing together the different strands of the research and identifying headline issues, including recommending ways in which these could be addressed.

1.12 The report is supplemented by the following appendices:

Appendix A which provides details of the legislative background underpinning accommodation issues for the Travelling community;

Appendix B Review of policy, guidance, reports and best practice notes;

Appendix C Fieldwork questionnaires;

Appendix D Glossary of terms.

Further notes on pitches and households

1.13 It should be noted that pitches may be occupied by non-PPTS compliant but culturally i.e. households recognised under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 section 124. There are also a small number of households on pitches who do not meet either definition.

1.14 The study takes account of:

Households who are ethnically defined as Gypsies and Travellers (cultural) or identify as being Travelling Showperson through occupation;

Households who are PPTS compliant i.e. they exhibit a nomadic lifestyle who can also include Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople and others such as boat dwellellers; and

Households in bricks and mortar who are culturally defined as Gypsies and Travellers and may also satisfy the PPTS definition.


May 2018

2. Policy and local context 2.1 This study is grounded in an understanding of how the national legislative and planning

policy context that underpins the assessment and provision of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, Travelling Showpeople and houseboat dwellers.

2.2 Appendix A sets out the legislative background that is relevant to accommodation issues and Appendix B provides a review of Government policy and guidance that has been published in recent years, alongside other key reports and best practice advice.

2.3 This chapter sets out the policy context within which this GTAA has been prepared, including a consideration of the local context of the RBWM.

Government policy and guidance

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments Guidance 2007 (withdrawn)

2.4 The calculation of pitch/plot need in the GTAA 2018 is based on established DCLG modelling methodology, as advocated in Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment Guidance (DCLG, 2007). Although this Guidance was formally withdrawn in December 2016, in the absence of any updated guidance on the subject it continues to provide a best practice approach for needs modelling and has been employed.

2.5 This approach comprises an assessment of the current needs of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople and a projection of future needs. The Guidance advocates the use of a fieldwork survey to supplement secondary source information and derive key supply and demand information.

Planning policy for traveller sites, PPTS 2012

2.6 In 2012, the Government published both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)5 and its accompanying National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) documents covering a range of topics. They also published some separate planning policy documents, including Planning policy for traveller sites6 (PPTS 2012). These documents replaced all previous national planning policy in respect of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.

2.7 Previously, local planning authorities had been required to set aside enough land for Gypsy and Traveller sites, with their targets set in regional plans. However, the Coalition Government abolished regional planning under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011. The approach set out in PPTS 2012 instead encouraged local planning authorities to form their own evidence base for accommodation needs in their area and use this to set their own pitch and plot targets for their Local Plan.

5 DCLG National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 6 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites March 2012 (now superseded)


May 2018

Written Ministerial Statement, July 2015

2.8 Technical adjustments were made to paragraphs 49 and 159 of the NPPF by a Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) on 22nd July 20157, following a High Court judgement (Wenman v Secretary of State).

2.9 In relation to paragraph 49, the WMS stated that those persons who fall within the definition of ‘traveller’ under the PPTS, cannot rely on the lack of a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites under the NPPF to show that relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date. Such persons should have the lack of a five-year supply of deliverable traveller sites considered in accordance with Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

2.10 Regarding paragraph 159, the WMS clarified that the PPTS sets out how ‘travellers’ accommodation needs should be assessed. It is implied that those who do not fall under that definition should have their accommodation needs addressed under the provisions of the NPPF.

PPTS 2015

2.11 An updated Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS 2015) was published in August 20158. PPTS 2015 introduced some key changes to policy, including by changing the definitions of ‘Gypsy and Traveller’ and ‘Travelling Showperson’ by deleting the word ‘permanently’ in relation to their travelling habits, so that for planning-related purposes the definitions of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople have been changed to exclude those who have permanently stopped travelling. In addition, the following ‘clarification’ was added:

‘In determining whether persons are “gypsies and travellers” for the purposes of this planning policy, consideration should be given to the following issues amongst other relevant matters:

a) whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life

b) the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life

c) whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances.’9

Planning policy statement, August 2015

2.12 Alongside the publication of the revised policy document on 31st August 2015, a letter and accompanying planning policy statement were issued by the DCLG Chief Planner (Steve Quartermain)10 to Chief Planning Officers in England. The letter and planning

7 https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Lords/2015-07-22/HLWS167/ 8 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites August 2015 9 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites August 2015 Annex 1, para 2 10https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457632/Final_Chief_Planning_Officer_letter_and_written_statement.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457632/Final_Chief_Planning_Officer_letter_and_written_statement.pdf



May 2018

policy statement dealt specifically with the issue of Green Belt protection and intentional unauthorised development. On 17th December 2015, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis) made a Written Statement confirming the changes to national policy set out in the letter and statement.11

Green Belt

2.13 PPTS 2015 (paragraph 10) states that local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of sites against their locally-set targets. In relation to the determination of planning applications, PPTS 2015 (paragraph 27) states that if a LPA cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites then this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission. However, it also sets out that the exception to this is where the proposal is on land designated as Green Belt, sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives, sites designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local Green Space, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or within a National Park or the Broads.

2.14 PPTS 2015 (paragraph 16) and the accompanying planning policy statement on Green Belt protection and intentional unauthorised development clearly set out that unmet need and personal circumstances (subject to the best interests of the child) are unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt so as to establish ‘very special circumstances’ and allow development to be permitted.

Intentional unauthorised development

2.15 The planning policy statement issued with PPTS 201512 (and confirmed by Ministerial Statement13) makes clear that if a site is intentionally occupied without planning permission this would be a material consideration in any retrospective planning application for that site. Whilst this does not mean that retrospective applications will be automatically refused, it does mean that failure to seek permission in advance of occupation will count against the application.

2.16 In addition, PPTS 2015 (paragraph 12) makes clear that in exceptional cases where a local authority is burdened by a large-scale unauthorised site that has significantly increased their need, and their area is subject to strict and special planning constraints, then there is no assumption that the local authority will be required to meet their Gypsy and Traveller site needs in full. This is intended to protect local planning authorities with significant land constraints from being required to provide for additional needs arising directly from large sites such as Dale Farm (a large unauthorised site in Essex).

11http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-12-17/HCWS423/ 12https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457632/Final_Chief_Planning_Officer_letter_and_written_statement.pdf 13http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-12-17/HCWS423/

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-12-17/HCWS423/







May 2018

Draft Guidance to local housing authorities on the periodical review of housing needs: caravans and houseboats, March 2016

2.17 In March 2016, the DCLG published Draft guidance on the periodical review of housing needs: Caravans and Houseboats. The draft Guidance related to Clause 115 of the Housing and Planning Bill, which has become Section 124 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (passed in May 2016).

2.18 The draft Guidance explains how Government wants local housing authorities to interpret changes to accommodation needs assessments (as required by Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985), specifically in relation to caravans and houseboats.

2.19 In the carrying out of accommodation needs assessments, the draft Guidance stresses the importance of close engagement with the community. The use of existing data along with conducting a specialist survey is recommended.

2.20 The draft guidance has been taken into account in the planning, preparation and undertaking of this GTAA for RBWM.

Draft Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2018

2.21 In March 2018, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published the Draft Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for public consultation. Updating the original NPPF which was published in 2012, the Draft Revised NPPF sets out 17 topic-based chapters which reflect the Government’s development priorities. As was anticipated, there is a particular focus on delivering solutions to the housing crisis through the plan-led system.

2.22 Chapter 5, ‘Delivering a sufficient supply of homes’, sets out the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes including meeting the needs of groups with specific housing requirements (paragraph 60). It states that in determining the minimum number of homes needed, strategic plans should be based upon a local housing need assessment. This should be conducted using the standard method unless there are exceptional circumstances and also taking into account any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas (paragraph 61).

2.23 It is then set out in paragraph 62 that:

‘Within this context, policies should identify the size, type and tenure of homes required for different groups in the community (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes.’

2.24 An additional footnote to the word ‘travellers’ provides further definition:

‘Travellers who do not fall under the definition of “traveller” in Annex 1 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The latter sets out how travellers’ accommodation needs should be assessed for those covered by the definition in Annex 1 of that document.’


May 2018

2.25 In other words, the Draft Revised NPPF requires local planning authorities to consider the needs of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople households who do not fall under the PPTS 2015 definition by virtue of their travelling habits. It requires a broader, ‘cultural’ definition. This approach has been adopted in this study, as discussed further below.

Planning policy context and methodological implications

2.26 Further to the publication of updated PPTS in August 2015, the 2007 GTAA Guidance was withdrawn and there was considerable confusion regarding what accommodation needs should be assessed and the best methodological approach.

2.27 The Housing and Planning Act 2016 deleted Sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act 2004, effectively removing some of local planning authorities’ duties in relation to the accommodation needs assessments of Gypsies and Travellers. However, the Housing and Planning Act inserted some additional requirements into Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, including the duty to consider the provision of sites for caravans and moorings for houseboats when undertaking housing needs assessments. As referred to above, draft Guidance was published in March 2016 to explain the interpretation of these legislative changes. However, this remains in draft form at the present time.

2.28 As discussed, the PPTS 2015 definitions of ‘Gypsy and Traveller’ and ‘Travelling Showperson’ now exclude those that have stopped travelling on a permanent basis. The ‘clarification’ in Annex 1 (paragraph 2) of PPTS 2015 refers to a ‘nomadic habit of life’ and whether the person in question previously led a nomadic habit of life; the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life; and whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances. This suggests that persons (or households) should be assessed on an individual basis, to determine whether they meet the PPTS 2015 planning definition.

2.29 Some people adopted the view that the revised PPTS 2015 definitions (excluding Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople who have ceased travelling) allow local planning authorities to manage their needs numbers downwards. This approach has always been treated with caution by arc4, however, and our GTAA studies have instead adopted an approach which includes a consideration of PPTS-defined need (pitch numbers to meet the needs of those who travel) and a wider ‘cultural’ definition of need (pitches to meet the needs of all Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople who are identifiable within the relevant study area).

2.30 The publication of the Draft Revised NPPF (March 2018) gives a strong policy basis to the approach that we apply, ensuring that the accommodation needs of all of the Travelling community are considered within the GTAA process.

2.31 The accommodation needs of the Travelling community forms a strategic issue, which is a consideration under the Duty to Cooperate. It is therefore considered important that the RBWM GTAA 2018 provides a robust and transparent approach regarding the methodology for determining which members of the Travelling community are ‘travelling’ and which members should be considered ‘non-travelling’ as well as the subsequent assessment of current and future needs.


May 2018

2.32 Our assessment methodology is set out in Chapter 3 and the outworking of this approach for RBWM is set out in Chapter 7.

Strategic context

2.33 Despite the revocation of regional spatial strategies, the need for strategic planning remains, especially to ensure coherent planning beyond local authority boundaries. To this end the Localism Act 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set out that public bodies have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries (NPPF, paragraph 178).

2.34 National planning practice guidance (NPPG) includes a guidance document specific to the Duty to cooperate (March 2014). This states that duty to cooperate is not a duty to agree, but local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before they submit their Local Plans for examination (paragraph 1). In addition, it states that the duty to cooperate seeks to ensure that local planning authorities lead strategic planning effectively through their Local Plans, addressing social, environmental and economic issues that can only be addressed effectively by working with other local planning authorities beyond their own administrative boundaries (paragraph 8).

2.35 PPTS 2015 sets out that the preparation of Local Plans and setting of pitch and plot targets should be undertaken by local planning authorities working collaboratively with neighbouring planning authorities (paragraphs 8 and 9). It reiterates that local planning authorities have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries (paragraph 10).

Local context

2.36 The RBWM Council is preparing a new Borough Local Plan to cover the plan period 2013-2033. This was submitted for examination and the examination is in progress (May-June 2018).

2.37 Policy HO 4 (Gypsies and Travellers) of the Submission Local Plan sets out that the need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation will be addressed through the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan. The GTAA 2017 will identify need for permanent and transit sites to inform the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan.

2.38 In terms of local planning applications and appeals of relevance, land to the rear of Horton Road, Datchet has been the subject of a recent call-in inquiry. One appeal was called-in in November 2013, but then withdrawn by the applicant. A second application (Ref. 14/01370) was subsequently submitted for the use of the land as a Gypsy and Traveller site comprising nine pitches. The appeal on Council’s refusal of planning permission was called-in by the Secretary of State in September 2014 because he considered that the proposals concerned matters that may conflict with national policies on important matters. As a result, the Inspector’s considerations at inquiry in June/July 2015 were reconsidered by the Secretary of State before the Final Report of July 2016 was published setting out the Secretary of State’s decision. The Secretary of


May 2018

State disagreed with the Inspector’s recommendation and refused planning permission, both permanent and temporary. Crucially, the Secretary of State concluded that the factors weighing in favour of the development were insufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that the proposal would cause, such that no very special circumstances exist.

2.39 Land south of Hilarion Cottage, Shurlock Road, Waltham St Lawrence has also been the subject of recent planning enforcement, applications and appeals. In 2009 there was a material change of use of the land from agriculture to a residential caravan site. An enforcement notice was issued by the Council and upheld at appeal, who allowed an 18-month compliance period up to February 2013. Subsequently, the Council resolved to take action to clear the site, which was subject to Court challenge but failed. In the intervening period, two applications were submitted relating to different parts of the site. This site is now vacant.

2.40 Application Ref. 15/00118 was for change of use to include stationing of caravans for occupation by a Gypsy-Traveller family along with associated works at Land South of Hilarion Cottage. Refused by the Council, the applicant appealed and the Inspector’s Report of June 2016 granted temporary planning permission until June 2021 for the appellant and her family only. Taking into consideration national policy relating to Green Belt, the Inspector took the view that the particular advantages in the case of granting a temporary permission clearly outweigh the harms, so as to amount to very special circumstances supporting the appeal. This site is now vacant.

2.41 The second application (Ref. 15/00168) was partly retrospective, for the siting of seven static caravans, seven touring and associated works. Taking into account the balancing of a number of considerations, the Inspector concluded that the advantages of the proposal are outweighed by its disadvantages and do not outweigh its harm to the Green Belt so as to amount to very special circumstances. The Inspector concluded that neither permanent nor temporary planning permission should be granted.

2.42 Planning permission was granted on appeal under planning application number 15/00522 at Brayfield Stables, Windsor Road, Water Oakley for personal occupancy of 2 gypsy and traveller pitches until 11/11/19.

2.43 Land rear of 4 Stratton Cottages, Fifield Road – planning permission granted on appeal for 2 gypsy caravan pitches with hardstanding and construction of 2 utility/day rooms 15/02885 Allowed for 3 years and personal to the applicants and their family.


May 2018

3. Methodology 3.1 In order to achieve a clear and transparent evidence base and deliver the objectives of

the study, the following methodology was developed based on the requirements of current Government policy14 and following an established and approved approach15.

3.2 Fundamental to the methodological approach adopted by arc4 is the priority of collecting up-to-date primary data to inform all aspects of the research base. In particular in relation to GTAA surveys, this includes meaningful engagement with members of the local Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople community. Through our links with Traveller representatives and the sensitive approach of our experienced field-team, we have a track-record of obtaining a high degree of participation from local households living on pitches and plots within the relevant study area. In addition, we engage with local and strategic stakeholders who have an understanding and experience of Traveller issues, which assists in informing the findings of the study.

3.3 The methodology for this study has therefore comprised:

Desktop analysis of existing documents, including data on pitches/sites, plots/yards and unauthorised encampments;

The collection of primary data, including a fieldwork survey and household interviews with Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople on sites/yards and living in bricks and mortar accommodation;

An online stakeholder survey and telephone interviews with site/estate managers responsible for local authority-owned Gypsy and Traveller sites and houseboat moorings and marinas; and

An assessment of accommodation needs taking into account all available data and information.

3.4 The information gathering has been carried out in three phases, as outlined below:

Phase 1: Literature/desktop review and steering group discussions;

Phase 2: Fieldwork survey (including census) and interviews with Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople across the Borough;

Phase 3: Online survey of stakeholders and telephone interviews with site/estate managers; and

Phase 4: Needs assessment and production of the GTAA 2017 report.

14 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS), August 2015 and planning policy statement of 31st August 2015, as reviewed in Chapter 2. 15 DCLG Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments Guidance, October 2007, cancelled in December 2016, but providing a standard and approved approach, as reviewed in Chapter 2.


May 2018

Phase 1: Literature/desktop review and steering group discussions

3.5 This phase comprised a review of available literature, including legislative background and best practice information; and analysis of available secondary data relating to Gypsies and Travellers.

3.6 Relevant regional, sub-regional and local information has been collected, collated and reviewed, including information on:

The national policy and legislative context;

Current policies towards Gypsies and Travellers in the Borough (drawn from Local Authority policy documents, planning documents, housing strategies and homelessness strategies); and

Analysis of existing data sources available from stakeholders16.

3.7 This information has helped to shape the development of this report, and in particular the review of the legislative and policy context set out in Chapter 2.

3.8 The project steering group was fully consulted regarding the most appropriate methodology for undertaking the assessment work, including site fieldwork, and provided stakeholder contact information for undertaking the stakeholder survey.

Phase 2: Fieldwork survey and interviews with Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

3.9 The primary fieldwork for this study comprised survey work with Gypsies and Travellers. The questionnaires (Appendix C) were designed by arc4 in consultation with the project steering group and build upon our standard questionnaire.

3.10 The household survey was undertaken by arc4. The overarching aim of the fieldwork was to maximise the number of interviews secured from Gypsy and Traveller, Travelling Showpeople and houseboat households living within the Borough. Consulting with the project steering group prior to the fieldwork survey ensured that the fieldwork team had a good understanding of the local issues facing Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople and helped to maximise the community’s participation in the study.

3.11 The cultural needs of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople differ from those of the rest of the population and consideration of culturally specific requirements such as the need for additional permanent caravan sites and/or transit sites and/or stopping places (or improvements to existing sites) are key to this study. The research has therefore explicitly sought information from Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople from across the Borough living in different types of accommodation.

3.12 Interviews took place during April to June 2017. Responses achieved by tenure and type of site/yard are presented in Table 3.1.

16 This includes CLG caravan count data and information on unauthorised encampment data provided by the Council (see chapter 6 for more information on this data)


May 2018

3.13 For Gypsies and Travellers, there is a total of 62 occupied pitches across the RBWM. It was found that 72 households were living across the 62 pitches. No household stated that they were doubling up or included concealed households, and site observation would suggest that where multiple households lived on pitches this was by choice and the pitch was sufficiently large to accommodate this. Overall, 46 households responded to the interview questionnaire. This represents a response from 65.7% of households, but overall on 74.2% of pitches at least one interview was achieved across the Borough.

3.14 For Travelling Showpeople, there are a total of 17 plots and 18 households (as one plot accommodated a multi-generational household comprising a family and older relative). Eight interviews were achieved, representing a response rate of 44.4% of households.

3.15 The 2011 Census estimates there are 54 Gypsies and Traveller households living in bricks and mortar accommodation living across the RBWM.

3.16 Two interviews were achieved from Gypsies and Travellers living in bricks and mortar accommodation but further evidence from the housing register established a need of 11 households living in bricks and mortar in the RBWM requiring a pitch.

3.17 Telephone interviews with the estate managers of moorings and marinas in RBWM have identified that only one of the 100+ moorings managed by Sarbonne Estates (over five locations) is residential. Two interviews were achieved with households living on houseboats.


May 2018

Table 3.1 Responses achieved to the Household Survey 2017 by tenure and type of accommodation *

Gypsies and Travellers

Tenure and type of site

Pitch numbers Household numbers

Total pitches

Total vacant

Occupied pitches

Total households

Interviews achieved

Council (permanent) authorised 25 0 25 25 19

Private (permanent) authorised 8 0 8 9 6

Private temporary authorised 4 0 4 4 4

Private Tolerated 25 0 25 32 17

Unauthorised 0 0 0 0 0

Total Gypsy and Traveller pitches 62 0 62 70 46

Bricks and mortar accommodation - - - 2 2

Total Gypsy and Traveller 62 0 62 72 48

Travelling Showpeople

Tenure and type of yard

Plot numbers Household numbers

Total plots

Total vacant

Occupied plots

Total households

Interviews achieved

Private tolerated 17 0 17 18 8

Total Travelling Showpeople 17 0 17 18 8

*Note an additional 7 interviews were achieved with households living on unauthorised encampments in RBWM during the fieldwork period

3.18 arc4’s methodology includes analysing the household survey findings to determine the self-defined travelling practices of each interviewed household. This includes answers to questions of travelling history (current and year preceding); reasons for travel; travel plans (current year and the next five years); annual duration of travel (recent and planned); destinations and reasons for travel; and reasons for not travelling (now and in the future). By translating this assessment of each household’s ‘PPTS-compliance’ into a proportion of the population in question, it can be determined what percentage of households fall within the ‘PPTS 2015’ definition. By contrast, all households identifying as part of the Gypsy and Traveller or Travelling Showpeople community are contained within a broader ‘cultural’ definition, an approach which is supported by the Draft Revised NPPF (March 2018) and the 2016 Housing Act section 124.

3.19 Analysis of the household survey data established that 28.9% of respondent households on Gypsy and Traveller sites meet the 2015 PPTS definition of being a Gypsy/Traveller household. 87.5% of respondent households on Travelling Showperson yards meet the 2015 PPTS definition. These households meet the definition by either travelling in the


May 2018

preceding year or within the past 5 years and/or intend to travel in the next year or in any year in the next five years.

Phase 3: Stakeholder and site/estate manager survey

3.20 The survey of stakeholders was conducted during June to August 2017, by means of an online questionnaire. Contact information for key stakeholders was provided by the steering group. Stakeholders were contacted and asked to participate in the online questionnaire, answering whichever questions they felt were relevant to their knowledge and experience. The questionnaire was made available for an initial period of four weeks and reminder emails were sent out to encourage as many responses as possible, followed by an extension period to maximise participation. A total of 27 responses to the stakeholder survey were obtained and these have been analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, as appropriate to the relevant data.

3.21 The stakeholder consultation included representatives from all of the neighbouring borough and district local authorities, who were requested to provide information regarding their local situation and provision, including issues such as unauthorised encampment activity. This approach assists the Council in meeting their requirements under the Duty to Cooperate but does not take the place of Duty to Co-operate discussions.

3.22 Telephone surveys have also been undertaken to inform two aspects of the study:

The housing associations who manage the two council-owned Gypsy and Traveller sites in the Borough were interviewed to obtain information relating to site occupation, vacancy rates and waiting lists to inform projections of turnover on local authority sites; and

The estate managers of moorings and marinas in the Borough were interviewed to obtain an overview of houseboat provision and activity across the area.

3.23 The findings of the online stakeholder survey and the telephone interviews are set out in Chapter 6 of this report.

Phase 4: Needs assessment and production of report

3.24 The assessment of pitch need has been calculated by utilising information on current supply of pitches and the results from the survey. The overall number of pitches has been calculated using local authority and fieldwork survey information, with likely capacity through turnover assessed through the household survey and discussions with those who manage the council-owned sites.

3.25 A detailed explanation of the analysis of pitch need is contained in Chapter 7 but briefly comprises analysis of the following elements:

Current pitch provision, households living in bricks and mortar accommodation; households planning to move in the next FIVE years, and emerging households to give total demand for pitches; and

Turnover on existing pitches and total supply.


May 2018

3.26 The approach used then reconciles the demand and supply data to identify overall pitch need.

3.27 To identify any need for transit provision, findings from the household survey have been analysed alongside other contextual information including household surveys of 7 households in temporary encampments within RBWM during July 2017.

Pitches and households

3.28 One of the key challenges faced when assessing Gypsy and Traveller pitch need is the actual nature of pitches and how this relates to the number of households they can support.

3.29 PPTS 2015 refers to the need for Local Planning Authorities to ‘identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets’ and ‘relate the number of pitches/plots to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site and the surrounding population’s size and density’ (PPTS 2015, paragraph 10).

3.30 Planning decision notices usually refer the number of pitches on a site or the specifics of what can be on a pitch e.g. statics, tourers; or specific individuals and/or households.

3.31 As part of the GTAA, it is essential that the characteristics of sites, the number of pitches and how many households these can support is carefully considered. There are a range of issues which need to be considered when reviewing site and pitch characteristics and their potential implications for future pitch and site need which are now summarised.

Site and pitch size

3.32 There are no definitive parameters for site or pitch sizes. Previous Design Guidance (DCLG, 2008) states in paragraph 4.4 that ‘Gypsy and Traveller sites are designed to provide land per household which is suitable for a mobile home, touring caravan and a utility building, together with space for parking. Sites of various sizes, layouts and pitch numbers operate successfully today and work best when they take into account the size of the site and the needs and demographics of the families resident on them’.

3.33 Paragraph 4.47 states that ‘to ensure fire safety it is essential that every trailer, caravan or park home must be not less than 6 metres from any other trailer, caravan or park home that is occupied separately’.

3.34 Paragraph 7.12 states that ‘as a general guide, it is possible to specify that an average family pitch must be capable of accommodating an amenity building, a large trailer and touring caravan (or two trailers, drying space for clothes, a lockable shed (for bicycles, wheelchair storage etc.), parking space for two vehicles and a small garden area’.

3.35 Paragraph 4.13 states that ‘smaller pitches must be able to accommodate at least an amenity building, a large trailer, drying space for clothes and parking for at least one vehicle’.


May 2018

Occupancy

3.36 A pitch may accommodate more than one family unit, for instance it could include a family, older children who have formed their own household and other family members. This could lead to potential overcrowding and this is considered as part of the GTAA household survey.

3.37 Private sites may restrict occupancy to close family/friends. This limits opportunity for others to move onto the site but this restrictive occupancy may provide for emerging needs within a household, for example as grown-up children (previously living within a parent(s) or grandparent(s) home) form independent households of their own.

3.38 Quality, size of pitch and proximity of caravans on pitches vary dramatically.

Response

3.39 For each site, a pragmatic and reasonable judgement should be made as part of the GTAA regarding the number of pitches or sub-divisions on sites. This may relate to the number of families living on sites, and could include a consideration of the potential intensification of sites (for instance through further sub-division, extension or use of vacant areas within the site). Capacity and layout of sites should be identified through site observation (directly or indirectly through Google maps or similar), planning history and local knowledge of planning, enforcement and liaison officers.

3.40 Pitches can become intensified or sub-divided once planning applications have been approved. These sub-divisions tend to be tolerated by councils. Often pitches become subdivided to provide space for newly-forming households, particularly from family members.


May 2018

4. The current picture: the Traveller population and existing pitch/plot provision

4.1 This chapter looks at the current picture in terms of the current population and demography of Gypsies and Travellers across the study area before going on to explore the extent and nature of provision across the area.

2011 Census population estimates

4.2 Whilst it is recognised that some families may not identify themselves as Gypsies or Travellers in research, the 2011 Census17 identifies a total of 74 households in the RBWM as having a ‘White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller’ (WGoIT) ethnicity. This estimate is likely to be unreliable based on the evidence from site observations, fieldwork and community engagement.

Caravan Count information

4.3 Snapshot counts of the number of Gypsy and Traveller caravans were requested by the Government in 1979, and have since been undertaken bi-annually by local authorities on a voluntary basis every January and July18. Their accuracy varies between local authorities and according to how information is included in the process. A major criticism is the non-involvement of Gypsies and Travellers themselves in the counts. However, the counts, conducted on a single day twice a year, are the only systematic source of information on the numbers and distribution of Gypsy and Traveller caravans and trailers. The counts include caravans (or trailers) on and off authorised sites (i.e. those with planning permission) but do not relate necessarily to the actual number of pitches on sites.

4.4 In addition, there is an annual snapshot count of the number of Travelling Showpeople caravans, which is undertaken alongside the January count of Gypsy and Traveller caravans (as above).

4.5 The latest Traveller caravan count figures available are from the January 2017 Count of Traveller Caravans (England)19, which nationally found that:

The total number of traveller caravans in England in January 2017 was 22,004. This is 698 more than the 21,306 reported in January 2016.

6,807 caravans were on authorised socially rented sites. This is a decrease of 239 since the January 2016 count of 7,046.

17 Tables 5.1a to 5.1e are taken from the Census 2011. Special tables were commissioned by ONS to cover the ethnicity and several data sets were produced and made available on the ONS website on the 21st January 2014. See Tables CT0127 and CT0128. Main article: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/what-does-the-2011-census-tell-us-about-the-characteristics-of-gypsy-or-irish-travellers-in-england-and-wales-/index.html 18 Historically caravan counts have not included Travelling Showpeople. Since 2010 the Government has requested that January counts include Travelling Showpeople, however, the figures relating to Travelling Showpeople are reported separately and not included in the overall count figures. 19 DCLG Count of Traveller Caravans January 2017 England, Housing Statistical Release 25 May 2017

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/what-does-the-2011-census-tell-us-about-the-characteristics-of-gypsy-or-irish-travellers-in-england-and-wales-/index.html

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/what-does-the-2011-census-tell-us-about-the-characteristics-of-gypsy-or-irish-travellers-in-england-and-wales-/index.html


May 2018

The number of caravans on authorised privately funded sites was 12,276. This was 822 more than the 11,454 recorded in January 2016.

The number of caravans on unauthorised encampments on land owned by travellers was 2,141. This is 11 above the January 2016 figure of 2,130.

The number of caravans on unauthorised encampments on land not owned by travellers was 780. This was 104 caravans more than the January 2016 count of 676.

Overall, the January 2017 count indicated that 87 per cent of traveller caravans in England were on authorised land and that 13 per cent were on unauthorised land. This is the same as the previous year.

4.6 The figures for the last five Traveller caravan counts for the RBWM are set out in Table 4.2. This shows that an average of around 94 caravans have been recorded on sites in the Royal Borough during the five-count period. Of these, just over half (50.5%) have been on private authorised sites (with planning permission) and 24.3% have been on social rented authorised sites. One-quarter (25.2%) have been on unauthorised sites (without planning permission), representing an average of around 24 caravans.

Table 4.2 Bi-annual Traveller caravan count figures January 2015 to January 2017

Windsor and Maidenhead Count

Authorised sites with planning permission

Unauthorised sites without planning

permission

Total Social Rented Total Private Total Unauthorised

Jan 2015 28 42 25 95

Jul 2015 0* 53 23 76

Jan 2016 29 51 24 104

Jul 2016 29 49 24 102

Jan 2017 28 42 22 92

Five-Count Average 22.8 47.4 23.6 93.8

Five-Count % Average 24.3% 50.5% 25.2% 100.0%

Source: DCLG Traveller Caravan Count, Live Table 1 (January 2017) Note this uses definitions established by the DCLG *likely to be missing data

4.7 An annual count of Travelling Showpeople caravans is undertaken every January, alongside the January Traveller caravan count. The most recent available data is therefore January 2017. Table 4.3 sets out the data from the last five Travelling Showpeople caravan counts, 2014-2017. This shows that between 10 and 13 Travelling Showperson caravans have been recorded during the four-count period, with an average of around 11 caravans. All of the Travelling Showperson caravans recorded were on private authorised sites. No Travelling Showperson caravans have been recorded on unauthorised sites, although local information (see section below) shows that all of the sites are strictly ‘tolerated’ without planning permission, rather than authorised.


May 2018

Table 4.3 Annual Travelling Showpeople caravan count figures January 2014 to January 2017

Windsor and Maidenhead Count

Authorised sites with planning permission

Unauthorised sites without planning

permission

Total Social Rented Total Private Total Unauthorised

2014 0 13 0 13

2015 0 12 0 12

2016 0 10 0 10

2017 0 10 0 10

Four-Count Average 0 11.25 0 11.25

Four-Count % Average 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Source: DCLG Travelling Showpeople Caravan Count, Live Table 3 (January 2017) Note this uses definitions established by the DCLG

4.8 The DCLG caravan count data also records Traveller and Travelling Showpeople caravan sites provided by local authorities and private registered providers in England20. The most up-to-date data from January 2017 is set out in Table 4.4. This identifies two sites in the RBWM.

Table 4.4 Traveller and Travelling Showpeople caravan sites provided by local authorities and registered providers in Windsor and Maidenhead, January 2017

Site and address

Date site

opened

Date of last site changes

Total no. of

pitches

of which Caravan capacity residential transit

Pool Lane Caravan Site, Pool Lane, Waltham St, Lawrence, Maidenhead

1982 1982 9 9 0 9

Mill Place Caravan Site, Mill Place, Datchet

1974 16 16 0 16

Source: DCLG Traveller Caravan Count, Live Table 2 (January 2017)

Local information

4.9 Data on the provision of sites considers both authorised and unauthorised sites across Windsor and Maidenhead.

20 DCLG Count of Traveller Caravans January 2017 England, Housing Statistical Release 25 May 2017, Live Table 2


May 2018

4.10 Broadly speaking, authorised sites are those with planning permission and can be on either public or privately owned land. Unauthorised sites are made up of either longer term21 unauthorised encampments22, that have been in existence for some considerable time and so can be considered to be indicative of a permanent need for accommodation (in some instances local authorities class these as tolerated sites which may be immune from enforcement by virtue of the passage of time) ; and unauthorised developments, where Travellers are residing upon land that they own and that does not have planning permission (see Appendix D for more detailed definitions).

4.11 There are a number of tolerated sites in Windsor and Maidenhead. Whilst these sites do not benefit from planning permission, many of the tolerated sites are immune from enforcement by reason of the length of time they have existed. However, incomplete records make it difficult to obtain an adequate standard of proof upon which to base a lawful use certificate Equally, enforcement against an unauthorised use is not expedient given a lack of satisfactory information to support that action. These sites are therefore in a difficult “half way” category, providing useful accommodation to meet a demonstrable need, but outside the planning system.

4.12 Table 4.5 sets out information relating to the Gypsy and Traveller sites and located within the RBWM and Maidenhead, and the locations of these sites are shown on Map 4.1. These sites include two authorised permanent Council sites, (which correlates with the information in the DCLG Caravan Count as set out in Table 4.4, above). In addition, there are 6 authorised permanent private sites, 2 temporary private sites and 16 tolerated private sites. In addition, there are 3 Travelling Showpersons’ yards, all are tolerated on private land.

21 Approximately three months or longer 22 Please note that unauthorised encampments also encompass short-term illegal encampments, which are more indicative of transit need, see para 7.10 for more information on these encampments.


May 2018

Table 4.5 List of Gypsy & Traveller sites and Travelling Showperson yards (as at May 2017)

Site/Yard Code

Site/Yard Name and Address Postcode Type of Site/

Yard Ownership

Total Pitches/

Plots Households

Achieved Interviews

LA1 Mill Place, Datchet SL3 9PL Authorised Council 16 16 13

LA2 Pool Lane, Waltham St Lawrence RG10 0JA Authorised Council 9 9 6

Priv1 The Beeches, 5 and 5a Feathers Lane, Wraysbury TW19 5AN Authorised Private 1 2 2

Priv2 Cedar Cottage, Feathers Lane TW19 5AN Authorised Private 1 1 0

Priv3 The Paddock, 44 Feathers Lane, TW19 5AN Authorised Private 1 1 0

Priv4 Woodside, 50 Feathers Lane, TW19 5AN Authorised Private 2 2 2

Priv5 Land adjoining 50 Feathers Lane TW19 5AN Authorised Private 2 2 2

Priv6 The Firs, 4 Feathers Lane, (Now numbered 6A) TW19 5AN Authorised Private 1 1 0

PrivTemp1 Brayfields Stables, Windsor Road, Water Oakley SL4 5UJ Temporary

authorised Private 2 2 2

PrivTemp2

Land Rear of Straton Cottages, Fifield Road TW19 5ND Temporary Authorised

Private 2 2 2

PrivTol1 Pine Lodge, Feathers Lane (previously known as 3 Cedar Cottage)

TW19 5AN Tolerated Private 1 1 0

PrivTol2 Oakdene, Feathers Lane, Wraysbury TW19 5AN Tolerated Private 1 2 0

PrivTol3 Foundry Lane, Horton SL3 9PD Tolerated Private 1 2 2

PrivTol5 The Seasons, 46 Feathers Lane, TW19 5AN Tolerated Private 1 1 1

PrivTol6 Dolphin (Springfield Rose), 48 Feathers Lane TW19 5AN Tolerated Private 1 4 4

PrivTol7 Rose Cottage, 12 Feathers Lane TW19 5AN Tolerated Private 1 1 0

PrivTol8 10a Feathers Lane also known as Westside TW19 5AN Tolerated Private 1 2 2

PrivTol9 The Unicorn, 2 Feathers Lane, (Now numbered 4A) TW19 5AN Tolerated Private 1 2 2

PrivTol10 Land to the West of and to the rear of 1A The Bungalow, Dachet Road, Horton

SL3 9PX Tolerated Private 2 2 2

PrivTol11 1 and 2 Swallows Nest, Dachet Road, Horton (now subdivided but previously known as Swallows Nest)

SL3 9PX Tolerated Private 2 2 2

PrivTol12 1 & 2 The Bungalow, Welley Road, Wraysbury TW19 5DJ Tolerated Private 2 2 1

PrivTol13 Railway View, Datchet Road, Horton SL9 3PY Tolerated Private 3 3 0


May 2018

Table 4.5 List of Gypsy & Traveller sites and Travelling Showperson yards (as at May 2017)

Site/Yard Code

Site/Yard Name and Address Postcode Type of Site/

Yard Ownership

Total Pitches/

Plots Households

Achieved Interviews

PrivTol14 Welley Corner, Welley Road (also known as New Stables,Welley Road)

SL9 3QA Tolerated Private 6 6 0

PrivTol15 Land between 62 and 66 Ditton Road, Datchet SL3 9LS Tolerated Private 1 1 0

PrivTol16 Land adjacent to Newtonside Orchard, Burfield Road, Old Windsor

SL4 2RE Tolerated Private 1 1 1

TSP1 Punters Yard Welley Road, Horton SL3 9QA Tolerated Private 1 2 2

TSP2 Carters Yard, Grove Park, White Waltham SL6 3JF Tolerated Private 12 12 2

TSP3 Kimbers Lane Farm, Oakley Green Road SL4 4QF Tolerated Private 4 4 4

Source: RBWM Council data 2017, site survey fieldwork 2017


May 2018

Map 4.1 Location of sites and yards in the RBWM


May 2018

5. Household survey findings 5.1 This chapter presents the findings of the household survey, which was carried out to

provide primary data to inform this GTAA. The survey aimed to reach as many Gypsy, Traveller, Travelling Showpeople and houseboat dweller households living within the RBWM and Maidenhead as possible. It was conducted using the questionnaires which are set out in Appendix C.

5.2 The methodology is set out in Chapter 3.

5.3 There were a total of 56 responses to the household survey. Of these:

46 were living on pitches on Gypsy and Traveller sites;

8 were living on plots on Travelling Showpersons’ yards; and

2 were living in bricks and mortar accommodation.

5.4 In addition 6 interviews were carried out with households living on an unauthorised encampment in July 2017

5.5 In order to maintain the confidentiality of respondents, the data has been analysed as follows:

Gypsies and Travellers, including those living on Gypsy and Traveller sites and those living in bricks and mortar. The baseline is therefore 48 respondents; and

Travelling Showpeople living on yards. The baseline is therefore 8 respondents.

Population characteristics

5.6 As shown in Table 5.1, the household survey included a relatively even mix of male and female respondents. There were more female respondents than male amongst Gypsies and Travellers.

Table 5.1 Gender of respondents

Gender

Household type

Total


(on pitches or in bricks and mortar)

Travelling Showpeople on plots

Female 63.8% 50.0% 61.8%

Male 36.2% 50.0% 38.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing/no response 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56

Source: 2017 Household Survey


May 2018

5.7 Just over a half (52.7%) of all of the respondents are aged 19-45 years; a quarter (25.5%) are aged 46-64 years and a fifth (21.8%) are aged 65 years or over (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Age of respondents

Age Group

Household type

Total




19-30 25.5% 0.0% 21.8%

31-45 27.7% 50.0% 30.9%

46-64 23.4% 37.5% 25.5%

65+ 23.4% 12.5% 21.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing/no response 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


5.8 Table 5.3 sets out the economic activity of respondents. Overall, 39.2% are in employment, 33.3% are looking after the home/family, 21.6% are retired and 5.9% are unemployed. However, none of the Travelling Showpeople responding to the survey are retired or unemployed.

Table 5.3 Economic activity of respondent

Economic activity

Household type

Total



Travelling Showpeople on

plots

Employed (full or part-time) 32.5% 75.0% 39.2%

Wholly retired from work 25.6% 0.0% 21.6%

Unemployed and available for work 7.0% 0.0% 5.9%

Looking after the home and family 34.9% 25.0% 33.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 43 8 51

Missing 5 0 5

Total 48 8 56


May 2018


5.9 As shown in Table 5.4, 38.2% of respondents identified as English Gypsy, 32.7% English Traveller, 7.3% Romany Gypsy, 3.6% Irish Traveller and 12.7% as Showperson. 5.5% stated ‘other’ ethnic group which could include mixed ethnicities. Unsurprisingly, there was a significant difference in stated ethnicity between the two household types.

Table 5.4 Ethnicity of respondents

Ethnicity

Household type

Total




English Gypsy 44.7% 0.0% 38.2%

English Traveller 38.3% 0.0% 32.7%

Romany Gypsy 8.5% 0.0% 7.3%

Irish Traveller 4.3% 0.0% 3.6%

Showperson 0.0% 87.5% 12.7%

Other ethnic group 4.3% 12.5% 5.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


5.10 Table 5.5 shows household composition by type of household. Overall, 23.6% of households identified as couples with children and a further 14.5% as lone parents. This suggests that around 38.1% of households include children, although none of the Travelling Showpeople households identified as including children. 14.5% of respondents identified as older households, the majority of whom were single person.


May 2018

Table 5.5 Household composition

Type of household

Household type

Total



Travelling Showpeople on

plots

Single person (under 65) 10.6% 50.0% 16.4%

Older single person 65+ 10.6% 12.5% 10.9%

Couple (no children) (under 65) 23.4% 25.5% 23.6%

Older couple 65+ 4.3% 0.0% 3.6%

Couple with children 27.7% 0.0% 23.6%

Lone parent 17.0% 0.0% 14.5%

Other 6.4% 12.5% 7.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


Accommodation

5.11 Table 5.6 sets out the type of accommodation lived in by respondents. Of Gypsy and Traveller households surveyed, 85.1% live in a static/mobile home/chalet and 10.6% in a trailer/wagon. The remaining 4.2% represents two respondents living in bricks and mortar accommodation (bungalow and pine lodge). Of the eight Travelling Showperson households, half (50.0%) live in a trailer/wagon/tourer and half (50.0%) live in a static/mobile home/chalet.


May 2018

Table 5.6 Accommodation type

Accommodation type

Household type

Total




Trailer/wagon 10.6% 50.0% 16.4%

Static/mobile home/chalet 85.1% 50.0% 80.0%

Bungalow 2.1% 0.0% 1.8%

Other 2.1%* 0.0% 1.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 57

Source: 2017 Household Survey Note: * self-defined as ‘pine lodge’ by the respondent

5.12 Information provided by respondents on the number of bedspaces available in their accommodation is set out in Table 5.7. The majority of Gypsy and Traveller households have two bedspaces available (61.7%). Travelling Showperson households tend to have two or three bedspaces available (75.0%).

Table 5.7 Number of bedspaces

Bedspaces

Household type

Total




One 10.6% 25.0% 12.7%

Two 61.7% 37.5% 58.2%

Three 27.7% 37.5% 29.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


5.13 Tables 5.8 and 5.9 set out respondents’ views on whether or not their home/trailer (Table 5.8) and pitch (Table 5.9) is overcrowded. 9.1% of all responding households consider their home to be overcrowded and 9.1% consider their pitch to be


May 2018

overcrowded. It is worth noting that none of the Travelling Showpeople living on plots consider their home or plot to be overcrowded.

5.14 Overcrowded households comprised couples with two adult children and couples with two or three children.

Table 5.8 Overcrowding of home or trailer

Do you think your home is overcrowded?

Household type

Total




Yes 10.6% 0.0% 9.1%

No 89.4% 100.0% 90.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


Table 5.9 Overcrowding of pitch

Do you think your pitch/plot is overcrowded?

Household type

Total




Yes 10.6% 0.0% 9.1%

No 89.4% 100.0% 90.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


5.15 The survey asked respondents how long they have lived at their current location (Table 5.10). Overall, 12.8% had lived at their current residence for less than two years, 10.9% for between two and five years and 76.4% for five years or more. Slightly more Travelling Showpeople had moved to their current residence within the past five years than Gypsies and Traveller households.


May 2018

Table 5.10 Duration of residence

How long have you lived here?

Household type

Total




Up to 1 year 8.5% 0.0% 7.3%

Over 1 and up to 2 years 4.3% 12.5% 5.5%

2 years and up to 3 years 6.4% 12.5% 7.3%



5 years or more 78.7% 62.5% 76.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56 Source: 2017 Household Survey

5.16 In terms of the location of previous residence (Table 5.11), 76.5% of all households had moved to their current residence from within the RBWM (including from the same site/yard). A higher proportion of Travelling Showperson households (50.0%) had moved from outside of the Borough, compared with 19.1% of Gypsy and Traveller households.

Table 5.11 Previous address

Where did you move from?

Household type

Total




The same site 4.3% 12.5% 5.5%

The same district 76.6% 37.5% 70.9%

From outside the district 19.1% 50.0% 23.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


5.17 Respondents were asked about the nature of their pitch/plot when they moved onto it (Table 5.12). Just over a quarter (28.3%) of all respondents had moved onto a brand new pitch/plot, while the majority of households (69.8% of all respondents) had moved onto


May 2018

an empty pitch/plot that had previously been occupied. None of the Gypsy and Traveller respondents live on a pitch that was the result of sub-division, whereas this was mentioned by one of the Travelling Showpeople households (12.5%).

Table 5.12 Nature of pitch/plot on initial occupation

When you moved onto this pitch, was it?

Household type

Total




A brand new pitch which had not been occupied

28.9% 25.0% 28.3%

An empty pitch which had previously been occupied

71.1% 62.5% 69.8%

Part of an existing pitch which became available to you (sub-division)

0.0% 12.5% 1.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 45 8 53

Missing 3 0 3

Total 48 8 56


5.18 When respondents were asked why they moved onto their current pitch, the most frequently-mentioned reasons were to be close to family/friends, nowhere else was suitable or simply chose this place/no particular reason.

Travelling practices

5.19 The household survey asked respondents whether or not they have travelled in the last year (Table 5.13) and also previous to last year (Table 5.14). The term ‘travelled’ was not defined but left open to self-interpretation by the respondents but from respondents perspectives it would accord with a notion of a ‘nomadic habit of life.’

5.20 In the last year, 87.5% of Travelling Showpeople households have travelled, compared with 21.3% of Gypsy and Traveller households. A slightly lower proportion of both groups stated that they had travelled previous to the last year.


May 2018

Table 5.13 Travelled in the last year

Have you travelled in the last year?

Household type

Total




Yes, in the last year 21.3% 87.5% 30.9%

No, not in the last year 78.7% 12.5% 69.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


Table 5.14 Travelled previous to the last year

Have you travelled previous to last year?

Household type

Total




Yes, previous to last year 19.1% 75.0% 27.3%

No 80.9% 25.0% 72.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


5.21 The main reasons for travel given were cultural reasons, work-related, to attend fairs and personal preference as shown in Table 5.15.


May 2018

Table 5.15 Reasons for travelling

Reason for travelling

Household type

Total




Cultural reasons 55.6% 42.9% 50.0%

Personal preference 11.1% 0.0% 6.3%

Work related 22.2% 28.6% 25.0%

Visit family/ friends or family events 11.1% 0.0% 6.3%

To attend fairs 0.0% 28.6% 12.5%

To attend religious meetings/ conventions 0.0% 14.3% 6.3%

Only way of life I know 11.1% 6.3%

Limited opportunity to settle down/ no pitch(plot) on which to live/ lack of pitch(yard) provision 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Base 9 7

Missing 0 0 1

Total 9 7 56


5.22 The household survey asked whether respondents plan to travel in the next year (Table 5.16) and every year for the next five years and/or beyond (Table 5.17). Overall, 32.7% of households intend to travel in the next year, but with much higher representation from Travelling Showpeople (62.5%) than Gypsies and Traveller households (27.7%). The longer-term intentions (Table 5.16) are very similar.


May 2018

Table 5.16 Intention to travel in the next year

Do you plan to travel in the next year?

Household type

Total




Yes 27.7% 62.5% 32.7%

No 72.3% 37.5% 67.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


Table 5.17 Intention to travel for the next five years and/or beyond

Do you think you will travel each year for the next five years and/or beyond?

Household type

Total




Yes 29.8% 62.5% 34.5%

No 70.2% 37.5% 65.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


5.23 Table 5.18 sets out information provided by respondents relating to the typical duration of their travels. Overall 18 respondents provided an answer; of these there was a range of responses in terms of the typical duration of travel; 5.6% stated less than two weeks, 61.1% stated five to 12 weeks and 33.3% stated over 13 weeks per year. Travelling Showperson households typically travelled for longer periods than Gypsies and Travellers; for example, all Travelling Showpeople who travelled were away for a minimum of nine weeks.


May 2018

Table 5.18 Duration of travel

How long do you normally travel for each year?

Household type

Total




No more than 13 days 7.7% 0.0% 5.6%

2 to 4 weeks (or one month) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

5 to 8 weeks (or 2 months) 30.8% 0.0% 22.2%



6 to 10 months 7.7% 20.0% 11.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 13 5 18

Missing 35 3 38

Total 38 8 56


5.24 Locations of travel given by respondents include Essex, Appleby, Wales and locations in the south and south west. Routes mentioned include M25, M1, M3 and M4 along with A12. In terms of the time of travel, respondents all mentioned summer months. The main reasons given for travel were work, cultural and fairs/shows.

5.25 The questionnaire asked respondents for reasons why they do not travel, if relevant (Table 5.19). Reasons given include not needing to travel, long-term health reasons, work/job commitments and too many problems relating to travelling. 2.3% of respondents indicated a preference not to travel.


May 2018

Table 5.19 Reason for no longer travelling

Reason for not travelling

Household type

Total



Travelling Showpeople

on plots

Too many problems relating to travelling 9.5% 0.0% 9.1%

Long term health reasons 14.3% 50.0% 15.9%

Prefer not to travel 2.4% 0.0% 2.3%

Family commitments 2.4% 0.0% 2.3%

Education of children 4.8% 0.0% 4.5%

Work/ job commitments 11.9% 0.0% 11.4%

Do not need to travel 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

Other 4.8% 0.0% 4.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 42 2 44

Missing 6 6 12

Total 48 8 56


Provision of sites

5.26 The household survey asked respondents for their views on the need for sites in the RBWM.

5.27 In terms of transit provision, 25.5% of Gypsy and Traveller households felt that there was a need for provision of transit accommodation pitches/sites within the Borough (Table 5.20). Travelling Showpeople households were not asked this question. The 6 households interviewed on the unauthorised encampment in July 2017 were passing through and not intending on staying in the RBWM however they would have benefitted from transit site provision being available.


May 2018

Table 5.20 Need for transit sites

Is there a need for transit sites in Windsor and Maidenhead?

Household type

Total




Yes 25.5% - 25.5%

No 74.5% - 74.5%

Total 100.0% - 100.0%

Base 47 - 47

Missing 1 - 9

Total 48 - 56


5.28 Management of transit sites by the Council was preferred (Table 5.21). 92.3% of those responding to the question (base of 13 responses) said that they would prefer transit sites to be managed by the Council.

Table 5.21 Preferred management of transit sites

Who should manage transit sites?

Household type

Total




Council 92.3% - 92.3%

Private (Gypsies and Travellers) 7.7% - 7.7%

Total 100.0% - 100.0%

Base 13 - 13

Missing 35 - 43

Total 48 - 56


5.29 Overall, 59.6% of respondents felt that there was a need for new permanent sites in the RBWM (Table 5.22). This view was strongest amongst Travelling Showpeople living on plots in the Borough; 83.5% of this group felt that there was a need for new permanent sites.


May 2018

Table 5.22 Need for new permanent sites

Is there a need for new permanent sites in Windsor and Maidenhead?

Household type

Total




Yes 56.5% 83.5% 59.6%

No 43.5% 16.7% 40.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 46 6 52

Missing 2 2 4

Total 48 8 56


5.30 Council management of permanent sites was preferred (Table 5.23), with 82.1% of those responding (base of 28 responses) stating that they would prefer to live on sites managed by the Council.

Table 5.23 Preferred management of permanent sites

Who should manage permanent sites?

Household type

Total




Council 87.5% 50.0% 82.1%

Private (Gypsies/Travellers) 12.5% 25.0% 14.3%

Private (non-Gypsy/Traveller) 0.0% 25.0% 3.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 24 4 28

Missing 24 4 28

Total 48 8 56


Moving plans

5.31 The household survey asked about plans for the future (Table 5.24). Overall, under one-tenth (9.3%) of households stated an intention to move home within the next five years. There was not a significant difference in the proportionate response between the Gypsy and Traveller households and the Travelling Showpeople households.


May 2018

Table 5.24 Intention to move in the next five years

Are you planning to move in the next five years?

Household type

Total




Yes 8.7% 12.5% 9.3%

No 91.3% 87.5% 90.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 46 8 54

Missing 2 0 2

Total 48 8 56


5.32 Asked where they plan to move to, 80.0% of the households planning to move stated an intention to move to another site/yard, while 20% said that they plan to move into bricks and mortar accommodation.

5.33 In terms of accommodation, 25.0% of those planning to move to another site stated trailer/wagon and 75.0% stated chalet/mobile home. The household planning to move into bricks and mortar specified a house as their intended type of accommodation.

5.34 Respondents were asked whether they consider there to be potential for the further expansion of the sites where they live (Table 5.25). Overall, 83.6% of respondents considered that there was no potential to increase the number of pitches on the site. Of those who felt that there was expansion potential, the respondents considered there was space for between one and six additional pitches. This is presented further in Chapter 7.

Table 5.25 Potential for further expansion

Thinking of where you live, is there potential for further expansion?

Household type

Total




Yes 17.0% 12.5% 16.4%

No 83.0% 87.5% 83.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


May 2018


5.35 In terms of potential sub-division of existing pitches (Table 5.26), 6.4% of Gypsy and Traveller household respondents considered that this was possible, but no Travelling Showperson households agreed.

Table 5.26 Potential for sub-division

Is there potential to sub-divide existing pitches?

Household type

Total




Yes 6.4% 0.0% 5.5%

No 93.6% 100.0% 94.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Base 47 8 55

Missing 1 0 1

Total 48 8 56


5.36 The household survey asked respondents to rank a number of factors relating to the site/yard that they live on. They were asked to choose from ‘happy’, ‘okay’ or ‘not happy’. The results are set out in Figure 5.1, which shows high levels of satisfaction. ‘Happy’ ratings were lowest for the issues of site management (87.3% of respondents stated that they were happy) and quality of sheds (88.9% stated that they were happy). ‘Happy’ ratings were highest for the issues of location (94.6% stated happy) and size of pitch (94.6% stated happy).


May 2018

Figure 5.1 Respondents views of their site/yard


87.3

94.6

92.5

88.9

94.6

92.6

92.5

90.7

92.5

7.3

3.6

1.9

9.3

1.8

7.4

7.5

7.4

7.5

5.4

1.8

5.6

1.8

3.6

1.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Site management

Size of pitch

Access to site

Quality of sheds

Location

Cost of electricity

Cost of gas

Cost of water

Cost of rent

Happy Okay Not happy


May 2018

6. Stakeholder consultation

Overview

6.1 Stakeholder consultation in respect of the GTAA was undertaken in partnership with RBWM Council. A list of key stakeholders operating in and around the RBWM area were contacted. Stakeholders were invited to participate in an online survey aimed at identifying a range of information, including establishing the key perceived issues facing the Gypsy and Traveller, Showpeople and houseboat dweller communities within the area and ways in which these need to be addressed.

6.2 A total of 27 responses were received to the stakeholder consultation, although some of these were partial. Stakeholders responding to the survey include representatives from RBWM Council and neighbouring district councils (9 respondents) and representatives from parish councils within the RBWM (12 respondents). The remaining respondents did not identify that they were representing an organisation.

6.3 The findings of the online stakeholder survey are set out below, followed by a section summarising the findings of telephone interviews with site/estate managers.

General support for the communities

6.4 Asked whether they consider that there is sufficient understanding and monitoring of the education, employment, health, accommodation and support needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople within the study area, a range of views were expressed by stakeholders. Many did not respond, or were unsure. However, two respondents stated yes while nine stated no. In terms of what more could be done to improve the current position, improved interaction, consultation and regular meetings with the travelling community were mentioned by several stakeholders.

6.5 Stakeholders were asked whether they think that there is adequate awareness of the cultural, support and accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in the study area, and if not, what more could be done to raise awareness. Of those who provided a clear answer, two said yes (there is adequate awareness) while eight said no. Some were unaware of any support being available to Travellers within the area. Several stakeholders commented on the ‘them and us’ atmosphere that exists, but some stressed that this is on both sides. Prejudice and suspicion were mentioned as general problems in the way the wider community perceives Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople, although this is usually based on limited experience. However, it was also noted that some of the Travelling community have no motivation or incentive to integrate with the settled community and are determined to protect their own identity, heritage and culture. Suggestions to improve awareness included general public information via relevant media channels; setting up acceptable lines of communication to promote mutual respect; and education by example in terms of integration.

6.6 Few stakeholders identified actions that their organisation has taken to raise awareness of the cultural, support and accommodation s of the Travelling community. One representative from a neighbouring local authority mentioned their GTAA study and the


May 2018

associated publicity which helping in raising awareness, and another referenced the discussions that take place in council meetings. A representative of Horton Parish Council explained that their parish council interacts with the local community at a personal level. There is also a wide acceptance and welcoming of the local community through St. Michael's Church, with annual church services and Christmas events specifically encompassing the local Traveller community as well as weddings, christenings and funerals hosted at the church. They reported that a large section of the church yard has become - albeit accidentally - assigned mainly for local Gypsy and Traveller family graves.

6.7 In terms of additional comments, several stakeholders commented on the diversity of cultures and practices within the broader Travelling community – some Gypsies and Travellers who travel, some who are settled on sites, others who are settled on yards, and Travelling Showpeople. Two individual respondents expressed the view that the Travelling community (particularly those settled) should not have special considerations above the general population, some of whom themselves are struggling.

Provision of accommodation

6.8 Stakeholders were asked to respond to a series of questions relating to the need for new pitch provision (both permanent and transit), existing pitch provision, households living in bricks and mortar accommodation, and unauthorised encampment activity. Their responses are summarised below.

Existing provision

6.9 The survey questionnaire asked stakeholders whether they think that there is sufficient provision of permanent sites/pitches/plots for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople across the RBWM. Of those responding, two said yes (there is sufficient) and six said no. One reported that ‘there are only 25 pitches in total’, while other respondents raised concerns about illegal encampments by roaming groups, recent proposals to develop a site on flood zone land and the difficulty of balancing needs against what is available, particularly in the context of the shortage of affordable housing in the area.

6.10 The standard of facilities on existing sites in the borough was generally considered to be adequate; one respondent reported that ‘standards are good’ and another stated that the facilities on Datchet site are ‘great’. However, several respondents suggested that better monitoring is required.

6.11 Regarding the management of privately-run sites, there was limited feedback. One parish council representative believed them to be well run and managed, with keen demand. By contrast, another parish council representative stated that ‘they appear to be over used and cramped’.

6.12 Stakeholders were asked whether they are aware of any issues/tensions between Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople and the settled community, on existing sites within the Council area. Several of the respondents were aware of problems, but the references were often in relation to issues arising from unauthorised encampments


May 2018

and illegal activities, rather than in relation to permanent sites in the borough. One respondent stated that ‘there is tension in Datchet’. Another (a parish council representative) stated that they experience ‘occasional issues’ but the parish council seeks to address these wherever possible. One respondent also highlighted tensions within the Travelling community itself, for example between Irish and English Travellers who have different cultures.

6.13 One of the parish council representatives raised concerns regarding the extension of the static caravan site at Datchet Road without planning permission, along with signs advertising mobile homes available for rental.

New permanent sites

6.14 In terms of the location of any new permanent sites/pitches, stakeholders made the following comments:

Sites should be spread across the borough – one in each parish/town was proposed by one stakeholder;

Sites should be on brownfield land of low landscape value;

Sites should have good access to roads and local amenities;

Datchet, Wraysbury, Horton and the surrounding area was mentioned as a specific location for new permanent provision; and

Sites should be for locals only.

6.15 Two parish council representatives queried the need for new permanent sites, expressing the belief that new sites are not required. One evidenced this, stating that existing mobile homes are being advertised outside of the area, although also suggesting that allocating sites specifically for the younger families of existing resident Travellers could be beneficial.

6.16 Two respondents (one a parish council representative) questioned whether a need for permanent sites indicates that the Gypsies and Travellers are permanent residents, or whether they are travelling and thus have different needs. The parish council representative stated that ‘permanent sites which are not transit sites appears to contradict the primary needs of those with a travelling lifestyle and culture’.

6.17 The main barriers to the provision of new permanent sites were identified as:

NIMBYism and resistance from members of the local community, sometimes because of a lack of understanding of Travellers and/or a dislike;

Local residents’ perceptions and/or experiences of crime, damage and anti-social behaviour (ASB) on illegal encampments;

Physical barriers of Green Belt, flood plain and infrastructure;

Pressure to use available sites to deliver permanent housing; and

Resources required to manage sites.


May 2018

Transit sites

6.18 Transit provision is a pitch or site intended for short-term use whilst in transit; such provision is usually permanent and authorised, but there is a limit on the length of time that residents can stay there. Stakeholders were asked whether they consider that transit sites are needed in the RBWM area. Four respondents said no, while six respondents expressed the view that transit pitches are needed in the borough, to avoid illegal encampments and to support the needs of those with a travelling culture and lifestyle. One stakeholder stated that the location of any transit site(s) would need to be very carefully considered and subject to public consultation. Management and resourcing was also mentioned.

6.19 The following barriers to new transit site provision were mentioned by stakeholders:

Several respondents re-iterated the same barriers as with permanent site provision (as above); in addition,

There was a feeling that the barriers to transit site provision are probably stronger than for permanent sites because of the perception and/or experience of travelling households on illegal encampments, including ASB, fly-tipping and crime; and

Political barriers were mentioned.

6.20 Stakeholders were asked whether, in general, they feel that support for Gypsy and Traveller sites is influenced by the number of caravans accommodated on the site in question. Four stated no, but five stated yes. The latter expressed the view that there would be more resistance with proposals for larger sites.

6.21 Asked if they had further comments one parish council representative stated that their own Gypsy and Traveller community are against transit site provision in their local area, because of the problems associated with transit behaviour. Instead they would like to see more permanent sites available for their own families.

Moorings for houseboat dwellers

6.22 Stakeholders were asked whether they think that there is sufficient provision of moorings for houseboat dwellers across the Council area. Most stakeholders did not respond, or stated that they did not know. However, two parish council representatives said no, there is not sufficient provision.

Bricks and mortar accommodation

6.23 Several stakeholders are aware of members of the Gypsy and Traveller community who live in bricks and mortar accommodation in the borough. Locations mentioned include Horton, Wraysbury and Datchet (eastern end). Three respondents were aware of households living in bricks and mortar who would like to move to a pitch. Two parish council respondents referred to problems relating to social inclusion and anti-social behaviour.

6.24 When asked specifically if they consider that additional provision of sites/pitches needs to be made to accommodate the needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling


May 2018

Showpeople currently living in settled (bricks and mortar) accommodation, four respondents said yes. One representative from a neighbouring local authority stated that their experience is that allowance needs to be made for the needs of Travellers currently living in bricks and mortar. A parish council respondent suggested that many would prefer to be re-homed into vans on sites/pitches, which would also free up affordable housing for others. Another parish council representative said that local families often make their own provisions through land acquisition, but suggested that more work is needed to ensure this complies with legal requirements and planning permission.

6.25 In relation to support available to help those Gypsies and Travellers living in settled accommodation to manage their housing effectively, two parish council respondents said that the same support is available as with any other residents. A further two respondents stated that groups should not be singled out for additional help or special treatment. Three stakeholders (one from a parish council) felt that further support was important, with two commenting that many Gypsies and Travellers can’t read or write. They may not be aware that help is available, or may see it as interference rather than potential assistance.

6.26 Stakeholders were asked whether Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople feel safe in settled accommodation, and whether their cultural needs are given consideration when conventional accommodation is offered. Three respondents (two of whom are parish council representatives) stated no (they do not feel safe) and a further respondent (parish council) also expressed this view, stating that they believe some do not feel safe, being subject to racism from neighbours. A representative from a neighbouring local authority stated their experience that Travellers have ‘a cultural aversion to living in bricks and mortar’, rather than concerns about safety and security. Two respondents (parish council representatives) expressed the view that the opposite can also be the case in parts of the borough, with the neighbouring population feeling threatened by the Travelling community.

6.27 In making additional comments on these issues, one stakeholder stated that their needs to be more integration, whilst another said that the biggest difficulty for parish and borough council is creating good lines of communication with the Traveller community, particularly in relation to planning controls.

6.28 Arc4 have also been in contact with one community representative who was concerned that the need from bricks and mortar households was adequately reflected in the GTAA. Attempts were made to provide details of households requiring pitches but this was not achieved. However, the GTAA does reflect on need from bricks and mortar households has evidenced in the housing register.

Unauthorised encampments

6.29 Stakeholders were asked how many unauthorised encampments take place each year in their area. Five parish council respondents from within RBWM responded, typically reporting between one and three incursions within their parish.

6.30 A representative for RBWM reported the following unauthorised encampment statistics:


May 2018

2012/13 – 12

2013/14 – 17

2014/15 – 12

2015/16 – 19

2016/17 – 23

6.31 Local authority representatives from neighbouring districts reported the following:

Runneymede – In recent years there have been very few unauthorised encampments, either short or long term. However, there has been one large (37 caravans) incursion in 2017 and the Council is using enforcement and legal powers to seek to vacate the site.

Bracknell Forest – In the past three years there have been 8 (2014), 7 (2015) and 31 (2016) unauthorised encampments.

South Bucks – At present there are two unauthorised pitches on a site; these are the subject of enforcement action. There have also been a number of short term encampments in the area since May 2017 but people have moved on fairly quickly.

Spelthorne – Typically around six or seven encampments per year, but this can vary from two or three to 30-40 at a time, with the length of stay being very variable.

6.32 Stakeholders were asked whether unauthorised encampments are problematic for their organisation. At least nine stakeholders stated that unauthorised encampments cause problems, including anti-social behaviour, intimidation, damage to property, increased crime rates, fly-tipping and clean-up afterwards. In addition, impacts on local amenities were mentioned, including the need for the installation of deterrents. Several respondents commented on the resources required, including officer/police time and significant costs, especially when court orders/baliffs are required.

6.33 The overwhelming view of stakeholders was that unauthorised encampments have a very negative affect on the perceptions of the local community.

6.34 One parish council representative expressed the view that problems experienced were not directly related to their local Gypsy and Traveller site; instead the problems experienced more frequently related to land purchased by Gypsies and Travellers for business purposes, but planning conditions designed to limit nuisance from the business use were often ignored.

Planning policy

6.35 The online survey asked stakeholders if there are any areas within planning policy that they consider have restricted the provision of new sites or pitches for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. Two respondents (parish council representatives) said no and two further parish council respondents stated that Green Belt and flooding restrictions impact development in the area, but that this affects all planning and not just planning for Gypsies and Travellers. One of the latter respondents noted that exceptions are being made for large commercial developers, and they proposed that


May 2018

exceptions could be made for other forms of development, especially social housing and permanent mobile home sites. Another parish council representative suggested that there should be a focus on short-term stay transit provision.

6.36 A representative from one of the neighbouring local authorities said that the availability of reliable and up-to-date evidence of genuine need was an area of planning that is a potential restriction on new provision. Another council respondent stated that generally the PPTS and Green Belt policy present ‘severe limitations’ for local planning authorities dealing with these issues, but noted that changes to this overarching context lie at the national level.

6.37 When specifically asked if more could be done through planning policy and site allocation in the Local Plan to identify and bring forward new sites for the provision of pitches for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople, two respondents said yes and two said no. Other comments received include:

‘Get travelling people more involved’;

‘RBWM should meet its own needs for the travelling community identified in Local Plan evidence. RBWM should consider all options for achieving this’;

‘The Borough Plan is already at Reg. 19 stage and will not accept changes. There is no provision within the Plan for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation; it just refers back to Government Policy’;

‘In the recent consultation on Runnymede Council's Local Plan, many of the housing site allocations include a requirement to provide traveller accommodation of between two and ten pitches, resulting in a total provision figure of 34’; and

‘It would be helpful for the government to provide clear guidance on the subject’.

Movements and cross-boundary issues

6.38 The survey asked stakeholders if they are aware of any regular movements of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople from neighbouring areas, in or out of the RBWM Council area. Two stakeholders answered positively, with M3 and M4 corridor routes being noted. 11 respondents said no, they were not aware of any routes.

6.39 In terms of sites or locations close to the boundary of RBWM where difficulties have arisen there was more awareness amongst stakeholders, with three stating yes compared with nine stating no. However, no details were provided.

6.40 Stakeholders were asked if there are any cross-boundary issues, in respect of Gypsies, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople that should be considered as part of this study. One parish council respondent stated that Traveller issues, by definition, are not confined within local authority boundaries and cannot be addressed without cooperation. Another parish council representative highlighted education as an important cross-boundary issue,

6.41 One local authority respondent suggested that, depending upon this findings of the GTAA, transit site provision may need to be considered strategically. However, another council representative stressed the need to have a consistent monitoring framework for


May 2018

travelling community applications, decisions and encampments and stated that some of the neighbouring districts would be very concerned if RBWM were not proposing to meet their own needs (transit and permanent) in case there were knock-on effects in Buckinghamshire and impacts on their area. Specific Travelling communities to be considered in relation to cross-boundary issues were identified by one town council representative: Slough, South Bucks, Wokingham, Spelthorne and Hounslow.

6.42 Stakeholders were invited to state what they thought should be the key outcomes of the study. Responses included the following:

‘A robust pitch/plot need requirement (for both PPTS/Cultural), and consideration of any transit provision needs’;

‘To cover all aspects of the travelling community needs whether they comply with PPTS or not bearing in mind the Council's equality duty’;

‘Identify the accommodation needs of the traveller community, with a focus on confirming the probable shortfall of accommodation supply’;

‘Refocus on adequate transit pitch provision’;

‘Ensure existing provision is well managed and illegal use reduced’;

‘To identify the full needs for Gypsy and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople so that the Borough Council can demonstrate whether they can meet those needs in full and to establish a dialogue with adjoining authorities, under the duty to cooperate, concerning any cross-boundary issues which arise’;

‘Far reaching and all-encompassing consultation between the Borough, Parishes and Gypsy & Traveller Community to understand and try to remedy conflicts surrounding cultural differences and to establish where and how accommodation for the existing Traveller Community can be provided’;

‘Better understanding of the issues to overcome, and addressing those’;

‘Adequate provision is already made in this area’;

‘Identification and acceptance of the truth followed by travellers complying with the rules and being treated like ordinary people’;

‘Equal opportunities for all - to make things better for everybody traveller or non traveller’.

6.43 Asked if they had any additional comments, one parish council respondent expressed concern that stakeholder consultation has not been extended to the people who live and work in the local communities who are affected by Gypsy and Traveller issues, such as the east end of Datchet. Another respondent highlighted a local circumstance involving an unauthorised development which has involved protracted and expensive legal proceedings and has resulted in ongoing impacts for neighbours and a nervous and negative baseline attitude towards new Traveller developments and encampments.

6.44 The survey explained to stakeholders that the questionnaire is considered to contribute to the local planning authority’s requirement on the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities, as set out in Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011) and described in


May 2018

the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as an integral part of the Local Plan-making process and its assessment at Examination. They were asked for any views on this. One local authority representative stated that ‘this questionnaire should only be a starting point of evidence gathering to enable a proper discussion of the issues under the duty to cooperate, so that the possible strategic cross-boundary issues, if any, can be addressed’. Another council respondent commented that the questionnaire does not fulfil all of the Duty to Cooperate requirements and stated that on-going liaison between the councils and effective outcomes of this will be essential as the Local Plan policy develops, in particular how RBWM deals with its own Traveller needs. Another local authority respondent acknowledged that the provision of Traveller accommodation is a matter to appropriately be considered in the context of the Duty to Cooperate. However, they considered that, in practical terms, the outcome of the co-operation between local planning authorities is ‘likely to be negligible’, stating: ‘it is difficult enough for a LPA to secure support for meeting the needs of travellers residing in, or resorting to, its own area; the problems in trying to do so in respect of another LPA's needs are considerably heightened’.

6.45 One of the parish council respondents expressed concerns regarding consultation with Slough Borough Council regarding social housing and Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.

6.46 In terms of any additional comments, two representatives from neighbouring local authorities mentioned the consideration that may need to be given to any unmet need that pre-dates the GTAA study but is within the Local Plan Period.

Site manager consultation

6.47 The two local authority-owned Gypsy and Traveller sites in the RBWM are managed by housing associations.

6.48 As turnover and the potential supply of vacant sites arising is factored into the pitch needs analysis, telephone discussions were undertaken with representatives of the site managers of Mill Place Site, Datchet (Radian Group) and Pool Lane Site, Waltham St Lawrence (Housing Solutions).

6.49 Mill Place Site, Datchet, accommodates 16 pitches on the site, all of which are occupied. The residents are long-term tenants and there has only been one vacancy in the past five years. In April 2018 there were 18 households on the waiting list (of which 4 are currently living on Mill Place (but wish to move pitch), 1 lives in a caravan elsewhere in the Borough, 8 live in bricks and mortar, and 5 not specified). This implies a net need for 14 pitches.23.

6.50 With respect to Pool Lane, Waltham St Lawrence, of the nine pitches available there are currently nine households on-site and no vacancies. The occupiers are long-term tenants living in static caravans on a permanent basis. In the past five years, three pitches have become vacant. One was through a death and the pitch vacancy was

23 Modelling in Table 7.1 includes an allowance for households forming and needing their own pitch so there may be double counting if the needs from the register are also added to the overall need.


May 2018

quickly filled. The other two pitches became vacant through households leaving without notice so a legal process had to be followed in order to gain re-possession before they could be re-allocated. Housing Solutions holds a waiting list. In April 2018 there were 17 households on the waiting list (of which 1 lives on another pitch on Pool Lane Site, 1 lives on another LA site in the Borough, 4 lived on unauthorised sites in the Borough, 3 lived in in bricks and mortar within the Borough, 6 lived in Bricks and Mortar outside the Borough but had connections with the area and 2 live on sites outside the Borough). This implies a net need from a total of 15 households comprising: 3 bricks and mortar households from within the Borough, 4 on unauthorised sites within the area, 8 from households wanting to move into the Borough (from either sites or bricks and mortar).

Houseboat moorings provider consultation

6.51 As part of the GTAA 2017, arc4 carried out a review of residential moorings for people living on houseboats.

6.52 To identify these individuals, moorings and marinas in the Borough were identified and contact was made with the estate managers to establish:

Residential houseboat dwellers (how many and where?),

If there are other locations in RBWM where there are houseboat dwellers,

Some background to the moorings/marinas and available facilities,

Whether additional residential moorings are needed in RBWM,

What is demand like (types of household, where are they coming from, reasons for moving onto houseboats), and

Do they have a waiting list (and how many are on it).

6.53 Contact was made with Sarbonne Estates, Bray Marina, Racecourse Marina and Floating Homes.

Sarbonne Estates

6.54 The discussions revealed that although there is an appetite for residential mooring, Sarbonne estates have over 100 moorings in 5 locations across the RBWM (Saxon Estates, Bourne End, Henley, Platts Eyot and Thameside Moorings) but only one of the 100 moorings is residential. Typically, sites offer facilities for picnicking and barbeque; CCTV; parking; water; electricity and toilets.

6.55 No waiting list is kept but there is significant demand for residential moorings as reported by this stakeholder.

Bray Marina

6.56 Despite their website advertising base moorings, Bray Marina stated that they do not have residential moorings in RBWM. The marina has 400 berths and offers a repairs service, winter storage/hard standing, car park, toilets, water and fuel.


May 2018

The Racecourse Marina

6.57 The Racecourse Marina was redeveloped 18 months ago and no longer has any moorings. The race track manager is unaware of any replacement moorings nearby.

Floating Homes

6.58 Floating Homes make houseboats. They indicate they have constructed four residential houseboats at the Willows and probably 50 in total along the Thames. They get a lot of enquiries for residential houseboats and but the problem is there isn’t anywhere to put them. The existing marinas don’t want to lose paying visitor moorings sites for obvious reasons. Floating Homes suggested that the gravel pits along the Thames might be a solution to the lack of space.

6.59 The requests for permanent come from people who are looking for a change of life-style – for example, children grown up, mortgage paid off or looking for a change of scene.

Interviews with houseboat occupants

6.60 Two interviews were secured with households living on houseboats:

Both were older person households;

They travelled locally and were happy where they lived as it is quiet;

Neither had intentions of moving anywhere else.

6.61 Overall, evidence would suggest there are relatively few residential moorings in the RBWM. One respondent suggested that up to 12 moorings would be appropriate for the Borough and managed by the Canals and Rivers Trust however there is no credible evidence of unsatisfied need. It is recommended that the Council engages with the Canals and Rivers Trust to establish the feasibility of increasing the number of residential moorings in the RBWM and also confirm the potential number of moorings that can be delivered.


May 2018

7. Gypsy and Traveller pitch, Travelling Showperson plot and transit site need

Introduction

7.1 This section reviews the overall pitch need of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople across RBWM. It takes into account current supply and need, as well as future need, based on modelling of data, as advocated by the DCLG. This chapter also considers transit pitch need for Gypsies and Travellers. Finally, it presents planning policy recommendations.

7.2 The National Planning Policy Framework states that local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area including the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. The Planning Policy for Traveller Sites August 2015 require an assessment of the current needs of Gypsies and Travellers and a projection of future needs. The policy advocates the use of a survey to supplement secondary source information and derive key supply and demand information. The calculation of pitch need is based on DCLG modelling as advocated in Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment Guidance (DCLG, 2007 now withdrawn). The PPTS states at Policy B (para 9)

“Local planning authorities should set pitch targets for gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1 and plot targets for travelling showpeople as defined in Annex 1 which address the likely permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers in their area, working collaboratively with neighbouring local planning authorities.”

7.3 This GTAA for RBWM has modelled current and future demand and current and future supply separately for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. For this study, the model has considered a cultural definition of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople, as indicated by the proposed revision to the NPPF but also takes account of the planning definition (PPTS 2015) as an element of modelling output.

Pitch need model overview

7.4 Pitch needs are assessed over an initial five-year period (2017/18 to 2021/22) (the 5-year model) and then longer-term need is based on the expected number of households likely to form over the remainder of the plan period (2022/23 to 2032/33) based on the age profile of children under 13 living in Gypsy and Traveller households on pitches (the longer-term model). The modelling considers the overall cultural need for pitches and establishes the PPTS need as an element of this need.

7.5 In terms of cultural need, the 5-year model considers:

The baseline number of households on all types of site (authorised, unauthorised and temporary authorised sites) as at April 2017;

Existing households living on caravan sites that are not specifically Gypsy and Traveller sites;


May 2018

Existing households planning to move in the next five years (currently on sites and also from bricks and mortar and caravan sites (non- Gypsy Traveller) and where they are planning to move to24; and

Emerging households currently on sites and planning to emerge in the next five years and stay within the study area on a pitch; to derive a figure for

Total pitch need.

7.6 In terms of PPTS defined need

The cultural need is factored by the percentage of households surveyed who indicated that they were still intending to travel and maintain a nomadic habit of life.

7.7 In terms of supply, the model considers:

Total supply of current pitches on authorised sites;

Vacant pitches on authorised sites.

7.8 The model then reconciles total need and existing authorised supply over the next 5 years by summarising:

Total need for pitches; and

Total supply of authorised pitches.

7.9 The longer-term element of the model then considers the cultural and PPTS need over the remainder of the plan period (to 2033).

Description of factors in the 5-year need model

7.10 Table 7.1 provides a summary of the 5-year pitch need calculation. Each component in the model is now discussed to ensure that the process is transparent and any assumptions clearly stated.

Need

7.11 Current households living on pitches (1a to 1e)

These figures are derived from local authority data, site observation and household survey information. Note that no household stated they were doubled up or included concealed households. However, site observation suggests there are more households than pitches, with 70 households living on 62 pitches. The need from these 8 additional households is factored into modelling.

7.12 Current households in bricks and mortar accommodation (2a)

The 2011 census estimates there are 74 Gypsy and Traveller households living in bricks and mortar accommodation. Information from the housing waiting lists maintained by Radian and Housing Solutions identifies that a minimum of 11 households currently

24 The net impact of households planning to move is considered in modeling


May 2018

living in bricks and mortar housing in RBWM want to move to a pitch and this figure is used in the needs assessment model.

7.13 Existing Households needing a pitch in the next five years (3)

This was derived from information from the household survey for respondents currently on authorised pitches. To account for non-response, the data in the model has been weighted by a factor of 1.521725 based on the number of responses received compared with the total number of households. This helps to ensure that the needs evidence reflects the total number of households living on sites.

Overall, there is a need from 5 households planning to move to another pitch within RBWM (which results in no net change in overall need), 2 from a pitch to bricks and mortar and 1 plans to move outside RBWM. The Overall housing register held by RBWM does not hold information regarding the cultural background or ethnicity of applicants. It has not therefore been able to draw on this potential data source to identify numbers of Gypsy and Traveller households wishing to move into bricks and mortar accommodation.

Housing register information

7.14 The housing waiting lists maintained by Radian and Housing Solutions currently include a total of 35 households. Analysis indicates this comprises the following range of needs:

6 from households currently on Council sites;

5 from sites elsewhere in the Borough;

11 from bricks and mortar households in the Borough;

6 from bricks and mortar households from outside the Borough but with connections to families in the area;

2 from sites outside the Borough; and

5 where the location of the household is not specified

7.15 Of these, 6 currently live on pitches in the Borough already, so these are discounted from overall additional need26. 11 are currently in bricks and mortar accommodation (included in the modelling at row 3e). This leaves 18 outstanding households from the housing register who require a pitch; these are included at rows 3f and 3g.

7.16 This results in an overall net need of +26 pitches from existing households planning to move in the next 5 years (row 3h).

In and Out Migration

7.17 The household survey identifies 10 households who had moved to their pitches in the preceding 5 years. 5 gave their place of origin, with one originating from elsewhere in

25 46 responses from 70 G&T households on pitches results in a weighting factor of 70/46 = 1.5217 26 Note that the Modelling in Table 7.1 includes an allowance for households planning to move from existing pitches and there may be some double counting if we add in the households from the housing register


May 2018

the South East and 4 from outside the UK. The household survey identified 1 household that is planning to move out of the Borough in the next 5 years. Most of the households moving into RBWM moved onto a vacant pitch that had been previously occupied and one moved onto a brand new pitch which had not been previously occupied.

The housing register identifies 8 households who are require a pitch and currently live outside RBWM and this is included as an indication of need from in-migrant households.

7.18 Emerging households (4)

This is the number of households expected to emerge in the next 5 years based on responses to the household survey which asked whether there was anyone in your household planning to form a new household and if so where and the type of accommodation required. The total number is 8 (weighted)27.

If children old enough to form their own household were living with family and have not specified that they want to form a new household, this is assumed to be through choice and the model does not assume they want to form a new household.

7.19 Total need for pitches (5)

This is a total of current households on authorised pitches, households on pitches planning to move in the next five years and demand from emerging households currently living on pitches. This indicates a total need for 104 pitches according to cultural need.

Supply

7.20 Current supply of authorised pitches (6)

This is a summary of the total number of authorised pitches and the number of vacant authorised pitches. This shows a total supply of 34 authorised pitches plus zero vacant pitches resulting in a total supply of 34 authorised pitches. There are also four pitches on two authorised temporary pitches, although the permission for both of these will expire within 5 years and so are not included in the total of authorised sites.

Reconciling supply and demand

7.21 There is a total need over the next five years (2017/18 to 2021/22) for 102 pitches in RBWM (Table 7.1) compared with a supply of 34 authorised pitches (including vacant pitches). The result is an overall cultural shortfall of 68 pitches. PPTS need is considered later in the section.

27 See Para 7.13 for an explanation


May 2018

Table 7.1 Summary of demand and supply factors: Gypsies and Travellers – 2017/18 to 2021/22

CULTURAL NEED RBWM

1 Total households living on pitches

1a. On LA Site 25

1b. On Private Site – Authorised 9

1c. On Private Site - Temporary Authorised 4

1d. On Private Site – Tolerated 32

1e. Unauthorised 0

1f. Total (1a to 1e) 70

2A Estimate of households in bricks and mortar accommodation

2a. TOTAL (2011 Census) 54

Weighting applied to stages 3 and 4 = 1.52 to account for G&T household no-response

3 Existing households needing a pitch in next 5 years

Currently on sites

3a. To another pitch/same site (no net need) 0

3b. To another site in District (no net need) 5

3c. From site to Bricks and Mortar 2

3d. To a site/bricks and mortar outside District 1

Currently in Bricks and Mortar

3e. Planning to move to a site in LA 11

Currently on housing register

3f. Other households currently on housing register (from within Borough) 10

3g. Other households currently on housing register (from outside Borough) 8

3h. TOTAL Net impact (-3c-3d+3e+3f+3g) 26

4 Emerging households (5 years)

4a. Currently on site and planning to live on current site 5

4b. Currently on sites and planning to live on another site in LA 3

4c. Currently on site and planning to live on site outside the study area 0

4d. Currently in B&M planning to move to a site in LA 0

4e. Currently in B&M and moving to B&M (no net impact) 1

4f. Currently on Site and moving to B&M (no net impact) 0

4g. TOTAL Net impact (4a+4b-4c+4d) 8

5 Total Need 1f+3h+4g 104

SUPPLY

6 Current supply of authorised pitches

6a Current occupied authorised / lawful pitches 34

6b Current vacancies on authorised / lawful pitches 0

6c. Total current authorised supply (6a+6b) 34

RECONCILING NEED AND SUPPLY

7 Total need for pitches 5 years (from 5) 104

8 Total supply of authorised pitches

5 years (from 6c) 34

5 YEAR AUTHORISED PITCH SHORTFALL 2017/18 TO 2021/22 (Cultural definition) 70


May 2018

Longer-term pitch need modelling

7.22 Longer-term pitch need modelling has been carried out using known household structure information from the household survey of households living on pitches. On the basis of the age of children in households, it is possible to determine the extent of ‘likely emergence’, which assumes that a child is likely to form a new household at the age of 18.

7.23 The year when a child reaches 18 has been calculated and it is possible to assess how many newly forming households may emerge over the period 2022/3-2032/33. A reasonable assumption is that half of these children will form new households, bearing in mind culturally women tend to move away on marriage and men tend to stay in close proximity to their families on marriage. The model therefore assumes that 50% of children will form households when they reach 18 and that these households remain in RBWM28. Analysis would suggest a total cultural need for 20 additional pitches over the period 2022/23-2032/33 (Table 7.2).

Table 7.2 Future pitch need based on the assumption that 50% of children form households on reaching 18

Time period No. children Expected household

formation

2022/23 – 2026/27 18 9

2027/28 – 2031/32 12 6

2032/33 9 5

Total (2022/23 to 2032/33) 39 20

Planning Policy for Traveller Site definition

7.24 arc4’s methodology includes analysing the household survey findings to determine the self-defined travelling practices of each interviewed household, as detailed in paragraph 3.17. Respondents’ answers to questions relating to travelling history (current and year preceding); reasons for travel; travel plans (current year and the next five years); annual duration of travel (recent and planned); destinations and reasons for travel; and reasons for not travelling (now and in the future) are all considered.

7.25 By translating this assessment of each household’s ‘PPTS-compliance’ into a proportion of the population in question, it can be determined what percentage of households fall within the ‘PPTS 2015’ definition. By contrast, all households identifying as part of the Gypsy and Traveller or Travelling Showpeople community are contained within a

28 This approach has been tested at inquiry including Worcestershire and Shropshire and reasonably assumes a broad gender split indicating that half of children will form households.


May 2018

broader ‘cultural’ definition, an approach which is supported by the Draft Revised NPPF (March 2018) and the Housing and Planning Act 2016 section 124.

7.26 Analysis of household survey data establishes that 28.9% of Gypsies and Travellers living on pitches across RBWM satisfy the PPTS definition of Gypsies and Travellers (this is based on the 46 responses from households living on Gypsy and Traveller pitches) and discussed at paragraph 3.17. This proportion is applied to the cultural need evidenced in the 5-year and longer-term modelling of pitch need to establish a PPTS need for pitches.

Overall plan period pitch need

7.27 Table 7.3 summarises the overall need for pitches across RBWM over the plan period to 2033. It presents the overall cultural need based on households identifying as Gypsy and Traveller and a PPTS need which is a subset of the cultural need and is based on those households who meet the PPTS definition of need.

7.28 Assuming a 16 year period (2017/18 to 2032/33), this result in an annualised cultural need for 5.6 pitches and an annualised PPTS need for 1.6 pitches. It is assumed that any need arising during the first four years of the local plan (2013/14 to 2016/17) will have either been addressed or factored into the 2017 GTAA analysis.

Table 7.3 Overall plan period Gypsy and Traveller pitch need

Cultural need

Of which:

PPTS need

5yr pitch need (2017/18 to 2021/22) 70 20

Longer-term need to 2022/23 to 2032/33 20 6

TOTAL pitch need 2017/18 to 2032/33 (Borough Local Plan Period)

90 26

7.29 In accordance with the PPTS, It is recommended that the Borough Local Plan recognises the need (under Policy B para 9) to set pitch targets for Gypsies and Travellers as defined in Annex 1 of that document to ensure that a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to meet the need for a need for 26 pitches over the whole plan period. This is within the context of an overall cultural need for 90 pitches (which includes the PPTS need) to be provided in order to meet that part of the overall housing need to provide suitable housing to meet the needs of different groups in the community.

Turnover on sites

7.30 Turnover relates to the number of pitches that are expected to become available for occupancy. Analysis only includes expected turnover on public sites as this is referenced in (former) CLG guidance and more accurate data on changes in pitch occupancy is likely


May 2018

to be available. Although there is likely to be turnover on private sites, the ability of households to move onto private sites may be more restrictive (for instance the site may be restricted to a particular family) and less likely to be recorded.

7.31 Household survey data indicates that 15.8% of respondents living in Local Authority sites have lived there for less than 5 years, implying a 3.2% annual turnover rate. An analysis of households planning to move would suggest that 5.2% are planning to move in the next 5 years, resulting in a 1% annual turnover of pitches.

7.32 This analysis would suggest annual capacity of between 0.26 (households intending to move) and 0.79 (households who have moved) pitches from turnover. This translates to a turnover of 5 pitches over the full 20-year plan period based on households intending to move. Site management data indicates very low levels of turnover on local authority sites. Therefore, it is expected that turnover is likely to generate only a small amount of pitch capacity over the plan period.

7.33 Table 7.4 illustrates the impact of a 5 pitch turnover over the plan period on overall pitch need. The result of including expected turnover is a reduction in cultural need to 85 pitches and a reduction in PPTS need to 21 pitches over the plan period.

Table 7.4 Addressing Gypsy and Traveller pitch need

Cultural need

Of which:

PPTS need

TOTAL pitch need 2013/14 to 2032/2033 (Plan Period) 90 26

Pitches expected to become available through turnover on pitches on Council sites 2013/14 to 2032/33

5 5

Residual pitch need after factoring in expected turnover 85 21

Potential capacity for Gypsy and Traveller pitches

7.34 There is further potential capacity to help address pitch need over the plan period.

7.35 The household survey asked respondents if there was opportunity to expand existing sites to accommodate more pitches. Responses suggested that there was potential for around 14 to 16 additional pitches across the following sites:

Local authority 4 to 6 pitches (Mill Place, Datchet);

Private authorised 1 pitch (The Beeches 1);

Private tolerated 2 pitches (The Unicorn, Feathers Lane);

Private temporary 6 pitches (Land Rear of Straton Cottages Fifield Road);

Bricks and Mortar 2 pitches (The Bungalow 1A Swallows Nest, Datchett Road, Horton)

7.36 Note that the potential expansion of sites was based on the views of respondents and not a technical appraisal of sites. Further work would be necessary to confirm the


May 2018

potential for expansion and additional work on the SHLAA will be carried out in assessing potential sites in the future.

7.37 There may also be additional capacity on pitches through household dissolution over the plan period. Analysis of the demographics of households would suggest that an estimated 23 pitches may experience the death of their occupants over the plan period. However, the availability of pitches may be limited if there are other occupants on the pitch or there are conditions on pitch occupancy. However, this does point to an element of supply through the death of the occupant over the plan period.

Travelling Showperson plot need

7.38 There are three Showperson’s yards in RBWM. The analysis of plot need is calculated using a similar method for Gypsies and Traveller pitches. To clarify, a showperson’s plot is an area on a yard for a caravan, vehicles and equipment. A plot is usually occupied by one household. It is also important to note that when determining need for Travelling Showperson plots, there is a strong economic case for supporting provision given that the Showpeople provide services to communities throughout the year.

Description of factors in the 5-year need model

7.39 Table 7.5 provides a summary of the 5-year plot need calculation. Each component in the model is now discussed to ensure that the process is transparent and any assumptions clearly stated.

Need

7.40 Current households living on plots (1a to 1d)

These figures are derived from local authority data, site observation and household survey information. Note that no household stated they were doubled up or included concealed households. However, there was evidence of an extended family living on one of the plots.

7.41 Current households in bricks and mortar accommodation (2)

None assumed. No Travelling Showpeople were identified through the survey and the Census does not have a separate category for Travelling Showpeople.

7.42 Existing Households planning to move in the next five years (3)

This was derived from information from the household survey for respondents currently on authorised pitches. To account for non-response, the data in the model has been weighted by a factor of 2.2529

Overall, 2 households intend to move in the next 5 years from a yard to bricks and mortar housing.

29 8 responses from 18 Travelling Showperson households on plots results in a weighting factor of 18/8 = 2.25.


May 2018

7.43 Emerging households (4)

There were no emerging households identified over the next 5 years. Modelling identifies emerging households through survey responses. If children old enough to form their own household were living with family and have not specified that they want to form a new household, this is assumed to be through choice and the model does not assume they want to form a new household.

7.44 Total need for plots (5)

This indicates a total need for 16 plots.

Supply

7.45 Current supply of plots (6)

There are currently no authorised plots as they are all tolerated so this is zero.

Reconciling supply and demand

7.46 There is a total cultural need over the next five years (2016/17 to 2020/21) for 16 plots across RBWM (Table 7.4) compared with a supply of zero authorised plots (as all plots are on private tolerated yards). The result is an overall cultural shortfall of 16 plots. Most (87.5%) met the PPTS definition and therefore the PPTS need is 14 plots.

7.47 Note there were no children identified on the household survey living on Showperson plots so there is no additional long-term need identified in the GTAA.


May 2018

Table 7.5 Summary of demand and supply factors: Travelling Showpeople – 2017/18 to 2021/22

NEED RBWM

1 Total households living on plots

1a. On Private Yard – Tolerated 18

1b. Total (1a) 18

2 Estimate of households in bricks and mortar accommodation

2a. TOTAL (2011 Census) N/A

Weighting applied to stages 3 and 4 = 2.25 to account for household non-response

3 Existing households planning to move in next 5 years

Currently on sites

3a. To another plot/same yard 0

3b. To another yard in District 0

3c. From yard to Bricks and Mortar 2

3d. To a yard outside District 0

3e. From yard to Bricks and Mortar outside District 0

Currently in Bricks and Mortar

3i. Planning to move to a yard in LA 0

3j. Planning to move to another B&M property 0

3k. TOTAL Net impact (-3c-3d-3e+3f+3i) -2

4 Emerging households (5 years)

4a. Currently on yard and planning to live on current yard 0

4b. Currently on yards and planning to live on another yard in LA 0

4c. Currently on yard and planning to live on yard outside the study area 0

4d. Currently in B&M planning to move to a yard in LA 0

4e. Currently in B&M and moving to B&M (no net impact) 0

4f. Currently on yard and moving to B&M (no net impact) 0

4g. TOTAL (4a+4b+4d) 0

5 Total Need 1b+3k+4g 16

SUPPLY

6 Current supply of authorised plots

6a Current occupied authorised / lawful plots 0

6b Current vacancies on authorised / lawful plots 0

6c. Total current authorised supply (6a+6b) 0

RECONCILING NEED AND SUPPLY

7 Total need for plots 5 years (from 5) 16

8 Total supply of authorised plots

5 years (from 6c) 0

5 YEAR AUTHORISED PLOT SHORTFALL 2017/18 TO 2021/22 16


May 2018

Transit site need

7.48 The household survey found that 25.5% of Gypsies and Travellers living on pitches felt that transit provision should be made in RBWM and virtually all (92.3%) felt this should be managed by the Council. A transit pitch normally has a hard standing, electric hook up and amenity shed. A good indicator of transit need is unauthorised encampment activity.

7.49 The Council reports limited incidences of unauthorised encampment activity. When compared to information supplied by adjoining local authorities through the Stakeholder survey, it appears that unauthorised encampments are usually fewer and smaller than in neighbouring areas. However the stakeholder survey nonetheless indicated that such encampments tended to foster poorer relationships with settled communities.

7.50 During July 2017, unauthorised encampment activity was reported to the field team and a total of 6 interviews were secured with households living on unauthorised encampments. Of these households:

There were a mix of household types including singles, couples, couples with children and single parents;

Most (5 out of 6) were Irish Travellers and one was an English Traveller;

Four had no permanent base, and two had originated from outside the South East;

Work and family were mentioned as reasons for travelling;

All met the PPTS definition of Gypsy Traveller;

None were intending on staying in the RBWM.

7.51 Given the low level of unauthorised encampment activity, there may be a need for a transit site but it is recommended that the Council explores options for provision with other Councils. The Council may also wish to consider temporary stop over provision and options for this could be presented in an issues and options document.

Moorings

7.52 No specific need has been established for additional moorings in RBWM but it is recommended that the Council engages with the Canals and Rivers Trust to establish the feasibility of increasing the number of residential moorings in the RBWM.


May 2018

8. Conclusion and strategic response 8.1 This concluding chapter provides a brief summary of key issues emerging from the

research; advice on the strategic responses available, including examples of good practice; and recommendations and next steps.

Meeting permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitch need

8.2 There are currently 70 Gypsy and Traveller households living on 62 pitches across the RBWM.

8.3 The 2017 GTAA has evidenced a cultural need for 90 pitches, and as a subset of this number a PPTS-defined need for 26 pitches, within the RBWM over the remainder of the Local Plan Period 2017/18 to 2032/33. This is driven by: the number of sites that are tolerated and not permanently authorised; the waiting list for pitches; need from households wanting to move from bricks and mortar; and emerging household need. It is recommended that the Local Plan acknowledges this range of need.

8.4 The GTAA modelling anticipates a small degree of turnover on the local authority sites during the plan period and it is expected that at least five pitches will become available based on the expectations of households planning to move extrapolated over the plan period. Taking account of turnover, this would reduce the need to 85 pitches based on the cultural definition, or 21 pitches based on the PPTS household definition.

Meeting permanent Travelling Showperson need

8.5 There are currently 18 Travelling Showperson households living on 17 plots in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. However, these are all on sites that are unauthorised but tolerated. The 2017 GTAA has evidenced a total cultural need for 16 plots taking into account the survey evidence of 2 households intending to move into bricks and mortar housing, compared with a supply of zero plots. The result is an overall shortfall of 16 plots under the cultural definition, or 14 plots under the PPTS definition. This shortfall only exists because the current yard is unauthorised but tolerated.

Meeting transit site/stop over need

8.6 Given the comparably limited level of unauthorised encampment, limited need expressed by the Gypsy and Traveller community, but evidence of unauthorised encampments being a source of concern for other stakeholders, it is recommended that a the Council consider temporary stop over provision. This issue is considered to reflect a particular cross boundary issue as travellers move through the wider area, therefore options for such provision should be considered in collaboration with neighbouring authorities as part of duty to co-operate discussions.


May 2018

Good practice in planning for Gypsy and Traveller provision

8.7 Work undertaken by PAS30 identified ways in which the planning process can increase the supply of authorised Gypsy and Traveller pitches. The RTPI has developed a series of Good Practice Notes for local planning authorities. Both are summarised at Appendix B.

Concluding comments

8.8 The overarching purpose of this study has been to identify the accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople across RBWM.

8.9 As set out in Table 8.1, it is recommended that the Local Plan recognises a residual cultural need for 90 pitches, or a PPTS need of 26 pitches, over the remainder of the plan period (2017/18 to 2032/33).

Table 8.1 Overall plan period Gypsy and Traveller pitch need

Cultural need PPTS need

5yr Pitch need (2017/18 to 2021/22) 70 20

Longer-term Pitch need (2022/23 to 2032/33) 20 6

TOTAL Pitch need for Local Plan Period (2013/14 to 2032/33) 90 26

Expected turnover on LA sites over the Plan Period 5 5

RESIDUAL PITCH NEED DURING PLAN PERIOD

if turnover is taken into account 85 21

8.10 There are currently 18 Travelling Showperson households in the RBWM living across 17 plots, all of which are private tolerated. The GTAA has evidenced a cultural need for 16 plots, or a PPTS need for 14 plots over the next five years (2017/18 to 2021/22) compared to an authorised supply of zero plots.

8.11 The study would suggest that there may be a need for a transit site but it is recommended that the Council explores options for provision with other Councils. The Council may also wish to consider temporary stop over provision and options for this could be presented in an issues and options document.

8.12 It is recommended that this evidence base is refreshed on a five-yearly basis to ensure that the level of pitch and pitch provision remains appropriate for the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople population across RBWM.

30 PAS spaces and places for gypsies and travellers how planning can help


May 2018

Appendix A: Legislative background A.1 The 1960 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act enabled councils to ban the

siting of caravans for human occupation on common land, and led to the closure of many sites.

A.2 The Caravan Sites Act 1968 (Part II) required local authorities 'so far as may be necessary to provide adequate accommodation for Gypsies residing in or resorting to their area'. It empowered the Secretary of State to make designation orders for areas where he was satisfied that there was adequate accommodation, or on grounds of expediency. Following the recommendations of the Cripps Commission in 1980, provision began to grow rapidly only after the allocation of 100% grants from central government. By 1994 a third of local authorities had achieved designation, which meant that they were not required to make further provision and were given additional powers to act against unauthorised encampments. The repeal of most of the Caravan Sites Act under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in 1994 led to a reduction in provision, with some sites being closed over a period in which the Gypsy and Traveller population was increasing.

A.3 The 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJ&POA):

Repealed most of the 1968 Caravan Sites Act;

Abolished all statutory obligation to provide accommodation;

Discontinued government grants for sites; and

Under Section 61 made it a criminal offence to camp on land without the owner’s consent.

A.4 Since the CJ&POA the only places where Gypsies and Travellers can legally park their trailers and vehicles are:

Council Gypsy caravan sites; by 2000 nearly half of Gypsy caravans were accommodated on council sites, despite the fact that new council site provision stopped following the end of the statutory duty;

Privately owned land with appropriate planning permission; usually owned by Gypsies or Travellers. Such provision now accommodates approximately a third of Gypsy caravans in England; and

Land with established rights of use, other caravan sites or mobile home parks by agreement or licence, and land required for seasonal farm workers (under site licensing exemptions).

A.5 By the late 1990s the impact of the 1994 Act was generating pressure for change on both local and national government. There was a major review of law and policy, which included:

A Parliamentary Committee report (House of Commons 2004).

The replacement of Circular 1/94 by Circular 1/2006 (which has since been cancelled and replaced by the Planning policy for traveller sites 2012 and updated in 2015).

Guidance on accommodation assessments (ODPM 2006).


May 2018

The Housing Act 2004 which placed a requirement (s.225) on local authorities to assess Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs.

A.6 Section 225: Housing Act 2004 imposed duties on local authorities in relation to the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers:

Every local housing authority was required as part of the general review of housing needs in their areas under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their Borough;

Where a local housing authority was required under section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003 to prepare a strategy to meet such accommodation needs, they had to take the strategy into account in exercising their functions;

A local housing authority was required to have regard to section 226 (‘Guidance in relation to section 225’) in:

- carrying out such an assessment, and

- preparing any strategy that they are required to prepare.

Section 124 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 deletes sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act 2004 (see below). Additional requirements have been inserted into Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 to include an assessment of the need for sites for caravans and moorings for houseboats within the periodical review of housing needs.

A.7 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 set out to introduce a simpler and more flexible planning system at regional and local levels. It also introduced new provisions which change the duration of planning permissions and consents, and allow local planning authorities to introduce local permitted development rights using ‘local development orders’. It made the compulsory purchase regime simpler, fairer and quicker, to support major infrastructure and regeneration initiatives.

The Act introduced major changes to the way in which the planning system operates. Local planning authorities are required to prepare a Local Development Framework; however, the term Local Plan was reintroduced following the National Planning Policy Framework in March 2012.

Part 8 of the Act contains a series of measures to reform the compulsory purchase regime and make it easier for local planning authorities to make a case for compulsory purchase orders where it will be of economic, social or environmental benefit to the area. This Act was subsequently amended to a Local Plan document with the introduction of the NPPF in March 2012. This section also brings in amended procedures for carrying out compulsory purchase orders, including a widening of the category of person with an interest in the land who can object, and deals with ownership issues and compensation.

A.8 The Localism Act 2011 introduced a number of reforms, including changes to planning enforcement rules, which strengthen the power of local planning authorities to tackle abuses of the planning system. The changes give local planning authorities the ability to take actions against people who deliberately conceal unauthorised development, and


May 2018

tackle abuses of retrospective planning applications. The Act also introduced the Duty to Co-operate (see Section 3) on all local planning authorities planning sustainable development. The Duty requires ‘neighbouring local authorities, or groups of authorities, to work together on planning issues in the interests of all their local residents. … the Government thinks that local authorities and other public bodies should work together on planning issues in ways that reflect genuine shared interests and opportunities to make common cause. The duty requires local authorities and other public bodies to work together on planning issues.’31 The provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites falls within the Duty to Co-operate; which aims to ensure that neighbouring authorities work together to address issues such as provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers in a planned and strategic way.

A.9 Statutory Instrument 2013 No 830 Town and Country planning Act, England (Temporary Stop Notice) (England) (Revocation) Regulations 2013 came into force on 4th May 2013. This Instrument revoked the regulations governing Temporary Stop Notices, which were in place to mitigate against the disproportionate impact of Temporary Stop Notices on Gypsies and Travellers in areas where there was a lack of sufficient pitches to meet the needs of the Travelling community.

A.10 Section 124: Housing and Planning Act 2016 has two parts:

124(1) amends section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, inserting an additional reference to include a duty to consider the needs of people residing in or resorting to local authority Boroughs with respect to the provision of sites for caravans and moorings for houseboats when undertaking housing needs assessments.

124(2) deletes sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act 2004 (as set out above).

31 DCLG A plain English guide to the Localism Act Nov 2011


May 2018

Appendix B: Review of policy, guidance and best practice B.1 As part of this research, we have carried out a review of literature, which is presented

in this Appendix. A considerable range of guidance documents has been prepared by Central Government to assist local authorities discharge their strategic housing and planning functions. In addition, there is considerable independent and academic research and guidance on these issues; some of the key documents are summarised here. The documents are reviewed in order of publication date.

B.2 A Decent Home: Definition and Guidance for Implementation Update, DCLG, June 2006

Although not primarily about the provision of caravan sites, facilities or pitches, the June 2006 updated DCLG guidance for social landlords provides a standard for such provision. The guidance is set out under a number of key headings:

Community-based and tenant-led ownership and management;

Delivering Decent Homes Beyond 2010;

Delivering mixed communities;

Procurement value for money; and

Housing Health and Safety.

The guidance defines four criteria against which to measure the standard of a home:

It meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing;

It is in a reasonable state of repair;

It has reasonably modern facilities and services; and

It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.

B.3 Guide to Effective Use of Enforcement Powers - Parts 1 (Unauthorised Encampments, ODPM, 2006) and 2 (Unauthorised Development of Caravan Sites, DCLG, 2007)

The Guide (now cancelled) was the Government's response to unauthorised encampments which cause local disruption and conflict.

B.4 Common Ground: Equality, good race relations and sites for Gypsies and Irish Travellers, Commission for Racial Equality, May 2006

This report was written four years after the introduction of the statutory duty on public authorities under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations and to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination. The CRE expressed concerns about relations between Gypsies and Irish Travellers and other members of the public, with widespread public hostility and, in many places, Gypsies and Irish Travellers leading separate, parallel lives. A dual concern about race relations and inequality led the Commission in October 2004 to launch the inquiry on which this report was based.

The Report's recommendations include measures relating to Central Government, local authorities, police forces and the voluntary sector. Among those relating to Central Government are:


May 2018

developing a realistic but ambitious timetable to identify land for sites, where necessary establishing them, and making sure it is met;

developing key performance indicators for public sites which set standards for quality and management that are comparable to those for conventional accommodation;

requiring local authorities to monitor and provide data on planning applications, outcomes and enforcement, and on housing and homelessness by racial group, using two separate categories for Gypsies and Irish Travellers; and

requiring police forces to collect information on Gypsies and Irish Travellers as two separate ethnic categories.

Strategic recommendations affecting local authorities include:

developing a holistic corporate vision for all work on Gypsies and Irish Travellers,

reviewing all policies on accommodation for Gypsies and Irish Travellers,

designating a councillor at cabinet (or equivalent) level, and an officer at no less than assistant director level, to coordinate the authority’s work on all sites;

emphasising that the code of conduct for councillors applies to their work in relation to all racial groups, including Gypsies and Irish Travellers;

giving specific advice to Gypsies and Irish Travellers on the most suitable land for residential use, how to prepare applications, and help them to find the information they need to support their application;

identifying and reporting on actions by local groups or individuals in response to plans for Gypsy sites that may constitute unlawful pressure on the authority to discriminate against Gypsies and Irish Travellers; and

monitoring all planning applications and instances of enforcement action at every stage, by type and racial group, including Gypsies and Irish Travellers, in order to assess the effects of policies and practices on different racial groups.

Among other recommendations, the Report states that police forces should:

include Gypsies and Irish Travellers in mainstream neighbourhood policing strategies, to promote race equality and good race relations;

target individual Gypsies and Irish Travellers suspected of anti-social behaviour and crime on public, private and unauthorised sites, and not whole communities;

treat Gypsies and Irish Travellers as members of the local community, and in ways that strengthen their trust and confidence in the police;

provide training for all relevant officers on Gypsies’ and Irish Travellers’ service needs, so that officers are able to do their jobs more effectively;

review formal and informal procedures for policing unauthorised encampments, to identify and eliminate potentially discriminatory practices, and ensure that the procedures promote race equality and good race relations; and


May 2018

review the way policy is put into practice, to make sure organisations and individuals take a consistent approach, resources are used effectively and strategically, all procedures are formalised, and training needs are identified.

Other recommendations relate to Parish and Community councils the Local Government Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the voluntary sector.

B.5 Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Spaces and places for Gypsies and Travellers: how planning can help (2006)

PAS list the following as key to successful delivery of new provision:

Involve Gypsy and Traveller communities: this needs to happen at an early stage, innovative methods of consultation need to be adopted due to low levels of literacy and high levels of social exclusion within Gypsy and Traveller communities and members of the Gypsy and Traveller community should be trained as interviewers on Accommodation Assessments (Cambridgeshire, Surrey, Dorset and Leicestershire). Other good practice examples include distribution of material via CD, so that information can be ‘listened to’ as opposed to read. The development of a dedicated Gypsy and Traveller Strategy is also seen to be good practice, helping agencies develop a co-ordinated approach and so prioritise the issue. The report also recommends the use of existing Gypsy and Traveller resources such as the planning guide published in Traveller’s Times, which aims to explain the planning process in an accessible way to members of the Gypsy and Traveller community. As well as consulting early, PAS also flags the need to consult often with communities;

Work collaboratively with neighbouring authorities to address the issues and avoid just ‘moving it on’ to a neighbouring local authority area. With the new Duty to Co-operate established within the NPPF, working collaboratively with neighbouring local authorities has never been more important. Adopting a collaborative approach recognises that local authorities cannot work in isolation to tackle this issue;

Be transparent: trust is highly valued within Gypsy and Traveller communities, and can take a long time to develop. The planning system needs to be transparent, so that members of the Gypsy and Traveller community can understand the decisions that have been taken and the reasoning behind them. PAS states that ‘ideally council work in this area should be led by an officer who is respected both within the Council and also within Gypsy and Traveller communities: trust is vital and can be broken easily.32’ Local planning authorities also need to revisit their approach to development management criteria for applications for Gypsy and Traveller sites ‘to ensure that criteria make it clear what applications are likely to be accepted by the council. Authorities need to ensure that these are reasonable and realistic. Transparent and criteria-based policies help everyone to understand what decisions have been made and why.’ 33 Kent and Hertsmere councils are listed as examples of good practice in this regard.

32 PAS Spaces and places for gypsies and travellers how planning can help, page 8 33 PAS spaces and places for gypsies and travellers how planning can help page 8 & 14


May 2018

Integration: accommodation needs assessments need to be integrated into the Local Plan evidence base, with site locations and requirements set out within specific Development Plan Documents (DPDs); dedicated Gypsy and Traveller DPDs are advocated as a means of ensuring that the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers are fully considered and addressed within the local planning process; and

Educate and work with councillors: members need to be aware of their responsibilities in terms of equality and diversity and ‘understand that there must be sound planning reasons for rejecting applications for Gypsy and Traveller sites’34. It is helpful for members to understand the wider benefits of providing suitable accommodation to meet the requirements of the Gypsy and Traveller community, such as:

- An increase in site provision;

- Reduced costs of enforcement; and

- Greater community engagement and understanding of community need.

B.6 RTPI Good Practice Note 4, Planning for Gypsies and Travellers (2007)

The RTPI has developed a series of Good Practice notes for local planning authorities ‘Planning for Gypsies and Travellers’; the notes cover four key areas:

Communication, consultation and participation;

Needs assessment;

Accommodation and site delivery; and

Enforcement.

Whilst the notes were developed prior to the NPPF and the introduction of PPTS 2012 and 2015, some of the key principles remain relevant. and it is worth considering some of the papers’ key recommendations.

In terms of communication, consultation and participation the RTPI highlight the following good practice:

Define potentially confusing terminology used by professionals working in the area;

Use appropriate methods of consultation: oral exchanges and face-to-face dealings are essential to effectively engage with Gypsy and Traveller communities, whilst service providers tend to use written exchanges;

Consultees and participants need to be involved in the entire plan making process; this includes in-house participants, external organisations, Gypsy and Traveller communities, and settled communities. The RTPI concludes that:

- ‘Local authorities should encourage Gypsy and Traveller communities to engage with the planning system at an early stage. However, they may request other agencies that have well-established relationships with members of Gypsy and Traveller communities to undertake this role.’ and

34 PAS spaces and places for gypsies and travellers how planning can help page 10


May 2018

- ‘In the past, settled communities have often only become aware of the intention to develop Gypsy and Traveller accommodation when the local authority issues a notice or consultation. … cultivating the support of the settled community for the development of sites should start as soon as possible. … There is a sound case for front-loading and sharing information with small groups in the [settled] community, rather than trying to manage large public gatherings at the start of the process. Again, it may be beneficial for the local authority to work in partnership with organisations with established links in the community. The settled community is not a homogeneous whole. There will be separate groups with different perceptions and concerns, which the local authority must take account of.’35

Dialogue methods: the RTPI correctly identify that the experience of many Gypsies and Travellers of liaising with both public sector agencies and the settled community is both frightening and negative. As a result ‘there should be no expectation that Gypsies and Travellers will participate in open meetings. Stakeholders should investigate suitable methods of bringing together individuals from the respective communities in an environment that will facilitate a constructive exchange of information and smooth the process of breaking down animosity and hostility.’36 The use of public meetings is discouraged, and the use of organisations with experience of working within both Gypsy and Traveller, and settled communities encouraged – advice and support groups, assisted by the latter, holding regular local meetings can be an effective means of engaging constructively with both communities. Representatives from these groups can also be included on appropriate forums and advisory groups. The location and timing of meetings needs to be carefully considered to maximise participation, with a neutral venue being preferable.

The media has an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of sites locally, with past reporting being extremely damaging. Positive media liaison is important and requires:

- A single point of contact with the local authority;

- A liaison officer responsible for compilation and release of briefings, and for building positive relationships with editors, journalists, radio and television presenters;

- All stakeholders to provide accurate and timely briefings for the liaison officer;

- Provision of media briefings on future activities;

- Officers to anticipate when and where the most sensitive and contentious issues will arise and use of a risk assessment to mitigate any negative impact;

- Use of the media to facilitate engagement with both settled and Gypsy and Traveller communities; and

- Stakeholders to provide politicians with clear, accurate and comprehensive briefings.

35 RTPI Planning for Gypsies and Travellers Good Practice Note 4 Part A page 8 36 RTPI Planning for Gypsies and Travellers Good Practice Note 4 Part A page 13


May 2018

On-going communication, participation and consultation are important. The continued use of the most effective methods of engagement once an initiative is completed ensures the maximum use of resources:

- ‘The delivery of some services, such as the identification of sites in development plan documents, is the end of one process and the start of another. The various committees and advisory groups established to participate in the process of site identification and the accommodation needs assessment will have considerable background information and expertise embedded in their membership. This will prove useful in the management and monitoring of subsequent work. … Whilst on-going engagement with all service users is important, it is especially important with regard to Gypsies and Travellers, given their long history of marginalisation.’37

Whilst the RTPI’s Good Practice Note Planning for Gypsies and Travellers predates the NPPF, the principles that it establishes at Part C remain largely relevant in terms of the role of local plan making. The Note advises that whilst the use of the site specific DPDs to identify sites for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation may seem less divisive, subsequent to identification of sufficient sites to meet identified need, local planning authorities should seek to integrate provision for Gypsies and Travellers within their general housing strategies and policies. Early involvement of stakeholders, the community and special interest groups will help achieve a consensus.

However, the RTPI point out that, due to the contentious nature of Gypsy and Traveller provision, the use of a criteria based approach to the selection of development sites is unlikely to be successful ‘in instances where considerable public opposition to the development might be anticipated.’ The paper concludes that it is not appropriate to rely solely on criteria as an alternative to site allocations where there is an identified need for the development.’38

The RTPI advocate adopting a pragmatic approach, whereby local planning authorities work with the Gypsy and Traveller communities within their areas to identify a range of potentially suitable sites:

‘The local authority and Gypsy and Traveller communities are both able to bring forward their suggested sites during this process, and the distribution and location of transit as well as permanent sites can be covered. The practicable options would then go forward for discussion with the local community, interest groups, and other stakeholders before the selection of preferred sites is finalised. The advantages of this approach are its transparency and the certainty it provides both for Gypsies and Travellers and for settled communities.’39

The RTPI also advocates the use of supplementary planning guidance to provide additional detail on policies contained within a Local Plan; in terms of Gypsies and Travellers this could include:

Needs assessment evidence base;

37 RTPI Planning for Gypsies and Travellers Good Practice Note 4 Part A page 18 38 RTPI Planning for Gypsies and Travellers Good Practice Note 4 Part C page 11 39 RTPI Planning for Gypsies and Travellers Good Practice Note 4 Part C page 11


May 2018

Design principles; and

A design brief for the layout of sites.

B.7 Guidance on Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments, DCLG, October 2007

This Guidance (formally cancelled in December 2016) sets out a detailed framework for designing, planning and carrying out Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments. It includes the needs of Showpeople. It acknowledges that the housing needs of Gypsies and Travellers are likely to differ from those of the settled community, and that they have hitherto been excluded from accommodation needs assessments.

The guidance stresses the importance of understanding accommodation needs of the whole Gypsy and Traveller population; and that studies obtain robust data. It recognises the difficulty of surveying this population and recommends the use of:

Qualitative methods such as focus groups and group interviews;

Specialist surveys of those living on authorised sites that are willing to respond; and

Existing information, including local authority site records and the twice yearly caravan counts.

The Guidance recognises that there are challenges in carrying out these assessments, and accepts that while the approach should be as robust as possible it is very difficult to exactly quantify unmet need.

B.8 Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide, DCLG, May 2008

The Guide (now cancelled) attempted to establish and summarise the key elements needed to design a successful site. In particular, the guidance intended to assist:

Local authorities or Registered Providers looking to develop new sites or refurbish existing sites;

Architects or developers looking to develop sites or refurbish existing sites; and

Site residents looking to participate in the design/refurbishment process.

B.9 The National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect in March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England. It condenses previous guidance and places a strong emphasis on ‘sustainable development’. It provides more focussed guidance on plan-making and refers to ‘Local Plans’ rather than Local Development Frameworks or Development Plan Documents. Despite the difference in terminology it does not affect the provisions of the 2004 Act which remains the legal basis for plan-making.

B.10 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites, March 2012 (subsequently updated August 2015)

In March 2012 the Government also published Planning policy for traveller sites, which together with the NPPF replaced all previous planning policy guidance in respect of Gypsies and Travellers. The policy approach encouraged provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers where there is an identified need, to help maintain an appropriate level


May 2018

of supply. The policy also encouraged the use of plan making and decision taking to reduce unauthorised developments and encampments. This policy document was replaced by updated PPTS in August 2015 (see below).

B.11 Progress report by the ministerial working group on tackling inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, April 2012

In April 2012 the Government published a Progress Report by the ministerial working group on tackling inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, which summarised progress in terms of meeting ‘Government commitments to tackle inequalities and promote fairness for Gypsy and Traveller communities.’40 The report covers 28 measures from across Government aimed at tackling inequalities, these cover:

Improving education outcomes;

Improving health outcomes;

Providing appropriate accommodation;

Tackling hate crime;

Improving interaction with the National Offender Management Service;

Improving access to employment and financial services; and

Improving engagement with service providers.

B.12 Dealing with illegal and unauthorised encampments: a summary of available powers, DCLG August 2012

This guidance note (now superseded, March 2015) summarised the powers available to local authorities and landowners to remove encampments from both public and private land.

B.13 Statutory Instrument 2013 No.830 Town and Country Planning (Temporary Stop Notice) (England) (Revocation) Regulations 2013: Made on 11th April 2013 and laid before Parliament on 12th April 2013 this Instrument revoking the regulations applying to Temporary Stop Notices (TSNs) in England came into force on 4th May 2013. The regulations were originally introduced to mitigate against the likely disproportionate impact of TSNs on Gypsies and Travellers in areas where there is a lack of sites to meet the needs of the Travelling community. Under the regulations, TSNs were prohibited where a caravan was a person’s main residence, unless there was a risk of harm to a serious public interest significant enough to outweigh any benefit to the occupier of the caravan. Under the new arrangements local planning authorities are to determine whether the use of a TSN is a proportionate and necessary response.

B.14 Ministerial Statement 1st July 2013 by Brandon Lewis41 highlighted the issue of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and revised the appeals recovery criteria issued on 30th June 2008 to enable an initial six-month period of scrutiny of Traveller site appeals in the Green Belt. This was so that the Secretary of State could assess the

40 www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/2124322 41 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/planning-and-travellers

http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/2124322

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/planning-and-travellers


May 2018

extent to which the national policy, Planning policy for traveller sites, was meeting the Government’s stated policy intentions. A number of appeals have subsequently been recovered. The Statement also revoked the practice guidance on ‘Diversity and equality in planning’42, deeming it to be outdated; the Government does not intend to replace this guidance.

B.15 Dealing with illegal and unauthorised encampments: a summary of available powers 9th August 2013. This guidance (now superseded, March 2015) replaced that published in August 2012, and updated it in respect of changes to Temporary Stop Notices.

B.16 DCLG Consultation: Planning and Travellers, September 2014. This consultation document sought to:

Amend the Planning policy for Traveller sites’ definition of Travellers and Travelling Showpeople to exclude those who have ceased to travel permanently;

Amend secondary legislation to bring the definition of Gypsies and Travellers, set out in the Housing (Assessment of Accommodation Needs)(Meaning of Gypsies and Travellers)(England) Regulations 2006 in line with the proposed changed definition set out above for the Planning policy for Traveller sites;

Make the intentional unauthorised occupation of land be regarded by decision takers as a material consideration that weighs against the granting of planning permission. In other words, failure to seek permission in advance of occupation of land would count against the grant of planning permission;

Protect ‘sensitive areas’ including the Green Belt;

Update guidance on how local authorities should assess future Traveller accommodation requirements, including sources of information that authorities should use. In terms of future needs assessments the consultation suggests that authorities should look at:

- The change in the number of Traveller households that have or are likely to have accommodation needs to be addressed over the Plan period;

- Broad locations where there is a demand for additional pitches;

- The level, quality and types of accommodation and facilities needed (e.g. sites and housing);

- The demographic profile of the Traveller community obtained from working directly with them;

- Caravan count data at a local level; and

- Whether there are needs at different times of the year.

The consultation closed on 23rd November 2014.

B.17 Dealing with illegal and unauthorised encampments: a summary of available powers, March 2015. This Guidance sets out the robust powers councils, the police and

42 ODPM Diversity and Equality in Planning: A good practice guide 2005


May 2018

landowners have to deal quickly with illegal and unauthorised encampments. The Guidance lists a series of questions that local authorities will want to consider including:

Is the land particularly vulnerable to unlawful occupation/trespass?

What is the status of that land? Who is the landowner?

Do any special rules apply to that land (e.g. byelaws, statutory schemes of management, etc.) and, if so, are any of those rules relevant to the occupation/trespass activity?

Has a process been established for the local authority to be notified about any unauthorised encampments?

If the police are notified of unauthorised encampments on local authority land, do they know who in the local authority should be notified?

If the power of persuasion by local authority officers (wardens/park officers/enforcement officers) does not result in people leaving the land/taking down tents, is there a clear decision making process, including liaison between councils and local police forces, on how to approach unauthorised encampments? At what level of the organisation will that decision be made? How will that decision-maker be notified?

The Guidance also states that to plan and respond effectively local agencies should work together to consider:

Identifying vulnerable sites;

Working with landowners to physically secure vulnerable sites where possible;

Preparing any necessary paperwork, such as applications for possession orders or injunctions, in advance;

Working with private landowners to inform them of their powers in relation to unauthorised encampments, including advance preparation of any necessary paperwork;

Developing a clear notification and decision-making process to respond to instances of unauthorised encampments;

The prudence of applying for injunctions where intelligence suggests there may be a planned encampment and the site of the encampment might cause disruption to others;

Working to ensure that local wardens, park officers or enforcement officers are aware of who they should notify in the event of unauthorised encampments;

Working to ensure that local wardens or park officers are aware of the locations of authorised campsites or other alternatives; and

Identifying sites where protests could be directed / permitted.

B.18 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites, August 2015

To be read alongside the NPPF (March 2012), this national planning policy document replaces the original document of the same name (published in March 2012). Planning


May 2018

policy for traveller sites sets out that, “the Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community.”43

The document sets out a series of nine policies (Policy A to Policy I), which address different issues associated with traveller sites:

Policy A: Using evidence to plan positively and manage development,

Policy B: Planning for traveller sites,

Policy C: Sites in rural areas and the countryside,

Policy D: Rural exception sites,

Policy E: Travellers sites in Green Belt,

Policy F: Mixed planning use traveller sites,

Policy G: Major development projects,

Policy H: Determining planning applications for traveller sites, and

Policy I: Implementation.

B.19 DCLG Planning policy statement on Green Belt protection and intentional unauthorised development (31st August 2015)

Issued as a letter to all Chief Planning Officers in England, this planning policy statement sets out changes to make intentional unauthorised development a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, and also to provide stronger protection for the Green Belt. The statement explains that the Planning Inspectorate will monitor all appeal decisions involving unauthorised development in the Green Belt, and additionally the DCLG will consider the recovery of a proportion of relevant appeals for the Secretary of State’s decision “to enable him to illustrate how he would like his policy to apply in practice”, under the criteria set out in 2008.

In addition, the planning policy statement of 31st August 2015 announced that the Government has cancelled the documents Guide to the effective use of enforcement powers, Part 1 (2006) and Part 2 (2007) and Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites – Good Practice Guide (2008).

B.20 DCLG Draft guidance to local housing authorities on the periodical review of housing needs: Caravans and Houseboats, March 2016

This draft guidance was published to explain how the Government wants local housing authorities to interpret changes to accommodation needs assessments (as required by Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985), specifically in relation to caravans and houseboats. It makes reference to Clause 115 of the Housing and Planning Bill, which has subsequently received royal assent and became legislation on 12 May 2016. The relevant clause has become Section 124 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

43 DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites, August 2015, paragraph 3


May 2018

The draft guidance explains how Government wants local housing authorities to interpret changes to accommodation needs assessments (as required by Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985), specifically in relation to caravans and houseboats.

In the carrying out of accommodation needs assessments, the draft guidance stresses the importance of close engagement with the community. The use of existing data along with conducting a specialist survey is recommended.


May 2018

Appendix C(a): Gypsy and Traveller Fieldwork Questionnaire

Windsor and Maidenhead Council

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment 2017

QUESTIONNAIRE

[April] 2017



Windsor and Maidenhead Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Survey



May 2018

Introduction

I am an independent researcher doing a study on the accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. This work is being conducted on behalf of Windsor and Maidenhead Council.

We want to find out:

What sort of homes – sites, yards and houses – Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople need.

What you think of existing sites, yards and homes

Whether you think new permanent and temporary sites and yards are needed

Whether you think easier access to bricks and mortar accommodation is needed

Whether you travel and if so whether you've had problems while travelling

What you think about the costs of your homes – houses, yards and sites

What other services you feel you need to support you

Interviewed before?

Have you been interviewed for this survey before?

If 'Yes' and in same location as previous interview, politely decline interview and find new respondent.

If 'Yes' on roadside and in different location from previous interview carry on with introduction

If 'No' carry on with introduction

Do you have time to talk with me about these things – it will take about 30 to 40 minutes?

Your answers are completely confidential – I won't use your name in any report that I write and no one will be able to trace any answer back to you. You don't have to answer everything - if you don't want to answer any particular questions, just tell me to skip them.


May 2018

FOR MOST ANSWERS, CHECK THE BOXES MOST APPLICABLE OR FILL IN THE BLANKS

Interview details

Date and time

Location (site name and address)

Pitch/property type (circle most appropriate) 1.Council

2.HA

3.Private_Authorised

4.Private_TempAuthorised

5.Private_Unauthorised

6.Private_Unauthorised Tolerated

7.Bricks and Mortar

8.Unauthorised encampment

9. Roadside


May 2018

Background data

Pitch address and/or number

[use any evidence of numbers or attribute them]

Number static caravans/mobile homes on pitch

Number tourers on pitch

Number bricks and mortar on pitch

Brief description of pitch occupancy

[eg. the pitch contained 3 households - the principal household and

then a cousin of the respondent and his family; and a son of the respondent and his family]

Number of households as stated by respondent

[from this determine how many questionnaires to complete on the pitch]

Number of concealed households

[Judgement required]

Number of doubled up households


Does anyone else use this pitch as their home

[Brief description]


May 2018

Household Characteristics

Q1 Who lives in your household?

Gender Age Relationship to respondent Economic activity Ethnicity

Respondent

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Person 6

Person 7

Person 8

[Notes for interview coding:]

Relationship Economic activity Ethnicity

1 Spouse/partner Working full-time (30 or more hrs each week) Romany Gypsy

2 Son/stepson Working part-time 16 and up to 30 hrs each week) English Gypsy

3 Daughter/stepdaughter Working part-time under 16 hrs each week) English Traveller

4 Grandson/daughter Self-employed (full or part time) Irish Traveller

5 Parent On Government training programme Welsh Gypsy

6 Grandparent In full-time education (inc. nursery) Welsh Traveller

7 Brother/sister Unemployed and available for work Scottish Gypsy

8 Nephew/niece Permanently sick/disabled Scottish Traveller

9 Other relation Wholly retired from work New Traveller

10 Friend Looking after the home and family Showman

11 Lodger/boarder Full-time carer or volunteer Circus Traveller

12 Other


May 2018

Q2 How would you best describe your household?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Single person under 65

Single person 65 and over Lone parent Couple no children

Couple with children

Older couple (one or both 65 and over) Other

Home base

Q3 Is this your main home base?

1 2

Yes No

[If ‘no’ go to Q4; if ‘yes’ go to Q5]

Q4 Where is your other home base?

[State settlement/district]

Current accommodation

Q5 What type of accommodation do you live in?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Trailer/wagon Static/mobile home/chalet House Bungalow Flat Other (specify)


May 2018

Q6 How many bedspaces are there?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q7 Do you think your home (trailer/B&M) is overcrowded?

1 2

Yes No

Q8 Do you think your pitch is overcrowded?

1 2

Yes No

Q9 How long have you lived here (at the location of the interview)?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Up to 1 year Over 1 and up to 2 years

2 years and up to 3 years


4 years and up to 5 years 5 years or more

Q10 Where did you move from?

1 2 3 4

The same pitch The same site The same district From outside the district If outside district, from where outside


May 2018

Q11 Why did you move onto this pitch?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Close to family/friends

Near to place of work

Near to school/nursery

Close to hospital/doctors

Close to church

No-where else that is suitable

Simply chose this place / no particular reason

Pitch provided by family/ friends

Always lived here

Other [Please Specify below]

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q12 When you moved onto this pitch, was it?

1 2 3

A brand new pitch which had not been occupied An empty pitch which had previously been occupied

Part of an existing pitch which became available to you (sub-division)

Travelling questions

Q13 In the last year have or someone in your household you travelled?

1 2

Yes No

Q14 Previous to the last year, did you or someone in your household travel?

1 2

Yes No


May 2018

Q15 Why do you travel?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cultural reasons Personal preference Work related

Visit family/ friends or family events To attend fairs

To attend religious meetings/ conventions

Only way of life I know

Limited opportunity to settle down/ no pitch on which to live/ lack of site provision

Q16 Do you or a member of your household plan to travel next year?

1 2

Yes No

Q17 Do you think you or a member of your household will travel each year for the next five years and/or beyond?

1 2

Yes No


May 2018

Q18 How many days or weeks do you normally travel each year?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No more than 13 days

2 to 4 weeks (or one month)

5 to 8 weeks (or 2 months)



Over 6 months but less than 10 months

Over 10 months but less than 12 months All year

Q19 How many days or weeks do you plan to travel in any given year in the future?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No more than 13 days








May 2018

Q20 Where would you normally go when you are travelling; where and when?

Location Month Reason Route

A.

B.

C.

D.

Q21 What reasons do you have for not travelling now or in the future?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Too many problems relating to travelling

Long term health reasons

Short term health reasons

Prefer not to travel

Family commitments

Education of children

Work/ job commitments

Do not need to travel

Other members of my household travel

Other (please state)

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Transit site questions

Q22 Transit sites are intended for short-term use while in transit. Sites are usually permitted and authorised but there is a limit on the length of time residents can stay. Is there a need for transit sites in Windsor and Maidenhead?

1 2

Yes No

Q23 If yes, where?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q24 Please state how many pitches and when is the site needed?

How many pitches? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When is the site needed (all the time or only at certain times of year)? _________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q25 Who should manage transit sites?

1 2 3 4 5

Councils Registered social landlords/ Housing Associations Private (Gypsy/ Traveller) Private (Non Gypsy/ Traveller) Other (please state)

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Permanent site questions

Q26 Is there a need for new permanent site(s) in Windsor and Maidenhead?

1 2

Yes No

Q27 If yes, where?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q28 Please state how many pitches? _________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q29 Who should manage permanent sites?

1 2 3 4 5


Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The future

Q30 Are you planning to move in the next 5 years?

1 2

No - planning to stay where you are based now [go to 0] Yes - planning to move elsewhere


May 2018

Q31 Where are you planning to move to?

1 2 3 4 5

Another pitch on the current site/ yard

Another site/ yard (if so, where)

Bricks and mortar (if so, where)

From bricks and mortar to a site/ yard (if so, where) Other (please state)

State settlement/district State settlement/district State settlement/district State settlement/district

Q32 What type of accommodation are you planning to move to?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Trailer/wagon Chalet/mobile home House Bungalow Flat Older persons’ housing (eg sheltered/extra care)


May 2018

Q33 Which of the following would you consider?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 For pitches For houses 2

Rent a pitch on a private site

Own a pitch on a private site

Rent a pitch on a Council/ Housing Association site

Buy some land and create a new pitch

Rent from the Council

Rent from a Housing Association Rent privately Buy a property


Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q34 If you are considering moving to bricks and mortar accommodation, what are your reasons?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q35 If you are considering moving to bricks and mortar accommodation would you use (or have you used) the Windsor and Maidenhead Housing Needs Register?

1 2

Yes No

Emerging households

Q36 Are there any people in your household who want to move to their own caravan/pitch/house in the next 5 years?

State how many

If none go to Q41

Q37 If yes, where would they like to move to?

HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4

Pitch on current site 1 1 1 1

Move to another site (if so, where) 2 2 2 2

Move to bricks and mortar (if so, where) 3 3 3 3


May 2018

Q38 If yes, what sort of accommodation would they require?

HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4

Trailer/wagon 1 1 1 1

Chalet/mobile home 2 2 2 2

House 3 3 3 3

Bungalow 4 4 4 4

Flat 5 5 5 5

Sheltered/extra care housing 6 6 6 6

No permanent base required 7 7 7 7

Other (please specify) 8 8 8 8

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q39 If yes, which of the following options would they consider?

HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4

Rent pitch from Council 1 1 1 1

Rent pitch from Registered Provider/Housing Association 2 2 2 2

Rent pitch privately 3 3 3 3

Own land where trailer/wagon is normally located 4 4 4 4

To travel/ use multiple/ various sites 5 5 5 5

Q40 Do you think they will want to travel for some of the year?

HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4

Yes 1 1 1 1 1

No 2 2 2 2 2


May 2018

Current site

Q41 Thinking of where you live, is there potential for further expansion?

1 2

Yes No

If so, for how many pitches? ____________________________

Q42 Is there potential to sub-divide existing pitches?

1 2

Yes No

If so, for how many pitches? ____________________________

Q43 How many vacant pitches are there? _____________________

Q44 How many are available to be occupied by a household? _______________________________


May 2018

Q45 Do you know of any households etc to be interviewed? [please include details]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q46 Is there anything else you would like to tell us?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q47 What do you think of the site you live on?

1 2 3


Site management

Size of pitch

Access to site

Quality of sheds

Location

Cost of electricity

Cost of gas

Cost of water

Cost of rent

[THEN REPEAT QUESTIONS FOR SECOND HOUSEHOLD, THIRD HOUSEHOLD ETC ON PITCH MAKING SURE THEY ARE REFERENCED CORRECTLY. THE PRINCIPAL HOUSEHOLD SHEET SHOULD HAVE INFORMATION WHICH LINKS TOGETHER ALL QUESTIONNAIRES (eg the site contained 3 households – the principal household and then a cousin of the respondent and his family and a son of the respondent and his family)]


May 2018

Appendix C(b): Travelling Showperson Questionnaire

Windsor and Maidenhead Council

Travelling Showperson Accommodation Assessment 2017

QUESTIONNAIRE

[April] 2017





May 2018

Windsor and Maidenhead Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Survey

Introduction

I am an independent researcher doing a study on the accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. This work is being conducted on behalf of the RBWM and Maidenhead Council.

We want to find out:

What sort of homes – sites, yards and houses – Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople need.

What you think of existing sites, yards and homes

Whether you think new permanent and temporary sites and yards are needed

Whether you think easier access to bricks and mortar accommodation is needed

Whether you travel and if so whether you've had problems while travelling

What you think about the costs of your homes – houses, yards and sites


Interviewed before?

Have you been interviewed for this survey before?

If 'Yes' and in same location as previous interview, politely decline interview and find new respondent.

If 'Yes' on roadside and in different location from previous interview carry on with introduction

If 'No' carry on with introduction




May 2018


Interview details

Date and time

Location (yard name and address)

Yard/property type (circle most appropriate) 1.Council

2.HA

3.Private_Authorised

4.Private_TempAuthorised

5.Private_Unauthorised

6.Private_Unauthorised Tolerated

7.Bricks and Mortar

8.Unauthorised encampment

9. Roadside


May 2018

Background data

Plot address and/or number


Number static caravans/mobile homes on plot

Number tourers on plot

Number bricks and mortar on plot

Brief description of plot occupancy

[eg. the plot contained 3 households - the principal household and

then a cousin of the respondent and his family; and a son of the respondent and his family]

Number of households as stated by respondent

[from this determine how many questionnaires to complete on the plot]

Number of concealed households


Number of doubled up households


Does anyone else use this plot as their home

[Brief description]


May 2018

Household Characteristics


Gender Age Relationship to respondent Economic activity Ethnicity

Respondent

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Person 6

Person 7

Person 8


Relationship Economic activity Ethnicity

1 Spouse/partner Working full-time (30 or more hrs each week) Romany Gypsy

2 Son/stepson Working part-time 16 and up to 30 hrs each week) English Gypsy

3 Daughter/stepdaughter Working part-time under 16 hrs each week) English Traveller

4 Grandson/daughter Self-employed (full or part time) Irish Traveller

5 Parent On Government training programme Welsh Gypsy

6 Grandparent In full-time education (inc. nursery) Welsh Traveller

7 Brother/sister Unemployed and available for work Scottish Gypsy

8 Nephew/niece Permanently sick/disabled Scottish Traveller

9 Other relation Wholly retired from work New Traveller

10 Friend Looking after the home and family Showman

11 Lodger/boarder Full-time carer or volunteer Circus Traveller

12 Other


May 2018


1 2 3 4 5 6 7





Home base

Q3 Is this your main home base?

1 2

Yes No

[If ‘no’ go to Q4; if ‘yes’ go to Q5]

Q4 Where is your other home base?

[State settlement/district]

Current accommodation

Q5 What type of accommodation do you live in?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Trailer/wagon Static/mobile home/chalet House Bungalow Flat Other (specify)


May 2018

Q6 How many bedspaces are there?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q7 Do you think your home (trailer/B&M) is overcrowded?

1 2

Yes No

Q8 Do you think your plot is overcrowded?

1 2

Yes No

Q9 How long have you lived here (at the location of the interview)?

1 2 3 4 5 6




4 years and up to 5 years 5 years or more

Q10 Where did you move from?

1 2 3 4

The same plot The same yard The same district From outside the district If outside district, from where outside


May 2018

Q11 Why did you move onto this plot?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Close to family/friends


Near to school/nursery

Close to hospital/doctors

Close to church

No-where else that is suitable

Simply chose this place / no particular reason

Plot provided by family/ friends

Always lived here

Other [Please Specify below]

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q12 When you moved onto this plot, was it?

1 2 3

A brand new plot which had not been occupied An empty plot which had previously been occupied

Part of an existing plot which became available to you (sub-division)


May 2018

Travelling questions

Q13 In the last year have or someone in your household you travelled?

1 2

Yes No

Q14 Previous to the last year, did you or someone in your household travel?

1 2

Yes No


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cultural reasons Personal preference Work related

Visit family/ friends or family events To attend fairs

To attend religious meetings/ conventions


Limited opportunity to settle down/ no plot on which to live/ lack of yard provision

Q16 Do you or a member of your household plan to travel next year?

1 2

Yes No

Q17 Do you think you or a member of your household will travel each year for the next five years and/or beyond?

1 2

Yes No


May 2018

Q18 How many days or weeks do you normally travel each year?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No more than 13 days







Q19 How many days or weeks do you plan to travel in any given year in the future?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No more than 13 days







Q20 Where would you normally go when you are travelling; where and when?

Location Month Reason Route

A.

B.

C.

D.


May 2018

Q21 What reasons do you have for not travelling now or in the future?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Too many problems relating to travelling

Long term health reasons

Short term health reasons

Prefer not to travel

Family commitments

Education of children

Work/ job commitments

Do not need to travel

Other members of my household travel


Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Transit site questions (FOR TRAVELLING SHOWPEOPLE DO NOT ASK Q22 to Q26

Q22 Transit sites are intended for short-term use while in transit. Sites are usually permitted and authorised but there is a limit on the length of time residents can stay. Is there a need for transit sites in Windsor and Maidenhead?

1 2

Yes No

Q23 If yes, where?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q24 Please state how many plots and when is the site needed?

How many sites? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When is the site needed (all the time or only at certain times of year)? _________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q25 Who should manage transit sites?

1 2 3 4 5


Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Permanent yard questions

Q26 Is there a need for new permanent yards(s) in Windsor and Maidenhead?

1 2

Yes No

Q27 If yes, where?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q28 Please state how many plots? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q29 Who should manage permanent yards?

1 2 3 4 5


Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

The future

Q30 Are you planning to move in the next 5 years?

1 2

No - planning to stay where you are based now [go to 0] Yes - planning to move elsewhere

Q31 Where are you planning to move to?

1 2 3 4 5

Another plot on the current yard Another yard (if so, where)

Bricks and mortar (if so, where)

From bricks and mortar to a yard (if so, where) Other (please state)

State settlement/district State settlement/district State settlement/district State settlement/district

Q32 What type of accommodation are you planning to move to?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Trailer/wagon Chalet/mobile home House Bungalow Flat Older persons’ housing (eg sheltered/extra care)


May 2018

Q33 Which of the following would you consider?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 For plots For houses

Rent a plot on a private yard

Own a plot on a private yard

Rent a plot on a Council/ Housing Association yard

Buy some land and create a new plot

Rent from the Council

Rent from a Housing Association Rent privately Buy a property


Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q34 If you are considering moving to bricks and mortar accommodation, what are your reasons?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q35 If you are considering moving to bricks and mortar accommodation would you use (or have you used) the Windsor and Maidenhead Housing Needs Register?

1 2

Yes No


May 2018

Emerging households

Q36 Are there any people in your household who want to move to their own caravan/plot/house in the next 5 years?

State how many

If none go to Q41

Q37 If yes, where would they like to move to?

HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4

Plot on current yard 1 1 1 1

Move to another yard (if so, where) 2 2 2 2

Move to bricks and mortar (if so, where) 3 3 3 3


May 2018

Q38 If yes, what sort of accommodation would they require?

HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4

Trailer/wagon 1 1 1 1

Chalet/mobile home 2 2 2 2

House 3 3 3 3

Bungalow 4 4 4 4

Flat 5 5 5 5

Sheltered/extra care housing 6 6 6 6

No permanent base required 7 7 7 7

Other (please specify) 8 8 8 8

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q39 If yes, which of the following options would they consider?

HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4

Rent plot from Council 1 1 1 1

Rent plot from Registered Provider/Housing Association 2 2 2 2

Rent plot privately 3 3 3 3

Own land where trailer/wagon is normally located 4 4 4 4

To travel/ use multiple/ various sites 5 5 5 5

Q40 Do you think they will want to travel for some of the year?

HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4

Yes 1 1 1 1 1

No 2 2 2 2 2


May 2018

Current site

Q41 Thinking of where you live, is there potential for further expansion?

1 2

Yes No

If so, for how many plots? _____________________________

Q42 Is there potential to sub-divide existing plots?

1 2

Yes No

If so, for how many plots? _____________________________

Q43 How many vacant plots are there? _______________________

Q44 How many are available to be occupied by a household? _______________________________

Q45 Do you know of any households etc to be interviewed? [please include details]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q47 What do you think of the plot you live on?

1 2 3


Site management

Size of plot

Access to site

Quality of sheds

Location

Cost of electricity

Cost of gas

Cost of water

Cost of rent

[THEN REPEAT QUESTIONS FOR SECOND HOUSEHOLD, THIRD HOUSEHOLD ETC ON PLOT MAKING SURE THEY ARE REFERENCED CORRECTLY. THE PRINCIPAL HOUSEHOLD SHEET SHOULD HAVE INFORMATION WHICH LINKS TOGETHER ALL QUESTIONNAIRES (eg the site contained 3 households – the principal household and then a cousin of the respondent and his family and a son of the respondent and his family)]


May 2018

Appendix C(c): Houseboat Questionnaire

The Windsor and Maidenhead Council Houseboat Survey

QUESTIONNAIRE

April 2017





May 2018

Windsor and Maidenhead Houseboat Survey

Introduction

I am an independent researcher doing a study on the accommodation needs of people living on houseboats/bargees. This work is being conducted on behalf of the RBWM and Maidenhead.

We want to find out :

About the housing needs of people who live on houseboats

What you think of existing mooring provision

Your travelling patterns and problems while travelling

What you think about the costs of your homes





Interview details

Attach label with interviewer details and URN

Date and time

Location (mooring location)


May 2018

Background data

Number of boats in the vicinity


Number of people in household

Property type

Houseboat (1)

Narrow boat (2)

Cruiser (3)

Other (4)

[please specify]

______________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Household characteristics


Gender Age Relationship to respondent Economic activity

Respondent

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Person 6

Person 7

Person 8


Relationship Economic activity

1 Spouse/partner Working full-time (30 or more hrs each week)

2 Son/stepson Working part-time 16 and up to 30 hrs each week)

3 Daughter/stepdaughter Working part-time under 16 hrs each week)

4 Grandson/daughter Self-employed (full or part time)

5 Parent On Government training programme

6 Grandparent In full-time education (inc. nursery)

7 Brother/sister Unemployed and available for work

8 Nephew/niece Permanently sick/disabled

9 Other relation Wholly retired from work

10 Friend Looking after the home and family

11 Lodger/boarder Full-time carer or volunteer


May 2018


1 2 3 4 5 6 7





Home Base

Q3 Please briefly describe the waterway(s) where you travel

Q4 Do you have other home bases?

1 2

Yes No

Go to Q5

Go to Q6


May 2018

Q5 Please tell us about your other home base [record details of next most used home base]

Type Where is it? Please record Town/ Settlement and District Type

Where is it? Please record Town/ Settlement and District

House 1 Sheltered/Extra Care housing 5

Bungalow 2 Houseboat/narrowboat 6

Flat 3 Other [please specify] 7

Caravan/mobile home 4

Q6 Why do you live on a houseboat?

[Select all that apply]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Could not afford bricks & mortar housing

Close to family and friends


Near to child(rens) school/nursery

Close to hospital Close to church

Nowhere else that is suitable

Choose to travel

Simply chose this place/no particular reason

Other [please specify below]

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q7 How long have you lived on this current boat?

1 2 3 4 5 6


Over 2 and up to 3 years


Over 4 and up to 5 years 5 years and over

Q8 How long have you travelled in this area?

1 2 3 4 5 6




Over 4 and up to 5 years 5 years and over

Q9 Are you happy with your main home base/house or would you prefer to live in a different type of home?

[Select only one]

1 2 3 4

Happy with current home Prefer house/ bungalow/ flat Prefer caravan/ mobile home Other [please specify below]

Go to Q11 Go to Q10 Go to Q10 Go to Q10

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q10 If you would prefer to live in a different type of home please tell us about your reasons for this?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Health/ old age/ illness Lifestyle/ belief

Prefer bricks & mortar

Prefer caravan/ trailer/ wagon/ pitch

I don’t like where I currently live Want to travel

Want to settle down


Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q11 In your view is the place where you live a popular place/location/site for Bargee Travellers to live?

1 2

Yes No

Q12 Why do you say this?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q13 Does the place where you currently live have any anti-social behaviour issues?

1 2

Yes No

Q14 What do you think can be done to prevent anti-social behaviour?

1 2 3

Nothing Don’t know/ not sure

Other [please specify]

Other:

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q15 Do you rent or own the boat where you normally live?

[Select only one]

1 2 3 4

Own boat (no mortgage) Own boat (with mortgage or bank loan) Rent (eg privately or from a trust) Other [please specify below]

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q16 Do you rent or own the land you are moored at?

[Select only one]

1 2 3 4

Own land where boat is normally located

Rent land where boat is normally located

Rent mooring (eg from Canal and River Trust) Other [please specify below]

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q17 What are your sources or electric power?


1 2 3 4 5

Mains electric Solar generator Diesel engine Wind turbine Portable petrol generator

Q18 What are your sources of heating?


1 2 3 4

Diesel (bubble) stove Diesel cabin heating Solid fuel (coal/wood) Propane gas

All respondents

Q19 Do you think your home is overcrowded?

[Select only one]

1 2

Yes No

Q20 If yes, please tell us in what way the home is overcrowded

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q21 What repairs or improvements, if any, are needed to your home?


1 2 3 4 5 6

None Roof Doors/windows Kitchen facilities Bathroom facilities Other [please specify below]

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q22 How would you best describe the state of repair of your home?

[Select only one]

1 2 3 4 5

Very good Good Neither good nor poor Poor Very poor


May 2018

Housing History

Q23 Where did you live before you came here (or moved to your existing home)?

1 2 3

Please state Town/ District Travelling all the time (no permanent home) Homeless

Q24 Why did you leave that place?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Travelling

Q25 In the last year, have you moved moorings?

[Select only one]

1 2

Yes No

Go to Q26

Go to Q27

Q26 How often have you had to move to different moorings in the past year?

[Select only one]

1 2 3 4 5 6

1-2 times each month Every month

Every 1 to less than 3 months






1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Necessity of licence agreement

Cultural heritage

Personal preference Work related

Visit family/ friends


Limited opportunity to settle/ no mooring on which to live/ lack of mooring provision


Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q28 What problems, if any, do you have while travelling?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No places/ moorings to stop over

Closing of traditional stopping places

Abuse, harassment or discrimination

Lack of toilet facilities

No water facilities

Problems with rubbish collection

Police behaviour

Enforcement Officer behaviour

Behaviour of other Bargee Travellers


Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q29 Has living in this location affected your physical or mental health in anyway?

1 2

Yes No

Go to Q30

Go to Q31

Q30 In what way(s) has it affected you?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

The Future

Q31 In the next five years, is your household:

1 2

Planning to stay living on a houseboat in the same District Planning to move elsewhere

Go to Q38

Go to Q32

Q32 If you are planning to move elsewhere, are you planning to move to:

[Select one]

1 A mooring outside the District (if so, where)

Go to Q38

2 Into bricks and mortar accommodation

Go to Q33

3 Other [please specify]

Other ________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q33 If you are planning to move to bricks and mortar accommodation, where would it be (town/village/local authority area)?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q34 If you are planning to move to bricks and mortar accommodation, what type of accommodation?

1 2 3 4

House Bungalow Flat Sheltered/ Extra Care Housing

Q35 If you are planning to move to bricks and mortar accommodation, would you be renting or buying?

1 2 3 4 5

Rent from Council Rent privately Rent from Housing Association/RP/RSL Buy Other [please state]

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q36 If planning to move to bricks and mortar accommodation, would you use (or have you used) the RBWM and Maidenhead Housing Needs Register?

1 2 3

Yes, could use or have used No Don’t know/not sure

Go to Q38

Go to 0

Go to 0

Q37 If you would not use the service please can you tell us why this is the case?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q38 Is there a need for permanent moorings in the RBWM and Maidenhead area and/or in the neighbouring area?

1 2

Yes No


May 2018

Q39 If yes, in which of the following locations?

[Tick all that apply]

Where are permanent moorings needed? Why this location How big does the marina need to be? (Number moorings)

RBWM and Maidenhead Council area [please specify]

1

Other local authority area bordering the RBWM and Maidenhead [please specify]

2

Q40 How do you think the moorings should be managed?

[Select only one]

1 2 3 4 5

Councils Private Canal and Rivers Trust Registered Social Landlords/ Housing Associations Other [please state]

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Emerging Families

Q41 How many members of your family who are living with you now, are likely or need to move on and set up by themselves in the next five years?

[Select only one]

1 2 3 4

One Two Three Four

Q42 What would you (or they) want as a permanent base?

HH1(a) HH2(b) HH3(c) HH4(d)

Continue to live on a houseboat 1 1 1 1

Move to a house/flat/bungalow 2 2 2 2

Sheltered/Extra Care housing – see note 3 3 3 3

Other [Please state] 4 4 4 4

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Note: Sheltered housing is usually a group of bungalows or flats and you have your own front door. Schemes usually have a manager/warden to arrange services and are linked to a careline/alarm service.

Extra Care housing is designed with the needs of frailer older people in mind. It includes flats, bungalows and retirement villages. You have your own front door. Domestic support and personal care are available.


May 2018

Q43 If planning to move to another location, where would you (they) prefer to live? Please state town/borough. This can be an area outside the RBWM and Maidenhead


Q44 Which of the following options would you (or do you think they would) require?

[Select only one]


Rent mooring from the Canal and Rivers Trust 1 1 1 1

Rent mooring from Registered Provider/ Housing Association 2 2 2 2

Rent mooring privately 3 3 3 3

Own land where mooring is located 4 4 4 4

To travel/use multiple/various moorings 5 5 5 5

Other [Please state] 6 6 6 6

Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Q45 Do you know of any other Bargee Travellers who may want to participate with this research? Could you provide some contact details as we may approach them for an interview to better understand their needs?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


May 2018

Appendix D: Glossary of terms Caravans: Mobile living vehicles used by Gypsies and Travellers; also referred to as trailers.

CJ&POA: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; includes powers for local authorities and police to act against unauthorised encampments.

CRE: Commission for Racial Equality.

DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government; created in May 2006. Responsible for the remit on Gypsies and Travellers, which was previously held by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (O.D.P.M.).

Gypsies and Travellers: Defined by DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites (August 2015) as “Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such”. The planning policy goes on to state that, “In determining whether persons are “gypsies and travellers” for the purposes of this planning policy, consideration should be given to the following issues amongst other relevant matters: a) whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life b) the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life c) whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances”.

Irish Traveller: Member of one of the main groups of Gypsies and Travellers in England. Irish Travellers have a distinct indigenous origin in Ireland and have been in England since the mid nineteenth century. They have been recognised as an ethnic group since August 2000 in England and Wales (O'Leary v Allied Domecq).

Mobile home: Legally a ‘caravan’ but not usually capable of being moved by towing.

Pitch: Area of land on a Gypsy/Traveller site occupied by one resident family; sometimes referred to as a plot, especially when referring to Travelling Showpeople. DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites (August 2015) states that “For the purposes of this planning policy, “pitch” means a pitch on a “gypsy and traveller” site and “plot” means a pitch on a “travelling showpeople” site (often called a “yard”). This terminology differentiates between residential pitches for “gypsies and travellers” and mixed-use plots for “travelling showpeople”, which may / will need to incorporate space or to be split to allow for the storage of equipment”.

Plot: see pitch

PPTS: Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (DCLG, 2012 and 2015 editions)

Roadside: Term used here to indicate families on unauthorised encampments, whether literally on the roadside or on other locations such as fields, car parks or other open spaces.

Romany: Member of one of the main groups of Gypsies and Travellers in England. Romany Gypsies trace their ethnic origin back to migrations, probably from India, taking place at intervals since before 1500. Gypsies have been a recognised ethnic group for the purposes of British race relations legislation since 1988 (CRE V Dutton).

Sheds: On most residential Gypsy/Traveller sites 'shed' refers to a small basic building with plumbing amenities (bath/shower, WC, sink), which are provided at the rate of one per pitch/pitch. Some contain a cooker and basic kitchen facilities.


May 2018

Showpeople: Defined by DCLG Planning policy for traveller sites (August 2015) as “Members of a group organised for the purposes of holding fairs, circuses or shows (whether or not travelling together as such). This includes such persons who on the grounds of their own or their family’s or dependants’ more localised pattern of trading, educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excludes Gypsies and Travellers as defined above”.

Site: An area of land laid out and used for Gypsy/Traveller caravans; often though not always comprising slabs and amenity blocks or ‘sheds’. An authorised site will have planning permission. An unauthorised development lacks planning permission.

Slab: An area of concrete or tarmac on sites allocated to a household for the parking of trailers (caravans)

Stopping places: A term used to denote an unauthorised temporary camping area tolerated by local authorities, used by Gypsies and Travellers for short-term encampments, and sometimes with the provision of temporary toilet facilities, water supplies and refuse collection services.

Tolerated site: An unauthorised encampment/site where a local authority has decided not to take enforcement action to seek its removal.

Trailers: Term used for mobile living vehicles used by Gypsies and Travellers; also referred to as caravans.

Transit site: A site intended for short-term use while in transit. The site is usually permanent and authorised, but there is a limit on the length of time residents can stay.

Unauthorised development: Establishment of Gypsy and Traveller sites without planning permission, usually on land owned by those establishing the site. Unauthorised development may involve ground works for roadways and hard standings. People parking caravans on their own land without planning permission are not Unauthorised Encampments in that they cannot trespass on their own land – they are therefore Unauthorised Developments and enforcement is always dealt with by Local Planning Authorities enforcing planning legislation.

Unauthorised encampment: Land where Gypsies or Travellers reside in vehicles or tents without permission. Unauthorised encampments can occur in a variety of locations (roadside, car parks, parks, fields, etc.) and constitute trespass. The 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act made it a criminal offence to camp on land without the owner’s consent. Unauthorised encampments fall into two main categories: those on land owned by local authorities and those on privately owned land. It is up to the land owner to take enforcement action in conjunction with the Police.

Wagons: This is the preferred term for the vehicles used for accommodation by Showpeople.

Yards: Showpeople travel in connection with their work and therefore live, almost universally, in wagons. During the winter months these are parked up in what was traditionally known as ‘winter quarters’. These ‘yards’ are now often occupied all year around by some family members.