Memorandum by the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison
Group (GTS 45)
We would like to add further information to
this enquiry as we believe the enquiry may have been some what
mislead by figures. We do not see defining "truly nomadic"
as a way forward and it is important to realise that the Gypsy/Traveller
population of Great Britain are very different to a lot of our
European neighbours as the main characteristic of our culture
is to remain mobile. It is not therefore helpful to pin point
and try and work out who is more mobile ie truly nomadic.
Most families in Great Britain had a winter
yard or stopping place between the months of late October to March
the 1960 Act closed a lot of these places. No one had the forethought
to assist in passing more of these grounds. It seems to be that
families have to travel more and more week in week out.
If the government are going to go down the road
of only looking at provision for the "truly nomadic"
it is neither useful or helpful and will make yet another hoop
and hurdle for families to get through at planning enquiries and
even less sites will become established.
The Romani Gypsy population do not accept the
way the word gypsy is used in planning law and at times it seems
you have to follow any criteria but be of the Gypsy race, this
is really non sensical and wrong. We have tried extremely hard
as a self-help group to try and get sites passed for our own people
through a planning system that seems to put up ever increasing
barriers. We have bad case law that defines Gypsy people as those
that have to move about from place to place to work. We all know
where this leaves the disabled and the ill. Too old or ill to
be a Gypsy so therefore you cannot be classes as a gypsy therefore
no site.
We mentioned that there is a very low pass rate
of sites at the Committee stage and that continues to be true
for us. We have recently lodged three applications that should
be passed at committee stage but we know that it is highly unlikely
to happen.
We don't think that we made it clear that out
of the sites that we have gone for in the past, only one was in
the Greenbelt. There is a difference between sites in the Greenbelt
and sites that are in open countryside. There are parts of the
countryside where sites should be permitted and we have managed
to get sites passed here. We think this confusion over open countryside
and Greenbelt needs clarifying. Although there is a presumption
not to develop in the countryside it need not be so all the time.
Some families are countryside people and have every right to be
in the countryside and have links going back 300 or 400 years
with certain rural areas. This is not too different to what is
happening now with rural youngsters who find that they are being
displaced by those fortunate enough to have £200,000 to pay
for a two up two down cottage in an idyllic setting and know little
about the country side when they move in it and also have scant
regard for the families that may have been there for five generations
the sixth generation being pushed to the outskirts of the nearest
town. Therefore it is important to think of the rural people also
and there should also be schemes for these families within the
countryside. Words like "sustainable development" within
development plans could also be read as lets kill off this village,
we'll freeze frame it as it is now and it will make a nice retreat
for London commuters. This is not helpful to any one.
The enquiry mentioned about going for Brownfield
sites. The very first site we put in for was a Brownfield site
and it was turned down, we did not fit into the Borough plan,
this small plot of land was to be landscaped within a big landscape
scheme. It was refused won on appeal for five years refused again,
won on appeal for five years and third time around we got it for
life. The Brownfield sites are just as problematic and we are
still refused. Worse still some councils want special circumstance
reasons for having a site on Brownfield ground. We really do object
to private health business having to be aired at public enquiries.
We are the only race in the country that do not have the rights
to keep our health records to ourselves, special circumstance
means everyone has to know. This is wrong.
Please also note that we find that we have to
repeat the planning process more than once on some ground. This
could be excused on Greenbelt land, but on a Brownfield site within
an old mining area?
It is very important that we stop talking about
numbers and we start to do something about the backlog of sites
that are needed now. In 1998 we did our own study of families
on the move. We are the only group that ever attempted to do this
and it and it was mentioned in the Pat Niner report. This report
showed that there was a considerable amount of families that did
not have a legal stopping place and we actually worked out that
if Derbyshire district councils individually passed between six
and 10 small sites it would eradicate the problem overnight. If
all the district councils did this it would definitely relieve
the backlog of sites.
DGLG has never been a supporter of acres of
ground being sold for individual plots to be made 20/25/30/40
plot sites we feel is not a good idea but we understand why this
is happening as families have got fed up with a system that is
seen to work against rather than with.
More sites need to be passed at the committee
stage and there should really be a directive from government to
say so many sites have to be passed within a district by 2006.
There is concern by some site residents on sites
regarding the cost of electricity as some landlords add more money
to the actual cost and there is also concern in some areas that
the fire prevention regulations are not adhered to, this is a
consequence of there not being enough sites passed and many sites
let more on in the winter than they should do. We know this is
of concern to fire chiefs as we have been contacted by both residents
and fire chiefs, worried that there may be a fire.
All sites should come up to certain safety standards,
we feel that some authorities turn a blind eye as they know that
there are not sufficient pitches for families in the winter time.
These problems would again be rectified overnight with more sites
being passed.
We continue to try and assist Local Authorities
not just in Derbyshire; we have had applications in Nottinghamshire,
Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Somerset, and Staffordshire and
assisted in Sussex and Cheshire. We want to see changes and we
want to help this come to fruition. We would be quite willing
to assist in any way we can. The Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform
Coalition has mentioned the forming of a task force DGLG and National
Association of Gypsy Women (we are also members of the Coalition)
would be happy to be part of this we feel that this is a very
important step forward.
This submission is also supported by The National
Association of Gypsy Women who also gave evidence at the enquiry
and were concerned by what they heard.
| 
