Memorandum by South Cambridgeshire District
Council (GTS 24)
CONTEXT
1.1 South Cambridgeshire accommodates more
travellers on authorised sites than any other district. The District
Council, working in partnership with parish councils, has been
able to grant permission for over 300 sites, enabling the local
traveller population to gain access to education and health facilities
and to integrate with local communities.
1.2 In the last year, however, the northern
part of South Cambridgeshire (especially, the village of Cottenham)
has been particularly affected by the arrival of a huge influx
of travellers from Ireland who have bought up land at premium
rates. We understand that these Irish travellers are, basically,
international traders, who have no tradition of any integration
with the local economy or community. Our district merely represents
a convenient stopping point on their trade routes. The Irish travellers
have moved onto land near the original English travellers sites
thereby greatly swelling numbers. This has caused animosity both
between the settled and travelling communities and, indeed, between
these very different travelling communities.
1.3 In the village of Cottenham, it is estimated
that there are approximately 200 travellers altogether now. This
has precipitated a movement of some English travellers onto unlawful
sites. The Council has sought to manage the problem through firm
and fair application of planning regulations. However, even when
the Council wins all the arguments on conventional land use planning
grounds, the disproportionate weight given by Planning Inspectors
on appeal in applying Human Rights legislation allows the Irish
travellers to stay. Planning Appeals are being lost on what are
widely seen to be non-planning points.
KEY ISSUES
2.0 We recognise that the Inquiry will not
be dealing with individual cases. However, based on our experience,
we suggest that the Committee considers the five general points
set out below. These reflect concerns that were raised at a meeting
held by the District Council for representatives of local parish
councils on 20 May 2004.
2.1 Not just a matter of site provision:
We would urge the Committee to address the issue surrounding what
happens when travellers buy their own sites. Whilst this is not
a bad thing in itself, it causes problems where the sites selected,
without local or democratic involvement, are badly located. The
rapid, unpredictable and non-planned occupation of land is the
very antithesis of public sector forward planning. This is becoming
an increasing issue for a growing number of district councils
in predominantly rural areas.
2.2 Need for clear national policy:
The Government cannot expect individual councils to cope on their
own when faced with a huge influx of travellers in a single locality.
There needs to be a national policy framework as a solution to
this national problem, within which district councils can operate
consistently and effectively. National co-ordination is needed
to make sure that there is not an over-concentration of travellers
in any area.
2.3 Greater emphasis on working together:
New planning guidance must insist upon a dialogue between travellers
and councils in relation to travellers' site acquisitions.
a. Councils should have a statutory duty
to provide sites for travellers and must be prepared to listen
to the travellers' proposals for sites. If councils do not accept
those proposals, there need to be mechanisms in place for making
sure that travellers are offered appropriate alternatives.
b. Travellers should not be given permission
for their chosen sites unless they consult the relevant council
first. This point should also be given far greater weight by the
Planning Inspectorate when considering planning appeals.
If travellers continue to receive the message
that they can buy sites that only suit themselves, and can be
confident of getting planning permission on human rights grounds,
they are unlikely ever to enter into a dialogue with the local
authorities regarding site selection. They will merely act first,
ignore local rules and ultimately receive what they want.
2.4 Size matters: Planning guidance
should recognise the number of travellers in any given area as
a material consideration in respect of planning applications and
planning appeals. We understand that most travellers, themselves,
find sites of 10-15 plots far more acceptable, reflecting their
traditional way of life. Otherwise, larger concentrations can
have an impact on:
a. the local environment (eg, traffic noise,
visual appearance and cleanliness issues); and
b. local infrastructure (eg, severe added
pressures on facilities such as schools and doctors' surgeries),
especially when traveller sites are unplanned and demands for
services unexpected. If settlements of a similar size were going
to be created, strategic bodies responsible for housing, schools,
hospitals, roads, drains, medical facilities and community safety
(not to mention local churches) would all have the opportunity
to comment. We would then put in place the facilities and infrastructure
to cope, through the use of section 106 agreements and planning
conditions.
2.5 Safeguard the quality of life for
all local people: In seeking to be fair to travellers from
abroad, it is vital that planning guidance does not overlook the
human rights and needs of:
a. the indigenous travelling community,
many of whom can be displaced by the new arrivals;
b. local households, who can feel that their
community, local way of life and access to effective local services
is being taken over.
Experience suggests that existing communities
can feel both threatened and intimidated, and let down, frustrated
and helpless by unplanned settlements, which are now being endorsed
by central government through the planning appeal system.
CONCLUSION
3.1 Whilst most of our comments relate to
suggested improvements to planning guidance, we hope that the
Committee's Inquiry will be able to focus on more than official
rules and regulations. If the issue of sites owned by travellers
is not addressed effectively and promptly, we fear that the human
costs, in terms of damage to quality of life and community cohesion
across the country, could be significant.
| 
