Memorandum by Cottenham Parish Council
(GTS 34)
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Travellers have been resident in the
parish of Cottenham for generations, latterly on land they themselves
own. Until the last few years, the relationship between the permanent
and travelling community was more or less peaceful. However in
recent years the one site in the parish has expanded dramatically,
both officially and unofficially, and at Easter last year a sudden
influx of travellers from southern Ireland increased the number
of caravans on the site to over 140. The Parish, and the local
Planning Authority (South Cambridgeshire District Council), have
been attempting to bring the situation under control, and in so
doing we have recognised what we believe to be serious shortcomings
in the legislation relating to the establishment and control of
traveller sites. This forms the basis of our evidence.
1.2 Our evidence relates only to traveller-owned
caravan sites, as this is the only type within our experience.
We are convinced that many of the problems experienced with these
sites can be alleviated or virtually eliminated by restricting
the scale of these developments. This is particularly true in
respect of education and other service provision. We contend that
some of the special considerations in planning law for the benefit
of travellers are being abused in the interest of profit and that
their application should be amended. We also contend that due
to the changing ways by which travellers support themselves economically,
planning authorities must consider some traveller sites as industrial
rather than residential in nature and take this into account when
processing planning applications.
2. DEMAND FOR
AND USE
OF SITES
2.1 It is clear that a demand exists for
traveller sites. What is less clear is how much of this is generated
by a genuine need for accommodation, and how much by deliberate
economic migration, or by the profit motive. The need for traveller
sites can be met either by the provision of Local Authority sites
or by the establishment of sites owned by travellers themselves.
In this Local Authority area, at least one official site has been
closed due to damage to facilities, and another is regularly "trashed".
Under these circumstances, the idea of travellers owning their
own sites has to be viewed positively, as it should provide an
incentive for sites to be respected and properly maintained. Our
evidence relates only to traveller-owned caravan sites, as this
is the only type within our experience.
2.2 The settled community is inclined to
object to the development of traveller sites, and planning permission,
if granted, is therefore often forthcoming only after a protracted
and costly appeals process. Under these circumstances any pitch
already with planning permission can acquire an inflated value
and provide an opportunity for significant profit to the owner
or other parties. This invites speculative unauthorised development
and leads to financial or other pressure being brought to bear
on owners of existing approved pitches to vacate them—having
done so they may then have recourse to unauthorised sites elsewhere.
It may also lead to planning applications being made in the interest
solely of profit. The travelling lifestyle implies that a traveller
may, over time, reside in a number of different locations. Under
these circumstances a traveller can use his status to obtain planning
permission in several different locations, with the sole objective
of selling the pitches at inflated prices to other travellers
without accommodation who for some reason would not qualify for
planning permission themselves. It appears that Planning Authorities
do not check an applicant's situation with respect to applications
or permissions outside their area. This is not an appropriate
use of the special considerations given to travellers in planning
law. Planning Authorities and Inspectors have sometimes attempted
to address this problem by making planning permission personal
to the applicant(s). This rarely works, as few local authorities
have the resources to monitor the occupancy of sites over time,
and land transactions within the travelling community are often
not registered and are therefore almost impossible to track. When
planning permission is made personal to the applicant, registration
of the land should be compulsory.
2.3 Travellers are recommended to contact
the local planning authority before purchasing land for development.
At present this is not happening, so that unauthorised sites are
established, leading to costly and protracted planning enforcement
action. Often this can take years to reach a conclusion. We propose
that the failure to consult before establishing a site should
be a material consideration in the refusal of planning permission.
2.4 A factor that actually encourages the
permanence of unauthorised sites is the readiness with which utility
companies are prepared to connect services, irrespective of whether
planning permission has been granted. This should be subject to
controls. There seems to us, incidentally no reason why such controls
should be restricted to travellers!
2.5 Just as it is not always easy for travellers
to obtain planning permission, it is not always easy for them
to purchase land. Unfortunately it is a matter of record that
land in the vicinity of the large traveller site in this village
has been subjected to fly-tipping and/or damage to or theft of
property in proportion to the occupancy of the site. Fly tipping
is not only unsightly and a potential health hazard, but can and
has resulted in damage to agricultural machinery. Land immediately
adjacent to rural traveller sites then becomes less attractive
to farmers and landowners may find that selling it to travellers
is the only way of realising their asset. This is especially the
case when, as has happened in South Cambridgeshire, travellers
are prepared to offer well over agricultural prices. Thus existing
sites tend to form the nucleus of larger scale traveller settlements.
Another factor is encroachment, which can be very difficult for
landowners to control, when faced with large numbers of travellers.
Once a site has achieved a degree of permanence, it acts as a
magnet for travellers, who may be emboldened to camp on adjoining
land, whether or not it is in the ownership of travellers, and
particularly if they have the moral support of those already present.
2.6 In the recent past, traveller-owned
land adjacent to a local site with 43 approved pitches was occupied
by 77 additional caravans on unauthorised pitches. Notwithstanding
that these pitches were unauthorised, their occupants demanded
immediate access to local services. By definition, the itinerant
life style of travellers and gypsies implies a mobile population.
If sites become too large, this mobility leads to wild fluctuations
in the load on such local services as education and healthcare.
It is felt that while the travelling lifestyle makes this inevitable,
its impact would be much less serious if the size of sites were
regulated.
2.7 Limiting the size of sites would also
lessen the impact of some of the other problems mentioned above.
Certainly planning permission for sites should only be granted
if the local infrastructure is able to accommodate any additional
load, and if not, Section 106 or similar agreements should be
imposed so that additional local resources can be provided. In
the case of Cottenham, this parish already contains, on one
site, 20% of all the approved traveller pitches in all of
South Cambridgeshire, and if all the planning appeals and new
planning applications current at the time of writing are allowed,
would contain well in excess of 30%. Tension that already exists
between permanent and travelling communities is certain to be
exacerbated if growth continues. A number of traveller leaders
have said that sites should ideally not contain more than 20 caravans.
A consequence of restricting the size of sites would be that more,
smaller sites would required. The location and size of traveller
sites and relation to local permanent communities must become
an integral part of local and national planning policy.
3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
AND THE
FACILITIES PROVIDED
3.1 Traditionally, in rural areas, travellers
supported themselves by seasonal agricultural work. More recently,
as the availability of manual farm work has declined this has
been replaced by activities such as garden and tree work, and
small-scale construction-related work such as tarmac laying. Vehicle
recycling, once popular, is now restricted by site licensing.
Most recently, furniture dealing has become a popular activity
on the local site. This has changed the whole complexion of the
site, with deliveries being made by large articulated vehicles,
over totally unsuitable rural access roads. From being a residential
site, it now has many of the characteristics of an industrial
one. Furthermore there has been a sharp increase in the appearance
of fly-tipped furniture items in the vicinity. Basically, the
site is not suitable for the business activities being carried
out there. Restrictions as to use should apply to residential
traveller sites just as they do to permanent residential property.
Alternatively these sites should be assessed as industrial sites
and regulated accordingly. Indeed, from the point of view of the
travellers themselves, a more urban/industrial location for this
type of activity would probably be more suitable.
|
