Written evidence from the Community
Law Partnership (ARSS 27)
"LOCALISM" AND GYPSY AND TRAVELLER
SITES: A HISTORY OF FAILURE
Submission of Community Law Partnership to the Communities
and Local Government Committee on the revocation of Regional Spatial
Strategies and on "localism".
SUMMARY
The revocation of RSSs is unlawful especially given
the failure to implement any change as yet to the current planning
circular, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 01/2006
(hereafter Circular 01/06) Planning for Gypsy and Traveller
Caravan Sites.
Attempts to place reliance on local authorities in
ensuring that sufficient Gypsy and Traveller sites are produced
has failed in the past.
There is a need for some central overseeing authority
or else adequate site provision will not be achieved.
INTRODUCTION
In terms of the answer to unauthorised encampments
and unauthorised developments, it appears that all main political
parties are in agreement that the answer lies in ensuring that
there is adequate authorised site provision, both permanent and
transit. In this context the first acts of the Coalition Government
seem inclined to make it more unlikely that sites will be provided.
The first step of the Coalition Government was to reduce to nil
the Gypsy and Traveller Sites Grant. A grant of 100% had been
available to local authorities for provision of new sites or new
pitches. Obviously this provided a great incentive to local authorities
and had resulted in a slow increase in pitch numbers. Equally
obviously the removal of this grant is likely to result in a return
to zero provision of new pitches.
Secondly, the Coalition Government has, as of 6 July
2010, revoked RSSs. RSSs were a fundamental part of Circular 01/06
and had ensured that pitch targets were set for each local authority.
At the time of the General Election, though there had been the
most unfortunate delays in the process, local authorities were
beginning to move in a direction of identification of locations
to achieve these pitch targets.
We understand that the house builder, Cala Homes
have commenced legal action against Communities and Local Government
(CLG) with regard to the revocation of RSSs and we join with Cala
Homes in their arguments. Since this is an ongoing court case,
we will not enter into any further details here. At the very least
the revocation should not have taken place until a new planning
policy was in place.
We accept that it was a Conservative Party manifesto
pledge that Regional Assemblies would be abolished (and thus RSSs
with them). However, it must be accepted that an enormous amount
of work went into identifying the need for Gypsy and Traveller
sites at local level via Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments
and it is absolutely ridiculous (as well as a classic case of
throwing the baby out with the bath water) to now squander all
that information and all that hard work. Caravan Sites Act
(CSA) 1968.
The CSA 1968 introduced a duty on certain local authorities
to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers (bought into force
in 1970). This duty was eventually repealed by a previous Conservative
Government in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
On the one hand it is true to say that the some 350 local authority
Gypsy and Traveller sites that currently exist, would probably
not have been in place (in the vast majority of cases) without
the existence of that duty. On the other hand it is also true
to say that the failure of successive central governments to ensure
that local authorities complied with this duty meant that insufficient
sites were built during this period of time leading to the current
situation where there is completely inadequate provision of sites.
In many ways this was a period of time when there
was a certain amount of "localism" in that certain local
authorities were meant to be providing the sites and, on the other
hand, a potential for "central control" in that the
Government could (albeit that they never did) have stepped in
to ensure that recalcitrant local authorities complied with the
duty.
THE POLICY
FROM 1994 TO
2006
The Department of the Environment Circular 01/94
(Welsh Office Circular 02/94) Gypsy Sites and Planning
(in combination with the repeal of the duty to provide sites)
put the emphasis on the provision of private sites. However it
did not provide a system by which private individuals could realistically
bring such sites into existence. In a sense this period of time
is the perfect example of "localism" and also the perfect
example of how, if local authorities are left to their own devices,
then there will be complete stagnation in the provision of sites.
Whatever the merits of "localism" in other areas, history
shows that localism will not ensure the provision of sites.
The statistics completely back this up. Research
has shown that, in this period of time, some 90% of planning applications
to local authority planning committees by Gypsies and Travellers
were unsuccessful (Confined, Constrained and Condemned,
Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT), 1996). In a later study
by FFT (Planning Appeals Gypsies and Travellers, January
1998) it was shown that only 34% of appeals to Planning Inspectors
by Gypsies and Travellers against unsuccessful applications were
successful.
THE NEED
FOR SITES
In the 9th report Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller
Sites in England (2003), it was estimated that between 1,000-2,000
permanent and 2,000-2,500 transit pitches were required by 2007
just to keep up with the current Gypsy and Traveller population.
The subsequent figures produced by RSSs showed that,
in the short intervening period of time, those figures had greatly
increased.
THE PERIOD
FROM 2006 TO
DATE
The introduction of some central control of the process
in the form of Housing Act 2004 and ODPM Circular 01/06 led to
a slow but sure increase in the provision of sites. Certain Conservative
MPs have claimed that this Circular produced a bias in favour
of Gypsies and Travellers but, if this had been the case, then
presumably the problem of site provision would have been resolved
by now. CLG has made indications that they may increase enforcement
powers and even criminalise all trespass. This a classic case
of putting the cart in front of the horse. The fault (stretching
right back to 1960) lies with central government in failing to
oversee the actions (or rather inactions) of local authorities
and with local authorities in failing to ensure adequate site
provision.
The slow improvement in the wake of Circular 01/06
is shown by research by Doctor Jo Richardson and Ros Lishman of
the De Montfort University for Lord Avebury (Impact of Circular
01/06: Supply of New Gypsy/Traveller Sites, 29 March 2007).
In this study a total of 129 appeal decisions were reviewed, 75
being before 1 February 2006 (the implementation date for the
Circular) and 54 being after that date. Between the two periods
the number of allowed appeals increased by 20% and the number
of dismissed appeals decreased by 20%. Before 1 February 2006,
the majority of temporary allowed appeals were for two years.
In contrast, after 1 February 2006, all but two temporary appeal
decisions were for three years.
CLG's own evidence (available from the CLG website)
indicates that in the year ending December 2009, local authorities
determined 217 applications for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, 50%
of which were granted. This is a figure that is unprecedented
in terms of the period prior to the introduction of ODPM Circular
01/06.
SUMMARY
The history of the attempt to ensure adequate provision
of Gypsy and Traveller sites (which can be dated from the introduction
of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960) has
shown that, without some form of central control and central oversight,
site provision will not be achieved. Though central government
failed to step in sufficiently in the period between 1970 and
1994 when there was a duty on certain local authorities to provide
sites, it appears that the fact that there was a duty was
sufficient to ensure the provision of the 350 or so sites that
now are in place. Nevertheless, history also shows that the "problem"
of site provision would have been resolved if there had been some
central oversight.
In conclusion we would recommend:
1. The return of the duty on local authorities
to provide sites in similar terms to that contained in the Caravan
Sites Act 1968 (this is not a denial of localism—it is local
authorities who will be providing these sites);
2. The introduction of strong central oversight
of the site provision process—there is no reason why these
powers could not be given directly to CLG rather than to any other
body.
September 2010
| 
