Written evidence from Eric Avebury, Professor
Thomas Acton OBE, Professor Alan Townsend, Andrew Ryder and Marc
Willers (ARSS 56)
NOTES FOR
SUBMISSION TO
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON ABOLITION
OF REGIONAL
SPATIAL STRATEGIES
AND LOCALISM
Adequate site provision, both permanent and transit,
is the answer to the problem of unauthorised encampments. The
Caravan Sites Act 1968 required local authorities to provide sites
for Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their areas.
Unfortunately the duty was repealed in 1994, and although by that
time 350 or so local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites had been
constructed in England and Wales, there still remained a significant
shortfall in site provision. Many local authorities had ignored
their statutory duty and the Ministerial power of direction in
S 9(2) of the Act had only been used recently and sparingly. The
shortfall remains, caused by the failure of successive central
governments and local authorities to ensure adequate provision.
This has led to the endemic situation of unauthorised encampments
and unauthorised developments, and it is essential that a policy
of ensuring adequate site provision is promoted if any positive
steps are to be made in tackling that problem.
Experience over the last 42 years leads us to conclude
that provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites or the allocation
of land for sites in local authority plans, is the key to reducing
community tensions and enforcement costs as well as improving
the life chances of a highly marginalised minority. Conversely,
failure to provide sites or to allocate land for them, inevitably
leads to proliferation of unauthorised sites, with disastrous
effects on the life chances of Travellers and disputes between
Travellers and settled communities. To achieve the goal of eliminating
unauthorised encampments, financial support needs to be combined
with obligations on local authorities to provide sites based on
accurate and fair assessments of need with the prospect of government
intervention where councils fail to act. We therefore regret the
Government's intention to abolish the site targets developed by
the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment, and refined
by public consultation and redistribution of obligations between
local authorities. We also deplore the erasure of the guidance
contained within Circular 1/2006. These measures were slowly beginning
to have some positive impact on reducing the shortfall. The Government
is wrong to dismiss this policy as failed and we urge it to reconsider
its pledge to repeal these policies.
A key component of the government's new policy is
enforcement against unauthorised developments and encampments
but there appears to be no reference to enforcement action that
may be taken against local authorities who fail to lift a finger
to help Gypsies and Travellers address their sites needs. Nearly
one in five Gypsies and Travellers are on unauthorised sites,
which are to be the target of stronger enforcement powers.
Under the banner of localism councils are to be allowed
to determine the number of pitches they need to develop. This
is not "putting fairness back into communities" as Eric
Pickles, Secretary of State for the Communities and Local Government
(CLG) recently claimed (CLG Press Release, 28 August, 2010). The
right way is to ensure that local authorities grant planning permission
for enough sites to accommodate Gypsies and Travellers, for the
simple reason they have nowhere else to go. Letting 368 councils
decide individually how many pitches they will allow is a recipe
for inaction, and promising undefined financial incentives to
councils to develop sites themselves cannot have greater effect
than the 100% new sites grant which Mr Pickles has abolished.
The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS)
will also wreck the work done to redistribute the need for pitch
provision generated in some areas with large Gypsy and Traveller
communities, such as Basildon. The end of such policies of redistribution
are implied in the Coalition proposal that councils should make
appropriate provision which "reflect local need and historic
demand". Redistribution via the RSS has proven popular with
a number of Conservative councils who have seen their pitch targets
reduced and neighbouring authorities compelled to develop sites,
who it has been argued with some justification had managed to
avoid their obligations to Gypsies and Travellers in the past.
This begs the question of how widely the repeal of RSSs has been
discussed with those responsible for local government.
As noted the Coalition government says that site
provision must be based on local need and historic demand. In
London the Mayor Boris Johnson is seeking to drastically reduce
London's identified pitch requirements by claiming that there
is not enough land and by dismissing the needs of housed Gypsies
and Travellers who have been forced into housing by the shortage
of sites and who have a legitimate need to live on sites. The
stance taken by the London Mayor is not acceptable in London or
elsewhere and it is hoped that it will not creep into new guidance
on who is to be included and excluded in Gypsy and Traveller accommodation
policies.
It should be noted that a considerable number of
Gypsies and Travellers are facing eviction on unauthorised developments
like Dale Farm. These Gypsies and Travellers have been left in
some uncertainty since the general election and indications of
major policy change. For example, talks between Essex authorities
including Basildon and the Local Government Association, Homes
and Communities Agency and the Government Office East to find
alternative sites within Essex for Dale Farm residents have been
stalled by the announcement by Eric Pickles abolishing the targets
for site provision set through the RSS and Gypsy and Traveller
Accommodation Assessments; the announcement has encouraged all
local authorities, not just those in Essex, to conclude that they
have no obligation to identify suitable land for site development,
or to identify sites which could be offered to homeless Gypsies
and Travellers, such as those from Dale Farm. If constructive
dialogue is to continue in Essex and elsewhere, then the government
ought to encourage a moratorium on eviction action to give local
authorities the opportunity to adopt and comply with its new policy
and reassess the need for accommodation with their areas and to
explore the new financial incentives that the government has indicated
may be available for site provision.
It should be noted that in its report of March 2010
the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance in its
fourth periodic report on the UK expressed concern about the eviction
of Gypsies and Travellers. The Commission found (para 153) that:
"An excessive emphasis on enforcement (ie eviction),
involving often protracted and expensive litigation, instead of
seeking forward-looking solutions in consultation with all members
of the local community, has also been shown to damage race relations".
The Commission recommended (para 156) that:
".. the UK authorities encourage local authorities
to treat enforcement measures—legitimate though they are—as
a last resort, and to privilege wherever possible an approach
aimed at bridging gaps between communities and finding mutually
acceptable solutions rather than approaches that will inevitably
place groups in opposition to each other ".
Thus, in the interests of averting costly and dangerous
evictions and having regard to principles of proportionality laid
down in the European Convention on Human Rights we would argue
that the government should discourage forced evictions so that
Gypsies and Travellers can acquaint themselves with the proposed
new policy regime and work within it to seek constructive alternatives
to eviction.
Given the reluctance of local authorities to allocate
land for Gypsies and Travellers and the consensual support for
the previous government's policies, we believe that Mr Pickles'
decision to scrap the existing site targets and the prospect of
government intervention where councils fail to act is wholly irrational.
The policy which Mr Pickles now wishes to abolish would have ensured
that sites would be provided, and thus unauthorised encampments
eliminated. However, if there is to be change then in order to
avoid a "Balkanising effect" of letting individual
councils make planning and development decisions, the creation
of local partnerships of sub-regions and city regions with statutory
planning powers could offer a way forward (see Professor Alan
Townsend, Guardian, 21 May, 2010). This is a compromise between
RSS and localism. Such a framework could be delivered through
the proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships which also form part
of the remit of the Select Committee inquiry and which the government
has indicated may have a planning role.
An effective planning framework which can deliver
the sites needed will continue to require monitoring and direction
from central government. The Select Committee may wish to consider
the idea of a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Commission first
mooted in the Traveller Law Reform Bill which was drafted by Cardiff
Law School and twice tabled as a private members' bill by the
former Conservative MP David Atkinson. The Gypsy and Traveller
Accommodation Commission would promote equality for Gypsies and
Travellers in accommodation matters and issue guidance on specific
issues, including measures for consultation and the adequacy and
suitability of existing accommodation arrangements. In particular
the Commission would keep under review the adequacy of council
accommodation proposals for Gypsies and Travellers in local authority
Development Plans and their accommodation programmes. It may be
the case that such a body will more effectively challenge local
authority inertia on this issue and lead to greater momentum and
consistency of policy.
Finally, it is imperative that the Coalition government
engages with Gypsies and Travellers and listens to their concerns
and aspirations. To that end we would urge the government to ensure
that the highly successful CLG Gypsy and Traveller Forum continues
to meet regularly to advise the government on its policies.
September 2010
| 
