WRITTEN EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY
THE IRISH
TRAVELLER MOVEMENT
IN BRITAIN
(LOCO 27)
The Irish Traveller Movement in Britain (ITMB) welcomes
the opportunity to participate in the Communities and Local Government
Select Committee inquiry into localism and decentralisation. ITMB
is proud to work in partnership with the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller
communities together with service providers and policy makers
across the UK, to better promote social inclusion and community
cohesion.
KEY POINTS
¾ As highlighted
in the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain's submission on the
abolition of regional spatial strategies, there is strong evidence
that a localism and decentralisation agenda is limited in its
capacity to identify and provide accommodation for the Gypsy and
Traveller communities.
¾ A simplified
and centralised national approach to the provision of Gypsy and
Traveller accommodation is essential to overcoming the discrimination
Gypsies and Travellers face at the local level on accommodation
issues.
¾ The
Community Right to Build is a good example
of how a localism agenda could negatively affect Travellers as
it is unlikely that autonomous local community organisations will
be any more willing to address Gypsy and Traveller accommodation
needs.
¾ Local
authorities spend approximately £18 million a year evicting
Gypsies and Travellers from unauthorised sites.[30]
The pursuit of a decentralisation and localism agenda - in relation
to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation provision - will more than
likely lead to an increase in local authorities' expenditure on
evictions of Gypsy and Traveller communities.
¾ Strong
evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)
and local authorities has shown that once proper Gypsy and Traveller
sites are provided, conflict and tension between local settled
communities and Gypsies and Travellers is significantly reduced,
leading to greater community cohesion.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Irish Traveller Movement in Britain (ITMB)
is not adverse to the localism and decentralisation agenda. However,
ITMB believes the Governments' existing proposals will not address
the severe shortage of Gypsy and Traveller sites. Localism and
decentralisation also pose the danger of increasing inequality
within and between communities with disadvantaged groups such
as Gypsies and Travellers potentially suffering from even greater
exclusion.
2. The extent to which decentralisation leads
to more effective public service delivery; and what the limits
are, or should be, of localism
Limitations of Localism in the provision of Gypsy
and Traveller Accommodation
2.1 The Government's decentralisation and localism
agenda is, by its nature, limited in its ability to provide accommodation
for Gypsy and Traveller communities. Evidence has highlighted
that unwilling local authorities, often unduly influenced by hostile
local residents, are predominantly the reason why there has previously
been a failure to deliver the required number of sites throughout
the regions. A 2009 EHRC research report ascribed the main barrier
to provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation as being 'the
planning system and, more fundamentally, resistance from the sedentary
population to the idea of new sites for Gypsies and Travellers.'[31]
Communities and Local Governments' (CLG) 2009 Progress Report
on Gypsy and Traveller sites stated:
"The current position on site delivery remains
unsatisfactory. It is clear that local authorities need to increase
the pace at which suitable locations are identified that can be
used as Gypsy and Traveller sites".[32]
A move towards a more localised decentralised system
of accommodation provision for Gypsy and Traveller communities
will most likely lead to a reduction in provision of Gypsy and
Traveller sites.
2.2 Presently there is a severe shortage of Gypsy
and Traveller sites with research in 2009 by the EHRC finding
that 83% of local authorities are not on track to meet their five
year pitch targets as identified in the Gypsy Traveller Accommodation
Assessments (GTAAs):
¾ There
are approximately 8,263 pitches for Gypsies and Travellers in
England.
¾ GTAAs
have highlighted a need for 5,733 pitches over five years. That
is a 70% increase (EHRC 2009).[33]
¾ At the
current rate of pitch provision it will take local authorities
18 years to meet the GTAAs specified in relation to permanent
pitch requirements set for a five year period (EHRC 2009).[34]
Case for a centralised national approach to Gypsy
and Traveller accommodation provision
2.3 As the evidence suggests, local authorities
have been slow to increase site provision for Gypsies and Travellers.
However, evidence also indicates that since the introduction of
more centralised measures for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation provision - through the Housing Act 2004 and ODPM
Circular 01/06—there has been an increase in authorised
pitch provision by approximately 13%.
¾ In the
year ending March 2010, CLG evidenced that local authorities processed
230 applications for Gypsy and Traveller pitches and granted 48-50%
of these applications.[35]
In 1997, the Advisory Committee for the Education of Romanies
and Travellers (ACERT) found that 90% of Gypsy and Traveller planning
applications were initially rejected.[36]
¾ In the
two years prior to the introduction of Circular 01/06 on 2 February
2006, 68% of appeals relating to Gypsy and Traveller sites were
dismissed. In the following two years, 65% of appeals were granted
planning permission' (CLG, 2009).[37]
2.4 The ITMB acknowledges the flaws of the previous
Governments' approach to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation provision.
The ECHR has also criticised the planning process for being too
complex, not "working as intended" and lacking "clearer
guidance" for local authorities.[38]
However, what is evident is that a centralised national approach
to the provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation is essential
in meeting the accommodation needs of these communities. The EHRC
supports this position:
"There should be greater leadership at national
level not only signalling.
Commitment to increasing site provision but also
seeking to tackle the prejudice and racist stereotypes which underlie
much of the resistance to site development" (EHRC, 2009).[39]
3. The role of local government in a decentralised
model of local public service delivery, and the extent to which
localism can and should extend to other local agents
Localism Example: CLG's Community Right to Build
proposals
3.1 In July 2010, CLG released proposals for
The Community Right to Build for possible inclusion in
the Decentralisation and Localism Bill. The Community Right to
Builds' core objective is:
"to allow a community organisation to go ahead
with development without the need for an application for planning
permission, if there is overwhelming community support for the
development and minimum criteria are met" (CLG, 2010).[40]
3.2 The Community Right to Build is a
good example of how a localism agenda could negatively affect
disadvantaged minority groups such as the Gypsy and Traveller
communities. Considering that 83% of local authorities are not
on track to meet identified Gypsy and Traveller accommodation
targets—in many cases as a result of pressure from local
settled communities—then it is unlikely that autonomous
local community organisations will be any more willing to address
Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs.
3.3 It is essential that local authorities have
a central role in any decentralised model of service delivery,
especially in respect of their statutory equality and human rights
duties.
3.4 In relation to the provision of Gypsy and
Traveller accommodation it is essential that local authorities
work under a centralised national structure which places an obligation
on them to provide appropriate accommodation for the Gypsy and
Traveller communities.
4. The impact of decentralisation on the achievement
of savings in the cost of local public services and the effective
targeting of cuts to those services
4.1 Local authorities spend approximately £18
million a year evicting Gypsies and Travellers from unauthorised
sites.[41]
Evidence indicates that when left to the discretion
of local authorities and local communities, in a majority of cases
Gypsies and Travellers accommodation needs are not properly addressed.
This has led to an extreme shortage of authorised sites and a
prevalence of unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller sites leading to
significant annual eviction costs for local authorities.
The pursuit of decentralisation and localism agenda
in relation to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation provision will
more than likely lead to an increase in local authorities' expenditure
on evictions of Gypsy and Traveller communities.
4.2 A centralised national approach to Gypsy
and Traveller accommodation provision has been proven to be more
effective in delivering authorised sites and consequently reducing
repeated eviction costs.
Bristol City Council has reduced its annual expenditure
on evictions from £200,000 to £5,000 by building a permanent
site and a transit site to meet Gypsies and Travellers' accommodation
needs (EHRC).[42]
CONCLUSION
A localism and decentralisation agenda would be limited
in its capacity to ultimately provide accommodation for the Gypsy
and Traveller communities. It is recommended that a simplified
and centralised national approach to the provision of Gypsy and
Traveller accommodation is essential to overcoming the discrimination
Gypsies and Travellers face at the local level. Once proper Gypsy
and Traveller sites are indeed provided, conflict and tension
between local settled communities and Gypsies and Travellers will
be significantly reduced, leading to greater community cohesion.
September 2010
30 Commission for Racial Equality, 2006, Common
Ground. Back
31
EHRC, 2009, Inequalities experienced by Gypsy and Traveller
communities: A review, p 24.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/12inequalities_experienced_by_gypsy_and_traveller_communities_a_review.pdf Back
32
CLG,2009, Progress Report on Gypsy and Traveller Policy, p
4
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1284500 Back
33
EHRC, 2009, Assessing local housing authorities' progress in
meeting the accommodation needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities
in England, p 12
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/13assessing_local_housing_authorities_progress.pdf Back
34
Ibid. Back
35
CLG, 2010, Planning applications March quarter 2010 (England),
p 5
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1627448.pdf
Back
36
ACERT and Wilson M. 1997, Directory of Planning Policies for Gypsy
Site Provision, Bristol, Policy Press. Back
37
CLG,2009, Progress Report on Gypsy and Traveller Policy, p
12
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1284500 Back
38
EHRC, 2009, Assessing local housing authorities' progress in
meeting the accommodation needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities
in England, p 14
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/13assessing_local_housing_authorities_progress.pdf Back
39
Ibid. Back
40
CLG, 2010, The Community Right to Build
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1648333.pdf Back
41
Commission for Racial Equality, 2006, Common Ground. Back
42
EHRC, 2009, Inequalities experienced by Gypsy and Traveller
communities: A review, p 31
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/12inequalities_experienced_by_gypsy_and_traveller_communities_a_review.pdf Back
| 
