Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Partial Review

1
Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Partial Review

• Partial Review Seminar
• Introduction
• Mark Williams, Regional Planner

2
Introduction 1 Seminar outline

• Assembling the evidence base (Pat Niner)
• Proposed level of provision (Mark Williams)
• Pitch distribution (Mark Williams)
• Regional transit study (Pat Niner)

3
Introduction 2 Review process

• Project planning
• Need Assessments by local authorities
• Need assessment regional benchmarking
• Local authority Advice
• Regional audit of Advice
• Further Advice
• Issues and Options public consultation
• Preferred option
• Supporting Regional Transit Study

4
Introduction 3 Working arrangements
5
Assembling evidence of residential pitch
requirements for Gypsies and Travellers

• Pat Niner
• Centre for Urban and Regional Studies

6
Purpose of the presentation

• A brief outline of the process of assembling
  pitch requirement information
• GTAAs, benchmarking and robustness
• Local authority Advice and its audit
• Dealing with the process used, not the resulting
  figures

7
GTAAs in the South East

• 12 GTAAs produced by groups of LAs
• 4 different consultants involved one in-house
  but one consultant carried out 7 studies
• Enormous range in geographical scale Thames
  Valley (16 LAs) to Chichester
• Range of dates some early and some later in the
  development of GTAAs

8
GTAA benchmarking

• Carried out by a team of researchers from
  Birmingham, Salford and Sheffield Hallam
  Universities
• Used a checklist of questions to establish as far
  as possible the soundness of the research methods
  and the comprehensiveness of the requirements
  model used
• A desk-based exercise no check was possible on
  the basic information used, for example whether
  all sites were included

9
Benchmarking findings 1

• Not all the information required is available in
  the GTAAs
• only 4 GTAAs included an estimate for residential
  pitches for a full 10 year period
• 2 GTAAs did not split requirements between LAs
• transit need not quantified in several GTAAs
• only 4 GTAAs referred explicitly to requirements
  of Travelling Showpeople

10
Benchmarking findings 2

• Following the (draft) CLG Guidance, a fairly
  common approach had been used, including
  face-to-face interview surveys
• However, at a detailed level there was great
  variability in assumptions made, for example
• in estimating new household formation
• in treatment of pitch vacancies as a source of
  supply

11
Benchmarking findings 3

• In relation to residential pitch requirements,
  benchmarking found
• 2 GTAAs were considered less sound (Chichester
  and East Sussex/Brighton Hove), possible
  remedies were suggested
• in comparison with the formula and the
  relationship with current caravan numbers, some
  GTAAs seemed to produce high and some low
  estimates
• however, it was not possible to say these were
  not robust

12
An indication of consistency of GTAA findings

• I plotted GTAA pitch requirements (years 1-5)
  against current total caravan numbers from the
  Caravan Count
• for most of southern half of England
• for South East
• I would expect some relationship but not an
  exact relationship

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Benchmarking conclusions

• As in other regions, the South East GTAAs are
  variable
• Undertaking GTAAs is still a very inexact science
  learning all the time
• There is a lot of professional judgement involved
  in assessments
• In most instances, they are the best source of
  information we have even if imperfect
• In two cases, amendments should be made to
  address issues of robustness

16
Audit of Local Authority Advice

• Carried out by the same research team
• Used a formal pro forma checklist to assess the
  completeness and technical robustness of the
  Advice
• 12 sets of Advice were submitted and audited,
  mainly on a county basis did not follow the
  GTAA groupings in all cases
• GTAA benchmarking findings had been fed back to
  the LAs to help them provide Advice

17
Advice audit findings 1

• The Advice tended not to fill gaps left by the
  GTAAs, for example pitch requirements 2011-2016
  we suggested ways of filling these gaps
• Most Advice accepted GTAA findings for base pitch
  requirements
• Advice from East Sussex/Brighton Hove remedied
  the problems identified in GTAA benchmarking, but
  made unreasonable assumptions for 2011-2016
• Advice for West Sussex/Chichester
  over-compensated for identified problems

18
Advice audit findings 2

• Advice submitted by Buckinghamshire and
  Oxfordshire re-calculated residential pitch
  requirements using different assumptions which
  had the effect of significantly decreasing
  requirements
• We suggested that this Advice should not be
  followed, and the GTAA figures used
• individual changes in assumptions reasonable
• in combination produced an unreasonably low
  estimate

19
Summary figures 2006-2016
20
Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Partial Review

• Proposed level
• of provision
• Mark Williams, Regional Planner

21
Proposed level of provision 1 Presentation
purpose

• To explain how the level of provision proposed in
  Policy H7 was arrived at
• For Gypsies and Travellers
• For Travelling Showpeople
• To clarify the process
• when decisions were made
• the decision-making context
• To explain the Transit Approach

22
Proposed level of provision 2 Gypsies
Travellers

• Brief for Local Authority Advice
• It is important to distinguish between the GTAA
  process and the provision of advice to the
  Assembly. The former is a technical research
  exercise, the latter a political process.
• Although a GTAA should form a robust and
  reliable evidence base to underpin policy
  development, it is recognised that authorities
  will need to interpret the findings of the GTAA
  and translate these into pitch requirements at a
  district level.

23
Proposed level of provision 3Gypsies Travellers

• Advice submission by 15 October 2007
• Sum of Local Authority Advice 1,189
• Audit recommendation 1,347
• Audit recommends changes to Advice for
• Oxfordshire
• Buckinghamshire
• Chichester

24
Proposed level of provision 4Gypsies Travellers

• Regional Planning Committee 30 Jan 2008
• Supporting recommendation to full Assembly for
  1,347 pitches as per Audit, subject to ongoing
  discussions in areas where Audit differed from
  Advice
• Position after further local authority and
  advisory group discussions
• Audit figure where locally supported
• Revert to Advice figure where Audit locally
  contested (Oxon, Bucks)

25
Proposed level of provision 5 Gypsies
Travellers

• Full Assembly 5 March 2008
• Recommendation 1,242 pitches
• Decision deferred
• local authorities have requested the
  opportunity to build on their existing evidence
  base before the formal consultation on options.
• Further Advice from Surrey and Kent,
  clarification of Advice from East Sussex

26
Proposed level of provision 6 Gypsies
Travellers

• Full Assembly 16 July 2008
• Recommendation of 1,064 pitches, sum of confirmed
  final advice
• Agreed for the purposes of public consultation
• Full Assembly 4 March 2009
• Recommendation of 1,064 pitches
• Agreed as regional advice to Government

27
Proposed level of provision 7 Gypsies
Travellers
28
Proposed level of provision 8 Travelling
Showpeople
29
Proposed level of provision 9Travelling
Showpeople

• Supplementary TSAAs missed benchmarking and audit
  process
• Guild input instead
• Agreed level of provision 302 pitches
• Sum of advice 260 pitches
• Plus RPB accepted Guild-identified need to
  provide for a further 42 families

30
Proposed level of provision 10Transit provision

• Brief for Local Authority Advice
• Advice to the Assembly should include an
  assessment of the nature of demand for transit
  provision, however it is accepted that it may not
  be possible to provide estimates of required
  provision at the level of individual authorities
  or wider GTAA areas.

31
Proposed level of provision 11 Transit provision
32
Proposed level of provision 12Transit provision
Policy H7 Local Planning Authorities will also
make appropriate provision in Local Development
Documents to meet requirements for transit and
temporary stopping purposes. assess all
available local indicators of transit need for
consideration alongside regional evidence to
identify and provide the appropriate quantity,
form and distribution of transit and emergency
stopping places
33
Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Partial Review

• Pitch distribution
• Mark Williams, Regional Planner

34
Pitch distribution 1 Presentation purpose

• To explain how we got from the agreed pattern of
  need arising to the preferred pitch distribution
  in Policy H7
• Why we decided redistribution was needed
• The redistribution methodology
• Considerations from public consultation and
  sustainability appraisal

35
Pitch distribution 2 Guidance for Regions

• RSS to specify the number of pitches each local
  authority should find land for
• Taking into account level of need in each area
• In our case based on Final Advice 2006-2016
• 1,064 Gypsy and Traveller pitches
• 302 for Travelling Showpeople
• But also to take a strategic view of needs
  across the region

36
Pitch distribution 3 Brief for LA Advice

• Option A - a distribution which seeks to meet
  identified needs where they arise as identified
  through the GTAA and the existence of
  unauthorised encampments (although this may
  reinforce existing patterns of provision).
• Option B - a distribution which seeks to protect
  and enhance the natural environment, including
  its biodiversity and landscape character whilst
  making best use of previously developed land and
  existing or planned infrastructure provision and
  facilitates access to employment

37
Pitch distribution 4Advice considerations

• Options A and B the same at county level
• Significant differences evident in existing
  levels of provision would remain
• Government objectives
• improve choice of pitch locations
• widen responsibility for site provision
• test a range of genuine alternatives
• Conclusion
• Further options required for consultation

38
Pitch distribution 5 Redistribution approach

• Based on Option B Advice and approach
• Build on local area redistribution as it helps
  share provision responsibility
• Base option A for Travelling Showpeople
• A proportion of the Option B figure for each
  authority is regionally pooled
• Each area receives a share of the pool back
• Based on a simplified assessment of their
  relative opportunities and constraints

39
Pitch distribution 6 Redistribution criteria

• Local authority share of regional total of
• Population at 2016
• Opportunities, access services and work
• Land potentially less constrained for development
• Relative constraints to delivery
• Extent of land outside SSSI, SPA, SAC, Flood Risk
  zones 2 and 3, National Parks, AONB, Green Belt

40
Pitch distribution 7 Redistribution shares
41
Pitch distribution 8 Public consultation

• 84 agree or tend to agree that all parts of the
  region should provide new pitches
• 58 support regionally redistributive options,
  41 the most redistributive, option C
• 66 support by GTTS
• But 63 LAs prefer original options A or B
• No obviously preferable alternative approaches to
  provision put forward
• Preferred option D (less regionally
  redistributive approach) agreed as a deliverable
  compromise

42
Pitch distribution 9 SA and HRA

• Social, economic and environmental effects are
  modest but positive overall
• Compelling socio-economic benefits for Gypsies,
  Travellers and Showpeople
• Reduction in adverse effects from unauthorised
  encampments
• Adverse impacts on nature conservation sites
  unlikely (HRA screening)

43
Pitch distribution 10 Preferred option
Includes apportioned share of 42 homeless
families in brackets
44
Regional Transit Study

• Pat Niner
• Centre for Urban and Regional Studies

45
Purpose of presentation

• To describe
• the aims of the study and approach taken
• the main findings
• approaches to estimating transit needs
• the recommended approach and resulting estimates
  of additional transit pitch requirements at
  county-group level

46
Aims of the study

• To assemble available information in order to
• identify patterns of travelling by Gypsies and
  Travellers in the South East
• provide an indication of the scale, type and
  broad location of need/demand for additional
  transit provision
• To be part of the evidence base for site planning
• The study has no formal planning status

47
What I did (1)

• Assembled available information
• literature review, including guidance
• GTAAs
• Advice provided by local authorities
• Caravan Count figures on unauthorised encampments
• local authority and police records of
  unauthorised encampments over a recent year
• Asked for stakeholder views on a number of issues
  through an e-mail survey (44 responses)

48
What I did (2)

• Produced an Interim Report bringing together this
  material and drawing some conclusions making
  tentative estimates of needs
• Two workshops were held to get stakeholder
  reactions (one workshop was specifically for
  Gypsy and Traveller community representatives)
• Produced a Final Report incorporating the
  findings from the workshops

49
Main findings (1)

• In terms of evidence
• the GTAAs and LA Advice are very variable
  several did not consider transit need at all
• Caravan Counts show an average of 261 caravans on
  UEs January 2004 to July 2008 an average summer
  excess 131 caravans
• unauthorised encampment records show about 720
  encampments across the region
• Counts and records show a similar pattern with
  Hampshire/Isle of Wight and Kent/Medway having
  highest numbers, then East Sussex/Brighton Hove

50
(No Transcript)
51
Main findings (2)

• The survey and workshops suggested that these
  sources of evidence alone would not be adequate
  or credible as a basis of estimating transit
  needs
• some apparent need is for permanent sites
• there are unknown effects of different
  enforcement approaches
• there are serious doubts over the accuracy,
  completeness and consistency of both Counts and
  records for Gypsy and Traveller communities

52
Main findings (3)

• In relation to travelling patterns
• There are many reasons for travelling, and
  therefore many origins and destinations
• There are some obvious routes (eg A27 in
  Hampshire and Sussex)
• There are some clear destinations (eg Epsom for
  Derby Day)
• Much other travelling is related to where Gypsies
  and Travellers live and to work or holiday
  opportunities scattered and wide ranging and
  largely unpredictable

53
Approaches to estimating transit need (1)

• Approaches considered
• Evidence-based
• Caravan Count average numbers of caravans
  recorded on UEs
• summer excess on UEs (as indicating temporary
  need)
• Use of unauthorised encampment records
• Local authority Advice incomplete
• Policy-based to create a network of transit sites
  and stopping places

54
Approaches to estimating transit need (2)

• With the assumptions used in the study these
  give a range of estimated need between
  approximately 110 and 150 additional transit
  pitches

55
Recommendations (1)

• Given the doubts about evidence and the
  unpredictable nature of some travelling, the
  study recommends an policy-based approach aiming
  to create a network of sites
• It assumes, as a minimum effective network
• 4 sites in every county group, including current
  provision
• 8 sites, including current provision, in
  Hampshire/Isle of Wight and Kent/Medway because
  larger in size high need

56
Recommended additional transit pitches
57
Advantages of this approach

• A network provides opportunities for Gypsies and
  Travellers to pursue a travelling lifestyle
  without the disruption and expense of
  unauthorised encampments
• On the assumptions used, the resulting level of
  additional need corresponds broadly to evidenced
  need from the Caravan Counts and unauthorised
  encampment records
• It takes explicit account of current provision
• Its redistributive aspect resembles the principle
  underlying the allocation of residential pitch
  requirements in Policy H7

58
Recommendations (2)

• Provision can take many forms
• formal, managed transit sites
• less formal stopping places
• accommodation on pitches for family visitors
• policies for managing UEs sensitively
• County groups should take account of local
  circumstances and the views of Gypsies and
  Travellers to determine the most appropriate mix
  of provision the number, type and size of sites

59
Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Partial Review

• Thank you
• Mark Williams, Regional Planner