Agenda item

(Director of Neighbourhoods) to consider the attached report.

The Forward Planning Manager, Ian White, introduced the report on the Communities and Local Government Consultation on ‘Planning and Travellers’, seeking views on proposed changes to planning policy and guidance for the travelling community. The consultation would end on 23 November 2014. The stated intentions of the proposed changes were to (i) ensure that the planning system applies fairly and equally to both the settled and traveller communities; (ii) further strengthen protection of “sensitive areas” and Green Belt; and (iii) address the negative impact of unauthorised occupation. The consultation also stated that the Government remained committed to increasing the level of authorised traveller site provision in appropriate locations to address historic undersupply as well as to meet current and future needs.

The consultation also included streamlined draft planning guidance aiming to support councils in robustly assessing their traveller site needs. Members were aware that the Essex Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) was published in July 2014 and was included in the Local Plan Evidence Base at Cabinet on 8^th September 2014.

The key suggestions in the consultation were:

·         Travellers who have given up travelling permanently should be treated in the same way as the settled community, especially regarding sites in sensitive locations, such as the Green Belt – i.e. redefining “Gypsy” and “Traveller” to exclude those who no longer travel;

·         Strengthening Green Belt protection by amending the current policy (paras 87 and 88 of the NPPF) so that unmet need and personal circumstances were unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. Ministerial statements earlier in the year had already emphasised that “unmet need, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the “very special circumstances” justifying inappropriate development in the Green Belt;

·         Strengthening the current onus on authorities to “strictly limit new traveller development in open countryside” (para 23 of PPTS) to “very strictly” limit such developments;

·         Downgrading the weight attributed to a lack of an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable traveller sites – para 25 of PPTS states that this should be a “significant material consideration” when considering applications for temporary permission. The consultation proposes that this would remain a “material consideration”, but its weight would be a matter for the decision taker;

·         Addressing unauthorised occupation of land – the Government is concerned about those who intentionally ignore planning rules and occupy land without planning permission. Such actions, particularly in sensitive areas including the Green Belt, (where those who would apply through the proper channels would be unlikely to gain permission), are highly contentious at the local level and can fuel tensions between the site occupants and the adjacent community. The consultation proposes that national planning policy and PPTS should be amended to make it clear that intentional unauthorised occupation, whether by travellers or members of the settled community, should be regarded by decision takers as a material consideration that weighs against the grant of permission;

·         More specifically, and perhaps with Basildon in mind, the consultation proposes that “where a local authority is burdened by a large-scale unauthorised site which has significantly increased its need (for pitch provision), and the area is subject to strict and special planning constraints, then there is no assumption that the local authority is required to meet its traveller site needs in full.”

The consultation contained 13 questions with draft answers contained in the appendix to the report.

It was also noted that:

All the pitches/caravans are in the Green Belt and that our District was 92% Green Belt.

The Essex Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) had identified a target of 112 additional pitches in this district in the period up to 2033, broken down into five year segments. 

The extent of Green Belt in different Council areas varies very widely – e.g. East Herts is about 33% Green Belt while Uttlesford was significantly less – i.e. both these neighbouring districts have potentially significantly greater options for identifying suitable locations. This proposal by the Government – a “one size fits all” approach seems too blunt and inflexible given the wide variation in Green Belt coverage of affected districts. It was particularly unfair to those districts which have a very high percentage of Green Belt, and where there is already a long-established and sizeable traveller community.

Members were aware that there was a significant concentration of traveller pitches in the parishes of Nazeing and Roydon – at present 91 (78%) of the 117 authorised permanent pitches. Intentional unauthorised occupation of land was similarly a more frequent occurrence in these parishes, to the extent that a Nazeing Councillor has sought, on a number of occasions, a meeting with the Planning Minister to try to explain the problems being experienced.

Officers could think of no immediate and practical solutions to the problems, other than to suggest a re-think at national level. The planning system as it currently operates is not making adequate provision for the needs of the travelling community. The problem is particularly acute in Green Belt areas, where there does seem to be a perception of favourable treatment for travellers, but the proposals in the consultation will only exacerbate the overall problem of meeting total needs, and make it very much harder to identify suitable sites in the Green Belt.

Councillor Surtees noting that no answer had be submitted for question 7 (“do you agree with the policy proposal that, subject to the best interests of the child, unmet need and personal circumstances are unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances? If not why not?”) He thought that the needs of the child should be paramount and there was a need for it to be looked on a problem solving basis, and that the issue should not be passed between Councils almost as a political foolball. This was agreed by the committee as an appropriate response to this question.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted and agreed the draft answers to the CLG Consultation on Planning and Travellers including the agreed response to question 7.