Contact your Parish Council

 

APPENDIX C

 

 

Re-establishing a Planning Policy Framework for Gypsy and Travellers

 

Background

 

1.                 The publication of national guidance in Circular 01/06  ‘Planning for Gypsies and Traveller Caravan Sites’ has generally resulted in the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community being given significant weight in appeal decisions. 

 

2.                 Circular 01/06 and the equivalent Circular 04/07 ‘Planning for Travelling Showpeople’ indicate that Core Strategies should contain criteria-based policies to be used to consider planning applications as well as to guide the allocation of sites.  LPAs must allocate sufficient sites to meet the requirement set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy (the South East Plan).  The policy framework for gypsies and travellers therefore needs to comprise two elements; a criteria-based policy and specific site allocations.

 

3.                 A Partial Review of the South East Plan covering the specific issue of provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople is being undertaken by SEERA. SEERA is currently consulting on draft pitch requirements for the Boroughs/Districts for the 10 year period 2006 to 2016. Based on the current consultation figures, Maidstone borough’s Gypsy pitch requirement could fall between 32 and 48 pitches.  It could ultimately even fall outside this range. 

 

4.                 The SEERA figures have as their base the findings of the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) which measured a need for some 32 pitches in the borough for the period 2006 to 2006. Approximately 75% of this need is ‘backlog’, the remaining proportion newly arising need.

 

5.                 The Council’s currently resolved position (Cabinet 9th January 2008) is to include the criteria-based policy in the Core Strategy. The necessary pitch allocations would then follow in the Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) alongside the allocations for other types of land uses.  Cabinet also resolved that if the timetable for the production of the Core Strategy were to change from that indicated at the time, the decision not to prepare a specific Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD should be reviewed.

 

6.                 Permanent consents which have been granted from 2006/7 onwards will count towards the Borough’s pitch requirement which will be confirmed through the Partial Review. A total of 15 pitches have been granted permanent consent in 06/07 and 07/08. Whilst this is a high number, 9 of these pitches were granted on appeal and this rate of supply though consents cannot be assumed for the future.  In addition, an initial review indicates that some 4 permanent pitches could potentially gain consent on sites that currently have temporary consent or are subject to personal permissions.  On this basis, it is unlikely that the need for pitches will be met solely through the approval of appropriate planning applications as they arise and that the Council will need to allocate sites to ensure it can demonstrably meet its requirement.

 

7.                 Counsel’s opinion has been sought on the potential routes to establishing a planning policy framework for Gypsies and Travellers.  The advice is included in full in Part II of this agenda. The significant points raised in the advice are referred to in the consideration section below.

 

Consideration

 

8.                 There are a number of issues that need to be considered in determining the best way to establish a planning policy framework of Gypsy and Travellers. In summary, the key issues are;

a)   Which DPD/combination of DPDs should be prepared

b)   When should they be prepared

 

9.                 In respect of the first issue, there are three potential routes to establishing a planning policy framework for Gypsies;

a)   Core Strategy (to include a criteria policy)/Land Allocations DPD (to include pitch allocations).  This is the currently resolved position.

b)   Core Strategy (criteria policy)/dedicated DPD to allocated Gypsy pitches.

c)   Single Gypsy DPD which includes both a criteria-based policy and Gypsy pitch allocations.

 

10.              Counsel’s advice was sought on the propriety of c) which is not specifically provided for in Circular 01/06.  The original advice was clear; “it is difficult to see how a single DPD could be legally sound”. The criteria policy should be included within the Core Strategy.  However, Counsel is further considering his advice on option c) and Members will be updated on this option at the meeting.

 

11.              The consideration must now focus on the remaining 2 options, a) and b).

 

12.              As an initial point, the dedicated DPD route does mean that a single form of land use will be considered in advance of, and in isolation from, other land use allocations.  There is the risk that a site may be identified for Gypsy use which would subsequently be found to have been more suited to another use. 

 

13.              In terms of preparing a specific DPD which allocates sites, Circular 01/06 states that;

 

“where there is clear and immediate need, for instance evidenced through the presence of significant numbers of unauthorised encampments or developments, local planning authorities should bring forward DPDs containing site allocations in advance of regional consideration of pitch numbers, and completion of new GTAAs.” (paragraph 43, added emphasis)

 

and

 

“where there is an urgent need to make provision, local planning authorities should consider preparing Site Allocations DPDs in parallel with, or in advance of the Core Strategy.” (paragraph 43, added emphasis)

 

14.              A judgement therefore needs to be made whether the local need for pitches is of a sufficient scale and of sufficient urgency to merit advanced, dedicated action. In such circumstances, Government guidance would ‘in principle’ support a specific DPD which would allocate sites.

 

15.              The CLG publishes caravan count information on its website.  For the last two counts for which information is available, the number of pitches on unauthorised developments was 50 (July 2007) and 65 (January 2008).  At the time of these counts, there were no unauthorised encampments in the borough.

 

16.              An on-going need for pitches has been revealed through a recent evidential study (GTAA) (see paragraph 4).  What the actual requirement will be is dependant upon the outcome of the SEERA process but current indications suggest the requirement would exceed 30 pitches (for the period 2006 to 2016). The scale of need exceeds that which is expected to be met through the consenting of applications (see paragraph 5 above).

 

17.              If it is agreed that the need is clear and immediate, Circular guidance would support the bringing forward of a dedicated DPD which allocates sites. 

 

18.              A further consideration is the timing of such a DPD.

 

19.              The timescale for the Partial Review is relevant to the programming of any document which would make Gypsy pitch allocations. 

 

20.              In view of the current uncertainty about what the actual requirement will be, it is recommended that the Publication of any DPD making pitch allocations should await the confirmation of the SEERA requirement. Whilst the Circular allows for site allocations to be made in advance of the RSS process, this approach is not recommended in view of the risk of over- or under- providing relative to the confirmed requirement.  Confirmation of the Partial Review is currently timetabled for Winter 09/10.  However this timetabled date does not allow for the fact that the current consultation commenced 4 months later than originally intended. Any further delays to the Partial Review timetable would therefore have implications for the timing of a dedicated DPD.

 

21.              GOSE’s view on the way forward has been sought. GOSE’s stance is that the Core Strategy must be prioritised. If the Gypsy work is to progress at the same time, GOSE’s preferred approach is for the Core Strategy (including the criteria policy) to be confirmed before a site allocations DPD is published for Examination.   This approach minimises risk.  Counsel specifies the following benefits;

a)  Timeframe for getting pitch allocations confirmed is likely to be slightly quicker than the Land Allocations DPD route

b)  Issue would be dealt with as a discrete exercise

c)  The pitch allocation DPD could be altered to take account of any changes that the Core Strategy Inspector may make.  This relevant because the criteria in the Core Strategy policy will have a synergy with the criteria that will be used to help identify and allocate appropriate sites

d) Account could be taken of the outcome of the Partial Review (although at paragraph 20 it is recommended that this should be the case for whichever route is selected)

 

22.              The identified disadvantage of this route is that of timing: there will not be gypsy pitch allocations in place until mid 2012 (depending on the timing of a decision on the SRFI). It is of relevance to the consideration that Counsel confirms that of the two elements of the policy framework (site allocations and a criteria policy), it is the site allocations that are most crucial to enable the Council to most robustly defend cases at appeal. 

 

23.              In respect of progressing a dedicated DPD in advance of the Core Strategy, Counsel highlights that;

a)   The timetable will not be tied to the Core Strategy

b)   Issue would be dealt with as a discrete exercise

 

24.              In terms of disadvantages, this route does not allow alterations to be made in response to the Core Strategy Inspector’s decisions. Counsel also identified the risk of unforeseen changes emerging from the South East Plan Partial Review.  Whilst these could be mitigated to an extent by timing the submission of the DPD as set out at paragraph 20 above, unexpected or fundamental changes of policy at the regional level could still delay progress.

 

             Timescales

 

25.              The timescales for the Core Strategy and Land Allocations DPD are set out in the main body of the report.

 

26.              To prepare a dedicated DPD to submission stage would take some 23 months. The timescale thereafter is partially dependant upon the resources of the Planning Inspectorate but it is likely that the examination and adoption would take up to 12 months (though it could be quicker). Counsel notes that, to date, no other Council has submitted a DPD to the Secretary of State for examination on the subject of Gypsy and Traveller sites. Public consultation could not commence until the Local Development Scheme had been approved by the Council and then by GOSE. 

 

27.              An indicative timeline for preparing a dedicated DPD, assuming commencement in January 2009, is as follows:

 

Stage	Dates	Dependency
Evidence gathering	Jan 09 onwards
Stakeholder involvement	April/May 09	Timing is contingent on GOSE approval of LDS
Informal public consultation	Nov/Dec 09
Publication	6 weeks during May/Aug 10	Timing is contingent on confirmation of South East Plan requirement (estimated Dec 09 – March 10)
Submission	Nov 10	Submission would be later if it were timed to await the Core Strategy Inspector’s Report.
Adoption	Nov 11

 

28.              A submission date of November 2010 assumes that the DPD timetable will run independently of the Core Strategy timetable (paragraphs 25 and 26 above). The submission date would be later if the Inspector’s report on the Core Strategy is awaited before submission on the DPD is made (GOSE’s favoured approach). Indeed, there is a risk that the Planning Inspectorate would not agree to examine a dedicated site allocations DPD ahead of the Core Strategy being confirmed. A timelier alternative would be to submit the DPD immediately after the Core Strategy Examination.  This would be on the assumption that the discussion at the Examination would give some reassurance of the likely acceptability of the criteria policy.

 

Summary conclusions

 

29.              The decision on the approach to dealing with planning policies for Gypsies and Travellers needs to balance the expediency of taking advanced action and the associated risks. 

 

30.              The Core Strategy/Land Allocations route offers the least risk but would not complete the pitch allocations process until the first half of 2013 at the earliest.

 

31.              A dedicated DPD can be prepared on the basis of there being an urgent need for Gypsy pitches.  The risks of preparing such a dedicated DPD to a timetable independent of the Core Strategy timetable are associated with aiming to agree pitch allocations in advance of the Core Strategy criteria policy being confirmed. The risk can be ameliorated somewhat by submitting the DPD after the Core Strategy Examination.  This route would see adoption of the dedicated DPD by November 2011 at the earliest. The risk is lessened further by waiting for the Core Strategy Inspector’s Report before submission. This would see the DPD’s adoption by mid 2012.  

 

32.              Based on current estimates, a dedicated DPD prepared on a timescale entirely independent of the Core Strategy process would not be adopted any earlier than November 2011.  However, by this route, the DPD’s progress would not be affected by any subsequent changes to the Core Strategy timetable. 

 

33.              In summary, it is considered that there is a need for gypsy pitches which is sufficient to merit the preparation of a dedicated DPD.  This approach would accord with the Circular’s encouragement for advanced action. There are also ways to reduce the risks associated with this approach as set out in the ‘consideration’ and ‘timescales’ sections above.  

 

34.              The final decision on the approach to be taken must also take into account the implications of the overall number and subject-coverage of DPDs and SPDs that can be progressed, as set out in the main body of the LDS priorities report.