U-turn by the Champion of Localism
Above: Brandon Lewis on the Government website. The coalition promised more local decision-making power on planning matters, but is doing the opposite when it comes to sites for Gypsies and Travellers. Image: screengrab from DCLG website
CHRIS JOHNSON, MARC WILLERS and SIMON RUSTON
WHEN the Coalition Government took office Eric Pickles MP, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government stated that he supported localism and wished to abolish top down targets imposed by central government on the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites. However, recent developments demonstrate that the Secretary of State is keen to impose his own will on planning appeal decisions relating to site provision.
In late 2012 it became apparent that planning appeal decisions in Gypsy and Traveller cases relating to Green Belt land were not being issued. No explanation was given for the delay in the publication of decisions until 1st July 2013 when Local Government Minister, Brandon Lewis, published a statement in which he said:-
"Our policy document, Planning Policy for traveller sites, was issued in March 2012. It makes clear that both temporary and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the Green Belt and a planning decision should protect Green Belt land from such inappropriate development. As set out in that document and in March 2012’s National Planning Policy Framework, inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Having considered recent planning decisions by councils and the Planning Inspectorate, it has become apparent that, in some cases, the Green Belt has not always been given the sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of ministers. The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on its facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for small 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."
The Secretary of State wishes to give particular scrutiny to traveller site appeals in the Green Belt, so that he can consider the extent to which Planning Policy for traveller sites is meeting this Government’s clear policy intentions. To this end he is hereby revising the appeals recovery criteria issued on 30th June 2008 and will consider for recovery appeals involving traveller sites in the Green Belt."
Since that announcement it appears that most Green Belt Gypsy and Traveller cases have been recovered i.e. sent to the Secretary of State himself for final decision.
The statement made by Brandon Lewis MP is confusing: firstly, because of his use of the phrase ‘unmet demand’; secondly, because his concern that planning inspectors might consider the ‘single issue of unmet demand’ to be significant enough of itself to outweigh the Green Belt seems wholly misplaced.
Dealing with the first point: ‘Unmet demand’ is not a phrase which is used within Gypsy and Traveller planning policy: the policy is designed to address ‘unmet need’ and the use of the expression ‘unmet demand’ either demonstrates the Minister’s lack of knowledge of the subject or was an attempt on his part to give the impression that the provision of Gypsy and Traveller pitches is designed to meet a desire rather than a need.
Secondly, the reality is that there have been few, if any, cases where the ‘single issue of unmet’ need has been found to outweigh the protection afforded to the Green Belt. It follows that the Minister’s explanation for the Secretary of State’s decision to consider recovering all Gypsy and Traveller planning appeals relating to land in the Green Belt is flawed. Moreover, if, as we suspect, the revision of the ‘recovery criteria’ is only being applied to Gypsy and Traveller planning appeals then this may amount to discriminatory treatment under the Equality Act 2010 since, of course, Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers are recognised as separate ethnic groups under that Act.
For all the Coalition Government’s talk of localism it seems that it cannot resist interfering in Gypsy and Traveller planning appeals. If only the Government took the same robust approach in order to ensure that local authorities met the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers and provided sufficient caravan sites then there would be no need for appeals! The benefits of adequate site provision are obvious and significant. Gypsies and Travellers will be able to access appropriate healthcare provision and their children will be able to gain a decent education. Meanwhile local authorities will save the millions of pounds that are currently wasted on enforcement action; Dale Farm being a case in point! There is both a moral and an economic imperative for positive steps to be taken, yet this Government lacks the political will to act.
Chris Johnson
Travellers Advice Team (TAT) at Community Law Partnership (CLP) TAT operates a national Helpline for Travellers on 0121 685 8677, Monday to Friday 9.00 am to 5.00 pm
Marc Willers, Garden Court Chambers Garden Court Chambers have a specialist Romani Gypsy and Traveller Team.
Simon Ruston, Ruston Planning Limited, Independent Planning Consultant specialising in Gypsy and Traveller work
Simon can be contacted at simon@rustonplanning.co.uk or on 07967 308752 / 0117 325 0350