Why isn't caravan site policy better?

By Bel Parnell-Berry, PhD

The Hague, The Netherlands

I began researching English Romani communities in 2007 for my university dissertation after growing up in a small market town with a fairly large Traveller community. In addition to sharing a classroom with children of Romani descent I had witnessed verbal and physical abuse being inflicted upon the Travellers of our community, many times simply for being Travellers. Curious about the social divide between the Traveller and Gorger communities that I had witnessed growing up, I decided to investigate it further when I began my anthropology degree. Following the completion of my studies in 2008 I had even more questions, leading me to start my doctorate research investigating the state of caravan-site policy and how it effected the well-being of the Traveller community in England.

I visited various caravan sites and families across the East of England, in addition to conducting multiple interviews with local authority personnel and local MPs. As much as I learned of the serious worries caravan-dwelling families had over their land and citizen rights, it also struck me that traveller liaison officers in particular seemed to have genuine concern for the communities they worked with as well as a well-informed knowledge of the needs and aspirations of the Irish Traveller or Romani individuals that they worked with.

However, traveller liaison officers also stressed to me in interviews that their authority to act beyond the political will of the local authority was limited. A policy bureaucrat that I spoke with also elaborated that political agendas had a direct influence on how well local authorities would be able to meet the needs of the Travelling community from an economic perspective, with specific reference to the cut-backs that were made at the start of the current Conservative and Liberal-Democrat leadership. Despite the good intentions of certain local authority stakeholders I also observed clear gaps in policy outcomes, which reflected negative public perceptions of the Traveller community. The families I worked with seemed to recognise a distrust in their way of life by local authorities and that they were viewed as a social and physical “obstruction” to the communities they had grown up in and wished to raise their own families within. 

Often, social policy texts are built on ethical “narratives”, i.e. value-based arguments regarding how we should live or behave as well as what we should believe. Since policy documents are often written by members of a ‘majority’ population and therefore reflect majority ideals, the overall policy message may conflict with the perspectives and experiences of the minority group the policy should aid. For instance, as a population we may each believe in having a safe home, although we may also have very different ideas about what actually constitutes a safe home. Also, because our ideas of what a safe home is conflict with each other, certain individuals and groups might be perceived as threatening by another, leading to restrictive policy decisions.

It became clear to me due to a lack of comprehension or compassion for Traveller people and their cultures in certain levels of government, that their practices are viewed as inherently anti-social, in turn leading to the strict policies regarding planning provision and allocation. At times negative perceptions of Traveller communities have also led to discrimination within the planning system, as discovered recently with regards to Eric Pickles’ permission decision-making.

Regardless of the value-laden foundation of restrictive caravan site policies, Travellers living in caravans across Britain will be left without realistic accommodation options based on the current path being taken by policymakers. Over the last 10 years policy initiatives including the Regional Spatial Strategies (2006) and the New Homes Bonus Scheme (2011) have not led to better or even sufficient local authority caravan provision across the board. Certain local authority practitioners may well realise the necessity of decent caravan-based accommodation for Traveller families needing it. Nonetheless they are still likely to approach this particular arena of planning policy with extreme caution, noting the complexity and sensitivity of caravan-site provision as an excuse for any hesitation.

Most recently, the proposals to re-define the Traveller community through policy (to only include those who are mobile for at least part of the year) demonstrates just how deeply misunderstandings of various Traveller cultures run. Furthermore, the new definitions run the risk of preventing realistic accommodation solutions being put into place by local authorities as they will have yet another excuse not to provide for (or evict) the vast majority of their caravan-dwelling Traveller families, who no longer travel and are integrated into local communities. Provision should not merely be viewed as local authority allocation; it should also take into account the rate and volume of planning permission granted for privately owned caravan sites. These families would no longer be considered Travellers and therefore, the existing discrimination directed towards them in planning would arguably be exacerbated. As such, additional possible outcomes of this re-definition are that it could force integrated families to become more mobile in order to be eligible for site allocation. We are already well versed in the vicious cycle, which starts with insufficient provision, leading to unauthorised developments, leading to evictions, leading to roadside camps due to insufficient provision, as illustrated by the now infamous eviction of Dale Farm by Basildon Council in 2011.

The year is 2015 and there should no longer be any excuses to make policies about the British Traveller community that lack understanding of their customs and heritage, even as countless reports and projects continue to be carried out documenting the cultural practices and living conditions. Therefore, moving forward local authorities should make better use of their street-level practitioners, such as traveller liaison officers, when submitting policies for review and plough on with plans for caravan-site expansion, as recently announced by South Cambridgeshire District Council. The caravan-dwelling community itself should also play a larger role in advising policymaking, rather than the current after-thought position they fulfil within this arena. Moreover, rather than re-defining the meaning of “traveller” politicians should seek to establish an idea of suitable and acceptable accommodation that is inclusive of any stable, warm, dry and clean dwelling. This would foster better relations between Traveller and non-Traveller communities than attempting to re-define who or what Travellers are as well as challenging and improving the long-standing public perceptions and expectations of caravan-dwelling communities.