Gypsy, traveller & travelling showpeople accommodation assessment 2016 – 2036

Hampshire Consortium GTAA – May 2017

Page 2

Opinion Research Services The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF

Steve Jarman, Claire Thomas, Ciara Small and Kara Stedman

Enquiries: 01792 535300 · info@ors.org.uk · www.ors.org.uk

© Copyright May 2017

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0

Contains OS Data © Crown Copyright (2017)

Hampshire Consortium GTAA – May 2017

Page 6

1. Executive Summary

Introduction and Methodology

1.1 The primary objective of the 2016 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) is to provide a robust assessment of current and future need for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in the following local planning authority areas in Hampshire: Fareham Borough Council (FBC), Gosport Borough Council (GBC), Havant Borough Council (HBC), New Forest District Council (NFDC), New Forest National Park (NFNP), Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) and Winchester City Council (WCC) (referred to as Consortium Authorities). Due to different Local Plan deadlines separate GTAA studies have been commissioned from Opinion Research Services (ORS) using the same methodology by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC), Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC), East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) and Hart District Council (HDC).

1.2 As well as updating previous GTAAs, the principal reason for completing the study was the publication of a revised version of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) in August 2015. This included a change to the definition of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople for planning purposes. The key change that was made was the removal of the term persons…who have ceased to travel permanently, meaning that those who have ceased to travel permanently will not now fall under the planning definition of a Traveller for the purposes of assessing accommodation need in a GTAA (see Paragraph 2.13 for the full definition).

1.3 The GTAA provides a credible evidence base which can be used to aid the preparation and implementation of Development Plan policies and the provision of new Gypsy and Traveller pitches and Travelling Showpeople plots for the period up to 2036. This will allow the outcomes of the study to be used to support the different local plan periods for the local authorities that are involved. The outcomes of this study supersede the need figures of any previous Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessments completed in the study area.

1.4 The GTAA has sought to understand the accommodation needs of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople population in the study area through a combination of desk-based research, stakeholder interviews and engagement with members of the travelling community living on all known sites. A total of 80 interviews were completed with Gypsies and Travellers, and a total of 39 interviews were completed with Travelling Showpeople living on authorised and unauthorised sites and yards¹. In addition stakeholder engagement was undertaken and total of 33 telephone interviews were completed with stakeholders, and a further 4 responded by email.

1.5 The majority of the fieldwork for the study was completed between June and October 2016, which was after the publication of the PPTS (2015). As a result of this change, questions to enable the determination of the planning status of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople households were included in the household interviews.

¹ A small number of additional interviews were completed with households that were found not to be Gypsies, Travellers or Travelling Showpeople.

1.6 The baseline date for the study is September 2016 which was when the majority if the site interviews were completed.

1.7 A Glossary of Terms can be found in Appendix A.

Key Findings

Additional Pitch Needs – Gypsies and Travellers

1.8 The additional pitch needs for Gypsies and Travellers from 2016-2036 are set out below. Additional needs are set out for those households that meet the planning definition of a Gypsy or Traveller, for those unknown households where an interview was not able to be completed (either due to households refusing to be interviewed, or not being present despite 3 visits to each site) who may meet the planning definition, and for those households that do not meet the planning definition (even though this is no longer a requirement for a GTAA).

1.9 Only the accommodation need from those households who meet the planning definition and from those of the unknown households who subsequently demonstrate that they meet it should be considered as accommodation need arising from the GTAA.

1.10 The need arising from households that meet the planning definition should be addressed through site allocation/intensification/expansion policies. Consideration will also need to be given to the allocation of pitches on public sites.

1.11 The Consortium Authorities will need to carefully consider how to address the accommodation needs associated with unknown Travellers as it is unlikely that all of this accommodation need will need to be addressed through the provision of conditioned Gypsy or Traveller pitches. In terms of Local Plan policies, the Consortium Authorities could consider the use of a criteria-based policy (as suggested in PPTS) for any unknown households that do provide evidence that they meet the planning definition.

1.12 The accommodation need for those households who do not meet the planning definition will need to be addressed through other means such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) or Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA).

Fareham Borough Council

1.13 There were 2 Gypsy or Traveller households identified in Fareham Borough that meet the planning definition, 6 unknown households that may meet the planning definition and 1 household that does not meet the planning definition.

1.14 The GTAA identifies a need for 3 additional pitches for households that meet the planning definition and this is made up of 2 concealed households or adults and 1 teenage child in need of a pitch of their own in the next 5 years. There was no further need identified through new household formation.

1.15 The GTAA identifies a need of up to 2 additional pitches for unknown households and this is made up of new household formation of up to 2 from a maximum of 6 households. If the ORS national average² of 10% were applied this could result in a need for no additional pitches.

² Based on the outcomes of over 1,800 interviews that have been completed with Gypsies and Travellers by ORS since September 2015. See Paragraph 3.27 for further details.

Gosport Borough Council

1.16 There were no Gypsy or Traveller households identified in Gosport Borough that meet the planning definition, 1 unknown household that may meet the planning definition and no households that do not meet the planning definition.

1.17 The GTAA identifies a need of up to 1 additional pitch for the unknown household and this is made up of new household formation of up to 1 from a maximum of 3 households. If the ORS national average of 10% were applied this could result in a need for no additional pitches.

Havant Borough Council

1.18 At baseline date for the GTAA there were no identified Gypsy and Traveller sites in Havant. However an application was made in March 2016 for 2 pitches on a site in Havant that is owned by households who were believed to spend the majority of their time travelling for work, but who are understood to have a postal address in Portsmouth. The land does currently have planning consent for stables but the application for residential pitches was refused and is the subject of an appeal that has been held in abeyance whilst a revised planning application for a single pitch is considered. The site is now occupied on an unauthorised basis.

1.19 An interview conducted in March 2017 identified that the household living on the site do meet the planning definitions. It also identified that the household have links to the area and have no alternative accommodation. As such there is a need for 1 additional pitch in Havant as a result of the occupied pitch being unauthorised. There is no other current or future need.

New Forest District Council

1.20 There was 1 Gypsy or Traveller households identified in New Forest District that meets the planning definition, 11 unknown households that may meet the planning definition and 16 households that do not meet the planning definition.

1.21 The GTAA identifies a need for 1 additional pitch for households that meet the planning definition and this is made up of new household formation based on the site demographics.

1.22 The GTAA identifies a need of up to 4 additional pitches for unknown households and this is made up new household formation of 4 from a maximum of 11 households. If the ORS national average of 10% were applied this could result in a need for no additional pitches.

New Forest National Park

1.23 There were 2 Gypsy or Traveller households identified in New Forest National Park that meet the planning definition, no unknown households that may meet the planning definition and 1 household that does not meet the planning definition.

1.24 There is need for 1 additional pitch for households that meet the planning definition. This is due to a pitch being unauthorised. There is no other current or future need identified.

Test Valley Borough Council

1.25 There were 5 Gypsy or Traveller households identified in Test Valley Borough that meet the planning definition, 14 unknown households that may meet the planning definition and 3 households that do not meet the planning definition.

1.26 The GTAA identifies a need for 3 additional pitches for households that meet the planning definition and this is made up of 1 concealed household or adult, 1 for a teenage child in need of a pitch of their own in the next 5 years, and 1 from new household formation based on the site demographics.

1.27 The GTAA identifies a need of up to 11 additional pitches for unknown households and this is made up of 5 unauthorised pitches, 1 pitch that has temporary planning permission, and new household formation of 5 from a maximum of 14 households. If the ORS national average of 10% were applied this could result in a need for 1 additional pitch.

Winchester City Council

1.28 There were 20 Gypsy or Traveller households identified in Winchester that meet the planning definition, 11 unknown households that may meet the planning definition and 18 households that do not meet the planning definition.

1.29 The GTAA identifies a need for 19 additional pitches for households that meet the planning definition and this is made up of 7 pitches with temporary planning permission, 3 unauthorised pitches, a need for 5 additional pitches for concealed households or adults, a need for 4 additional pitches for older teenage children in need of a pitch of their own in the next 5 years, and new household formation of 10 using a rate of 1.95% derived from the site demographics. In addition, there is a supply of 10 pitches from the previously Council owned site at Tynefield that have been closed for refurbishment but are due to reopen in 2017.

1.30 The GTAA identifies a need of up to 11 additional pitches for unknown households and this is made up of 7 pitches with temporary planning permission, and new household formation of 4 from a maximum of 11 households. If the ORS national average of 10% were applied this could result in a need for 1 additional pitch.

Additional Plot Needs - Travelling Showpeople

1.31 The additional plot needs for Travelling Showpeople from 2016-2036 are set out below. Additional needs are set out for those households that meet the planning definition of a Travelling Showperson, for those unknown households where an interview was not able to be completed (either due to households refusing to be interviewed, or not being present despite 3 visits to each site) who may meet the planning definition, and for those households that do not meet the planning definition (although this is no longer a requirement for a GTAA).

1.32 Only the accommodation need from those households who meet the planning definition and from those of the unknown households who subsequently demonstrate that they meet it should be considered as accommodation need arising from the GTAA.

1.33 The accommodation need arising from households that meet the planning definition should be addressed through site allocation/intensification/expansion policies. Consideration will also need to be given to the allocation of pitches on public sites.

1.34 The Consortium Authorities will need to carefully consider how to address the accommodation needs associated with unknown Travellers as it is unlikely that all of this accommodation need will need to be addressed through the provision of conditioned Travelling Showpeople plots. In terms of Local Plan policies, the Consortium Authorities could consider the use of a criteria-based policy (as suggested in the PPTS) for any unknown households that do provide evidence that they meet the planning definition.

1.35 The accommodation need for those households who do not meet the planning definition will need to be addressed through other means such as the SHMA or HEDNA.

Fareham Borough Council

1.36 There were no Travelling Showpeople households identified in Fareham Borough that meet the planning definition, no unknown households that may meet the planning definition and no households that do not meet the planning definition. Therefore there is no need for any additional plots.

Gosport Borough Council

1.37 There were no Travelling Showpeople households identified in Gosport Borough that meet the planning definition, no unknown households that may meet the planning definition and no households that do not meet the planning definition. Therefore there is no need for any additional plots.

Havant Borough Council

1.38 There were no Travelling Showpeople yards identified in Havant Borough so this suggests that there is no current or future need for accommodation in the GTAA period.

New Forest District Council

1.39 There were 2 Travelling Showpeople households identified in New Forest District that meet the planning definition, 8 unknown households that may meet the planning definition and 1 household that does not meet the planning definition.

1.40 The GTAA identifies a need for 4 additional plots for households that meet the planning definition as a result of 2 unauthorised plots and 2 for concealed households or adults. There was no further accommodation need as a result of new household formation.

1.41 The GTAA identifies a need of up to 4 additional plots for unknown households and this is made up of 2 unauthorised plots and 2 from new household formation from a maximum of 8 households. If the ORS national average³ of 70% were applied this could result in a need for 3 additional plots.

³ Based on the outcomes of over 300 interviews completed with Travelling Showpeople by ORS since September 2015. See Paragraph 3.27 for further details.

New Forest National Park

1.42 There were 6 Travelling Showpeople households identified in New Forest National Park that meet the planning definition, no unknown households that may meet the planning definition and 2 households that do not meet the planning definition.

1.43 The GTAA identifies a need for 21 additional plots for households that meet the planning definition as a result of 2 concealed families or single adults, 15 for older teenage children in need of a plot of their own in the next 5 years, and 4 as a result of new household formation based on the demographics of the other children living on the yard.

Test Valley Borough Council

1.44 There were 10 Travelling Showpeople households identified in Test Valley Borough that meet the planning definition, 2 unknown households that may meet the planning definition and 2 households that do not meet the planning definition.

1.45 The GTAA identifies a need for 14 additional plots for households that meet the planning definition. This is made up of 7 concealed households or adults, 3 older teenage children in need of a plot of their own in the next 5 years, and 4 from new household formation using a rate of 1.75% derived from the yard demographics.

1.46 The GTAA identifies a need of up to 1 additional plot for unknown households and this is made up new household formation of 1 from a maximum of 2 households.

Winchester City Council

1.47 There were 17 Travelling Showpeople households identified in Winchester that meet the planning definition, 12 unknown households that may meet the planning definition and 2 households that do not meet the planning definition.

1.48 The GTAA identifies a need for 27 additional plots for households that meet the planning definition. This is made up of 2 unauthorised plots, 6 concealed households or adults, 10 older teenage children in need of a plot of their own in the next 5 years, and 9 from new household formation using a rate of 1.70% derived from the yard demographics.

1.49 The GTAA identifies a need of up to 2 additional plots for unknown households and this is made up new household formation of 2 from a maximum of 12 households.

Transit Requirements

1.50 There is the possibility that PPTS (2015) could result in increased levels of travelling but it is not recommended that there is a need for the Consortium authorities to consider any new transit provision at this time.

1.51 Evidence from the Caravan Count shows that there have been relatively low numbers of unauthorised caravans on land not owned by Travellers recorded in recent years. The stakeholder interviews undertaken during the previous GTAA also identified that there are relatively low levels of encampments in the area, and that the majority were short-term and transient, or from a small number of groups moving around the area.

1.52 Each consortium authority should consider a review of the evidence base relating to unauthorised encampments in the future, once there is a robust post-PPTS (2015) evidence base. This will establish whether there is a need for investment in any additional transit sites or emergency stopping places.

1.53 In the short-term the consortium authorities should consider the use of short-term toleration or negotiated stopping agreements to deal with any encampments.

1.54 The term ‘negotiated stopping’ is used to describe agreed short term provision for Gypsy and Traveller caravans. It does not describe permanent ‘built’ transit sites but negotiated agreements which allow caravans to be sited on suitable specific pieces of ground for an agreed and limited period of time, with the provision of limited services such as water, waste disposal and toilets. Agreements are made between the authority and the (temporary) residents regarding expectations on both sides.

1.55 Temporary stopping places can be made available at times of increased demand due to fairs or cultural celebrations that are attended by Gypsies and Travellers. A charge may be levied as determined by the local authority although they only need to provide basic facilities including: a cold water supply; portaloos; sewerage disposal point and refuse disposal facilities.

Hampshire Consortium GTAA – May 2017

Page 15

2. Introduction

The Study

2.1 The primary objective of the 2016 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) is to provide a robust assessment of current and future need for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation in the following planning authority areas in Hampshire: Fareham Borough Council (FBC), Gosport Borough Council (GBC), Havant Borough Council (HBC), New Forest District Council (NFDC), New Forest National Park (NFNP), Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) and Winchester City Council (WCC) (referred to as the consortium authorities).

2.2 Due to different Local Plan deadlines, separate GTAA studies have been commissioned from Opinion Research Services (ORS) using the same methodology by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC), Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC), East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) and Hart District Council (HDC).

2.3 The outcomes of this study supersede the outcomes of any previous Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessments completed in the study area.

2.4 The study provides an evidence base to enable the consortium authorities to assess and meet the needs of the Travelling Community as well as complying with their requirements towards Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople under the Housing Act 1985, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 2014 (and as amended), PPTS (2015), and the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

2.5 The GTAA is a robust and credible evidence base which can be used to aid the preparation and implementation of development plan policies and the provision of Traveller pitches and plots into five year increments covering the periods 2016 to 2036 in accordance with the consortium authorities plan periods. As well as identifying current and future permanent accommodation needs, it also seeks to assess any accommodation need for the provision of transit sites or emergency stopping places.

2.6 We would note at the outset that this study covers the needs of Gypsies (including English, Scottish, Welsh and Romany Gypsies), Irish Travellers, New (Age) Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople, but for ease of reference we have referred to the study as a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA).

2.7 The baseline date for the study is September 2016.

Glossary of Terms

2.8 A Glossary of Terms can be found in Appendix A.

Local Plan Policies

2.9 Providing for the needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople is covered by a wide range of local plan policies across the consortium authorities that make up the study area. These are set out below and in full in Appendix B.

Definitions

2.10 The current planning definition for a Gypsy, Traveller or Travelling Showperson is set out in PPTS (2015). The previous definition set out in the Housing Act (2004) was repealed by the Housing and Planning Act (2016).

2.11 Provisions set out in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 include a duty (under Section 8 of the 1985 Housing Act that covers the requirement for a periodical review of housing needs) for local authorities to consider the needs of people residing in or resorting to their district with respect to the provision of sites on which caravans can be stationed, or places on inland waterways where houseboats can be moored. Draft Guidance⁴ related to this section of the Housing and Planning Act has been published setting out how the Government would want local housing authorities to undertake this assessment and it is the same as the GTAA assessment process. Therefore the housing needs of any Gypsy and Traveller households who do not meet the planning definition of a Traveller will need to be assessed as part of the wider housing needs of the area, which will have been identified through the SHMA or HEDNA process for example, and will form a subset of the wider need arising from households residing in caravans.

2.12 Another key issue is that there may also be Romany, Irish and Scottish Travellers who no longer travel so will not fall under the Planning or Housing definition, but planning authorities may still need to consider meeting their accommodation needs through the provision of culturally suitable housing under the requirements of the Equality Act (2010).

⁴ Draft guidance to local housing authorities on the periodical review of housing needs for caravans and houseboats. (DCLG - March 2016)

The Planning Definition in PPTS (2015)

2.13 For the purposes of the planning system, the definition was changed in PPTS (2015). The planning definition is set out in Annex 1 and states that:

For the purposes of this planning policy “gypsies and travellers” means:

Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.

In determining whether persons are “gypsies and travellers” for the purposes of this planning policy, consideration should be given to the following issues amongst other relevant matters:

• Whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life.
• The reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life.
• Whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances.

For the purposes of this planning policy, “travelling showpeople” means:

Members of a group organised for the purposes of holding fairs, circuses or shows (whether or not travelling together as such). This includes such persons who on the grounds of their own or their family’s or dependants’ more localised pattern of trading, educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excludes Gypsies and Travellers as defined above.

2.14 The key change that was made to both definitions was the removal of the term ‘persons…who have ceased to travel permanently’, meaning that those who have ceased to travel permanently will no longer fall under the planning definition of a Traveller for the purposes of assessing accommodation need in a GTAA.

Definition of Travelling

2.15 One of the most important questions that GTAAs need to address in terms of applying the planning definition is what constitutes travelling? This has been determined through case law that has tested the meaning of the term ‘nomadic’.

2.16 R v South Hams District Council (1994) – defined Gypsies as “persons who wander or travel for the purpose of making or seeking their livelihood (not persons who travel from place to place without any connection between their movements and their means of livelihood.)” This includes ‘born’ Gypsies and Travellers as well as ‘elective’ Travellers such as New Age Travellers.

2.17 In Maidstone BC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Dunn (2006), it was held that a Romany Gypsy who bred horses and travelled to horse fairs at Appleby, Stow-in-the-Wold and the New Forest, where he bought and sold horses, and who remained away from his permanent site for up to two months of the year, at least partly in connection with this traditional Gypsy activity, was entitled to be accorded Gypsy status.

2.18 In Greenwich LBC v Powell (1989), Lord Bridge of Harwich stated that a person could be a statutory Gypsy if he led a nomadic way of life only seasonally.

2.19 The definition was widened further by the decision in R v Shropshire CC ex p Bungay (1990). The case concerned a Gypsy family that had not travelled for some 15 years in order to care for its elderly and infirm parents. An aggrieved resident living in the area of the family’s recently approved Gypsy site sought judicial review of the local authority’s decision to accept that the family had retained their Gypsy status even though they had not travelled for some considerable time. Dismissing the claim, the judge held that a person could remain a Gypsy even if he or she did not travel, provided that their nomadism was held in abeyance and not abandoned.

2.20 That point was revisited in the case of Hearne v National Assembly for Wales (1999), where a traditional Gypsy was held not to be a Gypsy for the purposes of planning law as he had stated that he intended to abandon his nomadic habit of life, lived in a permanent dwelling and was taking a course that led to permanent employment.

2.21 Wrexham County Borough Council v National Assembly of Wales and Others (2003) determined that households and individuals could continue to lead a nomadic way of life with a permanent base from which they set out from and return to.

2.22 The implication of these rulings in terms of applying the planning definition is that it will only include those who travel (or have ceased to travel temporarily) for work purposes and in doing so stay away from their usual place of residence. It can include those who have a permanent site or place of residence, but it will not include those who travel for purposes other than work – such as visiting horse fairs, holidays and visiting friends or relatives. It will also not cover those who commute to work daily from a permanent place of residence.

2.23 It will also be the case that where some family members travel for nomadic purposes on a regular basis, but other family members stay at home to look after children in education, or other dependents with health problems or due to old age, the household unit would be defined as travelling under the planning definition.

2.24 Households will also fall under the planning definition if they can provide information that they have ceased to travel temporarily as a result of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age. In order to have ceased to travel temporarily these households will need to provide information that they have travelled in the past for work purposes, and also provide information that they plan to travel again in the future for work purposes.

2.25 This approach was endorsed by a Planning Inspector in a recent Decision Notice for an appeal in East Hertfordshire (Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/W/16/3145267). A summary can be seen below.

Case law, including the R v South Hams District Council ex parte Gibb (1994) judgment referred to me at the hearing, despite its reference to ‘purposive activities including work’ also refers to a connection between the travelling and the means of livelihood, that is, an economic purpose. In this regard, there is no economic purpose… This situation is no different from that of many landlords and property investors or indeed anyone travelling to work in a fixed, pre-arranged location. In this regard there is not an essential connection between wandering and work… Whilst there does appear to be some connection between the travel and the work in this regard, it seems to me that these periods of travel for economic purposes are very short, amounting to an extremely small proportion of his time and income. Furthermore, the work is not carried out in a nomadic manner because it seems likely that it is done by appointment… I conclude, therefore, that XX does not meet the definition of a gypsy and traveller in terms of planning policy because there is insufficient evidence that he is currently a person of a nomadic habit of life.

Legislation and Guidance for Gypsies and Travellers

2.26 Decision-making for policy concerning Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople sits within a complex legislative and national policy framework and this study must be viewed in the context of this legislation and guidance. For example, the following key pieces of legislation and guidance are relevant when developing policies relating to Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople:

• The Housing and Planning Act (2016)
• PPTS (2015)
• NPPF (2012)
• PPG⁵ (2014) and as amended

⁵ With particular reference to the sections on Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessments.

2.27 The primary guidance for undertaking the assessment of housing need for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople is set out in the PPTS (2015). It should be read in conjunction with the NPPF. In addition, the Housing and Planning Act (2016) makes provisions for the assessment of need for those Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople households living on sites and yards who do not meet the planning definition by assessing all households living in caravans.

PPTS (2015)

2.28 PPTS (2015) sets out the direction of Government policy. As well as including the planning definition of a Traveller, the PPTS is to be read in conjunction with the NPPF. Amongst other objectives, the aims of the policy in respect of Traveller sites are (PPTS Paragraph 4):

• Local planning authorities should make their own assessment of need for the purposes of planning.
• To ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites.
• To encourage local planning authorities to plan for sites over a reasonable timescale.
• That plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development.
• To promote more private Traveller site provision while recognising that there will always be those Travellers who cannot provide their own sites.
• That plan-making and decision-taking should aim to reduce the number of unauthorised developments and encampments and make enforcement more effective.
• For local planning authorities to ensure that their Local Plan includes fair, realistic and inclusive policies.
• To increase the number of Traveller sites in appropriate locations with planning permission, to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply.
• To reduce tensions between settled and Traveller communities in plan-making and planning decisions.
• To enable provision of suitable accommodation from which Travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure.
• For local planning authorities to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local environment.

2.29 In practice, the document states that (PPTS Paragraph 9):

• Local planning authorities should set pitch targets for Gypsies and Travellers and plot targets for Travelling Showpeople, which address the likely permanent and transit site accommodation needs of Travellers in their area, working collaboratively with neighbouring local planning authorities.

2.30 PPTS goes on to state (Paragraph 10) that in producing their Local Plan, local planning authorities should:

• Identify and annually update a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets.
• Identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15.
• Consider production of joint development plans that set targets on a cross-authority basis, to provide more flexibility in identifying sites, particularly if a local planning authority has special or strict planning constraints across its area (local planning authorities have a duty to cooperate on strategic planning issues that cross administrative boundaries).
• Relate the number of pitches or plots to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site and the surrounding population’s size and density.
• Protect local amenity and environment.

2.31 Local Authorities now have a duty to ensure a 5 year land supply to meet the identified needs for Traveller sites. However, the PPTS also notes in Paragraph 11 that:

• Where there is no identified need, criteria-based policies should be included to provide a basis for decisions in case applications nevertheless come forward. Criteria-based policies should be fair and should facilitate the traditional and nomadic life of Travellers, while respecting the interests of the settled community.

Hampshire Consortium GTAA – May 2017

Page 21

3. Methodology

Background

3.1 Over the past 10 years, ORS has continually refined a methodology for undertaking robust and defensible Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessments. This has been updated in light of the introduction of the PPG in 2014, changes to PPTS (2015) and the Housing and Planning Act (2016), as well as responding to changes set out by Planning Ministers, with particular reference to new household formation rates. This is an evolving methodology that has been adaptive to changes in planning policy as well as the outcomes of Local Plan Examinations and Planning Appeals.

3.2 PPTS (2015) contains a number of requirements for local authorities which must be addressed in any methodology. This includes the need to pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with both settled and traveller communities (including discussing travellers’ accommodation needs with travellers themselves); identification of permanent and transit site accommodation needs separately; working collaboratively with neighbouring local planning authorities; and establishing whether households fall within the planning definition for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The stages below provide a summary of the methodology that was used to complete this study. More information on each stage is provided in the appropriate sections of this report.

3.3 The approach currently used by ORS was considered in April 2016 by the Planning Inspector for the Gloucester City Council, Cheltenham Borough Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council Joint Core Strategy who concluded:

‘The methodology behind this assessment included undertaking a full demographic study of all occupied pitches, interviewing Gypsy and Traveller households, including those living in bricks and mortar accommodation, and considering the implications of the new Government policy. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the assessment has been appropriately carried out, and there is no reason for me to dispute the figures.’

Desk-Based Review

3.4 ORS collated a range of secondary data that was used to support the study. This included:

• Census data.
• Site records.
• Caravan counts.
• Records of unauthorised sites/encampments.
• Information on planning applications/appeals.
• Information on enforcement actions.
• Existing Needs Assessments and other relevant local studies.
• Existing national and local policy.

Stakeholder Engagement

3.5 Engagement was undertaken with key Council Officers and with wider stakeholders through telephone interviews. Council stakeholders included Officers from departments including Housing, Planning, Environmental Health, Enforcement, Health and Safety, Legal and Gypsy Liaison. Wider stakeholders included the Hampshire County Council Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer⁶, representatives from Travelling Communities, the Showmen’s Guild and registered housing providers that operate across the area. Detailed Topic Guides were agreed with the consortium authorities for the telephone interviews.

Working Collaboratively with Neighbouring Planning Authorities

3.6 To help support the duty to cooperate and provide background information for the study, telephone interviews were conducted with Planning Officers in neighbouring planning authorities. These interviews help to ensure that wider issues that may impact on this project are fully understood. This included interviews with Officers from the Councils set out below. Again, a detailed Topic Guide was agreed with the consortium authorities.

• Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council
• Dorset Council
• Eastleigh Borough Council
• East Hampshire District Council
• Hart District Council
• Portsmouth City Council
• South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA)
• Southampton City Council
• Wiltshire Council

Survey of Travelling Communities

3.7 Through desk-based research and stakeholder interviews, ORS sought to identify all authorised and unauthorised sites and yards in the study area and attempted to complete an interview with the residents on all occupied pitches and plots. In order to gather robust information to use to assess households against the planning definition of a Traveller, up to 3 visits were made to households where it was not possible to conduct an interview because they were not in or not available.

3.8 Our experience suggests that an attempt to interview households on all pitches is more robust, as opposed to a sample based approach which often leads to an under-estimate of need - an approach which is regularly challenged by the Planning Inspectorate and at planning appeals.

3.9 ORS worked closely with the consortium authorities and the Hampshire County Council Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer to ensure that the interviews collected all the necessary information to support the study. The household interview questions that were used have been updated to take account of changes in PPTS (2015) and to collect the information ORS feel is necessary to apply the planning definition. A copy of the questions can be found in Appendix G – although the interviews were completed using Computer Aided Personal Interview (CAPI) tablets.

3.10 All pitches and plots were visited by members of our dedicated team of experienced interviewers who work solely on our GTAA studies across England and Wales. They conducted semi-structured interviews with residents to determine their current demographic characteristics, their current or future accommodation needs, whether there is any over-crowding or the presence of concealed households and travelling characteristics (to meet the requirements contained in the PPTS). Interviewers also sought to identify contacts living in bricks and mortar to interview, as well as an overall assessment of each site to determine any opportunities for intensification or expansion to meet future needs.

3.11 They also sought information from residents on the type of pitches they may require in the future – for example private or socially rented, together with any features they may wish to be provided on a new pitch or site.

3.12 Where it was not possible to undertake an interview, staff sought to capture as much information as possible about each pitch from sources including neighbouring residents and site management (if present).

Engagement with Bricks and Mortar Households

3.13 ORS apply a rigorous approach to making contact with bricks and mortar households as this is a common issue raised at Local Plan examinations and planning appeals. Contacts were sought through a range of sources including the interviews with people on existing sites and yards, intelligence from the stakeholder interviews – including intelligence from the Hampshire County Council Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer, and adverts on social media (including the Friends Families and Travellers Facebook group). Figure 16 provides an example.

3.14 Through this approach we endeavoured to give those households living in bricks and mortar the opportunity to make their views known to us.

3.15 The methodology does not extrapolate the findings from our fieldwork with bricks and mortar households up to the total estimated bricks and mortar population as a whole. In our experience this leads to a significant over-estimate of the number of households wishing to move to a site or a yard. We work on the assumption that all those wishing to move will make their views known to us based on the wide range of publicity we will put in place. Thus we are seeking to place the responsibility upon those living in bricks and mortar through demonstrating rigorous efforts to make them aware of the study.

Timing of the Fieldwork

Figure 16 – Bricks and mortar advert

3.16 ORS are aware of the transient nature of many travelling communities and subsequent seasonal variations in site and yard occupancy. As such most of the fieldwork was undertaken during the non-travelling season, and also avoided days of known local or national events. Fieldwork was completed between June and October 2016 with the majority being completed outside of the summer holiday period.

Waiting Lists

3.17 As part of the assessment of accommodation need, ORS usually seek details of households on waiting lists for public sites and thus undertake detailed analysis to identify households living in bricks and mortar to interview, to eliminate any double counting from doubled up or concealed households on sites, and to identify those living outside of the study area. However, with regards to this study, all of the public sites owned and managed by Hampshire County Council were recently sold to Somerset and Hampshire Parks Ltd so an assessment of waiting lists has not been possible for this GTAA.

Calculating Current and Future Need

3.18 The primary change to PPTS (2015) in relation to the assessment of need is the change in the definition of a Gypsy, Traveller or Travelling Showperson for planning purposes. Through the site interviews, ORS sought to collect information required to assess each household against the planning definition. As the revised PPTS was only issued in 2015, only a small number of relevant appeal decisions have been issued by the Planning Inspectorate on how the planning definition should be applied (see Paragraph 2.25 for an example) – these support the view that households need to be able to demonstrate that they travel for work purposes to meet the planning definition, and stay away from their usual place of residence when doing so, or have ceased to travel for work purposes temporarily due to education, ill health or old age.

3.19 To identify accommodation need, PPTS (2015) requires an assessment of current and future pitch requirements but it does not provide a methodology for this. However, as with any housing assessment, the underlying calculation can be broken down into a relatively small number of factors. In this case, the key issue is to compare the supply of pitches available for occupation with the current and future needs of the population.

Applying the Planning Definition

3.20 The household survey included a structured set of questions to record information about the travelling characteristics of household members. This included questions on the following key issues:

• Whether any household members have travelled in the past 12 months.
• Whether household members have ever travelled.
• The main reasons for travelling.
• Where household members travelled to.
• The times of the year that household members travelled.
• Where household members stay when they are away travelling.
• When household members stopped travelling.
• The reasons why household members stopped travelling.
• Whether household members intend to travel again in the future.
• When and the reasons why household members plan to travel again in the future.

3.21 When the household survey was completed, the outcomes from these questions on travelling were used to determine the status of each household against the planning definition in PPTS (2015). Through a combination of responses, households need to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that household members travel for the purposes of work and in doing so stay away from their usual place of residence, or that they have ceased to travel temporarily due to education, ill health or old age, and plan to travel again for work purposes in the future. The same definition applies to Travelling Showpeople as to Gypsies and Travellers.

3.22 Households that need to be considered under the GTAA fall under one of 3 classifications that will determine whether their housing needs will need to be assessed in the GTAA. Only those households that meet, or may meet, the planning definition will form the components of need to be included in the GTAA:

• Households that travel under the planning definition.
• Households that have ceased to travel temporarily under the planning definition.
• Households where an interview was not possible who may fall under the planning definition.

3.23 Whilst the needs of those households that do not meet the planning definition do not need to be included in the GTAA, they will be assessed to provide the Council with components of need to consider as part of their work on wider housing needs assessments, through the SHMA or HEDNA for example.

Unknown Households

3.24 As well as calculating need for households that meet the planning definition, the needs of the households where an interview was not completed (either due to refusal to be interviewed or households that were not present during the fieldwork period) need to be considered as part of the GTAA where they are believed to be ethnic Gypsies and Travellers who may meet the planning definition. Whilst there is no law or guidance that sets out how the needs of these households should be addressed, an approach has been taken that seeks an estimate of potential need from these households. This will be a maximum additional need figure over and above the need identified for households that do meet the planning definition.

3.25 The estimate seeks to identify potential current and future need from many pitches known to be temporary or unauthorised, and through new household formation. For the latter the national rate of 1.50%⁷ has been used as the demographics of residents are unknown. This approach is consistent with the outcomes of a recent Planning Appeal where access to a site was not possible but basic information was known about the number of households residing there. (Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/Z6950/A/14/2212012).

3.26 Should further information be made available to the Council that will allow for the planning definition to be applied, these households could form a confirmed component of need to be addressed through the GTAA or the SHMA/HEDNA.

3.27 Data that has been collected from over 1,800 household interviews that have been completed by ORS since the changes to PPTS in 2015 suggests that approximately 10% of households who have been interviewed meet the planning definition (this rises to 70% for Travelling Showpeople based on over 300 interviews that have been completed) and in some local authority areas, particularly in the London Boroughs, it has been found that 100% of households do not meet the planning definition.

3.28 ORS are not implying that this is an official National Statistic - rather a national statistic based on the outcomes of our fieldwork since the introduction of PPTS (2015). It is estimated that there are between 12,000-14,000 Gypsy and Traveller pitches in England and ORS have spoken to over 12% of them at a representative range of sites and just over 10% meet the planning definition. ORS also asked similar questions on travelling in over 2,000 pre-PPTS (2015) household interviews and also found that 10% of households would have met the PPTS (2015) planning definition. It is ORS’ view therefore that this is the most comprehensive national statistic in relation to households that meet the planning definition in PPTS (2015) and should be seen as a robust statistical figure.

3.29 This would suggest that it is likely that only a small proportion of the potential need identified from unknown households will need conditioned Gypsy and Traveller pitches, and that the needs of the majority will need to be addressed through the SHMA or HEDNA.

⁷ See Chapter 7

3.30 Consortium authorities will therefore need to carefully consider how to address the accommodation needs associated with unknown Travellers as it is unlikely that all of this accommodation need will need to be addressed through the provision of conditioned Gypsy or Traveller pitches. In terms of Local Plan policies, the consortium authorities could consider the use of a specific site allocation/protection policy for those households that do meet the planning definition, together with a criteria-based policy (as suggested in PPTS) for any unknown households that can provide evidence that they meet the definition. An assessment of accommodation need for unknown Travellers can be found in Appendix C.

Households that do not meet the Planning Definition

3.31 Households who do not travel fall outside the planning definition of a Traveller. However, Romany Gypsies and Irish and Scottish Travellers⁸ may be able to demonstrate a right to culturally appropriate accommodation under the Equality Act 2010. In addition, provisions set out in the Housing and Planning Act (2016) include a duty (under Section 8 of the 1985 Housing Act that covers the requirement for a periodical review of housing needs) for local authorities to consider the accommodation needs (but not necessarily to make provision for) of people residing in or resorting to their district with respect to the provision of sites on which caravans can be stationed, or places on inland waterways where houseboats can be moored. Draft Guidance⁹ related to this section of the Act has been published setting out how the Government would want local housing authorities to undertake this assessment and it is the same as the GTAA assessment process. The implication is therefore that the housing needs of any Gypsy and Traveller households who do not meet the planning definition of a Traveller will already have been assessed as part of the wider housing needs of the area, for example through the SHMA or HEDNA process, and will form a subset of the wider need arising from households residing in caravans. An assessment of accommodation need for Travellers that do not meet the planning definition can be found in Appendix D.

⁸ Only these specific groups of Travellers are included as protected characteristics.

⁹ Draft guidance to local housing authorities on the periodical review of housing needs for caravans and houseboats. (DCLG - March 2016)

Supply of Pitches

3.32 The first stage of the assessment sought to determine the number of occupied, vacant and potentially available supply in the study area:

• Current vacant pitches.
• Pitches currently with planning consent due to be developed within 5 years¹⁰.
• Pitches vacated by people moving to housing.
• Pitches vacated by people moving from the study area (out-migration).

¹⁰ Including pitches on sites that have been implemented but not completed.

3.33 It is important when seeking to identify supply from vacant pitches that they are in fact available for general occupation i.e. on a public or social rented site, or on a private site that is run on a commercial basis with anyone being able to rent a pitch if they are available. Typically, vacant pitches on small private family sites are not included as components of available supply, but can be used to meet any current and future need from the family living of the site. The report will highlight where vacant pitches have or have not been considered as components of supply.

Current Need

3.34 The second stage was to identify components of current accommodation need. This is made up of the following components:

• Households on unauthorised developments for which planning permission is not expected.
• Households on unauthorised encampments.
• Concealed, doubled-up or over-crowded households (including single adults).
• Households in bricks and mortar wishing to move to sites.
• Households in need on waiting lists for public sites.

Future Need

3.35 The third and final stage was to identify components of future accommodation need. This includes the following four components:

• Older teenage children in need of a pitch of their own in the next 5 years.
• Households living on sites with temporary planning permissions.
• New household formation.
• In-migration.

3.36 Household formation rates are often the subject of challenge at appeals or examinations. We agree with the position now being taken by DCLG and firmly believe that any household formation rates should use a robust local evidence base, rather than simply relying on precedent. This is set out in more detail in Chapter 7 of this report.

3.37 All of these components of supply and accommodation need are presented in easy to understand tables which identify the overall net need for current and future accommodation for both Gypsies and Travellers, and for Travelling Showpeople. This has proven to be a robust model for identifying accommodation needs. The residential and transit pitch needs for Gypsies and Travellers are identified separately and the accommodation needs are identified in 5 year periods to 2036. These can be found in Chapter 7 and in Appendices C and D.

Pitch Turnover

3.38 Some assessments of accommodation need make use of pitch turnover as an ongoing component of supply. ORS do not agree with this approach or about making any assumptions about annual turnover rates. This is an approach that usually ends up with a significant under-estimate of accommodation need as in the majority of cases vacant pitches on sites are not available to meet any additional accommodation need. The use of pitch turnover has been the subject of a number of Inspectors Decisions, for example APP/J3720/A/13/2208767 found a GTAA to be unsound when using pitch turnover and concluded:

West Oxfordshire Council relies on a GTAA published in 2013. This identifies an immediate need for 6 additional pitches. However the GTAA methodology treats pitch turnover as a component of supply. This is only the case if there is net outward migration yet no such scenario is apparent in West Oxfordshire. Based on the evidence before me I consider the underlying criticism of the GTAA to be justified and that unmet need is likely to be higher than that in the findings in the GTAA.

3.39 In addition, a recent GTAA Best Practice Guide produced by a number of organisations including Friends, Families and Travellers, the London Gypsy and Traveller Unit, the York Travellers Trust, the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group, Garden Court Chambers and Leeds GATE concluded that:

Assessments involving any form of pitch turnover in their supply relies upon making assumptions; a practice best avoided. Turnover is naturally very difficult to assess accurately and in practice does not contribute meaningfully to additional supply so should be very carefully assessed in line with local trends. Mainstream housing assessments are not based on the assumption that turnover within the existing stock can provide for general housing needs.

3.40 As such, other than current vacant pitches on sites that are known to be available, or pitches that are known to become available (as a result of households moving for example), pitch turnover has not been considered as a component of supply in this GTAA.

Transit Provision

3.41 PPTS (2015) also requires an assessment of the accommodation need for any transit sites or stopping places. While the majority of Gypsies and Travellers have permanent bases either on Gypsy and Traveller sites or in bricks and mortar and no longer travel, other members of the community either travel permanently or for part of the year. Due to the mobile nature of the population, a range of sites or management approaches can be developed to accommodate Gypsies and Travellers as they travel through different areas. These include formal transit sites, temporary stopping places, seasonal sites and negotiated stopping agreements.

3.42 In order to investigate the potential need for transit provision, ORS sought to undertake analysis of any records of unauthorised sites and encampments, as well as information from the CLG Caravan Count. The outcomes of the interviews with Council Officers, Officers from neighbouring local authorities and other stakeholders was also taken into consideration when determining this element of accommodation need in the study area.

Hampshire Consortium GTAA – May 2017

Page 30

4. Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites and Population

Introduction

4.1 One of the main considerations of this study is to provide evidence to support the provision of pitches and plots to meet the current and future accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. A pitch is an area normally occupied by one household, which typically contains enough space for one or two caravans, but can vary in size. A site is a collection of pitches which form a development exclusively for Gypsies and Travellers. For Travelling Showpeople, the most common descriptions used are a plot for the space occupied by one household and a yard for a collection of plots which are typically exclusively occupied by Travelling Showpeople. Throughout this study the main focus is upon how many extra pitches for Gypsies and Travellers and plots for Travelling Showpeople are required in the study area.

4.2 The public and private provision of mainstream housing is also largely mirrored when considering Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. One common form of a Gypsy and Traveller site is the publicly-provided residential site, which is provided by a Local Authority or by a Registered Provider (usually a Housing Association). Pitches on public sites can be obtained through signing up to a waiting list, and the costs of running the sites are met from the rent paid by the licensees (similar to social housing).

4.3 The alternative to public residential sites are private residential sites and yards for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. These result from individuals or families buying areas of land and then obtaining planning permission to live on them. Households can also rent pitches on existing private sites. Therefore, these two forms of accommodation are the equivalent to private ownership and renting for those who live in bricks and mortar housing. Generally the majority of Travelling Showpeople yards are privately owned and managed.

4.4 The Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople population also has other forms of sites due to its mobile nature. Transit sites tend to contain many of the same facilities as a residential site, except that there is a maximum period of residence which can vary from a few days or weeks to a period of months. An alternative to a transit site is an emergency or negotiated stopping place. This type of site also has restrictions on the length of time someone can stay on it, but has much more limited facilities. Both of these two types of sites are designed to accommodate, for a temporary period, Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople whilst they travel. A number of authorities also operate an accepted encampments policy where short-term stopovers are tolerated without enforcement action.

4.5 Further considerations for the Gypsy and Traveller population are unauthorised developments and encampments. Unauthorised developments occur on land which is owned by the Gypsies and Travellers or with the approval of the land owner, but for which they do not have planning permission to use for residential purposes. Unauthorised encampments occur on land which is not owned by the Gypsies and Travellers.

Sites and Yards in the Study Area

Fareham Borough Council

4.6 In Fareham Borough, at the baseline date (September 2016) for this study, there were no public sites; 4 private sites with permanent planning permission for 11 pitches; no sites with temporary planning permission; no sites that are tolerated for planning purposes; no unauthorised sites; and no Travelling Showpeople yards. Further details can be found in Chapter 6 and Appendix E.

Gosport Borough Council

4.7 In Gosport Borough, at the baseline date (September 2016) for this study, there were no public sites; no private sites; no sites with temporary planning permission; no sites that are tolerated for planning purposes; 1 unauthorised site with 3 pitches¹¹; and no private Travelling Showpeople yards. Further details can be found in Chapter 6 and Appendix E.

¹¹ This site is allocated in the Local Plan under Policy LP26 to meet the identified need from the previous GTAA.

Havant Borough Council

4.8 In Havant Borough, at the baseline date (September 2016) for this study, there were no public sites; no private sites with permanent planning permission; no sites with temporary planning permission; no sites that are tolerated for planning purposes; no unauthorised sites; and no Travelling Showpeople yards.

4.9 However an application was made in March 2016 for 2 pitches on a site in Havant that is owned by households who were believed to spend the majority of their time travelling for work, but who are understood to have a postal address in Portsmouth. The land does currently have planning consent for stables but the application for residential pitches was refused and is the subject of an appeal that has been held in abeyance whilst a revised planning application for a single pitch is considered. The site is now occupied on an unauthorised basis. Further details can be found in Chapter 6 and Appendix E.

New Forest District

4.10 In New Forest District, at the baseline date (September 2016) for this study, there were no public sites; 6 private sites with permanent planning permission for 27 pitches; no sites with temporary planning permission; no sites that are tolerated for planning purposes; no unauthorised sites; 2 private Travelling Showpeople yards with 4 plots; and 2 unauthorised Travelling Showpeople yards with 7 plots. There is also a private transit site with 12 pitches. Further details can be found in Chapter 6 and Appendix E.

New Forest National Park

4.11 In New Forest National Park, at the baseline date (September 2016) for this study, there were no public sites; 2 private sites with permanent planning permission for 3 pitches; no sites with temporary planning permission; no sites that are tolerated for planning purposes; 1 unauthorised site with 1 pitch; and 1 private Travelling Showpeople yard with 1 large plot currently accommodating 8 households. Further details can be found in Chapter 6 and Appendix E.

¹² Whilst there is only 1 large plot at this yard it currently accommodates 8 households.

Test Valley Borough Council

4.12 In Test Valley Borough, at the baseline date (September 2016) for this study, there were no public sites; 12 private sites with permanent planning permission for 13 pitches; 1 site with temporary planning permission with 1 pitch; 2 sites that are tolerated for planning purposes with 3 pitches; 1 site with a live planning application for 1 pitch; 1 additional pitch on a private site that is the subject of planning appeal; 2 unauthorised sites with 5 pitches; and 5 private Travelling Showpeople yards with 20 plots. Further details can be found in Chapter 6 and Appendix E.

Winchester City Council

4.13 In Winchester City, at the baseline date (September 2016) for this study, there were no public sites; 16 private sites with permanent planning permission for 44 pitches; 4 sites with temporary planning permission for 13 pitches; no sites that are tolerated for planning purposes; 4 unauthorised sites with 8 pitches; 5 private Travelling Showpeople yards with 9 plots¹³; 5 tolerated Travelling Showpeople yards with 14 plots; and 1 unauthorised Travelling Showpeople yards with 3 plots. Further details can be found in Chapter 6 and Appendix E.

¹³ Excluding Carousel Park (see Chapter 6).

Caravan Count

4.14 Another source of information available on the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople population is the bi-annual Traveller Caravan Count which is conducted by each Local Authority in England on a specific date in January and July of each year, and reported to DCLG. This is a statistical count of the number of caravans on both authorised and unauthorised sites across England. With effect from July 2013, DCLG has renamed the ‘Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Count’ as the ‘Traveller Caravan Count.’

4.15 As this count relates to caravans and not households, it makes it more difficult to interpret for a study such as the GTAA because it does not count pitches or resident households. The count is merely a ‘snapshot in time’ conducted by the Local Authority on a specific day, and any unauthorised sites or encampments which occur on other dates will not be recorded. Likewise, any caravans that are away from sites on the day of the count will not be included. As such it is not considered appropriate to use the outcomes from the Traveller Caravan Count in the calculation of current and future need as the information collected during the site visits is seen as more robust and fit-for-purpose. However, the Caravan Count data has been used to support the identification of the need to provide for transit provision and this is set out in Chapter 7.

Hampshire Consortium GTAA – May 2017

Page 35

5. Stakeholder Engagement

Introduction

5.1 To be consistent with the guidance set out in the PPTS (2015) and Draft guidance to local housing authorities on the periodical review of housing needs (2016) regarding close engagement with communities, ORS undertook a stakeholder engagement programme to complement the information gathered through interviews with members of the Travelling Community. This consultation took the form of telephone interviews which were tailored to the role of the individual.

5.2 The aim of these interviews was to provide an understanding of: current provision and possible future accommodation need; short-term encampments and transit provision; and cross-border issues. Importantly, stakeholders who are in contact with members of the travelling community (who are in bricks and mortar or who are not known to the Council) were asked if they could inform them that the study is taking place and provide details about how they could participate in a confidential telephone interview with a member of the ORS research team.

5.3 19 contacts were made with consortium authority Officers from the study area in the form of interviews or email returns providing information. Consortium authority representatives involved in the study included Officers in Planning, Housing, Enforcement; Environmental Health, Health and Safety and Gypsy Liaison. Completed interviews are listed in Figure 24 below.

5.4 As stated in the PPTS (2015), local authorities have a duty to cooperate on strategic planning issues that cross administrative boundaries (S.110 Localism Act 2011). Interviews were completed with 9 local authorities either within Hampshire but not directly involved with this GTAA, or with local authorities that neighbour Hampshire:

• Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council
• Dorset Council
• Eastleigh Borough Council
• East Hampshire District Council
• Hart District Council
• Portsmouth City Council
• South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA)
• Southampton City Council
• Wiltshire Council

5.5 Interviews with five Housing Associations were completed (First Wessex, Radian, Sanctuary, Stonewater and Winchester Housing Trust), along with an interview with the manager of two Gypsy and Traveller sites. Four Housing Associations also responded to questions by email (Affinity, Bournemouth Churches, English Rural and Sovereign).

5.6 Due to issues surrounding data protection, and in order to protect the anonymity of those who took part, this section presents a summary of the views expressed by interviewees and verbatim comments have not been used.

5.7 The first section provides the response from key stakeholders and Council Officers from the study area. This section of the report presents a balanced summary of the views expressed by stakeholders. It is important to note that these may be the personal views of the individuals that were interviewed and that they do not necessarily represent the official policy of the organisation that they work for.

5.8 The number of interviews undertaken is viewed to be satisfactory and consistent with similar GTAAs completed by ORS.

Fareham

Accommodation Need

5.9 There are four private sites in Fareham with a total of 11 permitted pitches.

5.10 The last GTAA in 2013 was a joint study that indicated a need for extra pitches and sites on a regional scale. Local authorities met to discuss where the sites would be best located.

5.11 Although all the sites in Fareham are believed to be full, there are no known issues or overcrowding, as confirmed by the biannual Gypsy and Traveller count. The sites are considered to be successful.

5.12 The Council aims to identify the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers and to identify sites to meet the need for the next 20 years whilst being careful not to discriminate against those looking to go into housing. The local authority aims to have the current local plan submitted for examination in 2018. The existing Gypsy and Traveller policies can be found in the Core Strategy (2011) and The Development Sites and Policies Plan (2015). The Development Sites and Policies Plan allocates extra pitches on two existing sites for Gypsies and Travellers in the Borough. Both sites now have permanent permission for four and five pitches.

5.13 Officers interviewed for the current study were not aware of any provision currently for Travelling Showpeople.

Travellers living in Bricks and Mortar

5.14 Officers interviewed had knowledge of one Gypsy and Traveller household living in bricks and mortar. This household was interviewed as part of the GTAA.

Short-term Roadside Encampments and Transit Provision

5.15 As of August, in 2016 there had been nine incursions – one in February and eight between mid-April and mid-August. The last one had up to 25 caravans plus associated vehicles over seven weeks. The Council was applying the legal process but when the group began fly tipping and becoming unruly the police became involved.

5.16 Gypsies and Travellers travel in the summer for work – tree surgery, paving etc. This can lead to unauthorised encampments on public land. In addition, a number of encampments occur during the time of the nearby annual Wickham Horse Fair in May. There is currently no temporary provision for people attending this fair. An Officer in the Council believes that Gypsies and Travellers return to bricks and mortar in the winter and that having more permanent sites would not influence the number of unauthorised encampments.

5.17 The Locks Heath Recreation Ground and Fareham Leisure Centre are favoured areas for unauthorised camps; being within the urban area, close to A-Roads and with easy access in spite of the gates being locked.

5.18 Officers were unsure about whether to have transit provision in Fareham acknowledging that it is a difficult issue politically and they raised questions over design, size, facilities and ongoing maintenance. In any case any such site, they believed, should only accommodate travellers for up to a week.

5.19 This officer believes that installing better defences against incursions should be a priority for the Council and also would also like to see local authority powers amended at national level to make eviction an easier process.

Cross-border Issues and the Duty to Cooperate

5.20 The commissioning of a joint GTAA is in itself evidence of working with neighbouring authorities.

5.21 Fareham works with other authorities, particularly in the south of the county informing and frequently updating on the location of travellers. They also have a monthly teleconference call organised by the police which is considered to be useful.

5.22 In addition, PUSH (Partnership for Urban South Hampshire) is a working group for local authorities to come together on housing issues. PUSH produces their own evidence base which aims to address the strategic issues in the sub-region. Planning officers of member authorities meet regularly to discuss strategic issues and satisfy the requirements of duty to cooperate.

5.23 The Council also works very closely with the Police on matters of unauthorised encampments.

Gosport

Accommodation Need

5.24 There is currently one site in Gosport with an allowance for three pitches which was recommended in the last GTAA.

5.25 Gosport has developed a policy in the latest local plan for Gypsies and Travellers and will take information from this study forward into recommendations. The development criteria within the policy provide a robust means of assessing any need arising from this study (part of LP26).

5.26 The last GTAA did not identify a need for a site for Travelling Showpeople in the area.

Short-term Roadside Encampments and Transit Provision

5.27 In May 2016 there were some short-term encampments in relation to Wickham Fair: three were on public land with insufficient barriers and, therefore, easy to access. This has also happened on previous years but is considered to be nothing compared to the problem in other local authority areas.

5.28 As Gosport is on a peninsula and not on the main traveller route through Hampshire there is not a high level of unauthorised encampments and therefore there is no need for a transit site.

Cross-border Issues and the Duty to Cooperate

5.29 We tend to work quite collaboratively in Hampshire on this issue. Collaborative working extends beyond the consortium for this study and depends on where authorities are in terms of their planning policy work. It works well and meets the duty to cooperate and is a good example of local authorities working together on cross boundary issues. Aside from the working group for the current study, there is the joint authorities Gypsies and Travellers Panel for members and officers and this meets periodically (e.g. at publication of last Assessment – to take on new evidence and policy direction). Also, the Hampshire Local Government Association works across the board at all different levels in local government and has working groups involving members and officers.

5.30 The Officer believes that neighbouring local authorities are meeting their own needs in relation to Gypsies and Travellers.

Havant

Accommodation Need

5.31 There are no permanent sites in the Borough and no need identified in the last GTAA. In the core strategy Havant has a policy to meet the needs as identified in the GTAA, or consider speculative proposals.

5.32 Havant received a planning application for a private site for two permanent units, amenity blocks and space for two tourers which was refused by planning on policy grounds and are awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The site is currently occupied on an unauthorised basis and a new planning application has been submitted for a single pitch.

Short-term Roadside Encampments and Transit Provision

5.33 There were considerable problems ten years ago with illegal encampments in Havant particularly Irish Travellers during the Easter holidays on the Coastal Park, which incurred bills in excess of £20k for clean-up. An enforcement team was established who reduced the time to evict from four or five weeks to one week. They also had costs served on travellers by the bailiffs for fly tipping and defended the sites effectively against incursions, all of which resulted in the present situation where very few travelling gypsies and travellers go to Havant.

5.34 Over the last two years there have been occasional encampments mainly for work. However:

One group likes to go to Europe to Disneyland Paris and Park Asterix – they’ll go to Hayling Island and one of my colleagues will serve the papers on them and that’s about it.

5.35 On the issue of whether there should be more transit provision in the area, a number of points were raised:

• Political objections
• Management – unlikely that Havant would want to run a site from council funds. Are there any models of private management which would not cost the taxpayer?
• Travellers tendency to treat such sites as their own and preventing use by others
• Travellers unwilling to pay for sites.

Cross-border Issues and the Duty to Cooperate

5.36 The local constabulary run Operation Quebec for all Hampshire local authorities in which they proactively apply Section 61 of the Act to move on unauthorised encampments so long as certain points are met including: more than six vehicles; some form of damage incurred by travellers to access the site or causing distress to the site owner or their representatives. This means that Hampshire is on a level with Surrey Police in terms of GTAA enforcement. It allows information sharing and sharing of best practice between local authorities via teleconference meetings.

5.37 Havant also has a shared management team with East Hampshire on enforcement.

5.38 An officer in Havant shares information on traveller movements with an officer in neighbouring Portsmouth City.

5.39 There is joint working in other planning areas generally – other policy teams including development plans group and planning research liaison group, for instance.

New Forest District (outside of the NFNP)

Accommodation Need

5.40 Existing permanent provision in the district outside of the National Park is as follows: sites with 20, four, three (x2), two (x2), and one (x3) pitches – 37 pitches in all. The largest is a former Hampshire County Council site (now known as Marchwood Park) and the others are authorised private sites.

5.41 Since the last GTAA was published in 2013, land has been allocated in the Local Plan Part 2 (2014) to expand Little Testwood privately owned caravan site (currently with two pitches) to provide both residential and additional (to existing) transit pitches (Policy TOT10). This has not as yet been implemented.

5.42 There are also currently three sites for Travelling Show People; one with four pitches and the other two with two pitches (10 pitches in all). Two of these sites are unauthorised private sites with established use rights and one is an authorised private site.

5.43 New Forest District has the only authorised transit site in Dorset and South Hampshire (23 pitches).

5.44 Officers believe there is no obvious evidence of deficit although another stakeholder believes that provision will never be sufficient owing to new household formation.

5.45 Officers raised the issue of whether residential caravan parks could be used as accommodation for settled travellers.

5.46 The Marchwood Park site is fully occupied and well maintained by the owners. However, according to one interviewee, it was a mistake to privatise this site and the other former Council site in the New Forest District Council area because they are being run by individual families to the exclusion of other gypsies and travellers. Furthermore, by selling the sites and not leasing them it is considered that there is no way back to Council ownership for these sites.

Cross-border Issues and the Duty to Cooperate

5.47 South Hampshire / Hampshire joint working on needs assessments is an example of cross border cooperation. However, Officers felt there could be better liaison across the county boundary. They are aware of work being done in Dorset through membership of the Dorset Strategic Planning Policy Managers Forum.

New Forest National Park

Accommodation Need

5.48 There are currently two small private sites and one Travelling Showpeople yard with permission for a maximum of 12 caravans. The National Park Authority is aware that this yard is overcrowded. There is also 1 unauthorised site that is the subject of an ongoing planning appeal.

5.49 The two private sites for Gypsies are in Wiltshire - the northern part of the National Park. One of these sites was recently made permanent. The Officer interviewed was not aware of any overcrowding on the Gypsy sites.

5.50 Since the last GTAA was published in 2013, the Officer interviewed admits that the National Park has done little because the GTAA did not fit well with the timing of the review of their planning policies (currently underway). They became involved, however, in the joint Hampshire update to inform the latest policy review.

5.51 The background is that they had an adopted core strategy and planned for a subsequent planning document that would look at provision for Gypsies and Travellers, but due to the changes in the planning system, they decided on just one review of the local plan and to wrap everything up in the one document; so that is within this review.

5.52 The current need was two, due to some sites only having temporary permission, and a future need of two sites. One has been granted a further (personal) permission.

5.53 A planning application was submitted recently by a dependent of the family living on the current Showperson site but it was refused on landscape grounds.

5.54 The Officer is uncertain whether the current accommodation is sufficient or whether local Gypsies would prefer to find their own site. The situation is complicated because they are not a housing authority and question how appropriate it is to have those housing needs addressed within the park; how much those travellers need to be in the park and their relationship with the national park itself as opposed to just over the boundary in Wiltshire or New Forest District.

Bricks and Mortar Contacts

5.55 Historically, there has been quite a big settled community at Thorney Hill, near Bransgore arising from a settlement policy during the 1950s. The Officer did not know specific families.

Short-term Roadside Encampments and Transit Provision

5.56 Calshot, on the coast, has witnessed multiple incidents of unauthorised encampments in a carpark, mostly by Gypsies visiting family.

Cross-border Issues and the Duty to Cooperate

5.57 As the two Gypsy sites are in the Wiltshire area of the National Park there has been some liaison with Wiltshire. Some confusion has arisen in the past over which authority deals with planning needs although this has improved in recent years through joint working and liaison.

5.58 The caravan count was an issue because it is undertaken by the local authority, meaning that the number in the Park was included within Wiltshire’s figures. There was, therefore, some confusion because the same sites were counted twice, between the two authorities. This has now been resolved with Wiltshire removing the figures within the National Park from their count.

5.59 The National Park works closely with New Forest District Council, who is their immediate neighbour on a large portion of the national park’s boundaries. They work together on a variety of different issues, including looking at broad housing needs. The National Park has good working relationships with all of its neighbouring authorities and believes that this is essential for considering transit sites and understanding the flow of travellers throughout the larger area. Joint-working is worth it just to understand those relationships better.

5.60 The officer interviewed was aware of individual planning applications in the adjacent authorities that have been permitted, which is evidence of them actively addressing the needs in their areas.

Test Valley

Accommodation Need

5.61 There are currently 12 private sites all with permanent planning permission for one pitch. There is one site that has temporary planning permission (which expires in July 2017), two sites that are tolerated for planning purposes, and 2 unauthorised sites. In addition an application has been received for one further Romany Traveller pitch and associated development and this is pending consideration.

5.62 There are five yards that have permanent planning permission for Travelling Showpeople in Test Valley comprising 20 pitches collectively. Travelling Showpeople families living at Forest Edge Park, Gardeners Lane and Wellow have expressed a strong desire to develop land (within their control) adjacent to Forest Edge Park and have submitted several planning applications which have been refused or withdrawn. The existing yard is at full capacity and the families would like to expand the yard. The Council proposed to allocate three additional plots within their draft Regulation 18 Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (2015).

5.63 The Council is not aware of any overcrowding or concealed households amongst the Gypsy community.

5.64 The Council has received recent planning applications for Gypsy sites which have been refused.

5.65 Since the Forest Bus GTAA was published in 2013, Test Valley has permitted four private Gypsy and Traveller sites (each site containing one pitch) which has met the short term need requirement between the period 2012 – 2017 (4 pitches) as identified through the GTAA.

5.66 The Council is preparing a Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (DPD) to meet the medium and long term need requirement and undertook public consultation on the draft DPD between February and March 2015. Since consultation, the Council is updating the evidence base (ORS GTTAA study) in order to prepare a robust and sound DPD that meets the requirements contained in the amended Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

Bricks and Mortar

5.67 There has been no recent increase in Gypsies and Travellers seeking bricks and mortar accommodation. Most travelling families do not look to the Council to provide them with accommodation and there are very few Gypsy and Traveller families on the Council’s housing register. However, data held on the housing register for these communities is limited. Although data on ethnicity is collected, it is not a compulsory requirement to provide this data when registering. From a register of around 1,900 households registered in Test Valley, there were only two households that identified themselves as Gypsies or Travellers¹⁴.

5.68 Within the last five years there have been no enquiries received from Travelling Showpeople for bricks and mortar accommodation. Since 2011, 15 Gypsy or Traveller households have been housed in bricks and mortar in Test Valley.

5.69 Test Valley is strongly committed to enable local people to live in their villages. The allocation process follows so that if a family has traditional Gypsy or Traveller roots in a particular area, their preference would be honoured according to locality.

¹⁴ These households on the register and housed were contacted by Test Valley to be interviewed for this study by ORS.

Short-term Roadside Encampments and Transit Provision

5.70 Test Valley has no public or private Transit Sites or Emergency Stopping places. The general approach is to move people on. An Officer stated that there is a need to prioritise unauthorised encampments and have a clear understanding of the transit provision that is required. Officers believe that having a transit site would help to manage the whole process by providing appropriate facilities and offering the certainty over where travellers can stop legally. They are aware of the private and public models operating elsewhere and would look for a model to suit the Council.

5.71 There are on average said to be five unauthorised encampments per year by Gypsies and New Age Travellers and these mainly occur in and around Andover (on highway verges, car parks and industrial units) and along the A303 corridor. Reasons are for travelling across the boundary, with the A303 providing a key link between Basingstoke, Andover and Salisbury. New Age Travellers stop around Andover on their route to and from Stonehenge for Solstice.

5.72 Roadside encampments also occur in the south of the Borough around Nursling and Ronwhams, Romsey and Timsbury, Wellow and Sherfield English areas and tend to be as a result of employment opportunities and fun fairs/steam fairs. There is also a strong Gypsy community in Wellow / Sherfield English area so it is likely that unauthorised encampments in these areas are as a result of visiting families and also moving on to Wiltshire.

5.73 This issue is considered not to arise from a shortage of permanent sites but rather from a lack of available transit sites in Test Valley and the rest of the County.

Cross-border Issues and the Duty to Cooperate

5.74 Test Valley is the commissioning authority for this joint GTAA as part of the Council’s commitment to its duty to cooperate.

5.75 The Council has not been asked to help meet the need in neighbouring areas and does not believe that unauthorised encampments in Test Valley arise from a shortage of permanent sites in neighbouring areas.

5.76 Test Valley has attended duty to cooperate discussions with Wiltshire Council and Dorset regarding Transit Sites and Emergency Stopping Places.

5.77 It was noted that some authorities (Eastleigh and Basingstoke for instance) had opted to carry out their own independent GTAAs. A Test Valley officer advocated a forum for all Hampshire authorities for Officers to meet once or twice a year to discuss key issues / provision and sharing of best practice.

5.78 With regard to unauthorised encampments, the issue has been in discussion for some time and always centres around which authorities are going to have the sites in their areas.

Winchester

Accommodation Need

5.79 There is a mix of authorised, unauthorised, temporary and sites with action being taken against them in Winchester. There are about 30 main sites and no public sites. There used to be a public site with 18 pitches (Tynefield) but it was transferred to private ownership. The rest of the sites are smaller family plots and pitches and the majority are inhabited by Gypsies with some Travelling Showpeople. Although there are Gypsies and Travellers all over the district, the main concentration is in the south which is a horticultural area and a traditional workplace for Gypsies and Travellers. Some families travel between neighbouring districts, particularly Eastleigh, Fareham and Havant to visit family. The south is also closer to travelling routes on the south coast.

5.80 The Tynefield site has 10 or 11 pitches which are currently unlettable and undergoing improvements. People have been allocated to the pitches and awaiting completion of the refurbishment on them. According to one interviewee, it was a mistake to privatise this site and the other former Council site in Winchester because they are being run by individual families to the exclusion of other Gypsies and Travellers. Furthermore, by selling the sites and not leasing them there is no way back for these sites to council ownership.

5.81 The main issue is the lack of sites and that the local authority is not meeting the need of its Gypsy/Traveller population. Winchester City Council knows there is demand but is unable to offer available sites. The team has taken a step back from enforcement action since in the past they have had to withdraw the notices. This is because planning inspectors have granted permissions on nearby sites for reasons of no supply and have not applied temporary restrictions either as there is no prospect of other sites.

5.82 Landowners do not generally want to sell because Gypsies negotiate hard on price. There was also no support for the Council from landowners when it was seeking sites and there was a belief that landowners are holding out for a better deal through the housing allocations process.

5.83 Winchester City Council currently has more unauthorised developments of settled people throughout the area ‘than it can cope with’. Some developments are well established and have temporary planning permissions but the Council will not commit to granting permanent provision until the plan and allocations are in place. However, it is likely that those with temporary permissions will remain in spite of political pressures and complaints from local residents.

5.84 Some of the sites are considered to be suitable although inspectors have granted temporary permissions (because of the personal circumstances of the applicants) to a couple of sites that are not suitable for the long term owing to poor access or positioning. A couple of years ago a possible site was identified for allocation but a change in landowner meant that it had to be dropped, and that was the only site available.

5.85 Renewing temporary permissions, as the Council is doing, is not supposed to happen and is not helping the public or the Gypsies who are trying to settle down and in a lot of cases, have young children in school and want to know that they will be able to see their education through.

5.86 The issue is debated every three years and causes conflict. It incurs costs for the Gypsies in making new applications and acquiring statements to support those applications. The public then make their objections; believe they will get people moved and then become dissatisfied when the decision ignores their objections. Many of the sites have been occupied for 12 or more years and it is likely they will remain. Once these have been allocated the Council will know the shortfall.

5.87 One of the Travelling Showpeople yards (Carousel Park) is believed to be primarily occupied by Gypsies and Travellers and not by Travelling Showpeople. The yard is currently overcrowded with 57 caravans, the newer plots being particularly overcrowded with caravans side by side and not meeting any of the health and safety requirements for spacing. The plots are not laid out like Gypsy and Traveller sites (with space for a static, a tourer, and a dayroom). Enforcement action is underway and a public enquiry is scheduled for June 2017.

5.88 The Traveller population is currently considered to be static but although they stay within Winchester, families move between sites, possibly owing to disputes. The population of migrant workers comprises long-standing families, for the most part, where demand is increasing because of the aging population.

5.89 The last GTAA results showed a need for Gypsies and Travellers, but it was produced too late to be used in the Core Strategy. It was then going to be placed in the Site Allocation Policy in the Local Plan, but again it was produced too late due to allocation site delays.

5.90 The results of the pitch need from the new GTAA will immediately go into the Local Plan Part 2 for the pitch targets and then separately used in the Development Plan Document for allocating sites. Identifying need is identified as the main priority for the Council

5.91 The Council is already prepared with potential sites, such as authorising unauthorised sites, extending current sites and use of small parcels of County Council land. They do not expect a great change in need from the last GTAA.

Short-term Roadside Encampments and Transit Provision

5.92 These are not considered to be a problem in Winchester as there are relatively few of them.

Cross-border Issues and the Duty to Cooperate

5.93 The South Downs National Park (SDNP) includes part of Winchester City Council and its draft Local Plan seeks tighter control over Gypsies and Travellers than Winchester City Council, for reasons of protecting the landscape. A couple of sites are currently under investigation in the South Downs and the Council is aware that some, if not all, of the people have moved to sites in Winchester.

5.94 The Council has a link Officer that visits and keeps the Park informed and Winchester Officers are also Officers for SDNP. The Park is relatively new and is yet to have its planning policies properly adopted. It currently has a Joint Core Strategy which sets out the general principles and is devising development management policies, which are focussed on dealing with applications. An Officer at Winchester Council believes that working with the Park will be confusing since it seems there will be different policies in different parts of the Park.

5.95 Winchester has a good relationship with all neighbouring local authorities particularly through planning. Aside from cooperating with other local authorities for this GTAA it keeps other local authorities informed of progress on the local plan and cooperates on employment, housing and health issues via regular meetings. The benefits of a GTAA completed jointly are the knowledge that there is a consistent approach in the local authorities and there is no double counting of Gypsies and Travellers to get incorrectly allocated.

5.96 When tested through the Local Plan, Winchester was found to meet the duty to cooperate, which the new GTAA will also help to demonstrate. Neighbouring local authorities also meet the duty to cooperate.

5.97 The South East Plan had a partial review by Hampshire-appointed consultants on a Hampshire wide basis.

5.98 Winchester has many sites and a positive approach towards Gypsies and Travellers. According to surveys it appears that some of the neighbouring authorities have relatively low provision, but they have no evidence to support this view.

Hampshire County Council

Accommodation Need

5.99 Since the last GTAA was published in 2013, there have been no new local authority or Travelling Showpeople sites in the County but there have been a number of private permissions particularly in Fareham and Test Valley and outside the consortium area in Hart and East Hampshire. These areas are considered to be traditional for Gypsies and Travellers over many years. Planning applications have also been received from Irish Travellers who have no local connections within the consortium area.

5.100 A need is considered to exist throughout Hampshire because whichever unauthorised encampment you go to there is always the question, ’is there a bit of land we can settle on?’

5.101 Quantifying the exact accommodation need is considered to be difficult although the County Officer interviewed believes that there are insufficient pitches in the County and frequently speaks to travellers who own land and they are applying for planning permission to install their own mobile homes for permanent occupation. The Officer also believes that if there were more transit sites, there would be more travellers on them who want permanent provision.

5.102 Permanent sites could be managed by the residents with a local authority mortgage to maintain some financial commitment. Although management needs to be tight, travellers who have ‘ownership’ normally keep their sites well maintained.

Bricks and Mortar

5.103 As Gypsies and Travellers get older, there is a tendency to seek bricks and mortar accommodation.

Short-term Roadside Encampments and Transit Provision

5.104 No transit provision has been developed and this is considered to be the main need in the County; local authorities should be proactive and get together to agree on two or three transit sites. This would avoid the honeypot effect arising from a single transit site. Unfortunately plans to deal with this issue never ‘get off the drawing board’. The nearest public transit site was in Salisbury but it has been closed for three years and is unlikely to reopen. There is another public transit site in West Sussex. There is also a private transit site located in Crondall to the north of Hampshire (in Hart DC).

5.105 Many encampments occur on Hampshire County land and leads to enforcement action by the County Council, sometimes working with the police under Operation Quebec (which is considered to be used to good effect).

5.106 The number of caravans involved on individual sites is considered to be relatively few: the largest group this year, for example, being under 20 – normally there are up to six caravans in a group¹⁵.

5.107 Easter to October is the main season for travel; main reasons being work and families getting away on ‘traditional’ trips. An estimated 75-80% is not looking for a permanent base, whereas the rest are looking to settle down in the area. The ideal size of site for transit provision would be up to ten pitches but no fewer than six. The site in Salisbury with 12 pitches was rarely full. A minimum of two transit sites is suggested in the South (M27) and two in the North (A303/M3) to cover the main arterial routes to Dorset and West Sussex, Surrey and the Thames Valley. This same provision was advocated in the 2005 GTAA.

5.108 Transit sites could be managed jointly by a group of local authorities.

¹⁵ The County Council has provided figures to ORS.

Cross-border Issues and the Duty to Cooperate

5.109 The County works little with officers in neighbouring Counties; the main liaison being with Hampshire local authorities and encouraging them to work together and also with other Gypsy Liaison Officers in Hampshire (one in Havant and one in Basingstoke).

Neighbouring Local Authorities

5.110 The outcomes from the interviews with stakeholder in neighbouring local authorities can be found in Appendix F.

Hampshire Consortium GTAA – May 2017

Page 52

6. Survey of Travelling Communities

Interviews with Gypsies and Travellers