PPTS- DCLG United Kingdom

ESSAY

Critically assessing the changes between the 2012 and 2015 DCLG Planning Policy for Traveller Sites

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) issued a document along with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the year 2012, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) which described government’s planning policies for gypsies and traveller sites. The document incorporated the set of rules and conditions which were supposed to be considered by both, gypsies and Local Planning Authorities (LPA). It was even comprised of the definition of “Gypsy”, explaining the circumstances of being and to be considered as “Gypsy” by the government.

Further in 2015, a new version of PPTS was released by DCLG with some notable amendments. The utmost change was the revised definition of “Gypsy”. In the 2012 version, the interpretation of being a “gypsy” was the one who possesses a “nomadic habit of life” and also, the one who has “ceased to travel temporarily or permanently” will be considered as “gypsy”. So previously, those who had given up travelling permanently for reasons of health, education or old age were required to be treated like those who continue to travel. Whereas in the amended version of 2015 there is a change in the latter part, the person will be considered as gypsy only if he has “ceased to travel temporarily”. The word “permanently” was removed from the definition, with an explanation that gypsies are related with “nomadic life” and the one who has

given up travelling permanently will be considered no different from the settled population and will abide by the planning laws accordingly.

The second major amendment was regarding protecting sensitive areas and the Green Belt. The amended document also restricts the circumstances in which temporary permission for Gypsy sites was to be given in the green belt. Under Policy H, paragraph 27, there is an update, that with a lack of an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable traveller sites from the side of LPA, it will not be a “significant material consideration” in planning decisions involving the grant of temporary planning permission in sensitive areas, such as land designated as Green Belt; “sites protected under the Birds and Habitat Directives and/or sites designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), or within a National Park (or the Boards).”

Third notable change in the 2015 document was again in the Policy H, paragraph 25, which states that councils should “very strictly limit” new traveller sites in open countryside. It adds the word “very” to the paragraph 23 of the previous policy.

Therefore, it reads as “Local planning authorities should very strictly limit new traveller site development open countryside”.

In 2014, a proposal was put up by DCLG for the amendments in the already existing PPTS so as to secure both gypsies and the members of the settled community and to bring “fairness” in the planning system. A “Consultation” was hence released in September 2014 so as to seek views on the proposed changes. The “Consultation” response form was even submitted by Mr. Richard Blyth, Head of Policy, Practise & Research, RTPI. He, in his response form, has clearly opposed the proposed

amendments and has also provided viable reasons the same. The views stated were not his personal rather it was an organisational response.

Apparently, the amendments made in 2015 are deliberately restrictive in nature. The proposals might increase unauthorised traveller sites, which rather is the main issue of concern for the LPAs. Restricting the gypsies from “open countryside” or green belt areas might result in either of the situations, unauthorised caravan sites or concern for LPA to help them relocate within the settlement boundaries. “Open countryside” is not accurately defined in the document, also, it may vary between plans. By this amendment government seems to restrict traveller sites even from the not-so intrinsic landscape area by stating “open countryside”. It would have been better if the constraints were more specified and on landscape areas worthy of strong protection. The applications for caravan sites should be treated as any other development activity. There is a difference between permanent settlements and caravan sites, as per their tendency, they occupy the area for short term and they move on and thus have less of an impact.

PPTS, 2015 came up with a new definition of Gypsies and Travellers in order to reduce their count and minimize their eligibility to live on or develop traveller sites.

There is no viable definition of “permanently” ceasing travelling. There can be various reasons, old age, education, a woman who has dependent members in the family because of which she “permanently” stopped travelling. Also, there is no defining time period to explain “temporary” ceased travelling. The LPA is laid with an extra responsibility to prove that travelling has ceased “permanently” without any decisive figures to determine both the cases. This may result in problems in fair enforcement.

Government’s effort to provide “fairness� in the planning policy and to reduce the numbers of unauthorised caravan sites seems contradictory. The more rules and restrictions are imposed, the more possibility of breaking off the rules and chances of revolt increases. Dale Farm was one definitive example of revolt and forced eviction which was a result of many loopholes, be it the then government, planning policies or even local planning authorities because it did not emerge in a year, it took decades to become what it was.

Considering the current changes introduced in PPTS, it requires extra efforts from local planning authorities and put forward some procedural challenges. With such amendments, assessing the housing needs can be a solution to unauthorised caravan sites but certainly the assessments will need to be more robust and extensive.

REFRENCES



DCLG, 2012. Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. [pdf] Available at:

<https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/modules/2015/MOD003661/TRI2-A-1/Documents/Week %2012/PPTS%202012.pdf&AuthResend1908BC2350124b5095AB75012FA405BA> [Accessed 2 May 2016].



DCLG, 2014. Consultation: planning and travellers. [pdf] Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/355840/c

urrent_con_doc_in_publication_format_140917.pdf> [Accessed 2 May 2016]. 

DCLG, 2015. Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. [pdf] Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457420/F

inal_planning_and_travellers_policy.pdf> [Accessed 2 May 2016]. 

Planning Resources, 2014. Gypsy policy proposals prompt anger. [online] Available at:

<http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1312937/gypsy-policy-proposals-promptanger> [Accessed 3 May 2016]. 

Planning Resources, 2015. New policy document tightens Gypsy and traveller planning rules. [online] Available at: <http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1362229/new-

policy-document-tightens-gypsy-traveller-planning-rules> [Accessed 2 May 2016]. 

RTPI, 2014. Response Form: Consultation: planning and travellers. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1164159/dclg_planning___travellers_nov_2014.pdf > [Accessed 2 May 2016].



The Traveller Movement, 2014. Traveller Movement submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government consultation on planning for Traveller sites. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.travellermovement.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/TM-

response-to-DCLG-Traveller-sites-consultation-November-2014.pdf > [Accessed 3 May 2016].