Travellers and Planning
Philosophy, Purpose and Function of Planning
Philosophy, Purpose and Function of Planning
Planning operates within a democratic system within the UK. Democracy, to quote Bagehot, involves the dominance of the majority but taking into account the needs of the minority. It is central to the concept of democracy that minority interests are catered for and that a notion of equity underlies the system.
Planning effectively undertakes many functions. This includes promoting industrial and economic development and as such, has profound effects on individuals removed from the planning process and who consequently have little impact on it.
From the point of view of Travellers, the planning process and system represents a very large obstacle to the fulfillment of their basic needs – i.e., a secure place to live which provides for basic accommodation consistent with their ethnic or cultural needs. Planning does not enable- it hinders this group of people in attaining the most basic of human needs.
Certainly, planning should secure sustainable and equitable development. For Travellers this should mean a reasonable chance of gaining planning permission, at least as reasonable as the rest of the population, and also ensuring that there is a continuing supply of places for a population which does experience a certain amount of growth. Without this, it is difficult to see how a nomadic habit of life can continue in the UK or certainly one which remains within the law. A combination of inadequacy of accommodation for caravans due to the difficulty in getting planning permission, allied with continual eviction, has forced many Travellers to move into housing. This process has not been entirely beneficial. It can lead to loss of identity and all that runs from it. Suicide, something almost unknown amongst traditional Travellers, has been reported amongst housed Travellers. In the view of the author, effectively forced settlement in housing due to pressures from local authorities and police in the absence of legal sites, more often than not damages the individuals and families concerned. Reports from the Dept. of the Environment (a housing survey of Travellers carried out in 1985) and also verbal comments from local authority officials, suggests that this housing process is often ineffective with up to 50 per cent of Traveller families preferring to return to the insecurities of the road within a few years of being housed.
The problem with a ’shared vision of the future’, is that too often this sort of idea can effectively lead to a vision of the dominant majority and will eventually lead to the exclusion of minorities like Travellers who have a very different vision for themselves. The question is thus how can the planning system enable all people to have at least some reasonable hope of attaining their basic needs. Essentially, planning works in a conflictual atmosphere - there are competing claims and needs which the planning process has to arbitrate in a fair and just way. The problems experienced by minority groups and the socially excluded in making their voice heard and becoming self-enabled applies to all aspects of democracy and not just to planning. Local Agenda 21 should, if applied properly, lead to an improvement in the situation, calling as it does for the search for solutions to poverty and landlessness. However in the author’s experience (having sat in on a number of Local Agenda 21 fora organised at District Council level), Agenda 21 has been effectively hijacked by environmentally concerned middle classes who have little experience of or interest in the needs of the poorest and most socially excluded groups within our society. Again the problem with expecting planning to define the social and economic limits within which various groups in society live is that the process is controlled and run by a group of professionals and interest groups which reflect a narrow view.
The question is thus; if the function of the planning system is to achieve a shared vision, how do the marginalised influence this vision in a way which will benefit them? The experience so far is not encouraging. Marginalised groups can appear be difficult to deal with. The issues are complex and frequently not well articulated and by default, a ‘tidying away’ operation tends to be invoked which apparently solves the problem from the point of view of the professionals but in the end does little to solve the problems of those which the action was intended to address. Unless mechanisms can be put in place and funded adequately from the Travellers viewpoint, it may be that a prediction and providing mechanism provides the best route for the future. At least the boundaries of the process are drawn clearly and there is some limited opportunity to influence decision making. Reference should be made here to the recent Act of the Eorochtas in the Republic of Ireland whereby each local authority has the duty to provide for a five-year plan to meet Travellers’ accommodation needs. Furthermore, in order to help circumvent prejudice, county managers (chief executives) have delegated powers in this respect and can go over the heads of the democratically elected members in matters of Traveller provision. This law effectively recognises that unless there is central government direction in this matter then local obfuscation and prejudice can mean that no progress in this pressing issue can be made. It effectively recognises that the issues of prejudice are too deep seated to be mainstreamed within the normal planning process.
Hence, although it would be ideal to have a holistic shared vision approach, the reality is that without central direction which has legal teeth, little progress is likely to be made in this regard. Therefore exceptions will continue to be required, perhaps whilst working towards a holistic vision.
An example of the failure of mainstreaming of Gypsy sites policy can be seen in the many Gypsy sites policies which have been developed by local authorities since the advent of Circular 1/94. The circular effectively requires that local authorities have policies and research by ACERT (A Directory of planning policies for Gypsy site provision in England Mark Wilson, The Policy press 1998) points to problems with the intended mainstreaming of Gypsy site provision within the planning system. In particular the research points out that criteria based policies are overwhelmingly used. Such policies have on average 5 criteria and only 35% of criteria based policies have a presumption of planning permission if criteria are met. The others say that permission may be granted or that the authority will take account of the criteria. The report also said that the proportion of all authorities which have unambiguous, adopted, criteria based policies is very small, which means there is very little certainty for the Gypsy population. Only 19% of local authorities can be said to provide any sort of certainty for the Gypsy population. Certainly the author’s own experience in dealing with planning applications, appeals and planning policy suggests that most criteria based policies are capable of being interpreted in such a way that almost any piece of land within a district can be excluded from the possibility of use as a Gypsy site. The ACERT research points out that the year on year percentage increase in the number of private authorised caravans for 1996 was 2.8%, the second lowest in 10 years. It also states that the success rate for appeals has dropped from a high point of 55% in 1985 to 25% currently.
The central focus of planning on land use undoubtedly mitigates against the success of Traveller applications. At the local authority stage in the author’s experience little attention is paid by either planning officers or members (with of course rare notable exceptions) to the social needs of applicants. Land use is always used as a reason for refusal. Yet on appeal in the same cases inspectors often find for the appellant on the basis of human, social and personal need which is held to outweigh land use factors. It seems as if local authority decision-makers are afraid of taking the same sort of view as that taken by the Inspectorate. It has been privately conveyed to the author by planning officers that a refusal is resorted to because of public opposition that would be generated by a favourable decision. This could impact on local politicians’ standing and that the view is taken that a favourable decision is too ‘hot’ locally and best left to the Inspectorate to make. Hence, with some notable exceptions, local authority decision-makers seem to take the easy course and leave positive decisions to inspectors who are more distant from the local political scene. This condemns a socially marginalised group to have to have recourse to the expensive, complex and traumatic appeals procedure. Certainly an emphasis of planning on social issues might enable Travellers to be more successful in planning applications at the local authority stage. Human needs should be at the centre of planning, balanced of course by other considerations such as land use.
This applies in other areas of planning other than that which concerns Travellers. The social and economic changes that have occurred in rural areas, particularly in southern England, have impacted strongly on the local social make up. The effect of restrictive planning policies has meant that indigenous inhabitants have been priced out of rural villages and hamlets and have had to move to towns and identified growth centres where cheaper accommodation is available. Planning has done little to mitigate the effects of the artificially created market in rural housing which planning practice has done much to create. In some villages there has been a complete change around in inhabitants within one generation. Attempts to mitigate the effects have occurred at a late stage in this process and schemes, such as planning exceptions for affordable housing in some villages, can be seen as too little, too late.
Planning should, in my view, be an enabling process that meets human need. In situations where needs clash then the planning system should adjudicate but giving strong emphasis to the needs of the most disadvantaged in society. Too often interest groups who are well organised, well heeled and articulate are more successful in presenting their case than disorganised, poor and illiterate people.
The challenge to the planning system is how to balance out differences in power of various groups in society. This challenge of course faces all aspects of administration and government.
There are of course limits to the scope and autonomy of planning. As the areas which planning impinges on have increased since 1947 so the power of the planning process has increasingly impinged on the lives of everyone. It would seem almost inevitable that as the pressure for development continue that planning will cover more and more areas. However, it is clear from the experience of Travellers that the planning process is not efficient at meeting the needs of small interest groups, unless of course they are powerful. An increase in the power of planning without reform of the system may increase the chances of large mistakes and of ignoring the needs of small and ‘inconvenient’ groups. Human beings and human behaviour is notoriously capricious and not amenable to planning - the failures of the centrally planned and directed economies of Eastern Europe show how inadequate an all powerful bureaucracy is in meeting human need. Hence planning should clearly put human need at the centre of it’s deliberations and aim to put in place mechanisms to meet those needs.
The Structures and Processes of Planning
For Travellers the planning process is distant and difficult to access. This is especially so in relation to the development of local plans. Unlike developers who are able to input considerable resources into development plans and unlike national conservation bodies, individual Travellers and Traveller organisations do not have and are unlikely to have the resources necessary to make representations to each development plan which might affect a handful of Travellers. FFT has inputted into a number of development plans but it is beyond the scope of this small organisation to input into the 300 or so local authorities. Thus, by default, the Travellers’ case is not put - simply because of the dispersed nature of the Travelling population and their extreme marginalisation. Hence, reliance has to be placed on using whatever support can be gained from central government to influence local authority policy development. In a situation where prejudice is involved, full local autonomy means that there is opportunity for unbridled prejudice to hold sway.
It seems to me that only by planners promoting a proactive process of participation will Travellers be able to fulfill their need for somewhere legal to stay. Indeed where this has been carried out, progress has been made in increasing the understanding by local authority officers, members and by Travellers themselves. It is worth mentioning the process carried out by South Somerset District Council in forming a Traveller review panel which included Traveller representation, along with officers, members, police, NGOs and farmer groups affected by unauthorised camping. The panel required a considerable input of officer time and led to the creation of a post for a Traveller community worker, part of whose job remit was to aid Travellers in the planning process. This sort of model of working has much to commend it in term of increasing the participation of marginalised groups in policy development.
It should also be noted that the panel’s remit covered other areas besides planning – for example housing, social welfare, employment and local authority powers of eviction. The experience of this and similar panels suggest that planning issues, vital as they may be for Travellers, cannot be considered on their own - only when the full range of issues are considered do the planning issues become clearer for the professional planning officers involved. However, it is clear that this sort of process must involve a considerable commitment by the local authority concerned and by NGOs and others. It is also clear from experience of other panels which have a more narrowly defined remit that they can become merely a device to ‘tidy the problem away’ and can do little to address the real problems and issues involved.
In this way planning can contribute to participatory democracy but when dealing with marginalised groups who have little faith or trust in the system there will need to be processes in place which help ensure a reasonable measure of participation. This will mean fundamental changes in the way local authorities function - they will need to be proactive and will have to identify target groups and find the funding/time to serve a new sort of process. Equally the danger of this process is that of token participation.
The available research on Traveller provision and the functioning of the planning system in relation to Traveller accommodation is limited whilst the statistical basis often used to assess need is, in the opinion of many experts, including FFT, grossly inadequate. As mentioned above, the only available national estimate of Traveller numbers is that of the bi-annual count of Gypsy caravans carried out by local authorities and reported to the DETR. To our best knowledge it is simply a count, although some local authorities do try to estimate numbers of families. The count, particularly of that unauthorised camping, doe not take into account new Travellers, many of whom qualify as gypsies in planning terms. It makes no account to try and identify the needs of the Travellers counted. To our certain knowledge, no estimate of those who have been moved into housing who might wish to return to living in caravans has been made. Despite frequent statements in the preambles to planning policies that need has been taken into account, there is no in depth analysis of need. This may relate to part of the reason for the failure of such policies to deliver the necessary permissions. There has been no detailed analysis of local authority policy - although ACERT (see above) has produced a directory of policies but without significant comment on the likely impact of these policies. FFT has carried out some of the only research on the results of planning applications and policies. However, FFT has been unable to attract funding to allow it to carry out a detailed assessment of the fate of planning applications at the local authority stage or to assess how the planning process is applied to such applications. Certainly, without well funded and carefully planned research, little progress can be made beyond decisions about the planning process and procedure based on anecdote.
Travellers probably, as a minority group, have more experience of enforcement action than any other group - this principally arises from the inability of the system to deal with their needs. Many private Traveller sites have been the subject of enforcement action and subsequent court action over very many years. This proves traumatic for the Travellers involved and expensive for local authorities – one series of enforcement and legal actions relating to one site are estimated to have cost a local authorities about £250,000. This is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs for all concerned. Given a vision that would encompass a reasonable chance of Travellers being accommodated in a satisfactory manner, a system of enforcement would be reasonable. The present situation is more than unsatisfactory with regular ineffective enforcement actions being undertaken because the Travellers involved have no reasonable prospect of finding anywhere else legal to stay. Too often in my experience enforcement action is often taken automatically by local authorities in response to an unauthorised residential occupation of land by Travellers. One case led to several high court actions, a marital breakdown and ultimate granting of planning permission on the second appeal. If, instead of taking an uncompromising attitude, the local authority in this (and other similar cases) might well have best served the public interest by working in creative ways with the Traveller family involved to find a way out of the impasse - an alternative site could have been found. Hence, facilitative approaches can prove to be the best route out of this sort of situation. Unfortunately there will, in my view, need to be a massive cultural change by many officers and members before an alternative to the regulation/enforcement approach as regards Travellers is reached.
In my view, planning cannot hope to guide the use of all land for the benefit of the community. The concept of a single community is grossly flawed. Society is made up of very many different interests and interest groups and cannot be said to consist of a monolithic group that can be call a community. The question is which community would benefit from this sort of approach? This sort of approach, based around communitarian ideas, could, in the presence of prejudice, lead to exclusion of certain unpopular groups. A replacement of communitarian ideals by ones based around human rights may well be worth considering especially from the point of view of the marginalised.
Planning and a Minority Group - the Travellers Experience
It is widely agreed that Travellers experience disproportionate difficulty when faced with gaining planning permission. In my view, this is due to the way the planning system operates, the extreme marginalisation of Travellers, prejudice against Travellers and official indifference to the position of this minority group.
Some research has been carried into the planning system as it relates to Travellers. A DOE (Dept. of the Environment) report in 1990 mentioned that the success rate of initial planning applications by Gypsies was about 10 per cent whilst 50 cases monitored in 1995 by FFT indicated a success rate for new applications (as opposed to changes of named persons) of 4 per cent. This appalling success rate means that, as a rule, Travellers have to have recourse to the appeal system, unlike the vast majority of the housed population. The success rate at appeal has fallen over the past number of years from 43.5% in 1990-91 to 37.5% in 1995-6 (Planning Inspectorate figures). An analysis of 107 appeals involving Gypsies and Travellers between late 1995 and mid 1997 was carried out by FFT (Planning Appeals and Gypsies and Travellers, FFT 1998) showed that the overall success rate at appeal was 34%.
However, half of the successful appeals were for limited periods (temporary permissions) and over half of all permissions were granted on the basis of personal need rather than because of the needs of this minority group as a whole. The fact that the majority of Travellers have to go through the appeals system to meet their basic needs calls into question the fairness of the planning system. Preparing a case for appeal calls on skills which few Travellers have (the illiteracy rate amongst traditional Travellers in particular mitigates dealing successfully with paperwork) and the costs are often very large. Many years of stress and strain are often involved - one group spent 12 years and many thousands of pounds before they managed to get planning permission. The effects on individuals of the stress of the planning process has led to marriage break up, depression based illness, despair and gross insecurity, impacting particularly on children. All of these effects have been personally witnessed by the author of this report over the past few years.
When viewed against the background level of success for all planning applications of some 80% (source PPG1), these figures are disturbing. Assuming that one of the functions of the planning system is to ensure that peoples basic needs (e.g., housing) are satisfied, it is clear that with a minimum of one third of Travellers having nowhere legal to stay, the planning system seems to have failed Travellers to a remarkable degree.
Certainly, in the experience of the author, most planning authorities seem willing and able to turn down almost every planning application from a Gypsy and Traveller. Prejudicial and racist statements are common from individual members of planning committees, whilst too often very little help is given to individual Travellers from planning officers, despite advice contained in Circular 1/94 that practical advice and assistance should be given by local authorities.
