ANNEX 1

Review of Gypsies and Travellers Site Provision within

Leeds

Scrutiny Inquiry Report

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – scrutiny.unit@.gov.uk

Evidence

Introduction current cycle of evictions of gypsies and travellers from 1. We were asked in September unauthorised sites within Leeds. 2010 by the Executive Board Member with portfolio 5. However, we undertook this responsibility for inquiry without knowledge of the Neighbourhoods and Housing Government’s intentions as to to undertake an inquiry to whether it will announce further review the Council’s policy powers to local authorities and concerning gypsies and the police in relation to travellers site provision within unauthorised encampments or Leeds. This will be the third issue guidance “in favour” of scrutiny inquiry the Council has gypsies and travellers. Any conducted. such announcement will need to be taken account of and could 2. Since the last Scrutiny Board affect the Council’s legal inquiry in 2004/05 there position and the continued to be a high number recommendations contained in of unauthorised encampments our report. within Leeds particularly during the summer months. Some of 6. We are very grateful to these encampments cause everyone who gave their time to considerable local difficulties participate in this inquiry and for both in terms of management their commitment in helping us and impact on local events, the to understand and review this environment and the community matter. as a whole. Scope of the Inquiry

3. At the same time the Council 7. At its meeting on13 th September and other agencies continue to 2010, the Board agreed to incur significant costs in what undertake an Inquiry into the are often cyclical evictions of Council’s policy on gypsies and gypsies and travellers from one travellers and to consider unauthorised encampment to • the Council’s approach to the next. tackling unauthorised encampments and the 4. We welcomed the opportunity to provision of permanent sites review the Council’s policy with for gypsies and travellers regard to gypsies and travellers within Leeds. site provision within Leeds and • whether provision is required have identified a number of and its likely effect upon positive proposals that if unauthorised encampments accepted could contribute • what criteria might be applied significantly to easing the in the event that a need is

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

identified for selecting a site between transient gypsies or sites. and travellers and those who remain within Leeds 8. We established a working group throughout the year. which met on several occasions • the need to determine a view and received evidence on the if authorised sites are proved • national and local position. to be more cost effective • legal framework. than undertaking continued • new Government initiatives enforcement action as to that are being proposed that whether a number of smaller may support or encourage permanent sites would be the Board to recommend a more appropriate than a particular course of action. single large site. • Council’s current policy on providing sites for gypsies and travellers. • extent and nature of unauthorised encampments in Leeds and the region. • relevant housing, planning and equality legislation. • social, economic and environmental impact of unauthorised and authorised encampments on local communities. • Council’s policy on tackling unauthorised encampments on its land.

• need to see how other

authorities and the region

deal with the issue of

unauthorised encampments.

• direct and indirect costs of

removing unauthorised

encampments of gypsies

and travellers within the city

compared with the full

capital and revenue costs of

providing a permanent site

or sites.

• need to identify whether a distinction can be made

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

Current Permanent Site authorities to consider and Provision for Gypsies and make reasonable provision of Travellers housing for the settled population. 9. We were advised that since the repeal of the Caravan Sites Act 13. We were advised that the last 1968 there is no duty on local assessment of the authorities to provide sites for accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers. gypsies and travellers was carried out in May 2008 with the 10. The Council has one site for publication of the West gypsies and travellers at Yorkshire Gypsy and Traveller Cottingley Springs which Accommodation Assessment provides 41 pitches. It is located (GTAA) . This report was in Farnley and Wortley Ward. commissioned by the West This site is full based on the Yorkshire Housing Partnership current configuration and and the work undertaken by the turnover is low with most Centre for Regional Economic families making their long-term and Social Research at home at the site. There is a Sheffield Hallam University. It waiting list. concluded that there was unmet housing need across the sub- 11. There are no negotiated region and that Leeds needed a stopping sites or transit sites in further 48 pitches for gypsies Leeds for gypsies and travellers and travellers. It was proposed who are passing through Leeds that these be made available and need to stay for a few days between 2008 and 2015. or overnight. They therefore choose to make unauthorised 14. Whilst this report was never encampments. adopted by this authority reference is made to it in the 12. We were informed that the Council’s Core Planning and Housing Act 2004 places a duty Housing Strategies and was a on local authorities to carry out useful starting point for an assessment of the discussion as to what the unmet accommodation needs of demand might currently be. gypsies and travellers, travelling show people and new age Unauthorised Encampments travellers and to make reasonable provision for these 15. We spent a considerable groups through the planning amount of time identifying the process. This duty is scale of the problem with regard commensurate with the to unauthorised encampments. obligation placed on local Unauthorised encampments are

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

defined as the encampment of caravans and/or other vehicles 18. We were advised that the on land without the landowner Council was not able to simply or occupier’s consent and eject travellers, their caravans constituting trespass. and other vehicles from Council Unauthorised encampments owned land. The Council, range from a couple of vehicles before any other considerations, to groups of caravans. was obliged to undertake welfare assessments to th 16. From April 2010 to 5 October understand better the housing, 2010 there have been 54 medical, educational and other encampments in Leeds. 42 of needs of the families involved. these have been on council owned Following this assessment the land and the remaining 12 on privately owned land. Appendix 1 Council must consider whether to this report lists in more detail to immediately evict, whether to the unauthorised encampments tolerate the encampment or part since April 2010 giving details of it and for how long, and on exact site and ward, and finally must consider whether an whether court action or police alternative site can be identified. action was used in order to In order to remove the gypsies remove the encampment. and travellers, the Council was required to apply for a court 17. The table below illustrates the order. number of encampments experienced within Leeds over 19. In some cases the gypsies and the past 5 years. travellers move on within a short period of time without the Year Public Private Total No Number of Council having obtained a court Encampments Caravans order. When court proceedings

09/10 39 33 72 (-54) 614 are taken it is normal for the gypsies and travellers to move Avg Days 12 24.78 to Resolve on as soon as a court order was

08/09 69 57 126 (+67) 1164 obtained. However in a number of cases where possession Avg Days 7.1 9.3 to Resolve proceedings had been

07/08 38 21 59 (+8) 360 instituted, they had sought to defend the claim as they were Avg Days 10.3 16.4 to Resolve legally entitled to do by citing 06/07 27 24 51 (+9) 370 public law defences. Avg Days 12.7 24.5 to Resolve 20. Since April 2010 until 5th 05/06 28 14 42 Figures Not available October 2010 the Council has Avg Days 16.9 16 350 2508 proceeded to court 27 times in to Resolve order to seek possession of

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

land. The gypsies and the Police in specific travellers have defended the circumstances. Without claim on three occasions and alternative sites to direct whilst the Council had been travellers to, the Police are successful in gaining often reluctant to use their possession of the land each powers. Additionally the Police time, defence action had led to are mindful of the potential longer encampments and impact in terms of civil therefore a greater impact on disturbance of moving by force the local environment and a large encampment and will community. also need to consider the potential safeguarding issues 21. In the same period April 2010 arising from arresting parents until 5 th October 2010 we who refuse to leave the site. It understand the should be noted that it is only in Police have used their powers Leeds that section 61 tends to under section 61 of the Criminal be used by West Yorkshire Justice and Public Order Act Police. Force policy is to avoid (CJPOA) on 6 occasions. the use of this power but in Section 61 of the Criminal Leeds it has been seen as a Justice and Public Order Act relevant tactical tool in certain 1994 (power of the Police to situations. (See direct persons to leave land and recommendation 11) remove vehicles in circumstances where there are 23. The legal and departmental more than 6 vehicles on land or costs for the period between persons are causing 2003 to 2010 are estimated to damage/disruption); Section be over £1,994,000. The table 62(A) of the Criminal Justice below gives a breakdown over and Public Order Act 1994 this period. These costs do not (power of the Police to direct include those of the West persons to leave land where Yorkshire Police which we there is available believe will be substantial. accommodation for caravans on a relevant caravan site. This power cannot be used as there are no suitable pitches available).

22. Although there is a protocol concerning the use of section 61 between the Council and West Yorkshire Police, this power can only be exercised by

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

larger than in previous years. Costs of Unauthorised Encampments At the encampment at Fearnville, there were over 57 Total costs of which, Legal costs £ £ caravans recorded at one stage 2003/04 143,560 - and anecdotal evidence that there were for short periods 2004/05 232,518 - even more present . The size of 2005/06 240,885 24,837 encampments increases

2006/07 135,091 11,203 community tensions and the environmental impact and also 2007/08 259,806 15,504 makes managing the impact of 2008/09 266,353 42,670 the site far more difficult.

2009/10 335,995 15,073 Additionally it makes it less likely that the police are able to 2010/11 *estimated cost to date 329,853* use their powers under the Total 2003- CJPOA as controlling any 2010 1,944,061 eviction becomes difficult. The police would need to deploy 24. We have seen encampments significant resources and would this summer 2010 on other high have concerns for the profile sites where community safeguarding of children should events are scheduled: for their parents be arrested as part example at Fearnville Leisure of the eviction. Centre where the Gala was due to take place and at 26. Officers have reported to us where similarly the some instances where Garforth Gala had been unauthorised encampments led arranged for the weekend after to significant environmental the Travellers arrived. These damage. The Council’s particular encampments caused Highways and Environmental a great deal of local anxiety and Enforcement team work with the anger as people living in the Gypsy and Traveller team to area felt that their long monitor activity such as fly- established community events tipping at or near encampments were threatened by the and in some instances this presence of encampments. We monitoring has led to know that these encampments prosecutions. The Highways do have an impact on and Environmental Enforcement community cohesion. team does not record ethnicity in relation to successful 25. We have also been informed prosecutions and often there is that this summer the size of no evidence as to who has encampments in some undertaken such activity when instances being significantly in close proximity to

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

encampments. However, 28. We heard that along with the during 2010 there have been 5 costs of cleaning up successful prosecutions for fly- unauthorised sites, there are tipping related to encampments other associated costs. For or the immediate locality and example, in many cases the there are several cases still authority will either repair being processed. The fly- security or introduce new tipping ranges from the security measures to try and unsightly through to dangerous prevent further occupation. tipping of asbestos waste. There have been examples of sports fields having to be re- 27. Unauthorised encampments sown and drained following also often generate ‘household’ damage by vehicles: rubbish and other waste, Copperfields and Sprinkwell including human and horse Lane recreation ground were waste. In some instances, the examples of where this travellers are tidy and little if any occurred. waste needs clearing when they leave. In other instances, there 29. There are also unquantifiable is significant cost in terms of costs to specific local both resources required and communities where amount of waste generated at unauthorised encampments sites. At Spinkwell Lane have occurred. For example, recreation ground the cleaning East Leeds ARL club being of the site alone cost nearly unable to play games, and £53,000 and it is not uncommon undertake training sessions, for for costs into thousands of young people, due to the pounds which relate to cleaning encampment and damage at of the sites once vacated. Copperfields in 2009. Other While the Council will provide examples would be skips and portaloos where encampments in parks which travellers are tolerated, or created a deterrent to people where the court process will be utilising the area for social lengthy, it can still be difficult to activity. contain the impact on the environment in such instances. 30. It is entirely usual for travellers The impact of rubbish and to pass through Leeds, human waste on the locality unauthorised encampments causes a great deal of anger can, and do, occur at any time and community tension during the year but there is especially when the always a concentration during encampment is on a site the summer months – the normally used for recreational ‘travelling season’ with this activity.

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

increasing in conjunction with 34. We took the view looking at the horse fairs and other events. overall picture that the number of unauthorised encampments 31. However, we know that there in Leeds continues to remain are approximately twelve high. Whilst court proceedings families who tend to remain in continue to be taken by the the Leeds area throughout the Council to remove these year. The families are closely unauthorised encampments related to each other and specific families are defending officers approximate that there proceedings repeatedly which are 25 adults with 38 children in result in further costs to the these groups and between 20 Council. In addition we have and 25 caravans. Additionally encampments on high profile there are 6 families who have sites with the numbers of doubled - up with relations at families and caravans Cottingley Springs. Should increasing in size. This creates these arrangements break- a great deal of anger and down, then this group of 16 community tension especially adults and 12 children would when the encampment is on a also be likely to remain site normally used for travelling within the Leeds area recreational activity. as they have historically done. 35. We have heard from GATE and 32. From April 2010 to 5th October representatives from the road 2010 these twelve ‘Leeds’ side gypsies that a key reason families have been present on for unauthorised encampments just over half of all unauthorised is the lack of permanent sites in encampments (30 of the 54), the city. including all the larger encampments 36. We know that further permanent sites will not eradicate 33. We understand that three of unauthorised encampments and these local families who are incidents of unauthorised currently travelling together are encampments will still require the families who have defended robust and co-ordinated proceedings repeatedly. One of management. these families was part of the family on the Spinkwell Lane 37. However, we consider the encampment. They instruct the current policy of the Council in same local solicitors who have moving what are regarded as developed a specialism in “Leeds” gypsies and travellers gypsies and travellers law. around the city from one unauthorised encampment to the next to be probably

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

untenable and that a new allow the Police to take approach must be developed to advantage of Section 62A of the try and address this issue. This Criminal Justice and Public was the view of a number of Order Act 1994. The police Members who gave evidence to would be able to direct them to the Board and some of our own a suitable pitch. Failure to Board Members comply would be an arrestable offence and vehicles could be 38. It is scrutiny’s view that as a first seized and removed. The police step in changing the Council’s would then have to apply to the approach to this problem Leeds magistrates Court for an order if could establish negotiated the gypsies and travellers failed stopping sites like Cheshire to leave in accordance with the Council West, Bristol and direction. In addition we were Chester Council. We were told advised by Cheshire West that about Cheshire Council West’s this approach has improved Good Neighbourhood Code that relationships between gypsies gypsies and travellers must sign and travellers, the local up to when using these sites. community and elected The negotiated stopping sites members and has also are for very short term stays of improved intelligence regarding a few days to a few weeks. the dynamics and make up of They are located in Cheshire on gypsy and traveller families. We unused bus lanes or roads noted that this power is (hard standing) away from available where there is a residential properties. Cheshire suitable pitch on a relevant Council provided a temporary caravan site which is situated in water supply, toilets and collect the Council’s area. However, refuse and these services are we also noted that it will depend paid for by the gypsies and on the nature of any negotiated travellers using the stopping stopping site whether the pitch site. Cheshire Council West is “suitable” and so whether this also provides free vouchers to power can be used by the the gypsies and travellers to police. enable them to use shower facilities at the local Sports 40. We could not support the Centre. development of permanent transit sites where gypsies and travellers 39. This approach in our view would could spend longer periods of time. ease the pressure on the One local authority allows gypsies and travellers to stay for up to13 number of unauthorised weeks although there is no legal encampments. It would also be obligation in that regard as to the a useful tool to assist time period. enforcement, as this would

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

41. We are aware that the effect in helping to build on development of negotiated relationships once negotiated stopping sites would not be stopping sites had been without difficulties. We are introduced as the first step in aware of the mixed experiences identifying land for small gypsy of some authorities where sites and traveller permanent sites in have become, by default, the city. permanent sites. The Environment and 45. National policy and guidance Neighbourhoods Directorate has not, and probably cannot, would have to ensure that sites create or secure locally were properly managed and all sustainable solutions. However, appropriate legal safeguards locally agreed solutions are established prior to operation. likely to be supported by These sites by their transitory anticipated national ‘light touch’ nature do carry a high resource policy and are more likely to implication, notably for result in sustainable local enforcement and through the cohesion, although at the time need to ensure site security, to of producing this report the full ensure that the utilities on site details and proposals behind are not abused and that there this have not yet been issued by are adequate staffing resources the Government. in place to manage this. Clearly we are concerned at the Recommendation 1 pressures on the Council’s budget at the present. (i) That the Executive Board consider providing negotiated 42. We appreciate that there will be stopping sites for gypsies and difficulties in identifying suitable travellers in Leeds for very locations for negotiated short term encampments and stopping sites and that they do commission the Director of require planning consent and Environment and public consultation. Neighbourhoods to undertake further work with a view to 43. It would necessitate the Council introducing a pilot scheme and being much more pro active and reporting back to the Executive positive in explaining to the Board. media and communities why it (ii) In any consideration by was looking at a new direction Executive Board those ward in trying to deal with this Members who are affected by continuing problem. proposals on this matter are consulted. 44. However, this approach we believe could have a positive

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

“Leeds Families” Gypsies and Travellers Recommendation 2

46. We then referred to the twelve (i) That the Executive Board families who tend to remain in consider the principle of the Leeds area throughout the providing an additional 25 year. We know that from April permanent pitches for 25 2010 to date these twelve caravans in the city to ‘Leeds’ families have been accommodate “Leeds families” of present on just over half of all gypsies and travellers and unauthorised encampments (30 request the Director of of the 54), including all the Environment and larger encampments. Neighbourhoods to undertake further work based on national 47. We support the principle of guidance to identify costs, and trying to identify a number of sources of funding and to develop additional pitches for the 12 a criteria for consulting and “Leeds families” (25 caravans) identifying suitable sites during along with the introduction of operation of the pilot in of negotiated stopping sites. recommendation 1. (ii) In any consideration by 48. We noted that GATE and the Executive Board those ward majority of roadside gypsies Members who are affected by and travellers favour the proposals on this matter are establishment of small consulted. permanent sites in the city of between 4 to 8 caravans. West Yorkshire and City 49. We recognised that identifying Region Context small suitable permanent sites for gypsies and travellers in the 50. We noted that of the five West city will be difficult and Yorkshire authorities Wakefield, expensive to achieve. It would Bradford and Leeds have also require the development of permanent provision for Gypsy a criteria that could be applied and Traveller families. Bradford in the event that a need is has 47 pitches over two sites identified for selecting a site or and Wakefield has 38 pitches sites. and one emergency pitch .

51. Calderdale and Kirklees have no provision and report very few unauthorised encampments. Wakefield confirmed that they had 48 unauthorised encampments during

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

2009/2010 with roughly half of pitches due to both the these occurring on public land. condition of the site and some Wakefield has been looking to tensions between residents. identify new sites but have met The site is fully occupied on its considerable opposition to any current configuration. There is proposed locations. None of currently a waiting list of 18 the West Yorkshire authorities applicants. have transit provision. 54. We learned that turnover at 52. We are strongly of the view that Cottingley Springs is very any such development by infrequent and it is not Leeds in providing additional uncommon for long periods of provision for gypsies and time to pass with no vacancies travellers in terms of both occurring. recommendations 1 and 2 would have to be done as part 55. We were surprised to learn that of the wider City Region picture. each pitch can accommodate 3 or 4 caravans and on average Recommendation 3 there are three caravans to

That subject to each pitch. The site is landscaped and is designed in a recommendations 1 and 2 the Director of Environment and cul-de-sac style with one entrance/exit for vehicles. Neighbourhoods seeks to develop this pilot in the context There is CCTV at the entrance to the site. Each pitch contains of a wider strategic approach through the City Region and a brick built utility facility comprising of a kitchen and a other appropriate bodies. bathroom. On Site B, this facility also includes a living Cottingley Springs Site area. Cottingley Springs B site was refurbished through a 53. A number of us visited the government grant to meet the Cottingley Springs site during growing needs of the families our inquiry. This one permanent living on site. Historically the site is located in the Farnley & plots were very small and could Wortley ward. The site, which not provide families with the is split into two areas, contains necessary space to live a total of 41 pitches: 20 in Site comfortably. After a large A and 21 at Site B. Historically redevelopment programme, the the site was larger: at one point plot sizes were increased and there were 55 pitches. additional outside green space However the site was very was provided. Site A has difficult to manage and there remained the same since being were several unoccupied built due to the limitation in

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

space although a modernisation to Cottingley Springs. We programme has been understand that some of the completed for internal works, Cottingley Springs residents again funded by grant from would also not wish to see central government. those families return to this site.

56. The cost of running Cottingley 59. However, we consider that Springs is outlined in Appendix there could be better use made 2 which shows costs over the of the existing location that past 8 years. The weekly rental would enable the provision of cost for a pitch at Cottingley several additional caravans. Springs is currently £98.12 with an additional charge of £23.76 60. The average costs of providing for each additional caravan. a pitch is set out in Appendix 3. This charge has been effective since April 2007. Housing 61. We understand that the benefit can be claimed for the potential cost of increasing pitch rental charge. In 2009/2010 provision at the council’s £233,254 was received as Cottingley Springs site would be income (largely rents) and it is in the order of £92,802 per unit. estimated that this will be A report by Corporate Property around £254,000 in 2010/11. Management dated 20 th December 2010 is attached as 57. We were advised that Appendix 4 which provides the historically there have been details. problems between families living at Cottingley Springs and Recommendation 4 with the behaviour of individuals

but this situation had improved That irrespective of in recent years. Although recommendations 1 and 2 the eviction remains an option as Executive Board commission a part of the license agreement, review of the Cottingley Springs the service works hard to site to ascertain whether better prevent behaviour escalating to use of the site could be made the point of taking action to gain that would allow the provision of possession of the pitch. The additional pitches and identify last eviction of a family from how this could be funded by Cottingley Springs we January 2012. understand was in 2000.

58. We were informed that as a consequence of that eviction 62. During our deliberations we some of the Leeds gypsies and received a copy of the licence travellers would not wish to go agreement in use at Cottingley

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

Springs. We thought it 64. While the site has improved in appropriate for this to be terms of behaviour and fewer reviewed and updated where incidents it is nevertheless the necessary. case that at times the residents’ unwillingness to engage with Recommendation 5 the authorities to tackle anti- social behaviour does limit That the Director of improvements to the Environment and management of the site. For Neighbourhoods with the example, the service does on Chief Officer Legal Licensing occasion receive complaints and Registration undertake a from neighbouring landowners review of the current licence in and sees evidence of vandalism use at Cottingley Springs site but struggles to get any witness to update it and incorporate to come forward. current legislative changes (including the provisions of 65. We understand that there are informal discussions with the Mobile Homes Act 1983 in future tenancy agreements). residents and an emerging residents group.

63. We believe that the Council 66. We believe that this is an area should develop and adopt a where a stronger residents Good Neighbourhood Code as group with formal meetings Cheshire West and Bristol have would potentially improve done which requires all gypsies management of the site and and travellers using any indeed improve the living negotiated stopping site, or conditions of the residents. It permanent site operated by the could also help to engage more Council to sign up to. with the local community.

Recommendation 6 Recommendation 7

That the Director of That the Director of Environment and Environment and Neighbourhoods Development Neighbourhoods continues to and adopt a Good develop a strong residents Neighbourhood Code which group on the Cottingley would operate alongside any Springs site that could be the licence or tenancy agreement catalyst to engage more with which would require all the local community and that gypsies and travellers using this formal arrangement sites operated by the Council should be established by June to sign up to before being 2011. allowed to use the se facilities .

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

Private Sites Recommendation 8

67. We heard from a Member That in accordance with the representing the Morley Local Development Borough Independents that Framework Policy the Acting planning approval had recently Director of City Development been granted for 3 permanent continue to encourage and caravans on a private site in support development of without objection private gypsy and traveller site from the community. provision in the city which are appropriate, in keeping with 68. We are aware of ‘lease and self the area and meet the build’ schemes which are being necessary planning worked up in other local requirements. authorities and that ‘social purpose’ management is increasingly evident across the Education and Health Issues country. There are a number of families in Leeds, to GATE’s 70. We recognised early in our knowledge, who have the will deliberations that the Council and resources to buy their own has a duty to those who are land and build sites given the homeless and in priority need. advice and support of the local Some of those who are planning authority. homeless may have a cultural aversion to living in traditional 69. We accept that appropriately bricks and mortar type sited new private pitches can accommodation which will need significantly contribute to local to be taken in to account when cohesion and citizenship considering an offer of suitable particularly when early dialogue accommodation. We with local settled communities is acknowledged that Romany facilitated. We noted research Gypsies and Irish Travellers conducted by JRF (Richardson both fall within an ethnic group 2007) that illustrated the way in and are covered by the Equality which initial local opposition to Act 2010, which continues the new sites rapidly declines once principles of, and supersedes, small sites are established and the Race Relations Act 1976 local relationships begin to (as amended). form.

71. We recognised the potential

vulnerability of travellers as a

group and the endangerment of

their cultural lifestyle. We know

that as a cultural group gypsies

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

and travellers have an earlier Leeds but these have now been mortality rate than most groups withdrawn. and that education and health is poor. Reco mmendation 10

72. We received information from That the Primary Care Trust the Gypsy Roma Traveller and Director of Children’s Achievement Service which Services be asked to submit a provides support to the children report to Scrutiny Board living at Cottingley Springs (Health) on the services that including transport to have been withdrawn from mainstream schools and a gypsies and travellers and the mobile nursery van. alternative arrangements that have been instigated to 73. We were concerned that some protect this vulnerable group. gypsy and traveller girls around aged 11 or 12 years of age seem to cease main stream 75. That with regard to section 61 of education as they leave primary the Criminal Justice and Public school and move to home Order Act 1994 and the joint school. We were assured by protocol between the West GATE and the road side Yorkshire Police and the gypsies themselves that this Council on its use we were was no longer the case. We concerned that this was not remain unconvinced and would always applied uniformly across recommend that some further the force and that on occasion work be undertaken in this local ward members were not respect. notified in accordance with that protocol. Recommendation 9

That the Scrutiny Board Recommendation 11

(Children’s Services) be asked to undertake a specific That the West Yorkshire Police be asked to ensure that the investigation on the national and local position of gypsy protocol between the Police and the Council is applied and traveller girls school attendance and educational uniformly by Divisional Commanders across the city achievements at 11 years and above. and that ward members are always informed

of unauthorised encampments 74. We were surprised to learn that and when this power is to be historically there were outreach used. services provided by NHS

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

Information Pack continue if changes are not made to the present policy. 76. We were informed by some residents that they would have 79. Clearly the costs of introducing found an information pack negotiated stopping sites for useful where gypsies and very short term encampments travellers make unauthorised and permanent small sites for encampments on private land. gypsies and travellers will be expensive and will need to be fully costed. Recommendation 12

That the Director of 80. As with all policy decisions the Environment and allocation of limited financial Neighbourhoods be asked to resources will need to be review and expand the considered. The Executive information pack for use by Board will need to balance the residents and Members where demand for social/affordable unauthorised encampments housing and a growing waiting occur on private land. list against the needs of a small transient gypsy and traveller community. 77. We note that a positive approach to our review would 81. We do feel that it is important, reduce the risk of legal before the Executive Board challenge in the courts by Member or the Director of recognising the unmet demand Environment and from gypsies and travellers for Neighbourhoods decide on the site provision and implementing best course of action as a result a change in policy that in the of our inquiry that they do long term would reduce the contact the appropriate number of unauthorised Government Department for encampments by at least a half. clarification of their intentions or proposals for dealing with 78. We have identified that the gypsies and travellers and also Council has spent over guidance that will be issued to £1.988,000 over several years the Planning Inspectorate as to in moving gypsies and travellers who to deal with planning from unauthorised appeals for sites identified as encampments in the city whilst having potential for site not taking advantage of provision. Government grants to provide the necessary sites. These 82. Some of our comments and grants are currently not conclusions drawn in the report available. This expenditure will and the emphasis put on some

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

of them are not necessarily supported by all Members of the Board. This should be borne in mind when decisions are reached.

83. We would also suggest that clarification is sought from the Acting Director of City Development and from the Government on the potential impact or otherwise, the formation of Neighbourhood plans could have if the local view was to make comment about the provision of gypsy and traveller sites in either a positive or negative light.

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

Monitoring arrangements Standard arrangements for monitoring the outcome of the Board’s recommendations will apply.

The decision-makers to whom the recommendations are addressed will be asked to submit a formal response to the recommendations, including an action plan and timetable, normally within two months.

Following this the Scrutiny Board will determine any further detailed monitoring, over and above the standard quarterly monitoring of all scrutiny recommendations.

Reports and Publications Submitted

Report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods on the current situation regarding unauthorised encampments compared with the Scrutiny Board inquiry held in 2004/05

Inquiry Report of Scrutiny Board (Neighbouhoods and Housing) on gypsy and travellers sites published in April 2005

Report of the Scrutiny Support Manager to Executive Board on 18 May 2005 concerning recommendations 1 and 2 of the Board’s final inquiry report

Report of the Local Government Association, Gypsy and Traveller Task Group, June 2006

Report of the Chief Officer Legal Licensing and Registration setting out the legal background to unauthorised encampments and the Council’s legal obligations and powers - 20 October 2010

Report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods setting out current position regarding unauthorised sites, the position with permanent provision and legal position in relation to the accommodation needs of the travelling community - 20 October 2010

Cottingley Springs Update - 13 October 2010

Map of the sites at Cottingley Springs and land surrounding the sites owned by the Council

Map showing unauthorised encampments in the last 12 months

Information about Leeds Gypsy and Traveller Exchange (GATE) including their

Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

Reports and Publications Submitted (continued)

Confidential joint report of the Chief Officer Legal Licensing and Registration and the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods considered by Leader Management Team on 15 July 2010

Paper providing information on the average number of caravans per residential pitch across the Leeds City Region and other regions in the country

Report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourh oods providing additional information requested by the Scrutiny Board relating to further information requested by the Board including unauthorised encampments in Leeds since 2007-15 November 2010

Department of Communities and Local Government circular designing gypsy and traveller sites - May 2008

A briefing note submitted by the Chief Officer Legal Licensing and Registration concerning legal costs of unauthorised encampments and application for Costs order

Gypsy Roma Traveller data of pupils in school provided by the Manager of the Gypsy Roma Traveller Achievement Service, November 2010

National Association of Teachers and Travellers and other Professions (NATT) final report and impact study 2009/10 provided by the Director of Equal ity and Entitlement, Education Leeds, Final report and impact study (2009 -10)

Improving the outcomes for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils and the research brief provided by the Department for Education - October 2010

Briefing note by the Chief Officer Legal Licensing an d Registration on a legal case Manchester City Council V Pinnock

Briefing note by the Chief Officer Legal Licensing an d Registration Cottingley Springs licence agreement

Report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods on costings for new pitches at

Cottingley Springs and information from other Authorities in the South East and South West of the country regarding the provision of pitches and consultation

Briefing note by the Chief Officer Legal Licensing an d Registration on the current unauthorised encampment on private land

Information from GATE and Written submission by Counci llor M Dobson

Press cuttings on gypsies and travellers for the period April to December 2010 (18 positive cuttings, 34 negative, and 24 neutral)

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected]

Evidence

Dates of Scrutiny

13 September 2010, Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) 29 September 2010, Gypsies and Travellers Working Group 11 October 2010, Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) – Terms of Reference 20 October 2010, Gypsies and Travellers Working Group 1 November 2010, Gypsies and Travellers Working Group 8 November 2010, Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) 15 November 2010, Gypsies and Travellers Working Group 29 November 2010, Gypsies and Travellers Working Group 2 December 2010, Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) 13 December 2010, Gypsies and Travellers Working Group 6 January 2011, Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) 17January 2011, Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods)

A number of Members visited Cottingley Springs site during the course of the Board’s inquiry

Witnesses Heard Cllr Peter Gruen, Executive Board Member for Neighbourhoods and Housing Cllr John Leslie Carter, Conservative Group Spokesperson Councillor David Blackburn, Green Party Spokesperson Councillor Ralph Pryke, Liberal Democrat Group Spokesperson Councillor Tom Leadley, Morley Borough Independents Spokesperson Chief Superintendent Mark Milson, West Yorkshire Police Divisional Commander (City & ) Chief Inspector Jim McNeil, West Yorkshire Police, Leeds Community Safety PC 3218 David Stephens, West Yorkshire Police, Leeds Community Safety Mr R Powell, Senior Research Fellow of the Centre for Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University Ms Helen Jones, Chief Executive of Leeds GATE Ms Eileen Lowther , Chair of Leeds GATE Ms Kim Maloney, Vice Chair of Leeds GATE Ms Maddy Connors, Representing roadside gypsies and travellers Mr James Connors, Representing roadside gypsies and travellers Mr Michael Maloney, Representing roadside gypsies and travellers Ms Michelle McGill, Chair of New Wortley Residents Association Mr Steven Carey, Chief Revenues and Benefits Officer Ms Bridget Emery, Head of Housing Strategy and Solutions Ms K Murray, Travellers Service Manager Mr Gareth Self, Liaison Officer Mr Ian Spafford , Head of Community Services & Litigation Ms Karen Blackmore, Team Leader, General Litigation Team Local Residents in the city

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18th January 2011 – [email protected] Unauthorised Encampments in Leeds from April 2010 to date. Appendix 1

Site Name Number of Ward Owner Start Date End Date Duration Court ‘Leeds’ Vans Days Proceedings family Yes Section 61 Yes Park 16 Armley LCC 12-Apr-10 22-Apr-10 10 Refused Wok Inn 2 City & Private 16-Apr-10 20-Apr-10 4 Yes Yes Yes Section 61 Yes Cambridge Road 22 Hyde Park & Woodhouse LCC 23-Apr-10 06-May-10 14 Refused Stainton Lane No 2 Rothwell LCC 22-Apr-10 30-Apr-10 8 Yes Thorpe Park Yes 9 Temple Newsham Private 22-Apr-10 23-Apr-10 1 No Armley Park Yes 9 Armley LCC 23-Apr-10 24-Apr-10 1 No Limewood Approach No 6 Killingbeck and Private 26-Apr-10 29-Apr-10 3 Yes WOK Inn 1 City & Hunslet Private 06-May-10 10-May-10 4 Yes No Hook Moor Cottage 9 Kippax & Methley LCC 06-May-10 24-May-10 18 No No Cartmel Drive 16 Temple Newsham LCC 11-May-10 13-May-10 3 Yes Yes BHS, Road 7 Kirkstall Private 10-May-10 24-May-10 14 Yes No Burmantofts & Richmond Yes Copperfield College 18 Hill LCC 13-May-10 13-May-10 1 Section 61 Used Thorpe Road Yes Section 61 Yes 18 LCC 14-May-10 15-Jun-10 31 Refused Hudson Way No 3 Wetherby LCC 19-May-10 24-May-10 5 No Yes Section 61 Yes Fearnville Sports Ground 57 Gipton & LCC 24-May-10 05-Jul-10 41 Refused Yes Section 61 No Pheonix Way 35 Kippax & Methley LCC 01-Jun-10 22-Jun-10 21 Refused Spen Common Lane 6 Wetherby LCC 07-Jun-10 15-Jun-10 8 No No Woodlea Approach 1 Guisley & Rawdon LCC 11-Jun-10 14-Jun-10 3 No No Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18 th January 2011 – [email protected]

Appendix 1

Site Name No. Ward Owner Start End Date Duration Court Caravans Date Days Proceedings Yes - Abridged No Ninelands Lane Section 61 7 Garforth & Swillington LCC 28-Jun-10 30-Jun-10 2 Refused Greenhill Lane 5 Farnley & Wortley LCC 29-Jun-10 30-Jun-10 1 Section 61 No Oak Road 30 Armley LCC 30-Jun-10 01-Jul-10 1 Section 61 Yes Yes Section 61 No Ash Lane 39 Garforth & Swillington LCC 30-Jun-10 15-Jul-10 15 Refused Yes Section 61 Yes Wykebeck Valley Road 8 Killingbeck and Seacroft LCC 05-Jul-10 14-Jul-10 9 Refused Cambridge Road 8 Hyde Park & Woodhouse LCC 05-Jul-10 06-Jul-10 1 Section 61 Used Yes Whitehouse Lane 14 Garforth & Swillington LCC 06-Jul-10 08-Jul-10 2 No No Phoenix Avenue 6 Kippax & Methley LCC 08-Jul-10 13-Jul-10 5 No No Wok In 3 City & Hunslet Private 08-Jul-10 12-Jul-10 4 No Yes 18 Temple Newsham LCC 14-Jul-10 16-Jul-10 2 Yes No Century Way 24 Kippax & Methley Private 15-Jul-10 16-Jul-10 1 No Yes Cross Green Approach Burmantofts & Richmond Yes 26 Hill LCC 16-Jul-10 30-Jul-10 14 Yes Ramshead Approach 4 Killingbeck and Seacroft LCC 16-Jul-10 19-Jul-10 3 No No Rothwell Haigh 3 Rothwell LCC 16-Jul-10 20-Jul-10 4 No No Pheonix Way 10 Kippax & Methley LCC 16-Jul-10 02-Aug-10 17 Yes Yes King Alfreds Approach 7 Moortown LCC 26-Jul-10 02-Aug-10 7 Yes No Spen Common Lane 10 Wetherby LCC 27-Jul-10 02-Aug-10 6 Yes No Carlisle Road, Royal Yes Armouries 18 City & Hunslet LCC 30-Jul-10 10-Aug-10 11 Yes Existing order in Yes Cambridge Road 15 Hyde Park & Woodhouse LCC 05-Aug-10 06-Aug-10 1 place Soldiers Field 7 LCC 06-Aug-10 16-Aug-10 10 Yes No

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18 th January 2011 – [email protected]

Appendix 1

Wellington Road, Armley Yes Gyratory 23 Armley LCC 06-Aug-10 19-Aug-10 13 Yes Site Name No. Ward Owner Start End Date Duration Court Caravans Date Days Proceedings Victoria School Playing Burmantofts & Richmond No Fields 8 Hill LCC 09-Aug-10 19-Aug-10 10 Yes Spinkwell Lane No 3 Ardsley & Robin Hood LCC 10-Aug-10 19-Aug-10 9 Yes Ramshead Approach 5 Killingbeck and Seacroft LCC 16-Aug-10 27-Aug-10 11 Yes No Moorfield Road 25 Armley LCC 19-Aug-10 20-Aug-10 1 Section 61 Used Yes Burmantofts & Richmond Yes Bridgefield Pub 2 Hill Private 20-Aug-10 06-Sep-10 17 Yes Burmantofts & Richmond Yes Beckett Street 2 Hill LCC 23-Aug-10 27-Aug-10 4 No Wortley Towers 25 Farnley & Wortley LCC 23-Aug-10 01-Sep-10 9 Yes Yes Yes - Abridged Yes Wykebeck Valley Road 40 Gipton & Harehills LCC 01-Sep-10 06-Sep-10 5 time Cambridge Road 35 Hyde Park & Woodhouse LCC 06-Sep-10 08-Sep-10 2 Section 61 Yes Yes - Abridged Yes Becketts Park 50 Weetwood LCC 09-Sep-10 10-Sep-10 1 time. Willow Road 32 Hyde Park & Woodhouse LCC 10-Sep-10 21-Sep-10 11 Yes Yes Pack Horse Pub 3 Farnley & Wortley Private 21-Sep-10 23-Sep-10 2 Bailiffs Instructed Yes Viaduct Road 20 Armley Private 22-Sep-10 27-Sep-10 5 Yes Yes Wallace Arnold 16 Beeston & Holbeck Private 23-Sep-10 18-Oct-10 25 Yes Yes Harry Ramsdens 5 Guisley & Rawdon Private 05-Oct-10 07-Oct-10 2 Yes No

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18 th January 2011 – [email protected]

Appendix 2

Costs of Cottingley Springs

Costs 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Total £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £

Staffing - assume 29,472 50,125 63,610 74,522 68,659 52,118 52,261 59,659 62,588 513,013 Premises Costs 89,878 90,721 34,632 40,083 43,191 115,128 89,853 103,292 122,990 729,768 Supplies & Services 1,269 5,098 3,519 1,400 1,518 1,062 660 1,945 3,668 20,139 Fuel/Transport 3,156 4,295 2,735 4,302 5,050 3,177 2,807 2,241 3,632 31,394 Overheads - 1,942 6,091 10,786 12,813 14,543 8,152 9,248 9,176 72,750 Receipts -190,168 -203,307 -187,376 -185,147 -218,662 -226,790 -231,903 -233,254 -253,980 -1,930,587 Total Costs - 66,393 - 51,128 - 76,790 - 54,054 - 87,433 - 40,762 - 78,169 - 56,869 - 51,926 - 563,523

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18 th January 2011 – [email protected]

Appendix 3

2009/10 GTSG PROGRAMME - AVERAGE COST PER PITCH - NEW/ADDITIONAL/REFURB NEW PITCHES

Total New/ New/ pitches additional additional/ Grant per Region Grant on site pitches refurb pitch South West £77,250 5 5 New £15,450 Yorkshire & Humberside £43,986 2 2 New £21,993 East of £326,155 9 9 New £36,239 North East £512,549 6 6 New £85,425 Yorkshire & Humberside £1,160,000 10 10 New £116,000 North East £583,009 5 5 New £116,602 East Midlands £475,000 4 4 New £118,750 South West £956,856 8 8 New £119,607 South West £839,051 7 7 New £119,864 North West £1,541,000 12 12 New £128,417 East Rejected by Secretary of Midlands £2,891,102 20 20 New £144,555 State Rejected by Secretary of South East £1,163,100 8 8 New £145,388 State Rejected by Secretary of South West £1,455,355 10 10 New £145,536 State Rejected by Secretary of South East £2,609,000 18 10 New £144,944 State ADDITIONAL PITCHES

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18 th January 2011 – [email protected]

Appendix 3

Total New/ New/ pitches additional additional/ Grant per Region Grant on site pitches refurb pitch East of England £279,786 18 2 Additional £15,544 North West £278,362 15 2 Additional £18,557 South West £418,163 19 2 Additional £22,009 East of England £475,000 21 3 Additional £22,619 North East £935,007 22 1 Additional £42,500 West Midlands £999,600 23 5 Additional £43,461 East Midlands £1,248,571 21 2 Additional £59,456 Yorkshire & Humberside £1,214,139 20 10 Additional £60,707 West Midlands £1,063,000 16 1 Additional £66,438 East of England £1,101,051 16 1 Additional £68,816 South East £358,072 5 1 Additional £71,614 REFURBISHED PITCHES Total New/ New/ Grant per Region Grant pitches additional additional/ pitch on site pitches refurb

South East £106,130 10 0 Refurb £10,613 South East £371,728 16 0 Refurb £23,233 Yorkshire & Humberside £740,000 10 0 Refurb £74,000 South East £850,000 10 0 Refurb £85,000

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18 th January 2011 – [email protected]

Appendix 4

SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FROM CORPORATE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) - Final Inquiry Report - Published 18 th January 2011 – [email protected]