DOCSLIB.ORG

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment Final Report October 2016 OPDC Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment – October 2016 Opinion Research Services The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF Steve Jarman, Claire Thomas and Ciara Small Enquiries: 01792 535300 · [email protected] · www.ors.org.uk © Copyright October 2016 Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 Contains OS data © Crown Copyright (2014) Page 2 OPDC Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment – October 2016 Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5 The Study ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Local Development Framework in OPDC .......................................................................................... 5 Brent .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Ealing ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Hammersmith and Fulham ................................................................................................................ 7 Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 8 The ‘Planning Definition’ in PPTS ...................................................................................................... 9 Definition of Travelling .................................................................................................................... 10 Legislation and Guidance for Gypsies and Travellers ...................................................................... 11 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) 2015 ............................................................................... 11 2. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 13 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................................ 13 Desk-Based Research ...................................................................................................................... 13 Stakeholder Engagement ................................................................................................................ 14 Survey of Travelling Communities................................................................................................... 15 Engagement with Bricks and Mortar Households ........................................................................... 15 Calculating Current and Future Need ............................................................................................. 16 Non-Travelling Households ............................................................................................................. 16 Unknown Households ..................................................................................................................... 16 Applying the New Definition ........................................................................................................... 17 Supply of Pitches ............................................................................................................................. 18 Current Need ................................................................................................................................... 18 Future Need .................................................................................................................................... 18 Pitch Turnover ................................................................................................................................. 19 Transit Provision .............................................................................................................................. 19 3. Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites and Population ........................................ 20 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 20 Sites and Yards in the OPDC Area ................................................................................................... 21 Page 3 OPDC Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment – October 2016 Caravan Count ................................................................................................................................. 21 4. Stakeholder Engagement ........................................................................................................ 22 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 22 Current GTAAs ................................................................................................................................. 22 Current Accommodation Provision ................................................................................................. 23 Bricks and Mortar Community ........................................................................................................ 24 Short-term Roadside Encampments and Transit Provision ............................................................ 24 Cross-Boundary Issues .................................................................................................................... 24 Future Priorities and Any Further Issues ......................................................................................... 24 5. Survey of Travelling Communities ....................................................................................... 25 6. Current and Future Pitch Provision ...................................................................................... 27 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 27 New ‘Planning’ Definition................................................................................................................ 27 Current and Future Pitch/Plot Needs .............................................................................................. 27 New Household Formation Rates ................................................................................................... 27 Breakdown by 5 Year Bands ............................................................................................................ 28 Applying the New Definition ........................................................................................................... 28 Bricks and Mortar Interviews .......................................................................................................... 30 Need from In-Migration .................................................................................................................. 31 Travelling Showpeople Needs ......................................................................................................... 31 Transit Sites / Temporary Stopping Places ...................................................................................... 31 7. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 33 Gypsy and Traveller Future Pitch Provision .................................................................................... 33 Transit Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Travelling Showpeople Requirements ............................................................................................ 33 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................... 34 Appendix B – Assessment of Need for ‘Non-Travelling’ Travellers in in the OPDC area ................. 36 Appendix C – Technical Note on Household Formation ................................................................ 37 Page 4 OPDC Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment – October 2016 1. Introduction The Study 1.1 The primary objective of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) 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 OPDC area for the period 2016-2031. 1.2 The primary reason for completing the update 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 Travellers for planning purposes. 1.3 The study provides an evidence base to enable the Corporation to comply 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 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Legal Costs in Ireland: Who Pays? the Laws and Principles and Comparative Considerations
    LEGAL COSTS IN IRELAND: WHO PAYS? THE LAWS AND PRINCIPLES AND COMPARATIVE CONSIDERATIONS Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University by Jevon Alcock (LL.M, Solicitor and Notary Public) Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University February 2019 Resubmission April 2020 Supervised by: Mr. Thomas Serby, Dr. Stefan Mandelbaum, Dr. Aldo Zammit-Borda. Acknowledgements I wish to express my gratitude to Mr David J. O’Hagan, former Chief State Solicitor, Dublin, Ireland who nominated me to serve on various committees and working groups on legal costs, which ignited my interest in this adjectival but pervasive area of law. I also wish to thank Dr. Desmond Hogan, and Mr Owen Wilson, Assistant Chief State Solicitors, both of whom supported my training and development. And, in this regard, I wish to acknowledge the financial assistance I received from the Chief State Solicitor’s Office towards my fees on the doctoral programme. Additionally, I wish to convey my thanks to Mr Brian Byrne, former Assistant Chief State Solicitor, who supported my admission as a solicitor in New South Wales, Australia, which in turn, ameliorated my legal knowledge and bolstered my capacity to perform comparative research. I wish to thank Mr Richard Walker, barrister-at-law, formerly head of the Commercial and Constitutional Litigation Section, who enabled me to secure experience across a broad swathe of subject areas, without which my capacity to undertake chapter 4 would have been fatally compromised. Moreover, I wish to thank Ms Karen Duggan, who as head of that section, ensured that I gained exposure to a broad cross-section of work.
    [Show full text]
  • (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust
    Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust Committee Agenda Wednesday 24 March 2021 6.30 pm Online/Virtual MEMBERSHIP Administration Councillor Alexandra Sanderson (Chair) Councillor Helen Rowbottom Councillor Belinda Donovan Co-optees Miriam Shea Stephen Waley-Cohen CONTACT OFFICER: Amrita Gill Clerk : 07776672845 E-mail: [email protected] The agenda is available on the Council’s website: www.lbhf.gov.uk/committees Members of the press and public can watch the meeting on YouTube: https://youtu.be/ZjZ2Y2glBV8 Date Issued: 16th March 2021 Updated 18th March 2021 Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust Committee Agenda - 24 March 2021 Item Pages 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent. At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken. Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Habeas Corpus, Imperial Rendition, and the Rule of Law
    Habeas Corpus, Imperial Rendition, and the Rule of Law Michael Lobban* Abstract: In the decades which followed the publication of AV Dicey’s Law of the Constitution, most English lawyers felt confident that the rights and liberties of Englishmen were protected by a rule of law, which was secured through ancient common law remedies such as the writ of habeas corpus. In their view, this ensured that no political activists would be detained without trial, unless there were particular emergencies which allowed the writ’s suspension, in order to protect the very rule of law. At the same time that these arguments were being made, however, detention without trial became an increasingly routine feature of colonial governance. This article examines the attempts used by political detainees from different parts of the empire to challenge their rendition and detention, and explores what the judicial response tells us about perceptions of the rule of law in the era when Dicey’s work was establishing itself as the classic text of constitutional law. Focusing on a number of key cases, it examines how courts examined two central issues in habeas corpus cases. The first concerns the legality of the detention. In discussing this issue, courts were presented with rival approaches to the rule of law, one which was more ‘formalist’ (asking whether the legislative instrument ordering the detention had a valid pedigree derived from the sovereign legislature), and another which was more ‘substantive’ (invoking a notion of fundamental rights). The second concerns the question of control, and explores the response of the courts to challenges to the writ by defendants who argued that they no longer had control over the detainee.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenya Emergency – Personal Injuries – Limitation Period – Crown Immunities – Counterinsurgency
    Back to the Future: Tort’s Capacity to Remedy Historic Human Rights Abuses C.R.G. Murray* Key Words Torture – Kenya Emergency – Personal Injuries – Limitation Period – Crown Immunities – Counterinsurgency Abstract A recent cluster of tort actions have challenged historic abuses of power by officials and soldiers engaged in late-colonial counter-insurgency operations. The preliminary judgments in Mutua, relating to the use of torture during the Kenya Emergency, produced a high-profile settlement by the UK Government and became the catalyst for much of the subsequent litigation. These judgments require a re-evaluation of competing claims which have long characterised this juncture of public and private law. They oblige us, however belatedly, to re-evaluate the impact in the context of the British Empire of A.V. Dicey’s assertion that tort is sufficient to provide redress for individual interests affected by wrongful state action, even in circumstances of emergency. They also challenge the orthodoxy, adopted by generations of public lawyers from the 1960s onwards, that a combination of Crown immunities and limited causes of action rendered Dicey’s account illusory. The outcome of the Mutua litigation, moreover, highlights the comparative failure of public law challenges to abuses of power in counter-insurgency contexts, from the Keyu case concerning extra-judicial killings during the Malaya Emergency to the controversy which has attended many of the human rights challenges related to UK military activities in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. Drawing upon archival materials released in the course of the Mutua litigation, this article first evaluates how administrators and soldiers approached legal constraints upon their conduct during the colonial emergencies of the 1950s and 1960s.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Options for the Linford Christie Stadium Confidential Final Report
    Friends of Wormwood Scrubs Future options for the Linford Christie Stadium Confidential final report August 2018 Options report Contents 1. Executive summary 3 2. Methodology 5 3. Context and stakeholders 5 4. The council and the options 13 5. Comparison of options 27 6. Conclusions 28 Appendix 1: People interviewed 31 Appendix 2: Documentation reviewed 32 Appendix 3: Legal status of the Scrubs and Linford Christie Stadium 33 Appendix 4: Note on OPDC and Wormwood Scrubs/the Friends of the Scrubs 38 FOWWS August 2018 2 Options report 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background 1.1 Friends of Wormwood Scrubs (FOWWS) commissioned Campbell Tickell to undertake an options appraisal for the Linford Christie Stadium (LCS). LCS is situated on Wormwood Scrubs Park (‘the Scrubs’), the largest green open space in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and one of the largest areas of common land in London. It has been a designated area of open space since 1879. 1.2 This project has come about in response to interest from Queens Park Rangers Football Club (QPR) in developing a new stadium on the site of LCS. Also, the current grounds maintenance contract (with Idverde, formerly Quadron) comes to an end in March 2022, so there is potentially scope for a change of contractor. This has caused local groups to speculate about Council income and expenditure in the area and whether a choice exists for stewarding the resources to better answer their needs and interests. 1.3 FOWWS is a pressure group comprising local residents and users of the Scrubs, among whom are walkers, birdwatchers, runners, and sports enthusiasts.
    [Show full text]
  • Bennion on Statute Law Part II
    © F A R Bennion Website: www.francisbennion.com Doc. No. 1990.002.104 Published Longman, 1990 (ISBN 0 85121 580 7) Any footnotes are shown at the bottom of each page For full version of abbreviations click ‘Abbreviations’ on FB’s website. Bennion on Statute Law Part II - Statutory Interpretation *** Page 104 - Chapter Nine Guides to Legislative Intention I: Rules of Construction As we saw in the previous chapter, the law lays down various guides to legislative intention, or interpretative criteria. Now examining these more closely we see that they can be identified as consisting of the following: six common law rules, a varying number of rules laid down by statute, eight principles derived from legal policy, ten presumptions as to legislative intention, and a collection of linguistic canons of construction which are applicable to the deciphering of language generally. These criteria are described in detail in this and the next three chapters. The six common law rules of statutory interpretation are: 1 the basic rule, 2 the informed interpretation rule (recognising that the interpreter needs to be well informed on all relevant aspects), 3 the plain meaning rule, 4 the effectiveness rule {ut res magis valeat quam pereat), 5 the commonsense construction rule, and 6 the functional construction rule (concerning the function of different elements in an enactment, such as long title and sidenotes). In addition there are various statutory rules, usually laid down for the purpose of shortening the verbiage used in legislation. Basic rule of statutory interpretation The basic rule of statutory interpretation is that it is taken to be the legislator's intention that the enactment shall be construed in accordance with the guides laid down by law; and that where in a particular case these do not yield a plain answer but point in different directions the problem shall be resolved by a balancing exercise, that is by weighing and balancing the factors they produce.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law and Penology of Prison Discipline
    Durham E-Theses The law and penology of prison discipline Quinn, Peter Michael How to cite: Quinn, Peter Michael (1989) The law and penology of prison discipline, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/6459/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk THE LAW AND PENOLOGY OF PRISON DISCIPLINE VOLUME ONE (OF TWO VOLUMES) PETER MICHAEL QUINN BACHELOR OF CIVIL LAW UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM DEPARTMENT OF LAW 1989 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be pubh'shed without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. 2 5 JAN 1990 ABSTRACT THE LAW AND PENOLOGY OF PRISON DISCIPLINE ; PETER M. QUINN The study is of the disciplinary systems within the prisons of England and Wales. It concerns the response of the courts to prison matters brought before them and examines the effects upon prison life of an increasing demand for adherence to the rules of natural justice.
    [Show full text]