Westwood, Honingham Road, , , NR9 5LB Change of use to residential purposes: Planning Statement

National Policy

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular, 01/2006, Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites was introduced in response to the shortfall in site provision and because its predecessor, Circular 1/94, and the repeal of local authorities’ duty to provide sites, had failed to deliver adequate sites, C1/06 paragraph 3.

Its main intentions included, paragraph 12: ‘a) to create and support sustainable, respectful, and inclusive communities where gypsies and travelers have fair access to suitable accommodation, education, health and welfare provision….; b) to reduce the number of unauthorised encampments and developments and the conflict and controversy they cause …. c) to increase the number of gypsy and traveller sites in appropriate locations with planning permission in order to address current under- provision over the next 3– 5 years….’ [ie from the publication date of February 2006]; d) to recognise, protect and facilitate the traditional way of life of gypsies and travellers…; and i) to help to avoid gypsies and travellers becoming homeless through eviction from unauthorised sites without an alternative to move to.’

Circular 1/06 required a three stage planning process for meeting the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. The three stages are measuring accommodation needs through Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs), defining the number of additional pitches required in each local planning authority area through Regional Spatial Strategies (subsequently known as Regional Strategies), and translating those Regional Strategy targets into specific site allocations in one of the local planning authority’s Development Plan Documents, paragraphs 20 – 38.

Paragraph 43 indicates:

‘Where there is clear and immediate need, for instance evidenced through the presence of significant numbers of unauthorised developments or occupation, local planning authorities should bring forward sites DPDs containing site allocations in advance of regional consideration of pitch numbers, and completion of the new GTAAs.’

Paragraph 44 gives guidance on the type of evidence that should be used including incidents of unauthorised encampments, numbers and outcomes of planning applications and appeals, levels of occupancy, plot turnover and waiting lists for public sites, the status of private sites and the Caravan Count, and underlines that:

‘Local planning authorities will be expected to demonstrate that they have considered this information, where relevant, before any decision to refuse a planning application for a gypsy and traveller site.’

Paragraphs 47 to 55 recognise the preference of Gypsies and Travellers for sites in rural areas and the countryside and provide guidance on how their difficulties in securing an adequate supply of affordable land for their needs should be overcome. Paragraphs 64 to 66 indicate how sustainability considerations should be taken into account in identifying sites. Paragraph 65 states: ‘In deciding where to provide for gypsy and traveller sites, local planning authorities should first consider locations in or near existing settlements with access to local services, e.g. shops, doctors and schools….’

Paragraph 21 of PPS3, Housing makes clear that accommodation for Gypsies is part of overall residential provision. It states: ‘…Local Planning Authorities should plan for a mix of different types of households that are likely to require housing over the plan period. This will include having particular regard to: - Current and future demographic trends and profiles. - The accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular families with children, older and disabled people. - The diverse range of requirements across the area, including the need to accommodate Gypsies and Travellers.’

In July 2010 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, announced the revocation of Regional Strategies (RSs) in all regions of . However, following a legal challenge by housing developer CALA Homes, the courts found that the Secretary of State had exceeded his powers in attempting to abolish the whole national structure of RSs and in doing so without carrying out any Strategic Environmental Assessment.1 The current position is that RSs have been temporarily reinstated as a result of the CALA homes judgement, while the Government has made it clear that it intends to abolish RSs. 2 The Courts have also recognised the intended abolition of RSs as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. However, the judgement in the subsequent Court of Appeal hearing, indicated that there would be few cases where the proposed revocation should be given significant weight.3 The timing of abolition will depend not only on the Localism Bill, but also on the carrying out of the strategic environmental assessment of the consequences

1 Cala Homes V. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, 10 November 2010, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/2866.html 2 DCLG, 27 May 2010, letter from the Secretary of State to local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate and 10 November 2010, letter from Steve Quartermain, DCLG Chief Planner to local planning authorities http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1765467.pdf 3 http://live.thomaseggar.precedenthost.co.uk/ebulletins/court-of-appeal-issue-latest-judgment-in-the- cala-s-litigation of abolition, which DCLG Minister, Bob Neil announced in a parliamentary answer in April 2011.

The Draft National Planning Policy Framework gives a clear indication of the Government’s direction of travel, including strong support for accommodating housing and business development needs and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, paragraph 14: ‘At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible. Local planning authorities should: • prepare Local Plans on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, and with sufficient flexibility to respond to rapid shifts in demand or other economic change; • approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay; and • grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.’ All of these policies should apply unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.’

The Secretary of State has indicated that he intends to replace Circular 1/06 with ‘light touch guidance’. The draft Planning Policy Statement, Planning for traveller sites, was published for consultation in April 2011. It retains the principles of assessing evidence of need and of increasing the number of sites in appropriate locations to address under provision.4

Paragraph 26 of the Draft strengthens the approach to determining planning applications, when LPAs have not made provision: ‘This planning policy statement comes into effect immediately. From [the date six months after date policy comes into effect], if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites, it should consider favourably applications for the grant of a temporary planning permission.’

The Government proposes to publish the finalised guidance as soon as possible and to then to incorporate it in the National Planning Policy Framework. Given the significant differences in the relative length and policy approach of the two documents, and the potential need for further public consultation on Gypsy and Traveller policy as it is be incorporated in the NPPF, this raises questions about the approach and timing of the finalised guidance.

4 Draft Planning Policy Statement, paragraph 5 We would comment that C1/06 remains in force and that the proposed changes in Planning for traveller sites would make little, if any, difference to the question of whether planning permission should be granted in this case. However, the proposed transitional arrangements, paragraph 26, would strengthen the case for at least temporary permission.

The Development Plan

The Development Plan consists of the Regional Strategy for the , the Joint Core Strategy for , Norwich and South , together with saved policies from the Broadland Local Plan. The Council is in the process of producing a Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

Key policies within the East of England Regional Strategy are: • Policy H3, Provision for Gypsies and Travellers, which requires Broadland to make provision through their development control decisions and Development Plan Documents for a minimum additional 15 residential pitches by 2011 ‘as soon as possible’, and beyond 2011 to make provision for an annual 3% compound increase in residential pitch provision, equating to a further 13 pitches, 2011-21; • Paragraph 5.11, which explains: ‘There is an urgent need to address the shortage of permanent and transit accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, which creates problems for Gypsy and Traveller communities in terms of access to health, education, employment and other opportunities and can create tensions over the use of pitches without planning permission. This is a national issue, but particularly pressing in the East of England’; • Paragraph 5.15 which states: ‘Development plan documents should identify the location and capacity of sites to deliver the pitch requirements in Policy H3 in locations likely to be attractive to the local Gypsy and Traveller communities, while avoiding areas at risk of flooding and adverse effects on areas of wildlife and landscape importance’.

Policy 4, Housing Delivery of the Joint Core Strategy indicates in regard to Gypsies and Travellers:

‘Provision will be made for a minimum of 58 permanent residential pitches for Gypsies and Travellers between 2006 and 2011 to ensure full conformity with Regional Spatial Strategy Policy H3. These will be provided on the following basis: Broadland 15, Norwich 15, and 28.

Between 2012 and 2026, an additional minimum 78 permanent residential pitches will be provided to ensure full conformity with Regional Spatial Strategy Policy H3. These will bedistributed on the following basis: Broadland 20, Norwich 20, and South Norfolk 38.

These will be provided on a number of sites. Generally sites will not have more than 10 to12 pitches, but may be varied to suit the circumstances of a particular site. The sites will beprovided in locations which have good access to services and in locations where local research demonstrates they would meet the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities. Some of the allowance to be provided after 2011 is expected to be provided in association with large-scale strategic housing growth…..

The Government has signalled its intention to revoke the Regional Spatial Strategy. When this is enacted new targets for permanent residential and transit pitches for the period after 2011 will be set, based on local evidence.’

The saved policies of the Broadland Local Plan only relate to the current application in generalized terms, including through policies ENV3 and HOU13.

The Council is currently consulting on the shortlisted sites for the Site Allocations DPD. Chapter 12 of the consultation document relates to provision for Gypsies and Travellers. It indicates that from the Regional Spatial Strategy there is a requirement for additional sites. However, rather than identifying sites, as Circular 1/06 and the Draft PPS require, it merely asks for suggestions on possible sites. We would comment that local planning authorities frequently fail to allocate sites, because of the shortage of land in their ownership and / or perceived local opposition, and as a consequence, if needs are to be met, it falls to individual Gypsy and Traveller families to identify and develop sites themselves.

Gypsy Status and Personal Circumstances

The site will be occupied by Rebecca and Andrew Gallagher and their three children aged 11, 8 and 2.

Mrs Gallagher is site manager at the Gypsy and Traveller site at Roundwell Park, New Costessey, which is often seen as an example of best practice in site management and ownership by Travellers.5 The family currently live at Roundwell Park. If the current application is approved, they will move to Weston Longville, freeing up their plot at Roundwell Park for occupation by another Traveller family.

Additional car movements associated with living at the Weston Longville site will be limited because the family currently visit the site twice a day to look after their horses. Mrs Gallagher will continue to manage the Roundwell Park site and will combine the journey to Roundwell Park for her work with taking the children to their school and nursery in the Costessey area.

5 The history is that Costessey was a County Council site, which was eventually closed because of ongoing management problems. It was subsequently acquired by Mrs Gloria Buckley MBE, and has been run successfully as a private Gypsy owned and managed site. The family claim Gypsy status reflecting Mr Gallagher’s work as a tree surgeon and car dealer. Mr Gallagher also deals in horses and regular visits the major horse fairs in that capacity.

We also attach weight to the fact that the family are ethnic Romani Gypsies. As such they have a right to respect not just for their homes and family life, but also for their traditional way of life. In the Chapman case,6 the European Court of Human Rights established that there was an obligation through article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to facilitate the Gypsy way of life and that living in caravans is an integral part of Gypsy life.

The applicants have tried living in bricks and mortar housing and found it claustrophobic and difficult to tolerate. They have a preference for a site where they can also look after their horses. Given the lack of suitable alternative sites, it is our submission that their aversion to bricks and mortar housing and need for a site for caravans where they can live together as an extended family and look after their horses are factors that carry significant weight in favour of granting permission.

Conclusions

Both the Regional Strategy and the Joint Core Strategy acknowledge the need for additional residential accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers in Broadland. The initial target of 15 additional pitches by 2011 was to meet outstanding needs – overcrowding, homelessness, families living on unauthorized sites etc.

Despite the urgency of these needs and the requirements of Circular 1/06 to make site specific allocations, the Council has failed to identify potential sites through its site allocations DPD, and has merely asked consultees to suggest possible sites. We would contend that the application site is a suitable and available site and have put forward the application site in response to the current consultation on the Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

While the applicants are not themselves in chronic housing need, granting permission will increase the supply of residential provision for Travellers in the Norwich area, provide the type of accommodation that reflects the preferences of many Travellers ie under their own control and ownership and with the ability to look after their horses. It would also free up a pitch at Roundwell Park for occupation by another family.

C1/06 paragraph 65 indicates that locations in or near existing settlements, should be considered first, but that advice is primarily aimed at site allocations by local planning authorities. Necessarily sites, which are acquired by Travellers themselves, will be constrained by what is affordable and available. Because of high land values close to existing settlements, reflecting hope

6 Chapman v UK, [2001] 33 European Human Rights Reports 18 value, combined with opposition from local residents, it is rarely possible for them to acquire such sites and they often have to look at sites in more rural locations, which C1/06 paragraph 54 suggests are acceptable in principle where, as in this case, they are not subject to special planning constraints. The fact that they already keep their horses there means this site is particularly attractive to the family, supports their living a Gypsy life, and will constrain the additional miles driven from this proposal. There are no problems with the road access, particularly if the access direct on to Honingham Road is closed off, and our proposals for the siting of the development and for landscaping mean the development can be sited so as to have minimal impact. Given the silence of the Development Plan on how provision for Gypsies and Travellers should be made and the lack of adverse impacts to outweigh the benefits from the development the current application should be welcomed.