Gypsy and Traveller provision and the NPPF - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

My own authority has separated out the traveller issue from the emerging Allocations Plan to allow time to review evidence including with other adjoining authorities but work has yet to commence. I presume you are intending to continue with a plan which contains need but not allocate sites. This would bring instant conflict with national policy. There are no easy solutions (if any) but clearly Green Belt sites in exceptional circumstances are allowed and what have you done on duty to co-operate? While neighbouring authorities are very unlikely to welcome any advances surely this is a clear case of a collaborative solution being needed. Strikes me though what you already know that you have virtually no time to sort out sites and how would you be able to fit in consultation as well? Sure many authorities will be in the same situation on this one. Interesting to note you appear to have a requirement but no pitches and no demand expressed through the call for sites. Our GTAA suggested that there would be considerable demand but none of it has materialised either. If you have unauthorised provision or demand then maybe CPO is a way forward if the council wishes to provide and manage sites but that is years away. Perhaps the best hope is that with the five year requirement coming in that lots of temporary permissions come forward which will soak up any latent demand. My own view is that this will probably prove just too controversial an issue for most LAs to address.

This is an issue PINs is going to have to wrestle with due to the tensions of getting plans in place and making sure all the boxes are ticked re NPPF. I think it will be difficult for PINs to find an otherwise sound plan unsound if they don't include a 5 year land supply for G&Ts. What they will need to see is that the issue is being addressed and that there is a strong policy framework included which includes what the level of need is. I think they will also want to see some form of commitment to addressing the land supply through a DPD (there's nothing in the NPPF that stops you doing a DPD). I may be wrong but I think Reigate and Banstead have just agree this sort of approach with PINs. Re duty to cooperate, I suspect many LAs are more likely to fall foul of this as G&T provision is a classic strategic issue which will have to be dealt with under the DtC. I know many planners are happy that the RS are slowly disappearing but I'm not convinced that, wihtough some for of proper statutory strategic plan or proper sanctions, G&T provision will be dealt with properly over sub-regional areas. Hope that helps.

Of course within Greater Manchester we had a partial review of RSS to address exactly the gypsy and traveller issue. It examined all the evidence and Panel produced a report (which was explicitly not endorsed by CLG and only released under a FOI request) since RSS is under the threat of being revoked. So instead of having a regional and sub-regional approach to need firmed up several years ago we are now in a complete hiatus. GM authorities are certainly considering this issue under DTC but without a firm mechanism (called regional planning) to ensure region and sub-regional distribution and progression of plans at different times this is very challenging.

To add a bit more to Catriona's comments: At Reigate and Banstead we submitted our Core Strategy last May, which includes a criteria-based Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople policy. This was with a view to including targets and site allocations in our Development Management Policies document (DMP), which we are progressing close behind our Core Strategy. Our Inspector initially expressed concerns that the CS did not include pitch/plot targets (which he considered to be a strategic matter) and that current evidence of needs should be included in the CS, albeit that it may be appropriate to adjust this as more up-to-date information becomes available. At our Exploratory Meeting, he considered that ‘if the Council did not intend to put the current numerical requirements in the CS policy, then the policy should at least state the intention to provide for a five year supply and to identify broad locations for future growth in the DMP, in line with the PPTS para 9.’ We have just carried out consultation on a revised policy that includes a commitment to set a target and make provision for a five year supply and identification of broad locations for years 6 to 10 through our DMP. This has not yet been tested through hearings, though, so watch this space...