Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Nothing chosen

Summary Conclusion 0. This submission concludes that: • the consultant’s report underpinning the assessed needs assumed for Reg18C is flawed; • the assessed needs are, in reality, far less; • the Trajectory for assessed needs is therefore far less and profiled substantially differently to Reg18C’s proposal; • that different Trajectory could be met by evidenced windfalls history, without any need for newly identified pitches; • to the extent that windfalls reduce in the future, Lepus Consulting offers a list of 27 candidate sites, subject to further mitigation and their meeting sustainability criteria, or otherwise MBC would need to add other sustainable sites / pitches to that candidate list; • MBC should strengthen, and, as necessary, add to existing policies to enable it to avoid a recurrence of the situation after 2017 Local Plan Review; and • MBC should seek to dispel its reputation as a “soft touch”. Context 1. This submission does not examine allocation policies, but addresses the overarching subject of provision of accommodation for that section of our community that identifies as Gypsy & Traveller. 2. All sections of our community have a right to their accommodation needs being assessed and addressed where reasonable, with principles of fairness applying in all instances. 3. To treat any section in an unfair way could be held to be divisive or even racist and that must be avoided. Background 4. Our Reg 18B submission was, in essence, ignored by MBC. 5. As it remains valid, it is appended to this submission for the benefit of the Inspector at eventual Examination and, as necessary, will be re-submitted at Reg19. 6. MBC’s questions included within Reg18B gave no opportunity for respondents to offer comment on the report from Opinion Research Services (ORS) that underpinned the assumed “need” within Reg18B. 7. This Reg18C continues that avoidance of comments on that consultant’s report. 8. The analysis by ORS has apparently been accepted by MBC without challenge; we offered challenges in our submission to Reg 18B, but MBC chose not to pursue them, even though they might have delivered a consequential substantial reduction in assessed needs. 9. Evidently MBC continues completely to agree with the conclusions of ORS and has not brought any critical analysis to bear, despite the fact that ORS’s January 2023 Interim Report included the observation in its page 38 that (our highlighting): However, the most common reason identified concerned the assumed perception that the Travelling community have of Maidstone Borough Council, and its current Gypsy & Traveller policies. It was suggested that Travellers come to the area as Maidstone Borough Council are seen as being receptive to having more sites, and therefore readily accepting of applications and more likely to approve most. Furthermore, it was also suggested that costs associated with enforcement and appeal action prevent the council from upholding its countryside policies, which further encourages Travellers to settle in the area For some reason, those words have not been carried into the April 2025 Final Report, despite offering important issues that require MBC’s attention. 10. In essence, our Borough is seen as a soft touch, accentuating unfairness across our Borough. 11. Since the adoption of 2017 Local Plan Review, planning approvals for pitches have massively exceeded the assessed needs that formed the basis for the allocation of G&T sites in that plan. 12. It is clearly evident that the situation is out of control and we noted possible reasons for that at Reg18B. 13. MBC needs to work in a determined manner, with the benefit of robust policies, to remove its apparent reputation for “ ….being receptive to having more sites, and therefore more readily accepting of applications and more likely to approve most”. (ED76, page 18) Societal Considerations 14. Paragraphs 19-30 in Reg 18C state MBC’s perspective on the matter. Its latter paragraphs contain (our highlighting): For everyone – regardless of ethnicity or type of home – having no permanent accommodation can have adverse effects on quality of life and life opportunities generally. Providing permanent or even temporary accommodation significantly improves a person’s ability to meet other primary needs, especially access to healthcare, education and employment opportunities. Providing culturally appropriate accommodation also enables Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople to continue to live a nomadic way of life should they wish. Evidence shows that ethnic Gypsies and Travellers in particular suffer from some of the most extreme health disparities in our society. This is highlighted in the Kent ‘Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Populations’ Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (June 2023)1. Having ‘nowhere to go’ and living on unauthorised sites or encampments can also have a direct effect on mental and physical health. This in turn can add pressure to other public services, such as the NHS. This plan can contribute to improving health, education and social outcomes through meeting accommodation needs on lawful, high-quality, well-planned sites. It can also ensure that sites have a minimum standard of basic amenities. The Plan seeks to improve social cohesion by providing both the settled and the travelling communities with security and certainty about their future, knowing where and when homes are likely to be provided. This in turn can help to reduce documented social tensions and allow everyone an equal opportunity to thrive in the borough. 15. We fully agree that all members of our Borough’s community should have reasonable access to appropriate accommodation and that the underlying causes of health disparities, educational disadvantages and any disadvantageous social outcomes should be analysed and, wherever possible, remedied; that is what should happen in a civilised, lawful country. 16. Not to pursue such remedies to the disadvantage of a particular section of our community might be construed as racist, and should not be condoned. Population Numbers 17. Paragraphs 41-44 in Reg 18C give various statistics (our highlighting): There are approximately 71,200 households7 in Maidstone borough, but only approximately 576 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople households. In response to the 2021 Census, 5,405 people in Kent (0.3%) identified themselves as being from Gypsy and Irish Traveller ethnic groups, while the corresponding figure for England was 0.1%. Maidstone borough has the highest Gypsy and Traveller population by local authority area across England and Wales, at 1,009 ‘usual residents’ 9. The Gypsy and Traveller population per 1,000 residents in Maidstone equates to 5.74. The national average is 1.06 per 1,000 of the population. Although the borough’s ward boundaries have since altered, the 2021 census data shows that within Kent, the wards of Marden and Yalding, Coxheath and Hunton, and Headcorn10 ranked in the top five of England local authority districts with the highest proportion of people from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller ethnic group. At a Parish level, Linton, Hunton and Ulcombe have high populations of Gypsy and Irish Travellers communities. 18. These statistics are compatible with our Borough being seen as a soft touch. 19. It should also be noted that these figures imply a ratio of just under 2:1 for “usual residents”:households and will be referred to below. (Note: “usual residents” is found in Table TS021 that refers to the Census 2021 dataset for Ethnic Group in England and Wales, provided by the Office for National Statistics (ONS)). Assessed Needs 20. Reg18C, page 15, contains: Please see attached table 21. That table is a direct read-across from Figure 19 in page 49 of the report from ORS. 22. The figures for 0-5 years include pitches for: Gypsy & Traveller Needs: Households on unauthorised developments 49 Concealed households/Doubling-up/Over-crowding 98 5 year need from teenage children 98 Undetermined Gypsies & Travellers: Households on unauthorised developments 19 Concealed households/Doubling-up/Over-crowding 32 5 year need from teenage children 31 Total: 327 of the above 333 23. If it were an analysis of bricks & mortar requirements for the general population, “unauthorised” would be addressed by enforcement and concealed households and the needs of teenage children would probably not give rise to assessed needs being met within five years, but, rather, spread over a longer period, if not the whole plan period. 24. Fairness across the whole community would remove much of that 333 from the assessed needs in the first five years and spread it over a much longer period, if not the whole plan period. 25. It must be noted that, of the 333 in the first five years, some should be, or should become, available at existing sites. ORS states that number to be zero, which stretches credibility Pitch Turnover & Mortality 26. ORS’s report contains in paragraph 3.36 (our highlighting): Pitch Turnover West Oxfordshire Council relies on a GTAA published in 2013. This identifies an immediate need for 6 additional pitches. However, the GTAA methodology treats pitch turnover as a component of supply. This is only the case if there is net outward migration, yet no such scenario is apparent in West Oxfordshire. Based on the evidence before me I consider the underlying criticism of the GTAA to be justified and that unmet need is likely to be higher than that in the findings in the GTAA. 3.36 Some assessments of need make use of pitch/plot turnover as an ongoing component of supply. ORS do not agree with this approach or with making any assumptions about annual turnover rates. ORS consider that this approach frequently ends up significantly under-estimating need as, in the majority of cases, vacant pitches/plots are not in fact available to meet any local need. The use of turnover has been the subject of a number of Inspectors Decisions, for example APP/J3720/A/13/2208767 found a GTAA to be unsound when using turnover and concluded: 27. In that decision, “only the case if there is net outward migration” would appear completely to ignore mortality, which is examined below. 28. Further, ORS’s report contains in paragraph 3.37 (our highlighting): In addition, Best Practice for Assessing the Accommodation Needs of Gypsies and Travellers5 produced jointly in June 2016 by organisations including Friends, Families and Travellers, the London Gypsy and Traveller Unit, the York Travellers Trust, the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group, Garden Court Chambers and Leeds GATE concluded that: Assessments involving any form of pitch turnover in their supply relies upon making assumptions, a practice best avoided. Turnover is naturally very difficult to assess accurately and in practice does not contribute meaningfully to additional supply so should be very carefully assessed in line with local trends. Mainstream housing assessments are not based on the assumption that turnover within the existing stock can provide for general housing needs. 29. That conclusion and logic do not appear consistent. It states: “involving any form of pitch turnover in their supply relies upon making assumptions, a practice best avoided”, when, in fact, making assumptions is the foundation of forward projections. And as for not including turnover in mainstream housing assessments, that is because in- and out-migration are implicitly considered. 30. ORS’s report then continues (our highlighting): 3.38 As such, other than current vacant pitches/plots that are known to be available, annual pitch/plot turnover has not been considered as a formal component of supply in this GTAA. However, natural turnover of pitches/plots on public and private sites/yards should continue to be monitored by the Council. In particular, the natural turnover of pitches/plots can help to meet future need over time from new household formation. 31. Mortality is a fact of human life. Why should such monitoring not give rise to reasonable assumptions on pitch/plot turnover? 32. A very sensitive subject but ORS’s report, in paragraphs 2.15-2.16 of Appendix D, contains (our highlighting): Death Rates 2.15 Although the above data imply an annual growth rate through births of about 2%, the death rate has also to be taken into account. Whereas the average life expectancy across the whole population of the UK is currently just over 80 years, a Sheffield University study found that Gypsy and Traveller life expectancy is about 10-12 years less than average (Parry et al (2004) ‘The Health Status of Gypsies and Travellers: Report of Department of Health Inequalities in Health Research Initiative’, University of Sheffield). 2.16 Therefore, in our population growth modelling in 2013 ORS used a conservative estimate of average life expectancy as 72 years – which is entirely consistent with the lower-than-average number of Gypsies and Travellers aged over 70 years in the 2011 Census (and also in ORS’s own survey data). 33. The following table then appears in Appendix D (our highlighting): Figure 24 – Age Profile for the Gypsy and Traveller Community in England 2011 and 2021 (Source: UK Census of Population 2011 and 2021) Please see attached table 34. Assuming our Borough has the above profile, the above indicates that over the first five years of the period covered by Reg18C (to 2040), some 2.5-5% of individuals may not require ongoing accommodation. While it is recognised that not all resultant accommodation may be available to others, for the consultant to ignore mortality would appear to be difficult to defend. 35. With our Borough having, from above, 1,009 ‘usual residents’, annual national population growth statistics for Gypsies & Travellers of circa 1.5%p.a. would imply some 75 additional persons over the first five years (with mortality having been netted off). At occupancy of 2 (or more), that implies a need for less than 40 pitches over the first five years, far less need for additional pitches than the 333 from above (PPTS definition, plus Undetermined). 36. For the remainder of the plan period, ORS uses population increase statistics based on national averages. Those statistics offset birth and death rates and not to do similar in the first five years gives rise to a higher, false “platform” at the end of the first five years from which to project forward. That gives a sustained over-estimate of needs over the plan period. Sustainability 37. For Reg18C, a Sustainability Appraisal of the Maidstone Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document 2023-2040 (date October 2025) has been prepared by Lepus Consulting for MBC. 38. After reviewing MBC’s identified 158 “reasonable alternative sites” using its “receptor-led methodology”, then applying mitigation measures in an endeavour to overcome unsatisfactory impacts to optimise sustainability performance, 27 potential sites remain for possible allocation at Reg19, as illustrated in the table below from the SA report (with the colour coding below): Please see attached table 40. The colour coding is: Please see attached table 41. As can be seen, none of the 27 meets “negligible” or better judgement across all criteria. 42. The assessment of each of those 27 includes the words: “Select, subject to more detailed assessment prior to Regulation 19 draft submission plan”. 43. If the assessed need from the ORS report is accepted, there will be pressure to identify more sites for review and also to tailor the “more detailed assessment” to allow many of that 27 to be selected. Windfalls 44. Page 7 of the Strategic Land Availability Assessment (November 2025) contains the table to the right; 45. Some of those windfalls may have arisen because MBC had not got sufficient, or sufficiently strong, policies to refuse and then perhaps chose not to defend, or failed, at any appeal. 46. On the face of it, a significant proportion of any assessed needs might be met by future windfalls. 47. Over the 18 years’ period of the DPD, windfalls might amount to some 500 pitches, almost equivalent to the currently assessed needs (see paragraph 20 above). Policies 48. Paragraph 4.197 of 2017 Local Plan Review states (our highlighting): The Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTTSAA) revealed a need for 187 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches to be provided in the borough during the period October 2011 and March 2031. A further 11 plots for Travelling Showpeople will be required over the same period. 49. Paragraph 3.64 of MBC’s Authority Monitoring Report (2022-23) states (our highlighting): The Local Plan outlines a 187-pitch target over the plan period. Since 2011, the base date of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan, a total of 312 pitches have been granted permanent consent (Table 21). At the 1st April 2023, the rate at which permanent permissions have been granted exceeds the target. ………… 50. That would indicate a failure either to apply policies or inadequate policies that led MBC to conclude that it would be unsuccessful when defending appeals and therefore just approved applications, whatever their merits. 51. That points to a need to ensure that policies within 2024 Local Plan Review or in the eventual DPD are robust to challenge, particularly when considering development in the countryside and close to small and large villages. 52. Whatever the Examination of this DPD determines for the numbers in the Trajectory of allocated pitches, MBC has to ensure that relevant policies are sufficiently tight to withstand appeal against any refusals. Policies to-date have clearly been inadequate, encouraging MBC more-or-less to wave-through applications as they did not expect to be able to withstand appeal. 53. Existing policies require review and, as necessary, strengthening and perhaps new policies defined to avoid a repeat of the above situation after 2017 Local Plan Review. 54. In support of that, MBC must allocate a sufficient budget to resist all appeals and to deter future applications for pitches beyond Trajectory. 55. That would serve to dispel the “soft” reputation referred to above. 56. As an important detail, presumably it should be ensured that all approved sites and pitches are retained for use only by those for whom they were approved. If existing or draft policies are not strong enough to ensure they are not occupied by those who do not qualify for such approved sites and pitches, we urge MBC to correct the situation so that, as necessary, enforcement would be able to ensure occupation only by those who qualify. Monitoring Regime 57. The monitoring regime laid out in pages 64-66 of Reg18C has been added to since Reg18B, but still leaves considerable gaps in capturing a full picture of the evolution of the matters covered by the DPD, particularly applications for, and approval of, new pitches and level of success in resisting appeals. 58. It needs to be further expanded, as indicated in our submission to Reg18B. 59. MBC then needs to demonstrate sufficient determination, with sufficient budget, to resist appeals so that the pitch Trajectory determined at DPD Examination is adhered to. Consultant’s Questionnaire. 60. The questionnaire used by ORS has 35 questions, with some of those being “leading” questions, such as: • Q5a. Is this site/yard suitable for the needs of your household? • Q14a. If anyone currently living with you needs their own separate accommodation, how many pitches/plots are needed for them now, and how many will be needed within the next five years? 61. That questionnaire compares unfavourably with that used by the consultant for Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council’s current Reg18 Local Plan – the consultant arc4. 62. Its 58 questions are laid out later in this submission and are more neutral / objective than ORS’s and, if used, would be likely to have arrived at significantly less “needs” for our Borough. Summary – General Points 63. ORS’s questionnaire is less rigorous and objective than the one used by the consultant for Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council, therefore probably assessing needs greater than they actually are. 64. ORS ignore mortality during the first five years. 65. ORS assume that all need derived from all “Households on unauthorised developments”, “Concealed households/Doubling-up/Over-crowding” and “5 year need from teenage children” are met in the first five years. Whether the first category should be planned for is a moot point, but the latter two should be treated in a parallel manner to bricks & mortar accommodation for the overall community i.e. spread through the plan period. 66. The situation that arose after 2017 Local Plan Review must be avoided by reviewing / strengthening / adding policies, establishing sufficient budget to resist appeals and having the willpower and means to engage enforcement. MBC must generate the means and willpower to counter its current “soft” reputation. 67. All sections of our Borough’s community should be addressed fairly and treated equally. Summary – Needs & Trajectory, Five Years’ Supply 68. From paragraph 20 above: Please see attached table 69. From paragraph 19 above, it is noted that, at present, the ratio of “usual residents”:households: is just under 2:1. 70. That implies that either the extent of “Concealed households/Doubling-up/Over-crowding” stated in paragraph 22 is very much exaggerated or otherwise there are many currently vacant pitches that might be available for future use. 71. Allowing about 50% for that exaggeration or exclusion of vacant pitches, then spreading the balance across the full plan period, while adjusting for mortality in the first five years would derive a very different picture of the Trajectory when compared with the table in paragraph 68 – see Revised Profile to the right: 72. It is to be noted that, as laid-out in paragraph 44 above, windfalls could more than meet that revised profile. 73. With respect to the NPPF’s requirement to maintain a Five Years’ Supply, the calculation methodology allows the inclusion of an allowance for windfalls, where evidenced by history. 74. To the extent that evolving “history” starts to reduce the number of evidenced windfalls, perhaps because of the factors outlined above, MBC would need to call forward some of its above list of 27 potential sites (or other identified sites), if they pass sustainability criteria, after further mitigation. 75. There is no argument for now identifying specific sites / pitches, but, rather, challenging the assessed needs (as above), re-profiling the Trajectory, as in the table above, and then including windfalls to meet the requirement for Five Years’ Supply, with a reserve list of candidate sites for calling forward in the event of a shortfall against that requirement. Conclusion 76. The assessed needs within the ORS report is not defensible for reasons outlined above and in our Reg18B submission (which is attached). 77. Even if the figure for assessed needs within the ORS report is accepted, which we do not, the current trend of windfalls should suffice and no further sites or pitches should be allocated within the Reg19 DPD when it is published for consultation and examination. 78. However, if MBC: 78.1. strengthens policies relevant to all candidate sites; and 78.2. adheres to the sustainability criteria documented by Lepus Consulting; and 78.3. maintains and, as necessary, uses a substantial budget to resist appeals and to carry-through any resultant need for enforcement, there is the probability that the number of windfalls would reduce. 79. Should that happen and the number of available pitches not meet the revised and reduced assessed needs, some of those 27 sites identified by Lepus Consulting for further analysis (after mitigation) or other candidate sites would presumably be progressed, but only after evidence that windfalls are coming forward at significantly below historic rates. 80. That approach would then dispel Maidstone’s “soft touch” reputation. The questions below are likely to be answered in depth by those Parishes with direct, real-life experience of the current situation. We ask that MBC gives full consideration to such knowledgeable submissions, as necessary using them to supplant desk-analysis, such as appraisal against sustainability criteria. At overarching level, we see no value in answering the questions below. They are designed to attract a blizzard of submissions by making the process of submission less time-consuming; in essence, it could just be treated as a tick-box exercise, with little additional comment. That “blizzard” can then be used to outnumber, dismiss or devalue more rigorous and detailed submissions if they are not favoured by MBC. The questions make no effort to seek input on the merits of the foundations of Reg18C; that is, the Opinion Research Services assessment of need.