PROVISION OF GYPSY & TRAVELLER SITES – SOUTH NORFOLK
Executive summary
i)South Norfolk Council when it met with officers of Go-East and CLG, proposed a funding package to assist with the implementation of allocated Gypsy and Traveller sites, and was invited to submit further details.
ii)The Council is finalising a Gypsy and Traveller Local Development Document LDD), which will allocate sites to meet immediate needs for up to 32 permanent pitches. We aim to deliver these through our enabling role, with implementation over the next three years. The Council has an open mind on who could develop sites – local authorities, registered social landlords, private landlords, or travellers themselves.
iii)This proposal deals capital funding with two possible Traveller site tenures which have no current access to government funding – private rented development by landowners, or development by Travellers themselves. It aims to fill a gap. It describes how the proposal would work, and the scale and flow of finances. It does not deal with ongoing revenue spending, which is a separate matter – see attached letter.
iv)The proposal seeks funding of £200,000, to match Council capital funding of £100,000, to create a resource to meet half the identified need for pitches by supporting the development of private sites, either privately rented or owner-occupied.
- Brief History
1.1South Norfolk Council (SNC) owns one permanent rented site for Gypsies & Travellers within the District, which is leased to Norfolk County Council. This is the Roundwell site on the Western fringes of Norwich at Costessey, with18 pitches. The day-to-day property maintenance is undertaken by Norfolk Property Services (NPS) who in turn have appointed a warden to manage the site. The warden is Mrs Gloria Buckley.
1.2Up to 2007, planning permission had been granted in the District for five small private sites developed by “owner-occupier” Travellers, in some cases related to established local families. Efforts to actively pursue further sites within the District were limited up until the early part of 2004, when the then ODPM issued guidance to local authorities to increase their efforts in identification of sites.
1.3At the same time, a group of 6 Gypsy families had purchased and occupied a meadow at Denton, in a distinctly rural part of the Council’s area.
1.4The Council took enforcement action through the planning process and, after numerous appeals and judicial reviews, the occupiers left the site and are scattered around Norfolk or further afield. The Council took direct action and returned the site to a meadow, in the latter part of 2007. Currently the Council are mortgagees in possession of the land and moving towards applying a charge against the existing landowners.
1.5During the period of residential occupation SNC carried out a survey of all Council owned land (and some County land) to seek an alternative place for the occupiers of the Denton site. Four sites were identified as being suitable in planning/housing terms and planning applications were made by the Council.
1.6There was an enormous backlash from the settled community and public meetings of 600-800 people objecting to the proposals were commonplace. All the planning applications were eventually refused. The few voices in support of identification of suitable sites got lost in the general strength of opposition.
- The Council changes its approach
2.1Against this background the Council appointed its first cohesion group to analyse what went wrong, why opposition was so strong and how the Council could prevent falling into the same pitfalls if further applications are forthcoming.
2.2An independent Chair (who was also Chair of the Southern Norfolk PCT) was appointed. External consultants were engaged to drive the programme.
2.3The group arrived at 12 recommendations to improve consultations on planning applications and proposed allocations, and in the longer term to build cohesion between the travelling and settled communities.
2.4Most of these recommendations have been implemented or introduced via the 2005-2008 Gypsy and Traveller Strategy and the LDD “Issues and Options” process.
2.5The 2006 needs survey – the only District GTAA in the region – consisted of interviews with travellers, before guidance issued, but has been broadly accepted by the Regional Planning Authority (EERA), and is now reflected in the draft RSS. It showed the need is:
- Four sites, each with 6-8 permanent pitches
- Plus three small transit sites
- In “corridors” along main roads
2.5Planning permissions have recently been granted for a number of small private sites developed by travellers, who were not resident in the District at the time of the Needs Survey.
2.6With regard to providing for Gypsies and travellers who need rented pitches, the council are pleased to have identified a locally based RSL who are committed to working with Gypsies and Travellers. In a joint bid with this Council, Broadland Housing Association (BHA) has already secured £1.116 million to deliver a new site for 8 families near Harford park-and-ride, in one of the “corridors of need”. A planning application is imminent.
3The LDF/LDD Process
3.1The Council has decided to allocate Gypsy and Traveller sites through a Local Development Document (LDD) for the District. This must comply with the emerging RSS single-issue review, but can precede the three-district sub-regional LDF (South Norfolk, Norwich City and Broadland).
3.2The “Issues and Options” consultation in May 2007 included conventional publicity such as questionnaires, and exhibitions in “corridors”, but also used more innovative methods such as
- By-invitation discussion evenings with local “opinion formers” – schools, health, parishes, ward members
- Employing an experienced consultant to interview travellers – using local knowledge of encampments – from caravan count.
3.4We have also consulted on a framework for a sustainability appraisal.
3.5The outcomes from the consultation include:
- An emerging “checklist” for selecting sites
- A preference for small, well-screened, well-managed sites
- Near, but not in settlements
- Good access to main routes in “corridors of need”
- Avoid pollution/disturbance, to and from sites
3.6South Norfolk Council’s elected members wish to give greater emphasis to implementation, in parallel with plan preparation, and potential permanent sites are taking priority at present.
3.7The Council has retained a property consultant to work up an “offer” to owners of potential sites, to refine the “checklist” for site choice, and to examine the practicality of potential sites. A local traveller representative has confirmed that our ideas for potential locations would be acceptable to travellers.
3.8The Council is planning further consultation in mid-2008, with submission of the LDD in late summer 2008.
4Member Involvement
4.1A cross-party member group has been established in South Norfolk to explore the needs of the G&T communities and to develop suitable sites.
4.2There is a strong cross representation from the G & T Member Working Group with the Local Development Framework/Sustainable Community Strategy Working Group
5. Options for implementation
5.1South Norfolk Council has an open mind on who could develop Gypsy and Traveller sites – local authorities, registered social landlords, private landlords, or travellers themselves. We intend to ensure that available tenures reflect the need and aspirations of the Gypsies and Travellers in our District.
5.2 This proposal divides tenures into
- “public” sites operated by the Council or an RSL;
- “private” sites – owner-occupied, or rented by private landlords.
5.3Now that the first new public permanent site is about to become available, we intend to establish a register (waiting list) and allocation process, which will help to ensure that pitches on public sites are allocated fairly. The register will also identify families who wish to own or part-own, or to work with a private landowner.
6Public rented sites
6.1The provision of new Council-owned or RSL sites will contribute to meeting needs for rented permanent pitches, with intensive management and input from Supporting People, as appropriate. Our enabling role would involve assisting a RSL to bid for funds, apply for planning permission, develop the site, allocate pitches (via the council’s register) manage and maintain the site. We would intend to deliver “public” sites for rent in partnership with Broadland Housing Association (BHA), as for the Harford site.
6.2That “route” for meeting needs is largely outside the scope of this proposal, except for the possibility of acquiring land to pass on to an a RSL.
7Owner-occupied and private rented sites
7.1If groups of Gypsy and Travellers have the means to either own or part own sites and to manage them themselves, we should be supporting them in the same way as we would support anyone in the settled community.
7.2The Council believes that landowners may be prepared to let land on long leases for the construction of new permanent traveller sites, in order to gain an income stream while retaining their capital assets.
7.3The council in its “enabling role”, therefore wishes to progress two options to provide private permanent Gypsy and Traveller sites:
i)to acquire suitable sites, secure planning permission and then sell on to families who wish to develop their own site and be owner occupiers/ part occupiers, either through a RSL or working with Traveller “developers”.
ii)To assist landowners to bring forward private rented sites.
7.4We are currently exploring with BHA the option of them securing planning permission and providing basic infrastructure on sites which may be passed on to Gypsies and Travellers.
7.5On some private sites where pitches are sold separately, it may be appropriate for the Council (or RSL) to retain ownership and maintenance of key parts of the site, for example the access “throat” and screening/landscaped areas.
8Access to funding
8.1This proposal is intended to fill a gap. Existing sources of public funding are available for land purchase, site development and ongoing management of public sites.
8.3However, there is no established market for sites with planning permission for traveller sites, and the travelling community has little access to conventional sources of loan capital. Equally, for landowners who may wish to provide private rented sites for travellers, there is no equivalent of the housing development industries and their established sources of finance. The position has now worsened with the recent restrictions on lending by banks - the “credit crunch”.
8.4The circumstances justify action by local authorities to fill the gap.
8.5Traveller owner-occupiers are unlikely to have the means, or indeed the desire to develop permanent sites to the same standards as public providers would have to meet to secure public funding. Many Gypsies and Travellers have groundwork skills. Owner-occupied Traveller sites are often fairly basic at the start, then owners improve over the years.
8.6So long as such sites meet site licensing requirements and are the free choice of the occupiers, the Council has no concern over such a discrepancy in standards, which reflects the variation in standards and level of choice in public and private housing. However, it seems inequitable that there should be a much greater disparity in finance available to public and private traveller sites.
8.7Owner-occupier Traveller families manage their sites and require no additional management from the council, in the same way as an owner-occupier in the settled community.
8.8In addition, support for private provision has the potential to provide a far greater number of sites, at a lower cost-per-pitch for a given level of limited public funds, than the high standards expected on “public” sites.
9How the proposed Fund would work
9.1The council has set aside a one-off capital budget of £100,000 for this purpose. We are asking for a further £200,000 to supplement this budget.
9.2The outgoings from the Fund would be:
- Procuring land – either freehold or leasehold basis;
- Fees, and costs of preparing planning applications;
- Meeting any exceptional infrastructure costs;
- Assisting private landowners to meet any initial costs, to encourage them to bring sites forward.
9.3Land acquisition could be through:
- compulsory purchase of allocated sites, or
- “opportunity” purchases of sites which meet the LDD criteria, or
- arranging leases (at least 10 years) with willing landowners.
9.4Suitable sites would be about 0.8 hectatres in extent. Possible costs of contested compulsory purchase, if it proves to be necessary, could be up to £40,000 for two sites – that is included in the estimated costs of land acquisition, as a contingency.
9.5The proposed fund would assist “opportunity” purchases where it might be necessary to move quickly, for example land offered for auction. The Fund would absorb abortive costs of sites acquired as opportunity purchases which subsequently do not obtain planning permission, where the resale price is unlikely to equal the purchase price, and fees incurred.
9.5The Fund could also be used to provide initial infrastructure which might otherwise be an insuperable hurdle to developers, as a form of “pump priming” to enable provision, and assistance with preparing model pitch leases and tenancy agreements.
9.6Once planning permission has been secured, we would either
- sell on to a Gypsy and Traveller family
- enter into a lease arrangement
- enter into a form of shared ownership agreement
- ask a RSL to bid for monies separately to develop a site for rent
9.7Funds would flow in from “buy-and-sell on” sites, and equity share. There will be need for Council to top-up the Fund, during the process of securing sufficient sites to meet needs.
9.8There is a need for a fund because
- expenditure will exceed income;
- income to recoup the expenditure would be recovered over a longer period of time.
9.9We will also be approaching other potential sources of contributions to the proposed Fund, such as charities.
9.10In the longer term, we wish to examine the possible use of the Fund to offer grants and loans to maintain owner-occupied traveller sites, in the same way as we offer grants and loans to owner-occupiers in the settled community through our Housing Renewal policy (criteria apply).
10Scale of resources required
10.1The main capital outgoings are expected to be, for two sites (12-16 pitches, or half the current need):
Basic provision works (see Appendix 3) / £50,500 per site / £101,000
Site surveys, costs of onward sale/lease / Including professional and legal fees, two sites at £4,500 each / £9,000
Utilities connections / Average of £50K per site / £100,000
Funded by: / Council provides £100K,
This proposal £200K / £300,000
Appendicies
- Schedule of indicative site development costs
- Issues and Options “checklist” criteria
- Potential locations
Appendix 1
Gypsy and Travellers sites – typical costings (6 pitches).
1 Site preparation
Includes stripping site of all vegetable matter, 6000
excavation of top soil, excavation of concrete bases and carting away from site and tipping costs.
2 Water and drainage
Includes land drains for surface water drainage, petrol interceptor, 17000
drains for foul sewage, manholes etc and a small individual sewage
treatment plant. Presuming these is a discharge point.
It also includes a provisional sum for a water supply from an
unknown source to the site.
3 Electrical
Supply from the site boundary to a feeder pillar. 2000
Excluding the supply to the site
4 Surfacing and Landscaping
Includes membrane, sub-base and finish, but not asphalt,18500
Granular finish in specific areas, footpath if required, site entrance to highway, 2 concrete pads and general soft landscaping.
5 Boundary treatments
Planting as required, individual site fence and boundary fence 7000
TOTAL £50500
Appendix 3
Potential locations
Note – the locations shown on these maps have been identified using our “checklist” and are being investigated in detail, but have not yet been subject to public consultation, so please treat them as confidential at this stage.