Sites for genuine travelling people to be put to Parliament

[Deleted member 967]

There is a bill to be introduced to Parliament on Monday about trying to sort out the balance between sites for genuine travelling people and static sites for travellers. They recognise that there should be more sites for genuine travelling people.

We need to be contacting our MPs now to point out that not all travellers are Gypsies or Irish Travellers which are the groups recognised as a racial group.

John

 

[Tbear]

Hi John

Its about time they tried to sort the law out. Might give the councils a frame to work from that we can all understand. Then people that wish to camp legitimately can do so and the minority that cause all the trouble will be breaking clear and consise laws so may be delt with in a speedy manor. Who knows some of the hight barriers may come down then.

End of rant! Yes I'll send him an email.

Richard

 

[John H]

I think you are referring to the Government's intention to remove the regulations that compel local Council's to comply with national guidelines regarding provision of sites for travellers. From now on, it will be up to local Councils to decide whether or not they need provision without reference to central Government. As far as I can see this is being done for two reasons:

1. To save money - it enables the Government to save some £30million set aside for grants to such sites, and
2. To shift the blame - from now on MPs can say "its nothing to do with me mate, try shouting at your local Councillor".

All in all, I can't see anything positive in it for us.

 

[Deleted member 967]

I think you are referring to the Government's intention to remove the regulations that compel local Council's to comply with national guidelines regarding provision of sites for travellers. From now on, it will be up to local Councils to decide whether or not they need provision without reference to central Government. As far as I can see this is being done for two reasons:

1. To save money - it enables the Government to save some £30million set aside for grants to such sites, and
2. To shift the blame - from now on MPs can say "its nothing to do with me mate, try shouting at your local Councillor".

All in all, I can't see anything positive in it for us.

There was something on Radio 4 this morning John and it seemed to be the other way around. They stated that many councils were not providing sites for nomadic travellers and the Bill on Monday was to force them to comply. The current network of sites are being blocked by "travellers" residing full time in them.

It is also to get rid of the loophole used by traveller groups to move onto a greenfield site and start development before planning consent was recieved.

John

 

[John H]

There was something on Radio 4 this morning John and it seemed to be the other way around. They stated that many councils were not providing sites for nomadic travellers and the Bill on Monday was to force them to comply. The current network of sites are being blocked by "travellers" residing full time in them.

It is also to get rid of the loophole used by traveller groups to move onto a greenfield site and start development before planning consent was recieved.

John

I heard the report on Radio 4 and interpreted it differently - we'll see what is really happening when they publish the results (but I can't see a Tory government forcing councils to build more sites for travellers!). The point I made above about leaving it up to local councils to decide for themselves without pressure from Government comes from a Planning Guidance Note already published by the Government - so it doesn't seem likely that they are going to suddenly do a u-turn on that. The bit about retrospective planning development, however, does seem to be a definite - not only for travellers but for any developer (which is as it should be, in my opinion - too many developers have ignored the planning rules in the past).

 

[Firefox]

How is "genuine travelling person" defined in the bill ?

 

[John H]

How is "genuine travelling person" defined in the bill ?

The bill in question is the Localism Bill, which receives its second reading on Monday 17th January and which is primarily concerned, as I said in an earlier post, with transferring certain responsibilities from central to local government. Depite the spin given to it in the media, I cannot find any reference at all to "travellers or gypsies" in the briefing papers. What it does do is to make it easier for local councils to turn down retrospective planning applications, which has been dressed up in the press as a means of combatting illegal travelling sites where a group of travellers buy a field and start building on it without permission. These illegal sites have been used as the example but the rules will apply to all retrospective planning applications - so if you build an extension to your house without going through the correct procedures, these same rules could be used to make you tear it down. Personally, I think the whole thing is window dressing because there are already rules in place to combat retrospective planning - and I don't think a new rule will make nervous councils any more inclined to do anything about it. It will, however, enable the Government to say that it is nothing to do with them!

As a point of interest, the existing legislation defines a gypsy or traveller as "a person of nomadic habit, regardless of race or origin". Bizarelly, however, it goes on to say that a person does not necessarily lose his "nomadic habit" by "residing or intending to reside in a permanent dwelling", which to my mind qualifies all of us whether we own a house or not!

 

[syldale]

travellers

all i know about travellers is the mess they leave on there unofficial site it costs the council a lot of money to clean up on the other hand here in the u.k and abroad these official sites are usually clean and tidy we have one near us

 

[John H]

all i know about travellers is the mess they leave on there unofficial site it costs the council a lot of money to clean up on the other hand here in the u.k and abroad these official sites are usually clean and tidy we have one near us

Hope they got planning permission or it might be torn down!

 

[syldale]

Hope they got planning permission or it might be torn down!

it is a official site been there for years on a main road for all to see and they pay there way

 

[John H]

it is a official site been there for years on a main road for all to see and they pay there way

It was my attempt at humour based on the provisions of the new Bill! Glad to hear some positive comments about travellers for a change - we have stayed among them in the past and always had a warm welcome.

 

[maingate]

In practice, I do not think it will make any difference at all.

A Council employee will get shirty with one of us and bring the full weight of the law down on us in order to get us to move on.

When they are faced with an encampment of travellers, they will not face up to them at all and try to pass the buck.

 

[Deleted member 967]

There is a Traveller site near where I used to live, it has been there since the 70s and causes no problems and is tidy. The site however is full of static travellers and the nomadic groups are still camping on some of the traditional stopping places. I now often use a CS site at the end of this road.

On one such site used by the nomads I can remember a short street of houses in my childhood. This was condemned and torn down in the 50s when the land opposite was allocated as an industrial estate. Some locals still get annoyed by travellers using it as a site. Families of the previous occupants still own the plots, but have repeatedly had planning permission for redevelopment refused.

The mess associated with unofficial sites is not always the travellers fault, but the way they have been removed from the site. Now councils are required to provide skips and toilets until they can reach a suitable solution with the travellers.

I stayed on a CL on in Bedfordshire while at college and there was a lay-by nearby. I saw many travelling groups use this lay-by and leave it cleaner than it was before they moved on. There was one group that moved onto the site and started burning scrap and leaving a horrible mess. They were forced off and boulders placed over the entrance/exit. As a result the genuine travellers who had looked after the place and other users were unable to access it.

John

 

[Firefox]

I just wondered whether the phrase "genuine travelling people" was yours or whether it was in the bill. If yours, then presumably you would be able to define it.

 

[Deleted member 967]

I just wondered whether the phrase "genuine travelling people" was yours or whether it was in the bill. If yours, then presumably you would be able to define it.

Hi Firefox. It was my wording. I was pointing to the difference between the Nomadic Traveller and the Static Traveller. Both are included in the ethnic definition of a traveller. By genuine traveller I was referring to nomadic travellers.

Many "travellers" have lived in houses for generations yet still claim that they are travellers under the ethnic definition. Many only take to the road to attend a fair such as Appleby.

I see myself as more of a genuine traveller than the latter group.

New Age and others who have taken to the road by choice do not share the definition of traveller as far as discrimination is concerned. Yet the house bound traveller who can claim ties to being nomadic before they moved into houses are still in the ethnic grouping and get discrimination protection under the law.

I may have picked up the wrong end of the stick in what I heard (JohnH comment) but I am sure the MP being interviewed said that councils that did not provide facilities for groups that did not wish to be static, would be required to provide places for them to stay in transit.
The debate did include comments about travellers moving onto greenfield sites and starting development work without getting planning permission.

John

 

[John H]

Many "travellers" have lived in houses for generations yet still claim that they are travellers under the ethnic definition.

New Age and others who have taken to the road by choice do not share the definition of traveller as far as discrimination is concerned. Yet the house bound traveller who can claim ties to being nomadic before they moved into houses are still in the ethnic grouping and get discrimination protection under the law.

I may have picked up the wrong end of the stick in what I heard (JohnH comment) but I am sure the MP being interviewed said that councils that did not provide facilities for groups that did not wish to be static, would be required to provide places for them to stay in transit.
The debate did include comments about travellers moving onto greenfield sites and starting development work without getting planning permission.

John

The existing law says that living in a fixed dwelling does not negate the "nomadic lifestyle" of the person claiming to be a traveller.

The existing law also says that anyone who claims a "nomadic lifestyle" is defined as a traveller, REGARDLESS OF RACE OR ORIGIN - so there is no legal difference between Roma Gypsies, New Age Travellers and full-timing motorhomers if you stick to the letter of the law. There is a common misconception that the rules applying to Gypsies is different from those that apply to the rest of us - this is not so (although some councils may feel intimidated about applying those rules, as Maingate said above).

I did not hear anything in the radio interview about councils being REQUIRED to do anything - in fact the whole thrust of today's Bill is in the opposite direction.

 

[Kontiki]

So if a 'traveller' lives in a house for a time he is still a 'traveller' how long do they have to live in a house to become a non traveller? Sureley we were all nomadic at some time in our past. Isn't this then a clear discrimination against us who are classed as non-travellers? How could a 'traveller' who is living in a house prove they are still a nomadic traveller?

 

[s44gtw]

Interesting reading,
but i think its important to point out when talking about
'Parliament,
& Westminister or UK Government that this is possibly legislation & white or green papers, that may apply only to England, or England & Wales.
Scotland has a devolved Parliament & possibly a more enlightened view to 'Travelling People.'

Different definitions possibly as well.
Google, 'Scotland Travelling People' 21st Sept 2000, or similar.
Lots of things happening in theory at least, lots of comittees & talk, not so sure on action or actual money being spent practically tho!

eg
http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/05/22093426/6
I am sure if anyone looks there will have been many more talks & more talks on the subject in the years between then & now.

george

 

[John H]

So if a 'traveller' lives in a house for a time he is still a 'traveller' how long do they have to live in a house to become a non traveller? Sureley we were all nomadic at some time in our past. Isn't this then a clear discrimination against us who are classed as non-travellers? How could a 'traveller' who is living in a house prove they are still a nomadic traveller?

No it isn't discrimination against US because WE can claim to have a nomadic lifestyle under the legal definition of "traveller". All people "regardless of race or origin" can claim a nomadic lifestyle if they wish - or choose not to, so any "discrimination" is self-imposed.

 

[Deleted member 967]

So if a 'traveller' lives in a house for a time he is still a 'traveller' how long do they have to live in a house to become a non traveller? Sureley we were all nomadic at some time in our past. Isn't this then a clear discrimination against us who are classed as non-travellers? How could a 'traveller' who is living in a house prove they are still a nomadic traveller?

No matter how long they live in a house they are still considered ethnicaly as travellers.

They don't cease to be travellers. Anyone who is not born into this group no matter how long they have been on the road is never considered for ethnicity perposes as a traveller.

Irish Travellers and Romany Gypsies are recognised ethnic minorities in England, and are protected by the Race Relations Act, new Travellers are not (they have generally chosen a travelling life, rather than being born into it). We often use the generic term Traveller to cover all these groups.

Legislation which covers evictions from the roadside is the same as to how it affects all groups.

Only Irish Travellers and Romany Gypsies are protected from racial discrimination.

Planning law has a slightly different definition for a 'Gypsy' and you do have to show that you have travelled or have a 'cultural aversion to bricks and mortar'.

Kind regards

Emma Nuttall

Advice & Policy Manager

John