Leicester Business School East Kent Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment Report (2007-2012) Prepared For: Canterbury City Council Dover District Council Shepway District Council Thanet District Council Report by: De Montfort University, Leicester Principal Authors: Jo Richardson, John Bloxsom and Margaret Greenfields Final Report 17 th July 2007 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council ii Client contact: Shirley Metson Strategy & Enabling Officer Housing & Community Development Canterbury City Council Military Road Canterbury CT1 1YW Project Director: Dr Jo Richardson Centre for Comparative Housing Research Leicester Business School De Montfort University The Gateway Leicester LE1 9BH 0116 257 7434 jrichardson@dmu.ac.uk www.dmu.ac.uk/cchr and www.cchr.net Date: 17 July 2007 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council iii Acknowledgements The principal authors are grateful to all the members of the project team, including Dr David Smith at Canterbury Christchurch University and Martin Dimov at Oxford University; and we particularly appreciate the hard work of Joe, Bridie and Angie Jones of the Canterbury Gypsy Support Group during the interview stage. Thanks are also due to Ray Smith of the Showmen?s Guild for his advice on the surveys and for assisting access to local Showmen. In addition to information provided from the four districts, we are grateful for information shared by the Kent County Council Gypsy and Traveller Unit, and to representatives from Supporting People and the Minority Communities Achievement Service. Finally, we thank all of the Gypsies and Travellers in East Kent who took the time to respond to the face-to-face surveys. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council iv Contents Page Executive Summary vii Glossary of Terms xiv 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 5 3.0 CONTEXT AND POLICY BACKGROUND 15 4.0 FINDINGS: SITES 26 5.0 FINDINGS: HOUSING 37 6.0 FINDINGS: UNAUTHORISED ENCAMPMENTS/ ROADSIDE 42 7.0 HEALTH, EDUCATION AND HOUSING RELATED SUPPORT 52 8.0 ASSESSMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE ACCOMMODATION ? RESIDENTIAL PITCHES, TRANSIT ACCOMMODATION, TRAVELLING SHOWPEOPLE AND HOUSING 66 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITE PROVISION 84 10.0 REFERENCES 92 11.0 APPENDIX ONE: SUMMARY OF KEY LEGISLATION 95 12.0 APPENDIX TWO: THEMES FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS 98 13.0 APPENDIX THREE: EXPLANATION OF PITCH REQUIREMENTS CALCULATION 123 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council v Tables 1 July 2006, CLG Caravan Count Data for East Kent 7 2 Distribution of Sampled and Achieved Interviews by Local Authority 10 3 Characteristics of Respondents 12 4 Accommodation Type of Sample Population 13 5 Reasons for settling in the area amongst those on sites 26 6 Respondents saying that they had problems with the site they live on 28 7 Fire Prevention Equipment on Sites 29 8 Experience of being moved on/evicted in last five years 31 9 Preferred Type of Accommodation by Those on Sites 33 10 Assessment of ability to purchase land (sites) 33 11 Interest in obtaining a mortgage to buy land for a site 34 12 Preferred area to live in (sites) 35 13 Access to Doctors and Dentists 39 14 Problems Obtaining Schooling/ Transport to and from School 40 15 Roadside respondents on whether they had ever stopped on council sites 48 16 Accommodation preferences of those on the roadside/unauthorised encampments 48 17 Assessment of ability to purchase by on the roadside/unauthorised encampments 49 18 Health Status of Survey Respondents 55 19 Health Status of Survey Household Members 56 20 Problems with Schooling Within the Family 60 21 Calculation of Pitch Residential Requirements 2007-2011 68 22 Estimated Families in the Study Area April 2007 69 23 Residential Pitch Requirements 2007?11 by Local Authority Area 69 24 Additional Residential Pitch Requirements 20012?2017 71 25 Caravan Counts on land not authorised or owned by Gypsies and Travellers 72 26 Number of caravans and their frequency on unauthorised encampments 2004-2006 73 27 Impact of potential transit caravan capacity on average UE caravan numbers 2004-2006 74 28 Estimate of Caravan Capacity Required on Transit Sites 76 29 Estimated Requirement for Additional Pitches for Travelling Showpeople 78 30 Estimate of the Requirement for Housing 2007-17 78 31 Residential pitch requirements among Irish Travellers 79 32 Summary of Existing Position and Requirement 2007-12 80 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council vi Figures 1 Map of sites and unauthorised encampments 43 2 Planning Context for Gypsy and Traveller Sites 85 Plates 1 Private Site, Herne Bay (temporary planning permission) 28 2 Local Authority Site, Vauxhall Road, Canterbury 30 3 Unauthorised Private Site, Whitstable 35 4 Unauthorised Private Site, Whitstable 35 5 Location previously used for unauthorised encampments which has now been blocked off: piece of highway verge on the northern edge of the A257, East of Ash 46 6 Unauthorised Encampment Opposite Vauxhall Site, Canterbury 47 7 Unauthorised Roadside Site, Old Thanet Way, Chestfield, Herne Bay. Just been evicted. 47 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council vii Executive Summary 1.0 Aims of the Study 1.1 De Montfort University and partners were commissioned in February 2007, by the four East Kent local authorities (Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council, and Thanet District Council), to undertake a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA). 1.2 The aim of the GTAA was to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers in the sub-region from 2007 ? 2011; and then from 2012 ? 2017. As required by the Communities and Local Government (CLG) guidance on GTAAs (February 2006), pitch requirements are given for permanent site and transit site provision. 1.3 The results of the East Kent GTAA are to be fed into the South East Regional Planning Body, pitch numbers will then be checked by the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) and modified to reflect the regional picture, and then pitch requirements will be given to each local planning body. 2.0 Methodology 2.1 The methodology for the research is based upon the model developed by Greenfields and Home in the Cambridgeshire GTAA. This model, and its use of community interviewers, has been recognised by CLG as good practice. The use of community interviewers in the methodology recognises the expertise held by the Gypsy and Traveller community, and it helps to improve access to the community and respondents? trust in the research process. 2.2 A leaflet was circulated around the East Kent Gypsy and Traveller community telling them about the research, what it aimed to achieve, and the broad timescale for completing the surveys. This helped to raise awareness amongst the Gypsy and Traveller community, and it was also used to engage with Travelling Showpeople, through circulation by the Showmen?s Guild. 2.3 The secondary research was completed during the latter half of February 2007, and the primary research of survey interviews, and meetings with local authorities and stakeholders, was undertaken in March and early April 2007. 92 surveys were undertaken, representing 52% of the Gypsy and Traveller population in East Kent. Analysis of the results was undertaken, and drafts of the report were written in May and June 2007. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council viii 2.4 The community interviewers were trained, and many of them had previous experience working on other GTAAs in different parts of the country. The approach of using community interviewers enabled the team to utilise local knowledge and expertise and to gain access to Gypsies and Travellers across the sub-region. However, the team was aware that some respondents may not wish to speak to a fellow Gypsy or Traveller, and a professional interviewer from Canterbury Christchurch University was available in such instances. 2.5 The survey stage included a pilot of ten surveys, whose results were scrutinised by Canterbury Christchurch University. The only amendment following this pilot was a suggestion to the community interviewers of areas where they might try and probe for a little more qualitative information. 2.6 In addition to the survey, two focus groups with (1) young people and (2) women with health issues, were facilitated by the research team, in order to provide some further, qualitative, findings on health and other support needs. 3.0 Survey Response 3.1 The research team aimed to complete 100 surveys. 92 surveys were achieved across the four local authority areas in total. This represents 52% of the estimated local Gypsy and Traveller population in the sub-region. 3.2 73% of respondents described themselves as ?English Gypsy ? Romany?, 13% as Irish Travellers, 11% as Travelling Showpeople, and 3% as other 1 . The stratification of respondents across accommodation type shows 24% respondents on unauthorised encampments/roadside, 26% in houses and 50% on authorised sites. 4.0 Key Findings On Sites 4.1 55% of respondents on sites said that the main reason they had settled in the East Kent area was that they had always lived in the area or they had family connections with the area. 4.2 On questions of ?quality? of site accommodation, 96% of those surveyed on local authority sites said they had problems with the site, compared to 2 out of 17 (12%) of those on self owned private authorised sites. 1 These respondents were the spouses of Gypsies or Irish Travellers, but did not identify themselves as such. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council ix 4.3 Respondents were asked whether they had been evicted or moved on in the previous five years. 20% of those now on sites have experienced eviction and being moved on. 4.4 20 respondents (36%) said they would prefer to live on their own private site (compared with 9 respondents who preferred a local authority site, and 25 respondents who said they would prefer either their own site, or a local authority site). 4.5 Of the 45 respondents who indicated they would like a private site (this includes the 20 who said they would only live on a private site, and the 25 who said they would like to live on either a private or a local authority site) 40% said that they would have sufficient finances to be able to do so if they could obtain planning permission. 4.6 Respondents were also asked to give a geographical preference of where they would like to live. 32 respondents gave an answer, of which the most frequent response (representing 44% of those who answered the question) was Canterbury. 4.7 26 respondents on sites answered the question on whether they would consider moving into a house. Of these, 25 (96%) responded that they would not consider this, with the remaining one saying ?I don?t think so?. 4.8 Finally, when asked what sort of accommodation local authorities should provide, the majority of respondents just said ?more/bigger sites?. Other suggestions included being near to schools, shops and doctors, and having play areas for the children and sufficient space for parking. In Housing 4.9 Gypsies and Travellers were asked what they liked best and what they liked least about living in a house. 24 respondents answered the question on what they liked best about living in a house, of these seven said ?nothing? or ?I don?t like it?. Three said they liked ?the comforts? and six referred to enjoying central heating, toilets and bathrooms. One said they liked ?everything? about living in a house, and another said they liked not having to ?keep going outside?. Two respondents referred to living in houses for room for their children and two said ?it?s our own?. Finally, one respondent said ?I can come home without worrying that the police or council are trying to move me on?. 4.10 In response to a question which asked what respondents liked least about living in a house, answers referred to cultural preferences to ?move? or ?roam? and to psychological reasons such as ?not having freedom?. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council x 4.11 Gypsies and Travellers in housing were asked which area they would prefer to live in; nine respondents in housing gave replies. Specific responses included Canterbury (2), Dover (4), Thanet (1), Maidstone (2), Shepway (1) and Kent (1). 4.12 When asked what they thought the councils should provide on sites, and where, there were 22 responses. Seven people said they wanted ?more sites? for a variety of reasons, such as ?for the Travellers still on the road?, ?so we don?t have to live in housing?, ?for our children to live? and ?near to schools?. Whilst one respondent specified a need for larger sites, two further responses focused on a need for small family sites. Two respondents referred to a need for a play area, and one specifically mentioned that a transit site was needed. One particular response mentioned ?Park Homes? site, for example high quality accommodation which is not obviously a Gypsy site. On unauthorised encampments/roadside 4.13 On access to services, the results show that for all respondents there is less access to dentists than to doctors. Access is worst amongst those on the roadside with only 48% being registered with a doctor and 33% with a dentist (compared to 91% and 67% respectively on sites and 96% and 72% respectively in houses). 4.14 47% of respondents on unauthorised encampments said that they had stopped on council sites previously, with 53% saying that they hadn?t. This is reflected in the site preferences with 50% stating they would prefer their own private site, 46% a local authority permanent site, and 3% a local authority transit site. On the question of affordability, only 15% said they would be able to afford their own site. 4.15 On preferences for future sites, there were fewer specific responses on the districts that they would like to live in, with wider preferences given such as ?Kent? or ?all over England?. In respect of the issue of facilities that should be provided there were similar responses to those on sites, but with more focus on basics facilities, such as running water and electricity. 4.16 Travel pattern links with neighbouring authorities not in the East Kent study area did not emerge from the survey responses. However, information from Canterbury City Council and Kent County Council has acknowledged the links between Canterbury and Swale. There is a pattern of movement of unauthorised encampments in a 15 mile radius area which straddles the Canterbury and Swale district boundaries. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council xi Health and Support Issues 4.17 Whilst 62% of respondents reported that all household members were in good health, less than half of respondents who were living on the roadside (43%) reported good health. This was analysed according to ethnicity and the results showed a disparity between Irish Traveller respondents who reported that immediate household members were in poor health (90.9%) compared with Travelling Showpeople (33.3%) and English Gypsies (31.3%). 4.18 Typical conditions reported by respondents included ?nerves?; chronic arthritis; asthma (associated in part with dwelling at roadsides, damp or poor quality accommodation ? both housed and in trailers) and a range of other conditions such as epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, diabetes and cardio-vascular disease. 4.19 When asked if health difficulties limited the day to day activities of either the respondent or their household members(s) who were in poor health, 66% of housed respondents and 70% of roadside Gypsies/Travellers who reported household members with poor health noted that that the health condition complained of did limit daily activities. 4.20 Overall, approximately one-third of respondents reported educational difficulties, with women more likely to report family members as having had disrupted education or having experienced bullying. Of respondents on unauthorised encampments/roadside 70% had experienced such problems, with over a third of respondents in housing also citing difficulties. 4.21 Reflecting the greater stability enjoyed by English Romany families in East Kent, Irish Travellers were most likely to report educational problems and disrupted education. 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Additional pitch requirement 5.1 The intention of Government policy is that the evidence of GTAAs and provision made through the planning system will clear the backlog of unmet need in the next few years. The current residential supply of Gypsy and Traveller pitches at April 2007 was 69 (this consisted of 32 socially rented pitches and 37 private). A need has been found for 31 additional permanent pitches on Gypsy and Traveller sites up to 2012, with a need for a further 19 pitches between 2012 and 2017. In addition there is a specific need amongst Show People for 2 additional pitches in 2007-11 and 1 further pitch in 2012- 17. Further need could arise amongst Show People if current unauthorised use ceases to be tolerated. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council xii 5.2 The recommended distribution of pitches for each local authority based on need where it arises is as follows: Local Authority Pitches needed up to 2012 Pitches needed from 2012 to 2017 Canterbury 22 13 Dover 3 4 Shepway 2 1 Thanet 4 1 Total for study area 31 19 5.3 The recommended requirement for transit provision is a caravan capacity of 21 for the study area up to 2012 as follows: Local Authority Transit Caravan Capacity required up to 2012 Canterbury 15 Dover 6 Shepway 0 Thanet 0 Total for study area 21 In considering the need for transit accommodation the research team analysed in detail unauthorised encampment records for 2004 - 06. We have identified a need for a transit caravan capacity of 15 in Canterbury on the basis that this would have been sufficient in recent years to have met the need arising from unauthorised encampments during 90% of the year; that is on 333 days of the year. The transit capacity identified as needed in Dover relates solely to an unauthorised development where usage is reported to have fluctuated from 0 to 12; hence we have recommended transit caravan capacity of 6 on the basis that this is the mid point in the range. We recognise that decisions on the extent to which transit provision should be made or to which encampments should be tolerated are policy choices. All other things being equal it is reasonable to expect that the lower the level of transit provision the greater will be the extent of unauthorised encampment and visa versa. Communication 5.4 The research team noted the good communication between the County Council Gypsy and Traveller Unit and agencies such as the Minority Communities Achievement Service, but recommends that lines of communication between the district councils and health and education agencies are examined. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council xiii Gypsy/Traveller Liaison Officer 5.5 In line with Canterbury City Council?s own Scrutiny Review, the report recommends that the role of Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer be established in Canterbury in order to improve lines of communication with other agencies, and in order to foster community cohesion with the travelling and settled community. The council has set in place a number of steps already to meet the identified need for this service, and these are detailed in the recommendations of the report. Links with Housing policies and strategies 5.6 Policies on Gypsies and Travellers need to be ?mainstreamed? into housing policy to a degree. For example, accommodation need for Gypsies and Travellers, as evidenced in this study, should be reflected in Homelessness Strategies. Overcoming Barriers to site provision 5.7 The report also made a number of recommendations based on national research, which discussed how to overcome barriers to site provision ? these included support for local politicians and engagement with the wider community. Next Steps 5.8 The South East Regional Planning Body will now examine the need for additional pitches evidenced in this GTAA, analyse and modify them in the regional context, and then advise each of the four East Kent local planning bodies of the pitch requirement in their locality. This strategic planning process can be quite lengthy and should not prevent the four local authorities from engaging with the community and identifying potential areas of land for site development. Whilst the planning process for developing Regional Spatial Strategies entails local planning bodies waiting for pitch requirements to be handed down by the Regional Planning Body, proactive councils will be identifying ways of meeting identified need in the meantime ? for instance through private planning permissions, or the negotiation of Section 106 planning gain agreements with private developers. There will also be a need for authorities to engage with others in Kent (for example Canterbury and Swale have links in travelling patterns) in order to establish where need should best be met, and there should be detailed consultation with both the Gypsy and Traveller communities, and the settled community on this. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council xiv Glossary of Terms Gypsies/Travellers Statutory Instrument No.3190 (2006) was implemented, in order to resolve the definition of Gypsies and Travellers in relation to the duties under the Housing Act 2004. For the purposes of section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 (duties of local housing authorities: accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers) "gypsies and travellers" means- (a) persons with a cultural tradition of nomadism or of living in a caravan; and (b) all other persons of a nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, including- (i) such persons who, on grounds only of their own or their family's or dependant's educational or health needs or old age, have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently; and (ii) members of an organised group of Travelling Showpeople or circus people (whether or not travelling together as such). The term Gypsies and Travellers is sometimes used to encompass a wide range of different groups and cultures. Working within the guidance from government, the following groups tend to be specifically included as categories for respondents to ?self-define? in GTAA surveys: ? Romany Gypsies; ? Irish Travellers; ? New Travellers; ? Welsh Travellers; ? Scottish Travellers; and ? Travelling Showpeople (as defined in Circular 22/91) ?Gaujos?/ ?Settled Community? ?Gaujo? (spelt in a variety of different ways) is a term used by Gypsies and Travellers to describe non-Gypsies and Travellers. ?Settled community? is also used in a variety of literature to describe members of the community, who are not Gypsy or Traveller by ethnicity or culture and who live in bricks and mortar housing. It should be noted though that there are difficulties in using such simplistic definitions and terminology. For instance, many Gypsies and Travellers live in housing, and are often difficult to identify as Gypsies and Travellers. There is a danger that ?Gypsies and Travellers? Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council xv and ?settled community? can be viewed as mutually exclusive and opposing terms, when in fact the reality is much more complex than that. Nevertheless, there is a need for some generalisation in defining social groups, and ?Gypsies and Travellers? and ?settled community? are used as such throughout this report. Sites Sites vary in type and size and can range from one-caravan private family sites on Gypsies? and Travellers? own land, through to large local authority sites. Authorised private sites (those with planning permission) can be small, family-run, or larger, privately-owned rented sites. This is an important distinction, as when Gypsies and Travellers in some Gypsy Traveller Accommodation Assessments state a preference for ?private? sites, they tend to be referring to smaller, family-run, accommodation. Unauthorised sites (those without planning permission) can be either on private Gypsy-owned land, in which case they are unauthorised developments, or on public or private land, or the roadside, without the owner?s consent, in which case they are unauthorised encampments. Local authority sites may not necessarily be ?permanent?, there are a number of councils who run ?transit? sites where occupants might stay for say three months and then move on and not return for the remainder of the year. Temporary stop sites are also being considered by some local authorities, these might accommodate Gypsies and Travellers for a short stay of say a maximum 28 days. A variety of sites is needed to meet a range of needs, whether it is to accommodate a family who want to ?settle? in an area and live there permanently, or whether it is for Gypsies and Travellers passing through an area for work, or a festival or fair, for just a short period of time each year. Caravans/Pitches On sites there are a number of ?pitches? and in some local authority policies, there is an optimum number for caravan capacity on council-run sites. In the absence of a defined ?caravan capacity? one can make an assumption, for the purposes of assessing number of pitches required to meet need, of 1.7 caravans per pitch (CLG, 2007), although some sites may have a higher density than this. Caravans can be large and static (these tend to be referred to as ?statics? by Gypsies and Travellers) or smaller, mobile ?tourers?. There may also be more ?structural? types of accommodation on site, such as chalet style bungalows. Utility blocks are also included on a number of local authority permanent sites (and some private sites) and these might include a small kitchenette and shower-room. The number of caravans needed by a family will depend on the age and gender of the children, and on a range of Gypsy and Traveller customs and traditions. It is important that Gypsies and Travellers are consulted in site design and site management, by the local authority liaison officer, for this reason (see further the CLG guidance documents on site design and on management, circulated to local authorities for consultation in May 2007). A ?pitch? might be a more appropriate term when considering local Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council xvi authority sites who tend to rent out a ?pitch? to a family on a licence. On small, family-run, private sites though, a ?pitch? might not always be the most useful term of reference; instead there will be a number of households living on the site with an appropriate number of caravans for their family?s needs. ?Household? may also be a difficult term to define for Gypsies and Travellers in as much as there may be an extended family who share household chores and many domestic arrangements although living in distinct caravan units divided by gender/age. In other GTAAs in which the team the have been involved, a definition of a household has been used which complies with the Standardised Government Statistical Survey definition utilised in the 1981 and 1991 Censuses. Within the current study the same definition has been adopted viz: ?One person or a group of people who have the accommodation as their only or main residence and (for a group) either share at least one meal a day or share the living accommodation, that is, a living room or sitting room? (albeit with the caveat that in some circumstances where Gypsy/Traveller households apparently fit within this definition other evidence has led the analytical team to conclude that separate households exist but due to circumstances beyond their control/cultural constraints a sharing of amenities takes place (for example, ?suppressed households?). Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 De Montfort University and partners 2 were commissioned by the East Kent sub-regional local authorities 3 on 16 February 2007, to undertake a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment. The key aim of the study was to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers and to recommend future pitch requirements over the next five years. In addition to the legislative requirement to assess needs, under the Housing Act (2004) the authorities within the study area are currently being requested, under Section 5(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, to give advice to the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) on the required provision for permanent and transit caravan sites for Gypsies and Travellers, in order to meet estimated current need (including backlog), future provision and the associated means of delivery. This research report aims to provide the East Kent sub-regional authorities with the information needed to do this. 1.2 The research followed the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2006) draft guidance on Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments, and it examined the following four main groups, as required by the client 4 : ? Settled Gypsies and Travellers in bricks and mortar housing; ? Settled Gypsies and Travellers on permanent residential sites (public and private); ? Gypsies and Travellers on unauthorised sites; and ? Travelling Showpeople (as included in Communities and Local Government (CLG) guidance). 1.3 The ODPM (2006) guidance states that there is a requirement for a study to ascertain the needs of Gypsies and Travellers and it recommends the use of a face-to-face survey to capture the complex picture of needs for this group. The methodological approach of the research is discussed in more detail in section two of this report. 1.4 This report presents the findings from research undertaken between 10 February and 20 April 2007. It is the result of secondary, desk-top, research of data records and appropriate reports, and a face-to-face survey of Gypsies and Travellers in East Kent. The next chapter of the report will outline the methodological approach to the research and this will be followed in chapter three by a context and policy background. Chapters four to six will analyse 2 John Bloxsom of John Bloxsom Housing Services, Margaret Greenfields of Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College (BCUC), David Smith of Canterbury Christchurch University, and the Canterbury Gypsy Support Group. 3 Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council. 4 A separate questionnaire was devised for each of these three groups ? copies of the questionnaires are included in the technical appendix. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 2 the findings from the survey of the three key Gypsy and Traveller groups outlined above and Travelling Showpeople. Chapter seven will examine some of the qualitative data around health, education and housing related support. The assessment of requirements for future accommodation will be dealt with in chapter eight and will include information on the requirements for site pitch numbers per district, along with any need identified for transit accommodation and for housing. Finally, chapter nine will offer a conclusion and some recommendations on future site provision in the sub-region. Definition of Gypsy/Traveller 1.5 Traditionally, a definition of Gypsies and Travellers has been difficult. It must be noted that, under the Race Relations Act (1976), the Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000) and subsequent case law (CRE v Dutton, 1989 and O?Leary and others v Punch Retail, 2000), Gypsies and Irish Travellers are recognised minority groups. In Chapman v United Kingdom (2001) it was found that a person?s occupation of their caravan is part of their ethnic identity. Previously, the focus has been on the nomadism of Gypsies and Travellers, as part of any legal definition. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recognised the difficulties around the concept of ?settled? Travellers; and in Circular 1/2006 it the following definition was given for planning purposes: For the purposes of this Circular ?gypsies and travellers? means Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family?s or dependants? educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling show people or circus people travelling together as such. (Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Sites, ODPM Circular 1/2006: 6) 1.6 However, a housing definition applies to the Communities and Local Government (CLG) draft guidance (2006) on undertaking the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment. This is because the range of Gypsies and Travellers who should be surveyed for accommodation needs assessments is wider than those who are nomadic. The housing definition for this purpose includes ?..and all other persons with a cultural tradition of nomadism and/or caravan dwelling.? (CLG, 2006, GTAA Draft Practice Guidance: 9). Indeed, it is explicitly within the guidance that Travelling Showpeople and ?New Travellers? should not be excluded from this definition. 1.7 Government has defined the meaning of Gypsies and Travellers for the Purposes of Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 5 : 5 Statutory Instrument 2006, No 3190. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 3 For the purposes of section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 (duties of local housing authorities: accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers) "gypsies and travellers"6 means- (a) persons with a cultural tradition of nomadism or of living in a caravan; and (b) all other persons of a nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, including- (i) such persons who, on grounds only of their own or their family's or dependant's educational or health needs or old age, have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently; and (ii) members of an organised group of Travelling Showpeople or circus people (whether or not travelling together as such). 1.8 Working within the guidance from government, the following groups were specifically included as categories for respondents to ?self-define? in the face- to-face interviews: ? Romany Gypsies; ? New Travellers; ? Irish Travellers; ? Welsh Travellers; ? Scottish Travellers; and ? Travelling Showpeople (as defined in Circular 22/91) 7 . Definition of Accommodation Need 1.9 The ODPM (2006) draft guidance suggests that particular types of accommodation ?need? might occur for Gypsies and Travellers: Caravan dwelling households: ? Who have no authorised site anywhere on which to reside; ? Whose existing site accommodation is overcrowded or unsuitable, but who are unable to obtain larger or more suitable accommodation; ? Which contain suppressed households who are unable to set up separate family units and who are unable to access a place on an unauthorised site, or 6 Legal definitions, particularly in planning legislation, tend to refer to ?gypsies and travellers? ? it is good practice to recognise that Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are recognised as ethnic groups under the race relations legislation; as such this report will use capitals to denote this and will refer at all times to ?Gypsies and Travellers?. 7 Consultation has recently been circulated by CLG on a replacement for Circular 22/91, in order to ensure that Travelling Showpeople are included in development plan documents for their land and accommodation requirements. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 4 obtain or afford land to develop one. Bricks and mortar dwelling households: ? Whose existing accommodation is overcrowded or unsuitable (?unsuitable? in this context can include unsuitability by virtue of proven psychological aversion to bricks and mortar accommodation; although local authorities will wish to satisfy themselves that this is of sufficient severity to constitute a need rather than a preference)? ? That contain suppressed households who are unable to set up separate family units and who are unable to access suitable or appropriate accommodation. (ODPM, 2006: 8) 1.10 ?Need? for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation is complex, and it is not possible to completely untangle ?aspiration?. The ODPM (2006) draft guidance deals with this issue: Some of those on unauthorised sites may have permanent bases elsewhere and hence not be ?in need? in the strict sense set out above. However, it should be recognised that there is a lifestyle and cultural tradition of travelling within these communities, and the need for transit or stopping place sites should be addressed to facilitate this, and minimise the disruption it can cause. (ODPM, 2006: 8) 1.11 This report takes heed of the definition of need in the draft (2006) guidance and this is incorporated into the ?assumptions? used to calculate the future pitch requirements, as discussed in chapter eight of this report. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 5 2.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1 In addition to good practice from traditional housing needs assessment methodology 8 , there was a focus on the guidance from CLG (formerly ODPM) 9 , as well as the research to support regional spatial strategy (RSS) reviews by the University of Birmingham et al 10 . The methodology for the surveys was based on the Cambridgeshire GTAA in its use of community interviewers, which has been recognised as a good practice approach by CLG. Desk-based review and interview with key stakeholders 2.2 This stage of the research took place in late February and early March 2007, and data collection from a range of organisations took place for the duration of the project. A meeting was held with the Kent County Council (KCC) Gypsy and Traveller Unit and the Minority Communities Achievement Service on 22 February 2007. A meeting was held with the partner agencies and key stakeholders on 6 March 2007. The key agencies represented were the four East Kent local authorities ? planning, legal and housing representatives, the regional strategic health authority, and Supporting People (apologies were given from the police and from the Minority Communities Achievement Service). 2.3 The type of documentation examined during the desk-top review included Supporting People Strategies, Planning Policies and Housing Strategies, County level data and Select Committee Report, as well as national reports. This is examined in further detail in chapter three, as part of a context and policy background. The sample size and selection of Gypsies and Travellers 2.4 The following data was examined to inform both the calculation of pitch requirements, and to select a sample of Gypsies and Travellers in the sub- region to interview. 8 Percy-Smith, J (1996) Needs Assessments in Public Policy, Buckingham, Open University Press and Munro M et al (1996) Estimating the Housing Needs of Community Care Groups: Edinburgh, Scottish Office Central Research Unit. 9 ODPM (2006) Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments, Draft Practice Guidance 10 Universities of Birmingham, Salford and Sheffield Hallam (2007) Research to Support the Preparation of RSS Reviews on Gypsies and Travellers by Regional Planning Bodies, London: CLG Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 6 ? CLG Count data (The CLG Gypsy/Traveller Count for July 2006 showed the total number of caravans for the sub-region as 119 (Canterbury ? 74, Dover ? 38, Shepway ? 7, and Thanet ? 0) 11 ; ? Up-to-date information on levels of unauthorised encampments and developments from the Gypsy and Traveller Unit at the County; ? Numbers and outcomes of planning applications and appeals; and ? Waiting lists for local authority sites, plus information on levels of occupancy and pitch turnover. 2.5 The project team recommended a total number of surveys of 100 for Gypsies and Travellers in caravans (both on sites and on unauthorised encampments) and in bricks and mortar housing. The methodology for conducting the survey was based upon the use of Gypsy and Traveller community interviewers which did help gain access to households. It also provided a climate of trust to gain answers, and ease some of the issues around language. It was also found that using community interviewers meant that there was a quick response to new encampments in the area that might otherwise have been missed by a professional interview team, who perhaps would not have had the local information and the contacts and connections with other Gypsy and Traveller families. The community interviewers were consulted on the project methodology and trained in the use of the questionnaires and survey technique, at a meeting on 7 March 2007. Advice from members of the local Gypsy and Traveller community, at this meeting, coupled with data collected during the desk-top review and discussions with local agencies and stakeholders, informed the stratification and proportion of the 100 Gypsy and Traveller sample. Stratification and proportion of sample 2.6 There were challenges in stratifying the Gypsy and Traveller population between the four districts, particularly where official figures showed a low or nil count, but where there was local knowledge that Gypsies and Travellers did reside or resort to particular East Kent areas. The CLG July 2006 count data was used as a base: 11 Since the completion of the survey, the CLG January 2007 figures have been published (Canterbury ? 66, Dover ? 38, Shepway ? 0 and Thanet ? 0, giving a total for the sub-region of 104). Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 7 Table 1: July 2006, CLG Caravan Count Data for East Kent Unauthorised Sites All Authorised Sites On Gypsy Owned Land Not on Gypsy owned land Social Rented Private Tolerated Not Tolerated Tolerated Not Tolerated Canterbury 27 22 2 18 0 5 74 Dover 30 6 0 2 0 0 38 Shepway 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Thanet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All 57 28 2 20 0 12 119 2.7 It was also difficult to know exact numbers of ethnic groups of Gypsies and Travellers, who are not defined in census data and who are sometimes hidden because of racial discrimination. Indeed it may be that Irish Travellers, for example are disproportionately ?hidden? because they may be affected by a perceived lack of access to established local authority sites, which are largely inhabited by English Gypsies 12 . As is detailed later in the report, the respondents to the survey classed themselves as either English (Romany) Gypsy, Irish Traveller, Travelling Showpeople, or ?Other? 13 ; there were no respondents who were described as New Traveller, Scottish Gypsy or Welsh Gypsy. However, from local Gypsy and Traveller knowledge, and prior experience of the area of one of the research team, the absence of these three groups from the sample, is not a concern ? New Travellers, for example, are not currently known to travel within, or live in, the East Kent sub-region. Historical Background 2.8 Historically, East Kent has a tradition of Romany Gypsies (and more latterly Irish Travellers) resorting to the area for the purposes of undertaking field work. Detailed parish records dating back to at least the 16 th Century 14 demonstrate a continuous connection between particular families ? common East Kent names include Lee, Scamp, Pateman and Smith ? and more recently, certain Irish Traveller families ? and the localities considered within the GTAA. The thriving nature of the Gypsy and Traveller communities in 12 This is examined in some detail in the Kent County Council Gypsy and Traveller Sites Select Committee Report, May 2006. In discussing the different Traveller groups in the County, the Select Committee Report says ?However, evidence from Mr Forrester, Gypsy Unit, and Mr Ratigan, PAAD, suggested that in practice the situation in Kent is that Romany Gypsies currently occupy the vast majority, if not all, Local Authority site pitches?, pg 24. 13 In the cases of ?other? being reported ? this referred to instances where the respondent was the spouse or partner of a Gypsy or Traveller, but did not consider themselves to be a Gypsy or Traveller. 14 See further East Kent Settlement and Removal Records http://www.kentgen.com/eastkent_index.htm and Evans S (2004) Stopping Places: A Gypsy history of South London and Kent Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 8 Kent (albeit that the majority now reside in housing - see further Clark and Greenfields, 2006, Chapter 5) ? can be demonstrated by the interest shown in both Gypsy/Traveller cultural events and the BBC website ?Romany Roots? which provides an information and discussion point for Gypsy/Traveller communities in the Kent area. http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/romany_roots/features/index.shtml. 2.9 We would estimate that perhaps 85% of the Gypsy and Traveller population in East Kent is of Romany Gypsy background with the remainder being Irish Travellers and a low number of ?others?. Irish Travellers are less likely to reside on authorised local authority sites, and are more likely to be conspicuous by their presence on unauthorised encampments in contrast to the longer-established populations who are most likely to be dwelling on authorised sites or in housing. The area is also the home base of a relatively small number of Travelling Showpeople 15 and (although not reached in our survey) a handful of New Travellers or Welsh or Scottish Gypsy-Travellers are occasionally found transiting through the area. Although not considered within this study as failing to fulfil the criteria for inclusion laid out in CLG guidance, it is of course worth noting that in recent years a considerable number of East European Roma have moved into the East Kent area and are settled into housing. 2.10 Many of the Gypsy/Traveller families who are residing in the East Kent GTAA area and who have historical connections to the locality, would in the past have spent the spring to autumn season following a circuit undertaking picking and fieldwork for local farmers, for example, cherries, hops and apples; and historically used traditional stopping places such as Bigbury Camp; Broad Oak (near Canterbury); Church Marshes Sittingbourne, and various stopping places along the Thanet Way for winter park-ups. Oral evidence suggests that it is the descendents of many of these families (living both on sites and in houses) who form the basis of the Gypsy and Traveller population in the study locality. the Kent County Council Gypsy and Traveller Sites Select Committee report (2006) suggests that there are estimated to be 9,600 Gypsies and Travellers within Kent, out of the total population of 1.6 million (which represents 0.6% of the total Kent population) (pg 7). 2.11 We would suggest that within this study area the proportion of housed Gypsies and Travellers is relatively high, with Romany Gypsies and a far smaller number of Irish Travellers to be found in ?bricks and mortar? accommodation in all of the more urban localities within the study area ? most noticeably in Canterbury. 2.12 Within the East Kent area, although there are a number of well-established Travelling Showpeople families, the proportion of such occupational Travellers 15 The Showmen?s Guild provided details of 11 sites where families were registered with the Guild. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 9 to Gypsies and Travellers is low, and these tend to be clustered in particular locations around Canterbury. New Traveller encampments, whilst relatively frequent occurrences in the 1980s in East Kent, specifically around the localities of Canterbury and Selling Woods (often associated with a flow of activities which combined travelling to the West of England for ?festival activities? and returning to Kent for intermittent traditional harvest work) have tended to be conspicuous by their absence in their past 10 to15 years. It is our understanding that since the 1990s only occasional small groups have been noted in the study area. Anecdotally, we are advised that those relatively few New Travellers in the Kent area are overwhelmingly resident in housing. We do not therefore consider it surprising that we did not manage to locate and interview New Travellers or Welsh/Scottish Gypsy/Travellers during the time frame in which this study was undertaken. The Survey 2.13 The research team aimed to conduct 100 surveys in total. Following the meeting with community interviewers on 7 March 2007, and looking at information supplied by the local authorities and other agencies in the desk- top review, the sample was stratified as follows: Housed Travellers ? 28 Canterbury ? 12 Dover ? 5 Thanet ? 7 Shepway ? 4 Council Sites ? 27 Only two sites in the area: Canterbury ? 14 interviews Dover ? 13 Private Authorised Sites ? 13 Canterbury ? 5 Dover ? 4 Thanet ? 0 16 Shepway ? 4 Unauthorised Developments ? 10 Canterbury ? 3 Dover ? 3 Thanet ? 2 Shepway ? 2 16 This is based on Thanet?s information that there are no private sites. The local Gypsies and Travellers also weren?t aware of any private sites in Margate or other areas in Thanet. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 10 Unauthorised Encampments ? 12 Canterbury ? 6 Dover ? 2 Thanet ? 2 Shepway ? 2 Travelling Showpeople ? 10 The research team double-checked the Travelling Showpeople?s Guild figures with a representative (Ray Smith) at our meeting and community interviewers? training day on 7 March 2007 and confirmed that there were 10 families registered with the Guild in the area. . Total = 100 2.14 The survey stage of the research took place from the middle of March to the middle of April 2007. Ten surveys were piloted for a start and the results were checked for quality by Canterbury Christchurch University. The survey questionnaires were not changed, but community interviewers were advised where they might probe for more qualitative details, for the remainder of the surveys. In total, 92 surveys were undertaken. The table below demonstrates the surveys achieved, against the target sample. It demonstrates that there were shortfalls of responses in Shepway and Thanet: Table 2: Distribution of Sampled and Achieved Interviews by Local Authority Sample Interviews Achieved Number % (rounded) Number % (rounded) Canterbury City Council 49 49% 50 54% Dover District Council 27 27% 26 28% Shepway District Council 12 12% 9 10% Thanet District Council 12 12% 7 8% All 100 100% 92 100% 2.15 Easter is a traditional time of year for families to travel for a holiday or to see other family; so there were instances where the community interviewers attempted to speak to someone at a site, or in a house on several occasions, but were unable to do so because the respondent was not at home. Using a combination of survey responses and secondary data we have estimated that there are 178 Gypsy, Traveller and Show People families in the study area. This estimate is detailed in Table 21 which appears in chapter eight, where the methodology for estimating the population living in houses is set out. On this basis 92 surveys represents 52% of total population. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 11 2.16 Table 3 demonstrates how the final sample of 92 was stratified, according to the ethnicity and gender across the four district authorities. The stratification of the sample, according to type of site/accommodation in each of the districts is demonstrated in Table 4. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 12 Table 3: Characteristics of Respondents Sex How would you describe yourself? Man Woman Total Roadside 17 3 6 9 House 0 9 9 Type of settlement Sites 10 8 18 English Gypsy- Romany Total 13 23 36 (39%) Roadside 1 0 1 Type of settlement Sites 0 1 1 Irish Traveller Total 1 2 (2%) Type of settlement Sites 5 4 9 Travelling Showpeople Total 5 4 9 (10%) Type of settlement House 0 3 3 Canterbury Other Total 0 3 3 (3%) Roadside 4 0 4 House 4 1 5 Type of settlement Sites 8 5 13 English Gypsy- Romany Total 16 6 22 (24%) Roadside 3 0 3 Type of settlement Sites 1 0 1 Dover Irish Traveller Total 4 0 4 (4%) Roadside 1 3 4 House 1 0 1 Type of settlement Sites 1 1 2 English Gypsy- Romany Total 3 4 7 (8%) Roadside 1 1 Type of settlement Sites 1 1 Shepway Irish Traveller Total 2 2 (2%) Type of settlement House 1 1 2 English Gypsy- Romany Total 1 1 2 (2%) Type of settlement House 3 1 4 Irish Traveller Total 3 1 4 (4%) Type of settlement Sites 1 1 Thanet Travelling Showpeople Total 1 1 (1%) TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS 92 17 Roadside consists of unauthorised encampments only. Unauthorised developments are included in ?sites? where respondents identified with the categorisation of ?self-owned without planning permission? or ?other private owned: without planning permission?. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 13 Table 4: Accommodation Type of Sample Population District council area Canterbury Dover Shepway Thanet Total Type of site occupied (sites) Council 14 13 0 0 27 Private sites 16 6 5 1 28 All sites 30 19 5 1 55 Type of site occupied (roadside/UEs) Roadside 9 2 0 0 11 Playing fields 0 0 0 0 0 Other public land 0 0 0 0 0 Lay-by 0 0 0 0 0 Car park 0 0 0 0 0 Other Private land 2 0 0 0 2 All roadside/UEs 11 2 0 0 13 Type of site occupied (housing) Council 12 1 0 4 17 Self-owned 0 4 1 2 7 Bungalow 0 0 0 0 0 Housing Association 0 0 0 0 0 House 0 0 0 0 0 All housed 12 5 1 6 24 Total 50 26 9 7 92 Focus Groups 2.17 In addition to the survey, and partly due to findings coming out of the brief pilot stage of the survey in the sub-region, the research team felt that it would be interesting to have additional information from particular groups of Gypsies and Travellers. During the meeting with the client and partners on 6 March 2007, the Supporting People representative suggested that additional information on support needs would be helpful in planning services for Gypsies and Travellers. From experience in other Gypsy and Traveller research, there are particular Gypsy and Traveller groups that can benefit from additional support for a variety of reasons. To this end two focus groups were facilitated: ? At the end of March 2007 a focus group for young people was run by David Smith and Angie Jones. Six young people (five boys and one girl) talked about a range of issues on travelling, education and perceptions of relationships with Gaujos 18 . The group was recorded and the transcript was analysed. 18 This is a term (there are different spellings) used by Gypsies and Travellers to describe the ?settled community?. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 14 ? In mid-April 2007 a focus group on women and health was run by Margaret Greenfields and Jo Richardson. Four women attended the session. Again, the meeting was recorded and the transcript analysed. 2.18 The results from the two focus groups do not form part of the quantitative analysis of future pitch requirements in the sub-region. Instead, they provide a rich qualitative piece of data which can be utilised in understanding some of the complex support needs of these two groups. Questions on health and education were asked in the face-to-face survey, and these are discussed in chapter seven of this report. Themes from the two focus groups are very detailed, and they are included in this report at appendix two. Conclusion 2.19 The sample surveyed is spread across a range of individual and accommodation type attributes. The survey response rate is 92% of the target and this has been explained partially by the Easter break and some non-responses from those who were away, or those who did not wish to be interviewed or identified as Gypsies and Travellers. This issue of not wanting to be identified may account for the disappointing number of surveys on unauthorised developments. However, by their very nature, residents on unauthorised developments do not necessarily want to provide information being collected for ?officials? or ?government agencies?. 2.20 There is a rich seam of information, which is examined throughout this report, which is the result of the survey, the meetings with stakeholders, the two focus groups and examination of desk-top data. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 15 3.0 CONTEXT AND POLICY BACKGROUND Introduction 3.1 This part of the report will concentrate on the context and policy background for the East Kent GTAA. It will examine the national policy and legislative context and then drill down to regional, county and district level. At district level, planning and housing strategies are examined for each of the four local authorities, in order to establish how far Gypsies and Travellers are already included. Background 3.2 Gypsies and Travellers live in most member states of Europe and it is estimated that there are approximately ten million people in these groups, across the continent (Gil-Robles, 2006a: 4). The size of Britain?s Traveller and Gypsy population is also an estimate, with Council of Europe figures putting it at about 300,000, with approximately 200,000 in settled housing (Crawley, 2004: 6). However, it should be noted that these numbers are estimates and there is no exact calculation of how many Gypsies and Travellers live in England, or indeed in Europe. CLG oversees a national bi- annual count of Gypsy and Traveller caravans, but this still does not allow for accurate data, as it does not include Gypsies and Travellers who live in housing. Indeed, Niner (2004b) has provided advice to the Government on how the Gypsy Count can be improved. Nevertheless, in the absence of any national picture of Gypsy/Traveller need in England, the CLG Count data is the only one available on a national level at present. There is a current growth in the understanding of Gypsy and Traveller populations and their present and future needs, from the Gypsy Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments across England and Wales. These are due to be complete by the end of 2007 and this should provide more detailed information on a national basis. From the July 2006 CLG count data for England, there were 16,313 caravans, of which 6,497 were on local authority sites, 5,815 on authorised private sites, 2,234 on unauthorised developments and 1,767 on unauthorised encampments. This demonstrates the continued lack of resources and sites for Gypsies and Travellers in England. 3.3 Gypsies and Travellers continue to face discrimination and harassment in England, despite the positive moves towards a more integrationist approach that affects other Black and Minority Ethnic groups. The Commission for Racial Equality?s Trevor Phillips said, at the launch of their draft Gypsy and Traveller Strategy in October 2003: For this group, Great Britain is still like the American Deep South for black people in the 1950?s. Extreme levels of public hostility exist in Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 16 relation to Gypsies and Travellers ? fuelled in part by irresponsible media reporting of the kind that would be met with outrage if it was targeted at any other ethnic group. (Phillips quoted in Crawley, 2004: 2) 3.4 There are also issues of inequality of health, access to education and employment. Parry et al (2004) note that ?There is now little doubt that health inequality between the observed Gypsy Traveller population in England and their non-Gypsy counterparts is striking, even when compared with other socially deprived or excluded groups and with other ethnic minorities? (pg 2). This health study, and other reports, discusses increased infant mortality, lower life expectancy and difficulty in accessing health care. There is also a significantly higher chance of long term illness ?The scale of health inequality between the study population and the UK general population is large. There was more than twice the prevalence of limiting long-term illness and significantly poorer reported health in Gypsy Travellers? (ibid. pg 65). Issues around education and the travelling population are discussed in DCLG (2006) Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society ?Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils have the lowest attainment levels of any ethnic group? (pg 15). Key Current Legislation and Policy 3.5 The Housing Act (2004), together with Circular ODPM 1/2006 places a specific duty on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. The government reprimanded Brentwood Council (Inside Housing, 2005: 6), for not including the needs of this group in their local development plans, as required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004). Indeed the Secretary of State intervened in the High Court and directed the local authority to include sites in the plans. The direction to Brentwood has since been withdrawn, but one has been issued to South Gloucestershire, and CLG has also written two further letters expressing their concern to Mid Bedfordshire and Epping Forest councils (Inside Housing, 09/02/07: 6). There has also been examination of how policing policy and wider legislation affects Gypsies and Travellers (Morris, 2001; O?Nions, 1995; and Richardson, 2005). There is a suggestion that not providing sites for Travellers can be as costly as getting on with provision (Morris and Clements, 2002); indeed Meg Munn MP, said in a speech to the fifth annual Gypsy and Traveller conference held on 16 May 2007: Bristol City Council, for example saw their enforcement costs drop from ?200,000 a year to just ?5000 a year after they built a site. Also, the 2006 Kent County Council Select Committee report estimates that the annual cost of dealing with unauthorised encampments in Kent is at least ?500,000. Making site provision is the efficient, and cost- effective, enforcement, ask Bristol City Council. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 17 3.6 The legislative and policy context around Gypsies and Travellers is quite extensive; key points are summarised in appendix one. Literature Review ? Current Reports and Guidance 3.7 There are a number of key reports in this area, they include the IPPR (2004) report Moving Forward, the CRE?s (2006) Common Ground as well as the Local Government Association (LGA) (2006) report looking at Gypsy and Traveller issues for local authorities. Niner?s (2003) report for ODPM set out a position statement on existing and future provision of sites, and a number of other reports have also been published by Niner on managing unauthorised encampments, as well as guidance to the regional planning bodies in determining future pitch requirements. The key message from the IPPR, CRE, LGA, and ODPM/CLG reports is that more Gypsy and Traveller sites are required to meet growing need, and that site provision can help to alleviate problems of unauthorised encampments, and community tension. The need for a GTAA in East Kent 3.8 The Kent County Council select committee report also suggests an estimate of 9,600 Gypsies and Travellers residing in the county, with the majority of the population living in settled housing. 3.9 There was already recognition of an existing level of apparent need for more provision, for example, through the recorded instances of unauthorised encampments and developments in Canterbury and Dover from the July 2006 CLG count and the Kent County Council unauthorised encampment database. The KCC Select Committee also suggested that a consensus exists, on a county basis, on the need for more sites, either through local authority provision, or permission for more private sites. Currently there are two local authority sites in the sub-region ? (1) Greenbridge Park, Vauxhall Road, in Canterbury and managed by the County; and (2) the Snowdown Caravan Site at Aylesham in Dover District, and again managed by the County. A report was written by Kent County Council and Dover District Council, three years ago, which examined the need for a stopping place in the district. We have not taken this into account as the research team were not given access to this report. The council suggested that the report was now out of date and that it was not pertinent to the research brief for this GTAA. The main reason given by the KCC Gypsy and Traveller Unit for the report no longer being valid was that there had been a large extended family of Irish Travellers in the Dover area towards the end of the 1990?s, which accounted for the high unauthorised encampment figures; various agencies and authorities took action against the encampment and the family is now elsewhere ? it is stated by KCC that there is much less demand in Dover than there was at that time. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 18 Regional Policy 3.10 The draft South East England Regional Plan was agreed by the Regional Assembly shortly after the publication of Circular 01/2006. The Plan provides a strategic framework for the development of the region. It states that there is a need to address the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers 19 and refers to the July 2005 Caravan Count as showing that Kent had the highest number of Gypsy and Traveller caravans, both authorised and unauthorised, of any local authority area in the region 20 . The Plan states that an early partial review in respect of Gypsy and Traveller caravans was required for which it was imperative that local authorities undertake Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments as soon as possible. These will provide an evidence base for the formulation of that advice to be submitted by 15 October 2007. Using the evidence commissioned and advice submitted to it, the Regional Assembly will take a view on how this provision should be provided for strategically and in terms of its phasing and distribution between local authority areas. The recent report on RSS reviews provides guidance on how GTAAs can be evaluated and utilised in this process. 3.11 Concurrently, the Regional Assembly is reviewing the Regional Housing Strategy. The draft for consultation states that, in advance of the partial review of the draft South East Plan, data on the current level of unauthorised sites suggests that there may be need for a significant increase in pitches 21 . It adds, however, that there have not been a substantial number of bids to fund additional pitches on public sites and suggest that it will be some time before needs assessments feed through into identification of specific sites. The Regional Board proposes to maintain funding at current levels (?5 million per year) in the period 2008-11 subject to any guidance on minimum spend in this period following the forthcoming Spending Review. Kent Policies 3.12 The Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 sets out a strategic framework for the development and use of land in the areas of the Kent County Council and the Medway Council, which guides the preparation of Local Pans and Local Development Frameworks at district level. The Plan was adopted in July 2006 and covers the period 2001-2021, with its housing provisions relating to the period to 2016; however this will be superseded by South East Plan in late 2008. The Plan refers to the need for local planning authorities to consider the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers in their development plans, including those seeking seasonal work or passing through the area. It 19 The South East Plan, South East Regional Assembly, 2006 (Section D3.7.1 page 88) 20 The South East Plan, South East Regional Assembly, 2006 (Section D3.9 pages 90-91) 21 Regional Housing Strategy Review: Draft for Consultation, South East Regional Assembly, February 2007 (Section 11, page 17) Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 19 suggest that sites on the outskirts of built-up areas may be appropriate, provided care is taken if they encroach on open countryside and environmental protection polices are not compromised. It also suggests that account be taken of access to schools, health care, other community facilities and the provision of mains services. The Plan policy states: Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 Policy HP9: Provision of Permanent and Transit Gypsy Accommodation Where a need for permanent or transit gypsy accommodation is established, provision should be in accordance with the Structure Plan?s polices for protection of the environment, countryside and the Green Belt. Sites should be provided within the major/principal urban areas or rural settlements. In the absence of such sites, locations with good accessibility to the major/principal urban areas or Rural service Centres and with easy and safe access to primary and other main roads will be preferred. Proposals should be located to avoid adverse impact on residential amenity, highway capacity and highway safety. 3.13 Related Kent and Medway Structure Plan policies are ? Policy EN3 Protecting and Enhancing Countryside Character ? which states development will not be permitted if it would lead to the loss of features or habitats which are of landscape, historic, wildlife or geological importance, or are of an unspoilt quality free from urban intrusion unless there is a need for development which outweighs these considerations. ? Policy EN4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Heritage Coast ? which state that in these nationally designated areas, development that is essential to meet local social or economic needs should be permitted provided it is consistent with the primary objective of protecting, conserving and enhancing natural beauty in these areas. ? Policy EN5 Special Landscape Areas ? which defines the primary objective in 10 such locally designated areas as being the protection, conservation and enhancement of the quality of their landscapes, whilst having regard to the need to facilitate the social and economic well-being of the communities situated within them. 3.14 These policies are set out in more detail within Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG1): Landscape Character which was adopted in July 2006. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 20 3.15 Local authorities within the study area are expected to have regard to policies set out in the Regional Plan and Structure Plan and should include related planning policies in respect of Gypsy and Traveller site applications and Travelling Showpeople site within their Local Plans and Local Development Frameworks. These are summarised below, along with a summary from Housing and Homelessness Strategies. The remaining county-level policy that is relevant for debate is the Supporting People Five Year Strategy which will be discussed later on in this report. Canterbury City 3.16 The Canterbury District Local Plan First Review, adopted in 2006, provides a framework to 2011. The Plan states that most of the pressure for more sites in Canterbury is seasonal and suggests that there is a possible need for transit site provision; but adds that, in advance of this assessment, the City Council considers that the one public Gypsy site in the district is sufficient to meet the long-term need for Gypsies to have a permanent established base from which to conduct their nomadic lifestyle. 3.17 The Plan provides that the Council will permit the provision of Gypsy caravans on appropriate sites where the need is established to be seasonal or temporary, and on non-sensitive or non-protected sites, in accordance with the policy objectives in the Structure Plan. It adds that if, as a result of this assessment, the regional planning body requires the district to accommodate additional permanent sites then the following policy criteria will be applied ? and also applied to any planning applications submitted by private applicants. Canterbury District Local Plan First Review 2006 Policy H8 Gypsy and Traveller Sites In considering applications for seasonal or temporary use of land by Gypsies and Travellers, planning permission will only be granted if the following criteria are met: (A) The use of the site should not have an adverse impact on residential amenity or existing building uses, either by close proximity, activities or operations on the site which would be detrimental to the surrounding area; (B) If location outside an existing settlement is unavoidable, the form and extent of the accommodation does not adversely affect the visual or other essential qualities of an OANB, SSSI, national or local nature reserve, or other area of landscape significance designated in the development plan. (C) Where the site is on the outskirts of a built up are, that care is taken to avoid encroachment on the open countryside. (D) The site should be well related to and within reasonable distance of local services and facilities ? shops, public transport, schools, medical and social services, particularly where it is outside an existing settlement; and Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 21 (E) Access to the site should not be detrimental to highway safety for vehicles and pedestrians, and should not conflict with other transportation policies or objectives. Applicants claiming Gypsy and Traveller status will have to show that they meet the definition in Circular 01/2006 in order for their Gypsy and Traveller status to be taken into account. Any planning permission will have permitted development rights removed. Canterbury Housing Strategy 2005 ? 10 Tackling the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities is a local priority. Representative organisations have been involved in developing this strategy. Initial research has shown that the needs of the local Gypsy and Travellers community include the need for more of both permanent and transitional affordable sites. This will require joint working with Kent County Council to identify suitable sites. Proposals to include provision within the Local Plan for a private owned short- term site at Prospect Farm have been rejected by the Planning Inspectorate. During the course of this strategy we will work with local partners to fully assess the needs of the local Gypsy and Traveller community. A range of different consultation methods were used to develop the strategy ?. [Including] specific sessions with the Gypsy and Traveller community. Through the Housing strategy development process our local stakeholders have ?supported our approach to towards meeting the needs of minority and hard to reach groups in the community, including the needs of the local Gypsy and Traveller community. (see further paragraphs 7.7 to 8.2 of the Canterbury Housing Strategy) Dover District 3.18 The Dover District Local Plan, adopted in 2002, noted the presence of a County Council managed site within the district, at Aylesham, and stated that the District Council considered that this site was adequate to meet expected demand and that it did not, therefore, propose any additional provision. It stated that in urban areas sites were difficult to achieve due to the proximity to existing residential and other built uses, whilst in rural areas strong restraint applies to all countryside and in particular designated areas which are numerous in the District suggesting, according to the Plan, that the opportunity to find a satisfactory location will be limited. The Plan similarly states that the Council is not aware of any demand for sites for Travelling Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 22 Showpeople and does not propose any. The Plan sets out criteria to be applied in the event that applications come forward as follows. Dover District Local Plan 2002 Policy HS15 Gypsies and Travelling Showpeople Proposals for Gypsy sites and permanent sites for Travelling Showpeople will be permitted provided that: (i) the site is reasonably well related to local services and facilities and is served by public transport; (ii) the site contains substantial natural screening and in the case of a site for Travelling Showpeople it is reasonably flat; and (iii) the use of the site would not result in any significant loss of residential amenities to the occupants of nearby properties Depending upon the characteristics of each case, the Council may seek to use conditions to overcome visual impact and noise objections concerning such matters as landscaping, extent of business operations, length of stay and period of occupation. Whilst Dover District Council has Policy HS15 in the Adopted Local Plan, we understand from speaking to the Forward Planning Section of the District Council that they have submitted a request to Government Office for the South East to ?save? various Local Plan policies beyond 27 th September 2007. This District Council is, we understand, not intending to ?save? Policy HS15 as it is covered by Circular ODPM 1/06 and by Structure Plan policy HP9. The issue is also being addressed through the current partial review of the Regional Spatial Strategy which sets out the requirements for LDF documents. It is the intention of that Core Strategy (which is part of the Local Development Framework) to include a policy on Gypsies and Travellers. Dover Housing Strategy 2005 ? 09 3.19 The district has one site for Gypsies and Travellers, which is provided by Kent County Council at Aylesham. 3.20 The Housing Act 2004 places a new obligation on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers in their area, and to produce a strategy detailing how these needs will be met. This will also inform the Local Development Framework, through which site provision will be addressed. The South East Regional Housing Strategy (July 2005) estimates a need for an additional 450 pitches region-wide by 2008 which it states Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 23 should generally be delivered by RSLs and funded by the Housing corporation?s Approved Development Programme. 3.21 A key priority for the Council is to develop a clearer understanding of the housing and support needs of Gypsies and Travellers across Kent and the implications this has for Dover district. Shepway District 3.22 The Shepway Local Plan, adopted in 2006, states that there is a general lack of demand for Gypsy accommodation in the district, which, it suggests, was demonstrated by the dereliction and subsequent closure of a Council run site at Runningwater Gate, Lydd. There are no authorised sites in the District. The Plan states that emphasis is now placed on individual provision with acceptability of sites judged against agricultural, environmental and landscape criteria. It adds that there are no proposals to identify any additional sites but that if need is proven, proposals will be assessed as follows: Shepway Local Plan 2006 Policy HO14 Gypsy Site Provision Proposals for the establishment of Gypsy caravan sites will be considered in relation to Local Plan policies protecting the countryside and areas of agricultural, archaeological and environmental importance, and will be permitted, subject to conditions controlling occupancy, where the following criteria are met:- i) There will be no adverse impact o the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties. ii) The site is within reasonable distance of local services and facilities and adequate utility provision is available. iii) Acceptable provision can be made for sitting, access, traffic generation and screening. iv) The site is not in an area at risk from tidal flooding which is not protected to an appropriate standard. Shepway Housing Strategy 2004 ? 09 3.23 The introduction to the strategy states ?There are no authorised Gypsy/Traveller encampments in the district. The Council conducts a bi- annual count of Gypsy/Traveller caravans, which is required by ODPM to inform national policy. However the 2004 Housing Act places a requirement on local authorities to assess the needs of Gypsies and Travellers and produce a district strategy, as well as considering the needs of Gypsies and Travellers in planning policies?. There are no further references in the Strategy. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 24 Thanet District 3.24 The Thanet Local Plan states that there is only occasional camping by Gypsies in Thanet District and attributes this to the lack of suitable employment opportunities and the fact that Thanet is not an ?en route? stopping place. It adds that there is anecdotal evidence that such visits are for leisure purposes. The Plan also states that the District Council is not aware of any local need for winter quarters or permanent basis for Travelling Showpeople. It states that for these reasons the District Council does not envisage a need to consider specific provision for accommodation of Gypsies in Thanet. Thanet Local Plan, 2006 Accommodation for Gypsies and Travelling Showpeople The Local Plan does not contain information on the criteria that would be applied in considering any applications for Gypsy and Traveller sites and states that any such applications will be determined on their merits. 3.25 Thanet District Council Housing Strategy 2006 ? 10 There are no Gypsy and Traveller references. East Kent Homelessness Strategies 3.26 Canterbury Homelessness Strategy 2003 ? 07, Dover Homelessness Strategy 2003 ? 07, Shepway Homeless Strategy 2003, Thanet District and East Kent Triangle Homelessness Strategy 2003 There are no Gypsy and Traveller references in any of the homelessness strategies in the sub-region. This might be something the four local authorities wish to examine, in light of Lord Avebury?s research in this area (see summary of legislation earlier). 3.27 Directory of Housing Needs Services (covering Dover, Canterbury and Thanet) This directory lists one reference, stating that the Private Sector Housing Department of Canterbury City Council offer ?services relating to private sector housing including ?. information about Gypsies and Travellers? pg. 100. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 25 Conclusion 3.28 There is a mixed approach to the inclusion of Gypsies and Travellers needs in ?mainstream? planning, housing and homelessness strategies and plans. There has been national research (by Lord Avebury) to suggest that homelessness strategies must include Gypsies and Travellers, particularly where the existence of unauthorised encampments suggests that there might be a homelessness issue. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 26 4.0 FINDINGS: SITES Introduction 4.1 This part of the report examines the needs, experience and preferences of those respondents on local authority and private sites across the four local authority areas. A range of themes is focused on here in order to understand why Gypsies and Travellers want to settle in the area, what they think of the sites they are living on and future needs and preferences for sites. Reasons for settling 4.2 Respondents were asked, if they considered the area they were in to be their main base, what were their main reasons for settling in the area. 55% said that the main reason was that they had always lived in the area or they had family connections with the area, as shown in the table below. Table 5: Reasons for settling in the area amongst those on sites Number % Always lived here 12 21.4% Family connection 19 33.9% Work here 3 5.4% Schools/education 3 5.4% Pitch became available 6 10.7% Local facilities and services 2 3.6% Other 11 19.6% TOTAL 56 100 4.3 In response to question 9 of the ?sites? questionnaire, respondents gave the following additional comments on their reasons for settling on sites: Respondent Code Additional comments to question 9 ? reason for settling in the area. EK27 ?For the children, need education?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK31 ?Sick of getting moved on all the time?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK33 ?Nowhere else to go?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK35 ?This is our main base?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK54 ?Nowhere else to go?. (LA site, Dover) EK58 ?Nowhere else to live?. (LA site, Dover) EK60 ?Can?t find anywhere else to pull?. (LA site, Dover) EK63 ?We like Kent, reminds us of home in Ireland? (Roadside) EK64 ?Being evicted from another area (Medway)? (Roadside) EK69 ?Nowhere else to stop?. (Private Authorised Site) EK86 ?There were no sites and I moved here to look for work?. (Private Authorised Site) Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 27 Quality of Sites 4.4 When asked what they thought of the quality of the sites they were living on (both public and private), responses from Gypsies and Travellers included: Respondent Code Responses to question 28 ? What do you think to the quality of this site? EK25 ?The quality of our site is very good because it?s our own land and we got everything we need on it?. (Private Authorised) EK27 ?Everything is taken care of except for the drainage which is always flooded?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK28 ?The site as a very bad quality?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK29 ?Were all squashed together, there?s not enough room?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK30 ?Repairs get done sometimes but nothing else gets done?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK31 ?No there not, some of the repairs get done, drains always blocked?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK32 ?Some repairs get done, we?ve got no space?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK33 ?Some repairs, the most important don?t get done?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK34 ?Don?t think the site has got any qualities it?s somewhere to stay?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK35 ?Really bad, last time this site was touched by council was 10 years ago?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK36 ?Its disgusting the drains always blocked or flooded?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK37 ?Not very good, hasn?t got what we need?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK39 ?It?s really shabby and eyesore?. (LA site, Dover) EK48 ?Repairs get done, not always quick though?. (LA site, Dover) EK49 ?Nothing, just somewhere to live?. (LA site, Dover) EK50 ?Some repair work done but not always on time?. (LA site, Dover) EK51 ?Some repairs get done but not quick enough?. (LA site, Dover) EK52 ?Site not very well maintained?. (LA site, Dover) EK53 ?Shared spaces are o.k., garden not big enough, repairs get done sometimes?. (LA site, Dover) EK54 ?Site is layout well, but not enough space?. (LA site, Dover) EK55 ?There is not enough space on this site, some repairs get done?. (LA site, Dover) EK56 ?Repairs get done, not always quickly though?. (LA site, Dover) EK57 ?Repairs sometimes get done, that?s about it?. (LA site, Dover) EK58 ?Yes, repaired quite quick?. (LA site, Dover) EK59 ?Repairs get done, quite quickly?. (LA site, Dover) EK60 ?Quite a good layout could do with a bit more room?. (LA site, Dover) EK61 ?Facilities not suitable for the elderly, some repairs done?. (LA site, Dover) EK67 ?The quality of my site is very good, because this is my own land not a council site? (Private Authorised Site) EK69 ?Good?. (Private Authorised Site) EK70 ?Very good?. (Private Authorised Site) EK71 ?Very good, because it is not a Council site?. (Private Authorised Site) EK86 ?Excellent?. (Private Authorised Site) EK87 ?My site is very good?. (Private Authorised Site) EK88 ?We have everything here. On the roads we don?t have anything? (Holiday Caravan Park) EK89 ?It has everything the gypsies? site should have?. (Holiday Caravan Park) Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 28 Plate 1: Private Site, Herne Bay (temporary planning permission) Problems with the site 4.5 Respondents were asked if they had any problems with the site they live on. The results set out in the table below show that (26 out of 27) 96% of those surveyed on local authority sites said they had problems with the site, compared to 2 out of 17 (12%) of those on self owned private authorised sites. Table 6: Respondents saying that they had problems with the site they live on Yes No No response All Local Authority Site 26 1 0 27 Private Site 6 20 2 28 All Sites 32 21 2 55 4.6 In an associated question, the following problems were identified by respondents. The overwhelming theme seems to be around the need for playing space for children, and on the safety of the space, for example, rats, close to railway line and so on. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 29 Respondent Code Additional comments for question 29. Do you have any problems with this site? EK27 ?Play area would be nice but the kids have been asking for years, and there no where to park?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK28 ?Ramps dust?s everyone?s exhaust?s. Roads are too narrow?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK29 ?Need more space for more travellers and more parking space?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK30 ?Everything?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK31 ?It?s always flooded and it?s in the middle of an industrial estate?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK33 ?Play area, there is nowhere for kids to play except river bank?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK34 ?My kids haven?t got nowhere to play, road around the site too dangerous because there?s too many corners and kids can?t get run over?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK36 ?Need a lot more rooms?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK37 ?Not enough room for us all?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK38 ?Well all this things would be nice but I don?t think we?d ever get them?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK39 ?Everything, the noise, the rats running round from the river bank?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK48 ?Needs play area, parking areas and wider roads?. (LA site, Canterbury) EK49 ?No play areas, not enough room for trailers?. (LA site, Dover) EK50 ?There are no play areas and I think the children on site should have one?. (LA site, Dover) EK51 ?Need play areas, parking spaces?. (LA site, Dover) EK52 ?It?s too close to the railway line?. (LA site, Dover) EK53 ?Too far out in the country?. (LA site, Dover) EK54 ?Not enough rooms, for parking and need play area for kids?. (LA site, Dover) EK55 ?Need more rooms for trailers and to park cars?. (LA site, Dover) EK56 ?Need play area for children, more parking space?. (LA site, Dover) EK57 ?Don?t have anywhere to park my car most of the time?. (LA site, Dover) EK58 ?Parking area, we haven?t got communal social centre?. (LA site, Dover) EK59 ?Not enough parking space for everyone and no play area?. (LA site, Dover) EK61 ?Should be closer to the health services and shops for the elderly, it?s too far to go?. (LA site, Dover) EK86 ?Need more units for my boy and two girls?. (Private Authorised Site) EK88 ?The people who run the site don?t know we are gypsies, if they do we would have to go?. (Holiday Caravan Park) 4.7 Some of the comments recorded in free space on the survey form showed that a couple of responses related to fires or flooding on the site. Fire safety is a key issue for all sites. Of the 92 respondents, 55 stated that they had some form of fire prevention on site; this is set out in Table 7 below. Table 7: Fire Prevention Equipment on Sites Number of mentions Hydrant 5 Fire Extinguisher 30 Sand Bucket 3 Fire Hose 7 Fire Blankets 10 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 30 Plate 2: Local Authority Site, Vauxhall Road, Canterbury 4.8 The CLG January 2007 count data and spreadsheet on Gypsy sites provided by local authorities, contains information on the two local authority sites in the East Kent sub-region: ? Greenbridge Park, Vauxhall Road, Canterbury, 18 pitches, caravan capacity, 26, opened in 1976, with the last site changes noted as being in 1995. The Kent County Council Gypsy and Traveller Unit stated that the capacity of this site is actually 30; which is different to the CLG data. The Unit also states that this site has been refurbished under a previous government scheme. ? Snowdown Site, Aylesham, Dover District, 14 pitches, caravan capacity, 28, site opened in 1985 and the date of last site changes is shown as 1993. Again, the Kent County Council data is slightly different, the date that the site opened was stated as 1981, and the Unit stated that there has been a complete rebuild of the site in 2002 under the current government Gypsy site refurbishment grant. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 31 4.9 The CLG Gypsy Site refurbishment grant scheme is available for local authorities wishing to apply for a proportion of the cost of updating local authority sites. 4.10 The issue of ?not enough space? was cited by many respondents (these comments referred to not having enough room for the family, no play space for children and also not enough parking space). When community interviewers went onto the two local authorities to conduct the surveys they counted the number of trailers. These unofficial ?counts? by the interviewers stated a number of caravans which exceeded the capacity, as stated on the CLG database. However, this unofficial count is unverifiable and as such data from the January 2007 official CLG count may more reliable. During the CLG January 2007 count, on the Greenbridge Park site in Canterbury, 23 caravans were counted, and on the Aylesham site, 30 caravans were counted. According to the Gypsy and Traveller Unit at the County Council, and the data from the CLG count, there is not an issue of overcrowding on the local authority sites. Travelling/ Eviction 4.11 Respondents were asked whether they had been evicted or moved on in the previous five years. The results in the table below show that 33% of those now on sites have experienced either eviction, being moved on, or both. The remaining 67% of respondents on sites said that they had experienced neither eviction nor being moved on. Table 8: Experience of being moved on/evicted in last five years Number Experienced both eviction and moving on 2 (4%) Experienced eviction but not moving on 8 (14.5%) Experienced moving on but not eviction 8 (14.5%) Experienced neither eviction nor moving on 37 (67%) All on sites 55 (100%) 4.12 When asked about travelling patterns, additional comments were invited. The responses varied, with some general answers on both the number of times they had been moved on and the places they had moved from and to. Others include a little more detail on patterns of travel from being evicted or moved on. Some of the experiences recounted include: Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 32 Respondent Code Question 50 ? If you answered yes to question 49. (In the last 5 years, have you been evicted or moved on?), how many times and where from? EK25 ?I can not tell you this because we have been evicted and moved on for over 30 years. This is the first time we can stay on our land in 30 years? (Private authorised site with temporary planning permission) EK31 ?More times than I can remember?. (LA Site, Canterbury) EK49 ?Moved on ? travelled over Kent, stayed on roadsides, always moved on?. (LA Site, Dover) EK67 ?Evicted ? 3 times. Moved on ? 1 time. The council moved us off from one of its own sites, because they closed it down ad had no space for all the caravans, so we had to come to Kent on my dad?s land. Now the land is mine and I got planning? (Private authorised site) EK86 ?Keep being moved on as we can?t move on our own place? (Private authorised site) EK88 ?We are on the road for 5 months of the year because the holiday parks are not opened so we have been moved on about 10 times in 5 months from Medway, Folkestone, Thanet, Canterbury, Sittingbourne, Maidstone?. (Holiday Caravan Park) EK89 ?Evicted ? 5 times. Folkestone, Thanet, Herne Bay, all over the place Moved ? 8 times?. (Authorised Non Gypsy Site) 4.13 Discussion with the community interviewers highlighted a local pattern of travel through eviction and being moved on. This is discussed in more detail in chapter six which examines the findings on unauthorised encampments. 4.14 There are issues with accessing services and keeping children in school when families are continuously moved on and evicted. This is discussed in more detail in chapter seven of this report. One account from a Traveller is detailed below: The council has kept us on the road for over 30 years moving my family from town to town. My kids have never kept to school because of this. I can not see why any Traveller should be moved from his own land or on the roadside. There are no sites for us. We can not be on our own land because they?ve said it is a green half, but the Council takes green beds of land to make new houses all over Kent and London. Why don?t they do this to our land? After all we need places to live as well as our kids need schooling, healthcare. Lots of kids have passed away because there are no Drs. Why should we put up with this any longer? My girl who is 21 years old is here with me and her 2 kids also my son who has 3 kids. 3 kids are going to school now. What is going to happen to my family once the temporary permission runs out? (Respondent EK25, Private Authorised Site with temporary planning permission) 4.15 Travelling Showpeople were also asked about their travelling patterns throughout the year. Five of the ten Travelling Showpeople respondents said that they travelled ?around Kent?, one said they travelled ?around Kent and London?, and another said ?Kent and England?, one more said they travelled ?all over England?, two more said ?all over/ wherever we are booked?. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 33 Preferences for Accommodation 4.16 The respondents on sites were asked what type of accommodation they would prefer to live in. The survey gave respondents three options for those who said they would prefer to live on a site ? these are clearly shown in the table below as a choice of (1) living on a local authority permanent site (2) living on their own private site or (3) living on either a local authority permanent site or their own site. Nearly half of all respondents said that they would prefer to live either on their own private site or a local authority permanent site. Of those giving only one type of accommodation, twice as many preferred their own private site rather than a council permanent site. None of the other types of accommodation were preferred, as shown in Table 9. Table 9: Preferred Type of Accommodation by Those on Sites Number % On a local authority permanent site 9 16 On own private site 20 36 On own private site or a local authority permanent site 25 45 On the roadside 0 0 In a house or bungalow 0 0 On another private site 0 0 Other 0 No response 1 2 55 100 4.17 The respondents expressing a preference for their own private site were asked if they or their family had enough finances to afford to purchase a site if they could obtain planning permission. The results shown in the table below were that 18 (40%) said that they would have sufficient finances to be able to do so if they could obtain planning permission. Table 10: Assessment of ability to purchase by those expressing a preference for their own private site Number % Yes, I would have enough finances to afford to purchase 18 40% No, I would not have enough finances to afford to purchase 27 60% All expressing a preference for their own private site 45 100% 4.18 Those living on sites were also asked if they were able to obtain a mortgage to buy land for a site would they be interested in providing a site in this way. 30 (67%) said that they would be interested in doing so, significantly in excess of those who assess themselves as having the ability to purchase their own land. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 34 Table 11: Interest in obtaining a mortgage to buy land for a site Number % Yes, I would be interested in obtaining a mortgage to buy land for site 30 67% No, I would not be interested in obtaining a mortgage to buy land for site 5 11% Not applicable/no response 10 22% 4.19 Gypsies and Travellers gave a variety of responses when asked what their current employment was. Answers included: ? Barmaid ? Building ? Calling ? Electrician ? Field work ? Fruit picking ? Furniture removing ? Office worker ? Roofing ? Scrapping ? Security ? Used to do farm work when travelling ? Voluntary work ? Wood manager ? Work on dump ? ?I can do everything? (EK63) 4.20 As stated in the methodology, specific questions on income were not asked in the survey, this was based on consultation with Gypsy and Traveller representatives, the Showmen?s Guild, and following experience in the Cambridgeshire GTAA and other projects. There has been experience of Travellers not wanting to answer this question, and in some instances it can mean that remaining questions in the survey are not answered by respondents either. The methodology for this GTAA was based on respondents saying whether they felt they could afford land, or whether they would be able to obtain a mortgage, rather than providing full details on income. 4.21 They were also asked to state areas in which they would like to live. 32 respondents on sites provided information on which area they would prefer to live in. None of the responses include Swale, although officers at Canterbury City Council and Kent County Council note the strong links between Canterbury and Swale in travel patterns. This is discussed in more detail in relation to unauthorised encampment findings in chapter six of the report. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 35 Table 12: Preferred area to live in (sites) Preferred Area Number of respondents Canterbury 14 Canterbury/Maidstone 1 Dover 5 Aylesham, Dover 3 Kent 4 East Kent 1 Thanet/Folkestone 1 Chatham 1 Other: ?Any, as long as it?s a decent site? and ?We are not allowed to live in any area, but Kent would do, so my kids can go to school?. 2 Total 32 Plates 3 & 4: Unauthorised Private Site, Whitstable 4.22 There were also questions, for Travellers on sites, about whether they would live in a house if they had a chance. 26 Gypsies and Travellers on sites, responded to this question. 25 said ?no? they would not live in a house, with one saying ?don?t think so?. Many of the reasons given were focused on how this was not the ?way of life? of Gypsies and Travellers. Seven respondents on sites said that they had once lived in a house, and when asked why, the predominant reason given was ?nowhere else to go?. When asked why they left their houses, two said that a ?plot became available?, one said ?got married? and the remainder said ?didn?t like it/ not my life/not used to it?. 4.23 Finally, on this theme, respondents were asked what they thought councils should provide on sites and where (question 77). 32 respondents on sites gave detailed answers. Some of the themes in answers included: Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 36 More sites (6) Bigger sites (6) Smaller family sites (2) Near to towns, shops and doctors (8) With electricity and washroom facilities (6) Transit (1) Play area for children (2) More parking spaces (2) Conclusion 4.24 It is recommended that views are sought on how the two local authority sites might be improved to meet residents? needs. The Gypsy and Traveller Unit has already listened to the comments of residents on the Greenbridge Park site about drainage and they have submitted an application for CLG refurbishment grant in order to remedy this problem. Two respondents in the survey referred to a preference for a play area for children, when they were asked what the council should provide on any potential new sites (one of these respondents currently lived on the local authority site at Canterbury, and the other was on a self-owned site in Dover). There are examples of good site design which has been achieved for proposed new and refurbished sites in other parts of the country. One example is in Milton Keynes (the same architect is also working in Southampton), where the plans have been recommended as ?good site design? by the CLG Gypsy and Traveller Unit and are referred to in the consultation CLG guidance on site design (May 2007). 4.25 There is a preference, demonstrated in the qualitative responses, for additional sites in the area; and some of the comments around travelling/eviction (and this is discussed again later in the report) show there is a perception of a link between there being not enough places to stop and difficulty accessing local services and amenities. Suggestions have been made by Gypsy and Traveller respondents on the area they would prefer to live in, (Canterbury is a popular choice) and the sort of things they would like to see provided on a site. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 37 5.0 FINDINGS: HOUSING Introduction 5.1 This chapter presents the findings from the survey of Gypsy and Traveller respondents living in housing in East Kent. Some of the questions, such as where respondents would like to live, as well as questions on health, education and work were the same as for sites. These are dealt with to some extent in this chapter. Issues around health and education are also dealt with in chapter seven, and chapter eight will use responses on accommodation from all three groups (sites, housing and unauthorised encampments/ roadside) to formulate the pitch requirement needed in future. This chapter aims to identify some of the key themes which are particular to Gypsies and Travellers living in housing ? this especially centres on support needs and perceptions of living in a house. Support Needs of Gypsies and Travellers in Housing 5.2 In response to the question ?Do you have any particular support needs to help you continue living in a house?? all of the housed respondents in the sub- region (24) replied that they didn?t have particular support needs. Rather than narrowly interpreting this, it is important to look at some of the qualitative comments from the housed Travellers 22 . Respondents seemed quite despondent at living in bricks and mortar accommodation and stated a preference for living on sites; this is reflected in the fact that they do not want support to continue to live in a house; but instead want sites to move onto. Health, education and support are discussed further in chapter seven of this report, but in particular this aspect of the report should be read in conjunction with the findings from the focus group on women?s health where depression accruing after movement into housing, is discussed in some depth 23 . Perceptions of living in a house 5.3 Gypsies and Travellers were asked what they liked best and what they liked least about living in a house. 24 respondents answered the question on what they liked best about living in a house, of these seven said ?nothing? or ?I don?t like it?. Three said they liked ?the comforts? and six referred to enjoying 22 There are also interesting commentary in the focus group data at appendix two which suggests that whilst there may be a need for support, for instance for young Gypsy men to stay in their homes, they will not admit to anyone that they need it. 23 See further: Clark & Greenfields, 2006, chapter 5; O?Dwyer, M. (1997) Irish Travellers Health Access Project Draft Report, London, Brent Irish Advisory Service, Irish Travellers Project and Power, C. (2004) Room to Roam: England?s Irish Travellers Action for Irish Youth/Brent Irish Advisory Service/Community Fund Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 38 central heating, toilets and bathrooms. One said they liked ?everything? about living in a house, and another said they liked not having to ?keep going outside?. Two respondents referred to living in houses for room for their children and two said ?it?s our own?. Finally, one respondent said ?I can come home without worrying that the police or council are trying to move me on?. 5.4 In response to a question which asked what respondents liked least about living in a house, answers referred to cultural preferences to ?move? or ?roam? and to psychological reasons such as ?not having freedom?. Answers included: Respondent Code Question 25. What do you like least about living in a house? EK9 ?Neighbours? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK10 ?Can?t roam about like I used to? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK11 ?Too many people living around? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK12 ?Stairs? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK13 ?Costs too much money? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK14 ?Everything? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK15 ?Stairs? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK16 ?Not having your freedom and having nosey neighbours? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK17 ?Too much space in the house? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK19 ?Can?t move it? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK20 ?No freedom? (Council housing, Canterbury) EK20_1 ?I am not happy in a house because I lived in a caravan with mum and granddad from the age of 1? (Council housing, Thanet) EK22 ?It?s something I can leave to my kids, but it?s very small? (Owner occupier, Thanet) EK24 ?Away from my brothers and sisters who are on their own lands and stay off the roads? (Council housing, Thanet) EK43 ?Stuck in one place all the time? (Owner occupier, Canterbury) EK44 ?Can?t go when you want? (Owner occupier, Dover) EK45 ?Can?t get up and go when I want? (Owner occupier, Dover) EK46 ?Everything? (Council housing, Dover) EK47 ?Got to stay in the same place all the time? (Owner occupier, Dover) EK90 ?I am away from my family? (Owner occupier, Shepway) 5.5 Some of the themes around isolation from friends and family emerge in the statements, and this is replicated in other research projects and GTAAs as well as the focus group on women?s health. One of the key reasons for tenancy failure is a perceived lack of support, not necessarily just from agencies, but also from friends and family, because housed Travellers no longer feel they are living as part of their own community. In the focus group which was held with Gypsy and Traveller women on 11 April 2007 this feeling of isolation was confirmed. The women who had lived in a house said that it had added to feelings of isolation, depression and desperation. They felt they were stuck in a house all day long with no one to talk to. It was also suggested that the young single men who felt forced to live in bricks and mortar accommodation did not ask for help or talk explicitly about support needs, but they too felt isolated from their community, leading in some cases Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 39 to a tendency to become involved in over-reliance on alcohol or drugs dependency. A ?youth? group is facilitated by Angie Jones of the Canterbury Gypsy Support group and it was suggested that this group did not just help young people, but that parents came along too. This was not just women, but the men came as well saying they ?had? to drop off the children or accompany their family, but then the men congregated together in a group, and the women in another ? in order to talk. This has the effect of re-energising the sense of community, particularly for those who were not settled on a site, or who felt they were ?stuck? in housing. The aversion to bricks and mortar accommodation demonstrated in the comments above was echoed in views from the focus group with young people. There was a general dislike of housing, no matter how long they had been living there "We all suffocate - there ain't no one to talk to. You can go out and talk to the girls but you're stuck in the house with chemics round you." 5.6 In response to a later question (27) on the particular features respondents disliked about their house, there were still some general responses coming back on an aversion to bricks and mortar. One such example: ?I feel enclosed, like a bird in a cage? (EK 47) and another ?[I dislike] everything and being away from my family? (EK66). Accessing Services 5.7 In common with Gypsies and Travellers on sites, respondents in housing were asked whether they had registered with a doctor or dentist, or whether they had any problems registering (questions 107 and 108). The results show that for all respondents there is less access to dentists than to doctors. Access is worst amongst those on the roadside with only 48% being registered with a doctor and 33% with a dentist (compared to 91% and 67% respectively on sites and 96% and 72% respectively in houses). Table 13: Access to Doctors and Dentists Doctor Dentist Registered Encountered Problems registering? Registered Encountered Problems registering? Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Sites 41 4 5 4 30 15 4 40 Houses 23 1 40 19 18 7 5 16 Roadside 10 11 1 15 7 14 5 11 All 74 16 45 23 55 36 14 67 5.8 Those interviewed were also asked about any problems accessing schooling (question 117: Has anyone in your family had any problems with schooling, such as obtaining places at school/nursery or with transport to and from school/nursery?). A similar picture emerges from the responses with 63% on Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 40 the roadside reporting that they had had such problems compared to 8% on sites and 30% in housing. Table 14: Problems Obtaining Schooling/ Transport to and from School Sites Housing Roadside All Yes 3 7 14 24 No 33 16 6 55 Preferred Accommodation 5.9 Again, as with Travellers on sites, Gypsies and Travellers in housing were asked which area they would prefer to live in (question 53), nine respondents in housing gave replies. Specific responses included Canterbury (2), Dover (4), Thanet (1), Maidstone (2), Shepway (1) 24 and Kent (1). 5.10 When asked (in question 49) what they thought the councils should provide on sites, and where, there were 22 responses. Seven people said they wanted ?more sites? for a variety of reasons, such as ?for the Travellers still on the road?, ?so we don?t have to live in housing?, ?for our children to live? and ?near to schools?. Whilst one respondent specified a need for larger sites, two further responses focused on a need for small family sites. Two respondents referred to a need for a play area, and one specifically mentioned that a transit site was needed. One particular response mentioned ?Park Homes? site, for example high quality accommodation which is not obviously a Gypsy site. 5.11 And when asked what facilities would be necessary on or near to their ?ideal? site (question 55) respondents suggested schools, doctors, hospitals, washrooms, living area to eat meals in, shops, bus routes, play areas, running water, electricity, gas, and one suggestion was that Gypsy/Traveller sites should have the same facilities as Park Homes sites. Conclusion 5.12 The clear need, particularly for Gypsies and Travellers in housing, is for support to combat feelings of isolation and separation from their community. There were sentiments expressed around feeling that there had been no choice but to move into a house, either because of a lack of stopping places, or because it was felt this was the only way to access services, such as schooling for children. If additional pitches were available, and additional support to access services was given, then some of the above responses indicate that people would move out of houses and back onto sites. This 24 Two responses said ?Where I am now? and these two respondents are currently living in Canterbury and Shepway. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 41 would not only help to ?reunite? Travellers with their community on sites, but would also free up some housing stock in the area. 5.13 The information within the focus group data pertaining to youth clubs (at appendix two) shows their use as a focus for adult interaction, assisting in emotional and social support for individuals who may otherwise become socially excluded. Further support and assistance via Supporting People, or links with MCAS might be appropriate to develop these groups. 5.14 In some locations where members of the GTAA study team have undertaken research, women, (in particular), have expressed a desire for a social space wherein they can engage with other community members whilst developing useful skills. It is recommended that consideration is given to the provision of support for women?s groups where housed Travellers may, for example, engage with cooking. 25 Further research will be required to gain knowledge of the most appropriate type of social/skills based provision. 25 See Friends, Families and Travellers website www.gypsy-traveller.org/health/health_project.htm for discussion on their women?s health eating/cookbook project, or sewing clubs. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 42 6.0 FINDINGS: UNAUTHORISED/ ROADSIDE ENCAMPMENTS Introduction 6.1 Fifteen surveys were completed on unauthorised/roadside encampments and on the roadside. The findings are included in this chapter. As with chapters four and five, there are some questions in common, such as preferred areas to live, as well as questions on health, education and work. Patterns of Travel and Unauthorised Encampments 6.2 Discussion with the community interviewers highlighted a local pattern of travel through eviction and being moved on. It was suggested that Gypsies and Travellers were moved from Folkestone to Faversham to Sittingbourne to Canterbury to Herne Bay to the Thannington area of Canterbury to Manston to Sandwich to Dover. The unauthorised encampment records, kept by the County Council are detailed and provide a range of information. 6.3 From a variety of information sources, including survey responses and spreadsheets of data from Kent County Council, it has been possible to provide a map of sites, including regular unauthorised encampments. The map which appears as Figure 1 shows the boundaries of the four partner authorities to which this study relates and, for reference, those of the immediately adjacent Kent authorities of Swale and Ashford Borough. The map shows those locations across these six local authorities that have been recorded by KCC as being used for unauthorised encampments on three or more occasions in 2004 - 06. They key, in the left corner of the map, provides some brief explanation of the map. Clusters of unauthorised encampments are shown with a dot which is relative in size to the number of encampments in that area. For example, a small dot represents where there have been three or more encampments in an area in the period 2004-2006, a medium dot demonstrated unauthorised encampments in a place, where they have happened 18 or more times, and the largest dot represents that 36 or more unauthorised encampments have been in a given area between 2004-2006. In addition, local authority sites and private sites are plotted, but for the four local authorities in the study area only, (only unauthorised encampments are plotted in Swale and Ashford). Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 43 Figure 1: Map of sites and unauthorised encampments Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 44 6.4 The above map (at Figure 1) demonstrates where regular unauthorised encampments occur in the study area (along with Swale and Ashford districts where there is some cross-boundary movement). The map does not necessarily show patterns of movement, but there may be some links between the larger clusters of unauthorised encampments. One can establish patterns of travel by looking at the movement of a particular family. For instance, from the Canterbury City Council unauthorised encampment data it is possible to see that an encampment was moved from: ? land adjacent to Faversham Road, Seasalter on 11 August 2006, then to ? land adjacent to the cemetery at Eddington roundabout on 28 August 2006, then ? the records state that an encampment, possibly of the same name, was moved from Highgate Filling Station, Chestfield on 15 October 2006, then to ? land adjacent to Wraik Hill business park on 9 November 2006, then to ? land opposite Greenbridge Park local authority site on 16 November 2006, then to ? Highgate Filling Station again on 24 November, and ? the final record for 2006 shows the family being moved from the disused car park at Herne Bay train station on 15 December. 6.5 The County Council database does not record ?family name? and the unauthorised encampment officer has said that only Canterbury City Council record this level of information. Both Canterbury City Council and the unauthorised encampment officer at Kent County Council have stated that there is a pattern of movement of unauthorised encampment across Canterbury district and Swale district (the latter of which is in the North Kent GTAA study area). Information on unauthorised encampments in Swale does not record family name and so it has not been possible to track one encampment across district boundaries. However, the unauthorised encampment officer at the County Council has stated that several families which are noted in the Canterbury data do regularly travel in Swale. He stated that there is an area of land, about 15 miles in radius, which straddles the Swale and Canterbury district boundaries, in which some families of Gypsies and Travellers travel regularly and they have very strong connections to this area. 6.6 Swale district has been included in the North Kent GTAA. Travel patterns are discussed in the North Kent study, but there is no explicit mention of Canterbury as a place visited prior to travelling in Swale. The North Kent GTAA, like this East Kent study, refers to ?Kent? in addition to the districts covered in its remit ? rather than matching travel patterns to exact locations in Kent. Currently, the evidence for the links between Swale and Canterbury districts are based on conversations with Canterbury City Council and the unauthorised encampments officer at the County Council. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 45 6.7 Many of the unauthorised encampments recorded on the Kent County Council database show that encampments are moved on ?voluntarily?, however some are the subject of eviction. Information on enforcement notices served on Gypsies and Travellers to move on, supplied by the County in an email to one of the community interviewers states that for the period 2004-06 across all four districts there were 12 Section 61 notices issued, 13 Section 77 and 11 Section 78. Services on site 6.8 Travellers on the roadside and unauthorised encampments were asked whether any services visited the site. One response said that the police and the council visited the site (EK6), one said that a doctor visited (EK8) and a further respondent (EK26) said no one visited. Three further responses highlight an issue touched upon in the methodology chapter ? that of hiding, or not revealing that they were Gypsies and Travellers: ? ?No, but no one knows we are here? (EK63); ? ?No, they don?t know we are here? (EK72); and ? ?No, no one knows we are Gypsies? (EK73). 6.9 There are examples in other areas of the country where there are regular visits to unauthorised encampments by members of the Travellers Education Service, and also schemes such as a playbus for the children. Such schemes could improve the lives of Gypsies and Travellers in the East Kent region. By their nature, unauthorised encampments and roadside encampments are not always easy to find, they are not always known to the relevant authorities and they are temporary. On speaking with the Minority Communities Achievement Service (MCAS) it was suggested that where the encampments occur on county council owned land then information is passed onto the service by the Gypsy and Traveller Unit; however information on encampments on other private or district land is not always shared by the district councils. This has ramifications for Gypsies and Travellers not known to MCAS and is probably an experience that is also shared by other social and voluntary agencies, if there is no clear recording and information sharing mechanism in place. However, as the County Gypsy and Traveller Unit is aware of most of the unauthorised encampments in the area, the information is shared within the different sections of the County Council. There may be a perception in certain agencies that there is not so much dialogue with the district councils on the issue of Gypsies and Travellers. 6.10 Similarly, although rarely found in practice, if child protection or child support needs exist, a clear mechanism is required under statutory legislation and Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 46 guidance 26 for identification and referral of families. Where children and families are ?slipping through the net? of interagency working, valuable opportunities for support and appropriate intervention may be lost. Plate 5: Location previously used for unauthorised encampments which has now been blocked off: piece of highway verge on the northern edge of the A257, East of Ash Disadvantages of current accommodation 6.11 Gypsies and Travellers on the roadside and on unauthorised encampments were asked what they liked best about their current accommodation. 19 respondents gave answers. Four said they enjoyed being near to town and to the shops, one respondent said it was near their daughter?s school, and a further three respondents gave access to healthcare and the doctor?s surgery as a reason. When asked (in question 26) what they didn?t enjoy about their current roadside site or unauthorised encampment, Gypsies and Travellers responded with: Respondent Code Question 26. What don?t you enjoy about the site? EK1 ?No electricity, no water? EK2 ?No water or electric? EK3 ?No electric, no water? 26 For example, Every Child Matters, see http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 47 Respondent Code Question 26. What don?t you enjoy about the site? EK4 ?No toilets, water facilities? EK5 ?Sick of moving? EK6 ?Muddy, no facilities, next to the dump. Everything, but where can we go? EK7 ?Have not facilities that I need? EK8 ?Its stuck in Canterbury with Council that hates gypsies? EK40 ?Nothing? EK62 ?There is nothing to enjoy? EK63 ?Nothing? 6.12 A lack of basic sanitary facilities is evident from the above answers on what Gypsies and Travellers liked least about their current roadside site or unauthorised encampment. A transit site with electricity hook-ups and wash areas may be the answer for some Travellers. There is also the option of providing portable toilets and refuse collection facilities to unauthorised encampments, where there will be ?toleration? of the site for a while. This is undertaken in other areas of the country; a charge is made to cover the cost to the council. They Gypsy and Traveller Unit at Kent County Council have stated that this service has been provided in the past, but that there have been problems with non-payment, abuse of facilities and damage. Plate 6: Unauthorised Encampment Opposite Greenbridge Site, Vauxhall Road, Canterbury Plate 7: Unauthorised Roadside Site, Old Thanet Way, Chestfield, Whitstable. Just been evicted. Council sites 6.13 Question 34 asked respondents whether they had ever stopped on council sites; the question did not ask for respondents to specify which council site they were referring to. Just under half of those on the roadside/unauthorised encampments had, at some time, used a council site. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 48 Table 15: Roadside respondents on whether they had ever stopped on council sites Number % Yes 6 47% No 7 53% All on the roadside/unauthorised encampments 13 100% 6.14 Some of the comments from respondents demonstrate negative perceptions of the local authority sites. The open ended part of the question asked ?approximately how many times [have you stopped on a council site], how long, and why did you leave. The question did not ask for specific dates of stays on a council site, and so some of these comments may refer to experiences from some time ago. Respondent Code Question 34. Have you ever stopped on council sites? EK2 ?Twice ? didn?t have a plot for us? (respondent who had used a council site) EK3 ?Couple of times? (respondent who had used a council site) EK4 ?1 year ? got chucked off? (respondent who had used a council site) EK5 ?Chucked off, nowhere else to go? (respondent who had used a council site) EK6 ?2 sites, got evicted because there were not enough plots, and last on ? first off? (respondent who had used a council site) EK7 ?Stayed a couple of times here and there. Left because I got my own place? (respondent who had used a council site) EK8 ?Lots of times, but didn?t know where to settle as too many rats and Police raids? EK26 ?3-4 times for a few months, left because we got moved?. EK63 ?They don?t make sites for Irish travellers here in England, yet they make sites for Romanies back home? (respondent who had not used a council site) EK64 ?I am not living on a rubbish tip!? (respondent who had not used a council site) EK75 ?We don?t like the Council sites. We were on a site about 3 years ago but my kids kept getting sick on it. Some of the sites you would not put animals on them.? Preferred Sites 6.15 Gypsies and Travellers on the roadside and other unauthorised encampments were also asked what they thought should be provided and where. Six of thirteen respondents just said ?Kent?, two said ?anywhere?, one suggested Chatham, two said Canterbury and two said Dover. Table 16: Accommodation preferences of those on the roadside/unauthorised encampments Number % On own private site 8 50% On another private site 0 0 On local authority permanent site 7 46% On local authority transit site 1 4% On the roadside 0 0 In a house or bungalow 0 0 On another private site 0 0 Other 0 All responses (note: some gave more than one response) 16 100% Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 49 6.16 Those expressing an interest in living on their own private site were asked if they or their family had enough finances to afford to purchase a site if they could obtain planning permission. Only 2 (15%) said that they could do so. This compares to the response amongst those on authorised sites where 40% said that they could do so. Table 17: Assessment of ability to purchase by on the roadside/unauthorised encampments Number % Yes, I would have enough finances to afford to purchase land 2 15% No, I would have enough finances to afford to purchase land 8 62% No response/not applicable 3 23% Number on roadside/unauthorised encampments 13 100% 6.17 Respondents were also asked where they thought local authorities should provide future sites, and what should be on the sites. The responses are included in full below. Respondent Code Question 55. The Councils are looking at the need for additional sites. What do you think should be provided and where? EK1 ?Sites for families near towns with access to hospitals and schools? EK2 ?Permanent sites for families throughout England? EK3 ?Running water, electric, gas, washrooms and toilets? EK4 ?More sites with running water, electric, toilets, wash rooms? EK5 ?Washrooms, gas, running water, electric? EK6 ?We do need sites, and I think the Council have got you all fooled, because we know they won?t build a number of new sites. If they did I?ll move in a house, because they will fill them with wannabe gypsies like they did in Essex? EK7 ?Washrooms, toilets electric and running water? EK8 ?There should be 10 plot sites ? permanent ones and transit ones, near shops, doctors, schools, and no near rubbish tips? EK26 ?More sites all around? EK40 ?All over England. Anything that homes have inside, all sites should have the same? EK41 ?More sites in every town? EK41_1 ?More sites all over? EK42 ?Sites need to be built all over, so we can have somewhere to live with clean water, electric and toilets? EK62 ?Well, the Council can start by not building our sites on top of rubbish dumps and making our children growing up in scare? EK63 ?The Council have been looking since 1968. What makes anyone think these years they will do anything. Unless they know God is coming to collect us all and they will not be joining us? EK64 ?Toilet block, utility block, regular bin collection, park, gas, electric, water? EK72 ?Transit and permanent? EK73 ?Permanent and transit sites? EK75 ?I am an Irish traveller, I got land and my land could be giving planning permission for other travellers who are passing through Dover, but the Council will not do this, so if the Council is looking for sites, why don't they need my land?? EK76 ?The Council will not make sites for travellers and travellers who have their own land are being put off. The Council has been looking for years and still have not came up with any land. Yes, so they are making the problems, not us travellers? Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 50 6.18 It is notable from the comments above, that there is an increasing level of scepticism from roadside Travellers that the local authorities will actually build more sites. There is a feeling that there has been a lot of discussion on a national basis already and that sites haven?t been built, so what is going to change now. It may be difficult at first to engage with Gypsies and Travellers on any site location and design exercises, particularly on the roadside, if they believe that nothing will come of the consultation. Responses from across the three types of survey (sites, housing and roadside) have indicated that there are a number of Gypsies and Travellers who have been denied planning permission to build their own site and they are now either on a council site, in a house, or on the roadside or other unauthorised encampment. There are issues here of the effect of planning decisions on the numbers of Travellers on the side of the road. Whilst it is acknowledged that it is clearly not appropriate to pass planning applications in every circumstance, there may be instances where a site is in an appropriate location and where there is little objection from the settled community. Passing a planning application for sites that are appropriate, even where the application has been made retrospectively, may have a positive effect on the numbers of unauthorised encampments in the area, and may provide a relatively quick solution to the need for additional pitches. 6.19 As with the same question that was asked of Travellers on sites and in houses (see chapters four and five), there is a lack of clarity regarding where people want to be located. This finding is in common with other GTAAs, often an answer of ?anywhere I can settle? will be given. This is not merely due to a lack of familiarity with district boundaries in many cases, but also related to simply being keen to access any site whatsoever in a relatively wide area where connections exist and where they will be able to settle and access services. 6.20 Travellers were also asked to indicate a preferred network of sites and there are some similar issues on lack of clarity on precise geographic location: Respondent Code Question 53 ? Preferred areas for network of sites EK1 ?Near towns and not in woods or near rubbish tips? EK2 ?Kent, Sussex, Essex, London? EK3 ?Throughout England, not stuck out in some woods, isolated? EK6 ?Throughout the country, one in every town?. EK8 ?Throughout the UK, and not stuck in some woods or near the local rubbish tips? EK26 ?All over?. EK40 ?All over England? EK62 ?All over? EK63 ?Within the country? EK64 ?Not in town, but not on a rubbish tip? EK65 ?All over the place? EK72 ?By the seaside for the nice views? Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 51 Respondent Code Question 53 ? Preferred areas for network of sites EK73 ?Near the sea where we are located now? EK75 ?All over England? EK76 ?Margate, Canterbury, Maidstone, Dover, Sittingbourne and Medway-Shepway? 6.21 Gypsies and Travellers on the roadside and other unauthorised encampments were asked (question 80) about any health issues. There were a number of respondents who identified problems, and these are discussed in more detail in chapter seven. Conclusion 6.22 Gypsies and Travellers on unauthorised encampments provided a range of responses and preferences on where they want to live and the facilities needed on future sites. They also identified health issues, in common with roadside Gypsies and Travellers across the country, and these are discussed in much more detail further on in the report. 6.23 There is an issue of the need to consult with members of the Gypsy and Traveller community, as well as the settled community, when examining new sites. Whilst some general answers have been provided by respondents, on where they would like to live, and the sort of facilities they would like to see on sites, it is important to consult with the travelling community on location of site as well as facilities, and there are examples of a ?planning for real? approach working well. Southampton have used this as a method for engaging with Travellers, but also for making sure the settled community understand that a new site will be well designed and ?planning for real? helps to alleviate some of the fears and objections which can become apparent in the site selection process. It is a tool which will work well for Traveller families who would be expected to reside on a specific location. It is also important to make sure that the location of sites is not ?stuck in the middle of nowhere? as some respondents fear, but could be part of a ?mixed? planning development of mainstream housing, alongside a site, so as not to alienate and isolate Travellers and to aim to improve community cohesion and to improve quality of access to services for Gypsies and Travellers. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 52 7.0 HEALTH, EDUCATION AND HOUSING RELATED SUPPORT Introduction 7.1 This chapter will examine issues related to health, education and other support needs. Some of these issues have been discussed throughout the report, in analysis of the comments from respondents. The key topics will be examined from the focus groups in appendix two. It is felt that the richness of the data, coming out of the focus groups, warranted a detailed examination of the topics, along with a commentary and some recommendations. It is this ?rich? data which will be so helpful to the Supporting People team, and other support agencies, in planning services for the sub-region. Supporting People are funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) and as such an obvious overlap exists within Departmental sections, in terms of concerns and interests pertaining to supporting vulnerable Gypsy and Traveller community members, and ascertaining site/pitch and household requirements. Context: The Kent Supporting People Strategy Kent Five Year Supporting People Strategy 2005 - 10 7.2 The strategy acknowledges that ?There is only very minimal provision for Travellers ?.? and that ?There are gaps in knowledge about the nature and extent of housing-related support needs of ?. Travellers ?. Therefore, more research into these groups is required? p.5. It is understood that the Kent County Council site managers have produced a rough Supporting People ?matrix? of need of Gypsies and Travellers on county managed sites; the research team requested a copy of the matrix, but they were told that this information was confidential as it could be attributed back to specific individuals on the county sites. 7.3 The strategy goes on to state that ? The number of units of service provision available to Travellers decreased from 32 to 16 a difference of 50%; this is due to the service being withdrawn from the Supporting People programme prior to a review visit from the Supporting People Team? p.16 . We are advised that under-use of the programme in West Kent impacted on the decision to minimise available services, but do not have data which indicates the extent of take-up in the study area. 7.4 The Supporting People (SP) Team has not yet obtained data about the potential housing-related support needs of Travellers and will undertake further research to quantify data. The SP Team has assisted in this research Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 53 and will review its findings. The SP Five-Year Strategy states that ?currently, there is no evidenced need for additional Traveller specific support services? but it makes a commitment to keep the position under review and carry out research into housing related support needs for Gypsies and Travellers. 27 The County Council is also investigating a business case for establishing some form of floating support. Health Needs 7.5 Responsibility for provision of health care to residents of the study area is divided between two Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) Canterbury and Coastal PCT and East Kent Coastal PCT. We are advised that no specialist Traveller Health Care outreach workers are currently employed by the Trusts and this also impacts on the ability of the PCT to provide dedicated midwifery services to Gypsies and Travellers passing through the area or residing at unauthorised sites in the locality. Somewhat unusually, (so we understand from staff at Friends, Families and Travellers Health Project) Gypsies and Travellers are unable to self-refer for maternity services, and this inevitably may create delays in accessing appropriate care when highly mobile women (or those newly arrived in the study area) need to register with a GP prior to referral onto hospitals for screening or treatment. In the light of the well recognised risk of increased mortality of mobile or insecurely sited Gypsy/Traveller women during pregnancy 28 or immediately post-natally, we would recommend strongly that consideration is made as to the appointment (perhaps in common with other adjoining PCTs) of a specialist Health Visitor with responsibility for leading on the health care, and referral of Gypsies and Travellers resorting to the area. Alternatively, we would recommend that arrangements are undertaken to permit such women to self-refer for maternity services in line with practice in many other PCTs across the country 29 . 7.6 Despite this concern over the potential for Gypsy and Travellers residents of the study area to ?fall through the net? in terms of access to services, analysis of the survey data reveals that respondents report an unusually high rate of good health in the East Kent area when compared to other areas where team members have undertaken GTAAs. Overall 80% of respondents reported that they were in good health, a figure significantly higher than that found in the Cambridgeshire GTAA (2006) or the work undertaken by Parry et al (2004). Whilst the high self-report of good health may relate to the relative stability of some sites and for housed residents, and access to good quality health care, 27 We consider that findings from the focus group pertaining in particular to transition into housing, and survey data on health and social care will provide evidence of the support needs of these communities and assist in forward service planning. 28 The Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom ?Why Mothers Die: 1997- 1998? London: NICE http://www.cemach.org.uk/publications/CEMDreports/cemdrpt.pdf 29 See further: on-going Maternity Alliance research report (unpublished draft 2006) and on-going research by Friends, Families and Travellers Womens Health Group. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 54 this does not fully explain the situation vis a vis roadside respondents who in East Kent still enjoy a health status above that commonly found within the fully nomadic population. 7.7 Consideration of Table 18 does however reveal discrepancies between the health status of individuals living in different types of accommodation; with slightly over three-quarters of roadside respondents stating their health was ?good? compared to nearly 82% of sited individuals. Those respondents in housing (who may potentially have moved into ?bricks and mortar? accommodation as a result of poor health (see focus group data) a variable which would thus impact on findings) have better health status than roadside respondents, but still below those resident on long-term and stable sites, whether rented or self-owned. It is perhaps easiest to identify the variables which may be associated with accommodation type if we recognise that 80% (average number of individuals claiming good health) becomes the ?mean? for this data-set (using accepted practice in interpreting SPSS data) and thus variations from that figure demonstrate increased or decreased health status. Accordingly, we can see that residence on a site (whether authorised or unauthorised development) is associated with improved health status. 7.8 Perhaps unsurprising Table 18 below illustrates that the older the individual the more likely they are to be in poor health. Although within this table the age-gender breakdown is not provided, there is a sharp decline in good health once respondents are over the age of 50 (most especially for male respondents). This deterioration in health and (often) associated raised mortality and morbidity rate, is in line with findings from a variety of studies which suggest statistically significant variations in life expectancy and health status amongst Gypsy and Traveller community members and the ?mainstream? population. 30 7.9 It is particularly noteworthy that a spike in poor health is found amongst young people ? decreasing for over 26 year olds and then trebling amongst the 36 to 50 year old age range. It may be that this apparent surge in poor health is related to the small sample number of under 25 year olds, in which small numbers of individuals with disabilities or in poor health will be unduly noticeable. There were four women, under the age of 25 years, in the survey sample. 30 see Clark and Greenfields, 2006, Chapter 7; Parry et al, 2004; IPPR, 2004; Baker/LREC, 2006 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 55 Table 18: Health Status of Survey Respondents Accommodation Type Good Health Poor Health Roadside 76.2% 23.8% House 79.2% 20.8% Site 81.8% 18.2% Average Health Status (All categories) 80% 20% Age of respondent <25 76.9 23.1 26-35 95.8 4.2 36-50 87.5 12.5 51+ 47.4 52.6 Gender Male 78.7 21.3 Female 81.4 18.6 7.10 A further (as yet unexplored) factor pertaining to the health status of Gypsy/Traveller community members is the apparent preponderance of poor health amongst Travelling Showpeople and Irish Travellers with one third and over a quarter (respectively) of these respondents noting that they are in poor health. We are aware from other studies (particularly the Cambridge GTAA) that Irish Travellers are more likely to report poor health than other community members, and we would suggest that this relates strongly to the lower likelihood of Irish Travellers being able to access stable accommodation (see Select Committee report: op. cit, p10, which refers to ethnicity of residents of local authority sites and our findings which indicate that only 25% of Irish Traveller respondents live on sites with the remainder either roadside dwellers or in local authority housing). 7.11 We are aware that in the East Kent area local authority sites are overwhelming populated by English Gypsies and that private sites are also more likely to be owned by Romany families. Accordingly, Irish Travellers are (in our experience of the area, and borne out by the data from this GTAA) more commonly found on the roadside (42% of the Irish Traveller sample as opposed to 25% of the Romany sample were living on the ?roadside?); a situation associated with poor access to GP and primary health care facilities (CRE, 2006; Crawley, 2004), or in housing (see further comments regarding the focus group findings on housing and health). 7.12 On being asked whether other household members have health problems, the picture however becomes somewhat bleaker, with increased numbers of respondents reporting that they are sharing a home with an individual (or individuals) with poor health: Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 56 Table 19: Health Status of Survey Household Members Accommodation Type Health Problems (household members) Good Health (household members) Roadside 57.1% 42.9% House 37.5% 62.5% Site 29.5% 70.5% AVERAGE HEALTH STATUS (All categories) 37.8% 62.2% 7.13 Overall, whilst 62.2% of respondents reported that all household members were in good health, this declines to less that half of respondents who were living on the roadside, the groups least likely to experience continuity of care and adequate access to health services. Once again it would appear that dwelling at a stable site provides some protective health factors as this group of respondents were consistently noted (across all data sets) as being in the best health overall. We would tentatively suggest that whilst this relates in part to access to good quality health care, the presence (in the overwhelming majority of cases) of family members in the vicinity, (often living on the same site) provides important cultural and social continuity and support. In contrast it is important to consider stress factors for those families who have moved into housing where this is not a desired form of accommodation (for example, Parry et al, 2004; Power, 2004; and focus group data from this study). 7.14 In line with our comment above regarding Irish Travellers? particular degree of exclusion from sites and the specific difficulties in accessing health care associated with such a vulnerable status, we feel that it is critically important to highlight the astounding percentage of Irish Traveller respondents who reported that immediate household members were in poor health (90.9%) when compared with Travelling Showpeople (33.3%) and English Gypsies (31.3%). 7.15 Typical conditions reported by respondents included ?nerves?; chronic arthritis; asthma (associated in part with dwelling at roadsides, damp or poor quality accommodation ? both housed and in trailers) and a range of other conditions such as epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, diabetes and cardio-vascular disease (see further, Parry et al, 2004 for discussion on the prevalence of such conditions amongst Gypsy and Traveller communities). 7.16 Typical comments from respondents included: ? ?my girl has [a] disability. She don?t walk very good, she is 21 years old. My wife has very bad nerves? ? ?My son has asthma, my wife have nerves trouble after our son was born and still has? ? ?Bad back, asthma, nerves, depression because my girls are on the road? Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 57 ? ?My wife and I have been sick for along time and no Dr. will see you without an address? 7.17 When asked if health difficulties limited the day to day activities of either the respondent or their household members(s) who were in poor health, 66% of housed respondents and 70% of roadside Gypsies/Travellers who reported household members with poor health noted that that the health condition complained of did limit daily activities ? a considerable concern not only in terms of public health and equality of health status, but the likelihood of significant impacts on other household members, particularly where children may need to be involved in caring for adults or siblings as a result of poor adult health. For all household members, where significant poor health or impaired functioning exists, there is a recognised likelihood that other family members will themselves suffer from stress or related health difficulties. 31 7.18 We would therefore strongly advise that consideration is paid by the Kent County Council local authority social services department and East Kent Supporting People team, as to how best to target carers and household members of individuals with activity limiting health conditions. To the best of our knowledge, no specialist support teams are in existence around the country who target and prioritise work with roadside Gypsies and Travellers caring for relatives with activity limiting health needs 32 although as vulnerable minority ethnic communities they fall within a range of ?targeted? priorities, and it is possible that the development of a specialist service could attract funding from external sources such as the Department of Health; Big Lottery Funds or Primary Care Trust resources as well as demonstrating ?good practice? at a national level. 7.19 It would appear that a fruitful opportunity may exist for PCTs/SSDs in the East Kent locality to consider developing relatively low-cost, outreach health work with Gypsies and Travellers through utilising the skills of various community members and enhancing their skills through the opportunities provided under the Community Health Educators or ?health trainers? schemes promoted by the Department of Health. 7.20 At appendix two we present a series of findings from the focus group held with Gypsy and Traveller women within the East Kent area. We consider that this data largely speaks for itself in defining some of the key health difficulties experienced by this community but feel that service providers should consider 31 See for example chapter Gilleard, C (undated) Chapter 18 ?Carers? Stress? in the of the Royal College of Psychiatrists downloadable publication http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/semOAP_ch18.pdf; and the Princess Royal Trust for Carers survey which found that 71% of carers suffered from stress http://www.carers.org/news/over-3-million-carers-in-the-uk-have-wanted-to-walk-away,1357,NW.html 32 See further: Cemlyn, S (1998) Policy and Provision by Social Services for Traveller Children and Families, Bristol, University of Bristol and Clark and Greenfields, 2006 Chapters 6 and 7 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 58 developing inter-agency responses (in particular utilising the resources and skills of Supporting People teams and voluntary sector agencies) to the ?bereavement? and ?housing? issues identified. In terms of provision of mental health support services (see appendix two) we would recommend strongly that the East Kent National Health Service and Social Care Partnership Trust initiate a dedicated piece of work/allocate staff time to developing outreach support for members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities who have identified a strong need for support both in terms of anxiety/depression when living in housing, and following significant loss through bereavement. Education Needs 7.21 Dedicated educational support services for Gypsy and Traveller children across the study area are coordinated by the Minority Communities Achievement Service operating from Maidstone. 7.22 Despite the best efforts of the service, both in the study area and across the country as a whole, Gypsy and Traveller children are recognised as the most educationally disadvantaged group in the UK educational system with Ofsted (1999) considering that they are the ?group most at risk [of leaving school without qualifications, or being excluded from education] in the education system?. Since that comment was written, eight years ago, little seems to have improved for young Gypsies and Travellers with the most recent figures on academic achievement (2005) finding that only 21% and 9% (respectively) of young Irish Travellers and English Gypsies are only likely to attain 5 Grade A*-C GCSEs compared to 55% of all pupils (DfES, 2006) 33 . 7.23 Furthermore, a decline in the number of Irish Traveller pupils achieving 5 grade A*-C GCSEs has occurred between 2004-2005 (DfES, 2006:64) although (more optimistically) a slight increase has occurred in the number of Roma/Gypsy children attaining 5+ A*-C grade GCSEs in the same period. 7.24 In addition to these statistics, ?Travellers of Irish heritage and Gypsy/Roma pupils are 2.7 and 2.6 times more likely than White British pupils to have Special Educational Needs? 34 . It has been suggested (although evidence is inconclusive that explanatory factors for this over-representation in special educational needs (SEN) statistics ?range from factors associated with school such as negative teacher attitudes, racism and bullying, and a curriculum perceived as lacking relevance, to factors associated with Traveller cultures, such as high mobility, poor attendance and early drop out from school? (2006:18). 33 DfES, 2006, Ethnicity and Education: the evidence on Minority Ethnic Pupils aged 5-16 London: DfES p63 34 Lindsay, G, Pather, S. & Strand, S (2006) Special Educational Needs and Ethnicity: Issues of Over- and Under-Representation University of Warwick/DfES, p7 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 59 7.25 In 2002/03, permanent exclusion rates among Gypsy/Roma and Traveller of Irish Heritage pupils were around four times the rate for all pupils, including Black Caribbean boys, typically recognised as the group most at risk of exclusion from education (DfES, 2006:6). 7.26 Faced with these statistics it is critically important that the survey findings pertaining to education amongst Gypsies and Travellers in East Kent are utilised by educational and children services? staff in planning how best to engage with Gypsy and Traveller families to support their children in education. 7.27 Hester (2004) 35 highlights the point that mainstream services for children and families are designed with an assumption of sedentary lifestyles. Whilst there are of course specialist Traveller and Minority Communities Achievement Services in the East Kent area, overwhelming these agencies are working in isolation, sometimes with limited engagement with Gypsy and Traveller families (for example, if they are unable to reach a roadside family before they are moved on, or where education is continually disrupted by eviction and movement), and often in a situation where under-staffing or time pressure may limit their availability to families, and lead to disillusionment from Gypsies and Travellers who feel ?they never come near us? (quotation from ?roadside? respondent). 7.28 First and foremost, the need exists for a range of inter-agency working practices to be developed to assist public agencies in taking responsibility for the safety and well-being of vulnerable children. Once the basic necessities of life (for example, access to water and rubbish disposal) are provided for roadside families, then appropriate education and health service interventions can occur, and closer links be developed between education providers and young Gypsies and Travellers. As is apparent from the findings discussed below (youth focus group) many young males in particular feel disengaged from the educational system and have had intensely negative experiences within the school system, for example, bullying (Save the Children Fund, 2001 36 ), exclusion (DfES, 2006, op. cit) and diagnosis with emotional, behavioural or other special education needs (Lindsay et al, 2006, op. cit). When anecdotal and personal experiences of the educational system coalesce to create a climate of mistrust such as was articulated by some respondents, outreach work to both parents and young people will inevitably become more difficult even where clear evidence of need or desire for particular types of training exist. 35 Hester, R (2004) Services provided to Gypsy/Traveller children : a review of the current literature for the National Evaluation of the Children?s Fund Birmingham: NECF 36 Save the Children Fund (2001) Denied a Future? The right to education of Roma/Gypsy & Traveller children in Europe (Vol 2: Western & Central Europe) London: SCF Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 60 7.29 Overall, 92.4% of respondents were willing to discuss their educational and training needs although this headline figures masks considerable variation in response (for example, by accommodation type occupied by interviewees). 100% of housed respondents were willing to answer these questions, declining to 87% of site residents. Variations were also found by ethnicity, with 63.6% of Travelling Showpeople; 90.9% of Irish Travellers and 97% of Gypsies responding to this section of the questionnaire. 7.30 Numbers of respondents reporting difficulties with their education (or that of household members) were gratifyingly low for some groups (see Table 20 below), with securely sited families the least likely to report ?problems with schooling? perhaps reflecting both stability of accommodation and the tendency to attend school with children from the same site, which provides both a sense of safety and cultural support as well as lower risk of experiencing bullying. 7.31 However, for all groups of respondents, where qualitative information relating to disrupted education existed, the data painted a familiarly bleak picture of exclusion, racism and bullying experienced by some children. As one respondent claimed ?it is no different now than 30 years ago?. Table 20: Problems with Schooling Within the Family (85/92 respondents) Yes No Has anyone in your family had any problems with schooling Row % Row % Settlement Roadside 70.0% 30.0% House 29.2% 70.8% Sites 12.8% 87.2% Age groups up to 25 30.8% 69.2% 26 to 35 42.9% 57.1% 36 to 50 20.0% 80.0% 51 and over 27.8% 72.2% Council Canterbury 23.3% 76.7% Dover 23.1% 76.9% Shepway 62.5% 37.5% Thanet 71.4% 28.6% Sex Man 29.3% 70.7% Woman 32.6% 67.4% Describe Gypsy- 28.1% 71.9% Irish Traveller 70.0% 30.0% Travelling Showpeople 14.3% 85.7% Other .0% 100.0% Total 31.0% 69.0% Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 61 7.32 Overall, approximately one-third of respondents reported educational difficulties, with women more likely to report family members as having had disrupted education or having experienced bullying. Whilst it is to be expected perhaps that roadside travellers are more likely to refer to disrupted school access 37 with 70% of such families reporting problems; we were interested to note that nearly one third of housed Gypsies and Travellers had had similar experiences ? which may either relate to bullying in school (see further, focus group data) or disrupted educational experiences prior to moving into bricks and mortar, perhaps as a result of prior homelessness and lack of access to secure sites. 7.33 Reflecting the greater stability enjoyed by English Romany families in East Kent, Irish Travellers were most likely to report educational problems and disrupted education, with 70% of respondents in this category (9 individuals) reporting such difficulties. 7.34 One factor which must be of particular concern is the increase in disrupted education reported by younger age-groups with 26-35 years old the most likely to say they had experienced educational difficulties. Whilst it is difficult to find a clear explanation for this finding which mirrors responses from younger people in the Surrey areas, it has been suggested (personal correspondence from Professor Thomas Acton, University of Greenwich) and Dr Donald Kenrick) that the generation corresponding to that age may have been caught in transition between sites and housing, have experienced a series of different policy initiatives during their school years, for example, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) implementation and/or have had educational support diminished as a response to the increasing focus on speakers of English as a Second Language in the past two decades. 7.35 Typical qualitative comments pertaining to educational problems which we received are as follows: ?Some schools don?t want [to be] teaching Travellers? kids because they would be at school for a few weeks and then moved on by the Council, so schools don?t like Traveller kids because they took [caused] them troubles.? ?I spend all my day no matter where, I am worrying that if my boy is alright, hope they are not picking on XX again, hope that the baby is alright, and you spend the whole day panicking and your relief is when they all walk through the door at 3.30 and you go (sigh) and then you?re OK? ?Traveller Education doesn?t come to the roadsides, so don?t know why they call themselves Travellers [Education]. They are ok for Travellers in houses, 37 see Webster, L.(1995) A Report for the Children?s Society on the impact of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act on the lives of Travellers and their children (Children Society, Bath) Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 62 but a lot of Travellers tell schools that they don?t need Travellers? Education around their kids, because then everyone will know that our kids are Gypsies? ?No school in Canterbury would take the two boys. They now go to school in Sittingbourne?. 7.36 A considerable degree of educational disadvantage and disengagement from the educational process is evidenced by respondents to the survey. Further work is required to assist in developing relationships of trust between local community members, Gypsy and Traveller parents and the local Traveller Education Service (TES). It is recommended that recruitment of Gypsy and Traveller educational outreach workers or teaching assistants is made a high priority, as well as increase in work with roadside families. 7.37 Covert barriers to educational engagement which have been identified in the literature (Lloyd & Stead, 2001; Kenrick & Clark, 1999) have been supported by findings from this survey, for example, a mismatch between learning needs of children of Traveller descent (who often hold that employment opportunities and skills relevant to their particular lifestyle are of paramount importance) and the provisions made at settled schools. 7.38 We are very aware of the number of young Gypsies and Travellers who leave school at an early stage or who are excluded on a permanent basis. There would appear to be an urgent need to engage with these young people ? perhaps through the medium of pre-existing youth groups ? to consult on appropriate methods of partnership working with parents to engage re- integration into an appropriate form of education ? which may well focus on practical rather than academic skills for many young people. We would recommend too that steps are taken to devise adult education programmes which target young adult women as the mothers of children of school age. If the educational skills of young adults can be developed and support given in a non-stigmatising way (for example, mirroring the sewing or cooking and simultaneous development of English language skills programmes which in some areas are being developed and used with Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities where English is not a first language) this would assist in both providing social support for isolated women whilst improving educational attainment which will prove of benefit to children in their care 38 . 7.39 With regard to the gendered nature of Traveller life (see further focus group data), it has been suggested that some families will be more supportive of the idea of secondary education where single sex educational facilities are available (Kenrick & Clark, 1999) and where they feel that they have been 38 Waterson, M. (1997) "I want more than green leaves for my children'. Some developments in Gypsy/ Traveller education 1970-1996" in Acton, T and Mundy, G (eds) Romani Culture and Gypsy identity Hatfield, University of Hertfordshire Press, 127-149 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 63 adequately consulted on issues such as sex education and citizenship class content. 7.40 Turning now to the topic of post-compulsory education ? we find that 86.9% of respondents report that no family member is undertaking post-school training. Perhaps unsurprisingly 95% of roadside families were in this situation, with the 5% who referred to having relatives in education or training, in the main citing family members who have (although not currently) undertaken specialist work related courses. 7.41 Overall, roadside families of all ethnicities were the least likely to report having had a family member who has undertaken skills training, attended college or university. 7.42 In contrast, 25% of housed respondents and 10% of those living on sites, referred to a household member having undertake some form of post- compulsory education or skills training. These findings which are broadly comparable with those from other GTAAs on which we have worked tend to lend support to the concept that housed families, (who may be slightly more isolated from the close-knit community life on sites, and thus perhaps less prone to peer-pressure where there has been a general disengagement from the educational system, or family-networked employment opportunities may exist) are most likely to undertake additional training and engage with the educational system for longer, and up until a later age than their sited peer group. 7.43 Young people aged under 25 years old were marginally more likely (at 15.4%) to have undertaken post-compulsory education or training than other groups (declining proportionately with age) and this is likely to be reflective of both changing employment opportunities and an increased emphasis on ?life-long learning? within the surrounding environment which encourages the development of new and transferable skills. 7.44 It is noteworthy that a significant gender and ethnicity gap exists in terms of accessing training, with 12.3% of Gypsy respondents stating that a family member had undertaken training or further education compared to 30% of Irish Traveller respondents. In contrast, no Travelling Showpeople had felt the need to follow an academic/skills based route which is reflective of their self-employed status and family business patterns. Females across all communities were more likely (at 14.3% of respondents) to undertake training/education than were males (11.9% of respondents). 7.45 Statistics on access to further and higher education showed a clear correlation to type of accommodation occupied. As already noted, no roadside families had a household member who had been to college or Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 64 university. In contrast, 6.5% and 20.8% of sited and housed families (respectively) reported that someone currently or in the past had attended college (which may have been for the purposes of technical training such as hairdressing or bricklaying, etc) and 4.2% of housed respondents noted that a family member had attended or did attend university. No respondents in other forms of accommodation reported university attendance relating both to the importance of stability of accommodation (and perhaps the surrounding environment and attitude to higher education as well as space issues if a number of relatives lived in over-crowded accommodation on a site, which could make studying particularly difficult). All respondents who reported further or higher educational attainment were below the age of 25 (see above for commentary on this factor). 7.46 Interestingly, on being asked if they would like to access any form of specialist training or course, the only respondents who answered in the affirmative were English Gypsies living on sites and they would appear to particularly wish to obtain access to technical training. Further research and consultation will be needed to best ascertain how to work with young people on sites to encourage take up of technical and further education which is appropriate to their needs and provided in a non-stigmatising and supportive environment. Meeting Current and Future Support Needs 7.47 Kent County Council has devised a Supporting People matrix of needs on council sites (which the research team were not privy to, due to considerations of confidentiality) and there are suggestions of an increased need for support for Travellers in housing and on unauthorised encampments. Particular support work is needed with housed families, to help them settle and to access services, whilst remaining in contact with the travelling community. In Fenland District Council, in Cambridgeshire, a Supporting People Plan is devised for every Traveller, on sites and in housing, and there is an intensive period of activity when someone moves into housing. There are issues around supporting the tenancy, helping with understanding forms and bills and indeed, the conditions of the tenancy agreement. However, there are also health support issues, especially around depression and isolation. Again, in Fenland, a Surestart scheme is run on one of its sites and this acts as a hub not just for Travellers on sites, but also for Travellers in nearby housing, to come and congregate on site for mutual support. The ?youth? group facilitated by Angie Jones, already acts as a hub in the Canterbury area, this might be built upon with Supporting People. For those, not already networked into this particular group, then other arrangements, clubs and schemes could be facilitated through the Supporting People budget. This would help the travelling community, particularly those isolated in housing, or those unsettled on the roadside; and it would also help reduce ?churn? of tenancies and help to create more settled communities. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 65 7.48 The discussion on health, earlier in this chapter outlined some of the illnesses suffered by Gypsies and Travellers. There is support needed here, particularly for more ?stigmatised? types of illnesses such as cancer and epilepsy. Links need to be made with the three Primary Care Trusts operating across the study area (we include here the East Kent NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust) in providing this support. Information provided by the Strategic Health Authority 39 suggests that there is a named contact in each of the PCTs and some additional staff who have worked with Gypsies and Travellers in the past. The report states that maternity services are ?generally reassuring, but by no means comprehensive? and as noted above we are advised that women are presently unable to self-refer for maternity services on entering the study area from other localities. It is stated that there is a ?regular flow? of information from the County Gypsy and Traveller unit which assists in contacting vulnerable families but at times this is inevitably negated by delays in accessing services or when families experience difficulties in registering with GPs. With regard to health visitors, there is a named contact for Canterbury, but ?in the rest of east Kent? it would appear that it is rather hit and miss how these families are found?. This links back to the discussion on MCAS ?finding? unauthorised encampments on land other than that owned by the county. There is a clear need for lines of responsibility in reporting unauthorised encampments to a range of agencies, and a need for a contact in each of the districts who can liaise not only with Gypsies and Travellers, but with the support agencies who are there to help. Conclusion 7.49 It is recommended that an East Kent (or Kent Wide) Inter-agency Traveller Forum is developed to work in partnership with Gypsies and Travellers to address perceived inequalities, and propose new initiatives (such as specialist health services - see women?s health focus group data) which will assist in social inclusion and support for Gypsies and Travellers resorting to or residing in the locality. We would advise that Supporting People may be a lead agency which can assist in this work ? particularly in terms of assisting newly housed Gypsies and Travellers, and that a health service partnership (perhaps relating to the needs of Gypsy and Traveller women, for example, counselling, mental health and bereavement) should be developed. We would also commend the community health worker assistant approach pioneered by Pavee Point, Eire, and currently under development by Friends, Families and Travellers in conjunction with Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, as appropriate for development in the Kent area. 39 Charlie Manicom, January 2007 report Update on NHS policies and contacts for families living on Unauthorised Encampments in Kent and Medway. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 66 8.0 ASSESSMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE ACCOMMODATION ? RESIDENTIAL PITCHES, TRANSIT ACCOMMODATION, TRAVELLING SHOWPEOPLE AND HOUSING Introduction 8.1 The calculation of pitch requirements for this study is based on the methodology which appears in the CLG draft guidance on Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments and draws upon the recent study by Niner in Leicestershire 40 . The calculation draws on secondary information about the current Gypsy and Traveller population and provision; survey data; and reasoned assumptions made in order to interpret the survey findings and make the pitch requirement estimates realistic. Separate calculations are undertaken for: ? Residential pitch requirements for Gypsies and Travellers 2007?11 and 2012?17; ? Transit pitch requirements for Gypsies and Travellers 2007-11 and 2012? 17; ? Housing requirements 2007?17; and ? Residential pitch requirements for Travelling Showpeople 2007?17. 8.2 Government guidance on GTAA methodology is to include housed Travellers who constitute 44% of the estimated Gypsy and Traveller families in the study area (based on a study team estimate derived from primary and secondary data sources). These contribute to the pitch requirements on the basis that Gypsies and Travellers may have a psychological aversion to bricks and mortar accommodation. The CLG guidance adds that local authorities will wish to satisfy themselves that this aversion is of sufficient severity to constitute a need rather than a preference. We have not applied raw data from survey responses directly and in order not to skew the assessment of pitch requirements based on aspirational responses we have adjusted survey findings to reflect our professional opinion on what is likely to happen. Taken with evidence from secondary data and those who work with Gypsies and Travellers we believe that this has produced a set of estimates that are robust. 40 Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment 2006 -16, Pat Niner, University of Birmingham, April 2007 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 67 Residential Pitch Requirements 2007?11 8.3 Table 21 sets out the calculation of pitch requirements for 2007?11 which is supported by notes explaining how each element of the calculation has been determined. Where assumptions are used these reflect the experience of those working with Gypsies and Travellers in the study area and the assessment of the research team. This suggests that there is a need for 31 additional residential pitches in the study area in 2007?11 and a further 19 in 2012?17. 8.4 Table 23 applies the model to the level of district planning authorities who are responsible for allocating sites within their Development Plans to meet identified need and comply with requirements arising from the current partial review of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The model used to estimate pitch requirements and family growth is based on need where it arises. Hence Table 23 necessarily reflects existing distribution within the study area and reinforces existing settlement patterns. In practice determination of where need should be met involves a wide range of factors including capacity, resources, sustainability and equity and choice. These considerations may be significant in determining the pitch requirements stipulated by the Regional Planning Body. The calculation does not include an element for new households likely to arrive from elsewhere as this can be expected to be balanced by pitches that become available when existing households move out of the study area. 8.5 A full explanation of the elements in the calculation are set out in appendix three. In order to provide a methodology which is transparent and can be replaced the steps are set out in full and are necessarily complex. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 68 Table 21: Calculation of Pitch Residential Requirements 2007?2011 Element in the calculation: Pitches/families Current residential supply 1. Socially rented pitches April 2007 32 2. Pitches on Private sites April 2007 37 3. Total pitches/households April 2007 69 Need in April 2007 and arising 2007- 2011 4. Overcrowding on LA sites April 2007 0 5. Net movement from housing to sites 2007-2011 17 6. Unauthorised development April 2007 11 7. Unauthorised encampment 2007-2011 3 8. End of temporary planning permissions 2007-2011 3 9. New household formation 2007-2011 24 10. Additional need 2007-2011 58 Additional supply 2007-2011 11. Authorised pitches undeveloped at April 2007 0 12. Planning applications pending April 2007 0 13. New sites planned April 2007 0 14. Vacancies on socially rented sites 2007-2011 27 15. Supply 2007-2011 27 16. Requirement for extra residential pitches 2007- 2011 31 Movement between the study area and elsewhere 8.6 In common with a number of other Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (including the Leicestershire GTAA), an allowance for net movement between the study area and ?elsewhere? has not been incorporated into the calculation above in Table 21. This decision is based on the commonly held research assumption that households arriving from elsewhere will be balanced by pitches becoming vacant and current East Kent encampments relocating when families move on. This assumption is sensitive to instances where there is a change in the level and nature of travelling patterns over time. Pitch Requirements at Local Planning Authority level 8.7 In order to apply the model to calculate additional pitch requirements as shown in Table 23 it is necessary to estimate the current overall population level as set out in Table 22 which combines survey and other sources. It Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 69 does not include Gypsies and Travellers on holiday caravan sites or an unauthorised Gypsy/Traveller site in Dover which fulfils a transit function. Table 22: Estimated Families in the study area April 2007 Canterbury Dover Shepway Thanet All Social sites 18 14 0 0 32 Private sites 32 4 1 0 37 Unauthorised 16 4 0 0 20 All sites 66 22 1 0 89 Housed 33 27 8 10 78 Travelling Showpeople 10 0 0 1 11 All 109 49 9 11 178 Table 23: Residential Pitch Requirements 2007?11 by Local Authority Area Element in the calculation: Canterbur y Dover Shepway Thanet All Current residential supply 1. Socially rented pitches April 2007 18 14 0 0 32 2. Pitches on Private sites April 2007 32 4 1 0 37 3. Total pitches/households April 2007 50 18 1 0 69 Need in April 2007 and arising 2007?11 4. Overcrowding on LA sites April 2007 0 0 0 0 0 5. Net movement from housing to sites 2007-2011 7 7 1 2 17 6. Unauthorised development April 2007 9 2 0 0 11 7. Unauthorised encampment 2007-2011 2 1 0 0 3 8. End of temporary planning permissions 2007-2011 3 0 0 0 3 9. New household formation 2007-2011 13 8 1 2 24 10. Additional need 2007-2011 34 18 2 4 58 Additional supply 2007-11 11. Authorised pitches undeveloped at April 2007 0 0 0 0 0 12. Planning applications pending April 2007 0 0 0 0 0 13. New sites planned April 2007 0 0 0 0 0 14. Vacancies on socially rented sites 2007-2011 12 15 0 0 27 15. Supply 2007-2011 12 15 0 0 27 16. Extra residential pitches needed 2007-2011 22 3 2 4 31 Table 23 incorporates calculation as outlined in appendix three (explanation of the elements in the residential pitch requirement calculation). Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 70 Residential Pitch Requirements 2012-17 8.8 CLG guidance and the brief from the partners are to provide an estimate of need over the following five year period of 2012-17. This is more problematic than for 2007-11 since there may be significant changes in the population, lifestyles and preferences for location and accommodation types. There could also be policy impacts arising from changes in provision, planning consents and enforcement, the management of unauthorised encampments and legislative changes. For these reasons we have drawn on the findings for 2007-11 and applied a less detailed approach based simply on estimated household growth. 8.9 The results shown in Table 24 are based on the following assumptions: ? The numbers of pitches will be as in 2007 with the addition of the pitches required in 2007-11 as set out in Table 23; ? The housed Gypsy and Traveller population in the period 2007-12 is assumed to be static across the study area; ? The assumed rate of household growth in 2012-17 is 3% per annum compound as used in illustration in CLG guidance, 41 ; ? That 95% of growth on sites is assumed to need pitches; and ? 35% of families from houses are assumed to need pitches. 8.10 The calculation shows a requirement for 19 additional pitches across the study area in 2012-17 distributed as shown in Table 24 on the basis of need where it arises. 41 The assumption of 3% per annum growth on the baseline population is not only the illustration used in the CLG draft guidance, but has been used in other GTAA studies, including the Leicestershire study by Pat Niner (2007). Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 71 Table 24: Additional Residential Pitch Requirements 2012?2017 Component Canterbury Dover Shepway Thanet All Baseline Housed 33 27 8 10 78 Pitches 2007 50 18 1 0 69 Pitches added 07-11 22 3 2 4 31 Total pitches 2012 72 21 3 4 100 Additional households formed 2012-17 From housed families 5 4 1 2 12 From families on sites 11 3 1 1 15 Pitch requirements 2012-17 From housed families 2 2 0 1 4 From families on sites 11 2 1 1 15 Total requirement 2012-17 13 4 1 1 19 Transit Accommodation Required 8.11 CLG guidance points out that Gypsies and Travellers have a lifestyle and cultural tradition of travelling and that transit or stopping place sites that can facilitate this. As traditional stopping places become blocked off greater disruption is likely to arise from unauthorised encampments which are forced onto more sensitive locations. The guidance adds that a network of such site on well-used routes is more valuable than a single isolated site. The brief for this study seeks quantification of the need for transit sites. 8.12 The calculation of the need for transit accommodation includes two elements: ? Data from the CLG Caravan Count; and ? The existence of unauthorised private transit provision in the study area. 8.13 CLG Caravan Count data, being undertaken on two single days in January and July respectively, has been used to provide an indication of the level of unauthorised encampment at any one point in time. This is one of the factors relevant to determining the capacity needed for transit purposes. The relevant Caravan Count category is caravans on Unauthorised Sites not owned by Gypsies and Travellers (both ?tolerated? and ?not tolerated?). The results from the last three counts are shown in Table 25 as follows which suggest that there is a consistent transit pattern in Canterbury. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 72 Table 25: Caravan Counts on land not authorised or owned by Gypsies and Travellers January 2007 July 2006 January 2006 Average Canterbury 8 5 7 7 Dover 0 0 0 0 Shepway 0 Thanet 0 Study area 8 5 7 7 8.14 In order to assess the caravan capacity required within any transit sites the research team has studied KCC unauthorised encampments data for 2004- 06. This enables the range in the number of caravans in encampments at any one point in time to be determined across the study area. 8.15 The frequency with which different numbers of caravans were present on encampments during the period 2004-06 is shown in the table below. This shows that the number of caravans present on unauthorised encampments in this period ranged from 0 (which occurred an average of 44 days in each year) to 29 (which occurred on 1 day in 2005). In 2004-06, however, the pattern was changing with the number of days on which no caravans were present declining from 115 days in 2004 to 5 days in 2006. 8.16 The final column of the table multiplies the number of caravans present by the frequency with which this occurred on average in the period. This result represents 2,417 ?caravan days? in an average year in 2004-06. This means that the average daily number of caravans present on unauthorised encampments was 7 (2,417 divided by 365 = 7 [rounded]). Caravan capacity, if it is to meet transit need should, however, take into account the range in the distribution of the numbers of caravans occurring on unauthorised encampments. For example, as data in Table 27 shows, provision based on an average figure of 7 would have resulted in a lack of transit capacity on 116 days a year on average in 2004-06. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 73 Table 26: Numbers of caravans and their frequency on unauthorised encampments 2004-06 Number of caravans present Days during 2004 Days during 2005 Days during 2006 Average 2004 -06 Representing Caravan Days 0 115 11 5 44 0 1 26 0 1 9 9 2 69 49 35 51 102 3 25 37 0 21 63 4 19 52 47 39 156 5 12 5 17 11 55 6 14 59 28 34 204 7 22 63 37 41 287 8 4 8 32 15 120 9 22 0 32 18 162 10 0 2 37 13 130 11 1 6 16 8 88 12 1 3 2 2 24 13 5 5 4 5 65 14 0 1 48 16 224 15 4 0 18 7 105 16 1 18 0 6 96 17 11 15 2 9 153 18 2 0 0 1 18 19 0 3 19 20 3 6 2 4 80 21 1 6 0 2 42 22 0 2 0 1 22 23 0 11 0 4 92 24 1 2 0 1 24 25 0 0 2 1 25 26 7 0 0 2 52 27 0 0 0 0 0 28 29 0 1 0 0 10 365 365 365 365 2,417 8.17 It is important that transit capacity should not be set in relation to average levels of encampment. Clearly, if any future transit capacity is set at average levels it may be well below anticipated peaks and result in continued unauthorised encampments. The table below illustrates how many days in an average year in 2004-06 there would have been unauthorised encampments in excess of transit capacity had it existed at the levels shown. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 74 Table 27: Impact of potential transit caravan capacity on average unauthorised encampment caravan numbers in 2004-06 Potential Transit Caravan Capacity Days in the year when caravans on unauthorised encampments exceed potential transit caravan capacity Days in the year when potential transit capacity meets number of caravans on unauthorised encampments 0 321 44 1 312 53 2 261 104 3 241 124 4 201 164 5 190 175 6 156 209 7 116 249 8 101 264 9 83 282 10 70 295 11 62 303 12 60 305 13 56 309 14 39 326 15 32 333 16 26 339 17 16 349 18 16 19 15 350 20 11 354 21 9 356 22 8 357 23 4 361 24 3 362 25 3 26 0 365 27 0 28 0 365 29 0 8.18 The table above shows, for example, that on average a transit caravan capacity of 15 would have met need arising from unauthorised encampments on 333 days a year and have failed to do so on only 32 days. By contrast a lower transit caravan capacity of 10 would, on average, have met need arising from unauthorised encampments on 295 days a year and failed to do so on 70. Policy makers will be mindful that transit provision in the study area, if not accompanied by similar provision in adjacent areas, could give rise to more cross boundary movement into the study area. The judgement about how far to provide for peaks through transit provision and how far to tolerate them is essentially a policy consideration, including assessment of the impact of transit provision (if any) in adjacent areas and, in particular, the impact of provision on movement between the study area and other areas. We would Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 75 recommend that a transit caravan capacity of 15 be established to meet need arising from unauthorised encampments. This level of transit capacity would provide vacancies in much of the year for those without a pitch who would otherwise resort to unauthorised encampment. 8.19 This study has also identified transit provision on an unauthorised private site in the study area. In the last three years the numbers of caravans present on this site is reported by the local authority to have ranged from 0 to 12. Based on survey responses, we have taken the view that caravan capacity of 6 would meet the need related to this provision. Taking into account this need and that arising from unauthorised encampment we would recommend that total transit caravan capacity in the study area in 2007 ? 11 be 21. On the basis that there is assumed to be no further growth in need arising from unauthorised encampment we would not recommend further transit caravan capacity in 2012 ? 17. 8.20 Given the stated preference of Gypsies and Travellers for smaller sites, often shared only with those who regularly live and travel together, we would recommend that this need should be met through provision in three locations in the study area. In light of the pattern of unauthorised encampments there is a case for two such sites to be in separate locations in the Canterbury City Council area. There is a need for continuing transit provision in Dover District, which could be the existing unauthorised private site or, if this is unacceptable to the planning authority, alternatively equivalent provision elsewhere. We would also recommend that one should be social rented whilst the others could be privately owned provided sites, as long as the local authorities are satisfied that such sites would be accessible to those of any ethnicity. We would suggest that consultation with Gypsies and Travellers, landowners and potential providers could seek to identify suitable locations and management arrangements for such sites. 8.21 The table below shows the level and distribution of the transit caravan capacity recommended. The transit need arising from unauthorised encampments is based on the more accurate unauthorised encampment recorded by KCC rather than being based on the twice-yearly ?snap-shot? in the CLG Caravan Count. The KCC continuous data captures peaks in unauthorised encampments, these have been reflected in the calculation of need in the table below. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 76 Table 28: Estimate of Caravan Capacity Required on Transit Sites Component Canterbury Dover Shepway Thanet All Baseline Existing Provision 0 6 0 0 6 Need arising 2007-11 Closure of unauthorised site 0 6 0 0 6 Capacity needed for encampments 15 0 0 0 15 Sub Total 15 6 0 0 21 Provision required 2007-11 15 6 0 0 21 2012-17 - - - - - 8.22 It should be noted that we have assumed that periods of cleaning, repair and management closures can be met during vacant periods at the levels of transit capacity recommended. We have not, therefore, recommended that additional capacity be provided to accommodate these factors. It should also be noted that no transit caravan capacity has been included arising from the needs of those staying at authorised non Gypsy and Traveller sites such as holiday caravan parks. Accommodation for Travelling Showpeople 8.23 Travelling Showpeople are included in the definition of Gypsies and Travellers used for the purposes of the Housing Act 2004 and referred to in the guidance on accommodation assessments. Consultation on revised planning guidance in relation to Travelling Showpeople 42 states that the accommodation needs of Travelling Showpeople should be assessed as part of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments. In order to enable the partners to assess Travelling Showpeople?s needs through the planning process we have provided a specific assessment of their need for accommodation. These numbers are in addition to the totals shown in Table 21 and Table 24. 8.24 Travelling Showpeople?s sites or yards normally can contain residential accommodation, storage or maintenance areas dependent on the needs of their business and the uses that are authorised. The Government advises that sites for Show people should be suitable for both accommodation and business uses having regard to the safety and amenity of the occupants, their children and neighbourhood residents. Some Showpeople use trailers whilst away working, whilst others, for example if working more locally, may use a tourer. There are planning restrictions on the building of accommodation on sites which can result in ?chalet? accommodation on the site and an associated 42 CLG January 2007 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 77 bricks and mortar dwelling adjacent to, but off the site, where an owner or manager may live. 8.25 There are five Travelling Showpeople?s sites in the study area consisting of: ? Canterbury City Council area ? four sites used by ten families; ? Dover District ? nil; ? Shepway District ? nil; and ? Thanet District ? one site used by one family. 8.26 Ten interviews were conducted with Travelling Showpeople for this study. All were reported to be living on their own land although some mentioned that their length of stay during the year or certain activities were restricted. There are particular issues for Showpeople around the need for sufficient space to store, maintain and test rides and equipment, together with trailer and vehicles. Some of the sites are occupied by a single family and others are shared by a number of families, some of whom are often related to each other. 8.27 Two of those interviewed (20%) said that they were overcrowded and thought that they would continue to be so. No determination of overcrowding was made by the survey interviewers. One respondent (10%) said that they did not have enough space for rides and equipment. All respondents were permanently based in the area and planned to continue to do so. Two families (20%) said that there were adult sons and daughters who would require their own accommodation in the next three to five years. All the respondents expressed a preference for owning their own land and there was no demand for local authority provided or managed sites. 8.28 The evidence of overcrowding and need arising in the next five years for independent accommodation gives rise to a requirement for at least one additional pitch in 2007-11 in Canterbury and one additional pitch in 2007-12 in Thanet. It is estimated that at least one further pitch would be required in 2012-17 in Canterbury. There is a stated preference to work in Kent and adjacent areas and to continue to occupy existing residential sites. It follows that the planned additional provision suggested, as set out in Table 29, would be appropriate within the study area. Consultation between local planning authorities, the Travelling Showpeople?s Guild and individual families would establish the most appropriate size, type and location of sites having regard to the revisions to Circular 22/91. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 78 Table 29: Estimated Requirement for Additional Pitches for Travelling Showpeople 2007-11 2012-17 Canterbury 1 1 Dover 0 0 Shepway 0 Thanet 1 Study area 2 1 These requirements specifically for Show People are in addition to those of Gypsies and Travellers which are set out in Tables 21, 23 and 32. Further need could arise amongst Show People if current unauthorised use ceases to be tolerated. Housing Required By Gypsies and Travellers 8.29 There are some Gypsies and Travellers who have need of housing either as a result of choice, for example to access services such as schools, as a result of ill health or due to the lack of authorised sites. As shown in Table 30 it is estimated that 42% of Gypsies and Traveller families in the study area live in housing. CLG guidance refers to the need for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment to include housed Travellers. It acknowledges that their housing may be overcrowded or unsuitable by virtue of a proven psychological aversion to bricks and mortar accommodation and this is reinforced by the survey findings reported in this assessment. Table 30: Estimate of the Requirement for Housing 2007-17 Baseline in housing 78 families Requirement 2007-11 from: Net movement between sites and houses Using the calculation in Row 5 Table 8.1 - 11 (11 houses released) Unauthorised development at April 2007 Assumed to be zero with requirement related to unauthorised developments being met by sites 0 Unauthorised encampment 2007-11 Using the calculation in Row 7 Table 8.1 assuming 15% of families on encampments are interested in a house in the study area. 3 End of temporary planning permissions 2007-11 Assumed to be zero with requirement related to unauthorised developments being met by sites. 0 New household formation 2007-11 Assumes 50% of households formed on sites need a house and 73% in the study area Assumes 50% of households formed in houses need a house and 73% in the study area 9 Estimated requirement for housing 2007-11 1 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 79 Estimated requirement for housing 2012-2017 7 Assume 25% of new families formed applying 3% compound growth rate to the baseline population Irish Travellers 8.30 The partners requested analysis of the pitch requirements of Irish Travellers. The literature on Gypsies and Travellers suggests that Irish Travellers are particularly disadvantaged. This GTAA interviewed ten Irish Travellers and grossed up their responses to an estimated Irish Traveller population of 19 in the study area. This estimate derives from an assumption that the proportion of Irish travellers surveyed to the survey sample is the same as that in the Gypsy and Traveller population in the study area. The results are shown in the table below. These numbers are included within the totals shown in Table 21 and Table 24. Table 31: Residential Pitch Requirements Amongst Irish Travellers Element Pitches required Movement from housing to sites 2007-2011 2 Unauthorised development April 2007 2 Unauthorised encampment 2007-2011 1 End of temporary planning permissions 2007-2011 0 New household formation 2007-2011 3 Additional pitches required 2007 - 2011 8 Population Growth in 2012 ? 17 3 Additional pitches required 2007 ? 17 11 Summary 8.31 This section has set out the need for residential and transit pitches and housing for Gypsies and Travellers and residential pitches specifically for Travelling Showpeople. Table 32 summarises the existing position and shows the need that we have identified where it arises. The additional pitch requirement has been split between private sites and social rented sites and the housing requirement has been similarly split between private sector and social rented accommodation. These tenure splits reflect our survey findings on preferences and the extent to which respondents said that they would be able to purchase land if it became available. These estimates are based on the evidence and assumptions stated making the resultant pitch requirements sensitive to changed assumptions. Recommendations are set out in the next section. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 80 Table 32: Summary of Existing Position and Requirement 2007-12 Existing Position In Canterbury Sites Pitches/Families Social rented pitches 1 18 Private pitches with consent 30 32 Private with temporary consent 2 3 Unauthorised development 9 9 Av encampments p.a. 04-06 26 NA Travelling Showpeople Sites 4 10 Social Housing Dwellings Not Applicable 24 Private Housing Dwellings Not Applicable 9 Existing Position In Dover Sites Pitches Social rented pitches 1 14 Private pitches with consent 3 4 Private with temporary consent 0 0 Unauthorised development 2 2 Av encampments p.a. 04-06 10 NA Travelling Showpeople Sites 0 0 Social Housing Dwellings Not Applicable 20 Private Housing Dwellings Not Applicable 7 Existing Position In Shepway Sites Pitches Social rented pitches 0 0 Private pitches with consent 1 1 Private with temporary consent 0 0 Unauthorised development 0 0 Av encampments p.a. 04-06 4 NA Travelling Showpeople Sites 0 0 Social Housing Dwellings Not Applicable 6 Private Housing Dwellings Not Applicable 2 Existing Position In Thanet Sites Pitches Social rented pitches 0 0 Private pitches with consent 0 0 Private with temporary consent 0 0 Unauthorised development 0 0 Av encampments p.a. 04-06 4 NA Travelling Showpeople Sites 1 1 Social Housing Dwellings Not Applicable 7 Private Housing Dwellings Not Applicable 3 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 81 Existing Position In Study Area Sites Pitches Social rented pitches 2 32 Private pitches with consent 34 37 Private with temporary consent 2 3 Unauthorised development 11 11 Av encampments p.a. 04-06 44 NA Travelling Showpeople Sites 5 11 Social Housing Dwellings Not Applicable 57 Private Housing Dwellings Not Applicable 21 Requirement in Canterbury 2007 ? 17 2007 -11 2012 ? 17 Social rented pitches 9 6 Private residential pitches 13 8 Social rented transit capacity 7 Private transit caravan capacity 8 0 Travelling Showpeople families 1 1 Social rented transit capacity 8 0 Private transit capacity 7 0 Social rented housing 1 2 Private housing 0 1 Requirement in Dover 2007 ? 17 2007 -11 2012 ? 17 Social rented pitches 1 2 Private residential pitches 2 2 Social rented transit capacity 0 0 Private transit capacity 6 0 Travelling Showpeople families 0 0 Social rented housing 0 2 Private housing 0 1 Requirement in Shepway 2007 ? 17 2007 -11 2012 ? 17 Social rented pitches 0 1 Private residential pitches 2 0 Social rented transit capacity 0 0 Private transit capacity 0 0 Travelling Showpeople families 0 0 Social rented housing 0 0 Private housing 0 0 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 82 Requirement in Thanet 2007 ? 17 2007 -11 2012 ? 17 Social rented pitches 2 0 Private residential pitches 2 1 Social rented transit capacity 0 0 Private transit capacity 0 0 Travelling Showpeople families 1 0 Social rented housing 0 0 Private housing 0 1 Requirement in Study Area 2007 ? 17 2007 -11 2012 ? 17 Social rented pitches 12 9 Private residential pitches 19 12 Social rented transit capacity 8 0 Private transit capacity 13 0 Travelling Showpeople families 2 1 Social rented housing 1 4 Private housing 0 3 Provision of new permanent site accommodation 8.32 It has been shown that an additional 31 residential pitches are required to meet need in the sub-region to 2011. Canterbury was shown to be one of the key ?preferred areas? that were examined in chapters four to six of this report. This GTAA report does not suggest specific sites that it recommends for development. A process of site selection must adhere to good communication policies and clear and simple criteria. This process is discussed in a little more detail in the concluding chapter. Provision of a new transit site 8.33 The Kent County Council Gypsy and Traveller Sites Select Committee Report (2006) states that a need has previously been identified for a network of transit sites across County, located near to the M2/M20 Corridor, but this has not been progressed so far. This GTAA has recommended that a caravan capacity of 21 would be required to meet need. There are particular challenges around achieving transit sites through the planning process because of local objection ? however, there are examples that can be drawn upon across the country. The County has already heard evidence around the funding of transit sites from Lewes District Council 43 , but there are other models available to provide good practice examples. 43 Kent County Council Gypsy and Traveller Sites Select Committee Report (2006), pg 33 Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 83 8.34 As discussed earlier in the report in chapter three, there has been consideration in the county for a transit or emergency stopping site in Dover. This report was not shared with the research team and it has been suggested that it is not relevant to the GTAA brief and that the Dover report is now out of date. A need for authorised transit provision has been voiced by respondents to the survey and is evidenced by the pattern of unauthorised encampment and we would recommend that this be developed in the sub-region. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 84 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITE PROVISION Introduction 9.1 The previous chapter outlined the pitch requirements for the sub-region between now and 2017. For residential pitches this showed a need for an additional 52 (31 of these are needed between 2007 ? 2011). There will be a need for the authorities to include in the local development plan documents, potential, appropriate, sites, where a need is identified. This chapter aims to provide some recommendations on some methods to ease the process around site provision; and it offers some general recommendations for the local authorities on a range of issues based on the analysis and examination throughout this report so far. Barriers to site provision 9.2 One of the key barriers to site development is objection from the local settled community, exacerbated by the discourse of some local politicians and the media. NIMBY arguments are dominant to many objections to proposed new sites (such objections can be based on lack of infrastructure ? for example, roads and junctions are already busy, not enough room at the local school) and others can be based on fears such as reduction in house values, and basic misunderstandings of different cultural values). There are examples in areas across the country where there is now a reduced level of conflict between Gypsies and Travellers and the local ?settled community?. However, in these cases there is clear evidence of long term work on a number of related areas. It is suggested that there are four key foundation stones 44 that need to be in place for successful new site development: ? Context for debate ? what is the public and the local media perception of Gypsies and Travellers, that might affect decision making on future site provision. ? Good site management ? existing sites must be well managed, this feeds into the perception of Gypsies and Travellers locally and helps the local community trust the council when it proposes new sites. ? Proposing new sites ? good communication policies with clear and simple criteria for new site selection. 44 Adapted from Richardson (2007 forthcoming) Contentious Spaces: The Gypsy/Traveller Site Issue, York: JRF Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 85 ? Strong leadership ? both from senior level officers, but even more importantly from councillors ? particularly leaders of councils, and portfolio holders for housing or equality issues. Political Will 9.3 It is important that, after the dust has settled from the local elections in May 2007, that local councillors and MPs are engaged right from the beginning of the process. The context must be set for the need for more pitches in the area. Based on research in a number of case studies across the country, and following interviews with a range of local politicians, it is clear that it is helpful for there to be a ?case? for new sites, in order to gain the support of local councillors 45 . This could be one, or any combination of the following: Legal Case ? Housing Act (2004), Circular 1/2006, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), Homelessness Act (2002), Race Relations Act (2000), Human Rights Act (1998) requirements Business Case ? Government funding for sites (?56m) ? Cost of non-provision ? cost of unauthorised encampments and developments ? an example from Bristol City Council claims that the provision of a new site has dramatically reduced the costs of unauthorised encampments. ?Moral? Case ? Inequality of standards of life, expectancy ? Inability to settle affects access to education, health and employment 9.4 Information should be provided to local politicians to enable them to talk in turn to local constituents and to attempt to undermine opposition and conflict. Existing Site Management 9.5 It has also been found that where existing sites are run well, and are pleasant places to live in and look at, there is less fear from the settled community when a new site is proposed. They trust that the local authority knows how to run a site well and can assume that the future site will also be well managed. 45 Adapted from Richardson (2007 forthcoming) Contentious Spaces: The Gypsy/Traveller Site Issue, York: JRF Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 86 Mapping Travel Patterns across the County 9.6 Three separate GTAAs have been undertaken in Kent: North Kent, West Kent and East Kent. Each of these GTAA reports is restricted in that findings on patterns of travel are recorded for the districts within each of these sub- regions and that references to the wider ?Kent? area are made ? rather than specific links between districts across Kent. The boundaries for each of these studies are administrative district boundaries, and are not recognised, necessarily, by Gypsies and Travellers in the area. One example of this is the connection between Swale (in North Kent) and Canterbury (in this East Kent study area). Existing county databases could be adapted to record an identifying ?family name?, as is done by Canterbury City Council ? that way information could be mapped showing movement across boundaries. However, the movement of particular families is known already to the County Gypsy and Traveller Unit, it is just not recorded in a format which allows for easy mapping of movement. Site planning ? communication, planning for real 9.7 The planning context for provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites has been clearly set out in Circular ODPM 1/2006. Figure 2: Planning Context for Gypsy and Traveller Sites (ODPM Circular 1/2006, pg 7) 9.8 The GTAA is a part of this process, and not the end result. The East Kent local authorities will need to feed the pitch requirements set out in this report to the South East Regional Planning Body, in order that they can check and modify pitch numbers from a regional perspective, and then specify pitch Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 87 numbers in the Regional Spatial Strategy to each local planning authority. There will need to be some cross-boundary co-operation on site location, both within the East Kent study area, and beyond. For example, the travel patterns of some unauthorised encampments show movement between the Canterbury district (East Kent) and the Swale district area (North Kent GTAA). Information from the unauthorised encampments officer at Kent County Council suggests an area of land, approximately 15 miles in radius, is used by some families for encampments. This area of land straddles the Canterbury and Swale district boundaries. Discussions between Swale District Council and Canterbury City Council will be necessary to establish how best to deal with the requirement for accommodation in this area. 9.9 During discussions with the Gypsy and Traveller Unit at CLG, and with the Gypsy/Traveller Advisor for the Government Office in the South East, the following step plan for successful site development was devised: Steps to Successful Site Development 46 1. Analyse whether there is a need based on evidence (GTAA, plus other local authority records). 2. Devise a strategy for meeting the need, for example, should accommodation need be met through a permanent site, transit site, or indeed is there no further requirement for additional pitches at this time? 3. Involve members of the council and senior officers. 4. Formally adopt a policy of provision. This will give a remit to undertake a site search. 5. Identify appropriate locations for sites, based on historical stopping places, proximity to schools and other amenities. 6. Identify a long-list of sites and undertake a desk-top examination of the suitability of the land, for example, through undertaking an environmental impact assessment, land surveys, etc. 7. Identify a short-list following the above examination. 8. Consult Gypsies and Travellers on the short-list of areas for site development and on the design and layout of the site. 9. Undertake further, more detailed surveys; such as an evaluation of the cost of developing the site, access, transit routes, feasibility and sustainability studies. This information goes towards providing a ?case? for developing the particular sites short-listed. 10. Keep members of the council advised on progress. 11. Compile a range of ?Frequently Asked Questions? and answers, based on the evidence collected so far; this will help to provide information for the public and should alleviate concerns and fears. 12. Make a key contact with the local media at this stage as there will be increasing interest as more people start to become aware of the survey and 46 ibid Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 88 evidence gathering process. 13. Following the detailed surveys and feasibility studies a shorter short-list will have been compiled. The surveys and studies will have identified problems with some sites which will mean they are not right for development. It is possible that following this process that there are no sites on public land that are appropriate, and that private land needs to be examined for suitability. 14. Identify and consult with the owners of suitable land in order to ensure that land allocated in local development plans are capable of being realised. 15. Site information, plans and the frequently asked questions and answers will be compiled into leaflets/information packs, and they need to be ?road-tested? and consulted with councillors and senior staff. This is especially important with councillors in whose ward the proposed site(s) are situated. There are a range of examples of good packs of information available, and it is important to seek advice and good practice from other local authorities who have already been through the process. 16. Arrange appropriate venues for drop-in session and check availability of staff and councillors. 17. Start a leaflet drop which advertises the drop-in sessions and provides the frequently asked questions and answers, along with information on the site proposals. Provide key contact details and telephone numbers. (Information provided at this point will reduce the numbers of people who feel the need to attend a public meeting and it will alleviate some concerns). 18. Log all of the feedback and objections and where possible reply to each one providing answers. 19. The timescale for the feedback process following the leaflet distribution and the drop-in sessions will be a couple of months, to allow for information to be provided to respondents and to allow heated objections and debate to dissipate. 20. Local authorities must counter and address any negative stories in the press. By having a key contact in the local media, and by keeping them abreast of progress and site development information earlier in the process, there should be reduced capacity for negative debate in the local papers. 21. The culmination of the above steps will be a report to the planning committee outlining the development plans for the chosen site(s). 22. Planning approval and application for funding to CLG if the proposed site is to be social rented. 23. Site build. Support 9.10 Findings discussed throughout chapters four to six, and analysed in depth in chapter seven, demonstrate a very clear need for support for Gypsies and Travellers to access accommodation and to maintain existing accommodation. We have recommended support for a number of specific groups: Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 89 ? Women with health and support issues; ? Young people and their parents, to help stay in education; and ? Gypsies and Travellers in housing, to combat feelings of isolation and depression. 9.11 The Supporting People team is perhaps best placed to facilitate this additional support, in partnership with members of the local Gypsy and Traveller communities; and we have recommended an inter-agency forum looks at the issue of supporting Gypsies and Travellers more. Better communication within and between districts and with social and voluntary agencies 9.12 This is an issue that has been highlighted at a number of points in the research. Agencies such as MCAS have suggested that information is often forthcoming from the county Gypsy and Traveller Unit, but not from the districts. There is a real need for the district councils to make sure that there are clear policies and procedures for communicating within each of the authorities (for instance between planning, housing and legal services) and with other agencies, such as health and education services for Travellers. Clearer lines of responsibility in districts ? for example, who is responsible for the count, who tells county about unauthorised encampments, who liaises with G/Ts on needs and issues 9.13 Linked to the need for better communication within and between the districts and other agencies, is the need to establish clear lines of responsibility for Gypsy and Traveller issues. It became apparent at the partners meeting, on 6 March 2007, that the district councils were not always clear which individual was responsible for particular tasks; for instance the biannual CLG count of caravans, or relaying information on unauthorised encampments to the Gypsy and Traveller Unit at the county council. The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation process has been housing-led, and it is acknowledged that at a local level, responsibility for Gypsy and Traveller issues in the districts has been planning-led and the delivery of services for Gypsies and Travellers is shared across a number of different teams. This issue was also highlighted to the research team in the partners meeting on 6 March, 2007. 9.14 Clear accountability and communication is vital for good management of Gypsy and Traveller issues in the area and it is especially important to be in place ahead of any consultation with the public on potential plans for new Gypsy and Traveller sites. The local community needs to feel assured that any sites in the future will be well managed and that the local authority will be accountable. For the purpose of any future consultation process, it is essential that each of the four local authorities has a key named person who Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 90 the local public can contact, and who can liaise with Gypsies and Travellers living in, or travelling through, their area. Land allocated for sites in local development plans must be capable of being realised, which makes early dialogue with Gypsies and Travellers, land owners and the settled community, at the plan making stage, essential. Combined with pre-application advice and assistance, such thorough planning can assist Gypsies and Travellers who have the means to do so, to develop sites and realise their stated preference of having their own site. Policies 9.15 In chapter three, the context of the local debate was analysed, and a number of policies were examined. There is a need, coming out of this review, for local Gypsy and Traveller issues to be ?mainstreamed? into key policies. For example, none of the four district homelessness policies mentioned Gypsies and Travellers. It is noted that the four districts are currently working on an East Kent joint Homelessness strategy, and it would be advisable if this included Gypsies and Travellers. It is important that these policies are reviewed and that they include the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. Also, under duties of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000) local authorities should be promoting good relations and should perhaps review any race equality impact assessments, specifically to look at the impact of local policies and procedures on the Gypsy and Traveller population. Need for Gypsy Traveller Liaison Officer at district level in Canterbury 9.16 Canterbury has the largest population of Gypsies and Travellers in the sub- region, and it is one of the preferred areas that Gypsies and Travellers have suggested for a new site. It is recommended that Canterbury City Council creates a post of Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer, in order to help drive through any future site development plans, and to be a key liaison point for the community. The need for such an officer in Canterbury has already been highlighted locally (see recommendation 4 of the Scrutiny Review (nd) chaired by Councillor Pepper). 9.17 The recommendation in the Scrutiny Review report was not actioned due to lack of resources at the time, and we Canterbury City Council has stated that this situation remains the same. However, in light of the recommendation from the Scrutiny Review, the following steps were put in place: ? The Gypsy & Traveller Working Group was set up at CCC following the Scrutiny Review, and consists of senior officers from Housing, Planning and Communtiy Safety. The group meet on a regular basis to discuss & act on current and arising issues. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 91 ? Training on Gypsy & Traveller issues has been provided to 200 frontline staff to promote awareness regarding cultural issues and differences, to ensure equality in service provision. The training sessions may be extended to Members. ? The Policy Advisor for Equalities & Access attends the Gypsy & Traveller Working Group, and acts as point of contact for Gypsies and Travellers, and is kept briefed of developments concerning GTAA progress and policy issues for future provision. Conclusion 9.18 There are a number of recommendations in this report. These range from a recommendation of future pitch requirements (chapter eight) to more qualitative support issues. These will need to be examined in further depth, by the local authorities and other agencies (particularly, health, MCAS, and Supporting People), and in partnership with the local Gypsy and Traveller community. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 92 10.0 REFERENCES Acton, T (1974) Gypsy Politics and Social Change, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Acton, T (1994) ?Modernisation, moral panics and the Gypsies? Sociology Review, Vol 4 (1) September, pg 24-28 Acton, T (2000) (Ed) Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle: Commitment in Romani Studies, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press Acton, T and Mundy, G (Eds.) (1997) Romani culture and Gypsy identity, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press Clark, C and Greenfields, M (2006) Here to Stay, The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain: Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press Commission for Racial Equality (nd) Guidance for journalists: Travellers, Gypsies and the media www.cre.gov.uk/media/guidetj.html Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland (2006) Scotland?s Gypsies/Travellers: A Resource for the Media: Edinburgh, CRE Commission for Racial Equality (2006) Common Ground: Equality, good race relations and sites for Gypsies and Irish Travellers: London, CRE Crawley, H (2004) Moving Forward, the provision of accommodation for Travellers and Gypsies, London: Institute of Public Policy Research Cripps, J (1977) Accommodation for Gypsies, A report on the working of the Caravan Sites Act 1968: Department of Environment Welsh Office Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Draft Guidance for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments, London: DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Guide to Responsibilities and Powers, London: DCLG Gil-Robles, A (2005) Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom, 4 th -12 th November, 2004, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Gil-Robles, A (2006) Final Report on the Human Rights Situation of the Roma, Cinti and Travellers in Europe, Strasbourg, Council of Europe. Government Response to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) 'ODPM' Select Committee's Report on Gypsy and Traveller Sites Hancock, I (2002) We are the Romani People, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press Hawes, D and Perez, B (1996) The Gypsy and the State 2 nd Ed. Bristol: The Policy Press Inside Housing (2007) 9 th February, pg 6 James, Z and Richardson, J (2006) ?Controlling Accommodation: policing Gypsies and Travellers? in Dearling, A, Newburn, T and Somerville, P (Eds) Supporting safer communities: Housing, Crime and neighbourhoods Coventry, CIH and HSA. Kenrick, D and Clark, C (1999) Moving On, The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press Kent County Council (2006) Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Select Committee Report, Kent Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 93 Local Government Association (2006) Report of the LGA Gypsy and Traveller Task Group, London: LGA Mayall, D (1995) English Gypsies and State Policies, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press Morris, R (2001) Gypsies and Travellers: new policies, new approaches, Police Research and Management, Vol 5, No. 1, Pgs 41-49 Morris, R and Clements, L (2002) At What Cost? The economics of Gypsy and Traveller encampments, Bristol: Policy Press Munro M et al (1996) Estimating the Housing Needs of Community Care Groups: Edinburgh, Scottish Office Central Research Unit. Niner, P (2002) The Provision and Condition of Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller Sites in England, London: ODPM Niner, P (2003) Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller Sites in England, London: ODPM Niner, P (2004a) Accommodating Nomadism? An Examination of Accommodation Options for Gypsies and Travellers in England, Housing Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, Pgs 141-159 Niner, P (2004b) Counting Gypsies and Travellers: A Review of the Gypsy Caravan County System, London: ODPM O?Dwyer, M (1997) Irish Travellers Health Access Project Draft Report, London, Brent Irish Advisory Service, Irish Travellers Project O?Nions, H (1995) The Marginalisation of Gypsies, University of Leicester http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles3/onions3.html accessed 23/03/04 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping, London: ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Consultation Paper, London: ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Gypsy & Traveller Unit (2006) Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments, Draft Practice Guidance, London: ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2006) Circular 01/06 (ODPM): Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites, London: ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2006) Guide to Responsibilities and Powers Okely, J (1983) The Traveller-Gypsies: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Parry, G; Van Cleemput, P; Peters, J; Moore, J; Walters, S; Thomas, K and Cooper, C (2004) The Health Status of Gypsies & Travellers in England, Sheffield: University of Sheffield Patrin (2000) The Patrin Web Journal, Timeline of Romani (Gypsy) History), http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/timeline.htm accessed on March 23 rd , 2004 Percy-Smith, J (1996) Needs Assessments in Public Policy, Buckingham, Open University Press Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) London: House of Commons Power, C (2004) Room to Roam: England?s Irish Travellers Action for Irish Youth/Brent Irish Advisory Service/Community Fund Richardson, J (2005) Policing Gypsies and Travellers, Plenary Paper to the Housing Studies Association conference, September, Lincoln Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 94 Richardson, J (2006) The Gypsy Debate: can discourse control? Exeter, Imprint Academic Richardson, J (2006a) Talking about Gypsies: the use of discourse as control Housing Studies Vol 21, No. 1, pgs 77-97 South East England Regional Assembly (2006) Partial Review of Draft South East Plan: Provision for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites, SEERA Statutory Instrument 2006, No 3190. Housing (Assessment of Accommodation Needs) (Meaning of Gypsies and Travellers) (England) Regulations 2006 Tong, D (1998) (Ed.) Gypsies: an interdisciplinary reader, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press Universities of Birmingham, Salford and Sheffield Hallam (2007) Research to Support the Preparation of RSS Reviews on Gypsies and Travellers by Regional Planning Bodies: London: CLG Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 95 11.0 APPENDIX ONE: SUMMARY OF KEY LEGISLATION Summary of Key Legislation and Guidance Legislation/ Government Guidance/ Policy Requirement Housing Act (2004) Section 225 of the Act requires local authorities to (1) assess accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, and (2) prepare appropriate strategies to meet those needs. Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) This alters the land use development planning framework, introducing requirements for a Regional Spatial Strategy at regional level, and Local Development Frameworks at a local level. Local Housing Strategies are expected to identify accommodation needs and the Development Plan Documents will identify the location of appropriate sites. Local authorities have been directed to include Gypsies and Travellers in this documentation, where they have failed to incorporate their needs (for example, July 2005 First Secretary of State direction to Brentwood). The Act also requires consultation with ??persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to development in their area?. Gypsies and Travellers will clearly have an interest in the planning process in relation to provision of new sites, and local authorities must prepare a Statement of Community Involvement which includes them. Circular 1/2006, Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites This replaces Circular 1/94. It provides guidance on the need to undertake a Gypsy Traveller Accommodation Assessment whereby local authorities are required to assess need and identify pitch requirements for their area. The outcome of the local GTAA is fed up to the regional planning body and into the regional spatial strategy, which then allocates pitch numbers to be matched with a process of identifying specific sites in the local development plan documents. The Circular states that authorities must allocate a suitable amount of pitches to meet need and that sites must be suitable and that land identified in the development plan will realistically be released for site development, along with timescales for provision. Race Relations Act (1976) and Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000) Three key duties in Schedule 1A of the RR(A)A (2000), one of which is the duty to promote good race relations between persons of different racial groups. Local and national media reports, and public meetings on planning consultation issues for new proposed sites, bear witness to the poor race relations in many areas. Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are recognised as ethnic groups under the law and there is a duty for all public authorities to therefore protect them from harassment, but also to proactively promote good race relations. More guidance on how to achieve this can be found on the CRE website http://www.cre.gov.uk/duty/grr/index.html. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 96 Legislation/ Government Guidance/ Policy Requirement Human Rights Act (1998) Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Only one Gypsy and Traveller case has been successful in the European Courts (Connors v UK, 2004) and this was not related to planning for new sites, but instead an eviction proceeding on a local authority site. Notable cases include Buckley v UK (1997) and Local Authority Two City Council v Price (2006) and Chapman v UK (1995). In the latter case, the court found that there had been an interference with rights, but that this had been proportionate in taking into account the effect on the wider community. Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003) Part 7 introduced new police powers to evict unauthorised campers. It also includes measures on fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour. Housing Act (1996) This Act made Gypsies and Travellers who live on unauthorised sites, homeless under the law. It defines a person as homeless if they have accommodation, but: ? cannot secure entry to it, or ? it consists of a moveable structure and there is no place where they are entitled to put it and reside in it or, they have accommodation but it is not suitable for their needs. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) This gives police powers to move on unauthorised encampments, especially through Section 61. Also, Section 80 of this Act repealed most of the duties of local authorities under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Homelessness Act (2002) Local authorities were required to develop housing strategies that reviewed and predicted levels of homelessness. Therefore, in local authorities who were recording unauthorised encampments in their area, Gypsies and Travellers should have been included in these strategies, however in many local authorities this was not the case (Lord Avebury?s research on this can be found at http://www.travellerslaw.org.uk/pdfs/homeless.pdf ). Circular 02/2005 Temporary Stop Notice, CLG 2005 Gives guidance on the use of temporary stop notices, which can be relevant for unauthorised development of Gypsy and Traveller sites. A consultation process to changes here is currently ongoing. Planning Policy Statement 1 Planning for Sustainable Development (2005) Sections 14-16 deal with Social Cohesion and Inclusion and suggest that planning policies should, amongst other requirements, seek to reduce social inequalities and to take into account the needs of all the community. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 97 Legislation/ Government Guidance/ Policy Requirement Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (2006) Section 21, under Achieving a mix of housing says that Regional Spatial Strategies should have 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.? Planning Policy Guidance 2 Green Belts (1995) The impact on green belt land should be considered by local authorities in the preparation of development plans, and in individual planning cases. Planning Policy Guidance 18 Enforcing Planning Control (1991) Powers for planning authorities to deal with breaches in planning control, under the Planning and Compensation Act, 1991. Environmental Protection Act (1990) Section 33 criminalises fly-tipping in certain circumstances. Circular 22/91, Travelling Showpeople Discusses the need for local planning authorities to consider the needs of Travelling Showpeople within their local development plans. CLG circulated a consultation paper in early 2007 to highlight the key changes to Circular 22/91, to bring it more in line with 1/2006. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 98 12.0 APPENDIX TWO: THEMES FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS 1.0 Gypsy/Traveller Women in East Kent: Health and Support Needs 1.1 A focus group took place with four women on 11 th April 2007 (English Gypsies and Irish Traveller community members) ranging in age from 31 to 55. The focus group was held at a private unauthorised development in a relaxed environment, with the women meeting for lunch whilst the male family members worked elsewhere. Quality of data gathered was very high, in part as a result of selecting a convenient, familiar location and also due to the fact that the participants were well known to each other. Some young children were present on the site but they did not distract the women as they were being cared for by other family members who did not participate in the focus group. 1.2 Although the group was planned to focus purely on health, almost inevitably, given the inextricably interwoven nature of accommodation; physical and mental health (see Clark and Greenfields, 2006; Parry et al, 2004; Niner, 2002) social inclusion needs and ?new public health 47 ? agendas (Douglas et al, 2007; Marmot, 2004) the discussion included a range of topics on areas which effect Travellers? general well-being, most noticeably on the impacts of moving into housing and long-term grief following bereavement. 1.3 This summary can most effectively be utilised to provide background information for health and social care professionals on working with Gypsy and Traveller communities (in particular women) and for Supporting People teams to consider how best to undertake outreach work and provide support for community members, whether in ?bricks and mortar? accommodation or on sites. We consider that the information provided will be helpful in terms of developing support for Gypsy and Traveller families experiencing mental health and depression issues, associated particularly with transfer into housing, bereavement, loss (of community networks or through changing lifestyle) and social isolation. 1.4 To the best of our knowledge this focus group contains the most comprehensive qualitative information yet gathered on (gendered) attitudes to 47 Broadly speaking, ?New Public Health? has developed following a paradigmatic shift in ideological and practice based activities away from clinical specialisms to include a range of multi-disciplinary approaches to health promotion and community inclusion. ?New? Public Health practitioners (Lloyd, 2007:1) may include medics, nurses, psychologists, sociologists, environmental health practitioners and the public themselves who are to be encouraged to act as partners in developing programmes which enhance their own physical, social and environmental well-being. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 99 grief and bereavement amongst Gypsy and Traveller communities although some information already exists on the long-term impacts on mental health of Gypsy and Traveller families of bereavement (Parry et al, 2004; Spencer, 2003) with Parry et al (2004, op cit) finding that several respondents referred to family members ?never getting over the death? of a relative. 2.0 Accommodation Situation of Participants 2.1 One young woman (aged 31) with two children is a lone parent. She is living on the roadside in Kent with a group of family/friend members, and had been moved on numerous times in the weeks immediately preceding the focus group. She stated that she was unsure of where she would be living within a day or two of the focus group taking place although she was at the time of the interview residing within the study area. 2.2 The other young woman participant (33 years of age) resides on a family owned unauthorised development with her parents, husband and children. Her family have been through a series of appeals pertaining to their land and are unsure at present how long (or if) they will be able to remain living there. The site has been their home for several years. 2.3 Mother of participant two (55) ? residing with husband on small unauthorised development (Irish Traveller). Family members (daughter and her family) live on the adjoining plot. This lady is experiencing severe stress and anxiety over whether or not planning permission will finally be granted, as their successful application was overturned on appeal by local residents in the adjoining village. ?I?ve been living here going on six years and today I still don?t know if I?ve going to get planning or not even though I?ve had it twice and it?s been removed?it leaves you a bag of nerves as you get up in the morning and you get to the stage that you don?t know if you want to get out of bed?. In a couple of days you might not be here.? 2.4 English Gypsy woman (aged 52) residing on unauthorised development ? land owned by the family for 26 years. At various times this particular family have lived on this piece of land but following an unsuccessful application for planning permission and severe ill health which led to the participant not being able to care for her children and their subsequent removal by social services, the family moved into housing. During their time in housing this lady suffered severe depression and had a breakdown. She and her family returned to living on their land and since then have been involved in a series of cases seeking planning permission. Her family have been reunited and live together on the land, although all have severe health problems which have apparently not been adequately considered throughout the planning process, although these would appear to be relevant considerations in terms of special circumstances. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 100 ?because the council don?t want us living here after all these years, we got turned down even though there was health reasons???.the only reason we haven?t moved on is that I have cancer and have been fighting it for years? 2.5 Commentary: The health of participants appears to be directly affected by a sense of insecurity and vulnerability associated with lack of clarity pertaining to their accommodation status. Where family members experience particular conditions which require long-term on-going support (see below), participants were clear that anxiety about ?what would happen? if the family was moved on, impacted on their sense of well-being and could affect their ?nerves? even though in some cases they appeared to be relatively secure at the time of interview. 3.0 Health Status of Participants and their Household Members 3.1 All of the participants in this focus group reported that they and/or family members experienced seriously long-term health problems, with care devolving largely upon the women as primary carers in line with traditional gendered expectations of female roles within the Gypsy/Traveller communities (see further below). The high rate of illness within this tiny sample is in line with (although at a higher prevalence rate) findings from Parry et al (2004) national study of health conditions of Gypsies and Travellers. The severity of ill-health experienced by family members (which is not uncommon amongst these communities) may (in some as yet to be defined way) relate to the finding that many Gypsies and Travellers regard themselves as ?old? by the time they are in their early 50s (Bromley Gypsy/Traveller Community Project, 1996). Indeed, given the discrepancies in life expectancy between Gypsies and Travellers and the ?settled community? (an Irish study found a shockingly decreased life expectancy for male Travellers of 9.9 years and for females of 11.9 years when compared with the settled population: Barry et al, 1987) there is reason to believe that for many Gypsies and Travellers ?middle-age? does in fact equate to a biological age older than their years. Whilst it is likely that much of this discrepancy in life expectancy relates to, or is exacerbated by limited access to high quality or appropriate health care, which in turn is associated with increased morbidity when compared with members of the settled population (Anderson, 1997; Linthwaite, 1983; Pahl & Vaile, 1986; Van Cleemput, 2000; Parry et Al, 2004), even where Gypsies and Travellers have been raised in housing and had long-term access to medical care there is a huge void in life expectancy and health status. In a recent Leeds study (LREC/Baker, 2005) less than 3% of the sample of Gypsies and Travellers were aged over 60 years old, compared with nearly 20% of the ?mainstream? population in Leeds. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 101 ?My husband, three years ago had a blood clot removed from his brain and its left him a bit unworthy ? he?s got a bit of senile in him??it leaves me down to do everything and if I never had the girls and my son there to help I?d be lost ? (52 year old Romany woman). 3.2 This participant who lives with her extended family on their unauthorised site is also involved in caring for a daughter who is partially disabled following an accident ?pins all down one side holding her together ?.3 years ago, but she?s still fighting to get herself mobilised?, two sons, one aged 16 and the other aged 31 with cancer of the bowel, an epileptic 19 year old son ?he has only got the mind of a 10 year old ?cos of the damage it?s done to his brain?, a grandchild ?that has to keep going to the hospital ?cos she has twisted feet and has to keep having numerous lumps taken off her leg? and other [healthy] children who are attending school. Other family members suffer from asthma, in the case of one daughter, requiring hospitalisation and/or use of a nebuliser on a regular basis. 3.3 In addition to her role as ?female head? of the family ? and see below for a discussion on grief at the loss of a mother combined with the traditional responsibilities associated with taking on the role of a matriarch, regardless of one?s own health condition and/or other emotions or plans ? this lady is also responsible for supporting her daughter-in-law (wife of the 31 year old man who has recently been diagnosed with bowel cancer). In addition to her family?s medical problems the participant is also suffering from cancer of the bowel herself although currently in remission following treatment. 3.4 The second older woman participant is also suffering from extremely poor health, having been hospitalised on several occasions and awaiting the results of clinical tests. She was unwilling to speak too much of her current physical ill-health potentially because of the presence of one of her daughters. She did however discuss the fact that in the past she has ?had a couple of nervous breakdowns but that?s the pressure of life isn?t it, I think to me of living in uncertainty all the time. You don?t know when you?re going to be evicted?. Her husband has recently had a stroke from which he seems to have made a good recovery. She is involved in the provision of care for her daughter and grand-children (see below) and suffers stress associated with this caring role. 3.5 The daughter of the previous respondent has already experienced considerable ill-health by the age of 33. ?I had a stroke four year ago and ever since then I get relapses ? every now and again I have to do the bum shuffle through the trailer ?cos I have no [feeling in my] face, no arm, no leg down the left hand side. They did make me an appointment to go to the hospital but in between having the children ill - who were more important - my appointments have been cancelled? I got a scan in May to see how badly damaged the nerve system is as they say that?s what causing my relapses?. She is also Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 102 under investigation for cancer at present and has long term kidney problems associated with having lived on a poor quality site which was,contaminated with vermin. ?We lived on Church Marshes [in Kent but outside of the study area]?..at the Orchard and I went to the toilet where a rat had nested and when I wiped myself I infected myself [with Weill?s disease] and lost half a kidney?.ended up with that ? it started eating away my kidney?s or something?. 3.6 Although this lady?s husband is in good health several of her children are already suffering from ill-health and disability. Indeed it was the poor state of health of her (at that time) youngest child which led to her family moving onto their current site at an earlier stage than planned. ?I had four children, the youngest being six weeks old. We hadn?t actually moved in as we were still putting in drainage and he was 8 weeks old and he contracted meningococcal septicaemia and that?s when we moved onto the field and he was admitted [to hospital] .I was on the roadside [before] then and we didn?t have a doctor. We had him in the hospital at Canterbury in the morning and they said he just had snuffles and gave me some drops for his nose and that afternoon we lost him to meningococcal septicaemia. He did survive but the outcome is he has severe epilepsy and he is under the specialist??. I?ve got two with asthma. The baby he?s on Becatoid and Ventalin [steroid treatment]?. In addition, this youngest child requires use of a nebuliser ?in the winter, ?cos it?s damp in the trailers?. 3.7 The remaining participant (a lone parent with children aged 10 and 3) is in generally good health. One her children suffers from chronic asthma ?but if he needs a nebuliser I take him up to Medway [hospital] as well and they sort him out there. I?ve had a couple of times I?ve had to rush him up there, scared to death? we [Gypsy families] seem to have febrile convulsions ? I don?t know if it is inherited or what, but they all seem to suffer with that? they grow out of it at about 7, or 8 but that seems to be really common among us? . 3.8 This statement met with general consensus from the other participants and importantly, a link was made between lack of easy access to water from families living on the roadside and the risk of convulsions (or serious harm to a child who experiences such a ?fit?). ?it happens to a lot of travelling families - it happens a lot and I don?t know if it is the way we do live. The doctor thought it might be due to the fact that they were dehydrated, because when we?re settled we?re constantly putting a drink in front of them but when you?re on the roadside you can only put a drink out if there is the availability [of fresh water].? 3.9 Although the mother of these children counts herself as being very healthy the lack of access to a GP is a considerable worry to her ? see below regarding Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 103 access to health care. Another participant recounted that the young woman in question had ?a bad spell ? she had an ectopic pregnancy and couldn?t get a doctor? in the past. She had struggled on in agony until a relative came to visit her and ?said we?d get you to a hospital and they operated straight away?by the time I got there it had burst?. Very shortly after surgery the participant had to discharge herself as she did not have a stable site, and ?had two kids to look after?discharged myself the next day, straight out and looking after the kids?. On being asked about the opportunity to recuperate at a safe location she reported that she was moved off ?after 48 hours?. As the family were living on the roadside she ?didn?t have no recovery, counselling or anything? no follow up no nothing? a situation which inevitably placed her in considerable danger had she had made a poor recovery post-operatively. 3.10 Although we consider further the impact of poor health and concerns for children?s health on decisions to move into housing/and or the availability of access to appropriate and culturally accessible health care, it is worth noting that the conditions and experiences detailed above are common to many Gypsy and Traveller communities sampled by Greenfields and Home in their series of GTAAs undertaken in the past two years. In particular, findings from Home/Greenfields? GTAAs in Cambridgeshire, Dorset and Surrey indicate a hitherto unremarked, relatively high rate of epilepsy amongst Gypsy and Traveller communities. Thus interviewing two unrelated participants (out of a group of four), with family members who suffer from epileptic seizures, whilst perhaps statistically unusual, tends to support emerging findings on the high rate of prevalence of this condition amongst Gypsies and Travellers. 3.11 It may be that as more data emergences on a national basis, health service providers will take note of this apparent high rate of the condition and contemplate provision of specialist or culturally aware services for families affected by epilepsy. PCTs and Supporting People teams may also wish to contemplate ways of working with community members with relatives disabled in this way. Other studies (for example, Parry et al (2004) and Anderson (1987); Home and Greenfields? various GTAAs have also found asthma to be present in an unduly high percentage of Gypsies and Travellers ? potentially related not only to hereditary factors, damp or poor quality accommodation and the location of some sites ?living on the roadside, so you are confined to fumes, 24 hours a day? 4.0 Attitudes towards Cancer diagnoses 4.1 Despite the apparent prevalence of cancerous conditions amongst both the participants and the broader Gypsy and Traveller communities (in part, perhaps related to limited take-up of diagnostic tests and treatment at an early stage associated both with fear of receiving a ?death sentence? and lack of opportunity for insecurely sited participants) there is an intense anxiety Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 104 associated with the diagnosis of cancer amongst Gypsy and Traveller communities which is perhaps even stronger than amongst other groups. 4.2 Van Cleemput et al (2007:208) refer to an ?exceptionally strong and specific aversion to discussing cancer? and a noticeable silence when this topic was introduced into focus groups during their work. Perhaps surprisingly (or as an indicator of the trust we received from participants), within our focus group we were able to discuss this topic relatively openly. Within the given cultural context (fairly understandably, although of intense concern in terms of accessing intra-community support), one of the participants who herself has cancer, and who has two family members with the condition, noted that ?I never told anybody except close friends?. 4.3 Some discussion occurred regarding how the condition could be discussed and support best offered with a view prevailing that (in particular when referring to men) ?they don?t like it and the word cancer should never be said .. when someone is ill.? ?but the cancer word?if the were at death?s door they [men] wouldn?t tell you. You wouldn?t have known [they had a diagnosis]? 4.4 Another participant who has been treated for gynaecological cancer added ?you don?t normally [tell anyone] though - if anyone asks you say its ?women?s problems?. You know it?s not, but you just say it. But they know?. 4.5 Some discussion occurred over the reluctance of women to attend for cervical smears (see further below regarding modesty/gender issues) and whilst this was related in part to appropriate gender behaviours, an underlying theme concerned fears of receiving a ?bad? diagnosis. ?when you get to the breast scan. You know [name of mutual contact], three letters have come for her to have this breast scan thing and they say she?s at the age where they want to do it. I took the last one over and said you really need to go, it?s only Canterbury, you really need to go and get this scan sorted? I said ?it doesn?t mean you?ve got what they?re actually saying all they are saying is that if there is anything wrong ?they can catch it early and you can be treated? but the moment you read the piece of paper - cancer thing - she still hasn?t been today?. 4.6 Young women who have recently given birth were also noted as being reluctant to attend for post-natal check-ups or smear tests, sometimes with tragic results. ?it?s very rare you find a travelling woman going back after the six weeks to get checked out and this is the time when they should be going back?[discussion around how difficult it has proved to get her daughters to attend for smears but] I?ve said, you?ve got to understand that there is a cancer in the family and the doctors now make sure that [one daughter living on the roadside elsewhere] ? the doctors make sure she has to have it once a Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 105 year. My doctor down the road knows she?s on the road but she will still do her smear for her ?cos it?s only once a year she sees [her] and I?ve asked. She says she must have them done and as long as you have a woman doctor and nurse in there that will do ? and no men about ? then it?s not a problem?. 4.7 One young woman known to all the participants was recalled with sorrow as having died through not receiving a diagnosis at an early stage for gynaecological cancer. ?she was only 24 years of age, she had her baby and if she had gone back after six weeks they could have found it for her but she left it until a year later and the following year that girl was dead. It was too much, had gone right through her body and we?re losing a lot of girls out there with the cancer????.it?s all down to culture, it it?s a man doctor they refuse to see them, so they does. We are losing a lot of youngsters with cancer [both male and female] but they refuse to say what it is, and they refuse point blank to use [early screening techniques]. 4.8 In a number of cases discussed, the diagnosis of cancer was explicitly linked to the poor quality of sites on which Gypsies and Travellers often live ? particularly when on the roadside or older local authority sites which may be run-down or on contaminated land. ?one young girl died from cancer, she didn?t even know she had cancer in the womb and had been on that site for nine months and that?s one of the sites that are on a sewer bed or rubbish tips and children are picking up meningitis and kidney infections?. 4.9 Amongst older Gypsies and Travellers sadly, cancer was noted as being associated with contamination, shame, and a fear that the condition was contagious. ?when Mum was dying, her family in Ireland didn?t know that mother had passed away with cancer until I went over to Ireland and took some of the dirt from mother?s grave. And they had been writing to her all of these years, [she] used to go over there once a year?. 4.10 Once particularly moving part of the focus group concerned an elderly mother?s attempts to ensure that her middle-aged married daughter was protected from contracting her cancerous condition by avoiding physical contact with her during the terminal phase of her illness: ?My mother had a really bad thing at the last few months of her life and she was given special cream as she broke out in some strange sort of rash on her body???..she was having Macmillan nurses coming in but she wouldn?t let them see her naked?.. I said ?thank you, just take no notice of my mum she?s an old Gypsy lady and she doesn?t like people putting stuff on her.? However, when her daughter offered to rub the cream into her back and chest, the elderly lady became distressed and ?said ?you know I?ve got cancer? and I said ?yes?. She said ?well the best thing is to put the cream on a tissue and then rub it onto my skin?. I said ?why mum do I want to rub it on the skin with a Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 106 tissue?. She said ?don?t use your hands??. ?I?m not going to catch no disease from you?. She said ?you don?t know?. I said ?Mum I?m not going to pick your cancer up, I?ve already had the other things myself and I?m not going to pick anything up by rubbing cream in your body?. [But] she wouldn?t let me put the cream on until I found the tissue. I had to put loads on the tissues. I had trouble putting it on her but she still said no. So I had to do it with tissues. She truly believed, and this is the trouble with Travellers believe that if someone has got it and you end up touching you?ll get it?. 4.11 Commentary: The themes of culturally appropriate health education and encouragement of discussion of cancer and screening/treatment need to be considered in partnership with community members. The impacts of both ?tradition? and modesty (a theme which recurred throughout this focus group) must be taken into consideration by health and social care providers in a manner similar to the requirements for working with other minority ethnic communities. Training materials and explanations should be couched in terms which are appropriate and perhaps delivered via Gypsy/Traveller community health outreach workers or health trainers who are familiar with the cultural context and can ensure that both medical staff and Gypsies/Travellers are able to adequately communicate over health issues. 5.0 Access to GP/Primary Care Services 5.1 Although all but one of the focus group participants are now registered with GPs (as a result of living on (unauthorised) sites) only a small section of the focus group was taken up with discussion on how best to access services. As all women had been ?roadside? Travellers at different points of their personal history, they were however very aware of the fact that poor quality accommodation can exacerbate health conditions (and see too above, regarding references to living on sites with environmental health problems). 5.2 For the young woman who does not have access to a settled site, her recourse to medical care consists of taking her children to A&E when they become ill ?if you haven?t got an address to give them it?s hard to get a doctor so mainly it?s emergency services, I take him straight up to the hospital ?cos if you haven?t got an address you can?t have a doctor?. (See further above regarding narrative pertaining to this woman?s ectopic pregnancy and lack of recuperation prior to being moved on). 5.3 Another woman recounted how she was with some other Travellers who ?had to take their caravan and park their caravan inside the doctor?s car park for that doctor to see that woman, because as far as the doctor is concerned she is of no fixed abode. I said ?get your caravan in? and in the end when that doctor had seen that one child, there was another fifteen on the side of the road?. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 107 5.4 Considerable debate took place over the difficulties for women who (within their own community fulfil the role of primary carer of both children and husbands/partners) to find time to look after their own health. ?as women because we?re too busy keeping the children healthy ? you forget about yourself. I was on the road quite a while back and tried to get a doctor for two years to see me and I went back and forth to every hospital around and each time you give your life story again and your medical records aren?t really kept or come together. I was diagnosed at the last place I went with cancer. By the time I did get hold of a really good doctor and I didn?t want a man to see us (travelling women have this problem that people don?t take into consideration) that in the event, he was lucky that his wife was a doctor and she checked me out and they came and found me on the side of the road ? I think about 10 days later to say you need to go to hospital otherwise you won?t be alive? 5.5 Where respondents are caring for family members with chronic ill-health, despite their temporary stability on self-owned sites, all expressed major concerns as to what would happen to their dependents if they should be required to leave the property if planning applications failed: ?we are registered with a doctor now but if we moved then we won?t be registered and the epilepsy people have said that they could see him and will make every effort to see him as long as he is within their boundaries, but if he goes outside the boundary we will have to wait for this medical records to be transferred over to another hospital and all things like that. We are not allowed to hold his medial notes? [referring to a child with epilepsy]. 5.6 Other participants referred (see above) to lack of fresh, easily available drinking water and the possibility that this is linked to increased rate of seizures and infantile febrile convulsions amongst younger children. ?If we were all on a settled site then there wouldn?t be so much of a problem as you?d have water constantly? I?ve seen a bit of a decrease since we?ve been up here, but one doctor said it could be they were dehydrated before the temperature started and that?s what?s causing the fits.? 5.7 Even where women were relatively settled on sites, they referred to a long- term sense of insecurity, often pertaining to the health and well-being of their children ?it?s the uncertainty all of the time, and then you?re concerned about if you are moved, where do the children go to school??.you automatically lose your doctor because if you?re nine miles away from your doctor then that doctor can?t see you any more. So that?s another problem. You end up going into hospitals and in the end they?re so fed up of seeing the travelling women in there with their children and we?re taking up time that someone else could Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 108 be using. All that causes a lot of grief on us. You don?t want to upset people but you want to get your children seen to.? 5.8 Stress and anxiety are frequently reiterated as occurring due to accommodation anxiety ? whether being without access to a site; living in fear of having planning permission refused or over-turned, or resulting from movement into housing due to lack of alternative accommodation options (see further below). ?I was quite ill myself a few months ago and it was pressure because we was told we were going up [to court] in March and the fear of wanting to know what was going to happen to all the children up here, the council decided at the last minute that they were putting the meeting back again. So I worried for six months and my health went right down the drain.? 5.9 Commentary: The key messages from this element of the focus group consisted of the level of stress experienced by women who are regarded as primary carers for their family and responsible for ensuring that health needs are met. The often disregarded elements of gendered modesty cause significant concern to Gypsy and Traveller women who are reluctant to discuss health needs and worries with a male GP or nurse and as a result some women will not seek preventative screening or medical care. 5.10 It is worth noting that although the two male health visitors who attended local sites were spoken of very highly ? don?t get me wrong, they are probably the most loveliest health visitors in the world, but?how on earth can I allow that man into my trailer, and I was blessed that I had two boys. Heaven forbid if it had been a girl, as he would have stood no chance of getting anywhere near her?when he came up here to visit me. I couldn?t let him into the trailer and he got a bit funny ?cos health visitors like to look to see where the children live. But there was no-body home other than my father and I didn?t want to ask my father to come over here for half an hour with me?. Not being funny but my father got the hump because this man wants to take the baby?s clothes off to weigh him and check him and my father got the hump because he was a man.? 5.11 This viewpoint was reiterated by all the female participants to pointed out that if (for example) they had concerns over their own health they could not culturally sit down and discuss such matters with a male ?if it?s a woman doctor you can tell them everything because their bodies are the same as yours and your body is going through the same?. One woman who was taken into hospital in severe pain which required immediate surgery explained how although she was suffering from a major gynaecological condition, when she had to see a male doctor ?I was too shaken up to say what was going on with a man in the room?. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 109 5.12 The point was further made that home visits from a male midwife or health visitor could also be construed wrongly by other (traditional) community members ?he did give me his number and said any time you need me to do a health visit give me a ring and I?ll come up ? but how can I phone a man and tell a man to come and visit me. I can?t? a comment which received the understanding response from other women present: ?your man would probably say?you are having an affair with him?. (See conclusions below for suggestions regarding access to health advice and support.) 6.0 Impacts of Housing on Mental Health/Transition into ?Bricks and Mortar? accommodation 6.1 Following on from the discussion on lack of security in sites, considerable debate took place on the impacts of moving into housing and the ways in which (when this occurs predominantly as a response to lack of alternative accommodation) the move affects family and social behaviours. All participants were clear such a ?forced move? often has negative repercussions on mental health, particularly for women who tend to feel especially isolated (see further Parry et al, 2004 and Clark & Greenfields, chapter 5). All participants had lived in housing at some stage of their lives, with length of stay in ?bricks and mortar accommodation? ranging from less than six months to three years. 6.2 In each case the participants noted that they had moved into housing as a result of accommodation constraints and lack of suitable alternatives: ?we had been evicted so many times and I ended up going in because I had the cancer cell things ?.there was no other stop ?cos all the places we?d normally used to camp in are now closed up on us. I knew that I had to go into hospital but the problem was ? we?d already asked if [husband] could bring the trailer into the hospital grounds ?cos I knew the kids would be safe then but they said no they couldn?t do it. So I had to move into a house to know the kids would be safe, and then when I came out I had to have a salty bath every day , that?s the reason I went in [to housing].? ?I went in ?cos of the state of my health.. one of the reasons was that I had my children taken away from me into care because I was too ill [went into housing as a result of physical ill-health and then had a nervous breakdown] to look after them and it took me eleven years to get them back.? 6.3 The women were all adamant that the main problems on moving into housing were a loss of community support, isolation and fear of racism and discrimination from neighbours. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 110 ?I stayed there 12 months and it was the worst 12 months of my life. I ended up in a nutty hospital where I?d tried to kill myself. I don?t know what it does to us, I think it is because we are away from our people, you can get up every morning and shout over the fence to somebody and they?re there [on site]. When the kids go out of the house to school - if you can get them into schools - you?re on your own, you are walking around on your own, you go to the shops on your own and you wait until the evening when some of your family may turn up for you and they will do, but after a while they think you are settled and they are going to be moved on??? I ended up in a mental home?they took me there to in the end to find out what was happening and it wasn?t until [then] I realised it was the house. I just could not be there in the house. It was the aggravation of going upstairs every night and dragging the mattress down, every single night and you try to make it look nice in the day so that people don?t know you sleep downstairs?. 6.4 This latter comment in particular confirms statements made to the authors by numerous Gypsies and Travellers over the years on the difficulties of adjusting to: a) having the family dispersed throughout a house instead of close together in a trailer; b) adjusting to having an ?upstairs? instead of being on a single level; and c) the problem of trying to ?fit in? with mainstream society with expectations around how households should be structured and properties used as living accommodation (see further Power, 2004, op. cit; O?Dwyer, 1997 and Clark and Greenfields, chapter 5). 6.5 For some participants, an additional burden which added to their sense of isolation and depression was the rejection both sometimes by their own community members who perceive of them as being ?settled, you?re part of the population? and mainstream society who consider that once housed ?you?re not a Gypsy anymore because they put you in a house. Then you do get a doctor in the end and all they want to do is to give you Prozac. They don?t ask you what the problem is, they just give you something to depress the problem even more.? ?It?s not nice at all, I think what it is, is that you?re not born into that way of life, you don?t want that way of life, it?s horrible? a feeling echoed by other participants who referred to the poor quality of accommodation they are often offered once they had come off the road: ?the worst council estates that you could imagine, and you?re the villain ?cos they know you?re as they say ?the pikeys? cos of the way your place is. The minute you put up your china in the window they know who you are, and you?re instantly classed as the villains and then you get your children coming in, say they want to do something with so and so and you say ?no you ain?t? and they want to mix with what you?d call hooligans and I didn?t want it?. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 111 6.6 One woman who had moved into housing for health reasons and then suffered a breakdown leading to her younger children being removed into the care system reported that she was advised to remain in housing to have a better opportunity of her children being allowed to return to her care on the grounds that she would ?be secure?. Eventually however her mental health and sense of isolation declined so badly that she and her family moved out of housing and onto a piece of land they owned which did not (and still does not) have planning permission ?Well I was in that house for three years, the worst three years of my life. I would rather have gone and pitched a tent anywhere than be in a house, but it wasn?t until I moved back to my land with my husband that I got my [children] back..?. [social workers] kept coming to visit and see me and they could see the difference in me?I have to do it [fight her physical and mental illness] for them to see I can, and am, able to do it for my children?s sake and that?s why I?m where I am today?. And this happens all over ? there?s a lot of Travelling women out there that have had nervous breakdowns in their homes and the pills make it worse, [then] they take the children. You think that once they take the babies there?s nothing to live for, that?s it because they?ve took it.? 6.7 An additional stream of discussion concerned the racism and discrimination experienced by Gypsy and Traveller children in school. Whilst these topics have been well rehearsed in a variety of reports by Lloyd and Stead (2001); Jordan (2001); and Derrington (2005), etc, it is important to note the impacts on both individual children and Gypsy and Traveller families of such violence, particularly when coupled with an apparent lack of understanding of Gypsy and Traveller culture by educational staff and authorities: ?The School Social services were the worst. I was now settled, I didn?t come under the rule [Section 444(6) of the Education Act 1996, by placing limitations on required minimum attendance at school, is designed to protect Traveller parents from unreasonable prosecution for the non-attendance of their children at school where they are travelling for employment related purposes] when the family was going off I couldn?t go off with the family as the children had to be in school. In his first year at secondary school he got kicked to death [physically beaten and bullied as a result of his ethnicity] and the school never did anything about it. A whole year I went and complained?. 6.8 Several participants referred to the intense sense of school-related anxiety they experienced when living in housing as not only did they feel isolated, often surrounded by neighbours perceived of as threatening and hostile, but the gnawing fear they reported when away from their children ?I spend all day no where I am, worrying, [about children in school] the whole day panicking and your relief is when they all walk through the door at 3.30 and you go [sigh] Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 112 and then you?re OK..I know what my mother went through, because the minute we hit secondary school she dragged us out. There was no way on earth she was going to see us go through secondary school ?cos I know now, as I was getting older I asked why didn?t you stop and put me in school? having children of that age myself, I now know where that worry came from?. 6.9 ?We take things really personally. Its not [prejudice] against us in the end [that we mind] its against the children, you?re always looking at the kids and constantly wanting to wrap them and up and say ?no this ain?t going to happen to our children? and you take it all to heart. Whatever happens you take it as a personal thing to you but it must go back to our own childhood ?cos when we were kids was never any different. When I look back 30 years later, nothing?s changed, the children are still being put through what we went through?. 6.10 Commentary: Participants within this aspect of the focus group repeatedly emphasised both the sense of loss of culture and family support which occur when a family move into housing and the overwhelming anxiety associated with fear pertaining to their children?s well-being when they are apart from parental and sibling control. It may be that the anxiety over children?s attendance at school relates in part to fear over non Gypsy/Traveller child- care practices and that children will experience racist bullying. For individuals resident in housing, when children are out of the house during school hours, the loneliness associated with isolation and mothers? fears pertaining to children learning bad behaviour or non-culturally appropriate behaviours may also lead to exaggerated concerns over school attendance. In support of this suggestion, one participant noted that ?Its alright for the men ?cos they can go off to the fairs and everything else, it?s the women. Men aren?t in the house 24 hours [a day], the men probably won?t come in until 8pm and they?ve been out all day and they just go to bed but we?ve been there all day?. 6.11 The depression and anxiety associated with residence in housing may potentially be alleviated by access to culturally appropriate support groups (or even discussion opportunities similar to the type which occurred during the focus group) and if families are reassured as to the cultural knowledge of those in loco parentis, that schools will contact them if their children are being bullied, and that education authorities are willing to communicate with and work in partnership with Gypsy and Traveller families, potential exists for both children and mothers to perceive of the education system as less threatening. If anxiety can be lowered amongst parents and suitable mechanisms developed to engage with both children and parents in a way which recognises the basis of fear of engaging with the school system, it is to be hoped that more Gypsy and Traveller children will remain in education through their secondary years. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 113 7.0 Bereavement 7.1 As noted earlier, Parry et al (2004) first acknowledged the intensity of grief and depression experienced by many Gypsies and Travellers following bereavement. From qualitative data gathered during this study and others which some members of the team are working upon, it seems likely that this grief is exacerbated by the extremely close-knit nature of the community and that for many bereaved families death may lead to separation from the deceased person for the first time in the life of the bereaved person: ?I know that other families out there suffer the same thing that we do, but to me, it may be a wrong thing to say, but they get over things very quickly in the settled population?. Descriptions of grief were graphically presented and it is likely that the unavailability of culturally appropriate bereavement counsellors (and for example an inability to discuss stigmatised deaths such as those caused by cancer or suicide or drugs use) exacerbates the grief felt: ?it was grief, the pain was so bad, it was like someone getting a knife and rubbing it right through your heart, pulling it out and sticking it back in again, all over your body and you just wanted to scream?. 7.2 Women in particular felt that they were affected by the loss of family members as with short generations and early death common in their community, they had fewer and fewer older women to turn to for support and advice. Both of the participants in their early 50s were the oldest females surviving in their families and this in turn limited their own access to support at times of need: ?I suppose with us, when you lose your mother you?re head of the family, you?ve lost your mentor, so you?re having to fill a pair of shoes as well as grieve a pair of shoes?. 7.3 The cultural boundaries which made it difficult for women to discuss personal health concerns ? for example the taboo on speaking to a husband or partner about gynaecological disorders ?you can?t go to your man and say I?m bleeding too much, or I?ve been bleeding for the last 6 weeks or 9 weeks since I had a baby, that?s never discussed amongst men? ? become particularly acute when a woman is isolated ? perhaps in housing, or when as the oldest member of her family she is unable to seek advice from other women. It was noted (for example) that [on going through menopause] ?there?s no-one you can go and talk to ? if you?re in a big large group, there?s older women there, they?ve gone through it so there?s no need to go down to the doctor to get pills to get rid of this horrible thing that is happening to you. The women are there, the older folks are there, you know they?ve been through it, you?re not going to die because of whatever is going on, you may go mad until they?re sorted out, but if there was somebody there you could go to and they could explain in your language?. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 114 7.4 Bereavement within this community therefore not only leads to intense personal pain and grief, but a very real loss of cultural continuity and support as well as shifting roles which involve taking on the mantle of matriarch who is responsible for other family members. 7.5 One highly significant (and deeply personal) element of the focus group consisted of women discussing the loss of their own children through (in some cases) accident or drugs use, which is recognised as an increasing problem amongst young Gypsies and Travellers living in housing: ?You have a drive down Sittingbourne High Street and have a look at the boys I grew up with them and chat with them, they're either out of their head on drugs or on Tennants Super [beer], whatever, because they're getting rid of the day, there's no point in them having a day. They'd sooner be where they are out of their face. They're all stuck in houses now, all stuck in the council estates, they don't want to be there but where are they going to go??. 7.6 Parry et al (2004) noted shockingly that 6.2% of female Gypsy or Traveller respondents (23 women in her sample) reported that one or more of their children had pre-deceased them (excluding miscarriages), in contrast to none from within the other comparator groups, each of which contained 172 women ?When you lose one of your kids it?s worse. You can?t explain the pain or hurt when you?ve lost a kid?. ?What happens every so often is that you walk around normal and another time it hits you like a ton of bricks. You see something on the TV or hear some sort of song that the child liked and you think ?oh my god? and it all comes back to you again and there?s no-one there you can talk to because you hide it from your own children as well because you?re grieving and you don?t want them grieving. You don?t want your grandchildren grieving because their mums are grieving. So all that bit of grief as far as I?m concerned the [senior] woman will hold that grief to herself. Nine times out of ten that grief brings the illness and sickness on. It brings the nightmares on, it brings the anxiety attacks on?. 7.7 Once again, gender issues and the sense of responsibility felt by women who are heads of household, means that they feel isolated and unable to discuss their grief with others around them ? whether over the loss of their own child, siblings, or their parents. Men too were perceived of as grieving in a different manner and unable to be approached for comfort, or to discuss a sense of loss: ?its hard, but you try to hide it, you not only try to hide it from your children, but you try to hide it from your husband. So the grief that you?re feeling you don?t want it on everyone else around you ?cos you know what hurts you but you Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 115 don?t want to hurt them?. Men in particular were bounded around by expectations of masculinity which means that within traditional families they are unable to express grief or loss, often resolving their pain by withdrawal or in some cases, resort to alcohol use. ?the men carry on as the hard men of the family, they don?t grieve in front of you at all, they don?t cry in front of you??..sometimes when it gets too much they?ll walk around the field or go off somewhere. So men don?t like to be seen crying. When [husband] lost the head of his family he went walkabout for two weeks, he went off the rails. He drove off in the motor and stayed away for two weeks. He had to stay away and sort his grief out. Its very hard for us ?cos when the men go away because you know they?re grieving, you?re grieving as well and you really need the two together but in this culture it doesn?t happen ?cos the men have to be up and looking for work and supporting the other children there and they have to go and find work and put the food on the table. So they go off and grieve in their own way and the last thing they want when they come home is the woman still crying ?cos they can?t cope cos they don?t know what to do with you?.. he caught me.. [on the anniversary of a death] he knows I?ve been grieving and I know he?s been grieving, he caught me crying a couple of days ago, he asked ?what?s wrong with your eyes?, I said ?nothing?, but he said ?you?ve been crying, what?s upset you? [and the couple still could not discuss their shared bereavement of a child and a parent]. 7.8 Commentary: the findings above identify the need for culturally appropriate support for Gypsy and Traveller families in dealing with the aftermath of death and coming to terms with their grief. A further major concern is the plight of roadside families who have experienced a bereavement. One young family who had suffered a cot death were described as being made to move on within a couple of days of the police and social services investigations having been completed and the baby?s body being released for burial ?She?s never recovered and then of course no quicker than the little child was buried, the baby?s belongings and everything were burned in the caravan, the next day they were evicted and of course that woman wasn?t there to get any care. She needed care, she needed somebody, a woman doctor?. 7.9 Although some GPs and medical workers were described as being ?very good?, in general the women were scathing of the degree of medical support available for bereaved families. ?They look at you, throw you a bag of pills and say crack on, and yet half the Travellers won't even take the packets so how are they going to get cured, they won't take them?..they feel they haven't been diagnosed properly?. ?I won't take anti depressant tablets?I've noticed is that it is very rare if you have a grievance in the family, if something has happened, lost a child, parent Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 116 or whatever, I have never? had a doctor ask me would I like to have someone to talk to, would I like counselling. They never give us that opportunity?. 8.0 GP/Health/Social Care Workers? Knowledge of Gypsy and Traveller Cultural Issues 8.1 This topic is linked to a number of areas considered above. Overwhelmingly the participants in the focus group felt that whilst GPs and health workers may have received some cultural awareness training pertaining to a range of black and minority ethnic communities there was either an assumption that Gypsies and Travellers were culturally the same as (although perhaps more troublesome) than the indigenous white population, albeit with a tendency to live in caravans, or ?they send me (forgive me what I?m going to say here), they will send a black doctor in to see you as if to say that you and him have got something in common. But you haven?t?. So the white walk away from you and send in someone from another ethnic group?. 8.2 It was also pointed out that GPs and other health workers themselves were not always immune to the racism and discrimination prevalent within sedentary communities, with one participant recounting that she was sent for treatment at a hospital and on giving her address the medic noted that he lived in the same locality and asked ?which Gypsy family are you from then?? which caused the woman considerable distress as she was involved in a prolonged planning dispute wherein neighbours had developed a petition against the site. The participant reported that the doctor in question then undertook a cursory examination of her injured leg and sent her away stating that nothing was the matter. Some time later she was seen by another doctor at the hospital who referred her for x-rays, scans and ultimately surgery. Inevitably this woman and her family made a connection between the doctor?s place of residence and her treatment ? adding to concerns amongst many Gypsies and Travellers that identification of their ethnicity will rebound against them and their children. 8.3 Even where nursing and medical staff are seen to be helpful and benign, considerable concern exists over their lack of knowledge of cultural behaviours as demonstrated by sending male staff to see small children, or expecting a woman to discuss gynaecological matters with a man. One participant stated (receiving strong agreement) that it needs to be drawn to the attention to medical and nursing staff that Gypsies and Travellers require the same type of gendered consideration and should be offered treatment by females in the same way as ?ethnic groups??.. ?we don?t want men examining us. Its embarrassing, but people don?t take it into consideration, so we put in for one [smear test or intimate examination] and there?s a man standing there, we walk straight out.? Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 117 9.0 Support Needs Required 9.1 Overwhelmingly the women stated that access to a stable, secure form of culturally appropriate accommodation would be the most important factor in improving their health and that of their family members. 9.2 The paramount need for services which assisted in strengthening community cohesion and enabled Gypsies and Travellers to feel less isolated were reiterated repeatedly throughout the focus group, with the women often explicitly linking the sense of ?being trapped? or ?nothing to hope for? of those in housing with a general decline in both physical and mental health and well- being. 9.3 There was a clear identification with (and lengthy discussion around) the concept that a loss of traditional employment and skills had led to a decline in both confidence as a community, and physical well-being amongst both older individuals and younger people who had been born in caravans and then ?forced into? housing as traditional opportunities and stopping areas had become closed to them (see above for references to drugs and alcohol use amongst people in their 30s). ?Our health has got worse and I think its because we're not out in the fields anymore and not walking up and down ladder [picking fruit] as that was your exercise. You would get up in the morning and be up and down these ladders ? you'd be up at 6 in the morning, some of the women would be up at 5, you start work at 6 and finish at around 6 in the evening so you were a very, very fit people even if you drunk or smoked you were still very fit because you worked it off. Now that there's no work at all around for us we are becoming a race that's very unhealthy. We're not people that diet, ?cos we don't believe in dieting and that sort of rubbish, so we have become bored, put a lot of weight on and we find out a lot of us have a lot of heart disease,. Where before when we were up and down ladders you didn't have heart disease, years ago you wouldn?t have heard of Travellers having heart disease, cos you're eating the apples and living with nature?. 10.0 Topic Conclusions 10.1 It would appear from the discussion on health that a range of support needs, both social (particular emphasis was placed upon the value given to opportunities to meet socially and the benefits which are accruing to both men and women who gather when dropping off or collecting children from the Gypsy/Traveller run youth group in Sittingbourne ? see in earlier chapters) and medically related are required. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 118 10.2 Interestingly, the common theme which ran through much of the discussion was for culturally appropriate (often home rather than surgery based) services to be on offer ? whether these were provided by health and social care agencies or self-provided by community activists with practical support from mainstream funders. The success of the Sittingbourne youth group would appear to be based on the fact that the organisers are Gypsy Travellers who are therefore known to other community members and trusted to care for children in a culturally appropriate manner. The benefits of provision of an ?adult space? were emphasised, as was the opportunity for the ?community? to reactivate and provide support to other members: ?Yes and all the parents go in and have a cup of tea and free tea going all night long. And the good thing is the fathers go too and its become like a social event and when we have our woes, we?re all counselling each other, all of a sudden we?ve become a community. When you talk to people that turn up you can see how desperate they are for the community again. [Man] turned up the other week. He?s in a bad state, he?s only in his 20s and he?s in a house which has made him bad. Now he knows there?s men there, the men are all in the corner counselling the men, the women are in another corner. With the men turning up it shows how desperate they are for a bit of community and family again. I was really surprised?. 10.3 The women also strongly welcomed the concept of community health workers who either had specialist knowledge of Gypsies and Travellers or (best of all) were of their own ethnic background ?if you walked into a surgery ?and knew that there was a woman who worked with Gypsies and Travellers and knew about us and we could walk in and say we were really depressed? or ?what about when you?re on the road ? you could ring her up and get in her care, and then come down here to her ? like the health visitors?. 10.4 These comments would suggest that there is a real desire for specialist health workers such as are found in the West of England (Bristol and surrounding areas) and that the potential exists to train Gypsy and Traveller public health specialists within the framework of the Department of Health ?health trainers? initiatives. Such community health workers could assist with referrals, provide key basic health promotion messages and be a ?listening ear? for isolated or depressed women. 10.5 We would further suggest that partnership work is undertaken with national counselling agencies such as Mind and/or bereavement charities in partnership with academic institutions with a view to developing appropriate services for bereaved Gypsies and Travellers in East Kent as poor access to support appears to impact disproportionately on the functioning and mental health of affected families. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 119 10.6 Specialist screening services ? perhaps accessed through community health workers are also recommended given the prevalence of particular types of conditions and the reluctance of some Gypsies and Travellers to access mainstream services. 10.7 Ethnic awareness training should be provided by PCTs and other service providers to front line staff to inform them of the specific needs and practices of Gypsies and Travellers. 10.8 Single gender services should be offered and available where required, in line with the services provided to women of other ethnic groups who are recognised as culturally reluctant to be examined by male health care staff. 10.9 Finally, the adaptation and adoption of the Friends, Family and Travellers model of healthy eating groups and the Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College (BCUC) approach to teaching community public health skills, would also be likely to prove beneficial in assisting housed (and insecurely sited) families to access a range of services as well as enhancing confidence and community cohesion whilst developing trust between service providers and community members. 11.0 Young People and Education Needs 11.1 A focus group for young people was held at the end of March 2007 and there were six attendees and two facilitators. The discussion was not structured and there was a free-flowing discussion on a range of issues. One such issue was around travelling, and from analysis of the transcripts, it is apparent that young people tend to travel more with grandparents than with parents. There was some debate around the need for more stopping places with sanitary amenities: ?Like toilets ? don?t think we shit at the side of the road. They should have proper toilets?. A further debate took place on whether young Travellers got on well with other members of the community, and there was a mixed reaction: ?What, gaujos ? some of them is alright, some of them they?re common, but some of them are stuck up, they don?t like us and look down on us?. There was also reference to different types of Travellers, with ?posh Travellers from Maidstone?. 11.2 The key part of the focus group was around schooling, such as access to schools: ?Yeah, I go to XXX School but they ain?t Travellers?. [MG ? to check with David Smith on details of school] ?Oh XXX School stuck right up ? you don?t want to go there? ?Wanted to go to SCC but they wouldn?t take me ? said you lot give me bad influence?. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 120 11.3 When asked about how they got on at school, there was some ?faux bravado? and exaggerated masculinity about fighting: ?I keep fighting, all the time. I like a fight. Gaujos come up to me all the time, give it a big un and think they?ll get away with it, but they don?t and we beat the shit out of them.? This was followed on with other young people talking about fighting, and other kids ?starting?. There was an element of young male bravado in this debate, but there is also a need for support for young men to settle into schools, and for schools to educate all students about Gypsy and Traveller lifestyles and perhaps include something on the curriculum to embed inclusion and cultural understanding. 11.4 One respondent suggested that ?Most of the Travellers have special needs?. This wasn?t probed in any more depth, but the assumption here is that this refers to educational needs. There was also some discussion around whether the young people were discriminated against ? there were a few references back to ?fighting them?. One respondent, when asked if he felt he got treated the same as other kids he said ?No, they keep on at me after PE?. He felt that he was doing what was asked of him, and that if this wasn?t good enough he would say ?goodnight? to them, providing indications of the ease with which young [male] Travellers could become disillusioned with the educational system and ?opt with their feet?. 11.5 When asked what they wanted to do for a career answers included: bricklayer; college; tree topping/building; and work in a florist. ? all broadly traditional Gypsy and Traveller occupations. 11.6 Generally there seemed to be relatively low aspirations regarding employment, however one respondent said "I want to be a professional lawyer I think. I'll get up there with the high lot, sitting on my high horse". The young people seemed to have a nostalgic view of what their parents did, and wanted to do the same. There were several comments regarding the low literacy skills of their parents; however the young Travellers did not generally seem to be able to see the disadvantages in this, or to recognise that they were in a changing world and would perhaps need different skills and career aspirations to their parents and grandparents. These findings chime to an extent with views expressed by a MCAS Traveller Achievement Team member. It was suggested that young people might be limited in their options because of parental attitudes and inability to support their children in education as a result of poor literacy skills. Nevertheless, it was noted that some parents had extremely high aspirations for their children. There is a need for some type of tailored support package to be developed for young Travellers, in an attempt Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 121 to redress the current mismatch of their views and broader societal and educational values. 11.7 Support is needed on two levels. Firstly, for Traveller children to enable them to remain in the education system (even if not in full-time school, perhaps making greater use of mixed academic and vocational skills training within a college setting from the age of 11 or 12) if that is their choice. The other level is to provide support to parents, particularly with low literacy skills, to allow them to encourage and support their children through the education system whilst potentially developing their own portfolio of skills through offering training in business skills (such as budgeting and who to complete tax returns)l , or IT/computing, for example. 11.8 Support is already provided through MCAS' Traveller Achievement Team. However, this is not a service used across a range of different groups of Travellers. It was recognised by the team that action tends to be focused around unauthorised encampments and roadside families (although as noted elsewhere pressure on resources may mean that some highly mobile families are ?missed? and do not have contact with MCAS). This was also focused on the unauthorised encampments that were on the county land. The team obtains good information from the County Gypsy and Traveller Unit where possible, but what is less forthcoming is information from the district councils. This directly impacts on the equality of access to advice from the team and on children?s options and access to education. Those living in housing, may not be known as Gypsies or Travellers through the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) data and therefore will not be identified by the team. This is where a Supporting People package for those moving into housing could pick up this issue and liaise with MCAS to ensure that an educational support package for children and their parents was also in place, alongside the support needed to settle into a house. 11.9 There were several different examples in East Kent that were discussed with a MCAS team member. One was of an unauthorised encampment whose members were at present orbiting around the Sittingbourne area [not in study area]. These families had previously lived on the Broomfield site in Canterbury before it was closed down and they had apparently not been able to access authorised sites in recent years 48 . When on site, the children used to be regular attendees at school, but now they were on the roadside they were not able to attend. It was suggested that there is a very clear link between educational attainment and housing. A further example was of one Traveller who is a head boy at a Sittingbourne school, although no such positive examples were found within the study area. However, this latter example is indicative of the suggestion by MCAS that there can be a successful rate of transfer to the secondary level, for Traveller children where 48 This was a Kent County Council run site which was closed down around ten years ago. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 122 adequate school and parents support is provided. Transition support is provided by the MCAS team and they visit the primary schools to try and provide information on what secondary schooling will be like. When they visit schools they also try to ensure that information on Gypsies and Travellers is in the curriculum. 11.10 We would however recommend that where possible, thought is given to active recruitment, or greater use of MCAS staff of Gypsy and Traveller backgrounds. In areas where such community members are employed as education/classroom assistants (e.g. Cambridgeshire) children and their families report a greater willingness to consider remaining in further education and engage proactively with the school system on the grounds that ?there is someone who understands us?. Such staff members are often in a position to act as a mediator between schools and family members (potentially assisting in avoiding school exclusions) or intervene if bullying or cultural misunderstandings occur, as well as being able to explain and discuss aspects of the school curriculum which may be problematic for parents (e.g. sex education, etc,). Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 123 13.0 APPENDIX THREE: EXPLANATION OF PITCH REQUIREMENT CALCULATION Explanation of the elements in the calculation of residential pitch requirements 2007 - 11 Row 1: The number of social rented pitches at the sites in Aylesham (Dover District) and Canterbury (Canterbury City). Row 2: The estimated number or residential pitches on private authorised sites. This is an estimate because the number of families that can be accommodated will change over time. Survey findings on the number of caravans per family have been used to determine pitch capacity. Row 3: Sum of Rows 1 and 2. Row 4: On the basis of KCC data on the occupation of its sites we have not included any provision for overcrowding. Row 5: This is a net figure requiring an estimate of the flows from sites to house and houses to sites in 2007-12. Box 1 Sites to houses Survey: 0% of respondents on sites expressed an interest in moving into a house. Assumption: In practice a small number can be expected to do so as a result of infirmity and a desire to access health and education facilities. We have assumed that 5% of Gypsies and Travellers on sites will need housing. Calculation: 5% of an estimated population of 69 families on authorised sites in the study area = 5% of 69 = 3. In order to estimate the volume of movement from houses to sites it is necessary to estimate the size of the housed Traveller population. The methodology is as follows. Box 2 Survey: 33.3% of housed Travellers in the survey had children attending primary and secondary school. Amongst housed Traveller households with child attending school the average number of such children was Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 124 3.6. Secondary data: In the study area the Minority Communities Achievement Service (MCAS) reports that there are 112 Traveller children of primary and secondary school age. It estimates that 60% of the Traveller children referred to it are housed and that 40% live on sites or the roadside. Assumption: That due to unwillingness to state Gypsy and Traveller status on school admissions records the figure of 112 Traveller children of primary and secondary school age understates the population. We have assumed that these numbers may be 40% higher. Calculation: Base is 112 housed Traveller children adding 40% = 157 divided by 60% = 94 housed Traveller children divided by an average number of children per housed Traveller household of 3.6 = 26 households. From this finding the total number of housed Travellers can be estimated as follows: Survey: 66.6% of housed Travellers did not have school age children giving a ratio of 1 housed Traveller household with school age children to every 2 housed Traveller households without children. Assumptions: That these proportions are apply to the overall Gypsy and Traveller population. Calculation: 26 housed Traveller households with children multiplied by 3 = total of 78 housed Traveller households. The estimate of the number of housed Travellers in the study area is 78. This estimate is then applied as follows. Box 3 Houses to sites Survey: 74% of survey respondents in houses expressed a preference for living on a site. Assumption: That 74% would not move to sites since experience suggests that interest in doing so will only materialise where site provision is sufficiently attractive. Given this, the study team take the view that the assumption that should be applied is that 35% of Gypsies and Travellers in housing need site accommodation. Calculation: 35% of an estimated housed population of 78 families in the study area = 35% of 78 = 27 families/pitches. The following calculation is also needed: Survey: 27% of survey respondents in houses who said they would be Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 125 interested in a site if it became available said that they would not go to a site in this area. Assumption: That reference to this area means the East Kent study area. Calculation: 73% of those Gypsies and Travellers in housing need site accommodation would need that site in the study area = 73% of the 27 housed Gypsies and Travellers in need of site accommodation will seek that in the area = 73% of 27 = 20 families/pitches. The net figure in Row 5 is 20 minus 3 = a net requirement for 17 pitches. Row 6: The estimated number of pitches/families on unauthorised developments in April 2007 based on information provided by the county and district councils. 100% assumed to be in need = 11. These developments are on land owned by Gypsies and Travellers and should the local authorities continue to tolerate or regularise these developments they will contribute towards additional pitch provision. Row 7: This factor takes into account families involved in unauthorised encampment in need a permanent residential pitch in the study area. It does not include those who have more transient needs, including those on an unauthorised private transit site and those on holiday caravan parks, which are reflected in a separate calculation of transit pitch requirements. In order to determine residential need arising from unauthorised encampments the number of ?caravan days? on unauthorised encampments in East Kent has been established. This methodology takes into account the duration and size of unauthorised encampments and reflects the impact of cross boundary movement. Box 4 Families involved in unauthorised encampments Secondary data: ? Kent County Council records for 2004 -06 shows that there were 2,417 ?caravan days? on unauthorised encampments in the study area (this data and an explanation of its calculation appear below in the section dealing with transit requirements). Assumptions: ? That the average number of caravans per family on unauthorised encampments is 1.7. Calculation: Caravan days divided by average number of caravans per family divided by days in the year = 2,417 divided by 1.7 divided by 365 = 4 families. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 126 Box 5 Need for residential pitches Survey: 71% of the roadside respondents were looking for accommodation in the area. Assumption: ? That reference to this area from survey respondents mean the East Kent study area. ? That cross boundary movement has been taken into account sufficiently by the method for determining the number of families involved and, therefore, no discounting of the survey finding is required. ? In line with common practice in GTAAs this is treated as a single year element rather a flow of new families that will be created each year. Calculation: 71% of the families involved in unauthorised encampment = 71% of 4 families = 3. Row 8: From information provided by the local authorities there are 2 sites subject to temporary planning permissions ending in 2007 ? 12. These concern 3 families and they all count toward need. Renewal of these permissions or permanent permission would count towards additional provision. Row 9: This element requires estimates of the numbers of new households expected to form in the next five years and the proportion of these will need a pitch. These calculations are made separately. Box 6 New households forming on sites Survey: There were individuals requiring their own accommodation in the next 5 years in equivalent to 48% of respondents on sites. Secondary data: There are an estimated 69 authorised pitches and 11 unauthorised development pitches. Taken with the calculation that there are 8 families on involved in unauthorised encampment seeking to remain in the area in permanent accommodation this makes a total of 88 families. Assumptions: Treating all individuals as requiring independent accommodation will over state need: ? there will be some inter-marriage of individuals; and ? there may be some over-claiming. Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 127 We have assumed on the basis of what is likely that individuals equivalent to 40% of respondents will require their own accommodation, with the reduction from the survey finding due to assumed inter-marriage. Calculation: 40% of 48% grossed to the estimated population on sites = 40% of 48% of 88 = 17 families/pitches. Box 7 Pitch requirements from newly formed households on sites Survey: 100% of families on sites expressed a preference for sites and 73% of those on sites wished to remain in the area. Assumptions: ? That as with existing families, 95% of new families would require accommodation on a site (with 5% becoming housed); and ? That the accommodation types preferred by newly formed households are the same as those of respondents. Calculation: Base is 17 families (as above) multiplied 95% multiplied 73% = 95% of 73% of 17 = 12 families/pitches Box 8 New households forming in housing Survey: There were individuals requiring their own accommodation in the next 5 years equivalent to 64% of respondents in houses. Assumptions: Treating all individuals as requiring independent accommodation will over state need ? there will be some inter-marriage of individuals and ? there may be some over-claiming. We have assumed on the basis of what is likely that the requirements of 40% of individuals are likely to require their own accommodation. Calculation: 40% of 64% grossed to the estimated population in houses = 40% of 64% of 78 = 20 families/pitches. Box 9 Pitch requirements from newly formed in housing Survey: 74% of families in houses expressed a preference for sites and 73% of those in houses would be interested in a site in the area. Assumptions: ? References to the area mean the East Kent study area ? That as with existing families, 74% of new families would require accommodation on a site; ? That the accommodation types preferred by newly formed households are the same as those of respondents; and ? Of those expressing an interest in location in the area 85% would do so since some also expressed an interest in other areas and could be Leicester Business School East Kent Sub-Regional GTAA: Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council 128 expected to move elsewhere. Calculation: Base is 20 families (as above) multiplied 95% multiplied 73% multiplied 85% = 95% of 73% of 85% of 20 = 12 families/pitches. Row 9 total = sum of new families/pitches required for newly forming households from sites and houses = 12 + 12 = 24 families/pitches. Row 10: Sum of rows 4 to 9 = 0 + 17 + 11 + 3 + 3 + 24 = 58. Row 11: There are no authorised residential pitches not developed as at April 2007. Row 12: There are not known to be any pending planning applications as at April 2007. Were there to be any no allowance would be made in this calculation since their outcome would be unknown. Row 13: There are no plans for new social rented residential pitches as at April 2007. Row 14: Vacancies on social rented sites are estimated to average 5.3 per year. This is based on KCC data that in 2004-06 there have been 6 vacancies at Greenbridge Park, Canterbury and 10 vacancies at Aylesham (Dover District). Over the 2007-12 this supply is anticipated to be 27 pitches (five times 5.3 rounded) Row 15: Sum of rows 11 to 14 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 27 = 27. Row 16: Resultant pitch requirement for 2007-12 produced from taking the sum of row 14 (additional supply) from the sum of row 9 (additional need) = 58 ? 27 = 31