Meeting documents

Files\Microsoft Office\Templates\Letter.dot

Dear Kate

Response to initial request for First Detailed Proposals for the provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers and comments on the Draft Brief

I am responding to Peter Brown's letter dated 11 October 2005, regarding his request for comments on the draft brief for section 4/4 Authorities' First Detailed Proposals on Gypsy and Traveller pitch requirements and confirmation of whether the West of England Unitary Authorities are prepared to draft First Detailed Proposals for the area.

This is not a formal response from this Authority to the invitation to submit First Detailed Proposals, which will need to be in the form of an Executive Member decision. There has been insufficient time for discussions with Members, following inter-authority liaison by officers, in the timescale you have set.

It is essential that this work is undertaken as part of a wider Gypsies and Traveller housing needs assessment for the West of England. This could not be advanced by following the brief provided and, in any case not within the timescale indicated, which is by 7 February 2006.

A working group has been established by the West of England Unitary Authorities and given the initial task of identifying the resource and methodology to undertake a Gypsy and Traveller Housing Needs Assessment in parallel with the January 2006 Caravan Count, including consultations. Arrangements are being made for a meeting in early November to consider the form that such a survey would take and the output of the study. Work already done in South Gloucestershire is being circulated to help shape ideas on the survey.

The informal Officer view is that the Caravan Count in isolation from other data sets is unlikely to provide a credible assessment of need in the West of England, could not be defended adequately during the RSS and LDF examination processes, and would not fulfil the wider needs of a housing assessment. Indeed there is an indication from the assessment work undertaken within the West of England that has shown that count figures, in the absence of further refinement, are not only unhelpful but can be misleading indicators of accommodation need. We would welcome the opportunity to share the experience of other sub-regions in the South West in approaching this issue.

I note from the report considered at the Planning Officer Group meeting of 14 September that where 4/4 Authorities were unable to comply with the request to prepare First Detailed Proposals, it was proposed to use national Gypsy and Traveller family counts and unauthorised encampments data as a basis for calculating a likely need figure for the South West. This was to be further disaggregated to sub-regional areas. Officers are of the view that figures obtained by this method would be unhelpful or even misleading as indicators of need and that reasonable time should be allowed to carry out sound assessments of need.

I suggest that there should be further discussion to develop a more appropriate brief that incorporates a more realistic timescale. We would be happy to attend a meeting with yourselves to discuss the issues I have raised in this response.

Yours sincerely

Keith Goodred

Team Leader, Planning Policy