Please note: the information on this page is provided by Deddington Parish Council. For more information please contact the Parish Clerk.
These are the provisional findings of the Deddington Parish Council, Working Group.
We have made reference to three key documents relating to local planning law and the provision of traveler sites namely: Circular 1/94 - The definitive guidance on gypsy sites and planning issued by central Government. Secondly, a comprehensive research document from the University of Birmingham on Traveller sites just published by the Government to guide new policy, and finally the Cherwell Local Development Plan. Our analysis of these documents raises the following questions/issues for which we would like clarification from OCC.
Firstly Planning
Inadequate local planning consultation. In spite of a comprehensive review of possible locations being carried out by OCC as long ago as 1998, its findings have not been made public, and have not been included within the structure plan for general public debate.
Oxfordshire County Council have been searching for both permanent and temporary Gypsy/Traveller sites for over 6 years and are continuing to search for suitable sites now. The announcement by the ODPM in 2002 of the opportunity of funding for the improvement of existing sites and establishment of new transit sites and emergency stopping places (this was offered at 100 percent) through the Gypsy Site Refurbishment Grant (GSRG) led to a site selection for potential sites for emergency stopping places.
There was a provisional proposal to the ODPM for grant aid earlier this year. The County Council was advised that full planning permission would be required before any application for grant aid for site provision could be considered.
Once this feedback was received from the ODPM in May, it was decided to seek planning permission for suitable sites. A draft application form including plans and supplementary information was drawn up and copies were issued for pre-application consultation. This was in July 2003. In order to meet the ODPM bidding guideline, it is necessary to submit this application on 13th October for the January Planning and Regulation Committee.
It is inappropriate to include the proposed site in the emerging structure plan because the plan does not deal with site specific proposals.
The lack of clearly defined site boundary. This site could easily be expanded both within the field location, and into the adjoining lay-by. In our opinion a condition of planning permission would need to be a more substantial permanent barrier across the field, together with the closure of the lay-by and the confinement of the existing Milton road within narrow boundaries.
The site boundary will be clearly identified on the application location plan and site plan. Any expansion beyond this area would be contrary to the planning permission. A 2m high perimeter fencing will surround the site and a separate fence in front of the existing trees will ensure that there is a permanent barrier across the field. These boundaries would be a condition of any planning permission, should permission be granted.
The County Council would consider physical measures, under the highway powers, to prevent illegal parking along the Milton Road in addition to confirming active management by the Oxfordshire Traveller Management Unit. Illegally parked traveler vehicles would be moved on from roads in the vicinity.
The possible damage to residential amenity. The location of this site could discourage access to the recently established Woodland Trust site of Daeda’s Wood.
The proposed site would be fully screened and would not be visible from Daeda’s Wood, which is some distance to the north. Any vehicles or objects outside of the designated site would be removed through site management imposed by the Oxfordshire Traveller Management Unit. The location of the emergency stopping place would not discourage access to Daeda’s Wood any more than the location of the Highways Depot would. The Deddington Circular Walk, which provides the major pedestrian access to the wood, is not close to the proposed site.
In-sufficient data has been provided on the review of alternative sites.
The site selection report as part of the draft application included a summary table of the sites studied. As part of the full planning application a full review of the rejected sites and alternative sites suggested through public consultation will be provided.
The expansion of existing sites does not appear to have been considered. There is no rationale provided why this site cannot be attached to existing private sites in Cherwell. Nationally one third of emergency stopping place sites are attached to existing facilities.
The needs and lifestyle of transit Travellers, compared with settled Travellers, are very different and may often lead to conflict. There are more facilities provided on a permanent site including electricity and washing facilities that are not necessary for transit travelling. By co-locating transit Travellers in a site with permanent travellers and facilities more suitable for a settled Traveller lifestyle there is an increasing risk of conflict between the two groups should transit Travellers also wish to use these facilities. Furthermore, better than basic facilities could encourage transit travellers to stay for a period longer than is allowed and may lead to problems of eviction.
There are 12 permanent sites in the County; Oxfordshire County Council own 6, (managed by an independent company, Westgate Managed Services), none of which are in the Cherwell District. These sites are already operating at full capacity and there is no land adjacent to the permanent sites that is owned by Oxfordshire County Council to use for expansion. Furthermore, ODPM Gypsy Site Refurbishment Grant funding is only available to local authorities for use either on their own existing sites or for proposed new transit sites/ emergency stopping places and therefore cannot be used for extending the privately owned permanent sites in Cherwell.
Inadequate data on the needs of local Travellers and their movements. Have local Traveller group’s and their representative bodies been involved in the review of site locations, and does OCC have data on the average size and frequency of Traveller groups moving through the county on the A4260.
It is not possible to consult with every Traveller group frequenting the County. Consultation has been completed with members of the Oxfordshire Traveller Agencies Group as well as with professional within the field of Traveller Management. Accurate records of Traveller numbers, and their duration of stay within Oxfordshire have been used as a guide. It is not possible to predict future levels of demand, however it is known that Oxfordshire is regularly visited by Travelling families who would use a transit site if one was available.
Secondly Highways
Dangerous vehicle access. Several potential sites were vetoed over the dangers of slow moving caravans turning onto busy roads. We believe a condition of planning should be the closure of the northern lay-by exit and the modification of the southern entry point to include slip-roads (running north) and a full two-way central reservation.
In the opinion of the County Council Highway Authority, the existing access arrangements from the A4260 are satisfactory. The northern lay-by exit is exit only (with No-Entry signs), and the southern access has a ghosted right turn junction arrangement. It is therefore a high standard junction (used by the OCC highways depot HGV traffic). For this reason, it is not considered appropriate to close the northern access.
Pedestrian access. Given the lack of a public path to the site, the busy nature of the road, and the need for residents to access local facilities such as the school, we believe that a condition of planning should be the installation of a pedestrian crossing on the main road as close to the site as practicably possible, together with additional pathways as required.
There is a footpath on the east side of the A4260 which pedestrians could use. It may be an option to provide a pedestrian link from the site to this footway and this could be secured through a planning condition. In the opinion of the County Council Highway Authority it is not necessary to provide a footway along the back road.
Finally Environmental Issues
The site could be used as a permanent site with inadequate facilities. It is not appropriate to permanently locate any existing traveler group to an emergency stopping place site. This would simply result in an unofficial permanent site providing inadequate facilities compared to neighbouring permanent sites.
It is not the intention of Oxfordshire County Council to permanently locate any existing Traveller group to an emergency stopping place. The purpose of an emergency stopping place is to provide a site for temporary residents who only require basic facilities (water, waste disposal, hardstanding) and would stay for a temporary period of no longer than 28 days.
We believe that the concept of an emergency stopping site in this area could be fatally flawed and that it will prove impossible to evict travelers after the 28 day interval. There are currently only 65 such pitches within a 100 mile radius of Deddington, and national provision of these sites is currently declining. This raises the obvious question of where are families supposed to move too after one month’s residency? OCC state several times that the rationale for the provision of this site is to hand increased powers of eviction to the Police. However, given the lack of other easily accessible emergency stopping places, any family threatened with eviction could easily use the defence that no other accommodation option is available. In this regard the University of Birmingham makes a very strong recommendation that transit and emergency stopping sites will only be successful as part of an agreed regional/national network. Has OCC consulted neighbouring councils on creating such a network?
A site protocol and the Oxfordshire Traveller Management Unit would clearly state that the site would be for transit use only and would enforce the period of stay to no more than 28 days. The unit would have the power to move on any Traveller from the site which is owned by the County Council.
It is the County Council’s intention to provide a site for temporary stopping in each of the five Districts in the County. The wider provision of transit sites must obviously have been considered by the ODPM before grant aid was made available to local authorities. The proposed site generally accords with policy H24 of the existing Cherwell Local Plan and Policy H26 of the emerging Cherwell Local Plan 2011
According to ODPM site data, Buckinghamshire operate three sites with transit facilities in Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and South Bucks. Also, Warwickshire operate a transit site in Nuneaton and Bedworth.
The purpose of the Gypsy Site Refurbishment Grant is to encourage authorities to provide new transit and stopping place site which is why 100% funding is available to local authorities. Funding for transit and stopping place sites started in round 3 (2003/2004) and had limited applications. Grants for Darlington and Lincolnshire were approved in the last round and it is expected that more applications for transit sites will be submitted in the next round.
Inadequate management plan. The national consensus is that emergency stopping sites have to be managed closely, and that such management is more expensive on a per family basis than on permanent sites. Who is going to pay for this, given that the Gov't grant for site establishment is a one-off payment? The same research shows that badly maintained sites attract the worst members of the traveling community and that rents from such sites never cover operating costs. Given these issues we believe that the proposed management and control plan by OCC could be inadequate.
All Traveller sites require some degree of management, the amount of scrutiny being determined on a number of factors including behaviour, location and impact on the settled community. Throughout England and Wales, the majority of Traveller provision is provided either privately or by the local authority. In both cases, individual sites would normally be monitored without the assistance of the police. In Oxfordshire, any future provision would be managed by the Traveller Management Unit, which includes the services of a police officer, and as such it is anticipated that poor behaviour will be prevented. In cases where poor behaviour is displayed then the group will be evicted using either local authority powers or the enhanced powers that will soon be made available to the police. Due to a policy of firm management, robust design and the control of who accesses the site, it is believed that the site will not suffer undue damage and will not attract poorer behaving members of the travelling community.
The site is near land where other types of new development has been refused in the past.
Each individual application is decided on its own merit in the context of the policies of the Development Plan and the nature of the proposed development. The proposed site generally accords with the policies of the existing and emerging Cherwell Local Plan (as mentioned above).
There has been an inadequate review of the provision of local facilities to support this site. Its possible that the School may have difficulties in coping with fluctuating pupil numbers every 28 day period. Many classes are currently at maximum capacity, sometimes preventing local settled residents taking school places when they arrive in the area.
The current Number on Roll of Deddington Church of England Primary School is 196 pupils. Oxfordshire County Council Learning and Culture pupil forecast figures indicate that the Number on Roll at the school is likely to decrease to the following levels over the next seven years.
YEAR TOTAL 2003 196 2004 194 2005 189 2006 194 2007 191 2008 187 2009 192 2010 188The School Capacity is for 210 pupils. There is therefore, sufficient capacity available at the school to cope with a small fluctuation in pupil numbers.
The local school has it’s own published admission policy. The Advisory Service for the Education of Travellers (ASET) has a duty of care to try to place Traveller children using the local authority admission guidelines.
Next Steps
The issues raised by the working group need to be further reviewed and then presented for ratification by Deddington Parish Council.
We require additional members of the Parish to join our working group, without expanding its size to an unworkable level – we are looking for people with legal, planning, or other relevant experience, together with a representative from the immediate local landowners action group.
We would like to know the timetable for these plans being presented for planning permission by OCC.
Public Meeting re Proposed Travellers site 29/9/03
List of Questions Raised
How would the proposed site function?
The site would be owned by Oxfordshire County Council and, unlike the current OCC owned static sites which are ran by Westgate Managed Services, would be managed by the Oxfordshire Traveller Management Unit, OTMU (a partnership between OCC and TVP). Travellers, who arrive in Oxfordshire, with an intention of residing on the roadside, would be directed to available pitches on the nearest transit site. By the time any potential sites are built, the police will have the power to direct Travellers to leave an area, (in this case the county) if they do not go to the transit site, or indeed the transit site is currently occupied So long as space is available and the visiting Travellers have not displayed anti-social behaviour whilst in the area, or arrive with a past record of anti-social behaviour, then they will be accommodated for a period at the discretion of the OTMU, not exceeding 28 days. Any educational or health requirements would be dealt with in the same manner as present in that health and educational professionals will assess need and look to area wide provision in order to meet that need. Travellers would be supported in accessing social care. All residents of a transit site will be issued with a code of conduct, which they will be expected to abide by. Failure to comply with site rules, including overstaying or poor conduct both on the site and within the surrounding community will result in rapid eviction and a barring from residing on any other OCC transit sites.
Would Travellers have to pre-book and is so with whom?
The aim would be to achieve a pre-booking system through the OTMU. Realistically pre-booking is not something we will be able to achieve in the short term although as and when a network of transit sites is available throughout the region, pre-booking will become a necessity (vis-à-vis increased police powers to evict when sites are full).
What happens to families arriving to find the site full – where will they wait?
The aim of transit sites is to reduce the number of Travellers on the roadside; as a result we will not allow Travellers to remain on the roadside locally waiting for pitches to become available. Travellers will have the opportunity to pre-book through the OTMU, if they arrive unannounced and find the site occupied then they will be evicted using current police and local authority powers, or the additional powers as previously discussed.
After 28 days what happens if they refuse to leave?
28 days is a maximum stay, most groups will stay for shorter periods the duration of stay being determined by the OTMU. Any over-stayers will be evicted.
Where will the Travellers leave their lorries, skips etc?
The site will have a height barrier to prevent unauthorised parking of caravans without the permission of the OTMU. There will be no parking of vehicles outside the site. If groups are unable to fit their vehicles onto their temporary pitch then they will not be allowed to stay.
The Home Office has announced the intention to introduce enhanced police powers to deal with unauthorised camping. These powers would only be available to authorities who have provided sites and stop overs – How does this work?
Current police powers, (s61 CJPOA 94) require certain elements to be present before the power can be used. These elements include the need for there to be 6 or more vehicles present, for the Travellers to have caused criminal damage or to have used threatening or insulting words or behaviour toward the landowner or their agent. The proposed new powers remove the need for any of these elements to be present before the power can be lawfully used. It is correct that the enhanced powers will only be available to police officers working where the local authority has made adequate site provision, which includes static and transit sites.
Will the Council take responsibility for accidents caused? The road is a busy feed road to Milton Village and increased risk of accidents will arise with children dogs etc in the area.
The County Council Highway Authority do not consider Milton Road to be excessively busy. OCC will not take responsibility for any accidents, as the liability remains with the parties directly involved. Depending on circumstances, children playing on the road could result in the family being evicted from the site if individuals are placed at risk. Site planning and rules will take account of these potential risks.
How can OCC guarantee acceptable social behaviour, tidiness, security for local residents, good hygiene and all the difficulties experienced as ‘highly, problematical’ at N Aston?
OCC has less control of an unauthorised site than it would have over occupants of a transit site. This control would be exercised in both the present and future site occupancies. Poor behaviour will not be tolerated and will lead to eviction. If a group resorted to the nearby roadside, then the enhanced police powers would be utilised.
How can OCC ensure travellers book their turn?
As per an earlier answer, there would be no power to ensure Travellers pre-booked, but there would be a power to prevent access to the site and to remove those who resort to unauthorised camping in the area. It won’t take too long for groups to realise the benefits of pre-booking.
How will regional police liaise on whether there are vacancies?
Currently there is no mechanism for police forces to liaise on Traveller related matters. Home Office guidance is promoting the partnership approach pioneered in Milton Keynes and now developing in Oxfordshire. It will be the respective Traveller Management Units who will liaise about site availability as well as the conduct of those who have been resident in their area. The aim would be identify and protect/penalise Traveller groups dependent on past and present conduct.
Will they sign agreements to keep tidy? If not, how can the code of conduct be enforced?
Yes they will sign and a deposit will be taken along with a rent to cover their stay. If they refuse to comply they will not be allowed on the site and the enhanced police powers will be utilised.
Why has OCC chosen two sites north of Oxford – an area covering only a third of the county?
It is the intention of Oxfordshire County Council to provide one emergency-stopping place in each District. The two sites chosen best met the site selection criteria. Oxfordshire County Council is continuing looking for possible sites in Oxford City, South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse.
Which South Oxfordshire sites have been identified?
8 sites in South Oxfordshire were identified and assessed on location, technical and environmental suitability. The 8 sites in South Oxfordshire were:
- Stanton St John
- Lower Grange
- Bow Bridge Bay
- Nr Mill Court
- East of Crowmarsh
- Lower Farm
- Tiddington
- Nr Beacon Hill
Travellers moving around in small groups choose not to integrate into society. That is the nature of nomadic individuals/families. How will OCC nurture/foster mutual tolerance and respect as suggested by John Parry?
The main concern of the settled community when considering Travellers is the disproportionate levels of anti-social behaviour displayed by some groups. Eviction from a specific piece of land will curtail such behaviour, but only at that location. The probability is that the behaviour is displayed again at a new location. The majority of Travellers who act in an anti-social manner do so because they are excluded from society and as such feel that they are equally excluded from society’s rules. By being more inclusive, even if the provision is heavily regulated, we begin to share society by breaking down the barriers, which in turn will foster greater understanding and increase tolerance. Any group’s who choose to exclude themselves will however be forced to adhere to society’s rules, or forced to leave the area, by use of the enhanced police powers.
Is this site to be used to house the family from N Aston?
As a family currently on the roadside, with a proven history of residing in Oxfordshire, they will be able to use this and any other proposed sites.
When was the plan submitted and can we have more time?
The planning application has not yet been submitted. The application will be registered by the County Council on the 13th October, from which time a formal consultation period will begin where the public will have three weeks to send in written comments to the Planning and Regulation Committee.
Why is there a need for an emergency-stopping place at all?
Central government see the use of transit sites and emergency stopping places as the only way to reduce the problems associated with the lawful nomadic lifestyle of Travellers. There are currently 39 caravans on 9 unauthorised encampments throughout Oxfordshire. The majority of those sites have attracted requests from local members of the settled community for the Travellers to be moved on. In some cases, due to poor standards of behaviour, or because the group have a permanent site outside Oxfordshire, eviction can be easily justified. However, in a small number of cases, due to specific circumstances eviction action would be difficult to justify. This results in some unauthorised sites remaining far longer than would be preferred. New provision will allow the OTMU to deal with these more complicated sites using enhanced powers.
Why not encourage the Smith’s site in Bloxham to provide this facility? Will you ask if they would?
By virtue of the transitory nature of the provision and the fact that it links into increased police powers, any transit site (including the decision to allow access), must be controlled by those involved in the eviction process. This is one of the reasons that any future transit site will not be managed by the company who currently run the static sites for OCC as effectively they have the final say on who is admitted to each of the sites. If a private family were to run/provide transitory provision then the police would not be able to use enhanced powers and we would be no nearer to resolving the issues of unauthorised encampments. Furthermore, The ODPM funding is only available to local authorities. The Smith’s site would therefore not qualify for funding.
What consideration has been given to the onus this places on the school and will children be adversely affected by this?
Pupil figures have been provided by the County Council Learning and Culture for the actual Number On Roll of the local primary school in 2003 and predicted NOR up to and including 2010. Capacity figures have also been provided which show that the local primary school does have the capacity for small increases in pupil numbers.
How will temp. places affect the admission policy to the school since some local children have been unable to obtain places?
The local school has it’s own published admission policy. The Advisory Service for the Education of Travellers (ASET) has a duty of care to try to place Traveller children using the local authority admission guidelines.
How many objections do we need to stop this?
It is not a question of the number of objections, rather the quality of the comments made. If you are to make any comments they should be based on planning, highway or environmental issues. Emotive comments will not be given the same weight as sound technical comments by the Planning and Regulation Committee of the County Council.
Why has Deddington been chosen the criteria could apply to many locations?
Deddington was chosen because it best meets the location, access and sites need of an emergency-stopping place for transit travellers with the minimum policy, environmental and access impact.
Why doesn’t this proposal conform to planning rules that say there should be no presidential development in Greenfield areas?
The proposal generally accords with policy H24 and H26 of the existing and emerging Cherwell Local Plan respectively.
Is it not possible for OCC to lease land alongside the existing site in Bloxham?
When offering funding to local authorities, the ODPM have stated that a bid is more likely to be considered if it is from a local authority for a site proposed on its own land. This was therefore one of the criteria used for the site selection. The County Council could only acquire the land by compulsory purchase if the landowner were unwilling and it is unlikely that the County Council could acquire land by this procedure.
Will property owners be financially compensated for impact of this development on their properties and business?
OCC LEGAL TEAM TO RESPOND
What weight would be given to a referendum?
Any comments submitted by the public will be considered by the County Council’s Planning and Regulation Committee. As a planning Committee, substantive-planning objections have to be afforded the greatest weight in deciding whether or not to grant planning permission.
Will both sites, Deddington and Ducklington be put forward?
Yes. Planning applications for both sites will be submitted to the County Council. However, even if planning permission was granted this does not mean that the emergency stopping place will actually go ahead. The implementation of any planning permission is dependent upon whether the County Council are successful in receiving ODPM funding.
You say you are going to monitor the site but how many people are there and how many sites to cover?
The OTMU is currently staffed by a police Inspector and an OCC officer. Staffing is currently under review and would inevitably increase if the desired network of transit sites throughout Oxfordshire were established. As for future workload, it is hard to quantify as the OTMU have a responsibility to deal with both unauthorised encampments as well as any future transit sites should the plan be realised.
Who will pay the costs for collecting rubbish?
Currently the responsibility for the collection of rubbish on unauthorised sites rests with either the private landowner or in the case of local authority owned land or public highway (including the highway corridor), with the District Council. The expense of collecting rubbish isn’t so much with emptying bins or collecting plastic bags, but in picking up littered rubbish or fly-tipped waste. Neither practice will be tolerated on any future transit site.
Can you understand our concerns when you see what happens with unauthorised sites?
If proposed sites were to be left to run in the same manner as unauthorised sites then yes concerns would be valid, as the group choose the location, decide when they come and leave, determine how many people/vehicles will be present and akin to squatters, feel they are outside the law. With transit sites all the decisions are made by the OTMU who will force improved behaviour or eviction. (See earlier answer concerning enhanced police powers).
Does the funding for this proposal have a life cycle?
(see below)
If site goes ahead how will it be funded in the longer term?
Most Local authorities have pressed for revenue funding to go with the 100% capital funding currently available. Indications from ODPM are that they will fund refurbishment of transit sites should this become necessary. Essentially there isn’t much more that can be damaged on a transit site that either the County or District wouldn’t have had to pay for if the same occurred on the roadside. The expense associated with transit sites is the same as associated with unauthorized encampments, in that it is mostly down to behaviour. The OTMU will have greater powers available to deal with poor behaviour and as such should make savings on current budgets.
When did Ray Jelf know about this?
He knew that the proposed use of Deddington for a transit site was becoming more probable, rather than earlier when it was just one of the possible sites, in late June early July.
Has financial provision been made for levelling the proposed site as it is on quite a slope?
Yes. This will be included in the amount of funding that is bid by the County Council.
Has consideration been given to caravans manoeuvring within the site?
Yes. This was considered when designing the site layout and approved by the County Council Highways Officer.