Gavin Williamson, MP for South Staffordshire, has challenged Ministers over the high number of gypsy and traveller sites that are being provided within the local area.
Gavin queried what the Department for Communities and Local Government is doing to ensure that the duty of pitch provision is more evenly spread across all nearby local authority areas.
He also asked what action the Department is taking to gain a more accurate representation of gypsy and traveller numbers in South Staffordshire.
In the 2008 South Staffordshire and Northern Warwickshire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment by Salford University, it was reported that South Staffordshire had a total of 88 pitches. This was in sharp contrast to the 44 in Cannock Chase, the 25 in North Warwickshire, the two pitches in Lichfield and the complete lack of any pitches in Tamworth.
Furthermore, the study claimed there was a need to more than double number of pitches provided within the constituency by 2028. From 2007-2013, a total of 46 pitches were granted, 36 of which were allowed on appeal.
Responding to Gavin, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government, Mr. Brandon Lewis MP, said: “We are currently reviewing the associated practice guidance on traveller site provision.
“The Localism Act 2011 introduced a duty to co-operate, and we would encourage local authorities to work constructively with their neighbours on all aspects of planning.”
Mr. Lewis also confirmed the Department’s intention to consider the case for changes to the planning definition of travellers to refer only to those who ‘actually travel and have a mobile or transitory lifestyle’. The Department is currently open to representations on these matters and will be launching a consultation in due course.
On Mr. Lewis’ response, Gavin said: “I am delighted that the Government is taking action on this matter. All we are asking for is that the provision of gypsy and traveller pitches is balanced across all local areas and that any applications are dealt with equitably, taking into account all relevant guidelines and the need for continued protection of our green belt land.”
In a statement earlier this year, Mr Lewis said that planning policy was clear that both temporary and permanent traveller sites were inappropriate development in the green belt and that planning decisions should protect green-belt land from such inappropriate development.
He also re-iterated the Secretary of State’s policy position that unmet need, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, was unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development in the green belt.