Using the Place Standard tool to assess the quality of Gypsy/Traveller … · 2019-11-29 · • Test the acceptability and applicability of the current Place Standard Tool taking

Using the Place Standard tool to assess the quality of Gypsy/Traveller sites

Research into the applicability of the Place Standard for the Gypsy/Traveller Community undertaken by PAS on behalf

of NHS Health Scotland – November 20 November 2019

This project explored the acceptability and applicability of the Place Standard Tool within the Scottish Gypsy/Traveller community and whether any amendments to the tool might be appropriate to reflect the culture and lifestyle of the community. The work was completed on behalf of NHS Health Scotland by PAS.

Places and the extent to which individuals can shape their places are known to influence their health and wellbeing. The Place Standard Tool, which is designed to facilitate users’ conversations about their places, has been in use in Scotland since 2015. The outputs from the tool can inform community and development planning and policies in other areas, including health and housing.

There are estimated to be 15,000- 20,000 Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland. They are a group protected by equalities legislation but the community continues to be among the most disenfranchised and discriminated against in Scotland. They have significantly poorer health than any other ethnic group and health is one of the key areas in which the community faces inequalities. The Scottish Government is working with partners to address such inequalities, including through action to facilitate Gypsy/Travellers’ greater engagement in development planning and other decisions affecting their places. The Place Standard Tool could have a key role in enabling and facilitating that engagement.

Gypsy/Travellers, including young members of the community, in four case study sites, used the Place Standard Tool to prompt discussion and assessment of their places. In the facilitated discussions, they considered places where they stay at present and places they stayed in the past. The research also explored an example of good practice on a site in the North of England which is managed and serviced by the Gypsy/Traveller community.

The Place Standard diagrams from the case studies suggested that the two sites in private ownership were seen as more successful than the two sites in public ownership. Having a sense of influence and control and identity and belonging was particularly significant. The site at Darlington in the North of England illustrated how a site can be built, operated/managed and allowed to develop as part of the local community.

The Place Standard Tool was found to be effective in promoting and facilitating Gypsy/Travellers’ consideration of their places but there are aspects of the Tool which may benefit from further development to facilitate its use within the community:

• questions to recognise the importance of links between homes, spaces around these and work places;

• guidance to ensure that the significance of ‘Identity and Belonging’ to Gypsy/Traveller culture and lifestyle is captured;

• guidance to ensure that the importance of certain places, types of places and relationships to the landscape and nature in the Gypsy/Traveller culture is recognised;

• and the scope for the Tool (or an alternative) to be used in relation to temporary sites.

Based on these findings, it is recommended that, in consultation with the Gypsy/Traveller community, the partners developing the Place Standard Tool consider amendments to the Guidance to improve its applicability within the community; explore the development of the Tool to allow the assessment of temporary sites as part of their travelling lifestyle; and act to improve understanding of what makes a successful place for a Gypsy/Traveller community among built environment professionals and elected representatives. It is also recommended that support is given to resource Gypsy/Travellers’ engagement with processes influencing and shaping their places.

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

1. The Project

2. The Place Standard Tool

3. Profile of the Gypsy/Traveller Community

4. Place Standard Tool and Placemaking: Case Studies

5. Findings on the Applicability of the Place Standard Tool

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

Appendix 1. Scottish Government Gypsy/Travellers and the planning system: action plan

Appendix 2. Results from the Place Standard Tool

Appendix 3. Further Actions

Bibliography

3

4

5

8

16

19

21

22

26

Contents

2

IntroductionThe places where we spend our time and how we engage with them have an impact on our lives. The way a place looks, functions and feels and the extent to which individuals can shape their places is known to influence their health and wellbeing.

The Place Standard Tool has been in use since 2015 and PAS has been working with a number of different user groups to develop an ‘easy read’ version (PAS, 2018). Completed by PAS on behalf of NHS Health Scotland, this project explored the applicability of the tool for use by Gypsy/Travellers and any amendments which might be appropriate to take account of the culture of that community. PAS’s role was that of an impartial facilitator, organising engagement with participants, facilitating discussion and capturing relevant information. The findings of the project will be used to engage and influence the policy and practices ofprofessionals and non-governmental organisations supporting Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland.

A partnership approach involving Government, agencies, local authorities, non-governmental organisations, the Gypsy/Traveller community and the wider public will be required to successfully address place related issues experienced by the Gypsy/Traveller community in Scotland. The project will help to clarify the extent to which the Place Standard can provide a robust framework for conversations between all those involved.

Project Aims, Outputs and OutcomesThe project aims were to:

• Test the acceptability and applicability of the current Place Standard Tool taking account of the unique needs of this community.

• Gather qualitative data about how sites for Gypsy/Travellers perform when assessed in terms of equity and wellbeing.

• Identify the key related issues experienced by the Gypsy/Traveller community.

The desired outcomes of the project are:

• Participants gain experience of working with and increased understanding of the Place Standard Tool.

• Greater dialogue between key decision makers and the Gypsy/Traveller community is encouraged.

• What constitutes a ‘good place’ is better understood through an increased appreciation of the needs and demands of the Gypsy/Traveller community.

• How place and ‘placelessness’ impact on the health and wellbeing of the Gypsy/Traveller community is better understood.

• Future planning policy and guidance is based on a better understanding of the culture and lifestyle of Gypsy/Travellers and is aligned with human rights and equalities standards.

1. The Project

Ensuring that Gypsy/Travellers have a stronger voice This project will help to inform action to meet policy objectives including priorities set out in the programme for government 2019-20, Protecting Scotland’s Future (SG, 2019b). In that programme, the Scottish Government committed to: strengthening its work to improve the wellbeing and protect the human rights of Gypsy/Traveller families in Scotland; supporting greater opportunities for the voice of the Gypsy/Traveller community to be heard in decisions that affect their lives; and giving the community a stronger voice in the future development of where they live and ensuring that they have safe and secure places to stop or settle through planning reform.

3

These commitments are being delivered through a programme of work with local authorities, the Gypsy/Traveller community and other partners. A joint Scottish Government and COSLA action plan was published in autumn 2019. In addition to work with planning authorities to improve the involvement of Gypsy/Travellers in the planning process in accord with the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, the Scottish Government is supporting a specific 10-point action plan to ensure that Gypsy/Travellers have a stronger voice in guiding the future development of their places. Appendix 1 sets out the 10-point action plan.

Gypsy/Traveller Communities’ engagement in the projectGypsy/Traveller communities, including young people, in public and private sites across four local authority areas were invited to participate in the research. The project team also explored an example of good practice on a publicly owned site in the north of England which is managed and serviced by the Gypsy/Traveller community. Further information on the methodology is set out in Section 4.

IntroductionThe Scottish Government understands that the places where we live, work and play can have a major impact on our health, wellbeing and prosperity. It recognises that the planning system can support the development of high quality, well-designed places and communities. There is a commitment to expand support for community-led design, building upon the successful use of the Place Standard Tool to ensure early involvement by communities in shaping development in their area.

Testing the Place Standard Tool with the Gypsy/Traveller CommunityThe Place Standard Tool was developed to allow users to think about the physical, social and environmental aspects of their places. This includes whether there is a recognition of culture and identity, whether there is accommodation which meets the needs and demands of all of the community and whether people feel they have a say in decision making to meet these objectives. In this study, the 14 segments which are integral to the Place Standard Tool (Diagram 1) provided prompts for the team to generate discussion on all the elements of planning and place that the Gypsy/Traveller communities have experienced in the past and what they need now and in the future. Given the cultural significance of nomadic lifestyles to Gypsy/Traveller communities, we discussed the places where the communities stay in at present and had stayed in in the past.

The way a place looks, functions and feels is important to everyone and it is now accepted that this directly contributes to improved health and wellbeing. As described in Section 3 below, Gypsy/Travellers experience very significant inequalities in health and wellbeing compared to the Scottish population as a whole. The causes of these inequalities are complex, but factors include a lack of places to stay and a lack of involvement in decision-making. Building on the experience of good practice in some sites in Scotland and elsewhere, the Place Standard Tool could help promote discussion in the community on how to create places of quality, character and identity consistent with the Gypsy/Traveller lifestyle and culture.

2. The Place Standard Tool

Diagram 1

4

The Gypsy/Traveller Community in ScotlandGypsy/Traveller communities are recognised as having a long and proud history and have made, and continue to make, a significant contribution to Scotland. Unfortunately Gypsy/Travellers also face many challenges and barriers to accessing services, and participating in society, in ways that most people take for granted. Gypsy/Travellers are ethnic groups protected against discrimination by the Equality Act 2010 and that Act also imposes a duty on listed public authorities, including local authorities, to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. The Scottish Government has noted however that Gypsy/Traveller communities continue to be among the most disenfranchised and discriminated against in Scotland.

In the 2011 census, 4,200 people recorded their ethnic group as ‘White: Gypsy/Traveller’ but organisations that work with the community believe it comprises 15,000 to 20,000 people. The true number of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland is uncertain therefore and the provision of sites is believed to be based on a constant underestimate. Difficulties in adequate provision of private and public sites have resulted not only in the number of unauthorised encampments increasing throughout Scotland, but the marginalisation of these communities and a breakdown in relations between the settled and Gypsy/Traveller communities.

Article 25.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to adequate housing, and housing rights are enshrined in treaties signed and ratified by the UK, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified in 1976). Under the Homelessness (Scotland) Act 2003, a person is homeless if he/she has accommodation but it consists of a moveable structure, vehicle or vessel designed or adapted for human habitation; and there is no place where he/she is entitled or permitted both to place it and to reside in it. This legislation does not recognise the importance of the nomadic lifestyle of Gypsy/Traveller communities.

Some Gypsy/Travellers live in houses permanently or for part of the year outwith the travelling season but for many their only accommodation all year round is a caravan. They are therefore deemed homeless if they reside in their caravan and there is not an official site provided.

3. Profile of the Gypsy/Traveller

The Importance of FamilyScottish Gypsy/Travellers share many cultural features with European Roma communities, such as a belief in the importance of extended family bonds and family descent, a preference for self-employment, and a strong commitment to a nomadic lifestyle.There is a great emphasis on privacy in Gypsy/Traveller society, which is why adult family members require separate accommodation. It is a society traditionally governed by codes of behaviour concerning everything from eating to laundry and relations between different families and within the extended family. Gypsy/Traveller couples often marry young and life revolves around the family and their animals.

Many Scottish Gypsy/Travellers still travel and/or live together as extended family units. This close-knit community provides support, companionship and protection for the Gypsy/Traveller population, and is not dependent on living a transient lifestyle. Their living environment is managed to include extended family, but certain families will not live with others.

Even today, for many Gypsy/Traveller families, caring for relatives is not generally done outwith the family, and it is still relatively rare to see an elderly Gypsy/Traveller in a care home or a child placed in a nursery. Often girls will leave school early (at least by the standards of mainstream education) in order to help out with raising younger siblings, and looking after the home and family members. This is seen as preparation for marriage, and as older sisters leave to start their own married lives, younger ones will step up and take on their duties until they get married and start a family of their own. Close family ties also extend to work; with fathers, sons, brothers and uncles often working together in a trade passed on through the generations.

5

In 2015, the ‘What a Voice: Gypsy/Travellers Exhibition’, curated by Article 12 in Scotland, summarised the lifestyle as follows:

Gypsy/Travellers’ Health ProfileThe report ‘Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland - A Comprehensive Analysis of the 2011 Census’(Scottish Government, 2015a) includes evidence on the health of the Gypsy/Traveller community in Scotland.

The analysis found that Gypsy/Traveller women in Scotland were twice as likely as ‘White: Scottish’ women and Gypsy/Traveller men were almost twice as likely as ‘White: Scottish’ men to have a long-term health problem or disability despite their having much younger age profiles. They were also more likely to be limited ‘a lot’ by a long-term health problem or disability (16 per cent compared to 10 per cent).

Thirty seven per cent of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland reported at least one condition compared to 30 per cent of the population as a whole and they were twice as likely to report three or more categories of condition (6 per cent compared to 3 per cent).

Only 69 per cent of Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland reported ‘good’ or ‘very good’ health compared to 82 per cent of the general population and they were three times more likely to report ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ health compared to the general population (15 per cent and 6 per cent respectively).

Gypsy/Travellers have significantly poorer health than other ethnic minorities in Scotland. Health is one of the key areas in which Scottish Gypsy/Traveller communities face discrimination and inequality. Many find it difficult to access an adequate level of health care - a human right which the majority of the settled community in the UK takes for granted.

Inadequate accommodation provision and living conditions are recognised to have an impact on the health of Gypsy/Travellers. However, wider accommodation issues, such as insecurity of tenure, limited access to services and distance from extended family can also affect the health of Gypsy/Travellers.

Evidence suggests that a sense of control over one’s life and the place we live in is associated with better health and a greater likelihood of generating healthy behaviours (Dodds,2014; Whitehead,2014; Foot,2012).

‘Today, the identity of Gypsy/Travellers can take many forms: some families are constantly on the road, some only travel for part of the year and others live in ‘bricks and mortar’ houses. Sadly, some were even taken away from their own families in an

attempt to assimilate Gypsy/Travellers into mainstream culture and destroy their community. However, regardless of lifestyle and upbringing, members of the Gypsy/

Traveller community share a strong sense of cultural identity - which continues to thrive through traditional crafts and fairs, and via the oral mediums of

storytelling and music.’

6

Sites and the Need and Demand for Gypsy/Traveller AccommodationThere is known to be a shortage of permanent sites for Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland and many of the existing sites are not of good quality. The Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR, 2015) reported in March 2019 that there were 2,000 Gypsy/Travellers living on 29 sites provided by 19 local authorities and one registered social landlord (RSL). In 2015, to drive the improvement in the quality of sites, the Scottish Government published ‘Improving Gypsy/Traveller sites: Guidance on minimum site standards and site tenants’ core rights and responsibilities’, the ‘Minimum Standards’ (SG, 2015b). Local authorities and RSLs were expected to meet the Minimum Standards by June 2018. In October 2018, 14 of the 27 sites assessed had not yet met the standards (SHR, 2018), though there is evidence of good management and increasing resident satisfaction in some areas (SHR, 2019). Further insight into residents’ views on the Minimum Standards is found in the Scottish Housing Regulator National Panel of Tenants and Service Users 2018/19 Thematic Report: Gypsy/Traveller sites (SHR, 2019). Most Gypsy/Travellers taking part in that research had concerns about their site. The most common concerns related to the overall condition and cleanliness of sites and a view that sites have suffered from a lack of investment. This view was most pronounced for those sites which did not meet the Minimum Standards. The research also found that just over 1 in 10 Gypsy/Travellers were aware of the standards.

Local Authorities note challenges to developing new sites, whether private or for rent, including difficulties in securing planning permission, identifying funding for new developments and establishing what will be needed in the future. Housing Need and Demand Assessments (HNDA), prepared by local and planning authorities and which form part of the basis for Local Housing Strategies and Development Plans, are required to include evidence on the accommodation needs of Gypsy/Travellers.

In guidance updated in 2018, the Scottish Government places a requirement on Local and Planning Authorities to consult with Gypsy/Travellers or their representatives about their accommodation needs during the preparation of HNDAs. The extent to which this has been achieved is understood to be variable, in part because existing relationships with the local Gypsy/Traveller community are often limited. Up to date data on Gypsy/Travellers’ needs is limited and tools or approaches which could be useful in identifying those are relatively under developed or may not be appropriate to work with a nomadic community.

National discussions with Gypsy/Traveller communities have indicated that, while views on the specific needs may vary, the community want to be involved in the design of future accommodation. In the 2018-19 Programme for Government, the Scottish Government made a commitment to plan together with stakeholders for how homes and communities should look and feel in 2040 and how to get there. The draft vision, Housing to 2040 (SG, 2019a), currently subject to consultation, includes the provision of ‘culturally appropriate sites and accommodation for Gypsy/Travellers that meets their needs and aspirations’.

7

4. Place Standard Tool and Placemaking: Case Studies

4.1 Site A: Private site in rural area

MethodologyTo test the Place Standard Tool through structured conversations with a cross section of the Gypsy/Traveller community, including young people, four sites across four local authority areas were selected as case studies. Two of the sites (A and B) are privately owned and located in rural areas, and two (C and D) are local authority sites in urban areas. Including such a range of areas and sites also allowed comparison of the experience in Scotland with Gypsy/Travellers on a publicly owned site in Darlington which is recognised as an example of good practice.

The research team made direct contact with residents on the two private sites. Initial contacts with the community in the two local authority owned sites were established through the local authority housing service or Minority Ethnic Carers of People Project (MECOPP) representatives. In each case, repeated visits were programmed as necessary to address some communities’ mistrust of ‘officialdom’ and to build trust and confidence within community members to enable open discussions among participants.

Following the introductory visits, the participants on each site completed the Place Standard - Easy Use version in a single session. At the beginning of each of these sessions, the facilitators advised participants of the aims of the research in terms of the Place Standard Tool. In the discussion with each group, the facilitators used each of the segments of the Place Standard Tool in turn as prompts to encourage people to give their views on their site and share their experiences of travelling on the road or staying on transit sites. Following discussion of each segment facilitated by the research team, the participants agreed a score for the segment and the reasons for that score. In site C, introductory meetings were held with the community but, following an unrelated incident and a subsequent shut-down of the site, in order to meet the project timetable, the completion of the tool was facilitated by MECOPP staff who were trusted by the Gypsy/Travellers on that site.

The sites participating in the research were two public sites and one private site in central Scotland and a private site in North East Scotland. The team also made a site visit to examine an example of best practice in Darlington, north east England on a publicly owned site which is directly managed and serviced by the Gypsy/Traveller community. The sites and participants have been anonymised to preserve the privacy of those interviewed.

The sections below summarise the outcomes of the discussions on each site. These give an indication of the communities’ level of satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction with aspects of the places they call home.

BackgroundThe site is located to the west of a small village in a rural area with access to community facilities, including health services. This is a particularly important factor for one severely disabled member of the family. The site was granted temporary planning permission in 2017 to create a one pitch development for a family to live in accordance with their culture and lifestyle, following a protracted planning process. The land, whichis in the community’s ownership, was defined as ‘previously developed land’.

The site was named by the family to describe the freedom they feel compared to living in a house and to living on a public site, where space is usually limited and restrictions apply. While on the road, the time spent on a site is limited if the site is unauthorised. Having their own place gives them the freedom to spend unlimited time in a spacious, well laid out environment. The interviews were conducted at times one to one, other times with the whole family group.

8

Family IssuesThey shared their experiences and problems, divulged medical conditions and concerns about wellbeing. One family member had experienced difficulties from an early age - bullying at school which led to mental health problems and self-harming. They experienced a lack of stability living on the road, on council sites and in a house. Now, for the first time, they have a sense of self-control gained by making a home on their privately owned site. The family noted that this has resulted in improvements to mental wellbeing and a reduction in self-harming. This demonstrated the positive impact that owning their own site has on this Gypsy/Traveller family, an effect which was also found in Site B.

The head of the family suffers from ill-health following a life threatening accident which left him with mobility and mental health problems. The support of the family, in a spacious environment, looking out onto open countryside, close to local facilities, has resulted in numerous distinct social benefits.

Planning HistoryThe planning application was approved in 2016. The site was built to a high standard though the planning permission is temporary and will expire in 2021. The family noted that, when planning the site, they were guided by the following requirements:

Results from the Place Standard Tool The outputs from the completion of the Place Standard Tool by the community are summarised in Diagram 2 and set out in more detail in Appendix 2.

Diagram 2: Place Standard Tool – Site A Compass Diagram:

• to avoid isolation;• to form a family unit away from prejudice;• to facilitate integration with the local community;• to have regard for the interests of the children and grandchildren;• to create a work base;• to create a safe and well maintained environment where social contact is maintained; and• to create a supportive environment for family members with health problems.

9

The family were able to respond on all of the axes in the Place Standard Tool. The site scored highly on most axes though the family saw it as less successful in terms of their identity and belonging (they are ‘still seen as Gypsy/Travellers’) and feeling safe (one member of the family felt unsafe). Social interaction was not regarded as particularly good but the family did not see that as significant as they are a very private family. Public transport is not needed but is available. Comments on aspects of the site which may have implications for the applicability of the Tool are noted below.

The family considered that space allocation for pitches is important to Gypsy/Travellers and noted that usually space is required for the principal caravan, a touring caravan(s) and an amenity block. Car parking space and fencing to divide pitches is also needed. Space between the pitches allows neighbours to be part of their life but leaves enough space to be independent – ‘a great simple life’. They consideredthat Gypsy/Travellers want to retain their privacy and avoid conflict and stress within a stable home environment.

It was noted that great importance is placed on the extended family and friendships and this may depend on there being space for them to work in their trade/business and to be able to pass on their skills to the next generation. There is a great need for space to work and store materials and for this to be screened from public view.

The comments on spaces have implications for the interpretation of questions raised in the Tool’s questions on ‘Streets and Spaces’, ‘Work and Local Economy’ and ‘Housing and Community’ to take account of space requirements integral to the culture of the Gypsy/Traveller community.

Children are central to Gypsy/Traveller family life and the community attend to their children’s needs to ensure they are safe, educated and learn a trade. A stable environment with enough space to play will make this easier while seeing your parents evicted is seen as creating lasting negative memories and mental anguish. These concerns emphasise the importance of stability and the Tool’s ‘Play and Recreation’ questions to the Gypsy/Traveller community.

In discussing questions on ‘Feeling Safe’, the family considered public sites as vulnerable as anyone can come into the site. The family has erected high fences around the site for security, gates are to be installed and walls are proposed. One thing that the family would change is that younger members of the family said they would like a training room because ‘men like to keep fit, and every site should have a gym’.

Other comments on placemaking, the Place Standard Tool and health

The participants noted that placemaking with the Gypsy/Traveller community needs to be undertaken by people the community trusts. Older Gypsy/Travellers are more suspicious of outsiders, so time needs to be invested to build relationships.

When asked if they had access to medical facilities, they said that the family has not registered with a GP near the site but gave no reason for this. They noted that they have never been denied health services. Respect for elders is important and people suffering from dementia are taken care of by their own families but a proposal for a retirement village for the Gypsy/Traveller community with a design and layout informed by their needs was seen as a positive step.

The choice of their site was dictated by their family roots and ties but they are confident that they can get business wherever they travel.

The family believe the Gypsy/Traveller community needs more people to speak on its behalf, not just ‘those that do it because they are told that this is their job or simply to get in the limelight’. Their suggestions for breaking down barriers included: ‘Let people see how Gypsy/Travellers live and the wonderful job they are making of developing sites’; and to ‘tell the stories not about barriers but about the need for respect and providing Gypsy/Travellers with homes, places that they need and deserve’.

10

4.2 Site B: Private site in rural areaBackground InformationThis is a privately run site located in a coastal zone in open countryside between a small village and asmall town. The private pitches (10) and halting site (9 pitches) allow Gypsy/Travellers to settle and be accommodated when they travel through the area. The site is subject to a planning application which was granted permission in 2019, subject to ministerial approval. Residents have been on site since 2014 when they set up an unauthorised site in response to the local authority’s lack of meaningful action to provide for the Gypsy/Traveller community in their area.

The interviews took place in one of the principal caravans with residents of various ages from several families keen to share their views.


Diagram 3: Place Standard Tool – Site B Compass Diagram:

The community was able to respond to all of the questions in the Place Standard Tool. With the exceptions of ‘Influence and Sense of Control’ and ‘Public Transport’, the community considers that the site scored well on all of the axes.

The community did not feel a strong sense of influence and control of the site and are always concerned about council intervention. An example was noted of when the council served an interdict to stop activities and shut down

The community considered that Travellers want to own their own home and retain control. The residents felt that that the way forward was for families to have their ‘own wee sites’ owned and controlled by the extended family. They felt that sites are best developed and operated by a ‘Travelling man’. It was noted that managers do a first class job on some sites but some do not know the hierarchy inherent within the community, in particular the role of the ‘gypsy king’, family relationships, or the culture and lifestyle of the Gypsy/Traveller community.

The residents noted that, if councils are left to develop sites, the result is usually lack of space and poor management. They considered that the development of public sites is typified by a lack of knowledge and awareness of the needs of the Gypsy/Traveller community.

‘Public Transport’ was recognised as important for some elderly members of the community but the community noted that Gypsy/Travellers are mainly reliant on their own vehicles to take family and friends anywhere.

The community noted that for Gypsy/Travellers, ‘Moving around’ has a different meaning when on a private site. They are settled with space to move around on site and the freedom to travel in accordance with their culture and lifestyle. The ability of families to come and go on transit and publicly owned sites can sometimes lead to trouble between feuding families. This is not a risk on private sites.

the ‘halting’ part of the site through the terms of the interdict but the council’s housing service was denied access to a much needed facility to accommodate travelling families who were ‘on the road’.

11

On ‘Feeling Safe’, the community noted that they preferred not to go to sites ‘where no one wants us’. Their own site is away from people and residents feel safe behind gates where no one can get in without a code. The safety of children is seen as being of paramount importance.

While the residents scored the site highly for ‘Social interaction’ within their own community, it was reported that photographs have been taken of the site and residents and a neighbouring property has a camera on the roof filming the site without their permission with the sole purpose of undermining people and business.

Other comments on placemaking, the Place Standard Tool and health

The community noted that the Place Standard Tool was not written with Gypsy/Travellers in mind but it can be applied and adapted to take account of their culture and lifestyle. The residents wanted to see better involvement in the planning process and welcomed improved engagement with Gypsy/Travellers as part of the planning system reform. What needs to be considered is where a site is located, theparticular characteristics of the family group, such as origins, and sufficient space standards.

The residents on Site B are registered with the health services in a neighbouring authority rather than with those in the authority in which the site is located, simply because they had been very helpful. They thought that attitudes vary amongst health care providers across Scotland.

There is anger over public officials taking photos and filming without permission and residents reported that this has a negative effect on their health and wellbeing.

Members of the community indicated that they had camped throughout Scotland and North England. The first thing they do is look at the state of any public sector site and then get to know who is on the site. This will dictate whether they move on or stay. The wrong environment or the wrong people can affect a family’s health and wellbeing.

The community also noted that the number of Travellers in Scotland is far larger than numbers of pitches on permitted sites. The result is that the total Gypsy/Traveller population is currently underestimated and provision for accommodation is therefore inadequate.

The view that generation upon generation has tried and failed to make a difference was expressed. Human rights legislation is breached and residents think that they are still fighting negative attitudes.

12

4.3 Site C: Public site in an urban area BackgroundSite C is located in the suburbs of a large urban area. Together with the Development Worker at MECOPP, three ‘get to know you’ visits were set up to be followed by a meeting with residents on site in the community facility.

Early discussions with residents during two walkabouts were encouraging with residents inviting the project team into their homes. They were keen to speak and discuss problems with the site and other issues including management. The problems highlighted then were:

This is a site planned for a complete renovation with the Gypsy/Traveller community directly involved through various means including a public exhibition and the selection of new caravans and site layout.

The subsequent meeting of all residents in the community facility did not take place as residents were reluctant to come and share their views together, following a serious police incident the night before. MECOPP staff conducted a series of individual interviews with community members during March and April 2019 to complete the Place Standard Tool, averaging the assessments for each segment.

The residents were able to score all of the axes of the Tool. The scores recorded in Site C are much more variable than those noted by the communities in sites A and B, with several questions leading to low or very low scores.

As recorded on Diagram 4 and set out in detail in Appendix 2, the community considered that Site C scored reasonably well in terms of its access to ‘Natural Space’ and ‘Facilities and Amenities’ and less well on axes such as ‘Public Transport’, ‘Traffic and Parking’, ‘Streets and Spaces’ and ‘Work and Local Economy’.

‘Facilities and Amenities’ in the area were considered to be good and it was noted that there are doctors, dentists and council offices within walking distance. The community felt that there was a lot of ‘Natural Space’ nearby. The scores in these segments may reflect the location of the site within an urban area.

The community’s view that the ‘site is a mess’ and that it ‘should have been improved years ago’ underpinned the very low scores for ‘Identity and Belonging’ and ‘Care and Maintenance’. More details on the maintenance and condition of the site were given in comments on ‘Play and Recreation’ (‘play park is run down’) and ‘Streets and Spaces’ (‘landscaping needs maintained’ and ‘street lights don’t always work’).

• Bluebottle infestation in an amenity unit;• Poorly designed amenity blocks making maintenance difficult;• Street lighting not working on certain days; • Rat infestation; and• Anti-social behaviour from outwith the site e.g. stone throwing

Results from the Place Standard Tool The outputs from the completion of the Place Standard Tool by the residents are summarised in Diagram 4 and set out in more detail in Appendix 2.

Diagram 4: Place Standard Tool – Site C Compass Diagram:

13

The feeling of having little ‘Influence and Sense of Control’ reflected the perception that the ‘council never act on what residents say’. There was also a view that there was no point in saying the same things again and again as ‘they never change anything’. Examples of harassment of the residents by people from outwith the site, for example young people throwing stones at caravans at night and a gun being fired into the site, contributed to the community feeling unsafe. The community considered that there is ‘no point in reporting’ incidents.

The residents considered that there was a lack of space on the site. This was reflected in their comments on the reasons for their assessments of ‘Traffic and Parking’, ‘Moving Around’ and ‘Play and Recreation’.

The assessment of the ‘Work and Local Economy’ segment reflected the fact that the residents had access to some adult education classes but accessing work could be difficult as the address of the site was recognised by potential employers. Considering ‘Housing and Community’, residents noted that they know everyone on the site and others in the area. It was noted that ‘getting a council house is difficult’. ‘Social Interaction’ is seen as limited and the community noted that they don’t really mix. There was also a feeling that there was not much for residents to get involved in and cost could also be a factor inhibiting interactions. As noted on other sites, the community did not make much use of public transport but there is a bus stop nearby.

As with Site C, obtaining permission to visit the site was difficult. Even with the assistance of the Housing Development Worker, organisation of the visit took weeks and was only permitted following a meeting with the council.

Residents were invited by correspondence, word of mouth and a poster on site to a meeting to discuss the Place Standard in April 2019. There was an initial reluctance to speak to the project team. This was in marked contrast to the meetings on Sites A and B, both the private sites, where families gathered to speak with us.

4.4 Site D: Public site on the edge of an urban areaThis is a council operated site with a number of pitches for rent occupied by Gypsy/Traveller families. The site is in a location traditionally occupied by Gypsy/Travellers on the edge of a growing urban area. The site had recently been refurbished.

Two preliminary visits to Site D were undertaken in the early part of 2019. The intention was to:

• explain the concept of the study to residents;• emphasise the importance of their input into the project aimed at making a difference to the lives of the Gypsy/Traveller community;• plan for an event along with council representative(s); and• build trust between the project team and the residents.


Diagram 5: Place Standard Tool – Site D Compass Diagram:

14

The community was able to score all of the axes of the Tool. As in Site C, the scores recorded in Site D are much more variable than those noted by the communities in sites A and B. Several aspects of the site were given low or very low scores while the residents assessed the site to be very successful in other respects. The community on Site D gave the site very low scores in terms of ‘Traffic and Parking’ and ‘Streets and Spaces’. Their concerns related to the fact that the site had been in a quiet area but it is now surrounded by new development with increased activity, there is an accident blackspot nearby and there are no speed controls in the area. The community in Site D did not raise issues around spaces or accommodation within the site itself in the same way as those in Sites A and B did. The community in Site D seemed to frame their comments in terms of a wider area and the relationship between the site and areas around it.

Based on a perceived lack of work opportunities in the area and the limited access to a community facility for social uses, the community also gave the site low scores in terms of ‘Work and Local Economy’ and ‘Social Interaction’. Residents also felt that there was no control of the site by residents, ‘no one listens’ and ‘it’s what the council wants’ and recorded a low feeling of ‘Influence and Sense of Control’.

While they had a low sense of control of their site, the community had a strong sense of ‘Identity and Belonging’ noting that they ‘celebrate culture and are proud of their home’. This may be related to the fact that this is a site in a location traditionally occupied by Gypsy/Travellers. Other aspects which the residents felt were relatively successful were the ease of ‘Moving Around’ and ‘Feeling Safe’ though more recently anti-social behaviour was threatening the feeling of safety. Anti-social behaviour was also noted as reducing the community’s assessment of their ‘Natural Spaces’ together with a lack of disabled access to these areas. Residents in Site D appeared to see public transport as more significant than in the other case studies. They considered access to ‘Public Transport’ to be poor and noted that children have a long way to walk to schools. The site was seen as having been improved following the introduction of chalets but the residents’ scoring of it in terms of ‘Housing and Community’ remained relatively low. Residents noted concerns about the ‘Care and Maintenance’ of the site and ‘Play and Recreation’ provision though these were less significant than in Site C.

4.5 Lessons from Rowan East & Rowan West Sites, Darlington Discussions with Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland raised an example of best practice in Darlington, North East England. The team contacted the Shera Rom (or Head Gypsy) and visited the sites in May 2019 to gather evidence to enable benchmarking of the experience in Sites A-D against the experience in Darlington.

The sites are owned by the local authority, had received investment for upgrading, are managed by a member of the Gypsy/Traveller community and had good relations with people in the town.

The Head Gypsy advised of his role in managing the sites. The Head Gypsy owns a property company and operates on land owned by the council with private leases of the chalets to the members of Gypsy/Traveller community. Given his status in the community, he is known to most Gypsy/Travellers and he knows most families. This allows the management of the facility to ensure pleasant, safe, secure and tidy sites (Rowan East and Rowan West) containing 42 pitches.

The amenity of residents is enhanced through a spacious layout with wide roads, large pitches and facilities for children. Two metre high metal mesh fencing surrounds the site with similar height electric gates with a key pad code access which deters intruders. A site office acts as a drop-in point for residents to discuss matters with the Head Gypsy.

Darlington Council Social Services are established on the sites and working with the community, a Council led scheme, Moving on, Aiming High (TT 2019, DBC 2019,) promotes education, with members of the Traveller Education team and Darlington College providing advice and support.

15

Relationships with the local community were described as excellent. The nearby rugby stadium, which hosts concerts and other large events provides free tickets to residents. Local politicians are regularvisitors and there is a fostering of good relationships between the settled and Gypsy/Traveller community.

This reflects the positivity described by Site B residents as part of their experiences in England. Described as a family orientated facility, Rowan East and Rowan West people look after each other. This is a similar concept to that employed at Site B and demonstrates that with the right people on the right site a living environment can be created to suit the culture and lifestyle of Gypsy/Travellers.

On the road these benefits are reduced.The communities on the privately owned sites that participated in this project, Sites A and B, suggested these objectives are being met in these examples. This was reflected in the level of engagement and the assessments which the communities made based on the prompts in the Place Standard Tool.

Engagement in completing the Place Standard Tool

Following introductory visits by the team, there was good attendance at the meetings in sites A and B, positive engagement, with a more proactive approach by participants and an invitation to return to the sites. In contrast, despite introductory visits to the public sector sites C and D to generate interest and develop trust, the attendance at meetings was poor and engagement more difficult. On site C, in spite of introductions and a preliminary meeting, the community did not trust the project team and the interview had to be conducted by a MECOPP officer known to the community with the team present.

The evidence gathered in the discussions reflected the differences in approach to placemaking and trust in the public bodies on the sites. On private sites, Gypsy/Travellers felt that they had taken more control of their lives and felt empowered. On public sector sites, local authorities including the planning authority exercise a greater degree of control and Gypsy/Travellers feel much less able to influence and control their places.

The legacy of the failure to provide for the needs and demands of the Gypsy/Traveller community who want to live in accordance with their culture and lifestyle is reflected in the health statistics referred to in Section 3 above. The Scottish Government is committed to reducing such inequalities and is working with local authorities, the Gypsy/Traveller community and others to do that. While progress has been made, including through the provisions of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and amended guidance on Housing Need and Demand Assessments, the impact of such action may not be evident for some time.

Over recent years, it has been evident that many Gypsy/Traveller families are taking more control of their own circumstances. Families are finding suitable land, purchasing it and developing homes for themselves and their extended family. In the context of a lack of action by local authorities over decades, they see this as a way to:

5. Findings on the Applicability of the Place Standard Tool

• maintain family bonds, which are important to the Gypsy /Traveller community;• create a place which has space, is safe, secure, adaptable, welcoming and easy to move around, both within the site and to elsewhere;• form a base from which families can school their children, access work, and travel in accordance with their lifestyle;• reduce unauthorised sites;• provide an opportunity for social integration with those in nearby towns and villages; • improve health and wellbeing which in turn has the potential to improve life chances.

16

The standard of amenities was also seen as significantly lower in public sites compared to the private sites. As a consequence, people on private sites feel safer and more empowered, which both contribute to improved health and wellbeing.

Lessons from Place Standard Tool OutputsThe Place Standard Tool provided valuable prompts for discussion and the diagrams prepared following the sessions with the communities on all four case study sites illustrate the relevance of factors in the Tool and placemaking to the health and wellbeing of the Gypsy/Traveller community.

The scores for each of the Tool’s segments allow a satisfaction rating to be mapped. The larger the diagram, the greater the success of the place and the greater the positive impact on health and wellbeing.

When comparing the public sector sites to those in private sector ownership there is a stark difference. In the two private sites, Sites A and B, the greater satisfaction level is reflected in the size of the diagrams compared to those for Sites C and D. As places to live, private sites appear to offer more features that enhance health and wellbeing.

There are slight variations between the two private sites. This may be related to the size of the sites and the number of people interviewed in each case (one family on Site A and several families on Site B). In addition, the geographical location could contribute to the variations. Demographics and interaction between certain families can contribute to their having different outlooks on their lives and their places.

A common theme that is clear in three of the case studies (Sites B, C and D) is the lack of ‘Influence and Sense of control’. In each of these sites the effect on the lives of Gypsy/Travellers is as a consequence of the level of control that the councils have. On the two public sector owned sites (Sites C and D), the respective councils set the rules and regulations, standards of living, and future investment and are seen as ‘not listening’ to Gypsy/Travellers.

The residents on the two private sites are proud of their ‘Identity and Belonging’. There is a consistency which suggests that the communities on both sites feel they have maintained their status in the areas where they live. There was a marked contrast in views on ‘Identity and Belonging’ in the public sector sites. Residents in Site C gave the lowest score possible and those in Site D assessed it the highest score. It may be significant that Site D is a location in which Gypsy/Travellers have traditionally camped, as the participants noted.

In terms of the ‘Feeling Safe’ question, again Sites A, B and D were generally seen as safe places while residents in Site C did not feel safe and reported feeling insecure and vulnerable. The contrast between the two publicly owned sites is notable. There are aspects of places included in the Tool that are not regarded as a high priority to the communities. In response to questions on ‘Public Transport’, while it was recognised as convenient at times for the elderly, it was not considered as important to the communities. This is because the Gypsy/Traveller community is used to being independent in getting around.

An overall conclusion derived from the four compass diagrams is that, among the case studies, private sites or sites managed by Gypsy/Travellers themselves provide better places to live than the public sector sites. At Sites A and B places have been created by the community in accordance with placemaking principles reflecting their culture and lifestyles. It is the residents who have driven the place agenda.

On the public sector sites, the smaller compass diagrams appear to reflect the converse situation. The sites may meet or are working towards meeting the ‘Minimum Standards’ in accord with guidance but are not assessed as being successful places on the axes in the Place Standard Tool. Based on the communities’ views expressed in discussing the segments in the Tool, sites have been built that have less space than appropriate (especially for parking and play); greater overall controls are exerted with the residents deprived of what they regard as autonomy and self-governance; and residents face an uncertain future regarding investment and improvement to their standard of living. All these factors appear to contribute to dissatisfaction.

17

The Rowan East and Rowan West sites at Darlington illustrate how a site can be built, operated/managed and be allowed to develop as part of the local community. The spacious layout and entrepreneurial approach of the Council as landowner and service provider, working alongside the property business of the Head Gypsy, a member of the community, has allowed for the development of an exemplar of home building for the Gypsy/Traveller community in the north east of England.

Lessons on the Applicability of the Place Standard ToolThe Tool provided useful prompts for discussion and the communities considered all of the criteria were applicable in each site. Participants were able to complete the scoring and the compass diagrams for each site but the discussions suggested that aspects of the Tool and its interpretation may benefit from further development to facilitate its use with Gypsy Travellers. Areas which raised issues are summarised below.

There were issues however around the extent to which the prompting questions recognise the importance of close associations between family homes, spaces around those homes and trades/work places to Gypsy/Travellers. This could have implications for the Place Standard Tool Guidance on prompts under ‘Housing and Community’, ‘Streets and Spaces’ and ‘Work and Local Economy’.

The meaning and significance of ‘Identity and Belonging’ to Gypsy/Traveller culture and lifestyle may not be captured effectively in the current guidance on the Tool. It may be significant that the prompt questions on this factor refer only to the ‘history, heritage and culture of the place’. This is the only reference to culture within the tool and suggests a focus on the ‘place’ rather than of the significance of the culture of the community. In addition, certain places and types of places within the wider landscape, for example traditional sites or sites by running water, have a cultural and sometimes practical significance to Gypsy/Travellers. This relationship with the land is distinctly different from that of settled communities. Further consideration should be given to whether the Tool requires development to capture this aspect of the Gypsy/Travellers’ relationship with ‘place’.

Having ‘Influence and Sense of Control’ is a particularly important consideration for Gypsy/Travellers given the distinctive, independent culture and lifestyle of the community. This can be a sensitive area for discussion, given the experience of many in the community and a level of cultural awareness and sensitivity in the use of the Tool would be helpful to practitioners.

While the team encouraged participants to comment on sites, permanent or temporary, which they had used in the past, the Tool is not well suited to considering the specifics of nomadic lifestyles. In recognition of the Gypsy/Traveller culture, further consideration should be given to the scope for the Place Standard Tool (or an alternative tool) to be developed for application in relation to the use of temporary sites in Gypsy/Travellers’ lifestyles.

18

Applicability of the Place Standard Tool

The Place Standard Tool was effective in promoting and facilitating Gypsy/Travellers’ consideration of the case study sites and this enabled assessments of the sites. In the discussions, however, four areas of the Tool and the supporting guidance which may benefit from development to facilitate its use within Gypsy/Traveller communities were identified:

In addition, in the case studies, it was clear that some areas of discussion could be particularly sensitive or had particular meaning for the Gypsy/Traveller community, including ‘Identity and Belonging’ and ‘Influence and Sense of Control’.

This project explored the applicability of the Place Standard Tool within the Gypsy/Traveller community with a view to recommending any amendments to the Tool which may be required to reflect the culture and needs of Gypsy/Travellers to improve its applicability.

The evidence gathered in the project, through review of background material and the outputs from the case studies, may inform further meaningful engagement with the Scottish Gypsy/Traveller community and other stakeholders in the planning decision-making process and support the delivery of accommodation, health and other services.

The outputs from the case studies, set out in Section 4 and in Appendix 2, give very valuable information on the experience of Gypsy/Travellers across four sites. Most notable among the assessments in the case studies was the extent to which the sites in private ownership were considered to give a much greater sense of influence and control. The main themes emerging from the case studies are summarised in Section 5. The discussions in the case studies also suggested a number of actions not directly related to the Place Standard Tool but these could inform further action to address the inequalities experienced by the community. These actions are summarised in Appendix 3.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

• Prompting questions under ‘Housing and Community’, ‘Streets and Spaces’ and ‘Work and Local Economy’ to recognise the importance of associations between homes, spaces around those homes and work places to Gypsy/Travellers;

• The guidance on the ’Identity and Belonging’ segment to ensure that the meaning and significance of ‘Identity and Belonging’ to Gypsy/Traveller culture and lifestyle is captured;

• The guidance on ‘Identity and Belonging’ and other segments as appropriate to ensure that the Tool recognises the importance of certain places, types of places and relationships to the land and nature in the Gypsy/Traveller culture;

• Further consideration should be given to the scope for the Place Standard Tool (or an alternative tool) to be developed for application in relation to the use of temporary sites in Gypsy/Traveller lifestyles.

19

RecommendationsIt is recommended that the partners developing the Place Standard Tool (Scottish Government, NHS Health Scotland and Architecture and Design Scotland) together with COSLA:

• Consider the development of amendments to the Place Standard Guidance in consultation with the Gypsy/Traveller community and other partners to recognise the Gypsy/Traveller culture and lifestyle to improve its applicability within that community;

• Explore the development of the Place Standard Tool or another tool to allow the assessment of Gypsy/Travellers’ experience of temporary sites as part of their travelling lifestyle;

• Initiate action to improve the awareness and understanding of Gypsy/Travellers’ culture and lifestyle, the roles of places or sites, permanent and temporary, in that lifestyle and what makes a successful place for a Gypsy/Traveller community, among built environment professionals and elected representatives;

• Support organisations with knowledge and understanding of the Gypsy/Traveller community to provide resources and services to facilitate Gypsy/Travellers’ engagement with processes influencing and shaping their places.

• Reflect the importance of landscape and nature within the Gypsy/Traveller culture.

20

Scottish Government Gypsy/Travellers and the planning system: action plan

March 2019: A Ten Point PlanA Ten-Point Plan is a strategic management tool to support advocacy, liaison with and between government agencies, and to work with other stakeholders in any process. The Scottish Government has written a draft Plan which contains the following points:

Appendix 1

We will consider bringing forward an amendment to the Planning Bill to ensure that planningauthorities properly involve Gypsy/Travellers in planning the future of their places as part of further improvements to engagement in development planning.

We will require all planning authorities to notify us of any planning decisions for Gypsy/Traveller sites to help us build an accurate picture of activity in the planning system.

We will invite a Gypsy/Traveller community to work with us on a pilot local place plan for their area.

We will commit additional resources to PAS, to provide dedicated support and advice to Gypsy/Travellers who are involved in the planning system.

We will progress research to find out more about how the planning system currently addresses the need and demand for Gypsy/Traveller sites. The work will be completed by the end of the year.

We will update (as required) and adopt PAS advice on Gypsy/Travellers as Scottish Government planning guidance, following on from the research.

We will meet with the conveners of local authority planning committees to raise awareness of the need to involve Gypsy/Travellers in planning.

We will raise awareness of the need to provide accommodation for Gypsy/Travellers directly with Heads of Planning Scotland at our annual meeting in November.

We will look at how we can improve the way we plan for Gypsy/Traveller sites, including the role of Housing Need and Demand Assessments (HNDA) and Local Housing Strategies and specifically we will ask that local authorities, through the HNDA, must consult all relevant stakeholders about their housing needs, including consultation with Gypsy/Travellers.

We will have a wider conversation on Gypsy/Traveller sites and the National Planning Framework, following the completion of scrutiny of the Planning Bill.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

21

Results from the Place Standard Tool

Site A: Interview date - 8 January 2019

The outputs of the Place Standard interview are:

Appendix 2

Element Score CommentsMoving Around 7 They have freedom to move around in the site and outwith.

Public Transport 2 Not really needed but available if required – a low priority.

Traffic & Parking 5 Space to park and easy access to roads.(formerly ‘Impact of Vehicles’)Streets & Spaces 7 The family have all they need which is down to the planning

of their site.

Natural Spaces 5 Urban fringe location with natural spaces around them needing improved.

Play & Recreation 6 Space to play on site (grandchildren)

Facilities & Amenities 6 Near to facilities and amenities and the space on site provides for privacy and amenity.

Work & Local Economy 6 Local area provides access to work.

Housing & Community 6 Most in the community fine. Their home provides the accommodation needed.

Social Interaction 4 A private family so do not interact much.

Identity & Belonging 4 Still seen as Gypsy/Travellers.

Feeling Safe 4 One family member does not feel safe.

Care & Maintenance 6 They care for and maintain their home to a high standard. The score reflects work ongoing.

Influence & Sense of Control 6 They have control over their lives which has not been the case in the past.

22

Site B: Interview date - 17 January 2019 and follow-up 7 May 2019


Element Score CommentsMoving Around 6 Site allows residents to live in accordance with culture and

lifestyle.

Public Transport 5 Important for elderly.

Traffic & Parking 7 Safe with good parking.(formerly ‘Impact of Vehicles’)Streets & Spaces 6 Well laid out and designed site.

Natural Spaces 7 Great environment to stay near nature reserve.

Play & Recreation 6 Spacious site, safe to play.

Facilities & Amenities 6 Have access to facilities in nearby settlements.

Work & Local Economy 6 [Redacted] hinterland excellent source of work.

Housing & Community 6 Supportive environment created at [redacted].

Social Interaction 7 Get on well with most of the local people.

Identity & Belonging 6 People know who they are and integration has happened over the years.

Feeling Safe 7 Yes a secure environment created.

Care & Maintenance 6 Well maintained and tidy site.

Influence & Sense of Control 3 No, always concerned about council intervention.

The interviews with residents revealed the main sources of concern and the attributes of a well-managed well-run private site. The issues identified are:

• A lack of knowledge among decision makers; • Exclusion, persecution and harassment; • Discrimination in education; • Positivity in North East England negativity in Scotland; and • Bureaucracy in the planning system.

23

Site C: Interview dates - March and April 2019


Element Score CommentsMoving Around 3.5 Not much space on site. Some areas unsafe at night.

Public Transport 4 Bus stop nearby. No trains but can get bus to station. Do not use public transport much.

Traffic & Parking(formerly ‘Impact of Vehicles’)

4 Not much space on site. Public road busy in rush hour.

Streets & Spaces 3.5 Tall trees feel unsafe. Landscaping needs maintained. Railway line behind site. Street lights don’t always work.

Natural Spaces 6 Lots nearby [redacted].

Play & Recreation 3.5 Again no space on site. Play park is run down. Porta cabin – nothing in it but getting upgraded.

Facilities & Amenities 5.5 Lots in local area/short drive or can walk to doctors, dentist or council building.

Work & Local Economy 4 Some adult learning classes. Difficult to access work due to address at [redacted].

Housing & Community 3.75 Know everyone on site and others in the area. Difficult to get a council house.

Social Interaction 3 Don’t really mix and not much the residents get involved in. Can cost too much.

Identity & Belonging 1 Site is a mess. It’s a disgrace. Things done on site that would not get done in a house.

Feeling Safe 2.5 Do not feel safe at night. Would not go on the streets at night alone. Young people throw stones at the caravans at night. A gun was shot into the camp – no point in reporting it.

Care & Maintenance 1.5 Site is a mess. Should have been improved years ago. It’s too cold to shower. Rats everywhere.

Influence & Sense of Control 2.75 Council never act on what residents say. They never change anything. No point – sick of saying the same things. Some people good but then they leave the council.

24

Site D: Interview date - 4 April 2019


Element Score CommentsMoving Around 7 Yes, easy to move around

Public Transport 3 Poor – long distance to walk to schools.

Traffic & Parking 1 Accident black spot near to site and no speed controls in the area(formerly ‘Impact of Vehicles’)

Streets & Spaces 1 Originally a quiet area. Now surrounded by land uses with increased activity.

Natural Spaces 3 Anti-social behaviour and no access for disabled.

Play & Recreation 4 Not much in the area

Facilities & Amenities 5 Shopping ok, not many places to eat and drink. Need to drive.

Work & Local Economy 2 Not much for Gypsy/Travellers in the area.

Housing & Community 3.5 Better since the introduction of the chalets.

Social Interaction 2 No access to communal facility unless it is booked.

Identity & Belonging 7 Yes they celebrate culture and are proud of their home.

Feeling Safe 6 Up to now feel safe but anti-social behaviour threatened safety. Feel safe on the site.

Care & Maintenance 4.5 Site neglected at times with no road sweeping

Influence & Sense of Control 2 Decision making poor and sometimes no one listens. No control on site by residents. It’s what the council want.

25

Further Actions

A Ten-Point Plan is a strategic management tool to support advocacy, liaison with and between In the case study discussions, suggestions for action to help address the issues experienced by Gypsy/Travellers which were not directly related to the Place Standard Tool were noted and these are set out below. Also below are a number of suggestions for further action based on the issues raised in the case studies, background research and lessons from the experience in the sites in Darlington.

These suggestions for further action are to:

Appendix 3

• Improve communication and meaningful engagement with the Gypsy/Traveller community to promote learning and build trust and understanding (all partners);

• Develop links with entrepreneurs in the Gypsy/Traveller community to create business opportunities – a public/private partnership which creates opportunities for development and in doing so limits the impact on the public purse (local authority services);

• Build on the achievement of local authority ‘minimum standards’ for sites through the use of the Place Standard Tool to assess sites in conjunction with the Gypsy/Traveller community (local authorities).

• Have Health Impact Assessments undertaken for all Gypsy/Traveller developments. These should identify key determinants of human health and provide sufficient information for councils to be taken into account in decision making, in order to protect and promote health (local authorities);

• Increase the role for council housing services in identifying sites; communicating with Gypsy/ Travellers; and gathering statistics to inform the extent of the community (Scottish Government/ local authorities);

• Maintain a register of unauthorised sites, and reasons for their use (local authorities);

• Improve links with Police Scotland in relation to Designing Out Crime (PCPI, 2019), given the concerns about feeling unsafe (local authorities/Police Scotland).

• Increase Gypsy/Travellers’ role in governance of public sector sites with management roles being given to those who are either part of the Gypsy/Traveller community; or have knowledge, are trusted and are known to the Gypsy/Traveller community (local authorities); and

• Regular benchmarking against other local authority sites in the UK (Scottish Government/ Scottish Housing Regulator).

26

Using the Place Standard tool to assess the quality of Gypsy/Traveller sites

Research into the applicability of the Place Standard for the Gypsy/Traveller Community undertaken by PAS on behalf

of NHS Health Scotland – November 20

Article 12 in Scotland (2015), ‘What a Voice: Gypsy/Travellers Exhibition’.

Darlington Borough Council (2019), ‘Moving on, aiming high!’ Available at: https://swiftacademies.org.uk/documents/rydal/traveller-education/ryd-moving-on-aiming-high.pdf

Dodds S (2014). Ten years of the GCPH: the evidence and implications. Available at: www.gcph.co.uk/publications/534_ten_years_of_the_gcph_the_evidence_and_implications

Equalities and Human Rights Commission (2009) ‘Gypsies and Travellers: Simple solutions for living together’.

Foot, J (2012) ‘What makes us healthy? The asset approach in practice: evidence, action, evaluation’. Available at: http://www.janefoot.co.uk

Hajioff, S. and McKee, M. (2000) 'The health of the Roma people: a review of the published literature', Journal of Epidemiology Community Health, 54, 864-9.

Mathews, Z. (2008) ‘The health of Gypsies and Travellers in the UK’ Better Health Briefing 12, A Race Equality Foundation Briefing Paper.

PAS (2018), ‘Place Standard – An Easy Use Guide How good is your place?’.

Police Crime Prevention Initiatives (2019), ‘Secured by Design’.

Public Health England (2015) ‘A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing’.

Scottish Government (2012), ‘The Scottish Social Housing Charter.

Scottish Government (2015a), ‘Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland - A Comprehensive Analysis of the 2011 Census’.

Scottish Government (2015b) ‘Improving Gypsy/Traveller sites: Guidance on minimum site standards and site tenants’ core rights and responsibilities’.

Scottish Government (2019a), ‘Housing to 2040, A Vision for our Homes and Communities’.

Scottish Government (2019b), ‘Programme for Government 2019-20, Protecting Scotland’s Future’.

Scottish Housing Regulator (2015) ‘Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland, A thematic inquiry’.

Scottish Housing Regulator (2018) ‘Improving Gypsy/Travellers’ sites: landlords’ compliance with minimum site standards’.

Scottish Housing Regulator (2019) National Panel of Tenants and Service Users 2018/19 Thematic Report: Gypsy/Traveller sites.

Scottish Parliament (2012) Equal Opportunities Committee 3rd Report Gypsy/Travellers and Care.

Travellers Times (15 August 2019) ‘Moving On, Aiming High! are supporting the career aspirations of the Traveller Community in Darlington’ Available at: https://www.travellerstimes.org.uk/index.php/news/2019/08/moving-aiming-high-are-supporting-career-aspirations-traveller-community-darlington

University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research (2004) ‘The Health Status of Gypsies & Travellers in England’.

Whitehead M (chair) (2014). Due north: the report of the inquiry on health equity for the north. Manchester: Centre for Local Economic Studies. Available at: www.cles.org.uk/publications/duenorth-report-of-the-inquiry-on-health-equity-for-the-north/

Bibliography

Documents

Using the Place Standard tool to assess the quality of Gypsy/Traveller … · 2019-11-29 · • Test the acceptability and applicability of the current Place Standard Tool taking