Resolving conflict: planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites

From the Chartered Institute of Housing

Jo Richardson, principal lecturer in the department of politics and public policy at De Montfort University in Leicester, shares her research ideas on planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites.

Some people think planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites is too contentious and it gets put on the ‘difficult’ pile of things to do. However, with good leadership and strategic planning, the issue of site provision should be the same as planning for housing in the community. I recently spoke at a Local Government Association conference in London on the need for political leadership on planning for sites and was joined in this by two local politicians passionate about leading the debate in their constituency and getting on with delivery.

It is a hard thing to do: supporting Gypsy and Traveller sites in the face of often hostile local opposition. But there are clear cases – legal, business and social – for delivering sites (as found in my research for JRF in 2007). This is especially so in the new climate of the National Planning Policy Framework which has seen a flurry of activity in the commissioning of updates to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments. Councils are also attempting to identify a five-year land supply to include in local plans by the end of March, as required by the government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

Nevertheless, there are challenges in proposing new sites to local communities. At my recent seminar, kindly sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council and supported by CIH and the Royal Town Planning Institute, university academics, policy and practice professionals and Gypsy/Traveller community members came together to discuss ways of mediating conflict in planning for sites.

We heard ideas from Professor David Laws (University of Amsterdam) on conflict resolution techniques in urban planning and ideas on managing ‘hot change’. Delegates also debated the need for further comparative research, such as contested land rights, issues facing indigenous communities in Australia and the links there might be with Gypsy and Traveller site issues. A colleague from the Institute of Race Relations also discussed his research on the seemingly growing number of ‘anti-Traveller’ campaign groups.

Two key research ideas emerged for me, which I would like to follow up soon:

The need to examine the reasons behind ‘no’ in the planning process. Oft-cited by objectors are: house values dropping and potential increased crime. There needs to be up-to-date research looking at these two issues which can be used as evidence to support the planning process. In addition research should be undertaken on the more emotional reasons behind objection to planning applications both for the provision of sites, but also more generally for affordable housing too.
The need for a detailed case study using conflict assessment to map out where tensions lie in a particular planning case for a Gypsy and Traveller site.


The second seminar is about to commence at the University of Sheffield where access to public services such as health and education is the focus. Following on from that the final session in June will be held at Westminster where the representation of Gypsies and Travellers in media and political discourse will be under further scrutiny. For more information and emerging ideas and outputs from these seminars please visit www.dmu.ac.uk/esrc.

Follow Jo Richardson on Twitter: @socialhousing