Back to the Save Harleston Group page
This analysis needs to be read in conjunction with the SNDC Report - 'Gypsy and Traveller Needs Survey South Norfolk Findings - Final Report Agreed by Gypsy and Traveller Working Group July 2006'
Link : - http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/housing/media/Traveller_accomodation_needs_report_june_2006.pdf
An Analysis of the South Norfolk District Council Report
'Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Survey South Norfolk Findings'
It is generally accepted that the whole subject of Gypsy and Traveller Needs can develop into an emotive subject. The analysis of the Report is not intended in any way to minimise the appreciation of the work involved.
It is also appreciated that because of the perceptions of the Gypsies and Travellers, it is extremely difficult to obtain their cooperation, even when it is in their interests to do so.
However, since the report is intended to assist in the determination of the Needs of these persons its limitations should be acknowledged. I believe the Report seeks to claim a credence and gravity that it does not possess.
Analysis
It is usual when beginning a Report of this nature to give some general overall statistics to enable some idea of the scale of the report to be gained. This is missing in this case, with detailed results immediately presented. Nowhere is information given as to the number of potential Clients to be surveyed, or how many were actually seen but refused to cooperate. Without this information the size of the sample returned is immediately suspect.
Considering the methodology of the information gathering (S 2)
Understandably the information would have to be gathered by persons trusted by the Travelling people, and it is appreciated that efforts were made to contact every Gypsy and Traveller known to be residing in South Norfolk.
However, in 2.2 it is acknowledged that there is evidence of low literacy levels with this group, whilst in 2.1 it states that the surveys were also ‘given to the client to complete for themselves or for others known to them’. This does raise the question of how well the clients understood the survey forms, or how many were completed by the same person? This is not to suggest any connivance or dishonesty on the part of anyone completing any form.
Considering the number of clients surveyed -In terms of the numbers of clients surveyed, it is first stated that 'The wider 2006 Greater Norwich Housing Needs and Stock Condition Survey included Gypsies and Travellers who were living in bricks and mortar accommodation within the Greater Norwich area', and '33 people identified themselves as being Gypsies or Travellers, but only 9.2 % (approximately 3) felt a need to move.'(S1.3).
This is followed by 69 forms completed to date in Norfolk of which 30 were from South Norfolk. (S3.1), but at least 18 families in South Norfolk did not fill in the forms. (S3.2)
This is all without an overall figure of Gypsies and Travellers, or a percentage of those who did/did not complete the forms. Depending on your interpretation or speculation about the above significantly effects the proportions of respondents.
Later in the Report in the Historical Survey section (S14) the numbers are further confused by speaking of between 36 and 75 caravans at various times, which suggests a greater number of potential clients than has been previously considered.
Considering the Clients who were surveyed -
S 5.1 states 'Of the 30 who were interviewed in South Norfolk, 21 were female, and 9 were male'. Which raises the question, referring back to S2.1, were all of the clients in South Norfolk interviewed, all non-interviewees being elsewhere?
Further, bearing in mind the social structure of the Gypsy and Traveller families it is unwise to draw concrete conclusions without including the partners of those surveyed. An explanation of why more females than males were interviewed, does not increase the validity the figure.
Considering the numbers of children -
S9.1 gives the information that 24 of the 30 who replied had children, and there were 59 children. The largest family having 8. But, other respondents stated that their children did not live with them, the reason not being given. But it is not stated how many children were not living with their parents, nor why they weren't living with their parents. Nor is there a definition of the age at which childhood ends. That being the case how can conclusions be drawn regarding the children, let alone averaging them out per family?
In 9.2 it states that the question was not asked as to whether the parents thought their children would wish to continue living in mobile accommodation, but then draws the conclusion that if they do (My italics), then there will be a steady increase in numbers over the next 10 - 15 years. This is correct, and is 'a key area for consideration and in planning for sites we need to build in the future'; but the question was not asked and thus conclusions cannot be drawn.
Considering the Current Living Situation -
10.2 states that 22 of the 30 replies were from unauthorised sites, and 8 from the authorised Roundwell site.
Since Roundwell has 18 pitches (How many clients per pitch?) this equates to a 44% reply rate per pitch for Roundwell.
Which is a 27% reply rate for the 30 clients who responded, if you assume one reply per pitch, in itself another assumption.
This gives a 73% response for the unauthorised sites of the 30 clients who replied. I am not sure how the 66% mentioned in 10.3 is calculated or to whom it refers.
The point is that the conclusion may be correct, but its derivation becomes suspect, even for such a small number of replies.
I do not propose to comment regarding the locations, or movement of the Gypsies or Travellers as this information is also suspect because of the other results, and in a similar fashion.
Moving to the Conclusion and Recommendations -
15.3 states that 'The evidence shows a need for between 32 and 44 pitches to address current accommodation requirements.'
15.8 states that 'In terms of roadside stopping places there were no roads other than the A140 highlighted, it seems appropriate for further provision on the A140 for South Norfolk bases people and those travelling through.'
15.9 states 'This survey highlights that it is not only site provision that is needed now. But that numbers are possibly growing if those children identified in the survey i.e. 59 decided to also remain in non bricks and mortar accommodation.'
Considering the Recommendations -
16.1 states – 'The above conclusions would support the following provision to meet the current and predicted need over the next three to five years.'
- one permanent site to accommodate 6 - 8 pitches in the Waveney Valley area
- Two permanent sites each accommodating 6 - 8 pitches in the area around the Norwich By-pass
- one permanent site to accommodate 6 - 8 pitches in the Wymondham to Norwich area
- three road sites for temporary stopping along the A47, A140 and A143/A1066 routes for up to 4 pitches per location.
My Conclusions -
If the evidence for the above Conclusions and Recommendations is intended to be the facts presented in the Report, I believe it fails to make the case. I cannot see how valid Conclusions and Recommendations of this concrete nature can be drawn from such scanty statistics, whose validity can be so challenged.
It is incredibly dangerous to make predictions based on, what appears to be, a very small sample of the persons concerned. No level of accuracy of the statistics can be established without the overall scale being known, which I believe throws the whole of the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Report into suspicion.
Notwithstanding, the difficulty in obtaining information from Gypsies and Travellers, some way of obtaining it in a statistically valid manner must be found.
This Report proposes the setting up of accommodation, both in quantity and location, which I believe cannot be justified on the basis of these figures. I would suggest that not being able to justify such provision, if provided, would not only harm the fragile relationship which currently exists between the Gypsies and Travellers and those who live in established towns and villages; but would also make it much more difficult in the future to establish proper accommodation for the Gypsies and Travellers. As such, I believe the matter needs to be revisited as a matter of urgency before the recommendations are implemented, and in its current state the Report as presented should be a concern for all Town and Village Councils.
Back to the top
