Really? 90% of applications were so faulty they were turned down?
Since the majority of Traveller applications are in fact granted on appeal, often retrospectively, it would appear that either Travellers (1) are in fact exempt from the rules, or that (2) planning authorities like squeezing the additional fees incurred in the appeals process from the Travellers, or (3) planning authorities will not countenance pp applications from Travellers unless faced with overwhelming evidence that they have an overwhelming need to live in a certain place or that they are absolutely determined to do so.
Steps necessary for Travellers to secure pp on appeal here. The fact that the initial pp application will be denied is a foregone conclusion. One necessary step is a costly appeal, or series of appeals. The LAs require a lot of information and certification even after the normal building code requirements have been presented in the initial application (they are not so stupid as to fall foul of the codes in their applications and give LAs a stick to beat them, thus tripping over the first hurdle through their own fault).
From 'Inequalities Experienced by Gypsy and Traveller Communities' paper -- 'over 90 per cent of planning applications for private (usually self- or family owned) Gypsy sites are refused at first hearing, often following orchestrated campaigns by aggrieved (sedentary) local residents, though permission is overwhelmingly granted on appeal ' (CRE, 2006a; Williams, 1999).' CRE = Commission for Racial Equality. This is why the Dale Farm residents fancied their chances through the appeals process.
Wrt provision of sites by the LAs, (not pp for sites on private land)
(report here) 'The problem is simply
that there is no means of telling which councils are carrying out reasonably accurate caravan counts and which are not. This is not a secure base upon which to build planning provision...'
'...In the past applications for sites have been judged against criteria-based policies and mostly planning permission has been acquired through the appeals system. Alice Lester of the Planning Advisory Service, at the launch conference of the RTPI Good Practice Advice Note No 4 (Planning for Gypsies and Travellers, March 2008-7), stated that during some work on good practice by local authorities in relation to planning provision for sites the researchers could not find a single example of a planning application for a Gypsy/Traveller site that could be considered to have been straightforward and gone well.'
Here are some sound proposals related to LAs, planning and provision of pitches/sites that indicates the high level of official prejudice against dealing with this hot potato. Again nothing to do with pp for private land pp applications.
P. 23 and p. 24 'A Big or Divided Society', paper presented in the Jubilee Room, Westminster Hall, House of Commons on the 11th May 2011 at a reception hosted by Lord Avebury and Andy Slaughter MP. - 'Final Recommendations and Report of the Panel Review into the Coalition Government Policy on Gypsies and Travellers' :
'Cllr Richard Bennett (former chair of the Local Government Association working group on Gypsies and Travellers) felt that 'localism? was not what some people feared. In his evidence to the Panel he noted that:
―"Turning to localism, I think the general public are going to find that localism isn't everything they thought it was going to be. And I, in my own district, have already been saying to people localism is about making hard decisions. It's about saying where you want development to take place in the future, and which areas do you want to be preserved in aspic. It's not about saying we don‟t want that here?.
Core strategies would still need to be in place and a national planning framework would provide some direction and identification of objectives. Cllr Bennett noted that in some areas positive relations had been forged between councils and Gypsy and Traveller communities and that it was possible for conflict as well as retrospective planning applications and unauthorised developments to be avoided. The notable example was Conservative controlled Fenland Council where, through good channels of communication and dialogue, Gypsies and Travellers were encouraged to approach the council before they submitted a planning application or moved onto land and applied for retrospective planning permission'
Roger Yarwood, former Head of Planning Services, Derbyshire Dales District Council noted (wrt provision of sites by LAs, not wrt pp by individuals wishing to develop their own land):
―"Planning Authorities are already adept at framing policies that make the provision of Gypsy sites difficult. As I mentioned earlier, I have been involved in numerous consultations on Local Development Frameworks and I attend many enquiries to offer evidence. In that work, I am constantly trying to introduce some realism into planning policies to ensure that those policies will actually result in the delivery of Gypsy sites. It's an uphill struggle and if it were not for the vigilance and overriding control of Planning Inspectors, and the necessity to comply with the guidance set out in ODPM Circular 01/2006, many local authorities would produce policy documents which would make Gypsy and Traveller site provision almost impossible. Both these safeguards are now under threat [by the ConDem Localism Bill]?
It was argued that experiences such as these accounted for Gypsies and Travellers having little trust or confidence in councils and contributed to the occurrence of retrospective planning applications'
It is the hopelessness of Travellers (and Gypsies/Romani) wrt the formal planning process that retrospective planning permission becomes almost the only way to be permitted to live on land they own.
They are hopeless because prejudice prevents LAs even from providing public sites on public land, let alone granting applications for pp on private land.
Life and conditions for Travellers are 100% relevant to the case of the Travellers in Dale Farm. They are there because of the issues surrounding pp and those issues are there because of prejudice.