Consultation outcome

Traveller caravan count statistics: government response

Updated 7 April 2026

Summary of key decisions

Following a review of the responses provided to the consultation on Traveller Caravan Count statistics in November/December 2025, the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) will be progressing the following proposals:

Reduction in collection frequency

The count will be reduced in frequency from a biannual collection/publication to a single annual collection/publication. The annual snapshot will be collected in January, including data on Travelling Showpeople. Data will no longer be collected in July. Recognising the  utility of data on need for site provision, MHCLG will explore options for collecting data on unauthorised sites in a format that provides more meaningful insight.

Amendments to site-level data

We will cease collecting and publishing site-level data for socially rented sites  (including the specific data items “year opened” and “year refurbished”), as part of the Traveller Caravan Count. MHCLG will instead publish a baseline table presenting the most up-to-date site-level information available for socially rented sites for all authorities, and update this at appropriate intervals. The Department will continue to publish local authority-level data for all site types.

Relocation of new affordable residential pitches data

Data on new affordable residential pitches, which was collected as part of the July count, will transfer to the Local Authority Housing Statistics (LAHS) data collection as part of the LAHS 2025/2026 return.

MHCLG remains confident that the proposed changes will still meet our objectives of publishing high quality data on Traveller Caravans, whilst removing a disproportionate burden on authorities, and ensuring that the data continues to meet user needs.

Introduction

The Traveller caravan count (TCC) is a long-running official statistics collection that provides a snapshot of the number and location of Traveller Caravans in England, based on information submitted by local authorities.

At the time the consultation was launched, local authorities were required to conduct a count of caravans on traveller sites twice a year, in January and July. The Traveller Caravan Count has included information about Travelling Showpeople as part of the January count since 2011.

The UKSA note that data from the count “is most useful in examining medium to long-term trends” (UK Statistics Authority, 2015: Assessment Report 317, Assessment of compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics: Traveller Caravan Count in England). The UKSA also notes in the same report that the current format of the count as a snapshot measure twice a year is “not appropriate for capturing information about unauthorised sites”, despite public interest in unauthorised sites.

The published data is not used for the policing of illegal sites and trespassers - local authorities are responsible for monitoring activity in their communities and coordinating with police and other agencies to use appropriate enforcement mechanisms including civil procedures and Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 powers. 

A user consultation was established to consult on proposals to:

• reduce the frequency of data collection to a single annual snapshot
• stop collecting data at site level for all caravan site types
• stop the collection and publication of specific data for socially rented sites
• stop the collection of data on Travelling Showpeople caravans
• move the question on new affordable residential pitches to another data collection

The consultation also sought to identify the needs of our users and to gain feedback on our publication of Traveller Caravan Count statistics. The consultation ran from 12 November 2025 until 24 December 2025. There were 112 responses to the consultation. This report summarises the responses to that consultation and gives the government’s response, including additional proposals arising from the feedback provided.

Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers, are legally recognised as ethnic groups and are protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. MHCLG contacted Gypsy and Traveller groups to ensure they had the opportunity to contribute to the consultation, and have carefully considered  their comments alongside others in finalising decisions.

Summary of responses

The consultation sought views on 5 proposals. Responses were collected via Citizen Space, a third-party consultation programme used to collect responses online. MHCLG welcomed submissions from any organisations with an interest in the proposals. MHCLG proactively engaged with all registered data providers at local authorities, members of the Central and Local Information Partnership(s) (CLIP) for Housing, Planning and Environment, as well as related charities and other relevant organisations, including contacting the Showman’s Guild, Friends, Families and Travellers and the Traveller Movement.

We also received feedback on the consultation via letter and email. Whilst email/letter responses are not included in the quantitative summary due to their format, they were fully considered as part of the qualitative decision-making process. Analysis of the consultation responses involved summarising close-ended questions using counts and percentages, and reviewing free-text responses to identify recurring themes. Free-text quotations included in this document are illustrative rather than exhaustive.

Who responded

A total of 112 responses were received. Those who submitted a response were asked to select the category which best described their place of work.

The majority (89%) of respondents were from local government. The table below provides a breakdown of the consultation responses by type of respondent^{[footnote 1]}.

Type of respondent	Number of responses from each category
Local government – data providers	86 (77%)
Local government – data users	13 (12%)
NGO or charity	5 (4%)
Central government or government department	2 (2%)
External researcher or academic	2 (2%)
Private company including consultancy firms	2 (2%)
Other, e.g. Trade Association	2 (2%)
Total	112

Headline findings

A brief aggregated summary of the quantitative results is presented below. Complete disaggregated figures and qualitative analysis are provided in Findings and next steps.

Proposal A1: Move to a single annual collection

• 90 respondents (80.4%) supported (support or strongly support)
• 13 (11.6%) opposed (oppose or strongly oppose)

Proposal A2: Season if one count retained

• 38 (33.9%) no preference
• 36 (32.1%) summer
• 33 (29.5%) winter

Proposal B: Stop collecting site-level data for socially rented sites

• 40 respondents (35.7%) supported (support or strongly support)
• 10 (9.0%) opposed (oppose or strongly oppose)
• 60 (53.6%) neutral (including non-response/don’t know)

Proposal C: Discontinue year-opened/refurbished data items

• 48 respondents (42.9%) supported (support or strongly support)
• 9 (8.1%) opposed (oppose or strongly oppose)
• 54 (48.2%) neutral (including non-response/don’t know)

Proposal D: Discontinue collecting Travelling Showpeople data

• 42 respondents (37.5%) supported (support or strongly support)
• 24 (21.4%) opposed (oppose or strongly oppose)
• 43 (38.4%) neutral (including non-response/don’t know)

Proposal E: Move data on new affordable residential pitches to another data collection

• 42 respondents (37.5%) supported (support or strongly support)
• 7 (6.3%) opposed (oppose or strongly oppose)
• 61 (54.5%) neutral (including non-response/don’t know)

Findings and next steps

This section discusses the findings in more detail including providing context for the decisions made and outlines our plans for the future.

Proposal A1: Move to a single annual collection

There was a high degree of support to reduce the frequency of the count from twice a year to a single annual data collection and statistical release. Eighty per cent of respondents (90 respondents) indicated that they agreed with the proposal (see chart below).

Chart 1: Do you agree with the proposal to move the TCC to an annual collection/stats release?

Answer	Number of responses
Yes	90
No	13
No preference	5
Not sure	3
Not answered	1

Respondents from local authorities particularly welcomed this proposal, with comments highlighting that it would help reduce the burden on organisations already operating under significant resource pressures. Supportive respondents also noted that Traveller Caravan Count data is primarily used to monitor long-term trends, for which an annual count is considered sufficient.

Several authorities reported that they observe minimal variation in caravan numbers between the summer and winter counts. Some respondents also highlighted limitations inherent in snapshot counts, noting that they may not always reflect true occupancy, for example where data is incomplete data due to inaccessible sites or where seasonal factors in the summer skew the figures.

For these reasons, many authorities reported relying more heavily on Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA)^{[footnote 2]} evidence when a more accurate understanding of need is required to plan provision.

Respondents who opposed the reduction in frequency, including Gypsy and Traveller groups, emphasised the seasonal differences between the summer and winter counts and reiterated the importance of more frequent recording for monitoring transient communities.

While we recognise that more frequent data collection may be preferable for some authorities, this need is highly context‑dependent.

On balance, MHCLG considers that mandating biannual counts for all authorities, including those that observe minimal seasonal change, would be disproportionate, particularly given that authorities who do experience more seasonal fluctuation are likely to visit sites throughout the year as required.

We particularly noted concerns from Gypsy and Traveller groups and charities regarding the loss of data on need for additional provision; mitigating actions to address these concerns are covered in more detail in the next section. Given the limitations of a single-day snapshot in understanding the complexity of traveller movements, we will explore how to enable local authorities to provide data on unauthorised sites in a format that provides more meaningful insight.

Outcome

Given the strong support for reducing the frequency of the count, the Traveller Caravan Count will be limited to a single annual data collection and release. However, we will explore how to enable local authorities to provide data on unauthorised sites in a format that provides more meaningful insight.

Proposal A2: Season to continue if the count is reduced to once a year

The responses to the consultation did not express a clear preference for a particular season (see chart below), with the category “No preference” selected most frequently by 34% (38 respondents) and a further 5% answering “Not sure” or not answering at all.

The remaining responses were fairly evenly split between summer and winter (32% versus 29%), and as such we looked to the comments to inform our decision.

Chart 2: Do you prefer to retain the Summer or Winter count?

Answer	Number of responses
No preference	38
Summer	36
Winter	33
Not sure	4
Not answered	1

From the comments received it was clear that respondents recognised strengths and weaknesses in both summer and winter counts. Many authorities noted challenges inherent in the timing of the count(s).

Challenges noted for the summer count focussed on resourcing pressures, noting that staff availability is often reduced due to annual leave and that there are competing work priorities over the summer.

Conversely it was noted that the more favourable weather conditions and longer daylight hours generally make the practical aspects of carrying out the count (including the use of drones for some authorities) easier in summer than in winter.

While we acknowledge these operational challenges, the purpose of the consultation was to assess user needs for the data, rather than the practicalities of data collection. As such, whilst we acknowledge that logistical difficulties may have some impact on data quality, comments focused primarily on logistical difficulties were given less weight than those addressing the relative usefulness of data collected in either season.

Comments addressing the relative usefulness of data collected in each season highlighted clear differences in the type and accuracy of data collected. Respondents noted that the winter count provides a more accurate and representative snapshot of the settled Traveller population, whereas the summer count was viewed as less reliable for measuring the permanent resident population.

Conversely respondents noted that the winter count does not capture the peak levels of unauthorised site activity that occur during summer due to seasonal travel including weddings, fairs and employment. Data collected for the summer count is therefore valuable in illustrating demand for culturally appropriate stopping places to accommodate travel during the summer months.

These comments are consistent with the findings of previous reviews and assessments, including the 2015 UK Statistics Authority Assessment of the Traveller Caravan Count, which highlighted the limitations of relying on a single‑day snapshot to capture information on unauthorised sites.

The report noted that “a count twice a year is not appropriate for capturing information about unauthorised sites […]” (UK Statistics Authority, 2015: Assessment Report 317, Assessment of compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics: Traveller Caravan Count in England). The report recommended exploring the feasibility of moving to a continuous reporting system, an approach which was successfully introduced in Wales in January 2024.

While continuous reporting offers clear benefits, particularly in providing more detailed insight into changes over the course of the year, it would impose a substantial additional burden on larger English local authorities.

The Welsh model is viable primarily due to Wales’s comparatively small geographic area and simpler administrative structure. England is approximately 6 times larger than Wales and, at the time of this review, administered by 296 lower-tier authorities, compared with 22 local authorities in Wales.

The relatively small number of sites in Wales also supports a site‑level reporting approach across all tenures. For example, at the January 2025 count, Wales reported a total of 1,320 Gypsy and Traveller caravans across 177 sites, with Pembrokeshire, the authority with the highest number of sites, reporting only 33 sites.

In the context of increasing resource pressures on English local authorities, adopting a continuous reporting model of this nature would not be proportionate or justifiable.

On balance, we have decided to retain the winter count, given that this more reliably reflects the need for permanent sites, which is less likely to be affected by the limitations of a single-day snapshot. In contrast, the summer count is less reliable for understanding the needs for permanent sites and also does not adequately reflect numbers of unauthorised sites due to the limitations of a single-day snapshot. Instead, we will explore options for enabling local authorities to provide data on unauthorised sites in a format that provides more meaningful insight.

Outcome

The winter (January) count which is likely to better capture the needs for permanent sites will be retained and the summer (July) count will be discontinued. However, in recognition of the feedback provided by local authorities and other data users regarding the monitoring of unauthorised sites, we will investigate collecting data on unauthorised sites in a format that provides more meaningful insight.

Proposal B – Stop collecting site-level data for socially rented sites

Site level data appears to offer little to no value to users, with “Neutral” selected most frequently by 54% (60 respondents) and a further 2% not answering at all (see Chart below).

Only 8% objected to stopping collecting/publishing data at site level for socially rented sites (4% opposed and 4% strongly opposed) with 36% supporting or strongly supporting the proposal (20% support and 16% strongly support).

Chart 3: Do you agree with the proposal to discontinue collecting site level data for socially rented sites?

Answer	Number of responses
Strongly support	18
Support	22
Neutral	60
Oppose	5
Strongly oppose	5
Not answered	2

Respondents who supported the proposal noted that local authorities already hold strong working knowledge of their own sites. They also noted that simplifying the reporting process is likely to result in improved data quality.

Those who opposed the proposal, including Gypsy and Traveller groups and charities, emphasised that site-level data is valuable for understanding local need and provides useful evidence between GTAAs.

Given the limited support for continuing to collect site-level data, and recognising that detailed information on socially rented sites is, in general, widely available through local authority websites and published GTAAs, we do not consider it proportionate to require all authorities to continue submitting site-level data.

Whilst we acknowledge that interim site visits, between GTAAs, can be beneficial for local authorities, our intention is that a simpler data collection, undertaken less frequently, will give local authorities greater flexibility to schedule visits and monitoring activities in ways that best suit their local circumstances.

In acknowledgement of the value of site level data for socially rented sites, and given their relatively stable nature, we instead propose to publish a baseline table presenting the most up‑ to- date site- level information available for all authorities. We would ask local authorities to confirm or update this information at an appropriate frequency (to be determined following discussions with local authorities). This dataset would be more complete than the previously published Table 2, which did not include site- level data for non‑responding authorities.

It should also be noted that local authorities will still be required to review individual sites in January to ensure the accuracy of the annual count, but they will no longer be required to provide site ‑level data as part of that submission.

Outcome

The collection and publication of site‑level data for socially rented sites in its current format will be discontinued. From the January 2026 count onwards, data for all site types will be collected and published only at local authority level in the TCC statistics release. An additional baseline table of socially rented sites for all authorities will be published and updated at appropriate intervals.

The statistical release will also signpost users to alternative data sources, including local authority webpages and Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs), which provide more detailed and regularly updated local information. Data on socially rented sites from previous releases will also remain available on GOV.UK.

Proposal C: Discontinue year-opened/refurbished data items

Questions on when socially rented sites opened or were last refurbished appear to offer little to no value to users, with “Neutral” selected most frequently by 48% (54 respondents) and a further 1% not answering at all (see Chart below).

Only 8% objected to stopping collecting/publishing this data (4% opposed and 4% strongly opposed) with 43% supporting or strongly supporting the proposal (15% support and 28% strongly support).

Chart 4: Do you agree with the proposal to discontinue collecting specific data items for socially rented sites?

Answer	Number of responses
Strongly support	31
Support	17
Neutral	54
Oppose	5
Strongly oppose	4
Not answered	1

In general, respondents reported that they do not use this data for planning, monitoring or service delivery. They also noted that the year a site opens does not change and refurbishment occurs infrequently, often with intervals of several decades.

A small number of respondents who opposed the proposal, including Gypsy and Traveller groups, noted that these data items can be useful for understanding long-term patterns in site provision and for distinguishing between legacy and more modern sites.

As one respondent noted:

The date of sites opening can explain a lot… older sites were designed for touring vans and often have poorer facilities.

Outcome

In line with the proposal above, this data will no longer be collected as part of the Traveller Caravan Count data collection, but instead these items would be included as part of the base-line table of socially rented sites.

Proposal D: Discontinue collecting Travelling Showpeople data

From a purely quantitative analysis of the responses, data on Travelling Showpeople appears to offer relatively little value to users, with “Neutral” selected most frequently by 38% (43 respondents) and a further 3% not answering at all (see Chart below).

Twenty-two per cent objected to stopping collecting/publishing this data (11% opposed and 11% strongly opposed) with 37% supporting or strongly supporting the proposal (16% support and 21% strongly support).

Chart 5: Do you agree with the proposal to discontinue collecting TSP data?

Answer	Number of responses
Strongly support	24
Support	18
Neutral	43
Oppose	12
Strongly oppose	12
Not answered	3

Although there was limited support for continuing to collect data on Travelling Showpeople (TSP) caravans, this is not unexpected given both the relatively small number of TSP caravans nationally and the uneven distribution of TSP sites across local authorities.

Authorities without TSP sites are minimally affected by changes to these data items and, accordingly, are unlikely to hold strong views on the matter.

Conversely, a small number of authorities, such as Bolsover, Tandridge and East Hampshire in the January 2025 count, reported more TSP caravans than Gypsy and Traveller (GT) caravans. For this reason, we particularly relied on comments from respondents in detail to inform our decision.

Respondents who opposed discontinuing the TSP questions, including Gypsy and Traveller groups, provided compelling arguments regarding the importance of retaining these data items. They highlighted that there are no alternative national data sources on Travelling Showpeople, and that the TSP data are used to inform development plan policies, GTAAs, and broader assessments of need.

Respondents also noted that TSP communities often have more complex accommodation requirements, making the data particularly valuable for planning appropriate provision.

Several respondents further emphasised that discontinuing the collection of TSP data risks creating significant knowledge gaps, especially given that many councils do not update GTAAs regularly.

We also recognise that for authorities without TSP sites, the burden of reporting is minimal, requiring only the entry of zeros once a year.

Outcome

Considering the strength of evidence provided by respondents advocating for the retention of TSP data,  data items on Travelling Showpeople will continue to be collected as part of the winter count.

Proposal E: Move data on new affordable residential pitches to another data collection

Most respondents did not oppose moving the questions on new affordable residential pitches to another data collection such as Local Authority Housing Statistics (LAHS), with the category “Neutral” selected by over half (54%, 61 respondents) and a further 2% not answering at all (see Chart below).

A further 37% of respondents supported or strongly supported moving the data items, and only 7% opposed or strongly opposed the proposal.

Chart 6: Do you agree with the proposal to move the data on New Affordable Residential Pitches to LAHS?

Answer	Number of responses
Strongly support	34
Support	8
Neutral	61
Oppose	3
Strongly oppose	4
Not answered	2

Respondents who supported the proposal observed that the new affordable residential pitches data items have a clear conceptual alignment with the Local Authority Housing Statistics (LAHS) collection.

They also noted that transferring these data items would better align responsibilities with subject ‑matter expertise and reduce inter ‑team confusion within local authorities, as these data items are typically owned by housing teams, who already complete the LAHS return but do not usually contribute to the Traveller Caravan Count (TCC).

Those who opposed the proposal, including Gypsy and Traveller groups, emphasised the value of maintaining all Gypsy and Traveller-related data available within a single source. Some also expressed concern that the new affordable residential pitches data could become “lost” within the broader and more wide-ranging LAHS collection.

Balancing the limited objections against the benefits of relocating the new affordable residential pitches data items to an alternative data collection, we have decided to proceed with transferring these data items to LAHS.

This change is expected to improve the completeness and accuracy of the data as a result of the typically higher response rates achieved through the LAHS data collection compared with the TCC data collection.

It is also important to note that the number of new affordable residential pitches recorded in the TCC in recent years has been very small, fewer than 40 new affordable residential pitches recorded across all local authorities in the last 5 years, meaning the impact on data providers is likely to be minimal.

Whilst we recognise the benefits of long-run national series to evidence under-provision, the data on new affordable residential pitches will continue to be collected and published, and the change in the location of this data will be clearly signposted within the TCC statistical release.

This decision also aligns with our intention to discontinue the summer count; continuing to require local authorities to submit only the affordable residential pitches return in July, after removing all other July data requirements, would undermine the intended benefits of reducing the overall reporting burden.

Outcome

Given the limited support for retaining the new affordable residential pitches data in the TCC, these data item(s) will be transferred to the Local Authority Housing Statistics (LAHS) data collection, with the transfer taking place as part of the LAHS 2025/2026 return.

Next steps

We will engage with users to establish demand for a one-off baseline table presenting the most up to date site level information available for socially rented sites for all authorities, as well as investigating how to collect data on unauthorised sites in a format that provides more meaningful insight.

1. Please note that percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. ↩

2. Local authorities are required to make their own assessment of need for traveller sites, for the purposes of planning. This assessment should enable an up to date understanding of the likely permanent and transit site accommodation needs of their areas over the lifespan of the development plan. Most councils publish their GTAAs on their websites as part of their ‘Local Plan Evidence Base’ pages. ↩