To consider the findings of the Bedfordshire and Luton Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (2006) and to consider the next steps in the development of the plan prior to the OSC meeting on 28 February 2013.

 

Hard copies of Appendix B have been circulated to Members of the Committee only.  The appendix can be viewed online on the Council’s website at the following address: -

 

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/modgov/ieDocSearch.aspx?bcr=1

 

The Executive Member for Sustainable Communities Strategic Planning and Economic Development introduced a report that set out the findings of  a review of the Bedfordshire and Luton Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Needs (GTAA) Assessment.  The Committee were informed that the purpose of the meeting was to consider a refresh of the GTAA.  The Council were developing a Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan (hereafter “the Plan”) as it was a statutory obligation without which the Council was open to “hostile applications” and we may not be able to remove unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller encampments.  As the previous GTAA had been completed six years ago it was in need of a refresh.  Cllr Young referred to case law regarding appeals in Guildford where the level of need had been underestimated and had not included assessment of those in bricks and mortar accommodation.

 

Cllr Young explained that the Council was required by government to agree a local plan for the next 15 years.  The Council was required to provide a deliverable supply of sites to meet projected need for the next five years.  This requirement would roll forward annually to show the deliverables for the following year.  The Council was required to identify sites at least up to 2028 and had chosen to align the plan with the timescale of the Development Strategy, which ran to 2031.  Consultation on what the plan should contain had been undertaken previously and any comments from the public would be accepted prior to the OSC meeting on 28 February.  Further representations could be submitted to the Council prior meetings of the Executive and Full Council.  The final, statutory, consultation would take place in May/June 2013 where all responses would be collated before being sent to the Secretary of State to be considered as part of the Examination in Public (EiP).  Interested parties would be invited to speak at the EiP.

 

In addition the Head of Housing Strategy (R Fox) stated that the reference in Table 2 of the report to granted existing permanent permissions related to the period 2006 to November 2012.  It was also suggested that the proposed question (b) for the Gypsy and Traveller count should be amended to read “do you have enough room on your site”.  In addition it was confirmed that the site assessment criteria were unchanged from those agreed in April 2012.  At the meeting in February 2013 Members will receive the scores attributed to the assessment in order to determine a short-list of sites.  It if it was agreed to only allocate sites for a period of five years then the Council would have to go through the process every couple of years.

 

The Corporate Policy Adviser (Equality and Diversity) advised the Committee on the Equality Duty and the duties of the Council in relation to persons with a “protected characteristic”, such as Gypsies and Travellers.  The meeting was to be conducted in a manner that respected all groups of residents in Central Bedfordshire, discriminatory language would not be permitted.

 

In accordance with the public participation procedure the Chairman invited 12 speakers to address the Committee. Members of the public raised concerns in relation to several issues as detailed below at the bullet points (responses provided):-

 

·                    The development of the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan had not been transparent or democratic.  There was no clear audit trail in relation to the development of the Plan, which had also included misleading definitions.  There had been delays relating to the publication of the site list and changes in the plan timetable relating to public consultation.  Clarification was sought as to how residents could provide comments to be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) and how this would be publicised.

 

The law relating to consultation on Gypsy and Traveller Plans had changed since April 2012.  The Council had undertaken a call for sites and the consideration of these had been a long process.  Several sites were ruled out during assessment against the criteria in stage one and two criteria resulting in the long list of 35 sites that had been scored at stage 3 and would be included in the report.  In February 2013 a full list of all sites that had been considered would be provided including details of their scores and why other sites had been rejected.  Residents had an opportunity to submit representations to the OSC for consideration in February.  A letter would be sent to Town and Parish Councils advising them of the arrangements for sending representations to the OSC.  The Council would also issue a press-release.  This was a non-statutory consultation and representations could also be sent to the Executive and Council in advance of their consideration of proposals.  Statutory consultation would be undertaken in line with requirements in the Town and Country Planning Regulations (2012). 

 

·                    There had been amendments to the site assessment criteria that had been previously agreed in April 2012.

 

The Council had responded to a query regarding the site assessment criteria using information that was incorrect.  This had led to confusion for which for the Council had apologised.  It was clarified that there had been no change to the criteria agreed in April 2012, which has been used throughout the assessment period.

 

·                    Previous consultation on the Plan had not been fit for purpose, particularly a consultation relating to proposed headings of the Plan rather than its content.  This had also led to the misrepresentation of responses, several of which had been taken as being in ‘support’ of the Plan.  The Council had also been insensitive in the manner in which it had engaged with residents to date, particularly sending letters to land owners in the week before Christmas.

 

The Council had been required to consult on the headings of the Plan rather than its contents.  The statutory consultation on the content of the plan would be undertaken in May/June 2013. The Council sent letters to tenants prior to Christmas as it was considered fairer to advise tenants of the contents of the report before it was published. 

 

·                    There was a lack of evidence of the need for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches.  The previous GTAA (2006) was outdated and it was inappropriate to determine need based on this previous assessment.  There was a risk of inaccurate forecasting of requirements and It would be difficult for the Council to be confident of the level of need to 2031 based on current figures.

 

The 2006 GTAA identified the extent of need for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Central Bedfordshire.  There were concerns that the numbers in the GTAA were outdated and, for instance, it did not include the numbers of Travellers in bricks and mortar housing who may wish to return to living on traveller sites.  A refresh of the GTAA would provide an understanding of this level of need and help to ensure that the plan would be determined “sound”.

 

·                    Why the Council was seeking to identify pitches to 2031, using 3% compound growth, when it could choose to develop a plan for a shorter period.

 

Government guidance advised local authorities to identify allocations for a period of five years, rolling forward annually.  The Council therefore had to have in place available sites up to 2018.  Government guidance recommended that where possible local authorities should also identify allocations for 11-15 years, which would be up to 2028.  The Council had decided to extend the period of the Plan to 2031 in order to align it with the Development Strategy.  The previous Regional Spatial Strategy had proposed a 3% compound growth figure, which had been found to be ‘sound’.  Other area assessments suggested that a 6% compound growth figure was appropriate.  If residents felt that the 3% compound growth figure was inappropriate this could be reflected during the statutory consultation period.

 

·                    The number of potential Gypsy and Traveller sites identified in the South of Central Bedfordshire was much higher than those identified for the north of Central Bedfordshire.  There was considered to be an unfair allocation of potential sites across Central Bedfordshire.  This would result in an inequitable impact on the settled community where allocations were highest.

 

There was no intention to unfairly allocate sites throughout Central Bedfordshire.  At present Gypsy and Traveller sites were allocated throughout Central Bedfordshire as follows; 60% (South Central Bedfordshire);  33% (North East Central Bedfordshire); and 7.8% (Mid Central Bedfordshire).

 

·                    The importance of the Plan applying existing planning policy and taking account of agreed town plans.

 

The Council would take full account of national planning policy and guidance in the development of the Plan.  Town plans were not a statutory document and whilst they would be taken into account in the development of the Plan they would not decide where allocations might take place.

 

·                    The importance of the Plan taking account of allocations in neighbouring local authorities.  There was potential for tension to arise between adjacent settlements if allocations were made without being mindful of numbers in neighbouring areas.

 

Councils had a statutory duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities in the development of the Plan.  Neighbouring authorities would be invited to comment as part of the statutory consultation process.  Central Bedfordshire Council would also co-operate with other local authorities on the development of their plans.

 

·                    Concerns relating to the proposed sites in Potton in light of previous experience.  In light of housing development in the area the allocation of sites in Potton would create additional pressures on local infrastructure, such as schools and health facilities.  It was not clear if the Council had fully considered the impact of proposed sites on existing local facilities.  It was also questioned whether the Council had considered the impact of allocating land that was presently farmed.

 

During development of the Plan the Council would not take into consideration any assumptions regarding what might happen in the future as a result of allocating sites.  There had been experience of overcrowding and unlawful sites in Potton previously but those persons had been moved on.  The average number of persons on a pitch was 3.2 and the aim would be no more than 10 pitches allocated to any one site.  This additional number of persons in the local area would not create an undue impact on the local community or access to facilities.  A total of 6.48% of the total pitches in Central Bedfordshire were located in Potton.

 

·                    The inadequacy of the Council’s website and inaccessibility of materials relating to the Plan.  A person offered to provide feedback on the Council’s website.

 

The Executive Member accepted the offer for the person to provide feedback on the Council’s website and agreed that it was complicated to find information in relation to the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan.  The Council would consider how this could be addressed.

 

·                    Developing proposed sites on Greenfield sites would have a detrimental impact on the environment.  It should not be considered appropriate to allow Gypsy and Traveller sites on Greenbelt land.

 

The Council would only consider allocating Gypsy and Traveller sites on Greenbelt in exceptional circumstances.

 

·                    Why the Council was reconsidering sites that had previously been rejected.

 

Members had the discretion to add sites back into the process if they felt appropriate, including those that had been previously rejected.  All sites would however have to meet deliverability criteria.  All sites could be rejected at Development Management committee.

 

·                    Why there were no proposed allocations in urban areas.

 

Much of south Central Bedfordshire, such as Icknield, was urban and there was no available land on which Gypsy and Traveller sites could be allocated.  The only open space in urban areas was either recreational or playing fields.  There were some sites proposed in urban areas such as Caddington, Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard.  The location of sites in relation to wards was irrelevant.

 

·                    How the Council had arrived at the proposed 35 sites detailed in the report and when the pros and cons for these sites would be made available. It was also queried whether the Council would make available detail of all the sites that had been considered as part of the process and all Council owned land.

 

The Council had considered a total of 126 sites that had been put forward through the request for sites and consideration of Council-owned land.  The Council had assessed the sites against the stage one and two criteria and the 35 contained in the report were considered to be appropriate for assessment at stage 3.  The sites listed in the report were not ranked according to their score against the assessment criteria.  A report containing all of the sites that had been considered at stage 1,2 and 3 and their scores would be made available to the OSC in February 2013 and published on the Council’s website.

 

·                    The importance of Gypsies and Travellers integrating and interacting with the settled community.

 

It was important that the Council encouraged effective integration of both the Gypsy and Traveller and settled communities. The Council needed to encourage cohesion by supporting appropriate understanding of the experiences and lifestyle of Gypsy and Traveller Communities. The Council would also need to consider providing additional support to young people from the Gypsy and Traveller community to support them to stay in education for longer

 

Cllr Nicols sought clarification in relation to the period of informal consultation that the Executive Member had undertaken to provide prior to the next meeting of the OSC.  Cllr Young clarified that representations could be sent to the OSC but this differed from the formal consultation that would be undertaken on the plan in May/June 2013. Informal responses would be accepted but this was not a statutory requirement in relation to consultation on the plan.  Cllr Nicols stated that he recognised the need for a robust plan as a means of defending appeals. 

 

Cllr Nicols also sought clarification as to whether the 1.5 field criteria that had been discussed previously had been included in the current sieving process.  In response Cllr Young stated that the OSC had discretion to make recommendations on sites, which could include the use of 1.5 field criteria if Members felt appropriate.  The Head of Development Planning & Strategic Housing stated that the site assessment criteria agreed in April 2012 had been applied, this did not include the 1.5 field criteria.

 

Cllr Nicols also queried whether sites that had been detailed in the previous McDonald Plan had been included in the process and queried whether the Miletree Road site in Leighton Buzzard was being considered as it was located in the Greenbelt.  In response Cllr Young stated that the Miletree Road site was under appeal, the Council was fiercely opposed to any unlawful sites on Greenbelt.  The Head of Development Planning & Strategic Housing stated that all of the sites identified in the McDonald study had been considered but were not being taken any further.

 

Cllr Zerny raised concerns in relation to the report that included:-

·                    Inappropriate distribution of proposed sites leading to a large cluster in the north of Central Bedfordshire.

·                    The Gypsy Council were not in agreement with the proposed extent of ‘need’.

·                    Inadequate consultation that took place before the proposed sites were known and the lack of formal consultation.  Further consultation should be undertaken before the meeting of Council to agree the plan.

·                    Lack of transparency in the process.

·                    The numbers of sites that would be allowed in one ward, which could have a disproportionate affect on the settled community.  It was important that the plan encouraged ‘peaceful integration’ and that sites did not ‘dominate’ the settled community.  Every effort should be made to ensure a firm and equitable spread of sites across Central Bedfordshire.

·                    It would be more appropriate to set a Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan for a period of 10 years, rather than to 2031.

·                    Whether the compound growth figure was appropriate.

·                    The use of Compulsory Purchase Orders to provide additional land that could be used to deliver Gypsy and Traveller sites.

·                    The importance of providing adequate information to the public so that residents can make a considered judgement on the plans.

·                    The Committee had been condescending towards those residents who had spoken at the meeting.

 

In response Cllr Young stated that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required Councils to ensure that the scale of a site did not “dominate” a neighbouring community.  The Council would apply this principle.  It was not intended to locate all of the required pitches on one site as this would dominate a neighbouring community.  Pitches would be allocated throughout Central Bedfordshire.  The Council agreed that there should not be large sites, whilst the Council would anticipate and provide for family growth it would not encourage multi-family or impersonal sites.

 

Cllr Young stated that regulations required the Council to undertake a statutory consultation in May/June 2013.  In relation to the NPPF it was not intended to let sites dominate the settled community, sites would usually be limited to 10 pitches and areas such as Sutton would not be dominated by any proposed sites.  Cllr McVicar requested that Cllr Zerny explain outside of the meeting how the Committee had been condescending towards public speakers.

 

Cllr Shingler raised concerns that the proposed sites in Barton-Le-Clay were located in the Greenbelt, which was determined to be inappropriate in the NPPF except in exceptional circumstances.  Cllr Young commented that the Council could make exceptions in special circumstances through the plan making process.

 

In recognition of the issues raised by public speakers and other Members and the responses that had already been given the Committee discussed the following further issues in detail:-

·                    It was undeniable that the previous GTAA required a refresh.  It was unfeasible and unnecessary for the Council to undertake a full refresh.  Consultants have identified the current weaknesses with the previous GTAA so it was sensible for the Council to work on those issues.

·                    The need to change the questions proposed for the Gypsy and Traveller count as they were presently too leading.

·                    How the Council could determine the extent of hidden need for Gypsies and Travellers and address assumptions regarding movement from bricks and mortar back to pitches.

·                    Whether an inspector would be content with a partial refresh of the GTAA.  Cllr Young stated that POS Enterprises had provided the Council with reassurance that a partial refresh would be sufficient to address the identified weaknesses. 

·                    Whether the Council would be able to complete a partial refresh of the GTAA before the meeting in February to an acceptable standard that would provide assurance that the assessment of need was accurate.  Cllr Young stated that a partial refresh of the plan could be completed in time for the meeting in February and would be published as part of the OSC papers.

·                    Whether previously considered sites were being considered again when the circumstances related to the sites were unchanged.  It was confirmed that all sites were being considered again in the interests of fairness.

·                    Subsequent full refreshes of the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan and the level of need that would be undertaken as necessary and a minimum of every four to five years. 

 

In addition the Director of Sustainable Communities commented that when a full GTAA was undertaken the Council would seek to undertake this in collaboration with other local authorities.

 

RECOMMENDED

 

That the OSC endorse the Director of Sustainable Communities in consultation with the Executive Member to undertake the following:-

1.                  Commission consultants to conduct a partial GTAA to confirm pitch requirements prior to publication of the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan (any changes in pitch numbers will be brought before the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 28 February 2013).

2.                  Consider a proposed time frame for the development of a full GTAA for Central Bedfordshire, working in conjunction with neighbouring local authorities where possible.

3.                  Agree the proposed Gypsy and Traveller monitoring framework to develop a more substantial, locally refined evidence base for future policy.

4.                  To amend question (b) proposed to be included in the Gypsy and Traveller Monitoring Framework to read "do you have enough room on your site?"

 

(The meeting adjourned at 1.20pm and reconvened at 1.30pm)