To receive any questions, statements and deputations from members of the public in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure as set out in Annex 1 of Part A4 of the Constitution (subject to the discretion of the Chairman). 

The Chairman indicated that, due to the public interest in Agenda item 10 (a) Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan, she was willing to take questions and statements regarding this item only.  The Chairman invited 18 speakers in turn to address the Council.  Members of the public raised comments and concerns, which in summary included the following:-

• site 58 – this site would pose a health and safety risk for the gypsies and travellers living there and would dominate the villages of Gamlingay and Potton.  There was concern that there would be only one field between the existing site and the new proposed site which could possibly lead to an unauthorised encampment between the two   
• site 76 – there was concern that the vehicle access to the site was inadequate.  In this context, reference was made to fast-moving traffic on Stotfold Road as confirmed by a traffic survey commissioned by the Fairfield Park Residents Association and to the Department for Transport’s guidance on setting local speed limits
• site 78 – four pitches should be allocated at this site
• site 92 – this was an existing site within the Green Belt and directly adjacent to the A5.  This site was well run and the proposed extension was welcomed
• site 16 – there was concern that residents at this proposed site would need to cross the A6 dual carriageway to access services and facilities.  Heavy traffic used Faldo Road as it was the only access to Barton Industrial Estate, Faldo Farm and Water Mill Shopping Village.  The proposed site was within the Green Belt and the Council would need to indicate the special circumstances for development in this area.  The site was currently being used for crops and was good agricultural land.  There had been occasions when the field had flooded which could possibly put the gypsies’ and travellers’ health at risk.  Residents in the area had commissioned their own noise and ecological surveys.  The site was very close to site 116 at Pulloxhill, suggesting that both sites would dominate the area
• sites 55 and 82 – it was highlighted that English Heritage had objected to this proposed site.  There was concern that the movement of fairground equipment generated a high volume of noise from the site, which could be problematic as it was next to a mobile home park. 
• concerns about aspects of the process by which the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee had concluded that seven sites should be put forward for final consideration
• concerns that residents adjacent to the proposed sites had not been consulted

The Executive Member for Sustainable Communities – Strategic Planning and Economic Development thanked the speakers and responded to the concerns about the sites in the order they had been raised, and including the following points:

·        councils were required by the Housing Act 2004 to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers alongside the settled population. The Council was also required by the Act to develop a strategy that addressed any unmet need identified

·        Members had received all relevant documentation, had been provided with an opportunity to visit all the proposed sites and considered  representations at the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee before recommending the proposed sites to the Executive

·        residents had been given the opportunity to speak at the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Executive meetings as well as at this Council meeting

·        the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan, if approved by Council, would be published to allow for formal consultation between May – June 2013 during which interested parties would have the opportunity to submit representations.  All representations would then be considered before submitting the document, along with all representations received during the consultation period, to the Secretary of State in October 2013.  The Secretary of State would then appoint an independent Planning Inspector who would hold an examination in public to determine whether the document was ‘sound’ and legally compliant

·        the Executive Member for Sustainable Communities – Services had been working with officers to reduce the speed limits in residential areas throughout Central Bedfordshire and there would be opportunity to consider reducing the speed limits on relevant roads, where appropriate, at certain proposed sites

·        there was an existing Gypsy and Traveller site in Dunstable off the A5 which was a very busy road, especially on occasions when the M1 had been closed, and there had not been any problems for the gypsies and travellers living at this site

·        site 82 – there would be an archaeological investigation on this site before submission of the Plan

·        it was acknowledged that noise and visual intrusion at the finally approved sites would need to be mitigated

·        consultation had been carried out with neighbouring authorities and tenant farmers

·        the Homes and Communities Agency had allocated £60m for Traveller Pitch Funding as part of the Affordable Homes Programme to support local authorities.  Unfortunately, Central Bedfordshire Council had not received this funding, but the Government had confirmed that further funding may become available as a result of slippage over the course of the programme

·        if the Council did not have a Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan, addressing unauthorised gypsy and traveller encampments would be compromised

·        the Council was able to make an alteration to the defined Green Belt boundary to meet a specific, identified need for a traveller site, but it should do so only through the plan-making process and not in response to a planning application.  If land was removed from the Green Belt in this way, it would be specifically allocated in the development plan as a traveller site only

·        the Planning Inspector appointed to consider Bedford Borough Council’s Plan had recently instructed the Borough Council to allocate additional pitches, as insufficient pitches had been allocated in the Plan

·        the Council had a duty of care for all residents in Central Bedfordshire

·        clarity was being sought on the impact the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan would have on the Neighbourhood Plan process.

The Chairman thanked the public for putting forward their views and concerns.  She indicated that under the next item on the agenda, the Council would debate the recommendations from the Executive on the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan.