GYPSY AND TRAVELLER ACCOMMODATION PROVISION IN THE SOUTH EAST

 

To:                               Cabinet – 6th August 2009

 

Main Portfolio Area:     Economy and Culture

 

By:                               Head of Development Services

 

Classification:              Unrestricted

 

 

Summary:                   A final consultation is taking place between 8th June 2009 and 1st September 2009 on Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation which allocates pitch numbers in each district.

 

For Decision

 

 

1.0              Introduction

 

1.1       A Partial review of the South East Plan (the regional spatial strategy (RSS) is being carried out by SEERA to provide statutory strategic planning policy and guidance on the level and distribution of gypsy and traveller accommodation across the South East to 2016. 

 

1.2       At its final meeting on 4th March 2009 the Regional Assembly agreed the content of this South East Plan Review and submitted it to Government. Consultation by Government began on 8th June and runs to 1st September 2009.

 

1.3       For Members information a pitch equates to approximately 1.7 caravans and a site is generally made up of not more than 20 pitches although they are often smaller.

 

 

2.0              Background

 

2.1       In 2006 and 2007 Government introduced new rules requiring all local authorities to allocate sufficient legal stopping places for Gypsies, Travellers and travelling Showpeople. To identify how much space was needed in each area local authorities were required to carry out a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment

 

2.2       Thanet carried out a joint Gypsy and Traveller Assessment (GTAA) with Canterbury, Dover and Shepway in 2007, which worked out the demand for each district based on formulaic CLG methodology. This work found that Thanet had an identified need for 6 pitches to 2016 one of which was a site for Travelling Showpeople.

 

2.3       A Consultation was held between 1st September and 21st November 2008. Four options were proposed and these are set out below with the pitch implications for Thanet highlighted in bold:

 

Option A – Needs based from the results of the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment. This Option was submitted as advice to SEERA. (5)

 

Option B – Number is based on the total number across the County from the collective GTAAs but redistributed around the County according to sustainability criteria. This Option was submitted as advice to SEERA. (19)

 

Option C – This redistributes pitch numbers around the region. 50% of pitches remain in the area the need arises and 50% is pooled around the region. This Option was devised by SEERA. (16)

 

Option D – This redistributes pitch numbers around the region. 75% of pitches remain in the area the need arises and 25% is pooled around the region. This Option was devised by SEERA. (17)

 

2.4       A report to Members on 6th November 2008 recommended Thanet District Council responded stating that Option A was the only sensible Option and this was done. Option A was based on need and the other options just apply arbitrary reallocation criteria that do not take in to account local circumstances such as Thanet’s deprivation problems.

 

2.5       Following the consultation Option C was the most favoured in the responses but SEERA saw Option D as the most deliverable compromise. At the final meeting on 4th March 2009 SEERA voted to submit Option D to the Government which gives Thanet 17 pitches. Thanet voted against this at the Assembly meeting but were in the minority.

 

 

3.0       The Current Situation

 

3.1       A consultation began on 8th June 2009 and concludes on 1st September following SEERAs submission of Option D to Government. The consultation proposes wording for Policy H7 and supporting text to be slotted into the Regional Spatial strategy (South East Plan). The Table in H7 sets out the pitch requirements per authority based on option D.

 

3.2       On 3rd June 2009 the Kent Officer Steering Group met and a number of alternative options were suggested which were considered fairer and may well be more acceptable to the Secretary of State. The Group discussed that there may well be merit in preparing a joint submission and appearing at the Examination in Public together. This Group put the following pitch options to Members at the Joint Member Steering Group on 13th July.  The four options are outlined below with the pitch implications for Thanet highlighted in bold:

 

Option C1 – This option is based on the total number of pitches that Option C leaves Kent with after the 50% regional redistribution (i.e. 262) and redistributes it within Kent according to the pattern of need that was discovered through the GTAAs (Option A). (4)

 

Option E (Revised) – This Option was submitted by Kent County Council at the last consultation stage. It uses the 262 pitches as C1 but redistributes the numbers around Kent according to an element of Option A and Option B (the sustainability criteria). (9)

 

Option D1 - This option is based on the total number of pitches that Option D leaves Kent with after the 25% regional redistribution (i.e. 290) and redistributes it within Kent according to the pattern of need that was discovered through the GTAAs (Option A). (5)

 

Option F – This Option uses the 290 pitches as D1 but redistributes the numbers around Kent according to an element of Option A and Option B (the sustainability criteria). (7)

 

3.3       Whilst in our view the only sensible option is to provide pitches where the need arises (original Option A) as this is based on sound evidence it is acknowledged that the East Kent authorities are in the minority across the region and that it may be more pragmatic to prepare a joint submission that would give us a bigger voice at the examination in public. Additionally a number of other Regions have gone for a redistribution approach to allocating pitches therefore setting a precedent.

 

3.4       Bearing this in mind Option C1 put forward at the Steering Group is a favourable option for Thanet. Option C1 redistributes 50% of sites around the region and reallocates the pooled pitched in Kent in accordance with Need where it arises. This option includes the redistribution so favoured by SEERA but essentially allocates pitches in Kent where they are needed/desired. Option D1 uses the same principle but with the lesser 25% regional redistribution.

 

3.5       On 13th July the 4 additional options were considered by the Kent Joint Member Steering Group. After considerable debate no consensus could be achieved across Kent. There was some consensus over the higher 50% level of redistribution away from Kent. The Group then voted for their preferred Option. 5 Districts voted for Option C and 7 Districts voted for Option C1 (Our position was that either Option C1 or D1 would be acceptable). Medway, who had previously abstained, indicated that they may be persuaded by Option C1

 

3.6       The implications of all of the Options A to F for each of the Kent Districts is in a table at Annex 1.

 

 

4.0       The Next Steps

 

4.1       Following on from this consultation  there will be an Examination in Public from 2nd – 5th February 2010 where an Independent Inspection Panel appointed by the Secretary of State will decide on Pitch numbers for each district.

 

4.2       Ultimately each district will be assigned a number of pitches that they will have to accommodate. This will have to be addressed through their Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) and allocations made.

 

 

5.0       Conclusion

 

5.1       The Government are consulting on the wording and supporting text for the proposed new Policy H7. This in itself we do not find objectionable. Our concern is the manner in which pitches have been allocated to the various Districts.

 

5.2       In our opinion Option A is still the most sensible option because it is drawn from a needs based survey. However, outside the East Kent districts this option has received little or no support. Both Option C1 and D1 distribute need around Kent according to need whilst redistributing varying levels around the wider South east Region. At the time of writing this report the position of Kent County Council is not known.

 

5.3       Given the lack of support for Option A and the higher level of support for C1 our view is that the Government be advised that Thanet District Council do not support Option D submitted by SEERA and that the Council supports an Option C1 which redistributes 50% around the region and the remainder is distributed around Kent according to need..

 

5.4       It appears that a number of other Kent authorities are responding in a similar manner. There is a proposal that a joint letter be drawn up expressing our joint concerns and position to the Government.

 

 

6.0       Corporate Implications

 

6.1       Financial        

 

6.1.1    There are no immediate financial implications. Eventually once the need is provided for, the costs of enforcement of moving travellers on would be reduced. Government grant may be available for providing local authority sites but this may only be available to authorities who volunteer to provide sites at an early stage in the process.

 

6.2       Legal

 

6.2.1    There are no immediate legal implications.  If the Local Development Framework does not reflect the demand for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople pitches then it is likely that the Planning Inspectorate will uphold appeals against refusal to grant permission for such sites, and the document may be found unsound.

 

6.3              Corporate

 

6.3.1    Consideration of the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community would fall to be considered within Theme 4 Quality Housing and Theme 5 Healthy Communities within the light of priorities within those themes.

 

 

6.4       Equity and Equalities

 

6.4.1    At the moment a new policy is not proposed but when the Thanet Local Development Framework addresses Gypsy and Traveller pitch provision then an equalities impact assessment will be carried out.

 

 

7.0       Options

 

7.1       That we respond to the consultation in favour of Option C1

or

That we respond to the consultation stating a preference for one of the other distribution options (at Annex1)

or

That we do not respond to the consultation at all

 

 

8.0       Recommendation(s)

 

8.1       That Thanet Council responds to the consultation stating that we do not  agree with SEERA’s preferred Option D proposed in Table H7a and that if Option A is not to be pursued then the pitches should be allocated around the region according to an option C1, which redistributes 50% of pitches around the region and the remaining pool is allocated in Kent according to need.

 

8.2       That authority be given to the Director of Regeneration Services in consultation with the Leader of the Council to sign a joint letter with the other Kent Authorities in support of the position set out in recommendation 1 above.

 

 

9.0              Decision Making Process

 

9.1       For Cabinet Decision

 

 

Contact Officer:

Laura Smith, Planning Officer x7146

Reporting to:

Brian White, Head of Development Services

 

 

Annex List

 

Annex 1

Table showing previous consultation options , the Regional Planning Body’s submitted proposals and alternative approaches

 

Background Papers

 

Title

Details of where to access copy

Partial Review of The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East:: Provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. Recommendations for new Policy H7

3 hard copies available on request and a pdf document can be emailed.

South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) consultation documents

http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/southeastplan/consultation/gt_update.html

Government Office for the South East (GOSE) Consultation page

http://www.gose.gov.uk/gose/planning/regionalPlanning/824411/?a=42496

 

Corporate Consultation Undertaken

 

Finance

Nicola Walker

Legal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annex 1

 

Previous consultation options , the Regional Planning Body’s submitted proposals and alternative approaches

 

Option A

Option B

Option C

(Revised)

RPB’s  Preferred Option D as

Submitted to Government and subject of current  consultation)

Option C1

Option E

(Revised)

Option D1

Option F

Ashford

20

32

29

30

16

23

18

20

Maidstone

48

39

31

35

39

36

44

42

Tonbridge & Malling

14

20

15

18

11

12

13

14

Tunbridge Wells

11

15

13

14

9

11

10

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sevenoaks

57

22

16

19

47

33

52

46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dartford

33

27

17

22

27

20

30

29

Gravesham

16

13

10

12

13

12

15

14

Swale

64

31

25

28

52

42

58

53

Medway

12

32

28

30

10

18

11

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Canterbury

32

33

27

30

26

26

29

29

Dover

6

24

22

23

5

13

5

8

Shepway

2

13

11

12

2

6

2

4

Thanet

5

19

16

17

4

9

5

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kent and Medway Total

320

320

262

290

262

262

290

290