Gypsy and Travellers Site Proposals
by CWaC
The first thing to say here is that there is a statutory
obligation for Local Authorities to provide a suitable number of sites (made up
of set numbers of individual pitches) to allow Gypsies, Travellers and Showmen
to reside in their caravans.
Under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 local authorities
are required to consider the various accommodation needs of the local
population. The Housing Act 2004 and Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
states councils should assess housing need for Gypsies, Travellers and
Travelling Showpeople in the same way they do for people in settled
communities. This legislation has an overarching aim of ensuring that
members of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople communities have equal access
to decent and appropriate accommodation options equal to each and every other
member of society. For a number of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling
Showpeople, appropriate housing means designated sites rather than “bricks and
mortar” housing. The Secretary of State recommended that various methods of
securing provision should be utilised and these include using rural exceptions
site policies, through affordable housing provision on land allocated for
housing development and through individual planning applications.
These sites should be both suitable from a user’s perspective
and from the communities about them within which they would begin integrate.
The needs of the site users are complex and are paramount to the sites being
successful. Identifying ways of raising educational aspirations and attainment
of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, along with ways to improve the health
outcomes and improving knowledge of how Gypsies and Travellers engage with
services that in turn provide a gateway to work opportunities are important
goals.
There is an identified need for CWaC to provide 42 additional pitches across the Borough up to 2028.
Labour run CWaC have released a report prepared for the council, by consultants WYG
Planning, in to the future provision of sites across the Borough. WYG
have completed three separate sifts of the potential sites (sites as opposed to
individual pitches) and have arrived at a final list of 26 preferred sites.
These sites have been RAG colour coded by their ease and likelihood of success
in terms of delivering the required number of pitches.
There are three
categories of site:
Transit sites which are used to provide only temporary accommodation
for their residents. Lengths of stay can vary but are usually set at between 28
days and three months. Permanent sites are sites for residential use by
Gypsies and Travellers for stays in excess of three months and are intended to
provide residents with a more permanent home. Travelling Show Persons’ Yards
(or plots) are mixed-use plots used by travelling show people that include
residential provision and may need to also incorporate space to allow for the
storage of equipment associated with circuses, fairs and shows. The sites are
comprised of ‘individual pitches’ and these vary in number site by site.
Transit sites and permanent sites will accommodate a number of pitches. A ‘pitch’
provides accommodation for a traveller family and typically includes space
for two caravans with a utility block and car parking.
The
26 “preferred” sites are located in the following wards across CWaC:
Winnington and Castle (Lab), Elton (Lab), Witton and
Rudheath (Lab),
Farndon (Con), Tarporley (Con), Davenham and Moulton (Con),
Gowy (Con), Shakerley (Con), Tattenhall (Con), Malpas (Con), Ledsham &
Manor (Con), Tarvin & Kelsall (Con).
Two of the preferred sites in the report are in my ward here
in Tarvin, site No 22 at Church View Fm (RAG Status Red) and site No 23 at
Small Holding No 10, Tarporley Rd (RAG Status Amber). Church View Fm is
currently assessed as Red due to “Narrow
lane, difficult access, farmhouse next to site would have amenity impacted,
open land, isolated from services. Need to understand wider residential growth
aspirations promoted by Parish Council”. It would be reasonable to assume
that this site is unlikely to be progressed forward at any speed at this stage.
Small Holding no 10 is a different matter, currently assessed as Amber with the
following summary: “Potential for a small
permanent site in one preferable location in NW of site on Tarporley Road.
Sensitive setting (conservation area, setting of church, landscape character,
amenity of existing houses) so needs good screening and careful siting. Access
possible. Narrow tracks prevent land to rear being used. Very close to
services.” The land here is in the ownership of CWaC and importantly the
report goes on to say that such sites which are possible on council owned land
should be viewed as ‘quick wins’ (para 3.34 YPG Report) in relation to
delivery.
So there is a very real potential for a site to be brought
forward here in Tarvin to a future planning application.
The site plan
below shows the area of land owned by CwaC and forms part of Small Holding No
10 (site 23 in the report). The proposal currently suggests using the North Western
corner of the plan which is between the lane and the small holding.
You may have comments and concerns either for or against
such a proposal as we have here as part of the Local Plan consultation. It is
important to distinguish the difference between this consultation and any
future formal Planning Application. This is your opportunity to comment on the ‘Policy’
being made here around the councils long term future approach to planning
matters. It is not a planning application at this stage, that would likely follow
if this proposal in the Local Plan is agreed.
The important thing is that you have an opportunity to make
your views heard at this stage and any future stage. This is where the plot
thickens. If our CWaC council is the open transparent and respectful one it
claims to be you would expect the consultation process to be reflective of that
stated approach to “doing business”. Feel free to draw your own conclusion from
the following.
The only consultees to date, mentioned in the report prepared by WYG Planning, are Alison Heine
(Planning Consultant working with Gypsies and Travellers) and Planning Aid. However
in fairness to the consultants they do recommend to CWaC that they should
undertake further consultation with “representatives
of the Gypsy and Traveller community to seek their views on the preferred
sites” and “engagement should also be
pursued with local Ward Members, Parish/Town Councils and any Neighbourhood
Plan groups whose area includes any of the site options” the report goes on to say (on p52) “It will be important to ‘manage’
this consultation and to try and seek consensus, or at least to ‘minimise
objections’, in order to allocate and deliver these sites.”
That may well be why
the consultation process for the proposed Gypsy & Traveller Sites appears
to be buried towards the end of the snappily entitled “Local Plan (Part Two)
Land Allocations and Detailed Policies - Preferred Approach”.
This consultation process is open from the 12 August - 23 September 2016,
if you do not get any comments in by this deadline they are unlikely to be
included.
To save you trawling through the numerous links and headings to find the
appropriate section I have attached the link below, feel free to try and locate
it via the second one if you have the time and inclination.
If you do wish to
comment you may want to reiterate some of the comments I noted down from the
large number of Tarvin residents who attended the Parish Council meeting on Mon
the 22nd of Aug 2016 that I also spoke at.
Value for money:
is this best return on the land the council is able to generate on our behalf
as tax payers.
This land is
currently identified and has developers currently interested in bring it
forward for residential use: will a permanent Gypsy & Traveller site have a
negative impact on the future resident’s amenity?
Part of any residential
development on this side of Tarporley Rd is likely to bring additional open
space, village car parking and sports facilities with it: will the proposed
site have a negative impact on this resource.
The proposed
piece of land is one of the lowest topographically in the whole village and is
prone to flooding in heavy rain: would this be suitable land to accommodate
caravans.
The water course
which runs alongside the proposed site is prone to blocking and causing
flooding; how would the council propose top stop this becoming blocked by
rubbish and general waste; who would pay for this water course to be cleaned
and maintained.
Both Tarporley
and Christleton schools are full to capacity; where would the Gypsy &
Traveller children go to school if this is the case.
Getting people in
to full time regular work is a key objective: there is little or no additional
employment in the rural areas.
Gypsy &
Traveller families often require regular and comprehensive social care and
support: there is little of this in rural areas and other sites closer to
services would be better suited to assisting in the delivery of such support.
The general guidance
below is general guidance for anyone who might want to comment on the broader issues
of the Local Plan part two, many of these may also be applicable if you are
commenting on the proposed Gypsy & Traveller sites.
Matters which
planners can take into account include:
1. Amenity: impact on neighbours – whether the site could
have a potentially harmful impact in terms of overlooking, loss of daylight,
overbearing impact, noise and disturbance, etc.
2. Visual impact – would a site be in keeping with the
surrounding area or would there be unacceptable landscape harm?
3. Highways: suitability of access, parking, manoeuvring
space, effect of traffic generation.
4. Policies - are there any Government policies or policies
in the Local Plan which are relevant e.g. sustainability of location, countryside
/ landscape protection, high quality agricultural land, flooding, wildlife /
protected species etc
5. Availability of land – are the sites going to come
forward for that purpose?
6. Alternative sites - based on the above considerations
are there better sites available?
Matters which
planners cannot take into account include:
1. The intended user of the development – it is the use,
not the user, which is important.
2. Whether the applicant or landowner is known/unknown,
liked/disliked, trusted/not trusted, local/not local.
3. The right to a view over another person’s land (there
is no such right in planning terms).
4. Impact on property values.
5. Any comment considered racist or offensive.
