Agenda item
Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (20 Minutes)
The Panel will receive a verbal update on this matter by the Cabinet Member and lead officers associated with the report.
Minutes:
The Policy & Environment Manager addressed the Panel to give them an update on this item in light of issues raised at the previous meeting.
He informed them of the breakdown of comments that had been received in the pre-consultation process, they were as follows:
General comments (on all sites) = 29
GT1 Whitchurch = 539
GT14 Keynsham = 113
GT2 Stanton Wick = 592
GT4 Radstock = 122
GT6 Newbridge = 15
GT8 Lower Bristol Road = 17
Total = 1398
He added that all the responses would soon be available to view online.
He explained that the petitions referred to in the Cabinet report & published online were in relation to Camerton, Stanton Wick and Radstock.
He informed them that the Whitchurch site does not lie near the gas main or its buffer (1/2 km away). The Development Control department do not refuse applications for other housing / extensions in principle this distance from the gas main.
A viability study of the Stanton Wick site has been undertaken and the results are to be published later this week.
The Core Strategy review requires a review of development sites re their capacity, deliverability, obstacles, timing, use etc. This will include assessing scope for accommodation of Gypsies & Travellers on non-Green Belt sites. This will be undertaken through the Placemaking Plan / SHLAA. Reports on the Core Strategy / Gypsies & Travellers / Placemaking Plan will be co-ordinated for early next year along with the public consultation.
Councillor Kris Mountford addressed the Panel on behalf of Stanton Drew Parish Council (a full copy of the statement is available on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below).
“In the 11th July, 2012 Cabinet papers, titled MoD Concept Statements, it stated ‘The concept statements are not detailed site briefs or masterplans’. Instead, they set out the vision…’ So surely the decision was not done and dusted? At that meeting it was stated that the final decision would be taken in September, not August.”
“Does this mean that rather than taking up Peter Duppa-Miller’s eminently sensible suggestion [made on 9th May 2012 to Cabinet] of using the MoD sites to provide a small number of pitches thus creating integrated communities, social cohesion and providing the gypsy & traveller communities with everything they require, the Cabinet puts maximising the New Homes Bonus over and above all else?”
The Chairman asked the Divisional Director for Planning and Transport for his view on this matter.
The Divisional Director for Planning and Transport replied that there were likely to be implications on all areas of the Council now that the Core Strategy is being reviewed. He added that MoD sites had neither been ruled in or out of the equation as far as Gypsies & Travellers were concerned.
Rosemary Collard addressed the Panel (a full copy of the statement is available on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below).
“Throughout this consultation, our main concerns about development of any sort on the adjacent site have been the shared access with the nursery and the loss of the woodland. We had previously expressed an interest in purchasing the woodland so that it could be used as a natural learning environment for the children.”
“Recruiting qualified staff and apprentices and promoting the new nursery to prospective parents has been challenging because we have been unable to give answers to many of the questions asked of us. It is impossible for us to know how many prospective parents never even contacted us.”
“I have pointed out why the site is undeliverable using words from the Council’s own documentation. It was deemed not suitable for development and ranked 15th out of 23 yet somehow ended up as one of six preferred sites. I hope that over the past few months the Council has looked again at its findings and listened to what local people have to say. The reasons that originally made the site unsuitable are unchanged.”
Karen Abolkheir, Stanton Wick Action Group addressed the Panel (a full copy of the statement is available on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below).
“We are concerned with the officer’s proposal to drop the use of the scoring matrix for future evaluation and to replace it with a subjective, non-comparative list of criteria. This is ill conceived and likely motivated by the eagerness not to have decisions and reasoning questioned by the public. This exercise at the end of the day is one of comparison and a well considered and accurately used scoring matrix is the accepted tool for this purpose.”
“Contrary to your officer’s assertion that the scoring matrix was confusing, it was not. The problem was that the scoring was badly conceived when considering the evaluation criteria, was incorrectly scored in a number of instances and was ignored in the final comparative analysis.”
“The arguments put forward by officers to adjust this process and have what they call a “stock take” are entirely without merit. The proposals, far from correcting the errors of the past actually plan to further confuse, cause stress to both settled and travelling communities and continue this chaotic and knee-jerk policy making.”
The Chairman asked if a scoring matrix would be used in the next stage of the process.
The Policy & Environment Manager replied that it would not and it would be replaced by a transparent assessment process so everyone could see the evidence used and the conclusions reached.
The Chairman on behalf of the Panel thanked him for the update.