The Planning Officer presented a consultation draft of the Gypsy & Traveller Plan for the District. This had been produced in light of the Gypsy & Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTTAA) undertaken by the Council in March 2012.  The GTTAA had identified the need to provide 72 pitches between 2012 and 2026 in order to fulfil the housing needs of those anticipated to meet the planning definition of Gypsies & Travellers.  The Planning Officer advised that, since the publication of the report, a pitch (at Crockenhill) had been granted permanent planning permission, thereby reducing the needs requirement to 71.

            The consultation draft identified 14 site options, with a total number of 93 additional permanent pitches for potential allocation. These sites had been subjected to an initial assessment against pre-defined selection criteria, including constraints; impact; and sustainability. The purpose of the proposed consultation was to seek the views of stakeholders on these sites and to invite suggestions for any others which may be suitable.

            The Planning Policy Team Leader referred to the supplementary information which had been circulated regarding the site on land west of Enterprise Way, Edenbridge (the ‘Reserve Land’).  This explained that the Planning Inspector examining the Council’s Allocations and Development Management Plan had indicated his intention to recommend a ‘main modification’ to allocate the site for housing under Policy H1.  The Inspector considered that this would be incompatible with any proposals for Gypsy & Traveller pitches and, in light of this, Officers recommended that the site be removed from the consultation document.

            The report acknowledged that it would not be possible to meet the identified need without planning for sites in the Green Belt. It also emphasised the importance of developing a plan to meet the accommodation needs of Gypsies & Travellers as, without the identification of suitable sites, the Council would have difficulties in resisting proposals for sites coming forward through the development management (including appeal) process regardless of their locations.

            Reference was also made to the fact that Gypsies & Travellers were covered as a ‘protected group’ from discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010.  The consultation draft had therefore been subjected to an Equalities Impact Assessment.

            The Chairman invited comments from Councillors and members of the public.  Arising from this, the following views were expressed as follows:

Site at Seven Acres Farm, Hever Road, Edenbridge

The field in question appeared capable of accommodating additional pitches (i.e. besides the 7 temporary pitches which were there at the moment);

Site at Malt House Farm and land adjacent to Valley Park South (both Lower Road,Hextable)

The proposed potential allocations were inappropriate for the village;

Land east of Knockholt Station, London Road, Halstead

There were a number of sites in the area representing an unacceptable density of provision;

Holly Mobile Home Park, Hockenden Lane, Swanley

Reference in the report to the site not being in an Air Quality Management Area should be checked. [A Councillor asserted that this aspect of the report was incorrect]. The site was adjacent to the A20, not the M25.  Some of the current residents do not meet the local housing needs criteria. Swanley would be surrounded by traveller sites;

Site at Barnfield Park, Ash-cum-Ridley

Further provision  of pitches would be incompatible with the Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites which advocated  measures to: respect the interests of the settled community; reduce tensions in plan-making, ensure economic, social and environmental sustainability with accessible education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure; and relate pitch numbers to the circumstances of the specific site and the surrounding population’s size and density.  This was on the basis that:

·                     responses to the Ash-cum-Ridley 2013 Neighbourhood Plan questionnaire demonstrated a lack of support for and opposition to additional pitches;

·                     Ash has no public transport and was poorly connected with no vehicular access to The Street in Ash;

·                     there are no services in Ash to benefit the education, health, welfare or employment needs of the traveller community;

·                     there were some 65 residential properties in the core of Ash Village: Billet Hill and The Street, and the 35 pitch site at Barnfield Park already dominated the village.  The site was already overdeveloped as a result of the present development exceeding that allowed by the planning permission for the site;

·                     the Government’s guideline of 15 pitches as the optimal size for managing a site should relate to the total number of pitches on the whole site, not to the 8 newly proposed additional pitches

Land west of Enterprise Way, Edenbridge

The supplementary recommendation to remove this site from the consultation document (in light of the Planning Inspector’s comments, as referred to above) was strongly supported;

Land south of Mesne Way, part of Timberden Farm, Shoreham

The site was wholly unsuitable for 15 pitches. It could be viewed from a well used footpath on the North Downs; the potential for screening was dubious. It had also suffered from flooding in the past.  Shoreham was a small village with narrow roads (vehicular access to the sites via Filston Lane, not the High Street).  The village school would become oversubscribed.  The proximity within the Kent Downs AONB was especially significant.  The pitches would be unsustainable and would have a negative impact on the village. 

Land at Fort Halstead, Halstead

Concern was raised about the concentration of sites in a limited area around Knockholt Station, Polehill, Shoreham and Fort Halstead with the impact this would have on infrastructure. It was also noted that if the density rate at Knockholt Station were used then the identified site would accommodate many more than 15 pitches. The Officer explained that it was only an “area of search” and only a portion of the area would be used.

General comments

The clusters of potential allocations were too dense and should be distributed more evenly among other settlements to facilitate integration and to create more balanced communities. The management of sites was generally poor.  There was inadequate infrastructure in rural locations.  Some sites were close to the District’s boundaries and the area of search for additional provision needed to be widened beyond this with neighbouring authorities being required to fulfil their ‘Duty to Co-operate’.

Public Sector Equality Duty

Members noted that consideration had been given to impacts under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

            Resolved:  That it be recommended to Cabinet that

                      a)          subject to:

                                  i)              the deletion of the following sites

·           Malt House Farm, Lower Road, Hextable

·           Land adjacent to Valley Park South, Lower Road, Hextable

·           Land east of Knockholt Station, London Road, Halstead

·           Barnfield Park, Ash-cum-Ridley

·           Land west of Enterprise Way, Edenbridge

·           Land south of Mesne Way, part of Timberden Farm, Shoreham; and

                                ii)              the inclusion of the Holly Mobile Home Park, Hockenden Lane, Swanley being conditional upon Officers confirming that the site is not located within an Air Quality Monitoring Area

the ‘Gypsy and Traveller Plan – Site Options Consultation’ and the ‘Gypsy and Traveller Plan – Site Options – Assessments’ (Appendices 1 and 2 to the report) be published for consultation (along with the Sustainability Appraisal) during a period to be agreed by the Portfolio Holder;

                      b)                               the Portfolio Holder be authorised to agree minor presentational changes and detailed amendments to the consultation documents to improve their clarity; and

                       c)                               the consultation document be published on the Council’s website and made available for purchase in hard copy at a price to be agreed by the Portfolio Holder.