The Portfolio Holder Local Planning & Environment presented the draft Gypsy and Traveller Plan which sought approval to go out to consultation site options.  Government policy required local planning authorities to identify the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers and prepare a plan to show how those needs would be met.  The Council had undertaken a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTTAA) in March 2012, which had identified a need for 72 pitches over the period 2012-2026.  This consultation was the first stage of a process looking at 'potential' sites and inviting stakeholders to comment.  It also included a ‘call for sites’ and suggestions would be welcome.

The Local Planning & Environment Advisory Committee had been updated and it was contained within the report, that the the Planning Inspector who was examining the Allocations and Development Management Plan (ADMP) had outlined that he planned to recommend a ‘main modification’ to the document, to allocate the identified site, land west of Enterprise Way, Edenbridge, for housing development, and therefore indicated that it would be incompatible for this site also to be considered for Gypsy and Traveller pitches.  Officers and the Advisory Committee had therefore recommended that this site be removed from the consultation draft.

If agreed the draft would go out for consultation in May/June 2014 and responses would inform the process as the Plan moved towards a further consultation stage.   Before the Council could adopt a Gypsy and Traveller Plan it would be subjected to independent examination and found sound by a Government-appointed Planning Inspector.  It was critical, therefore, that the suitability and deliverability of sites was robustly assessed and that sound planning reasons could be presented for the Council proposing or rejecting sites.

Members noted and considered the relevant minute and recommendations received from the Local Planning & Environment Advisory Committee which had considered the same report, and update. 

Before moving any further the Chairman moved that the land west of Enterprise Way, Edenbridge be removed from the consultation document.  This was put to the vote and agreed.

The Chairman took the meeting through each of the proposed sites (excluding the one already agreed to be removed) contained within the report and all Members had the opportunity to speak.  The Chairman of the Local Planning & Environment Advisory Committee informed the meeting of the debate had at the meeting and highlighted the minutes and recommendations of to the Cabinet.  Generally there had been concern over the cumulative effect and impact and lack of suitable infrastructure to accommodate many of these sites could cause.  Since the meeting Officers had confirmed that Holly Mobile Home Park, Hockenden Lane, Swanley was not in an Air Quality Monitoring area and therefore was not being recommended for removal.  However there had been much discussion as illustrated within the minutes and reasons given as to why certain areas were being recommended for removal from the consultation document. 

Members were reminded that this was only the first stage of a lengthy consultation process and it was necessary to consult closer to the number of sites being sought.  If there were no plan and evidence of clear and unmet need, then it would be hard to refuse applications through the development control process, and historically it had been shown that the planning inspectorate would look favourably on the applicant in the absence of a plan.  A plan would also provide time to plan for necessary infrastructure etc.  If all the sites were removed as as recommended by the Advisory Committee then only 37 pitches were left to consult on.  Being part of the consultation document did not mean that these sites would make it to the final document, but due process needed to be demonstrated with sound and valid reasons provided for not considering certain sites, in order to be found sound and pass the robust testing by the Government appointed Planning Inspector. 

It was noted that many of the potential site options were temporary sites being made permanent. 

With regards to Barnfield Park, Ash-cum-Ridley Officers agreed with the points raised by the local councillor at the Advisory Committee that good reasons had been provided to remove this site from the consultation. These related to the scale of the existing site and the scale of the ‘settled’ community of Ash.  Officers noted that national planning policy for Gypsy and Traveller sites states that ‘when assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community’.

The Cabinet were also addressed by speakers from Shoreham Parish Council concerning the unsuitability of land south of Mesne Way, part of Timberden Farm, Shoreham and doubted the accuracy of the Salford GTTAA Study; and a speaker from CBRE representing the landowner at Fort Halstead who suggested that the site’s location in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its importance for biodiversity indicated that it gave reasons why the site should be considered for early exclusion.

Many of the points made during the debate were why the consultation process was required and were issues that needed to be fed into the consultation process. 

Resolved:  That

                      a)          the ‘Gypsy and Traveller Plan – Site Options Consultation’, set out as Appendix 1 to the report, and the Gypsy and Traveller Plan – Site Options – Assessments, set out as Appendix 2 to the report with Barnfield Park, Ash-cum-Ridley and land west of Enterprise Way, Edenbridge removed as potential site options, 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 assist their clarity; and

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