The Portfolio Holder Housing & Community Safety, and Ward Councillor for Otford and Shoreham commented on the anxiety that had been caused by the decision at the previous meeting on ‘Gypsy and Traveller Plan - Site Options Consultation’ for all residents but particularly those in Shoreham and asked whether it was possible to keep as close as possible to the minimum statutory consultation period of 6 weeks so that the results of the consultation could be known as soon as possible.

The Chairman advised that the consultation was to allow comment and consultation on potential sites and the opportunity for other sites to be identified and brought forward, so whilst it would be as timely as possible enough time was needed to identify other sites.  The Planning Policy Team Leader advised that the 6 weeks consultation period was the statutory minimum, the Council usually ran these consultations for a period of 8 – 10 weeks, I this case it was believed that an 8 week period would be appropriate.  During this period small consultation events would also be held with local communities and the Gypsy and Traveller communities.

The Chairman informed the Cabinet that he had received a request to speak by a member of the public and that he was going to exercise his discretion as Chairman and allow Mrs Ann Palmer to address them with her concerns over the decision taken at Cabinet on 10 April 2014 on the report ‘Gypsy and Traveller Plan - Site Options Consultation’.  Although he was using his discretion to allow Mrs Palmer to speak, he reminded Members that there could be no debate or decision making but that Cabinet could note the concerns raised.

Mrs Palmer, a resident of Shoreham, who was supported by the presence of a number of Shoreham residents, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Cabinet and handed out some papers to support her presentation, drawing Members’ attention to pictures of certain view of the consultation site in Shoreham.  Samuel Palmer’s ‘Valley of Vision’ was a special place, an area of outstanding natural beauty, and not far from the site was Shoreham’s iconic cross and residential housing.  She pointed out that the GTTA assessment was carried out two years ago and the consultation had a deadline to deliver by April 2013 which had not been met due to staff long term sickness.  As they saw it Sevenoaks District Council (SDC) was performing a tick box exercise to keep the Planning Inspectorate happy; the cost of the consultation did not matter; and that the bight was unfortunate but would come out in the wash.

As the community saw it the land had been sold in good faith in order to protect the environment and prevent unsuitable development and would not have been sold otherwise.  That SDC had failed to effectively resource the original call for sites, had failed to meet the self imposed deadline of last spring and had not challenged consultees enough such as KCC and DfT.  Their own ward councillors had not been aware of any of this until late February, the initial assessment impact had ruled it out as had the Advisory Committee on 25 March 2014.  However at Cabinet on 10 April 2014 it was kept in to make up numbers.  It was felt that SDC was being driven by expediency not efficiency and effectiveness with a blatant disregard of public money.

The community was angry and felt that they had been let down and treated badly, and were now full of mistrust.  The Council’s now lacked credibility in their eyes.   Radio Kent and The Chronicle were helping with the campaign of support as they wold be launching a strong campaigning as well as responding to the consultation.  She accused the Council of a lack of corporate integrity, openness or transparency and felt that there was an attempt to pull the wool over the Planning Inspectorate’s eyes by pretending to consult on viable sites.  The fight was being passed to residents to fight forcing them to dip into their own pockets after already having to pay increased Council Tax which the SDC was using to fund the consultation.  Whilst the local property market was being destroyed.

As a community they wanted the process to get underway and end as soon as possible to remove uncertainty and that the consultation period should be no more than the minimum 6 weeks; that alternative sites should be examined in parallel; and that the Shoreham site should be removed from the consultation by the summer. 

The Chairman acknowledged the concerns raised.  He reminded those present that the process was at a very early stage and the consultation process allowed all the arguments to be put forward and for opportunities to look at new sites brought forward.  The Council had to find 72 plots and had to consult as to near to that figure as possible otherwise there was a risk of sites being allowed on appeal as there was no controls and this was already happening for example at Well Hill.