Agenda item

The Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee resolved that South Cambridgeshire District Council take enforcement action against the occupiers of Plots 12 Victoria View, 15 Water Lane, and 5, 5A, 6, 10 and 11 Orchard Drive, Smithy Fen, Cottenham.  Reasons:

1.                  Consistency with previous action

2.                  Achievement of planning aims

3.                  Demonstration of the Council’s commitment to treating everybody equally and fairly

Prior to the introduction of this item, the Senior Lawyer reminded Members that, as well as declaring any personal or prejudicial interests, they should also consider whether there existed any previous history that might give a public perception of pre-determination were they to participate in the debate. The Senior Lawyer referred to advice that had been tendered in advance of the meeting and cited specific cases that indicated decisions arrived at in such circumstances were vulnerable to legal challenge.   Councillor Deborah Roberts told the Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee that she had neither personal nor prejudicial interests but, in order to prevent the possibility that any decision about to be made might be challenged on the basis that, in law, it had been made improperly, she had decided to take no part in the debate.   

Councillor Roberts withdrew to the public gallery, took no part in the subsequent debate, and did not vote.

Members visited the site on 21 July 2010.

The Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee considered a report summarising the current situation relating to unauthorised Traveller plots at Smithy Fen, Cottenham.  Members considered the report in open session but recognised that reference to any of the details contained in the confidential appendices would have required exclusion of the Press and public.

Jackie Smith (a Cottenham resident) and Councillors Simon Edwards and Tim Wotherspoon (local Members) addressed the meeting.  Councillor Wotherspoon also read out a statement from Cottenham Parish Council. 

The Head of Planning outlined the legal and planning history associated with Smithy Fen, Cottenham.  He explained that, although Plot 12 Victoria View formed the basis of the report, officers had deemed it appropriate to seek Members’ views, at the same time, on Plots 5, 5A, 6, 10 and 14 Orchard Drive and Plot 15 Water Lane.  He strongly refuted media coverage that had suggested that the officers’ recommendation had been reached on the basis of potential cost.  By way of clarification, the Head of Planning stated that the recommendation to Members was as set out in paragraph 24(c) of the report, namely to continue to tolerate while the Council develops a plan for Smithy Fen with the residents, and dismissed media speculation that the concept of “toleration” meant that the Council would be allowing illegal plots to become legal. 

The Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) said that the proposed Management Plan for Smithy Fen would cover issues not relevant to planning and enforcement.  She said that the Council would like to work with residents in order to develop the Plan and enhance the quality of life for all concerned.

Short of compromising the legal privilege relating to Appendix 1, the Senior Lawyer summarised Counsel’s Opinion.  He concluded that Members would need to balance the personal circumstances of those occupying the plots with planning expediency.  One consequence of taking enforcement action might be the need for the Council, in its capacity as Local Housing Authority, to process a series of homelessness applications.

Councillor Wotherspoon spoke enthusiastically about his visit to Smithy Fen.  He acknowledged the conflict between private property rights and the public interest, but said the Council’s objective must be to promote certainty and security both for travellers and for the settled community.   Councillor Wotherspoon commended to the Sub-Committee paragraph 17(f) of the report, namely enforcement as the authority had done in the past to clear the unauthorised sites and, as an alternative, paragraph 17(e) - Compulsory Purchase of unoccupied sites at Smithy Fen.  Councillor Edwards agreed, and added that the guiding principle must be one of fairness: the toleration of breaches of planning control was unfair to other travellers and to members of the settled community. 

Councillor Kindersley endorsed the comments of the local Members with the exception of compulsory purchase.  Expressing disappointment though that the issues of Plot 12 Victoria View and the other plots had not been in two separate reports, he described paragraph 25 of the report as being not feasible.  Councillor Kindersley cautioned Members against making a decision based on emotion, but instead urged them to consider how best to deliver the Council’s planning policies.   Members would be sending out the wrong message if they were to give a public perception that the traveller and settled communities were to be treated differently.  The Council had given the occupiers concerned ample opportunity to explore their planning options, but time had now run out. 

Councillor Nick Wright (Planning Portfolio Holder) thanked Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee members for their helpful comments, and Jackie Smith, Councillor Edwards, Councillor Wotherspoon and Cottenham Parish Council for their invaluable contributions.  

The Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee resolved that South Cambridgeshire District Council take enforcement action against the occupiers of Plots 12 Victoria View, 15 Water Lane, and 5, 5A, 6, 10 and 11 Orchard Drive, Smithy Fen, Cottenham in order to be consistent with its previous actions under similar circumstances, to achieve planning objectives, and to demonstrate its commitment to treating everybody equally and fairly.