Agenda item

Planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites

This report is attached to the paper version of the agenda as a separate document. 

Decision:

Endorsement of the draft response, subject to modification to address the following:

 

1.                  the definition of the term ‘Traveller’

2.                  partnership working and proportionality

3.                  the need for a national strategy on Travellers’ needs and sites

4.                  the need for central government funding

5.                  a database showing provision made by each local authority in the UK

 

and any further changes requested by the Cabinet at its meeting on 10th March 2005

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report seeking its views on the proposed response to the consultation document entitled Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Sites from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) before the Cabinet finalises the Council’s response at its meeting on 10th March 2005.

 

In paragraph 6.2 of the report, the word “sites” in the fifth line should have been “pitches”.  In paragraph 9.5 of the report, the word “not” between the words “enhanced by” and “allowing…” in the third line should have been omitted.

 

Members and officers discussed the following points:

 

(a)

There was an urgent need for greater partnership working.  For example, Utility providers should be encouraged to notify South Cambridgeshire District Council when requested to connect services in areas not identified for lawful development.  The Deputy Director of Development Services agreed that reference to this should be made in the Council’s response, and undertook to investigate a methodology.

 

(b)

District Councils’ responsibilities in relation to taking action against unlawful traveller encampments should be funded by central Government.  The cost of dealing with an, essentially, national issue should not fall disproportionately on individual local authorities.

 

(c)

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister must address the issues of lawlessness, and the Human Rights of settled communities.  The Police must be seen to be enforcing the law effectively and even-handedly.

 

(d)

Local Members were welcome to submit responses to the ODPM from a local viewpoint, but were encouraged to attach copies of those submissions to the finalised response from the District Council.

 

(e)

The District Council should liaise closely with relevant parish councils in order to involve local communities at the earliest possible stage. 

 

(f)

A more precise definition was needed of both the terms “Traveller” and “Showman”.

 

(g)

Density, land use issues and the categorisation of villages in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004 should all be issues in establishing a relationship between the number of travellers’ pitches in a particular village and the number of settled residents in that village.

 

(h)

Travellers applying for planning permission in the countryside should have to provide evidence of their status and identity in line with normal planning practice relating to development outside village frameworks.

 

It was essential that the Council’s response should strike the right balance, seeking to reduce the tensions that currently exist between travelling and settled communities.  The Council should be proud of its achievements in making provision for travellers within its district, and the ODPM should give it due credit. 

 

The Committee ENDORSED, in principle, the draft response to the ODPM’s consultation paper, as set out in paragraphs 6 – 10 and Appendix B of the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to amendments relating to:

 

(1)

the definitions of the terms ‘Traveller’ and ‘Showman’

(2)

partnership working and proportionality

(3)

the need for a national strategy on Travellers’ needs and sites

(4)

the need for central government funding

(5)

a database showing provision made by each local authority in the UK

Supporting documents: