Agenda item

Report to follow.

Gavin Waite, Director of Operational Services introduced the item for discussion and advised Members that officers were going to provide the technical information relating to the review leading up to the recommendations made by the review group. Mr Waite then requested Eden Geddes, the former Community Safety Manager (now with the Multi-Agency Task Force) to introduce the legal framework for addressing the issue under review.

Mr Geddes made the following comments:

• Section 124 of the Housing Planning Act placed a duty on local councils to assess housing needs of all the residents in its area, including housing needs for the traveller community;
• The assessment would include determining the space for the caravans to be placed;
• The Equality Act 2010 also provided rights to all individuals including the right to equal treatment;
• Nomadic lifestyle is lawful and recognized by legislation to be such;
• On the other hand trespassing is unlawful and a civil crime;
• Prior to issuing out a Section 77 eviction notice, the council had to identify welfare concerns of the affected individuals;
• Other issues that included anti-social behaviour, impact on local settled communities and landowners were taken into consideration when issuing S77 notices for unauthorised encampments;
• Decisions to evict had to be balanced, necessary, legal and proportionate;
• Preventive injunctions could be used. However the council had to fulfill all requirements in order to employ that legal tool. TDC did not currently fulfil such legal requirements.

Contributing to the discussion, Penny Button, Head of Safer Neighbourhoods made the following comments:

• There had been a marked increase in unauthorised encampments in the district and these were largely dominated by two families;
• Historically the encampments were on KCC land but there had been some change in such activities taking place on council and private land;
• The Panel set up the review group to study and report back on their findings and recommendations;
• Currently council was collecting waste left behind by the unauthorized encampments as part of the regular waste collection for the area;
• On an occasion when a specific collection was made for one of the encampments, it cost council approximately £500;
• It was being proposed in the current draft Local Plan to set aside five pitches that could be used for establishing authorised encampments for travellers;
• There were three distinct types of encampment sites that a council could provide. The review group concentrated on temporary tolerated sites;
• In informing the review group recommendations, an options matrix was used which highlighted the advantages and disadvantages for each site;
• The travellers’ representatives were invited to the group’s meetings. Unfortunately they did not attend;
• Three sites that included Potten Street Car Park, Tivoli Brook and Ramsgate Hover Port were identified as the proposed temporary tolerated sites that could be recommended to cabinet for consideration.

Ms Lorraine Lucas and Ms Sonya Smyth spoke under the public speaking procedure rules.

The following Members spoke under Council Procedure Rule 20.1:

Councillor Stuart Piper;

Councillor Albon;

Councillor Yates.

Responding to the review report back Members made comments and asked questions as follows:

• Thanked officers for providing support to the review process;
• Were concerned that Ramsgate Port had been proposed as a site because it was currently under a feasibility study for investment purposes;
• It was a very difficult decision to make;
• Members of the review group conducted site visits from which they identified three;
• When identifying the proposed sites, consideration was given to how these sites would impact the settled local communities and other factors like flooding;
• Was the council currently using all its powers to remove unauthorised encampments in the district?
• How much did it actually cost the council to remove these unauthorised encampments? These costs went beyond the transport costs for clearing waste left behind and should have included the working hours needed to clean up and remove hazardous substances and the social costs of illegal activities associated with these encampments;
• The panel needed to be thorough in its review and firm in its recommendations;
• The public view would be sought before a final decision was made on the issue;
• Tivoli Brook was not a good option because of the disadvantages cited in the report;
• Was the council legally obliged to provide the encampment sites?
• If not obliged to provide the sites why was council proposing to provide the sites?
• What benefits would the council derive from providing the sites?
• What was the way forward in addressing this matter under review?
• None of the Members would like to have the pitches for the sites identified near their residential areas;
• The public was concerned. However the council had to make the right decision;
• There was a need to conduct a public consultation on the matter before making a final decision on it;
• The decision to agree the sites for temporary encampment sites would be unpopular but necessary;
• Extensive work had been carried out by the review group. However the group did not have a remit to conduct a public consultation.

Responding to Member comments and questions Mr Geddes, Ms Button, Mr Gavin and Mr Bob Porter said:

• The local Plan identified the need for pitches to be provided to the Traveller community in the district;
• Council was legally obliged to assess the needs of Travellers and Gypsy communities and to provide pitches for setting up encampments sites;
• The Panel had to make its recommendations based on the findings and recommendations of the Travellers Review Group.

Councillor Campbell proposed, Councillor Rusiecki seconded and Members recommended to Cabinet that further work be undertaken including extensive public consultation to assess the feasibility and cost implications of establishing temporary tolerated sites in the district.