Bob Porter, Director of Place introduced the
report and made the following comments:
- The purpose of the proposals was to
enable the delivery of affordable homes in Thanet;
- This would contribute towards the
delivery of 548 homes that Cabinet agreed to deliver each year for
the next four years;
- Land for potential delivery of homes
was put forward in the Local Plan;
- The Local Plan process would need to
be concluded that would include any identified land for new housing
developments;
- Gypsy and Traveller Communities: TDC
study identified five transit and seven permanent sites to be
established;
- The Council had legal obligations to
provide the traveller communities with facilities;
- Government directed that these
facilities be included in the Local Plan;
- No decision about the specific sites
had been made;
- Four sites might be forwarded to the
Planning Committee for decision;
- These applications should not have
detrimental impact on the local surroundings;
- The sites should have access to
health and education facilities;
- Any applications submitted outside
the Local Plan process would be to be assessed using the four
criteria;
- The proposals in the officer report
were recommendation a public consultation on any proposals and the
consultation would include traveller representatives;
- A road network was being proposed to
support new housing development. Cabinet would be asked to approve
the disposal of a piece of land to Kent County Council for road
network construction.
Councillor Whitehead, Deputy Leader of Council
and Cabinet Member for Housing only spoke on the part of this item
that referred to the consultation relating to Shottendane. She made
comments as follows:
- It is exceptionally important that
we consider this evening what we are discussing, and what we are
not discussing;
- It is recommended that the Overview
and Scrutiny Panel consider the contents of this committee report
and make any recommendations that it would like Cabinet to take
into account when considering the matter at its meeting on 25
January 2024;
- The proposed recommendations to the
Cabinet are:
- To conduct public consultation with
the Gypsy and Traveller community and neighbouring residents about
the proposal to establish a number of Gypsy and Traveller pitches
on land off of Shottendane Road (area shown in annex 6 to the
report).
2.
Subject to the outcome of the consultation, submit an application
for outline planning permission for the provision of Gypsy and
Traveller Pitches on the land marked 1aii in annex 5 to the
report.
- This was a proposal to recommend to
Cabinet that a consultation be undertaken with residents and
Travelling community to consider the potential of a managed site on
land we own at Shottendane;
- This was not a new idea, but
choosing to consult on it and asking for input from local resident
input and the Travelling community was new;
- The discussion was about the legal
requirement to plan for sites for the Gypsy and Traveller
community. This task was not optional. It was a legal requirement,
as well as a moral requirement;
- The Council had a legal duty to plan
for appropriate sites for members of the Gypsy and Traveller
community. In spite of this lack of provision being a longstanding
issue, and an important one, there were currently no sites
identified in the district;
- The Portfolio Holder for Housing was
determined to address this need and the need to bring communities
together in understanding, respect and discussion;
- Cabinet was determined to identify
and provide sites that work, in size and design, to ensure that
accommodation needs were met and simultaneously supporting the
local community through comprehensive consultation. The proposed
engagement will be key to this and we actively welcome involvement
at all stages of this process;
- What was being considered at this
Panel meeting was the consideration of a suggestion of a
consultation on providing a site. That was the only issue before
Members. If Members and residents wanted to discuss issues
surrounding site provision or concerns, that was exactly what a
consultation was for; there would be no point to providing it
otherwise.
- What was not up for discussion at
this meeting and will never be discussed in this Chamber, is
whether or not Travellers have a right to live in Thanet because
they do. They have a right to be part of the local communities, to
have access to schools, services, healthcare, to be part of our
lives, be considered, accepted and respected and not be demonised,
caricatured, abused and stereotyped
- The discussion about the proposal
for a consultation with residents and with the Travelling community
was in fact specifically a discussion about the right of all
residents to be heard.
Mr Fisher, Mr Thomas and Mr Rawf spoke under
Public Speaking and made the following comments:
- The public only came to know about
these proposals through a leaflet;
- Residents were not happy as they had
not been consulted;
- The presence of such a site would
cause a drop in property prices for the houses in that
neighbourhood;
- The Council could consider Dane
Park, where there is an acre of land that was owned by the Council
which could be allocated for such a site;
- Members could also consider
Hoverport site and not the piece of land in Garlinge;
- It was important for the Council to
identify a site for Travellers and wherever such a site was located
there were bound to be complaints;
- Currently the Council was having to
use more resources to move travellers away from illegal sites.
Bob Porter and Councillor Whitehead responded
as follows:
- The report before the Panel was not
about a planning application, but the proposals to have a public
consultation before sending out information to residents about the
consultation and conducting the actuarial consultation
exercise;
- Officer would consider all available
sites;
- The Council would consider all
alternative sites around the district and they would be reviewed
against some set criteria;
- If the Local Plan identified sites,
then those would be sites to be considered;
- The Council called for sites during
the Local Plan process. However, no sites were put forward by land
owners.
Members then asked questions and made comments
as follows:
- One Member said that previous
experience of other local Councils who tried to set up similar site
ended up experiencing friction between residents and the traveller
community;
- It was important for the Council to
listen to views from both the local residents and the
travellers’ community;
- Another Member said that there was a
need to identify a site, but not the one that had been identified
in the committee report;
- They further said that this piece of
land had been farmed by the family for generations and it was not
cited in the Local Plan as suitable for setting up the travellers
site;
- One Member advised the meeting that
debate on any issues should never end up with personal attacks and
apologised to Councillor Whitehead for the personal attacks she had
experienced;
- They further said that this was
agricultural land and there was no funding that had been identified
to develop the site;
- The Member asked what the Cabinet
plans were for the sites and they further said that the Garlinge
site would most likely be expanded as the Council would struggle to
find new sites;
- The Member asked why the traveller
community’s needs had not been included in the Local Plan in
the first place;
- Another Member said that it was not
useful to talk about what happened to other Councils in London many
years ago and it was not good leadership to whip up emotions on
this subject. Members were reminded to adhere to the Nolan
Principles of Public Life;
- Another Member asked what would
constitute a successful scheme;
- One Member said that they were
pleased that the Council was now finally addressing the issue of
traveller sites in the district. The Council had been neglecting
its statutory duty;
- Incursions being experienced in
Thanet were caused by the absence of statutory sites for
travellers;
- Another Member asked what the
acreage for traveller sites should be if one was to conduct a ten
year forecast;
- It was also important to preserve
arable land;
- One Member said that there was a
travellers’ community that had been living in Central Harbour
Ward in Ramsgate for the last three years and had integrated well
with the local communities. They had a long history in Kent;
- Another Member asked what the
process would be for communicating with the public to reassure them
about the process for identifying traveller sites. They further
asked if there were any other sites under consideration like the
Hoverport;
- One Member advised the meeting that
the Council was about to start the Local Plan review process. Any
updated Local Plan would not pass without the traveller sites
identified in it;
- It was therefore important to
identify a number potential sites;
- Had the Council been in discussion
with the travellers?
- Would the traveller community be
paying tax once they get settled at the sites?
- How many families of the traveller
community had been identified?
- At what point would the Council
identify funding for the development of sites once a decision on
those sites was made?
Bob Porter and Councillor Whitehead responded
to Member comments and questions as follows:
- The Council would consider all
viable sites and these would be considered against set
criteria;
- Garlinge site was not in the Local
Plan. However, the decision for sites was still some way off;
- The Council had written to
government regarding the issue of agricultural land as only
government could give direction on such matters;
- Smaller sized sites would be managed
more successfully and success was measured by how well integrated
the sites would be with existing communities and the natural
environment;
- The sites would also need to be
financially viable;
- Officers had held discussions with
the traveller community;
- There was national guidance on
forecasting demand for traveller sites in a given area. This
information could be shared with Members of the Panel after the
meeting;
- Previously during the development of
the current Local Plan, a public call for sites did not yield any
success as no sites were put forward by land owners;
- The council looked at its own land
and realised that the options were limited;
- The consultation process had not yet
been designed. This process had to be open and transparent;
- There was still a decision to be
made on the size of the sites. Currently the Council was in
discussion with the travellers;
- Government preferred that Council
identified sites first before consideration of funding;
- Residential caravans paid tax or
business rates. More detail on this would be sourced and shared
with Members;
- Currently the land that had been
identified was Council land. Planning applications would be
submitted for the sites, once the process reached that stage.
The Panel agreed that the following officer
recommendations be forwarded to Cabinet:
- To conduct public consultation with
the Gypsy and Traveller community and neighbouring residents about
the proposal to establish a number of Gypsy and Traveller pitches
on land off of Shottendane Road (area shown in annex 6).
2.
To dispose of part of the land at Shottendane Road (areas marked as
1b and 2b on annex 5) to KCC for the proposed Major Road Network
(Inner Circuit) improvements and a linked sustainable drainage
scheme.
The Panel also noted that proposals for the
provision of housing on the wider Shottendane Road site could only
be considered, following the assessment of all land submitted to
the council as part of the ‘Call for Sites’ and the
completion of the current review of the Thanet Local Plan.
The Panel rejected the officer recommendation
that “Subject to the outcome of the consultation, submit an
application for outline planning permission for the provision of
Gypsy and Traveller Pitches on the land marked 1aii in annex
5.”
Councillor Green proposed, Councillor Fellows
seconded and Members agreed that the Council hold-off consultation
until the Council had looked at all its holdings to identify more
suitable sites and that would then be followed by a full and
transparent public consultation.