Agenda item

To consider a report by the Planning and Public Protection Manager (copy enclosed) which seeks the Committee’s observations on the process for progressing Gypsy and Traveller site provision through the replacement LDP

 

 10.10am – 11.10am

 

The Lead Member for Planning, Public Protection and Safer Communities introduced the report and appendices (previously circulated) which updated the Committee on the process followed with a view to ensuring the Council discharged its statutory duties with respect of the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites within the county.  This report focussed specifically on sites discussed at Asset Management Group (AMG) and Strategic Planning Group (SPG) meetings for recommendation to Cabinet for inclusion in the replacement Local Development Plan (LDP) process as potential Gypsy and Traveller sites.

During their introduction the Lead Member and officers gave the Committee an overview of the statutory duties placed on the Council for it to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers.  In view of the fact that a need had been identified within the county in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment formally approved by the Council and Welsh Government in 2017. In addition, they outlined the process followed to select potential sites for both residential and transit purposes, the number of pitches required for both a residential and a transit site and reminded members that Cabinet had resolved, in March 2019, that the preferred location for the six pitch residential site would be Green Gates (East) near St. Asaph.  In agreeing this site as its preferred location for the residential site Cabinet had also agreed that the allocation of potential sites for the five pitch transit site should be undertaken as part of the replacement LDP process, and that Green Gates (East) should not be considered for the purpose of a transit site, hence the reason for the presentation of this report to the Committee.

Attached to the report was a copy of a report presented to Cabinet Briefing on 9 September 2019 outlining the proposed process to be followed with a view to progressing potential Gypsy and Traveller transit sites for inclusion in the replacement LDP, along with a copy of a report identifying potential Gypsy and Traveller transit sites presented to AMG on 30 September 2019.  The latter report included details of the relevant pieces of legislation which placed a statutory duty on the Council to assess the need for such provision, and if identified, to provide sites.  Also included as appendices to that report were:

·         details of the initial site review criteria

·         information pertaining to the site analysis and resulting recommendations, along with details of the further consideration given to those sites shortlisted and a response from Valuation and Estates regarding the potential loss of agricultural land  and potential issues relating to serving notices to quit to tenants

Officers confirmed that all sites previously considered, as part of the original Gypsy and Travellers site provision exercise were considered again.  As no landowner had come forward with an offer of land for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, either as part of the initial call for land process for Gypsy and Traveller site provision or as part of a similar exercise under the replacement LDP process, the Council had put forward a number of sites within its ownership for this purpose, as it needed to demonstrate to the Welsh Government (WG) that it was striving to meet its statutory obligations.  Hence the reason for the inclusion of agricultural land and designated public open spaces as potential sites for inclusion in the replacement LDP for this purpose, as the LDP process provided an opportunity for the Council to amend current land designations. 

The Committee was advised that AMG at its meeting on 30 September had supported the inclusion of the four sites submitted to it for consideration:

·         Rhuallt – land off Holywell Road

·         Rhuallt – former School field

·         Denbigh, Henllan Road – Site 1

·         Denbigh, Henllan Road – Site 2

In addition, they requested that a further site in Rhuallt, land off the B5429 (formerly part of Pant Ifan Newydd) also be included as a potential site.

Officers emphasised that if Cabinet approved the submission of any or all of the potential sites for consideration in the replacement LDP, a substantial amount of detailed work would be required before any of them could be included in the final adopted replacement LDP.  Consequently, some or all of them may well not meet the criteria for inclusion eventually.  They explained that if Cabinet agreed to their inclusion in the replacement deposit LDP, County Council’s approval would be sought for undertaking full public consultation on the deposit LDP.  Following public consultation, Council’s approval would be sought to submit the document to the WG and the Planning Inspectorate for public examination.  The Public Examination would be an opportunity for any individual or organisation objecting to the contents of the LDP to give evidence to an independent Inspector.  Following the publication of the Inspector’s binding report, Council’s approval would be sought to adopt the LDP.

Responding to questions from the Committee Chair, the Lead Member and officers confirmed that:

·         the current LDP would expire at the end of 2021.  If no replacement LDP was adopted by that date national planning policies would prevail.  This in effect would mean that local policies and designations i.e. in relation to affordable housing and development boundaries would be defunct and could not be applied when considering planning applications.  Local planning decisions would be determined based on national not local policies;

·         local members representing the Council wards which included the proposed sites for inclusion for development as Gypsy and Travellers site provision had been informed of the proposals ahead of the AMG meeting

Officers emphasised that the inclusion of potential sites for Gypsy and Traveller use within the replacement LDP did not equate to those sites being developed for that purpose, as they would still have to be taken through the local authority planning application process, and could therefore be refused at that stage.

Local members for the Council wards under consideration for locating potential sites were given an opportunity to raise points and ask questions to the Lead Member and officers.  Responding to the points raised and the concerns put forward by the councillors for the Upper Denbigh and Henllan ward the Lead Member and officers:

·         confirmed that the Gypsy and Traveller community had not yet been consulted on the proposed potential sites.  They, along with their advocacy groups, would be consulted on the potential sites  through the replacement LDP process;

·         advised that two separate ‘calls for land’ had been made to landowners for the purpose of meeting the need identified for Gypsy and Traveller sites.  However, no landowners had approached the Council suggesting land for this purpose. In addition, all councillors and City, Town & Community Councils were contacted requesting suggestions for suitable land but none were forthcoming.  In the past the Council had approached land owners with a view to buy land for this purpose, but none were willing to sell land to the Authority, hence the reason why the Council itself was putting some of its own land forward for potential inclusion with a view to demonstrating to the WG that it had a realistic and deliverable proposal within its replacement LDP in order to meet the need identified;

·         confirmed that the current tenants of the Council land put forward for inclusion had not been notified or consulted on the proposal prior to the AMG meeting because no decision had yet been taken on whether or not the land should be included as a potential site.  The reason for this was that AMG may not have agreed with their inclusion, therefore prior notification with the tenants may cause unnecessary stress and worry for them.  Whilst AMG did agree with the sites inclusion on the list of potential sites it also asked that another site in Rhuallt be added to the list of potential sites, bringing the total number of potential sites for inclusion to five;

·         advised that the main route used by Gypsies and Travellers, into and out of Denbighshire, was the A55.  As a result the majority of unauthorised encampments were experienced in the coastal area, north of the A55.  The reason for this may be that the Gypsy and Traveller community were able to find sufficient work in that area of the county;

·         confirmed that WG grant funding towards the costs of providing authorised Gypsy and Traveller sites was currently available until the end of 2021.  If the Council approved sites and planning permission was granted the Authority could then bid for any available funding towards developing the sites;

·         advised that it was anticipated that there was sufficient capacity within schools in the proposed areas to accommodate the number of children from a transit site if the need arose;

·         confirmed that circa 15 unauthorised encampments were experienced in Denbighshire each year;

·         emphasised that the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) undertaken by the Council was a legal requirement under Section 102 of The Housing (Wales) Act 2014.  As a result of undertaking this assessment in Denbighshire a need for both a residential and transit site had been identified.  Consequently, Section 103 of the above Act required the Council to make provision to meet the identified need.

The local member for Tremeirchion advised that:

·         Rhuallt was a small rural community, adjacent to the Clwydian Range and Dee Valley Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB), which had very few local services and amenities.  There was no shop or school in the village anymore, neither was there a bus service, only a twice-weekly taxi-bus service;

·         the nearest primary school was in Tremeirchion, the school currently had very few surplus places and was a Welsh-medium school;

·         the former School field site in Rhuallt, included on the potential sites list, was currently an amenity for local children and families and had recently been refurbished with new state of the art play equipment.  As a playing field it was protected from development under the current LDP as a public open space;

·         the land off the B5429 at Rhuallt was adjacent to a former Council agricultural holding, Pant Ifan Newydd, which the Council had in recent years sold the farmhouse and barn for a substantial amount of money to individuals who had converted them into their homes.  The owners of these properties had been led to believe the land adjacent to their properties would eventually be developed for residential purposes, not as a transit site for Gypsies and Travellers.  Such a development would have a detrimental affect on the value of their properties.  On the opposite side of the B5429 to this proposed site were a number of businesses which employed between them in excess of 100 people.  If this particular parcel of land was eventually developed as a transit provision for Gypsies and Travellers, it could seriously affect these businesses and the livelihood of a large number of people;

·         the former abattoir site, off Holywell Road, was only a third owned by Denbighshire County Council.  The land on this site contained high levels of contamination, including toxic and foot and mouth waste, all of which would add to the cost of preparing the site ready for development.  There were also rights of access issues relating to the site as outlined in a letter from a neighbour read out at the meeting. In addition, it was believed that the WG favoured this particular site for development as an Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHP) recycling site; 

·         as only approximately 8 miles of the A55 traversed Denbighshire, and due to the ease of access to and off the highway and their location, both Rhuallt and St. Asaph were disproportionally disadvantaged in terms of the number of these types of developments being put forward for the area.

Responding to Committee members’ questions the Lead Member and officers:

·         confirmed that as a ‘need’ for a transit Gypsy and Traveller site had been identified in the county the Council’s LDP would run the risk of being rejected by WG if it did not contain proposed sites for development for this purpose.  They emphasised that if this happened the Council would have to adhere to national planning policies when determining planning applications, regardless of local need or preferences;

·         advised that if a local authority had identified a need for a residential and/or a transit site for Gypsy and Travellers as part of its GTAA it was duty bound to develop those sites within its county boundaries, regardless of the availability of any similar provision in neighbouring local authority areas;

·         confirmed that Conwy County Borough Council (CCBC) already had a residential site, and was in a similar position to Denbighshire with regards to identifying sites to meet transit needs.  Flintshire already had a number of residential sites in the Flint area.  It had recently identified a location in the same area for potential development as a transit site;

·         advised that whilst the AMG had indicated that its preference for the former abattoir site, off Holywell Road, Rhuallt, would be for it to become an AHP waste site, it had also instructed that its potential for locating a Gypsy and Traveller transit site continue to be explored, in case the AHP use did not come to fruition;

·         confirmed that there was a risk in relation to the land adjacent to Pant Ifan Newydd in Rhuallt that, if the location was progressed for inclusion in the replacement LDP for development as a potential transit site for Gypsies and Travellers,  the capital value of the remaining land there that had potential for residential development purposes would reduce greatly;

·         advised that in relation to some of the proposed sites a balance required to be struck between cost benefit and asset value/devaluation i.e. for the former abattoir site substantial WG funding was available for site remediation work.  Whatever facility was eventually developed on that particular site the remediation work would have to be undertaken;

·         advised that if, following further investigation work, none of the five sites potentially being proposed for inclusion in the replacement LDP for the purpose of a Gypsy and Traveller site were deemed to be suitable, the process for identifying potential sites would re-commence;

·         confirmed that the former school field site at Rhuallt was protected as an open space under the current LDP.  However, with the development of the replacement LDP an opportunity would arise for the Council to review all current designations if it felt that was necessary.  It could do this if it substituted previous designations with other similar designations in the replacement LDP;

·         advised that the WG had default powers (Part 6 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 71) where if it considered a council was failing or omitting to do anything it was necessary for them to do in relation to an LDP the WG could remove an LDP under preparation from local authority control and make any necessary amendments.  A public examination would be held and WG could then approve their LDP as the development plan for the area. If this was to happen any decisions relating to the location of sites for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and other matters would be taken out of the hands of elected councillors;

·         advised that the current LDP included criteria based policy for assessing any proposals for Gypsy & Traveller sites, as at the time of its development a GTAA had not been completed .  The Assessment had been approved in January 2017 and as a result the need for a residential and transit site had been identified.  Consequently, the Council needed to outline in its replacement LDP how it intended to meet those identified needs;

·         confirmed that Conwy County Borough Council and Denbighshire County Council had undertaken a joint accommodation needs assessment.  In undertaking the assessment they had followed WG published guidance.  Whilst the data collation exercise had been undertaken on a joint basis, the data submitted to WG had been based on each individual county area.  The WG had scrutinised the data provided to them and indicated its acceptance of the process followed and validated the data.  Under Data Protection rules the Council was not in a position to share individual responses received to the GTAA;

·         confirmed that both councils were currently in the process of inviting tenders for the next accommodation needs assessment.  The current approved assessment covered the time period to 2021, the new assessment would cover the time period to 2033 which matched the replacement LDP timeframe. The new assessment would provide information on any additional need to that identified in the current assessment. This would not replace the findings of the current assessment which had identified the need for both a residential and a transit site, and which the Council was legally bound to deliver;

·         advised that the well-being goals assessments in the Well-being Impact Assessment (Appendix 3 to the report) were county-wide assessments at present.  Similar assessments would be undertaken on a site by site basis if and when any of the proposed sites were recommended for inclusion in the replacement LDP;

·         confirmed that it had been concluded that the provision of five pitches would be  sufficient for a transit site in Denbighshire.  This figure had been derived based on the number and size of unauthorised encampments in the county over a 12 month period.  Five pitches therefore seemed sufficient at this moment in time.  If, over time, it became evident that five was not sufficient, further work would be required to assess the best way of meeting that need. This could include the extension of an existing site. Any such proposal would be subject to the normal planning application process.

The Chair permitted two members of the public to address the Committee on their concerns regarding the proposed site locations within their areas, one from each County Council ward.  They acknowledged that it seemed that the Council was legally obliged to provide such facilities and that the majority of communities adopted a ‘not in my back yard’ (NIMBY) approach towards these type of developments.  Nevertheless whilst their concerns generally reflected those of elected members, they also highlighted the potential loss of green spaces on rural communities who already had very few public amenities available to them, the loss of agricultural land and the impact on the livelihood of individual farmers, and the lack of local infrastructure in certain areas to support these type of facilities.

A member of the Committee registered his concerns about the ‘undemocratic’ nature of the Council’s AMG, which in his view yielded a large amount of influence despite only having one elected member, a Cabinet member, serving on it.  In his view the Group’s remit and role should be reviewed.  He was reminded by the Lead Member for Planning, Public Protection and Safer Communities that the Group’s meetings were open to all councillors to attend.  In addition any councillor could address and challenge the Group about any proposals at their meetings.  This indeed had taken place during the discussion on the proposed locations for Gypsy and Traveller sites at the Group’s meeting on 30 September, which had resulted in a fifth potential site being added to the list.

A question was raised on why a list of proposed sites for the use of the Gypsy and Traveller community were being put forward for inclusion in the replacement LDP without any prior consultation with the Roma, Gypsy or Travelling community on their preferred locations, and/or whether any of the sites under consideration by the Council were suitable for the community.  Should they not be involved as early as possible in discussions relating to potential site locations?

Acknowledging that the current process to date seemed more open and transparent than similar ones previously undertaken the Vice-Chair enquired whether the Council could apply for planning permission for more than one transit Gypsy and Traveller site simultaneously?  Officers advised that a priority list could be drawn-up of preferred sites if necessary.

In response to further questions the Lead Member and officers advised that:

·         the criteria used to assess the suitability of sites was the same as that used for previous exercises.  It took into consideration LDP requirements and WG policies amongst other things; and

·         whilst the majority of unauthorised encampments in the county were in the Rhyl and Prestatyn areas, which would seem to indicate it to be a preferred area by the Gypsy and Traveller community, the majority of land within Council ownership in that area was deemed unsuitable for development for this purpose as they lay within a recognised flood zone.  The WG would therefore reject the inclusion of those sites on that basis.

The Lead Member for Housing and Communities, who would once the site(s) had been developed in the county, be responsible for them advised that in his view national routes for transit sites would need to be developed across the UK, under the direction of central government.  He stated that the ‘transit’ season was generally between June and late autumn of every year and that the Police only had powers to move unauthorised encampments if authorised sites were available in that particular local authority area to accommodate them.  In his view five pitches was an insufficient number and the locations being proposed were unsuitable.  Hence the reason why central government should take the lead to develop a network of strategically located transit sites that met the needs and demands of the Gypsy and Traveller community.  He also expressed the view that Denbighshire County Council should work closely with Conwy County Borough Council in developing a transit site.  The Lead Member indicated that, given the concerns raised at the meeting, if a transit site or sites were allocated in the LDP he would delay their implementation for as long as possible.

Local members for Upper Denbigh and Henllan agreed with the Lead Member for Planning, Public Protection and Safer Communities that the Henllan Road, Denbigh locations were not ideal for locating a transit site as they were too far away from the main transit route, not close enough to local amenities and would not provide the Gypsy and Traveller community with a large enough population base to support their business opportunities.  Due to their location there would be a significant risk if one of these sites was developed for this purpose that it would not be used by the Gypsy and Traveller community.

Officers confirmed that its legal obligation was to provide pitches that were sufficient to service travelling caravans, they were not obliged to provide space for the occupants to run their businesses.  They also confirmed that the Henllan Road, Denbigh sites had not been considered during the initial Gypsy and Traveller site provision process as the original intention had been to locate both the residential and transit sites at Green Gates (East), St. Asaph.

The Committee was reminded by the Chair that the purpose of the discussion at the current meeting was to seek their observations on the process for progressing potential Gypsy and Traveller sites through the LDP and not to assess the suitability or otherwise of individual sites currently being put forward for inclusion in the LDP as potential sites for this purpose.

At the conclusion of a detailed and in-depth discussion the Committee emphasised their concerns about the stringency of the WG Regulations which required all local authorities that had identified the need for a residential and/or transit Gypsy and Traveller sites to develop those sites on an individual county basis and in isolation of provision that may already be available, and perhaps underutilised, in a neighbouring authority area.  It was felt that these Regulations contradicted the WG’s ever increasing emphasis on the importance of regional and sub-regional working with a view to realising value for money and efficiencies.  The Committee therefore by a majority, with one abstention:

Resolved: - to recommend to Cabinet that, prior to determining the transit sites to be put forward as sites to progress as potential Gypsy and Traveller sites in the replacement Local Development Plan, it should have regard to the following matters –

(i)           the lack of consultation with the Gypsy and Traveller community and their advocacy groups on the suitability of proposed sites for the purposes of being developed as sites for their specific use  prior to their inclusion on a list of potential sites for submission as part of the replacement Local Development Plan;

(ii)          that future processes relating to the identification and selection of potential Gypsy and Traveller sites should be as open and transparent as possible for members and residents, with proposals being presented to all councillors at a Council Briefing session and to Scrutiny for examination prior to being presented to Cabinet for approval;

(iii)         that clarity be provided on how Denbighshire County Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment concluded that a five pitch transit site would be sufficient to meet the Gypsy and Traveller transit need in the county;

(iv)        that Cabinet writes in the strongest terms possible to the Welsh Government expressing its serious concerns about the requirements in Part 3 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 which places an obligation on each individual local authority to undertake an Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, and if a need is identified for a transit site to be developed that each individual authority is duty bound to provide a transit site within its boundaries regardless of other similar developments which may exist or about to be developed in a neighbouring authority’s area.  These Regulations seem inappropriate and disproportionate in addressing the needs of the travelling community and contradict other Welsh Government legislation, policies and ambitions which promote effective joint working between authorities on a regional or sub-regional basis;

(v)          that, until the above matters have been actioned and a further report presented to Scrutiny, a decision on the inclusion of the five sites listed in the report for incorporation as potential development locations for Gypsy and Traveller sites in the replacement Local Development Plan be held in abeyance; 

(vi)        the lack of consultation with local members on the proposed sites within their wards prior to their inclusion in the report to the Asset Management Group.  Local members should in future be consulted on any significant proposals affecting their wards not merely informed of them; and

(vii)       the need for the Asset Management Group to be more open, accessible and transparent to all councillors, particularly as only one elected member is a member of the Group.

The Committee voted by a majority on a proposal that a report relating to the process and these particular sites be brought back for further consideration following the actioning of recommendations (i) to (v) above.