Issue - meetings

1.  That the following figures be agreed as the target for Gypsy and Traveller pitches for inclusion in the Publication version of the Core Strategy (Regulation 27 consultation).

2.  That the following figures be agreed as the target for Travelling Showpeople plots for inclusion in the Publication version of the Core Strategy (Regulation 27 consultation).

3.  That the response to the Scrutiny Committee  Recommended Action and Implementation Plan (SCRAIP), attached at Appendix 1 to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment, following the Local Development Document Task and Finish Scrutiny Panel meeting of 21 February 2012, be agreed.

DECISION MADE:

1.  That the following figures be agreed as the target for Gypsy and Traveller pitches for inclusion in the Publication version of the Core Strategy (Regulation 27 consultation).

2.  That the following figures be agreed as the target for Travelling Showpeople plots for inclusion in the Publication version of the Core Strategy (Regulation 27 consultation).

3.  That the response to the Scrutiny Committee  Recommended Action and Implementation Plan (SCRAIP), attached at Appendix 1 to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment, following the Local Development Document Task and Finish Scrutiny Panel meeting of 21 February 2012, be agreed.

To view full details of this decision, please click here:-

http://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/iedecisiondetails.aspx?aiid=10925

Interview with:

Flo Churchill, Interim Head of Core Strategy Development and Sarah Anderson, Principle Planning Officer.

The Chairman welcomed Sarah Anderson, Principle Planning Officer, Flo Churchill, Interim Head of Core Strategy Development and Rob Jarman, Head of Planning to the meeting and asked them to introduce the item.

Sarah Anderson told members that the last Gypsy and Traveller assessment undertaken in 2005 was now out of date and that since it had been adopted the national guidance on planning for Gypsy and Traveller communities had changed. Miss Anderson explained that the new assessment outlined in the report and undertaken by Salford University provided a refined approach for assessing site based need, done principally by a household survey of the Gypsy and Traveller communities in the borough to understand who meets the planning definition of Gypsy and Travellers.

The Committee noted that there was 18 permanent pitches to deduct from the baseline figure of 157 contained within the report due to consent since having been granted.

The debate began with a query on whether the Development Plan Document (DPD) would set historical context as areas of Maidstone had records of Gypsy and Traveller settlements going back to the 17^th century. It was confirmed by the Officers that the DPD would clearly state the historical context and this was a requirement of the guidance circular.

The Committee questioned if the site search was taking into account preference of site size as it had been expressed by the Gypsy and Traveller communities that they would prefer to live on smaller sites as larger sites could cause social problems. Officers informed the Committee that the Council was not restricted to one large site and that the targets could be met through several smaller sites and acknowledged that family size plots are often the most successful in terms of management.

Concern was expressed by Members that public perception was that once there are public sites that private site applications would disappear when this was not the case. Even with public sites, private site applications would still be received and judge on their merits accordingly. Officers reminded the Committee that although the provision of public sites would not preclude private site applications being made it would make unauthorised site easier to enforce.

Members asked if the call for sites to be put forward and the accompanying selection process would produce an audit trail. Officer told the Committee that the decision still remained with Members and that they would be provide with detail of the sites submitted and a mechanism for judging each site against the relevant criteria. The Committee agreed that the message needed to be put out to parishes, landowners and other possible stakeholders of the positives for public sites, along with a clear explanation as to why sites were needed. It was noted that this was the second time that the Council had asked for possible sites to be put forward but that the difference was that this time the Council was in a better position with funding available. The Committee concurred that it was in parishes own interest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67