Minutes:
Mr John Legrys asked the following questions of the Chairman under Standing Order 7(3):-
A.
General County Wide Policy
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Section 62A-E give the
police powers to remove travellers trespassing, providing a suitable pitch was
available on a local authority managed site in the same LA area. The Housing Act 2004 Section 225 ten years
later required councils to carry out an assessment of need for traveller sites
and, if a shortfall was found, to prepare a strategy in respect of the meeting
of such needs and to identify land for new sites.
1.
What
was the result of the assessment for the
2.
When
was this assessment carried out?
3.
How
many sites/pitches are needed in total across the County?
4.
In
which districts are they needed?
5.
How
many sites/pitches are needed in each of these districts?
6.
Is it
the intention eventually to have a least one transit site per district?
In 2004 a Joint Officer Working Party of the County Council, all District
Councils, Leicester City Council and
7.
Where
were the
8.
What
has happened to these sites?
The following have been given as criteria for the selection of suitable
transit sites
·
The
areas of greatest concentration of unauthorised encampments
·
Traveller
routes
·
Location
of doctors' surgeries and other amenities
·
Near to
established Traveller sites
·
Good
but safe access to major roads
·
Access
to services (water, electricity)
·
Sites
with as low as possible impact on local communities
·
Accessible
to most of the relevant District
9.
What is
the origin of each of these criteria?
10.
Are
there any other important criteria which have should be included in this list?
B. With respect to a proposed site in
the District of NW Leicestershire
1.
How many
pitches are being sought for the proposed site?
2.
How
many caravans will this include?
3.
What is
the total population estimated for this site?
4.
How
many adults in total will this include?
5.
Has
there been any estimate of the number of children this will include?
6.
Can you
list the sites that were initially surveyed for the transit site in NW
Leics?
7.
Was
land in the ownership of British Coal and other large landowners considered?
8.
Were
British Coal and the NFU approached regarding sites?
9.
What factors
led the Council's property department to recommend the Lockington/Hemington
sites?
10.
Why was
it decided not to proceed with these sites?
11.
Mention
was made of feedback from a consultation meeting with North West Leicestershire
Parish Councils in March 2007. Can you
list who was invited to this meeting?
12.
Were
invitations sent to the Parish Councils of Ravenstone, Swannington and
Coleorton?
13.
If so
who were they addressed to?
C. With respect to the current
consideration of the three sites in NW Leicestershire
1.
Were
any soundings taken before these 3 sites were selected? If so what?
2.
Have
surveys (soil tests etc) been made of any of the proposed sites? If so, where and when?
3.
Is the
property dept working on other sites in NW Leics?
4.
Why
wasn't Scrutiny consulted on the non site specific bid?
D. With respect to the consultation
process
1.
Who is
being consulted on these three sites (list organisations please)?
2.
Are the
police, doctors, schools, PCT being included?
3.
Will revenue
and capital funding be available, via section 106 agreements and otherwise to
support the local infrastructure in coping with the additional population
(schools, doctor surgeries etc)?
4.
Was the
existing traveller community in NW Leicestershire consulted?
5.
Will
they be consulted?
6.
What
methods were used to publicise the consultation?
7.
What is
the normal period of consultation used by the County Council?
8.
Why
have five weeks been chosen for this consultation?
9.
Why
have no reasons been given for the short period of consultation? What reasons are there?
10.
Is the
Citizen's Panel involved in the consultation process, if so why?
11.
If so,
what weighting will be given to their result?
12.
Is it
recognised that their response may be skewed given that the majority are
unlikely to be remotely affected by the outcome?
E. For Site 1: Land to the north of
Ashby Road, Sinope.
1.
How
many unauthorised encampments have there been in recent years in this area?
2.
Which existing
traveller routes are close to this site, how close are they?
3.
Which
doctor's surgery will serve the population of this site? What population does it currently serve?
4.
Which
school will serve the population of this site?
How many pupils does it currently have?
Up to how may additional pupils could it be expected to take?
5.
What
other amenities of importance are close to this site?
6.
What
other established Traveller sites are in the immediate vicinity?
7.
Is the
access to the local major roads considered good and safe?
8.
How
busy are these major roads?
9.
What is
their accident record in the area of the site?
10.
What
comments have you received from Highways Development Control on the site?
11.
How
suitable is the entrance access to the site?
12.
What access
to services (water, sewerage and electricity) does the site have?
13.
How
accessible is the site to most of the relevant District?
14.
What is
the size and location of the immediate community?
15.
What is
the ratio of the proposed population to that of the existing immediate
community?
16.
Is this
considered to have a low impact on the local community?
17.
What
impact does the Council think the site will have on the settled community?
18.
What
impact will the site have on local community cohesion?
19.
Is the
Council's property department doing any work on identifying other sites in NW
Leicestershire?
20.
If so,
where?
21.
If so,
why?
F.
For Site 2: The former
Slaughterhouse,
1.
How
many unauthorised encampments have there been in recent years in this area?
2.
Which
existing traveller routes are close to this site, how close are they?
3.
Which
doctor's surgery will serve the population of this site? What population does it currently serve?
4.
Which
school will serve the population of this site?
How many pupils does it currently have?
Up to how may additional pupils could it be expected to take?
5.
What
other amenities of importance are close to this site?
6.
What
other established Traveller sites are in the immediate vicinity?
7.
Is the
access to the local major roads considered good and safe?
8.
How
busy are these major roads?
9.
What is
their accident record in the area of the site?
10.
What
comments have you received from Highways Development Control on the site?
11.
How
suitable is the entrance access to the site?
12.
What
access to services (water, sewerage and electricity) does the site have?
13.
How
accessible is the site to most of the relevant District?
14.
What is
the size and location of the immediate community?
15.
What is
the ratio of the proposed population to that of the existing immediate
community?
16.
Is this
considered to have a low impact on the local community?
17.
What
impact does the Council think the site will have on the settled community?
18.
What
impact will the site have on local community cohesion?
19.
Is the
Council's property department doing any work on identifying other sites in NW
Leicestershire?
20.
If so,
where?
21.
If so,
why?
G. For Site 3: Land at rear of former
1.
How
many unauthorised encampments have there been in recent years in this area?
2.
Which
existing traveller routes are close to this site, how close are they?
3.
Which
doctor's surgery will serve the population of this site? What population does it currently serve?
4.
Which
school will serve the population of this site?
How many pupils does it currently have?
Up to how may additional pupils could it be expected to take?
5.
What
other amenities of importance are close to this site?
6.
What other
established Traveller sites are in the immediate vicinity?
7.
Is the
access to the local major roads considered good and safe?
8.
How
busy are these major roads?
9.
What is
their accident record in the area of the site?
10.
What
comments have you received from Highways Development Control on the site?
11.
How
suitable is the entrance access to the site?
12.
What
access to services (water, sewerage and electricity) does the site have?
13.
How
accessible is the site to most of the relevant District?
14.
What is
the size and location of the immediate community?
15.
What is
the ratio of the proposed population to that of the existing immediate
community?
16.
Is this
considered to have a low impact on the local community?
17.
What
impact does the Council think the site will have on the settled community?
18.
What
impact will the site have on local community cohesion?
19.
Is the
Council's property department doing any work on identifying other sites in NW
Leicestershire?
20.
If so,
where?
21.
If so,
why?
H. Following the Decision
1.
Does the
Council accept that the areas around these sites will in effect suffer from
planning blight for future years even if the sites are rejected?
2.
What
will the Council do in this case to alleviate this concern?
3.
Will
the Council give a guarantee that, if a site is ruled out as unsuitable in this
exercise, then it will rule out the site from all other future consideration
and oppose further applications?
I. Enforcement
The Chief Inspector of Police has said that he will still only take into
account 'operational issues' and not necessarily move travellers on. What assurances have been made with regard to
enforcement?
The Chairman replied as follows:-
A. General County Wide Policy
“1 -6 All these questions are dealt with alongside other matters in the
132 page Report entitled “Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Gypsies’ and
Travellers’ Accommodation Needs Assessment (2006-2016)” prepared for the County
Council, Leicester City Council, Rutland Council and the seven district
councils by the Centre for Regional Studies at the University of Birmingham
published in April 2007. The report is
available on the County Council website and formed part of the consultation on
the three sites which ended on
7. This
information cannot be made public. The
8. No
further action has been taken in relation to these sites pending consideration
of the three sites identified in the report to the Cabinet on
9. The
criteria were prepared on the basis of guidance issued by the Gypsy and
Traveller Unit within the Department for Communities and Local Government.
10. Following
a meeting with Parish Councils in March 2007 one additional criterion was added
relating to “the impact on local communities”.
B. With respect to a proposed site in
the District of NW Leicestershire
1. 12
to 15.
2. 24
to 30.
3,4,5 A
detailed estimate has not been undertaken but experience shows that the
population is likely to fluctuate.
6. The
only sites which have been surveyed are the 3 sites referred to in the report
to the meeting of the Cabinet on
7. No.
8. No.
9. The
sites closely met the specified criteria.
10. In
the light of representations from Lockington cum Hemington Parish Council and
expressions of concern from local people, the Cabinet decided that no further
action be taken to proceed with a bid to locate a transit site for travellers
at either Hemington or Lockington.
11.)
12.) Please
see Appendix attached at the end of these minutes.
13.)
C. With respect to the current
consideration of the three sites in NW Leicestershire
1. Discussions
took place at officer level within the County Council.
2. Some
limited, non intrusive, surveys have been undertaken on one site at Sinope and
the site at Snibston.
3. Not at present.
4. On
D. With respect to the consultation
process
1. The
following organisations were consulted:-
North
West Leicestershire District Council
Parish
Councils in
Leicestershire
Constabulary.
Department
for Communities and Local Government.
Leicestershire
Fire and Rescue Service.
Children
and Young People’s Service and Health Travellers Liaison Teams.
Travellers’
organisations.
2. These
are all covered through consultation with those bodies referred to in the reply
to Question D1.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. See
4 above.
6. The
principal methods of publicising the consultation were via the local media,
including local newspapers and radio stations, letters to 150 identified
houses, displays in public libraries and County Hall and on the County
Council’s website.
7. 12
weeks wherever possible.
8. & 9. Given
the deadlines imposed by the bidding process and that the matter did not affect
the whole County area, a five week period was set for the process.
10. Yes,
it is involved. The Citizen’s Panel is a
useful resource and is invited to respond to most consultations.
11. Members
of the Panel are required to provide their postcode so that the analysis of
results can reflect responses received from different geographical areas.
12. Yes
and the response will be analysed on the basis set out in 11 above.
E. For Site 1: Land to the north of
Ashby Road, Sinope.
1. In
2006 there were 32 unauthorised encampments in North West Leicestershire.
2. The
A511, M42, A42, A50 and M1.
3. There
are doctor's surgeries within 2 to 3 miles of the site. Further information on the population served
by those surgeries has not been obtained but the Health Travellers’ Service
have been consulted on the matter.
4,5 These
questions identify issues which have been addressed in
7 to general
terms in relation to the application of the criteria.
18 However,
they will need to be considered in more detail once decisions have been made in
relation to grant funding and the development of the specific site still to be
determined.
6. There
are two sites adjacent to this site.
19. to Not
at present.
21.
F.
For Site 2: The former
Slaughterhouse,
Please see the replies to Section E above.
G. For Site 3: Land at rear of former
Please see the replies to Section E above in respect of all except the
following:-
6. There are no traveller's sites in the
immediate vicinity.
H. Following the Decision
1. No.
2. Not
Applicable.
3. The
County Council has not addressed this issue.
I. Enforcement
This is a matter entirely for the Police.
Mr Legrys asked the following supplementary questions of the Chairman:
a) Are officers aware of an e-mail from the Chief Constable which implies that, even if a travellers site were to be established, it would not necessarily result in additional police resources being deployed in the area?
b) With regard to the answer to question A 7, will the Authority release the information not available under Freedom of Information to local elected members on the basis of ‘need to know’?
The Chairman invited Mr Page CC the Cabinet Lead member to reply. Mr Page then replied ‘Yes’ to both questions.