Agenda item

The Chief Executive has received the following call-in in accordance with Standing Order No. 9:

Proposed by: Councillor Murray

Seconded by: Councillor Findon

“The intention of the Council for this site to be “cost neutral” is unlikely to be achieved. The pitch price should be increased and a pitch charge should be levied against all caravans that occupy a pitch in order that revenue is greater than expenditure thereby avoiding the need to ask Halton residents to subsidise this site. The present manner of allocating pitches may mean that the extended powers given to the Police when this Transit site opens will be diminished if pitches on this Transit site are un-available. To rectify this problem all pitches should be occupied for no more than two weeks and the pitches when initially allocated should be on a staggered basis to help pitches to become available more frequently.”

The report considered by the Executive Board Sub-Committee is attached.

The following call-in had been received in accordance with Standing Order No. 9:

“The intention of the Council for this site to be “cost neutral” is unlikely to be achieved. The pitch price should be increased and a pitch charge should be levied against all caravans that occupy a pitch in order that revenue is greater than expenditure thereby avoiding the need to ask Halton residents to subsidise this site. The present manner of allocating pitches may mean that the extended powers given to the Police when this Transit site opens will be diminished if pitches on this Transit site are un-available. To rectify this problem all pitches should be occupied for no more than two weeks and the pitches when initially allocated should be on a staggered basis to help pitches to become available more frequently.”

The call-in was moved and seconded by Councillors Murray and Findon respectively.

In considering the call-in the following comments were made in relation to:

• the need to ensure the correct charges were set for the site from the outset in order to negate the need for Council subsidies;
• how charges were to be implemented and the apparent differing interpretations of this between various Members and officers;
• how charges should be made and the amount the charge should be – ie £12 per caravan;
• the need for clarification in relation to how many pitches the manager and his family would occupy and whether these four pitches equated to potentially eight paying families, for which the additional charges would be lost;
• the potential impact that increased charges could have and the advantages of having spaces on the site due to the legalities of police only being able to move other encampments elsewhere in the Borough if there were places available there; and
• the need to reduce the amount of time families were able to stay on the site.

In response the following was advised:

• since the site had been established on a pilot basis there had been only 14 encampments in two years and the Borough had seen a resultant saving of £117,000;
• based upon full occupancy a charge of £11 per night would result in the operational costs of the site being cost neutral;
• if the site were full the police could use existing powers to move travellers on – a written protocol was in place to this effect;
• the site manager would receive a free pitch – his extended family would occupy a further three pitches for which charges would be paid in accordance with the scheme outlined;
• the general period of occupation of pitches would be 6 weeks although this could be extended to 13 weeks in certain circumstances due to individual needs;
• had the site been opened in September at the time of the original Executive Board Sub-Committee decision, the Council would already have been in receipt of £4700. However, the call-in had resulted in costs to the Council of £1500 to secure the site.

The Council considered a motion to reject resolution ES42 of the Executive Board Sub-Committee from the meeting held on 16^th October 2008 in relation to the Traveller Transit Site – Pitch Charges with a request that the Sub-Committee consider the concerns outlined. The motion was put to the vote and rejected and so it was:

RESOLVED: That resolution ES42 of the Executive Board Sub-Committee meeting held on 16^th October 2008 be affirmed.