Agenda item

            The Board received a report of the Strategic Director, Environment which outlined the proposed formal response to the consultation being run by 4NW on the topic of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs as part of the Partial Review of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The consultation closed on the 27^th March 2009.

            Members were advised that 4NW, formerly the North West Regional Assembly, was the designated regional planning body for the North West of England. They had been asked by the Government to prepare, monitor and review the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in partnership with others. The RSS was a regional plan that had to be taken into account when decisions were being made about planning applications. It provided a spatial framework for development in the region and for other regional strategies and it promoted the sustainable development of the North West.

            Members were advised that currently a Partial Review of the RSS was underway due to the need to complete unfinished policy work within the RSS. This Partial Review covered three key subject areas of Gypsies and Travellers, Travelling Show People and Car Parking Standards.

            It was noted that the Council currently provided 23 pitches at Riverview Residential Caravan Site in Widnes. A new local authority run site was opened in January 2009 in Warrington Road, Runcorn, next to the existing private site. This new site provided 4 permanent pitches and 10 transit pitches. There were two private sites in Runcorn at Windmill Street and Warrington Road; these two sites provided 13 pitches. In total there were 40 permanent pitches and 10 transit pitches currently provided in Halton.

            It was further noted that the accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers was dealt with by an Interim Draft Policy L6 – Scale and Distribution of Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Provision. It was this policy that was the subject of the consultation. This policy had a policy start date of 2007, therefore all accommodation provision since made from 2007 would be counted towards policy target for pitch numbers.

            Within Policy L6 was a table of pitch provision to be achieved by each individual North West authority by 2016. Policy L6 indicated that Halton should provide by 2016 an additional minimum of 60 permanent pitches. The policy also indicated that a further 3% compound increased on an annual basis should be achieved to 2021 and for Halton this would be a further 15 permanent pitches. The policy therefore suggested that by 2021 Halton should provide a total of 111 permanent pitches. The policy made a distinction between permanent and transit pitches and the policy indicated that 5 additional transit pitches should be provided by Halton by 2016. However, as Halton’s new site at Warrington Road provided 10 transit pitches, Halton would have already met its allocation apportionment under the draft policy.

            The Board was advised that the Council must respond to the consultation using a structured and formatted response form. This consultation response form asked a series of questions with regard to the Interim Draft Policy L6. The first question to deal with the issues of concern asked for a yes or a no response to whether the Council supports policy L6. Question 4 asked for the reasoning behind the response to Question 3. It was recommended that the response to Question 3 would be given as “No”. This response was justified on the basis that the policy did not adequately address the issue of distribution in the policy wording. Currently, there was no acknowledgement of the fact that the last round of consultation in July 2008 concluded that provision for Gypsies and Travellers should be undertaken by way of a more balanced share of provision across districts. This approach sought to seek pitch provision distributed to meet the requirements of the Gypsies and Travellers. During the July 2008 consultation this approach was known as Option 3. For the purposes of clarity and avoidance of doubt, the policy text should acknowledge that this was the basis upon which pitch provision would be made and monitored.

            It was further noted that question 5 on the consultation response form dealt with the main issue of contention, notably the provisional figure for Halton to provide an additional 60 permanent pitches in the Borough. It was recommended that the response to Question 5 be given as “No”. In question 6 we were asked to justify this response, the response to question 6 was outlined in detail in the report.

It was advised that the draft RSS policy figure of 300 across the Cheshire Sub-regional Partnership had then been apportioned, by a no scientific method, to all those authorities in the Cheshire Partnership. The results of this were set out in the report.

            In Interim Policy L6 the Halton apportionment figure had been given as 60 pitches. This represented 20% of the sub-regional apportionment. This represented a fifth of the requirement, yet there were nine authorities in the Cheshire Partnership. Halton was the smallest of these nine partners in terms of geographical area and had little land available to accommodate further provision. Some account should also therefore be taken of provision in the context of the geographical size of Councils, which would result in neighbouring authorities’ targets being increase relative to Halton. There was little land available in Halton upon which to accommodate such large numbers of pitches. In terms of current pitch provision, only Congleton and St. Helens provided more pitches than Halton. In terms of equity and choice, greater provision should be made in other districts where the Gypsy and Traveller community wished to settle to ensure sustainability, but not to the extend that some Council’s had to do nothing.

            It was further advised that some attempt should be made to redistribute the assessed need for pitches to ensure a more even provision between Councils, particularly to those who have little or no existing provision and should also focus on those Councils with no Council-owned sites.

            Any provision for Halton should be reduced by the number of pitches included in the new development in Runcorn that comprised 4 permanent pitches and 10 transit sites. Consequently, the assessed need should reduce accordingly. It was accepted that this development occurred after the needs assessment that informed RSS figures. It was understood that, as the Interim Draft RSS Policy L6 had a starting date of 2007 this provision would be taken into account in considering Halton’s apportionment.

            Members were advised that for the above reasons, Halton did not feel that the evidence produced to support the Interim Draft Policy L6 substantiated the pitch provision figures for Halton. The greatest provision should be made in the areas highlighted by the Gypsy and Traveller communities and those authorities currently offering no local authority run sites.

            RESOLVED: That

(1)       the content of the report be formalised as the response from this Council to the consultation being run by 4 NW on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs;

(2)       Halton’s evidence be enhanced via research into the waiting list held for Riverview Caravan Site to see how many people were still actively seeking accommodation in Halton; and

(3)       the Council strongly object to the proposals in RSS Interim Draft Policy L6 for Halton to provide 60 additional permanent pitches.