Agenda item

Report of the Interim Strategic Director of Place

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to members.  He reminded members that work had been ongoing for some time on the allocation document and the awaited needs assessment had now been completed.  The needs assessment updated the previous study completed in 2013 and took account of the revised definition of a traveller.  He explained that the work undertaken by the consultants involved a variety of techniques including speaking to members of the gypsy and traveller community. He made reference to table 1 of the report which summarised the outcome of the work and showed the requirements for gypsies and travellers.  Compared with the 2013 study, there was a dramatic decrease in the need for pitches for gypsies and travellers and an increase in the need for plots for showpeople.  He explained that the figures could change as there was still some uncertainty around the issue of the definition of gypsies and travellers and the outcome was the subject of a judicial review; however this possibility had been built in to the review.  The study had also looked at transit provision.  He advised that the advantage of having a transit site was that in the event of an illegal encampment, the police would be able to move travellers on to a publicly provided transit site.  At present there was insufficient data under the new definition of gypsies and travellers to be certain of the need; however there was clear reference to the north west of the county in the study.  He added that there would be significant costs associated with the provision of a transit site.

Councillor J Legrys sought clarification on the classification of a household and how many people and caravans could occupy a pitch.  The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that it was assumed that a pitch would contain one caravan however the number of occupants would vary.

In response to a question from Councillor J Legrys in respect of the timetable, the Planning Policy Team Manager stated that the Development Plan Document was planned to be adopted towards the end of next year and at that would complete the suite of Local Plan documents.  He added that an early review of the Local Plan had been committed to. 

In response to questions from Councillor V Richichi, the Planning Policy Team Manager advised that the Development Plan Document was not a main modification to the Local Plan as the study was not available at that time.  The Inspector had addressed the issue of gypsies and travellers in his report and was clearly content with the process of addressing this issue through a separate document. 

In response to comments from Councillor V Richichi, the Head of Planning and Regeneration explained that a covering letter and statement was submitted along with the Local Plan setting out the proposed main modifications to be made if the plan as submitted was found to be unsound.  Therefore, in order for the Inspector to accept those main modifications, he must find the submitted plan unsound.  He advised that this was standard practice and no further main modifications had been identified.  He explained that an early review of the Local Plan had been committed to as there were two parallel processes, each of which were subject to a duty to co-operate.  A joint statement of co-operation was being prepared to support the Local Plan for each district, and a memorandum of understanding was being prepared to support the strategic growth plan.  He explained that any Local Plans adopted after the joint strategic growth plan would need to have regard to it but would not need to be in complete conformity as this was not a statutory requirement.  He advised that the fact that the growth plan was not yet agreed did not mean the Local Plan could not be adopted; however once this was published a review may be triggered.  He added that this may not be necessary if there was enough inbuilt flexibility in the Local Plan.

The Regeneration and Planning Portfolio Holder reiterated the importance of having an up to date Local Plan.  He added that Leicestershire were ahead of the curve in terms of attempting to put together all the various studies which might influence the Local Plan. 

In response to comments relating to the previous Core Strategy process, the Head of Planning and Regeneration assured members that the Inspectors Report and schedule of Main Modifications would be reported to Council.  He explained that unlike with the Core Strategy, the Local Plan had approval from the Inspector to proceed subject to the Main Modifications.

Councillor M Specht expressed disappointment that no traveller sites had come forward during the call for sites.

In response to a question from Councillor M Specht, the Planning Policy Team Manager advised that the study had identified a need across the county for 36 transit pitches, however North West Leicestershire would not have to make all of that provision, if any.  He added that the level of provision would depend upon the sites that were available. Officers were currently considering potential sites. 

Councillor R Johnson expressed concern regarding illegal encampments and the time and cost involved in moving these on.  He felt a transit site was needed immediately. 

Councillor J Legrys concurred with Councillor R Johnson’s comments and stated that he was in firm favour of the council providing a transit site.  He made reference to the concerns raised by his constituents.  He also drew members’ attention to the costs involved in providing a transit site which were highlighted at section 3.4 of the report. 

It was moved by Councillor M Specht, seconded by Councillor J Cotterill and

RESOLVED THAT:

a)    The findings of the Leicester and Leicestershire Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment be noted;

b)    Progress on the preparation of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document be noted;

c)    The definitive support of the Local Plan Advisory Committee for  providing a transit site within the district be noted.