Agenda item

South Kesteven District Council commits, that in the 2020 Core Strategy, it will identify and ring fence suitable land for the use of gypsies and travellers, as recommended in an SKDC survey of gypsy and traveller needs in 2005, and, more recently by Planning Inspector in 2019. 

SKDC will work with representatives of the gypsy and traveller communities to identify what land and associated amenities are most suitable to meet their needs. 

Councillor Morgan asked for the consent of the Council to change the wording under consideration from that which was included with the agenda pack to a version that was circulated at the meeting. Council indicated its consent by way of a show of hands.

Councillor Morgan proposed her motion:

South Kesteven District Council complies with the Equality Act 2010 and opposes all forms of discrimination and prejudice against individuals or groups defined as being protected under the Act. This Council recognises that historically persecuted and stigmatised, gypsies and travellers are protected under the Act and other Human Rights legislation.

In compliance with the Act, as a public body, SKDC will provide gypsies and travellers the same access to land allocated for their homes as it affords other residents whilst paying due regard to their specific needs and circumstances. 

Extensive research completed nationally, across the East Midlands, and within SKDC, highlights a shortage of land allocated for gypsy and traveller, permanent and temporary pitches. As a result these protected communities cannot access the same public services used by other residents, including healthcare and education. This is detrimental to their health, wellbeing and economic prospects. 

Gypsies and travellers have used unauthorised and often sub- standard in sanitary sites as a means of overcoming the shortage of authorised allocated sites. This has led to conflict with other communities and been counter productive to reducing the prejudice against them. 

New government plans to criminalise those who trespass with two or more vehicles make it all the more important appropriate authorised sites are provided urgently by local authorities, including South Kesteven District Council. 

This council has developed a Local Plan which will allocate land for significant development across the District. It recognises the rights of the gypsy and Traveller communities to also have their housing needs met with allocated sites. For the avoidance of discrimination this Council will identify, and allocate within its local plan and other relevant planning documentation land for the use of gypsies and travellers, as recommended in an SKDC survey of gypsy and traveller needs in 2005, and, more recently by Planning Inspector in 2019. 

SKDC will work with representatives of the gypsy and traveller communities to identify what land and associated amenities are most suitable to meet their needs, and, will provide properly serviced authorised permanent and temporary 'transit' sites as required no later than 2021.

This council will commit to regularly reviewing gypsy and traveller needs, building potential growth into all future Local Plans and Core Strategy.

In proposing her motion, Councillor Morgan referred to research which indicated that there was no consistent approach to the provision of sites for gypsies and travellers nationally. She stated that Newark and Sherwood, North Kesteven and West Lindsey district councils and Lincoln City Council had all allocated sites and made provision for both permanent and transit pitches for gypsies, travellers and show people. She said that she did not believe South Kesteven District Council’s reliance on windfall sites was working. She also shared her experience of talking to residents within South Kesteven who were part of the gypsy and traveller community and had indicated that they did not feel welcome. The motion was seconded.

A speaker against the motion referred to the gypsy and traveller needs assessment of 2016 which identified a need for 32 permanent pitches and 9 additional plots for travelling show people between 2016 and 2036. The approach within the Local Plan had been to meet that need through policy compliant applications coming forward, and as such, no specific allocations had been made in the local plan. The Inspector that examined the Local Plan accepted the argument but determined that the refusal of an application for a gypsy and traveller site on land at Cold Harbour had an impact on the five-year supply. The remedy that was identified for this was an early review of the Local Plan, which would be informed by an updated gypsy and traveller accommodation needs assessment. He felt that this commitment sufficiently addressed the concerns raised in the motion and therefore considered that it was not necessary.

An amendment was proposed and seconded to replace the third paragraph of the motion proposed by Councillor Morgan with the following text:

The Local Plan provides Policies for Gypsies and Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople against which Planning Applications will be determined.  A review of the Local Plan is due to commence in April.  The Plan review will be informed by an updated Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessment, alongside monitoring and delivery against Local Plan policy, in anticipation that the Plan review will allocate Gypsy and Traveller sites, if required.

The amendment received some support, including that of the proposer of the original motion. During debate on the amendment, one speaker referred to previous attempts to allocate land for gypsy and traveller sites in the district and the impact that not making allocations had on local communities. Another Member who spoke in support of the amendment argued that it was intended to seek a commitment about the timeframe for any review. A third referred to the final motion on the agenda, which asked the Council to adopt the working definition of anti-Semitism in support of another minority group and stated that it was important for the Council to demonstrate its support of all minority groups. A Member who spoke against the review referred to the comments that had been made previously in respect to the Council’s commitment to an early review of the Local Plan.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost. A vote was then taken on the substantive motion, which

was lost and it was AGREED:

That the Council did not support the motion submitted by Councillor Morgan