Agenda item

Report by Mr Mike Austerberry, Executive Director, Environment Highways and Waste and Mr Oliver Mills, Managing Director, Kent Adult Social Services

(1)       The Chairman declared consideration of this report to be urgent on the grounds that it contained information which needed to be considered by the Advisory Board prior to the County Council sending a formal response by 1 September 2009, on the proposals submitted by the Regional Planning Body to Government on providing Gypsy and Traveller plus Travelling Show People accommodation. 

(2)       The Advisory Board had before it a report which had been prepared for a meeting of the Joint Member Steering Group of Kent authorities which met on 13 July 2009.  That meeting had explored the scope for a common approach for all Kent and Medway authorities in responding to the consultation on the proposals submitted by the Regional Planning body to Government on providing for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show People accommodation needs 2006 – 2016.  The consultation period had been extended until 1 September 2009 and was based on option D of the previous four options that had been the subject of public consultation in Autumn 2008.  It was now for the County Council to consider option D but also any alternative approaches it wished to consider.  Following consideration of the representations received, a Government appointed Panel of inspectors would be holding an Examination in Public from 2 to 5 February 2010 and on that basis it could be assumed that the Inspectors’ report would be published in the Spring/Early Summer of 2010.  Allowing for consultation on any proposed changes, it was thought unlikely that the publication of the overall pitch numbers and the district by district distribution of pitches would be before late 2010.

(3)       During the course of discussion, several Members expressed concern that they had not received this report in time to read and consider its contents and come to a considered view as to what recommendations the Advisory Board should make to the Cabinet Member for him to take into account when considering the views to put forward on behalf of the County Council. Mr Angell expressed the view that he would prefer to see the number of pitches to be dealt with through the Local Development Framework as he believed that would offer a simpler approach.  Mr Feasey said that this was a 2 stage process and turning distribution numbers into detail would be something that would be done through the LDF but at a later stage.  Mrs Whittle said that she understood the concerns which had been expressed by Members in relation to the time they had had in which to consider the report, but that nonetheless she believed that the right approach was to adopt Option C as she believed that to be the fairest and most equitable.  It was also said that some district and borough councils had yet to consider their response and it was important for the County Council to be aware of all the views which had been expressed by district and borough partners.

(4)       Taking these views into account and in noting that Mrs Whittle had expressed strong support for Option C, the Advisory Board decided that it was not in a position to comment on the report at this time.  It was therefore agreed that individual Members of the Board would be invited to express any views they wished to make direct to Mr Feasey as soon as possible, so that these could be co-ordinated and made available to the Cabinet Member so that he could take them into account in sending a response to the consultation on behalf of the County Council.

Tour of Kent Gypsy and Traveller Sites

(5)       At the request of the Advisory Board, Mr Forrester said that he would arrange in the early Autumn for Members of the Advisory Board to visit a number of Gypsy and Traveller encampments within the county.