Decision details

Planning and Conservation and Housing Services Portfolio Holder

Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Public Services)

CABINET DECISION

That Cabinet agrees that this Council should object to the Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes for the following reasons:

(i)  Go East has failed to provide a clear definition of what is exactly meant by “need” to be met and furthermore has not provided evidence of the dialogue or common agreement between the gypsy and traveller and settled communities on such requirements in formulating the draft policy.  The evidence contained in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment for South and West Hertfordshire is questioned as it is understood that the vast majority of those interviewed were female, whilst male respondents might have differing aspirations, and the feedback was not therefore balanced.

(ii)  St Albans District has already proactively provided more gypsy pitches than any other District in Hertfordshire (see paragraph 7.7 and table 1 of the report). The proposed targets for 2006-2011 and 2011-2021 give St Albans the highest totals within the County and the District Council considers that the proposed 28 additional pitches between 2006 – 2011 and 24 further pitches between 2011-2021 is disproportionately high (see distribution table in Policy H3), particularly given the Green Belt and environmental constraints. EERA’s analysis of opportunities and constraints determined that St Albans falls within a highly constrained area. Whilst the District’s pitch requirements have been reduced slightly to take account of this, the distribution in the Proposed Changes still does not fully reflect the extent of these constraints.

Therefore most of the need calculated to arise in St Albans District should be met in nearby Districts in west and central Hertfordshire, to bring about a more equitable distribution.

(iii)  Policy H1 in the East of England Plan states that any housing development as part of the expansion of a Key Centre for Development and Change (KCDC) into another local authority area will count towards the housing targets of the KCDC, however, there is no guidance in the Proposed Policy H3 as to whether the same approach applies in respect of gypsy pitches. Policy H3 should be amended to clarify the position, in order to avoid future uncertainty and disagreements.

If KCDC expansions into St Albans District include accommodation for gypsies and if this counts towards the adjoining authority’s pitch targets, the number of pitches within St Albans District will be significantly larger than that allocated in Proposed Policy H3 whilst reducing the range of spatial opportunities for site identification within St Albans. This would not be appropriate as St Albans already has the highest pitch requirement and existing provision in Hertfordshire (see table 1 of the report and Appendix 2, Policy H3), therefore the number of pitches proposed in St Albans District should be further reduced.