Policy LHN5: Sites for the needs of Gypsies and Travellers

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20833

Received: 03/11/2011

Respondent: Friends, Families and Travellers

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The level planned for does not reflect all the evidence availble and the council should plan for a larger number of pitches than indicated in this policy.

Full text:

We welcome the inclusion of a policy which aims to meet identified needs.

We have concerns about the level of permanent site provision planned for in the light of all the evidence

The background paper identifies 9 authorised pitches within the district and 3 temporary pitches. The latest caravan count (Jan 2011) identifies in addition 4 caravans without the benefit of planning permission (1 tolerated and 3 not tolerated). Thus including the temporary permissions there appears to be an outstanding and immediate need for 7 pitches taking into account the two pitches provided for since 2006. In our view Rother should make provision for these pitches as an existing unmet need to bring the total number of authorised pitches in 2011 to 16 pitches. It should take into account family formation from 2011 to 2016 (estimated at 3% compound) as a further 2-3 (to be precise 2.5 ) pitches bringing the total requirement 2006-2011 to 18-19 pitches. This leaves an outstanding need of 9-10 pitches for 2006-2016.

The council should plan beyond this date to take into account family formation to 2028 (as it does in para 15.43) and plan for a further 7-8 pitches over the period 2016-2028.

We are very concentred that the council intends to make no provision for Gypsies and Travellers in housing but with a need for a pitch. The background paper dismisses this on the basis that (para 7.4) that RSL providers could identify few Gypsies and Travellers in RSL accommodation. We do not accept that this statement and the limited piece of work can be justified in the face of the recommendations of the Panel about Gypsies and Travellers in housing. In any event ethnic monitoring for Gypsies and Travellers is in its infancy and many do not self-identify for fear of prejudice. It is wise and prudent to make the sort of 10% uplift recommended by the panel to make a start on meeting needs from this source. Clearly Gypsies and Travellers do indeed live in Rother both on sites and in housing and to not make a start on meeting those needs would seem to be unwise and unjust. Failure to make a start on such provision will inevitably mean that such provision is unlikely ever to be made. A 10% uplift only involves one extra pitch to 2016 bringing the total need to 2016 to 10-11 pitches on our calculations.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20891

Received: 09/11/2011

Respondent: Laurence Keeley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Not sound its only hearsay, it won't happen, get the sites sorted. Councillors are burying their heads in the sand regarding the travelling communities; with proper and sufficeint sites they could fit into the community which many wish to do. If you were to seek the ten biggest crooks in Britain, nine would be living in large houses rather than caravans! Sites should be defined before any other developments are met, the lack of real affordable houses can make this way of life more popular.

Full text:

Not sound its only hearsay, it won't happen, get the sites sorted. Councillors are burying their heads in the sand regarding the travelling communities; with proper and sufficeint sites they could fit into the community which many wish to do. If you were to seek the ten biggest crooks in Britain, nine would be living in large houses rather than caravans! Sites should be defined before any other developments are met, the lack of real affordable houses can make this way of life more popular.