QUESTION 106: Is the Council's approach to Transit provision appropriate? If not, how should the Council provide for transit provision in-conjunction with other local authorities in the county?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22015

Received: 03/01/2017

Respondent: Chris Horne

Representation Summary:

Yes

Full text:

Yes

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22052

Received: 28/12/2016

Respondent: Heine Planning Consultancy

Representation Summary:

This approach fails to appreciate the need for more transit provision to ensure families are able to travel for work as required by PPTS. The absence of UEs should not determine whether there is a need.

It is not good enough for Councils to say they will work with others local authorities to allocate land-because none do.

Bridies Tan is not suitable to meet all needs. Transit provision needs to be properly planned and managed.

There is a clear need to make provision to ensure that Travellers can meet the planning definition in PPTS.

Full text:

Transit site provision

There is a national shortage of transit sites. Most stopping places have been blocked off or developed.

This approach fails to appreciate the need for more transit provision to ensure families are able to travel for work as required by PPTS and have some where safe to stay. The need for transit provision is driven by national policy not just unauthorised encampments. The absence of UEs should not determine whether there is a need as this ignores the fact many GTs stop with family and friends , or on holiday caravan sites when owners permit or find stopping places the Council is not aware of and are not recorded as UEs. But many struggle to find suitable places as holiday sites will often turn them away when they realise they have a works vehicle and are Travellers.

There is clear unmet need for transit sites across the country and this is the main reason many are no longer able to travel for work.

It is not good enough for Councils to say they will work with others local authorities to allocate land-because none do. That is an excuse to do nothing in the hope some one does something.

Bridies Tan is not suitable to meet all needs. It is not a good example. Transit provision needs to be properly planned and managed. Families are not going to pull onto unmanaged sites not knowing who else is stopping there or whether their caravans/ generators etc will be safe.

In my experience many clients in the SE region travel along the south coast for work in the summer months, There is a clear need to make provision in this area as there is across the south coast.

There is a clear need to make provision to ensure that Travellers can meet the planning definition in PPTS. Failure to make provision to ensure GTs can travel for work as is now required by the Government should be mandatory not optional or else policy fails the Equality Duty by failing to ensure GTs are able to travel for work.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 23779

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Representation Summary:

Traveller Liaison Team

Page 346 17.17: "a nine pitch transit site with a resident site manager". This point is not correct as there is no longer a resident site manager. Although a site manager attends regularly (Monday-Friday).

We agree that it does meet current transit provision, but we are not always able to move large encampments to this transit site as there are only nine pitches.

The team are currently looking into the possibility of extending the site making it 10 pitches.

For Information-we currently have 23 applications on our waiting list for a pitch on a permanent site (Maresfield/Polegate/Robertsbridge/Hailsham).

Full text:

Traveller Liaison Team

OTHER POLICIES

Page 346 17.17: "a nine pitch transit site with a resident site manager". This point is not correct. There is not a resident site manager. There is a site manager that attends regularly to that site during Monday-Friday. He also attends East Sussex County Councils four other permanent sites during this period too.

We agree that it does meet current transit provision, but we are not always able to move large encampments to this transit site as there are only nine pitches. This does limit the use of Section 62A which gives the police power to move an encampment onto the site.

The team are currently looking in to the possibility of extending the current site making it a 10 pitch site. In order to do this the current large static van (old site manager's residence) will need to be removed

For Information - we currently have 23 applications on our waiting list for a permanent site at our four permanent sites of Maresfield, Polegate, Robertsbridge and Hailsham.