Planning and Partnership Panel

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

PLANNING AND PARTNERSHIP PANEL

WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2006 AT 10.00 AM

East of England Plan (Draft RSS) - Single Issue Review of Provision of Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites

Request for Advice from Section 4(4) Authorities

Author: Paul Donovan

Tel: 01992 556289

Executive Member: Derrick Ashley

1. Purpose of report

1.1 To assist the Panel in advising Cabinet on a County Council response to the East of England Regional Assembly’s (EERA) ‘Request for advice’ from Section 4(4) Authorities in relation to the Gypsies and Travellers Single Issue Review (the ‘Alteration’) of the East of England Plan [Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)].

2. Summary

2.1 In preparing the emerging RSS EERA has acknowledged that it has failed to plan for the future needs of Gypsies and Travellers in the Region and that as a consequence it is not consistent with Government guidance. At the Examination in Public into the RSS, EERA committed itself to the preparation of a partial Alteration to address this shortcoming.

2.2 When preparing an Alteration to the Regional Spatial Strategy, EERA is required to seek the advice of county councils and unitary authorities in the Region in a general sense, but may also ask for advice on specific matters if it considers this would be beneficial. As part of this process, the County Council must advise EERA on the potential implications of the Alteration on the County Council’s functions. In July 2006, the County Council received correspondence from EERA seeking its general advice on the preparation of the Alteration and specific advice on a range of matters. A draft response has been prepared and will be considered by Cabinet on 20th November 2006. The attached draft report to Cabinet summarises the background and main issues and a draft response is attached to that report as Appendix 2.

3. Conclusion

3.1 Panel is asked whether it considers the draft response attached as Appendix 2 to the draft Cabinet report, the main elements of which are summarised in section 5 of that report, represents an appropriate response to EERA’s ‘Request for advice’ on the Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Single Issue Review of the East of England Plan.

DRAFT

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

CABINET

MONDAY 20th NOVEMBER 2006 AT 2.00 P.M.

East of England Plan (Draft RSS) - Single Issue Review of Provision of Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites

Request for Advice from Section 4(4) Authorities

Report of the Director of Environment

Author: Paul Donovan

Tel: 01992 556289

Executive Members: Derrick Ashley (Planning, Partnerships and Waste) and Sally Newton (Adult Care and Health)

1. Purpose of report

1.1 To assist Cabinet in determining a County Council response to the East of England Regional Assembly’s (EERA) ‘Request for advice’ from Section 4(4) Authorities in relation to the Gypsies and Travellers Single Issue Review (the ‘Alteration’) of the East of England Plan [Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)].

2. Summary

2.2 When preparing an Alteration to the Regional Spatial Strategy, EERA is required to seek the advice of county councils and unitary authorities in the Region in a general sense, but may also ask for advice on specific matters if it considers this would be beneficial. As part of this process, the County Council must advise EERA on the potential implications of the Alteration on the County Council’s functions. In July 2006, the County Council received correspondence (Appendix 1) from EERA seeking its general advice on the preparation of the Alteration and specific advice on a range of matters.

2.3 There is an expectation that in two tier authorities such as Hertfordshire, county councils will liaise closely with borough/district councils within their areas. The draft response attached to this report (Appendix 2) has been prepared in close liaison with Hertfordshire’s borough/district councils. The main elements of the draft are summarised in section 5 of this report. In terms of EERA’s request for numbers of gypsy and traveller pitches for the period to 2021 by borough/district council, the advice can be summarised as follows:

· a range of strategic regional/sub-regional issues require research to be commissioned/decisions to be made before it will be possible to develop robust gypsy and traveller need/pitch figures for the Region as a whole and individual parts of it.

· in the absence of the necessary research and decisions it is not possible, at this stage, to develop robust gypsy and traveller need/pitch figures for Hertfordshire for the period to 2021.

· EERA should commission necessary research and come to decisions on these strategic regional and sub-regional issues and then itself go on to develop pitch figures for the Region as a whole and individual parts of it. Hertfordshire local authorities commit to participating fully in any processes set up to do so.

· evidence and experience would suggest that for Hertfordshire it will only be possible for RSS to identify pitch numbers at sub-regional level only. Sub-regional pitch figures would then be taken forward by borough/district council’s in the preparation of their Local Development Frameworks.

3. Conclusion

Cabinet is asked to consider whether the draft response attached as Appendix 2, the main elements of which are summarised in section 5 of this report, represents an appropriate response to EERA’s ‘Request for advice’ on the Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Single Issue Review of the East of England Plan.

4. Background

4.1 In preparing the emerging RSS, EERA has acknowledged that it has failed to plan for the future needs of Gypsies and Travellers in the Region and that as a consequence it is not consistent with Government guidance. At the Examination in Public into the RSS, EERA committed itself to the preparation of a partial Alteration to address this shortcoming. This has now started with the following two processes:

· Publication of a Project Plan.

· Issuing a ‘Request for Advice’ from county councils and unitary authorities (who for the purposes of regional planning tend to be referred to as Section s4(4) authorities, as this is the part of the Act where they are specified).

Publication of a Project Plan

4.2 This is essentially a procedural document produced by EERA setting out what EERA proposes to do and when in the preparation of the Gypsy and Traveller RSS Alteration, who and how it proposes to engage interested parties through the process and what resources are going to be required. The consultation on the Project Plan closed on October 2006. The County Council’s response was made by the Director of Environment in consultation with the Planning, Partnerships and Waste Executive Member, as advised by the Strategic Planning and Partnerships Panel.

‘Request for Advice’

4.3 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act conveys on s4(4) authorities a number of statutory obligations where the Regional Planning Body proposes to prepare Alterations to a RSS. In relation to this Alteration, the statutory requirements of the County Council can be summarised as follows:

i. EERA must consult the County Council for its general advice on the preparation of the Alteration.

ii. the County Council must give EERA advice on how the Alteration might affect the County Council’s functions.

iii. if EERA decides that ‘different provision’ is required in different parts of the Region then, unless otherwise agreed between the County Council and EERA, the County Council must then be given 12 weeks to prepare that ‘different provision’.

4.4 EERA has sought the County Council’s advice on i and ii (Appendix 1). A draft response has been prepared in close liaison with all Hertfordshire’s borough/district councils and is appended to this report (Appendix 2). Key issues within the draft response are outlined in section 5 below.

4.5 With regard to iii, however, there is some uncertainty. The Regional Assembly and the Government has a different view on what is meant by ‘different provision’. The Government considers different provision applies where there is a need for different policy(ies) to apply in different parts of the Region. Under this approach, different statistical numbers within a single policy generic to the Region would not represent ‘different provision’. EERA disagrees and is of a preliminary view that different gypsy and traveller pitch figures for different districts does represent different provision. However, it has not, as yet, come to a formal decision on this matter and is seeking the advice of s4(4) authorities.

4.6 Despite this uncertainty, EERA is seeking s4(4) authorities’ advice on the number of gypsy and traveller pitches that are needed in each borough/district in the period to 2021 in advance of coming to a decision on whether this represents ‘different provision’ or not.

5. Main issues identified in the draft response

5.1 The draft response, attached as Appendix 2, is comprised of two parts, as follows:

· Part 1 - the County Council’s general advice, including responses to the specific questions raised by EERA.

· Part 2 - the County Council’s advice in relation to the impact the Alteration might have on its functions.

Part 1 – General advice

Different provision in different parts of the Region

5.2 Paragraph 4.5 above outlines the difference in view between the Government and the Regional Assembly on what represents ‘different provision’. This is an important issue because EERA’s decision on this matter determines whether it is the responsibility of s4(4) authorities to first prepare proposals for their areas or whether the responsibility lies with the Regional Assembly. EERA has asked for s4(4) authorities’ advice on whether there is a need for ‘different provision’ and if so, what that ‘different provision’ should entail.

5.3 Ultimately it is a matter for case law to determine what represents ‘different provision’. Until that time it is the role of Government to advise on how its legislation should be interpreted and applied. That advice is that the need for distinct policies particular to a certain part of the Region does represent different provision, whereas different statistical gypsy and traveller pitch numbers in the boroughs and districts of the Region does not. The draft response advises that in Hertfordshire there is unlikely to be a need for a distinct policy or set of policies relating to gypsies and travellers in the County compared to the Region as a whole. With regard to different statistical gypsy and traveller pitch figures within a single generic policy, Government guidance is clear that it does not represent ‘different provision’. Under these circumstances it is the Regional Assembly’s responsibility to prepare proposals for gypsy and traveller pitch numbers across the Region, not s4(4) authorities.

5.4 The draft response advises that there are a range of strategic regional and sub-regional issues that need to be resolved before any satisfactorily robust process for determining levels and spatial distribution of gypsy and traveller pitches can be established. On the basis that EERA is best placed to resolve these issues, the draft response advises that EERA take the lead in developing pitch numbers, with the close involvement of local authorities.

Consistent methodology to assess need and prepare pitch levels

5.5 The draft Project Plan refers to the appointment by EERA of consultants ‘to provide strategic overview and assessment of robustness of existing and emerging gypsy and traveller accommodation assessments to provide evidence base for RSS’. The outcome of this process is not currently available and as a consequence the extent to which individual local authorities or groups of local authorities can rely on their existing need assessments is not yet known. Under these circumstances it would be unwise to rely on existing need assessment studies as a basis to roll forward assessment of potential need beyond study end dates.

5.6 There needs to be an agreed methodology to assess need to the period to 2021 to ensure consistency across the Region. EERA is best placed to develop such a methodology, though this should be taken forward in liaison with local authorities.

5.7 Furthermore, there is a need for a range of strategic decisions on how to take forward need assessment(s) into a process to define pitch numbers at an appropriate spatial level. A number of these issues are outlined below. Without guidance on these strategic issues the value of any process, such as that implied by question 4 of EERA’s ‘Request for advice’, to develop pitch numbers by borough/district council area is likely to be limited.

Timescale of the Review

5.8 Government guidance suggests that is may not be practicable to assess the future need for gypsy and traveller pitches beyond a 5-10 year period and yet the RRS seeks to identify pitch numbers to 2021. The response suggests that consideration be given to adopting a shorter timeframe to that of the RSS proper, which runs to 2021.

To what extent should need be met?

5.9 As with any decision-making process about future levels of development, judgements need to be made about the extent to which forecast demand/need should be met. For example, the RSS proper does not seek to cater for all projected future households that would be generated in the Region, nor the scale of affordable housing demand/need that is predicted. The draft response suggests that this might warrant further research before or in tandem with the preparation of pitch numbers.

Sub-regional or district level and appropriate sub-regions

5.10 Experience in Hertfordshire demonstrates that it is unlikely to be practical to determine demand/need for pitch numbers on a district by district basis. Generally, the gypsy and traveller community are not bonded to any particular area – to the extent that pitch provision within any one of a number of administrative borough/district boundaries would be equally satisfactory to meet their needs. The response advises that a sub-regional approach to identifying pitch numbers is more appropriate and recommends a suitable patchwork of sub-regions be developed.