Agenda item

Report of the Chief Executive (enclosed).

The Executive Leader, Councillor Alistair Bradley presented a report which provided the results of consultation on the Chorley Local Plan 2012 – 26 Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Preferred Options document.

 

In order for the Local Plan to be found sound in relation to gypsy and traveller matters by the Local Plan Inspector, a site must be allocated for a minimum of five pitches with a number of modifications to the Plan. Further to a decision of the Annual Council meeting on 3 June 2104, consultation had taken place on 9 potential sites as follows:

 

1.    Cowling Farm, Chorley

2.    Yarrow Bridge Depot, Chorley

3.    Cabbage Hall Fields, Chorley

4.    Land off Westhoughton Rd, Heath Charnock

5.    Land at Ackhurst Rd, Chorley

6.    Land adjacent to Northgate Drive, Chorley

7.    Haworth Rd, (previously named Crosse Hall Lane) Chorley

8.    Harrisons Farm, Adlington

9.    Hut Lane, Heath Charnock

 

Cowling Farm was considered at that stage to be the preferred site for allocation. The site is allocated for a mix of housing and employment in the Local Plan and the report highlighted the positive attributes of the site. Consultation took place on all sites between 4 June and 16 July 2014 and 314 representations were received.

 

The report provided details of the consultation an overview of those consultation responses in relation to the sustainability appraisals; financial considerations; representations from statutory consultees and engagement with the existing gypsy and traveller community. The report then gave breakdowns of the comments received for each of the 9 sites and the Council’s responses to those comments.

 

The report included an update which was circulated on the cost of developing each site. The conclusion was that Cowling Farm remained the Council’s proposed allocation and is a suitable, available, achievable and sustainable site which accords with national policy on Gypsy and Travellers and Core Strategy Policies 1 and 8. The Council’s decision on a preferred site, together with any related Local Plan modifications, would need to be submitted to the Local Plan Inspector for consideration in advance of the reopened Examination Hearing on 23 and 24 September 2014.

 

The Council would fund any provision but would hope to achieve funding from the Homes & Communities Agency. Developing Cowling Farm would require a master planning process and the Council would work closely with partners and local residents to achieve a cohesive community.

 

The Council had tried to object and oppose the need for a dedicated site but this had not been successful and failure to identify one was now putting the Local Plan at risk. The Council had to work within the law and all political groups had been involved in that process.

 

The Mayor invited the five people who had submitted public questions to read their questions for the Executive Leader to respond to:

 

1.         Justin Taylor, Rivington View Residents Association

 

“Given the reasons stated by the Council to discount the Haworth Road site from further considerations as a Gypsy/Traveller provision, does this mean that the site will be excluded from potential selection for similar sites in the future, should County or Government indicate a need for one?”

 

Leader response

Traveller need is not ‘indicated’ by County or Government, rather it is established from a Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Assessment. 

 

The Council cannot give an absolute guarantee that the Traveller DPD work won’t consider Haworth Road for any further Permanent Traveller Accommodation. However, it may also come forward for housing development.

 

In relation to Travellers is unlikely that it will be suitable for a transit or Travelling Showpeople provision. Needs of transit Travellers and Travelling Showpeople provision are likely to be very different to those of permanent Travellers. Transit facilities, for example, are provided close to ‘transit routes’ and do not require the same proximity to community services and facilities of a permanent provision, nor do they require the same level of on-site facilities as a permanent site e.g. portable private amenity facilities can be acceptable on transit sites. At present the transit need identified in the GTAA is on a Central Lancashire wide basis (no locational preference has been expressed) and therefore proximity to main routes through Central Lancashire will be a key consideration – Haworth Road is unlikely to be suitable in this respect. The additional work being undertaken as part of the Central Lancashire GTAA will further refine Central Lancashire’s transit and travelling Showperson need and appropriate locations will be explored as part of the related Development Plan Document work which is due to commence in December 2014.

 

2.         Steve Allen, Moorland Gate Business Park

 

“As the owners of Moorland Gate Business Park we are concerned that the planned development will impact on our ability to retain existing and attract new tenants to the business park. We have already been informed by a number of tenants that they will not renew their leases in the event that a Gypsy or Traveller site is established. Two independent commercial property agents have also confirmed they believe the development will undoubtedly have a detrimental impact upon market demand. Whilst we do not endorse the concerns or considerations that have led our tenants to that decision we are deeply concerned by the effect on our business. Has the council considered the potential detrimental impact on employment in the ward and borough that the provision of a Permanent Traveller site will have on the Moorland Gate business park and other employers in the immediate area of the Cowling Farm site.”

 

Leader response

The perceived detrimental impact of a Traveller site on businesses is not a material planning consideration. The master planning process that will accompany the mixed-use allocation at Cowling Farm is intended to ensure that an optimum location, design and layout for housing and Traveller accommodation, and employment is secured in consultation with key stakeholders, including local businesses, the local community, and the Travelling community.

 

Mr Allen did not ask a supplementary question but commented that he thought the process was flawed and that there had been no communications with local businesses.

 

 

3.         Gareth Howell - Cowling Action Group

 

“Are Members of the Council aware that the evidence base upon which the decision to allocate Cowling Farm has been determined is fundamentally flawed? It seems clear that a site has been chosen and the ‘evidence’ then prepared to support this allocation. Even then it is clear that your officers have rejected other more suitable sites, where the effect on, for example, the delivery of housing more generally would be considerably less than for Cowling Farm. The impact of the allocation at Cowling will have the effect of sterilising the wider site allocation – potentially over 150 dwellings, and the revenue this would bring, lost to the Borough. Why have more suitable sites with a much lesser impact been rejected for somewhat spurious reasons?”

 

Leader response

The Council considers the evidence to be sound and has followed a similar process of arriving at a proposed site as has been employed for all the Local Plan allocations. This matter will be considered in detail by the Local Plan Inspector who will only accept such an allocation if it proves to be robust.  Section 8 of the Proposed Allocation Document seeks to provide further detail on the process of arriving at the Cowling Farm Site.

 

The master planning process that will accompany the mixed-use allocation at Cowling Farm is intended to ensure that an optimum location, design and layout for housing and Traveller accommodation, and employment is secured in consultation with key stakeholders, including local businesses, the local community, and the Travelling community.

 

In relation to site suitability a sustainability assessment has informed this judgement. National Planning Practice Guidance states “The sustainability appraisal should only focus on what is needed to assess the likely significant effects of the Local Plan. It should focus on the environmental, economic and social impacts that are likely to be significant. It does not need to be done in any more detail, or using more resources, than is considered to be appropriate for the content and level of detail in the Local Plan." The SA scoring is not weighted as it is not considered that some indicators have more importance. The purpose of the SA is to give a general overview of the sustainability of sites to be able to compare their sustainability, but it is not the only factor taken into consideration when deciding allocations. The Council considers that the methodology for Sustainability Appraisal/Assessment has already been considered by the Inspector, and has been found sound in her partial report.

 

A number of other factors such as deliverability and conformity with Core Strategy Policies 1 - locating growth and 8 – Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites has also been taken into consideration.  

 

Following the publication of the Preferred Options document, further analysis of the merits of each site was undertaken. This considered the information provided from residents and stakeholders, including consultees. To create greater transparency, the Council has reviewed the Sustainability Indicators for each site, and, where considered necessary, the actual premises measured to are included.  Section 8 of the Proposed Allocation report explains the comparative analysis further.

 

Mr Howell asked a supplementary question on whether it would have been more prudent to select three site options rather than going straight to one, giving people a chance to understand the implications and make the correct decision.

 

The Leader responded that the original list had been much longer and it had been narrowed down to 9 sites. The process had been dictated by the requirements of the Local Plan.

 

4.         Peter Talbot Cowling Action Group and Spinners @ Cowling

 

“The council claim to have consulted residents and business owners likely to be impacted by the proposed development. Yet neither the owners  or the Landlord  of the Spinners at Cowling have been consulted regarding the proposed allocation which uses the car park of the Spinners as an access to the proposed development which would effectively destroy the home, business and livelihood of the Spinners landlord and threaten the employment of his staff and suppliers. On what basis can the Council maintain it has carried out sufficient consultation when a party affected by the proposed access has received no communication whatsoever?”

 

Leader response

The approach taken to consultation is in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).  The SCI sets out the approach to consultation on planning policy documents. It does not require residents/businesses that are in the vicinity of a proposed allocation (or rejected alternatives) to be consulted on an individual basis. Such policy proposals are publicised by other means such as press releases, updates to the Council website, informing local Councillors, and parish Councils where they exist. In addition, for Local Plan consultations, the Council consults directly with everybody that is listed on our Local Plan consultation database. Individuals or interested groups received a Preferred Options consultation letter if they had requested their names to be added to the Local Plan consultation database. Others notified about the Preferred Options consultation were those who made representations to the Local Plan at an earlier stage (for example, a number of residents living in the vicinity of Cowling Farm received letters because they had made comments at earlier stages of the Local Plan process and were therefore on the database). The Statement of Consultation Supplement identifies the consultation which has been undertaken during the preparation of the Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Preferred Options which forms part of the Chorley local Plan 2012-2026. The masterplanning process is intended to ensure that key stakeholders, for example the Spinners Landlord are engaged in the detailed considerations of access, design and layout, not only of the Traveller site, but the mixed use site as a whole.

 

Mr Talbot commented on the Council’s reliance on a Statement of Community Involvement which was out of date. He then asked a supplementary question about the cost of the development of Cowling Farm, in particular, the access through the Spinners pub car park and whether that had been predetermined.

 

The Leader responded that the development cost was an estimated allocation and the site would be subject to master planning and a planning application. There was no predetermination on access. The Spinners car park had been included following a discussion with LCC Highways Officers.

 

5.         Val Brown – Cowling Action Group

 

“Planning professionals and legal advisors instructed on behalf of local residents and businesses have called into question the suitability and validity of the Sustainability Appraisal conducted by the Council and the conclusion it has reached with regard to the preferred option. The council has chosen to ignore these representations therefore how does it believe it will be able to demonstrate to the inspector and to any subsequent challenge or review that it has undertaken an adequate sustainability appraisal?”

 

Leader response

National Planning Practice Guidance states “The sustainability appraisal should only focus on what is needed to assess the likely significant effects of the Local Plan. It should focus on the environmental, economic and social impacts that are likely to be significant. It does not need to be done in any more detail, or using more resources, than is considered to be appropriate for the content and level of detail in the Local Plan." The SA scoring is not weighted as it is not considered that some indicators have more importance. The purpose of the SA is to give a general overview of the sustainability of sites to be able to compare their sustainability, but it is not the only factor taken into consideration when deciding allocations. A number of other factors such as deliverability need to be taken into consideration. The Council considers that the methodology for Sustainability Appraisal/Assessment has already been considered by the Inspector, and has been found sound in her partial report. Following the publication of the Preferred Options document, further analysis of the merits of each site was undertaken. This considered the information provided from residents and stakeholders, including consultees. To create greater transparency, the Council has reviewed the Sustainability Indicators for each site, and, where considered necessary, the actual premises measured to are included.

 

Ms Brown asked a supplementary question regarding the misleading nature of the costs of developing Cowling Farm and the stretch of road required which she estimated at around four times the 25m estimated in the report.

 

The Leader responded that a site had to be identified and the Council would have to fund appropriate development of that site.

 

Members had an extensive debate on the proposals in relation to the Council’s need to comply with the requirements and timescales dictated by the Local Plan Inspector; the consultation processes using the Statement of Community Involvement; the wishes of the existing Gypsy Traveller community who would prefer to remain at the Hut Lane site; and the problems faced by the Council and the implications for the whole borough, if the Local Plan could not receive final approval and adoption. Points made during the debate included:

 

• Councillor Perks agreed that the Council had to agree a site and comply with statutory requirements but he challenged the consultation process undertaken. The Leader responded that this had been dictated by the Inspector through the Statement of Community Involvement and consultation had taken place on the 9 potential sites which were agreed at the Council Meeting on 3rd June 2014.

 

• Councillor Joyce asked about the duty to obtain the support of the settled community. The Leader responded that the Council had engaged with the local community and would continue to do so. Issues like the eventual site location,  design and layout would be key, in due course. The Council had complied with all consultation requirements.

 

• Councillor Berry spoke as a ward councillor and commented that local residents were consultation weary. She was still looking for an indication as to whether or not other sites could be considered. The existing gypsy traveller community based at Hut Lane were also opposed to the Cowling Farm site proposal as they wished to remain at their current location. The Leader responded that whilst Hut Lane had been included in the 9 potential sites because of its current use, the Council would not propose it because it was within the green belt.

 

The Mayor drew the debate to a close and asked that Members vote on the proposal before them.

 

 Councillor Alistair Bradley, Executive Leader proposed and Councillor Paul Walmsley, Executive Member for Public Protection seconded, and it was RESOLVED – 

 

1.    That the results of public consultation on the Chorley Local Plan 2012-26 Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Preferred Options – June 2014 be noted.

 

2.    That the Chorley Local Plan 2012-26 Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Proposed Allocation – September 2014 be approved for submission to the Local Plan Inspector; and delegated authority be given to the Executive Leader and Chief Executive to make minor changes to that document;

 

3.    That the sign-off of the supporting documents be delegated to the Chief Executive and Executive Member for Economic Development and Partnerships: Sustainability Appraisal Supplement, Habitats Regulations Supplement, Statement of Consultation Supplement and Duty to Co-operate Supplement and a resolution to respond to the Inspectors Issues and Matters.

 

4.    That authority be given to officers to prepare a schedule of formal responses to those who have made comments, for consideration by the Inspector.

 

5.    That the Council’s Section 151 Officer be requested to make suitable budget provision for the future delivery of the site.