Democracy in Crawley

Crawley Borough Council Report No: DIR/EH018 3 Report to Overview and Scrutiny Commission 11 July 2005 Report to Executive 13 July 2005 Travellers Needs Assessment 1. Summary 1.1 This report presents to the Executive the work of the North County Traveller Working Group on Gypsy and Traveller sites which aims to assess Travellers’ needs in the North of the County. The Working Party comprises: Crawley Borough Council, Mid Sussex District Council, Horsham District Council and West Sussex County Council and was established to overview issues relating to Travellers in the North part of the County 2. Recommendations 2.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Commission is asked to make any comments for consideration by the Executive 2.2 The Executive is recommended to support the findings of the Working Group as an assessment of the needs of travellers in the North part of the County of West Sussex, and to proceed in accordance with paragraph 3.10. Jim Redwood Director of Environment and Housing 3/1 3. Background 3.1 Current Government advice on Travellers is that Local Authorities should carry out needs assessments for their area, to inform both their Local Development Frameworks and their Housing strategies. There is, however, little advice from the Government on how Needs Assessments are to be carried out, except that consulting the Travellers themselves is an important component. 3.2 Crawley has been subject to persistent trespass from Travellers for some time and the Corporate Plan includes a commitment to “Improve our services in relation to Travellers, including identifying and maintaining a transit site… ”. Furthermore, in its revision of strategy for Travellers (January 2003), West Sussex County Council identified Crawley (together with Worthing/Arun) as an area where the County Council would work with the District Councils to develop proposals for additional sites. As a result, over a period of time, there has been an exhaustive review of the potential for Traveller sites to be identified in the Borough. At the Council meeting on the 5 January 2005 a comprehensive list of 28 sites in or near the Borough was narrowed down to two sites at Rowley Farm and North of the A264 in the North East sector (the Gas Holder site) which were ‘short listed for further investigation, for the possible provision of some form of Travellers accommodation, which will include full public consultation with nearby residents and businesses as a priority’. Both of these sites are owned by English Partnerships. 3.3 In parallel with the search for a site, the North County Traveller Working Group comprising of Crawley Borough Council, Horsham District Council, Mid Sussex District Council and West Sussex County Council, has been reviewing Traveller provision in the North of the County. This group has taken a central role in developing a Needs Assessment for Travellers and has recently concluded its review. The report of the Working Group is attached as Appendix A. 3.4 In Summary, the report found that the three districts have different but marginally inter-related traveller problems, which are largely related to the three district areas, but with limited interaction between them. The conclusions for the three districts are as follows: 3.5 In Mid Sussex, the biggest concentration of illegal encampments is around Burgess Hill and the conclusion is that the aim should be to make provision in the Burgess Hill area to address the transit problems identified in the survey. 3.6 In Horsham District the main traveller issues are related to “New Age” incursions, particularly in the south part of the district, although there are sporadic unauthorised encampments in other parts of the Borough which often go unrecorded. The conclusion in respect of Horsham District is that Horsham should consider the balance of benefit between formal provision and dealing with incursions on an enforcement basis, subject to general containment of the issues in the Horsham area, and that the authorities should work to support resolution of the problem in the wider Crawley area. 3.7 In respect of Crawley, the core issue is found to comprise some four family groups each of them of about 10 to 15 caravans which are not solely located 3/2 in the Crawley area but regularly return here following periods of resorting elsewhere. There are also other smaller groups, which travel through the area with more limited local links. The conclusion in respect of the Crawley area is that there should be an attempt to make some provision in the Borough, to begin to address the problems of the groups resorting to the area, and therefore the aim should be to provide a transit site within Crawley Borough and a residential site in a non isolated rural location in an adjoining district. 3.8 The conclusions in relation to the County Council are that West Sussex County Council should assist the Districts in identifying site provision to address Traveller issues between the districts and across the county as a whole. It is also concluded that the County Council should ensure that a similar approach is adopted across the county, and that adjoining counties should undertake similar needs assessments and should aim to provide for the Traveller issues they experience in their own areas. 3.9 This assessment and these conclusions are consistent with the approach that has been taken in the Borough, which has been to try and find a site in the borough to address the problems in the borough, with any further addition likely to be close to, but outside, the borough. It has also been considered important to secure the support of authorities across the County (and indeed in adjoining counties) as only by establishing a network of sites will the issue have any long-term prospect of being addressed. 3.10 It is therefore recommended that the findings of the North County Traveller Working Group be accepted as a needs assessment for travellers in this area. This will not bind the council to specific provision, but will represent a mutual commitment with adjoining authorities and the County to finding a way forward over a wider area. This will then also provide a basis for continuing with the resolution of the Council on the 5 January in respect of the two English Partnership sites in the Borough. The next steps in respect of these sites would be a community consultation exercise, which is likely to take place over August and September, following which the Council will be able to consider whether it wishes to proceed with either (or both) of those sites. If a decision is taken to proceed a formal planning application process would follow. 4. Consultation 4.1 In accordance with the advice of the ODPM, travellers’ groups have been consulted on the lead assessment. Friends Families and Travellers comment that they are concerned that conclusions have been drawn without prior consultation with Travellers and Traveller Groups. They are also concerned that the report portrays the issues negatively as ‘problems’ (the report has been amended in this respect). Subject to these corrections they welcome the suggestion that the three local authorities should adopt a common approach towards monitoring and work together to address the issues. They also welcome the opportunity to be involved in the ongoing process. 4.2 The Police have also been consulted, and their views, together with any additional comments from consultees, will be reported to the Executive. 3/3 5. Ward Members' Views 5.1. As the needs assessment is related to borough wide provision, no specific ward member consultation has been undertaken. 6. Staffing, Financial and Legal Implications/Powers 6.1 The needs assessment has no immediate staffing or financial implications. These would need to be addressed if the Council decides to proceed on particular sites. 6.2 The Community consultation exercise in relation of the two English Partnerships sites will have staffing and financial implications but these relate to the Council resolution in respect of those sites and not specifically to the needs assessment. 7. Other Implications 7.1 All persons in the United Kingdom have a right, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to respect for their private and family life, which includes a right to respect for their home. Repeated evictions of Travellers from unauthorised sites can interfere with these rights, as can the development of sites which have an unacceptable impact on the settled community. Consideration of any land for development as a transit or residential site must include a thorough assessment of the interests and rights of all those likely to be affected in the travelling and settled communities, and an appropriate balance between those interests must be reached. Unjustifiable breach of Article 8 rights is unlawful. 8. Links to the Community Strategy and Corporate Plan 8.1 The proposals contained in this report relate to the following key areas of the Community Strategy Local Economy Y Health and Social Care y Affordable Housing Y Community Safety y Lifelong Learning Local Environment y The following key principles are applicable:- (i) Working together y (ii) Dignity, respect and opportunities for all y (iii) Leaving no-one behind y (iv) Making it last y 3/4 This report achieves the following aims as set out in the Corporate Plan Providing high quality y Giving exemplary customer service y services and satisfaction Being financially efficient and y Developing motivated, positive and y well managed empowered staff 9 Reasons for the Recommendation The travellers’ needs assessment is supported as an objective basis for considering provision for travellers, and specifically for providing a way forward in respect of the Council resolution to investigate two specific sites for traveller accommodation.

Load more