AGENDA ITEM NO. 10 TITLE: EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE LOCAL PLAN – SITE OPTIONS FOR GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITES

Committee: Development & Transport Committee

Date: 3rd July 2012

Author: Stewart Patience, Forward Planning Officer

[M42]

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 To consider how the issue of gypsy and traveller sites should be addressed in the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION (S)

2.1 That Members endorse the recommendation that site options 1 to 5 (as outlined in table 1) are likely to provide the best options for allocation as gypsy and traveller sites in the Draft Local Plan – subject to further investigation on deliverability, suitability and site specific capacity.

3.0 BACKGROUND/OPTIONS

3.1 Government planning and housing legislation requires the District Council to have regard to the housing needs of gypsies and travellers and travelling showpeople. The District Council is currently preparing a new Local Plan for the area, which provides a key opportunity to consider housing needs and how to ensure sufficient caravan sites are provided.

3.2 In 2011, the County Council undertook an assessment of gypsy and traveller needs in the county – the ‘Cambridge Area Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment’ (GTANA). This joint study was reported to and endorsed by this Committee in November 2011. The study identified a need for a total of 38 new pitches to be provided for gypsies and travellers in East Cambridgeshire between 2011 and 2031. Since 2011 planning permission has been granted for a total of 9 new pitches – leaving a residual requirement for a total of 29 additional pitches in East Cambridgeshire between 2011 and 2031.

3.3 At the meeting of this Committee in November 2011, it was agreed that a 10 year supply of gypsy and traveller sites should be identified in the Local Plan. This approach was endorsed as it should help facilitate the delivery of some sites, whilst providing flexibility to deal with changing circumstances and windfall applications. A 10 year supply would therefore equate to a total of 14 pitches (rounded down) being allocated in the Local Plan. This

Agenda Item 10 - page 1 approach accords with new Government guidance on ‘Planning for Traveller Sites’ (published in March 2012) which specifies that Local Plans need to identify specific sites for 10 years of supply.

3.4 Work on specific sites commenced in 2010, and public consultation was carried out on 9 potential site options. A number of additional sites were rejected due to their location in Flood Zone 3, access problems, lack of availability, or adverse impact in terms of character/amenity. The responses were reported to a meeting of Strategic Development Committee in September 2010, and Members resolved that one of the 9 options, land off Heath Road in Swaffham Prior, was not suitable due to its proximity to the village and should not proceed as an option in the Local Plan. This is in the context that the East Cambridgeshire Gypsy and Traveller Assessment (2007) indicates that gypsies and travellers have some desire for a degree of separation from the settled community to retain privacy and cultural identity. In addition, a significant number of objections were received during the consultation period to the Swaffham Prior site (over 1000 responses, with 99.3% of respondents against the proposal). Concern was also raised by Members at the Committee meetings in September 2010 and November 2011 regarding the proximity of the Hod Hall Lane in Haddenham to the village, and it was minuted that the site was unsuitable as an gypsy site option.

4.0 ARGUMENTS/CONCLUSIONS

4.1 For the reasons outlined in paragraph 3.5, there appear to be 7 remaining site options which could offer the best potential for gypsy and traveller site allocations in the Local Plan. No additional sites have since been put forward by landowners for inclusion in the Local Plan, despite enquiries facilitated by the District Council’s Traveller Liaison Officer. The 7 sites could potentially accommodate a total of 25 pitches. This is greater than the proposed 14 pitches which the Local Plan needs to allocate. Therefore Members are requested to consider which of the potential options are most appropriate to identify in the Local Plan.

4.2 The 7 sites are listed in the table below, along with an assessment of their suitability and deliverability. Maps of the site locations are attached in Appendix 2 to this report. The assessment criteria have been informed by Policy CS3 in the Core Strategy and the Government planning policy document ‘Planning for Travellers’. The results of consultation in 2010 have also been taken into account. An Initial Sustainability Appraisal of the site options is attached as Appendix 1 to this report, for information.

4.3 The site assessment work indicates that sites 1 to 5 are most suitable for gypsy and traveller provision. Site 6 is located close to the built-up part of Haddenham, and therefore raises the same proximity concerns outlined in paragraph 3.5 above. In addition, the site adjoins a County Wildlife Site and mitigation measures could be required. Site 7 adjoins site 1, and there are concerns about the cumulative scale of development and impact on local Agenda Item 10 - page 2 character and amenity should both sites come forward – with potential for about 14 pitches in total. Site 1 is more suitable than site 7 as it is partially developed already, better screened, and development could be accommodated with less visual impact on the locality. The initial Sustainability Appraisal indicates that sites 6 and 7 are less sustainable in a number of ways.

4.4 It is estimated that a total of 14 pitches could be accommodated on sites 1 to 5. It is therefore concluded that sites 1 to 5 currently offer the best options for allocation in the Draft Local Plan - subject to further investigation on delivery, suitability and specific pitch capacity.

4.5 The Draft Local Plan, including allocations for gypsy and traveller accommodation, is due to be reported to this Committee in September. Consultation on the document is due to take place over a 6-week period in September/October 2012.

Table 1 – Assessment of options for gypsy and traveller sites

No. Location No. of Summary of assessment pitches 1 82 Isleham Road, 6 Existing house with gypsy occupancy condition. Fordham Redevelopment could provide wardens house with 6 pitches. Site appears to be suitable option, and visual impact could be minimised through landscaping. No known constraints to development. Isleham Parish Council has objected to the allocation. 2 Muckdungle Corner, 2 Site is in the Green Belt, but is part of an existing Newmarket Road, scrapyard and adjacent to a current gypsy site. Bottisham Visual impact could be improved through re- development. Small part of the site is in an area of flood risk (Flood Zone 3) but development could be accommodated on the remainder. Access will need to be provided via the layby. Bottisham Parish Council has objected to the potential allocation. 3 Church Road, 2 Existing gypsy site which offers potential for sub- Wentworth – north division. Landscape impact minimal. No known site constraints to development. Relatively high support for development (35% of respondents) 4 Church Road, 1 Existing unauthorised gypsy encampment. Site Wentworth – south adjoins an existing gypsy site, and visual and site amenity impact would be minimal. No known constraints to development. Relatively high support for development (36% support). 5 Pony Lodge, Grunty 3 Land adjoining an existing gypsy site. Site is well Fen Road, Witchford screened and isolated – therefore unlikely to be significant visual or amenity impact. No known constraints to development. Relatively high

Agenda Item 10 - page 3 support for development (32% support). Supported by Witchford Parish Council. SUB-TOTAL 14

6 Elmfield, Chewells 3 Existing gypsy site with potential for sub-division. Lane, Haddenham Site adjoins a County Wildlife Site and mitigation measures may be required. Site lies close to Haddenham and would not offer the travelling community’s preferred degree of separation. No other known constraints to development. 7 Land east of 82 8 Adjacent to site 1 and could offer potential for Isleham Road, extension – but some concern about scale and Fordham cumulative impact of both sites coming forward. Some degree of visual impact which could be mitigated through landscaping. TOTAL 25

5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS/EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1 No further financial implications. A budget is already in place for the production of the Local Plan.

5.2 An Equality Impact Assessment (INRA) will need to be submitted as part of the technical supporting evidence when the Local Plan is submitted to Government.

6.0 APPENDICES

6.1 Appendix 1 – Initial Sustainability Appraisal Appendix 2 - Site maps

Agenda Item 10 - page 4 Background Documents Location Contact Officer Planning for Traveller Sites Room 12 Stewart Patience (March 2012) The Grange, Forward Planning Officer Ely (01353) 665555 Cambridge Area Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation E-mail: Needs Assessment [email protected] (October 2011)

Site Allocations Options Paper – Summary of Responses (November 2010)

Site Allocations Options Paper (July 2010)

Technical Background Paper to the Site Allocations Options Paper (June 2010).

Agenda Item 10 - page 5 APPENDIX 1 l a s i a

Initial Sustainability Appraisal r p p A

y t

Sustainability Appraisal Framework i l i b a n The SA framework provides the means by which the sustainability effects of the Local i a t

Plan can be measured, compared and analysed. The SA framework in Table 4 below s u S

is taken from the Scoping Report 2012. It sets out 22 SA objectives, along with sub- l a i

objectives/decision-making criteria. t i n I

– Undertaking the sustainability appraisal involves appraising the options and policies n a against the SA framework, using a scoring system. This scoring system is detailed in l P

Table 5 below. The scoring system defines the impact on each objective, ranging from l a c

a ‘strong and significant beneficial impact’, to ‘strong and significant adverse impact.’ o L The assessment also allows for situations where there is insufficient information to e r i

make an assessment. h s e g

Table 1 - Sustainability Framework d i r b m

SA Topic SA Objective Decision-making Criteria a C

t

1.1 Minimise the irreversible loss Will it use land that has been previously developed? s Will it use land efficiently? a of undeveloped land and Will it protect and enhance the best and most versatile E productive agricultural holdings 1 Land and agricultural land? water 1.2 Reduce the use of non- Will it reduce energy consumption? resources renewable resources including Will it increase the proportion of energy needs being met energy sources from renewable sources? 1.3 Limit water consumption to Will it reduce water consumption? levels supportable by natural Will it conserve ground water resources? processes and storage systems 2.1 Avoid damage to designated Will it protect sites designated for nature conservation statutory and non statutory sites interest? and protected species Will it conserve species, reverse declines, help to 2.2 Maintain and enhance the enhance diversity? 2 Biodiversity range and viability of characteristic Will it reduce habitat fragmentation? habitats and species Will it help achieve Biodiversity Action Plan targets? Will it improve access to wildlife, and wild places? 2.3 Improve opportunities for Will it maintain or increase the area of high-quality green people to access and appreciate space? wildlife and wild places Will it promote understanding and appreciation of wildlife? 3.1 Avoid damage to areas and Will it protect or enhance sites, features of areas of sites designated for their historic historical, archaeological, or cultural interest? interest, and protect their settings Will it maintain and enhance the diversity and 3 Landscape, 3.2 Maintain and enhance the distinctiveness of landscape and townscape character? townscape diversity and distinctiveness of Will it protect and enhance open spaces of amenity and and landscape and townscape archaeology recreational value? character Will it maintain and enhance the character of settlements? Will it improve the satisfaction of people with their 3.3 Create places, spaces and neighbourhoods as places to live? buildings that work well, wear well Will it lead to developments built to a high standard of and look good design?

Agenda Item 10 – page 6 SA Topic SA Objective Decision-making Criteria l a

Will it reduce emissions of greenhouse gases? s

 i a 4.1 Reduce emissions of Will it improve air quality? r Will it reduce traffic volumes? p

 p greenhouse gases and other Will it support travel by means other than the car? A

 pollutants (including air, water, y

Will it reduce levels of noise? t

 i l

soil, noise, vibration and light) i 4 Climate Will it reduce or minimise light pollution?

 b change and Will it reduce water pollution? a n i

pollution 4.2 Minimise waste production Will it reduce household waste? a

 t and support the recycling of waste Will it increase waste recovery and recycling? s u

products Will it reduce waste from other sources? S

 l a

Will it minimise risk to people and property from flooding, i t

4.3 Limit or reduce vulnerability to i storm events or subsidence? n

the effects of climate change I Will it improve the adaptability of buildings to changing –

(including flooding)

temperatures? n a 5.1 Maintain and enhance human Will it reduce death rates? l P

health Will it encourage healthy lifestyles? l a

5 Healthy 5.2 Reduce and prevent crime, Will it reduce actual levels of crime? c o

communities and reduce the fear of crime Will it reduce fear of crime? L

e

5.3 Improve the quantity and r Will it increase the quantity and quality of publicly i quality of publicly accessible open h accessible open space? s space e g

6.1 Improve the quality, range and d Will it improve accessibility to key local services and i r

accessibility of services and facilities? b

facilities (e.g. health, transport, Will it improve accessibility by means other than the car? m a

education, training, leisure Will it support and improve community and public C

t

opportunities) transport? s Will it improve relations between people from different a 6.2 Redress inequalities related to backgrounds or social groups? E age, gender, disability, race, faith, Will it reduce poverty and social exclusion in those areas 6 Inclusive most affected? communities location and income Will it promote accessibility for all members of society? Will it support the provision of a range of housing types 6.3 Ensure all groups have access and sizes to meet the identified needs of all sectors of the to decent, appropriate and community? affordable housing Will it reduce the number of unfit homes? Will it meet the needs of the travelling community? 6.4 Encourage and enable the Will it increase the ability of people to influence decisions? active involvement of local people Will it encourage community engagement? in community activities Will it encourage business development? 7.1 Help people gain access to Will it improve the range of employment opportunities? satisfying work appropriate to their Will it improve access to employment / access to skills, potential and place of employment by means other than the car? residence Will it encourage the rural economy and diversification? Will it improve the level of investment in key community 7.2 Support appropriate services and infrastructure? investment in people, places, Will it support provision of key infrastructure? 7 Economic communications and other Will it improve access to education and training, and activity infrastructure support provision of skilled employees? Will it improve business development and enhance competitiveness? Will it support Cambridgeshire’s lead role in research and 7.3 Improve the efficiency, technology based industries, higher education and competitiveness, vitality and research? adaptability of the local economy Will it support sustainable tourism? Will it protect the shopping hierarchy, supporting vitality and viability?

Table 2 – Key to appraisal symbols

Symbol Likely effect upon the SA Objective

Agenda Item 10 – page 7 +++ Strong and significant beneficial impact l

++ Potentially significant beneficial impact a s + Policy or proposal supports this objective although it may only have a minor beneficial impact i a r

~ Policy or proposal has no impact or effect is neutral insofar as the benefits and drawbacks appear p equal and neither is considered significant p A

? Uncertain or insufficient information on which to determine the assessment at this stage y t i l - Policy or proposal appears to conflict with the objective and may result in adverse impacts i b

-- Potentially significant adverse impact a n i

--- Strong and significant adverse impact a t s u S

l a i t i n I

Sites for Gypsies and Travellers –

n a l P

The District Council has identified a range of site options for the development of l a

pitches for gypsies and travellers. These options are assessed in the tables below. c o L

e r Potential options i h s Option 1 – Land adjacent to 82 Isleham Road, Fordham (6 pitches) e g d i

Option 2 – Muckdungle Corner, Newmarket Road, Bottisham (2 pitches) r b

Option 3 – Land north of Travellers site, Church Road, Wentworth (2 pitches) m a

Option 4 – Land adjacent to Travellers site, Church Road, Wentworth (1 pitch) C

t Option 5 – Land adjacent to Pony Lodge, Grunty Fen Road, Witchford (3 pitches) s a

Option 6 – Elmfield, Chewell’s Lane, Haddenham (3 pitches) E Option 7 – Land east of 82 Isleham Road, Fordham (6 pitches)

‘Rejected’ options Option 8 – Builders Yard, Hod Hall Lane, Haddenham Option 9 – Land east of Goodwin Farm, Heath Road, Swaffham Prior Option 10 – Land adjacent 4 Long Dolver Drove, Soham Option 11 – Poplar Drove, Littleport Option 12 – Mowfen Drove, Littleport Option 13 – Land west of Meadow Court, Littleport Option 14 – Still Wheels, Little Thetford Option 15 – Little Fen Drove, Burwell Option 16 – Land east of Newmarket Road, Stretham Option 17 – Former Depot, Brinkley Road, Stretham Option 18 – Land west of Long Lane, Coveney Option 19 – Land north of Coates Drove, Isleham Option 20 – Land between Long Dolver Drove and Hasse Road, Soham Option 21 – Major development areas Option 22 – Land adjacent to railway line, Second Drove, Little Downham Option 23 – Land at Primrose Farm, Sutton Gault Option 24 – Land adjacent to Shippea Hill railway station

Agenda Item 10 – page 8 Table 1 – Assessment of ‘potential’ options for development of sites for Gypsies and l a

Travellers s i a r p p A e 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 y v t i i t n n n n l n n n i A c o o o o o o o b i i i i e i i i S t t t t a j t t t p p p p n b p p p i O O O O a O O O O t s

1.1 - + + + ~ + - u S

1.2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l a i t 1.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i n I 2.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ – 2.2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ n a

2.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l P

3.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l a

3.2 ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - c o

3.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L

e

4.1 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - r i

4.2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h s

4.3 ~ ? ~ ~ ? ~ ~ e g d

5.1 - - ~ - - + - i r

5.2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b m

5.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a C

6.1 + ~ ~ - ~ + - t

6.2 + + + + + + + s a

6.3 ++ + + + ++ ++ ++ E 6.4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7.2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Summary of assessment – All options score well in the objectives related to meeting housing need and reducing poverty/social inclusion, with Options 1 and 7 providing significant contributions to site provision. Significant effects are unlikely for Options 1-6 because they are either existing sites or extensions to existing sites. Options 2-6 would also be unlikely to create significant impact due to the small scale of development proposed.

Short/medium/long term impacts – None identified.

Summary of mitigation measures – Policies in the Local Plan will seek to reduce and mitigate any adverse effects of development. For example, policies relating to design and layout, environmental protection, and access. Applications will need to be determined on their merits. For example, Option 6 may require mitigation measures in relation to the adjacent County Wildlife Site.

Secondary, cumulative or synergistic effects – None identified.

Agenda Item 10 – page 9 Assessment of ‘rejected’ options for Gypsies and Travellers l a s i a r e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 p v 8 9

i p t n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n A c A o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i S i i y j t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t i b l p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p i O b O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a n 1.1 + - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ? - - - i a t

1.2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s u

1.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S

l

2.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ a i t 2.2 + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i n I 2.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ –

3.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n a 3.2 ~ - ~ - - -- ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ? - ~ - l P

3.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l a

4.1 ~ - -- - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - -- ? ~ ~ ~ c o L

4.2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e r

4.3 ~ ~ ~ -- -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ------i h

5.1 + ------~ - ~ ~ ------+ -- -- ~ s e

5.2 ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g d i

5.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r 6.1 ~ ------~ - ~ ~ ------+ -- -- ~ b m

6.2 - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + a C

6.3 ++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + t s

6.4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 7.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E 7.2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7.3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Summary of assessment – Rejected options 10, 15 and 20 are inaccessible due to highway safety issues. Rejected options 10-13, 14, 8-11, 22-23 score poorly due to their isolation. Rejected options 11, 12 and 23-24 score poorly in terms of reducing vulnerability to the effects of climate change as they are located in high flood risk areas. Sites 8, 9 and 21 are located in close proximity to existing settlements and major development areas, which will not meet the need for a degree of separation requested from the settled community as noted in the Gypsy and Traveller Sub-District Needs Assessment.

Short/medium/long term impacts – None identified.

Summary of mitigation measures – Policies in the Local Plan will seek to reduce and mitigate any adverse effects of development. For example, policies relating to design and layout, environmental protection, and access. Applications will need to be determined on their merits.

Secondary, cumulative or synergistic effects – None identified.

Agenda Item 10 – page 10 SITE 1: Land adjacent to 82 Isleham Road, Fordham

Approximate available land

SITE 2: Muckdungle Corner, Newmarket Road, Bottisham

SITE 3: Land north of Travellers site, Church Road, Wentworth (north e) SITE 3: Land north of Travellers site, Church Road, Wentworth (north site)

SITE 4: Land adjacent to Travellers site, Church Road, Wentworth (south site)

Approximate available land

SITE 4: Land adjacent to Travellers site, Church Road, Wentworth (south site) SITE 5: Pony Lodge, Grunty Fen Road, Witchford

SITE 6: Elmfield, Chewells Lane, Haddenham SITE 7: Land east of 82 Isleham Road, Fordham