Read more on this

Read more on this

Read more on this

Read more on this

Gypsy and Traveller Sites- a sticky problem- but large sites of 10 pitches is not the answer

by Jackie Porter on 23 December, 2016

Everyone needs somewhere to live and the housing section of the Local Plan (part2) was rejected by the Inspector, in part because it did not include places for gypsies and travellers’ move-on and permanent sites.
WCC published a series of documents for consideration and these included three sites in or near the Itchen Valley Division.

I knew there would be many residents concerned about this, and so I attended the public meeting held in Northington on the subject and held a surgery at Bighton for residents to come and talk to me in confidence.
This response is a distillation of their comments and my representation of the views expressed.

Response to Local Plan Part 2 Consultation from Cllr. Jackie Porter

Gypsy and Traveller Pitches , Provision for Travelling Show People.(TSP)

I realise that further consultation will be carried out as sites present themselves, but the Local Plan will not be sound unless the provision is made. My comments reflect local concerns and I propose a radical solution, and comment on the very large number of pitches at each site, which doesn’t reflect the WCC IMG on this subject.
This section of my reply is written after consultation at a Public Meeting hosted by NPC with Northington residents, a surgery at Bighton, and conversations with other county councillors and a city councillor, and Itchen Valley Parish Councils, and after years of hearing about WCC and EA enforcement issues at the privately run Carousel Park from residents and councillors at Micheldever PC, and broadly reflects the views of my constituents.

The definition of Travelling Show People is broad and includes not only those who work on fairgrounds through the year, but also those who cease to travel with the fair equipment and relatives. This broad definition has brought enormous issues at Carousel Park.

I would like the WCC to challenge the Government on this definition of land use for this group.
No other profession is given specific land attached to their home at which they can keep equipment. Builders, electricians, plumbers, decorators etc. all have to find commercial spaceto store work tools and equipment, so that the density of housing remains high. Large plots used by retired TSP inevitably becomes sub divided, leading to over occupation, and uncertainty about who lives there, making enforcement more difficult.
Residents are asking me, and in turn, I ask WCC: why should it be different for travelling show people?

The proposed plot sizes for new sites, equalling 10 pitches at each, placed at Northington and Bishops Sutton are too large for populations of small communities. Neither community has its own primary school, and children are bussed to other schools. Both are rural, neither has a shop, or services of its own.
Placing a community of ten pitches is equal to a very large new development and is considered far too big, having too great an impact on these communities.
Even the recommended ‘sketches’ of sites include just 5 pitches .
I do not accept that 10 pitches is feasible for these sites. It is far too large a number.

The management of sites is crucial. I would like to ensure that all proposed new sites are publicly owned and managed by a Registered Social Landlord.
Because of my experience of this whole subject at city and county and parish level, and the subsequent impact on local residents, I feel this should be tackled by a strong proactive stance/action.
I have spent years trying to get the Dummer traveller site reopened: it was in a good position with good transport links, but was told by County Officers that it was left in such a state that it would cost several hundreds of thousands of pounds to reinstate it back to a working site.
If that is the case, why would we want to define and create more without restoring this one first?

The Dummer site, Tyntesfield and others have quickly become wrecked as fences erected are removed, replaced and removed again. Nearby trees are cut for fuel, so the wooded setting is destroyed. I was told by officers that the water supply became unusable, toilets also became unusable at Dummer, and local areas outside the camp were used ‘al fresco’ instead.

All of this could be made less likely by the employment of a Registered Social Landlord to manage sites. Indeed I would go as far as to say that I could only support the setting up of any site if there is proof that there will be an RSL managing the state of the site, closing off any bullying, ensuring the children are going to school, managing any other welfare issues, managing anti social behaviour, and ensuring the toilets, bins etc are kept in well maintained and working condition.
This would mean that the law abiding travellers would be ably to use the sites peaceably and just as in our social housing, the non-law-abiding are managed and ultimately, could be evicted.
Use of an RSL would also control the potential overcrowding that could occur.

Communities tell me that they choose to live in rural areas because there is an implicit degree of trust between residents. The police rely on this too and rural policing is at an all time low. This leads to a difficult area where people have written or talked to me about the fear of recrimination if they object to a site near to them, but the fear of crime is a real one.
We would like assurances that the Police would step up to the mark in rural areas on this sensitive issue and follow through petty crimes as so often it feels like an incident number is given and there is ‘just an insurance claim’ to resolve it.

Ensuring law abiding travellers are allowed to live peaceably on the sites
In the past, I have visited and shared mugs of tea with travellers passing through at Northington, along The Drove, met travellers with a job but no home, and indeed my daughter’s best friend at primary school was a traveller child. All were law abiding. A recent group of travelling gypsies passed through the area leaving the sites completely clear. But they feared those who infiltrated the sites and were not. They said that the infiltrators ‘gave them a bad reputation’.

As a Councillor, I point out to others that people can choose how they want to live: full time in one house, shared between two homes, perhaps one in the UK, one abroad, or on a boat, in a caravan, or part –time caravan, part fixed home.
I want any site to be a safe place for travellers and for minimal impact on local residents. That is how we can all get along, and I hope that cost effective, useful sites will be achieved, long term.

Specific concerns about the Northington site.

This has an oil pipeline running under it. The pipeline is well marked and as with its whole length, access around it is restricted, and digging near it, and of course extracting from it is strictly illegal. How will the proposal for this site take this matter into account?
It is a brownfield site and would be costly to create a new custom built site on it. How would this be funded? And why would this site be created instead of restoring Dummer, which is relatively close?

Micheldever school, the nearest, already has a population of traveller children attending but is a small school, with limited PAN and limited places. How can we ensure that local children in the ward will still be able to get into the school? This issue has happened in the past and a family of Micheldever children have had to split: one to be transported to Kings Worthy school. An intake of ten pitches here would impact on the school, and the County’s school travel budget.

Specific concerns about the Bishop’s Sutton site.
This is close to the River Arle and the river runs under the site. How will WCC ensure there is no contamination of that water?
The school places are very limited at Ropley and the primary school at Alresford is currently in Special measures, so not on the admissions potential for the children. Again, placing children in school would place a severe cost on the County Transport budget.
The site is described as sheltered by a tree belt. How would WCC ensure the tree belt remains?

Chilcomb site

This site is close to residential properties. Again, it is a considerable distance from local schools and there is potential for children needing to be bussed to secondary school. This site has residential properties nearby and I would only support this as a publicly owned site for the reasons stated above, and for less pitches.

All three sites have environmental strengths. Despite being chippings depots in use, and Dummer being out of use land, next to a busy site with employment, I ask why then are these sites being proposed instead?

Cllr Jackie Porter, Itchen Valley Division.

   Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>