Agenda item

To enable members of the public to ask questions, express views or present petitions, IF NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN, (by telephone, in writing or by email) BY NO LATER THAN 12 NOON OF THE WORKING DAY PRECEDING THE MEETING. As per Procedural Rule 14.4 at any one meeting no person may submit more than 3 questions and no more than 1 such question may be asked on behalf of one organisation.

In accordance with Rule of Procedure 14.4, the following people attended the meeting to speak on Item 4 – Temporary Traveller Sites:

-        Mr Victor Launert – Matlock Bath Local Resident

-        Cllr Kevin Rowney – Rowsley Parish Council

-        Mr Peter Baranek– Chair of Matlock Bath Parish Council

-        Mr Stephen Walton – Local Resident

-        Mr George Ashbrook – Ashbrook Roofing

-        Mr Richard Bean – Natural Stone Sales Ltd

-        Mr Keith Jennings – Matlock Local Resident

-        Ms Kerry Andrews – Level Centre

-        Ms Hannah Lister – Rowsley Local Resident

-        Mr Jonathan Shaw – Matlock Local Resident

-        Mr Tim Simcox – T C Harrison Group

-        Mrs Karen Whittle – Matlock Local Resident

-        Mr Richard Walsh – Local Resident

-        Ms Judith Ashness – Matlock Local Resident

-        Mr Andrew Bishop – Matlock Local Resident

-        Ms Julie Bishop – Matlock Local Resident

-        Mr Mike Walton – Matlock Local Resident

In accordance with Rule of Procedure 14.4  the following questions were also received:

Questions from Ms Jo Wildgoose, Rowsley Local Resident

1.     Tommy Shaw sent an email to our chair saying that the gypsy and traveller working group would be submitting recommendations to the council after they had read the report following the consultation. However, according to Sue Hobson the Gypsy and traveller work group has not met since the 8th of November. Why were they not involved in making recommendations for this meeting?

2.     Why was there no third-party visual evidence included in the report from submissions to the travellers@ email address, for example photographs, plans and aerial maps etc.?

3.     Who compiled the list of stakeholders included in the equality impact assessment, and why was Rowsley primary School, Marston’s plc on behalf of the Grouse and Claret and Derbyshire County Council omitted from this list?

Response:

1.       Due to the significant public interest in the temporary Traveller sites public consultation exercise and in the interests of openness and transparency, the Leadership of the Progressive Alliance considered that it would be more appropriate for this matter to be considered at a meeting of full Council rather than the Gypsy and Traveller Working Group and/or Community & Environment Committee. This provides an opportunity for members to contribute on this important subject.

2.       The public consultation generated over 1500 responses and included several hundred emails and letters in addition to the survey consultation responses themselves. The report and appendices seek to bring all of this information together into a form that Council Members and the public can comprehend. The report with the appendices is already 156 pages long. Adding further material to the report will not assist the decision-making process.

3.       Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) are completed by the public authority bound to undertake them under the Equality Act 2010 – in this case, the District Council. The EIA was completed by the Council’s officers who are considered best placed to assess the Equalities impacts due to their knowledge of the service, the community and the service users. The EIA will be further developed if any site options are progressed.

Question from Mr Tim Simcox, T.C.Harrison Group

For the proposed Rowsley site there appears to be an error in the Site Assessment Document that asserts that the site is not within an area of high flood risk which contradicts information sourced from the Environment Agency indicating that parts of the site fall within Flood Risk Zone 2, this issue does not appear to have been mentioned within Mr. Coggins the summary report. Given that avoiding the area of flood risk would further bring the area of the Rowsley site below the Council’s minimum pitch size, have DDDC considered flood mitigation measures required and the cost of these measures to keep the vulnerable family members safe from harm given that provision of a traveller site within an area of high risk of flooding would be contrary to criteria F. of Policy HC6 of the Local Plan?

Response:

Para 2.1 of the report refers to the consultation responses which includes reference to flooding. Officers are aware of the flood zone status of the site, which is an acknowledged constraint which would be subject to appropriate assessment as part of any planning application process should the Rowsley site be progressed. Para 5.1 of the report clearly states, further technical support will be needed to finalise designs and seek pre application advice.

Mr Peter Baranek (Chair of Matlock Bath Parish Council) presented a petition  calling on the council to urgently restore all of the Station Car and Coach Park to its proper use and take all possible precautions to ensure that the Station Car and Coach Park’s future users would only be tourists, residents and rail passengers. This was formally accepted by the Chair and Petitions Officer.