Memorandum by Winchester City Council
(TF 55)
Thank you for your letter dated 22nd February
2000 inviting this Council to respond to the points raised in
evidence submitted to the inquiry by Brimble, Lea and Partners
and asking for details of the Council's Local Plan policies.
I have studied the evidence submitted by Brimble
Lea and Partners and noted the reference to a site in this District,
at Shedfield. This is one of eight areas in the South-East allegedly
highlighting a problem and its magnitude. Although I do not know
the details of the other cases it appears that all have been dealt
with through the proper planning processes and in most cases planning
appeals have been heard and dismissed with enforcement action
being taken. This being the case I am not convinced that these
cases do demonstrate a particular problem and suspect that this
volume is tiny in comparison to other types of appeal and enforcement
cases.
I enclose a copy of the policy on travelling
showpeople from the Winchester District Local Plan. This plan
was adopted in 1998 following the full statutory processes, including
a public inquiry. The inspector who held the inquiry considered
objections to the policy and I enclose an extract from his report.
You will see that this supports the policy and concludes that
it accords fully with Government advice. The Inspector's recommendations
for changes to the explanatory text of the policy were incorporated.
The policy takes full account of the advice in paragraphs 6 and
7 of Circular 22/91. It is a positively-worded policy allowing
for the development of sites for travelling showpeople subject
to a number of criteria. These criteria reflect the advice of
Circular 22/91, as noted by the Local Plan Inspector.
With regard to the case in Shedfield, within
this District, this has been subject to various planning applications
and appeals, the later ones of which were determined on the basis
of the Local Plan policy. Following the upholding of the enforcement
notices the Council has worked with the showpeople's agent to
assess possible alternative sites. Various sites were put to the
Council for it to assess against the Local Plan criteria. Whilst
it transpired that none of the sites met the requirements of the
Local Plan policy, the Council have nevertheless taken a positive
approach to trying to help with this site. I cannot agree that
the showpeople involved have been "constantly" searching
for an alternative site: the Council's impression is that the
search tends only to be activated when a planning appeal is about
to be heard.
The fact that the Council is now pursuing action
through the Courts should not be any basis for criticism. Indeed
the Council has received considerable criticism for not taking
action more promptly to implement the requirements of the enforcement
notices and the Council has been subject to an investigation by
the Local Government Ombudsman for allegedly delaying too long
in securing compliance. Although the Ombudsman did not uphold
this complaint, he was critical of some of the delays in bringing
the matter to Court and recommended that the Council should set
out a firm programme for achieving the clearance of the site.
It is, therefore, quite clear that Court action is necessary and
justified. I enclose a copy of the Ombudsman's preliminary assessment,
which also summarises the long-running situation at Shedfield.
[6]
Steve Opacic
Forward Planning
Team Manager
March 2000
6 Ev. Not printed. For further information please
contact Winchester City Council. Back
| 
