Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D W Cole, J E C Harris and Mr D Anderson-Thomas.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea, the following interests was declared:

 

Councillor A M Cook - personal - Minute Nos. - Ward Member from Cockett - one of the wards that was shortlisted.

 

Councillor J P Curtice - personal - Minute Nos.  - Ward Member from Penyrheol which abuts two of the five previously nominated sites.

 

Councillor R A Clay – personal & prejudicial – Minute no.   – Llansamlet Ward Councillor and Secretary of the former campaign in the Ward against a second site.

 

 

In accordance with the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011, no declarations of Whipped Votes or Party Whips were declared.

To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Scrutiny Programme Committee held on 13 April, 2015 and 19 May, 2015.

 

 

(Councillor Rob Stewart attending).

(Councillor Andrew Jones, convener - attending).

(Councillor Chris Holley attending).

a.     Publication of Wales Audit Office Annual Improvement Report (incorporating the Corporate Assessment Report 2014) – Comments on Scrutiny.

A debate ensued regarding the co-option.

 

RESOLVED that the issue of co-option be placed on the agenda for decision at the next meeting of the Special Scrutiny Committee.

The Vice Chair reiterated the terms of reference of the scrutiny investigation in relation to the robustness of the process to identify a Gypsy & Traveller Site.

 

The Corporate Director (Environment) referred to the consultation process and outcomes report to Council and Cabinet.  She advised that there had been extensive consultation which had been the largest consultation exercise the Council had been engaged with.  The consultation process scanned three months and was available electronically via the website and in paper copy format.  Councillors were provided the opportunity to examine the report and information on internet pages.

 

Over 2000 responses, including petitions had been received and answered.  Officers were available to talk Members’ through the information.

 

Members’ are welcome to view the notes of the consultations with Gypsy & Traveller Families.   

 

All the responses received were summarised into section 6 of the report to Council.  The 18 views of Gypsy Traveller families were repeated in Appendix 1 of the Council report.

 

Additional information was submitted to a senior officer panel (which comprised a cross professional panel) which, in turn, has been forwarded to scrutiny for examination. 

 

The conclusions of the senior officer panel was detailed in section 27 of the Council report.  

 

The Executive Board considered the report and provided recommendations for consideration by Council.

 

AMC – Press release in August 2009 Greyhound track mixed use business and residential and that these proposals would be carried forward to the LDP.

 

RO – Don’t recall PR.  Reference document UDP, policy position within UDP while in urban area and could be looked at.  LDP status of  land may change but that does not come into effect until 2017.  May have been looked at mixed use in UDP still other land within the area.

 

NJD – How many sites on Peniel Green Road and dealt with separately for purpose of consultation.

 

RO – Cannot remember, written answer.

 

NJD – Minutes of 20 February, extend chronology and report back.

 

RO – Members can look at notes of meeting.  Similar meetings when process started.  When questioned Gypsy Traveller families broadly wanted to say where they were.  No documentary evidence.  Until we did site search did not have anything further to consult with familities on.  Issues coming up with announcements until we put shortlist noting to discuss with them.  Detailed meetings after shortlist.

 

AJJ – Broader discussions with Gypsy Traveller Families in general.  Where they views consulted.

 

RO – Did consult, not initially in run up to report going to Council.  Section 88, 1 Birchgrove, 1 Cockett, no immediate housing needs requirements.  They could have consulted during the process.

 

Para 18, consultation with Gypsy Travellers.  They said they would not go to certain sites.  Where still considered?  Anyone outside local government?

 

RO – Talked to families at the beginning they wanted to say where they were.  Search would have been restricted to on ward.  Members wanted to look at all Council owned land, agreed by Cabinet.  Only when shortlisted could you discuss with families only then their needs were known.  No-one outside local government but Jeff White outside the Authority.

 

Vice Chairman – read out Jeff White’s report.  What was response to Jeff White. 

 

RO lots of sites, not contaminated and available.  Rapid process to deal with authorised encampments.   No budget to look at contaminated sites.  Lots of uncontaminated sites.  Never said Members could not look at contaminated land, cost associated, cost of remediation. 

VC – don’t want anyone to think I am suggesting we use contaminated land.

 

EWF – large number of sites looked at, now 5.  Page 18 result of consultation with gypsy traveller families.  4 families indicated Swansea Vale and 1 does not have housing needs for the next 5 years but indicated Swansea Vale followed by Penderry.  5 families indicated Swansea Vale preferred.  Consult Gypsy Traveller families where are you going in looking for alternative sites when they have indicated on part of Swansea?  Ward residents who want to llive in Penllergaer told they have to go elsewhere.  Why is there a difference?  Privately owned sites.

 

RO members decided to look at all Council owned land within the City and County of Swansea.  5 sites came out of that process.  Swansea Vale preferred, then Cockett then Melyn Mynach.  Weight attached to Gypsy Traveller preference, Members need to make a judgement.  If site created and no-one will use it.

 

EWF – Theoretically you would have to meet obligations.

 

NJD – EWF onto something.  2 approaches, consistency.  Involve Gypsy Travellers. 

 

PA – Number of factors part of site consultation process.  Gypsy Traveller element, Council actively sought views write the way through the process.  Could have been critisicsm.  Consultation legally carried out properly.  Gypsy Traveller views, weight not a legal matter.

 

Chair – Authority fulfilling legal obligation to find site.

 

PA if court felt that this council not taken account, possible that the Council had not fulfilled their legal obligation not black and white.

 

DWC – Gypsy Traveller right to have opinion on where they go.  Have to consult with people.  Consultation must include needs.

 

EWF – what weighting views of Gypsy Travellers.  Critical.

 

PA This scrutiny looking at process.  Issue of weight not relevant yet.  Until Cabinet got final report they cannot give weight.  Consultation appropriate and relevant to involvement in process.

 

Chair – weight?

 

PA – Weight Cabinet has to consider when making final decision.  UNROC, Equalities, information given to Council when considered report.  Council to decide.

 

AJJ – Council asked to recommendation to Cabinet.

 

PA – Council involved in consultee not as decision maker.  Wrong for Cabinet to accept or disregard Council’s views.

 

RO – covered at first meeting of scrutiny.  Executive Baord explored weighting in Gypsy Traveller views.

 

Gypsy and Travellers race discrimination against.  Foster equal opportunities and good working.  Executive Board decided weight, not a percentage.

 

AJJ – In trying to do the right thing, do you think you did wrong thing and consultation process generated public unrest to make it difficult to sell accommodation?

 

PA Don’t accept, important everyone have say, legal perspective, Council followed correct process. 

 

AJJ – Community cohesion, paving way for Gypsy issues.

 

RO – Safer Swansea Partnership discussed community cohesion, efforts made, myth busting public relations a lot of perception not reality.  Important start established and well managed not as many problems as people expect.  More work required.

 

AJJ LDP process, Welsh Government guidelines should be part of LDP.  UDP task and finish group 8 November 2010, Kim Flanders.  UDP 4 years when process deviated away from LDP and UDP.

 

RO LDP requirements will be to identify Gypsy Traveller provision.  LDP 2016 for 10 years.  When site 2010 reference decision for site search only development plan was UDP.  UDP 2008 – 2016 still is reference document which we looked at land allocations.  Housing land use.  UDP reference document for site search.  LDP different process could bring forward further site at the time wwe.

 

AJJ Greyhound track – UDP Swansea West Industrial Estate strategically important and fully developed Swansea economic growth. LDP has not changed.  This been allocated in 2 key strategic  plans, why chosen?

 

RO  also mixed use because residential.  Balance mixed use develop;ment housing use very near to Greyhound track.  If Members starting again, may see in different light.

 

What about Gorseinon sites?

 

Green wedge, same roadworks.  Think questions to planning officers.

 

EWF – Needs assessment, not clear about what is included in decision looked and include sites of 0.5 hectares in size and above not looked at anything smaller.  Half hectare 10 – 12 pitches only so much land needed.

 

RO – good practice guidance, permanent smaller, vehicles, small shed.  Its defined current need and potential need over 10 year period.  Asked Gypsy Traveller families what was going to be their housing need.  Ideal around 12 in guidance, potentially take in 20 pitches.  Gypsy Traveller consulted on amount of land needed.

 

AJJ Variance in sizes, location to location.  Cockett smallest, cemetery site double the size. 

RO Not anticipated all sites would be developed for Gypsy Traveller use.  Would look at detailed plans after planning.  Milford Way, 4 hectares, large site.  Not all of site would be used.

 

AJJ  Huge difference in size of 2 sites.

 

NJD – overview report from Chief Executive, page 35 court judgement reason for the process for selecting site taking place.  Asked to see judgement, judgement does not take inot account provision by this authority in arriving at decision made by court.,  Paragraph 48 of 2005 guidance, site provision essential in any strategy.  Basis of judgement, cabinet decision making process defective in some way.  Lack of provision not really a problem.  Perception should take place, take a look at all,  Missing the issue.

 

PA does not appear that the Council has any legal requirement to have another Gypsy Traveller Site.  Not basis of judgement.  Not entitled because of certain assurances given by the former Cabinet Member.  Cannot move people on once established another environment.  Refute any suggestion that there was no need to do this.  1980’s case only judge said cannot have possession unless you have a site to put them onto.  Advice from QC unless alternative site not going to win possession.

 

RO – Section 1 of Council report, families living in and around enterprise zone in the last 25 years moved around a lot of taken no alternative sites.  Statutory obligation to assess needs and identify how we address needs.

 

NJD linkeage between process and this court judgement, not say not merit in provision.  Something needs to be done because of the judgement.  Sight of Counsel, judgements, primary, secondary nuanced.  Advice priviledged. 

 

PA every legal advice extended to officers and members.  My legal duty to Cabinet, waive priviledge to scrutiny. 

 

AGREED that Members’ to view at my office or next committee.