MINUTES OF A MEETING OF STOTFOLD TOWN COUNCIL HELD ON WEDNESDAY 9TH JANUARY 2013 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, SIMPSON CENTRE, STOTFOLD AT 7.30PM

Members present:B Collier (Mayor)

Mrs S BundockMrs A Clarey

Mrs D ClarkA Cooper

Mrs M CooperB Dack

S HayesMrs J Hyde

T NaisbittB Saunders (& CBC Cllr)

G SmithJ Talbot

Also present:Central Beds Councillors J Saunders and Mrs G Clarke, 28 members of the public, and the Clerk

The Chairman welcomed everyone present, and explained the difference between a Town Council meeting that is open to the public, and a public meeting. As this was a Council meeting, members of the public would be permitted to speak at the appropriate time only. As the majority of public attendees at this meeting had come for the item relating to Gypsy and Traveller sites, he advised that it was Council’s intention to hold a public meeting which would be the time when residents would be able to give their views. The public meeting would be attended by as many Town Councillors as possible to hear views, and they would then hold their own special Town Council meeting to formulate a response to Central Beds Council regarding the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites.

To allow residents to be present for the item relating to Gypsy and Travellers and then leave if they wish, the Mayor brought forward that item.

9712.DISCLOSURE OF MEMBERS INTERESTS

Councillor Mrs Hyde declared a pecuniary interest in the item relating to Gypsy and Traveller sites as she is the secretary of the farming co-operative which farms one of the proposed sites, and advised that she would speak on the matter and then leave the room whilst discussions took place.

Councillor Mrs Clark declared a personal interest in the item relating to Gypsy and Traveller sites due to the close proximity of one of the sites to her home, and advised that she would leave the room whilst discussions took place.

Councillor Mrs Clark also declared a personal interest in Planning Minutes 12/12/12 minute 6629, item E as she is related to the applicant.

Councillor Cooper declared an interest in the item relating to the Christmas Fayre as he is the Chairman of the group of community members who organised the event, and advised that he would speak on the matter and then leave the room whilst discussions took place.

9713.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Dhaliwal due to illness and Stoter due to work commitments.

9714.ORAL QUESTIONS FROM ELECTORS

Questions and comments were invited from the public relating to the Gypsy and Traveller sites only.

Pam Manfield

Central Government only requires site provision numbers to 2016; Central Beds Council have decided to estimate sites to 2031. It is unclear why this decision was made, especially since the Gypsy Council have stated that provisional needs to 2031 cannot be calculated.

The Central Beds Council website reports wrongly that Stotfold Town Council are ‘supportive of’ the consultation.

The number of proposed sites allocated to central and southern Bedfordshire has now been reversed; I believe the majority are now in central Bedfordshire. When and why was this decision made?

It is significant how many, and which, Councillors on the Executive and SUSCOM do not have sites allocated to their wards.

Information was sent out just before Christmas, which is at best showing a serious lack of concern for residents and at worst appears to be trying to avoid a large number of responses at an exceptionally busy family time.

The proposal for 5 sites in Stotfold/Fairfield is likely to lead to the splitting of the community. Social cohesion is supposed to be a mandate for local and Central Government: see Community Impact Assessment and Community Conflict Prevention document issued by Central Government.

Questions should be raised about continuing with the development of Fairfield, as it may confuse the issue of site allocation, since they could appear to be in separate communities, while the former pig breeding site is actually closer to Stotfold and currently part of it.

It is vital that the whole process is transparent and democratic.

It has to be made clear that scoring of sites has no value unless this sits within planning law.

In addition, for future discussions on site allocation: Any development in the majority of the areas proposed is strongly opposed in the Town Plan and the local Green Infrastructure Plan (both accepted by Central Beds Council). The newly published walks around Stotfold, encouraging residents to walk for health, social and recreational benefits, pass alongside each of these proposed sites. Stotfold Mill is now a prime tourist attraction in Bedfordshire, bringing in people and money. (The proposed Steam Museum will be an additional draw) The town environment should be enhanced, not devalued.

Glenn Rickwood (read out and circulated to Members in his absence)

1. Sending out news of site proposals to local residents over the Christmas period was mean-spirited and unacceptable.

2. The G&T site delivery process would seem to be seriously flawed:-

i) Central government only requires local authorities to consider G&T provision up to 2016, so why are CBC looking for provision up to 2031? (Even the Gypsy Council states [in its representation within CBC's September 2012 G&T consultation] that they have no mechanism for predicting need 18 years hence.)

ii) The South Beds/Mid Beds split re possible sites is alarmingly uneven at 29/6. Why?

iii) A six-week consultation in connection with the "long list" of sites has apparently been removed from the process. Why?

3. i) With four sites being put forward for the wider Stotfold area (five including West Drive, Arlesey), will this process cause division and conflict within the Stotfold community? ...It must not do so, and, hopefully, local councillors will be mindful of this. ...How does central government's "Community Cohesion Impact Assessment and Community Cohesion Prevention Tool"relate to this CBC's [mis]management of this situation?

ii) Could the 'devolution' of Fairfield Park in April, ahead of the May/June G&T consultation, result in CBC trying to force through two sites locally, one in Stotfold, one in FP?
Relative to this, should the 'devolution' process be halted, if possible? ...Potential conflict between Stotfold and FP must also be avoided. ...Again, how might central government's "Community Cohesion Impact Assessment and Community Cohesion Prevention Tool" relate to this?

4. Transparency and fairness must be evident during all stages of this process: there must be no deals done behind closed doors.

5. CBC's system for evaluating possible G&T sites must be underpinned by strict adherence to existing planning policy/guidances, including the Stotfold Town Plan; even high-scoring sites that do not comply with existing policy must be rejected.

6. Stotfold Town Council is listed as "supporting" CBC's G&T process within the (online) list of representations connected with the September 2012 G&T consultation... Should this status be challenged?

9715.NOTIFICATION OF GYPSY AND TRAVELLER LOCAL PLAN SITE CONSIDERATION

Notification has been received from Central Beds Council of four sites in Stotfold which are being put forward to be considered as potential options for Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan process.

The Mayor advised that last September the Town Council was presented with a list of chapter and section headings for the Central Beds Council Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan document, and was asked to comment on whether it felt that these were correct and reasonable headings. No content was involved whatsoever. The Town Council agreed that the headings were ok, but thought that a section heading was missing and asked that the following be included in the Gypsy and Traveller Plan document: “To consider the effect on existing local infrastructure e.g. Education, Healthcare and Leisure facilities and how this will be supported by other departments in Central Bedfordshire Council”. We do not know if this heading has been included in their document. Central Beds Council cannot infer that the Town Council is in favour of the content, and this will be made clear to them by the Mayor when he attends their Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee (SUSCOMS) meeting on 17th January.

With regard to Pam Manfield’s comment about Fairfield and cohesive communities, Councillor Dack advised that the Fairfield Park Residents Association (FPRA) held a meeting last evening and has decided to hold an urgent meeting between the FPRA, the Hall Residents Association and the Middlemarch Residents Association. These three groups are looking to form a cohesive view with Stotfold and Arlesey Town Councils.

Councillor Mrs Hyde made the following comments before leaving the room whilst discussions took place:

  • Would like the Town Council to write to Central Beds Council to state that their process is severely flawed and that the Town Council’s ‘support’ comment did not support the process.
  • She would like the letter/email to be distributed to Central Beds Councillors on the SUSCOMS Committee so they have available for their meeting on 17th January.
  • Suggested using comments put forward by Glenn Rickwood and Pam Manfield.
  • Queried why Central Beds Council are projecting sites up to 2031. Their site figures have changed from six months ago.
  • Pointed out that a recent change to legislation had gone through Parliament on 6th January which concerns the Gypsy and Traveller site issue, but was unsure exactly what this was.
  • Suggested a meeting with other Town and Parish Councils who have sites proposed within their boundaries to form strength in number.

Further comments were made by Members:

  • Question over why 3% has been used to increase site numbers.
  • Caravan count numbers for this district show that the January count is always higher than the July count, and the indications are that the numbers are going down and not up.
  • Under the Equality Act, public authorities have a statutory duty to promote equality – however it is not equality to provide a site for one group of people and not others, for example, a strict religious community wanting an enclave.
  • Article 8 of the Equality Act does not impose an obligation on public authorities to provide homes for anybody, or to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers. There is no suggestion that Gypsies and Travellers wish to live in this area.
  • These sites will have an impact on the public in general, impact on wildlife and watercourses.
  • There is no proven need or desire from Gypsy and Travellers to live permanently in Stotfold. Why is Central Beds Council projecting so far ahead for site requirements.
  • The agenda paperwork for the Central Beds Council meeting on 17th January notes their failure to address the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. They also haven’t addressed the needs of the existing communities where sites are proposed.
  • The agenda paperwork also says that Gypsies and Travellers prefer areas where they have historically lived.
  • Query if there is an analysis of illegal sites and any evidence of Gypsy and Travellers being moved from them to newly created sites.
  • The figures for ‘Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Requirement’ shown in the Central Beds Council agenda papers for 17th January are incorrect:

Pitch requirement at April 2012

Number of pitches in Central Bedfordshire in 2006 / 118 / Should be
Pitch need from 2006 to 2011 / 57 / 19
Growth between 2011 and 2016 (3%) / 28 / 18
Growth between 2016 and 2021 (3%) / 33 / 25
Growth between 2021 and 2026 (3%) / 38 / 29
Growth between 2026 and 2031 (3%) / 45 / 32
Total (from 2006 to 2031 / 201 / 123
Existing Permanent Permissions granted between 2006 and March 2012 (to be subtracted from the total) / 66
OVERALL NEED TO 2031 / 135 / 57

Resolved

  • That a letter is sent to Central Beds Council before their meeting on 17th January outlining the points raised in the ‘Oral Questions from Electors’ part of the meeting, together with points raised by Members above.
  • Councillor Collier is given authorisation to speak at the Central Beds Council meeting on 17th January on the points raised above.
  • A public meeting is to be organised to allow residents of Stotfold the opportunity to voice their views on the individual sites proposed. This will be after the 17th January, but before the Central Beds Council meeting on 28th February where individual sites will be considered.
  • A Special Town Council meeting is to be scheduled after the public meeting but before the 28th February, to formulate a comment on the sites proposed.

19 members of the public left the meeting at 8.25pm. The meeting formally resumed at 8.30pm

9716.ORAL QUESTIONS FROM ELECTORS – ON OTHER MATTERS

There were no questions from electors.

Councillor Smith left the meeting at 8.32pm

9717.TO RECEIVE A REPORT FROM A REPRESENTATIVE OF BEDFORDSHIRE POLICE

PSCO Antoine was unable to attend the meeting due to work commitments, a copy of her written report for the period 1st December to 29th December 2012 was circulated to Members.

Anti-social behaviour – there have been 14 reports of anti-social behaviour for the month. No trends or patterns.

Burglary dwellings – there were 2 burglary dwellings for the month. One was on Baldock Road, where offenders have gained access to side gate and forced entry to back door. Offenders have removed high value electrical items from property. The other was an attempted burglary dwelling on Fairfield Park where offenders have smashed a window to gain entry but were unable to gain entry.

Burglary other – there were 3 burglary others for the month. One was an empty property where copper piping had been removed from the empty property. The second burglary was an attempted burglary other. Offenders had forced lock on door to an industrial estate building, entry was not gained to the building. The third burglary other, a purse was taken from a staff room in a shop, offender was challenged, dropped the purse and made off.

Theft from vehicle – there were no thefts from vehicles.

Criminal damage – there was 1 criminal damage for the month to a vehicle along Hitchin Road, where the paintwork was damaged.

A query was raised over recent distraction burglaries that don’t seem to be included in the report. It was noted that more information in the reports would be preferable.

9718.CLERK’S REPORT FOR INFORMATION

There was nothing to report.

9719.CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION

Police & Crime Commissioner for Bedfordshire

A letter has been received from Olly Martins, Police & Crime Commissioner for Bedfordshire to introduce himself in this new role. He explains that he is keen to develop proposals in relation to PCSOs and the wider workforce, with the police and key partners. Once there is sufficient detail on these proposals he would welcome the opportunity to explain these to as many interested parties as possible.

As he has received a number of queries from Town and Parish Councils on this matter, he is proposing to meet with a cluster of Councils rather than individually, and will forward details on dates in due course.

Bedfordshire Bugle

A copy of the January 2013 Bedfordshire Bugle was circulated to Members present.

9720.TO RECEIVE A REPORT FROM A CENTRAL BEDFORDSHIRE COUNCILLOR ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO STOTFOLD

Councillor Mrs Clarke reminded those present at the meeting that the three Central Beds Councillors present at the meeting are supporting the Town and Parish Councils within their Ward on the matter of the Gypsy and Traveller sites.

The following queries/points were made:

Reference to a recent newspaper article stated that Highways are ‘prioritising road repairs and street light repairs’. Councillor Saunders advised that he is currently chasing Highways on various lighting issues.

Query, in the Central Beds Council 2013/14 budget, whether ‘external funding’ is external to the Council. Also query whether the £5m proposed to spend on a roundabout on the A1m (Biggleswade area) is coming out of the Central Beds Council budget. This is £2m more than is proposed for the social care budget. Councillor Saunders will investigate these queries.

9721.TO RECEIVE A REPORT FROM MEMBER REPRESENTATIVES ON OUTSIDE BODIES

The Mayor précised the report from Councillor Smith as the Town Council’s member representative on Stotfold Scouts, as he had left the meeting earlier:

Councillor Smith takes an active role in following the Scout Group’s activities and progress, and attends their Executive meetings when possible. The real scouting is done with the young people and he drops in on all sections from time to time. He had a link with the oldest section, Explorers, even before he was a Councillor, through his interest in promoting Mountaineering courses run by Herts Scouting. It is a matter of pleasure, pride and real scouting interest for him to watch over Stotfold Scout Group. They are an impressively well run Group. They have no ‘issues’ at present. He knows that Stotfold Town Council will respond to any reasonable request for funding which they present to us. They have a brilliant website by scouting standards, much better than the brand new Letchworth and Baldock one and much better than his own group 5th Letchworth.