Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development and to receive evidence from officers of various Council Departments.

Further to Minute No. 41, 11^th October 2010, the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report updating the Board on progress in respect of this Inquiry, including the notes of the Working Group meeting held on 20^th October 2010.  The notes and reports relating to the Working Group’s latest meeting, held on 1^st November 2010, would be submitted to the Board on 2^nd December. The Working Group was scheduled to meet again on 15^th and 29^th November, at 12 noon, and all Board Members were welcome to attend.

In attendance at the meeting, and responding to Members’ queries and comments were:-

-  Bridget Emery, Head of Housing Strategy and Solutions.

-  Phil Crabtree, Chief Planning Officer.

-  Robin Coghlan, Team Leader - Policy, City Development.

-  Rehana Minhas, Director of Equality and Entitlement, Education Leeds.

-  Claire Lockwood, GRT Achievement Service, Education Leeds.

-  Andrea Richardson, Interim Head of Early Years Service.

-  Jayne North, Cottingley Children’s Centre.

-  Ian Spafford, Head of Community Services and Litigation, Legal Services.

-  Karen Blackmore, Team Leader, General Litigation, Legal Services.

-  Shaid Mahmood, Locality Pathfinder Manager and SE Area Manager, South East Area Management.

In brief summary, the main points of discussion were:-

Planning Issues

·  Planning was involved with gypsy and traveller sites in various ways.  These were set out at Paragraphs 2.5 to 2.10 of the attached report of the Chief Officer, Legal, Licensing ad Registration (Agenda Pages 74 and 75 refer).

·  From some of the witnesses heard to date, and from previous discussions and exchanges with the Leeds Gypsies and Travellers Exchange (GATE), the preferred option being expressed by the local gypsy and traveller community was for the Council to provide several smaller sites around the City rather than one large one or the extension of the existing Cottingley Springs site.  However, there were different views, even amongst the gypsy and traveller community.  Any proposals would be subject to full public consultation processes, reports to the Development Plans Panel and the Executive Board, and possibly also a Public Inquiry as part of the process of adopting the Council’s core planning strategies.

·  A private application for a small site in Gildersome had recently been approved, and two more were in the system, one in Thorner and one in Chapel Allerton.  The Planning Department was also involved with a site in Ardsley and Robin Hood Ward, which had previously been the subject of a Stop Notice and High Court injunction.

·  The legal definition of a ‘pitch’ in relation to a caravan site. – Was a pitch a concrete slab accommodating one van, or could it be a larger slab for more than one van?  The officers reported that, currently, there was no legal definition of what constituted a pitch.  For planning purposes, it was interpreted as a slab for one van and associated equipment and lorries, and a site might comprise of several pitches.  However, at Cottingley Springs, each pitch was sometimes used to accommodate up to four vans housing various family members. Officers indicated that they would try to provide further clarification.

Children’s Services Issues

·  The Race Relations Act aspects of the Council’s duties and responsibilities towards the gypsy, Roma and traveller (GRT) community were explained and explored, as was the need to try to tackle issues as a package – site provision, educational needs and health and welfare matters – none of these could be effectively addressed in isolation.

·  The current role of Children’s Services and Education Leeds was also explained and examined, including the role of outreach workers, both at Cottingley Springs, and in respect of itinerant travellers, either passing through or moving around Leeds.

·  Members expressed concern at the seemingly laissez faire attitude to formal education prevalent amongst the GRT community, about anecdotal evidence of girls not being encouraged to attend secondary education, and the quality and consistency of any home education arrangements which may be in place.  Members requested a breakdown by gender of the current statistics held by Education Leeds.

·  Taxi charges – The officers stated that the cost of taxis to transport GRT children to school was not disproportionate to the overall costs.

·  It was confirmed that GRT youngsters aged 16-18 were included in the NEET statistics, but, clearly, tracking them was challenging.

General Issues

·  Site design was briefly discussed, and the provision of semi-permanent brick units at Cottingley Springs which provided kitchen and bathroom facilities for some pitches, plus, in some cases, a small living space.

·  Members expressed frustration at the seemingly never ending cycle of problems, legal action and associated costs linked, in the main, to very few itinerant families who moved within Leeds, and the disproportionate costs, problems and frustrations caused.  Many of the families wanted to be, indeed to all intents and purposes were, part of the community, but either exhibited or suffered a range of problems.  There had to be a local solution.

·  The Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods stated that, realistically, the Council was unlikely to come up with a solution that would deal with all current problems. In particular, gypsies and travellers passing through the Council’s area were always likely to be a problem.  If the current Inquiry came up with a possible solution to the recurring problems which Members had alluded to, then that, by itself, might be regarded as a success.  Whilst the Council’s duties and responsibilities represented one side of the equation, the other side was the need for the gypsy and traveller community itself to face up to its responsibilities, for instance in terms of illegal dumping and school attendance.

RESOLVED – That the evidence received today be taken into account in preparing the Board’s draft Inquiry Report, and the officers be thanked for their attendance and the manner in which they have responded to Members’ queries and comments.

(NB:  Councillor J Marjoram joined the meeting at 11.10 am, during the consideration of this item.)