Agenda item - Occupation Agreements and Fee Setting for Traveller Sites

Report of the Acting Executive Director, Environment, Development & Housing (copy attached).

1)           That Environment Transport and Sustainability Committee approve the:

(a)  Occupation Agreement for the permanent traveller site

(b)  Discretionary Succession Policy for the permanent traveller site

(c)  Occupation Agreement for the transit traveller site

2)           That Environment Transport and Sustainability Committee approve the:

(a)  Pitch fee and service charges for the permanent traveller site

(b)  Pitch fee, deposit and service charges for the transit traveller site.

3)            That Environment Transport and Sustainability committee delegates authority to the Executive Director of Environment Transport and Sustainability, in consultation with the Executive Director of Finance, to vary the estimated service charges on the transit site for water and electricity after 6 months to align the charge to actual costs.

4)            That the Committee agrees that beyond 2.3 above, the annual pitch fee and service charge review should be part of the council’s budget setting process for future years.

71.1      The Committee considered a report of the Acting Executive Director, Environment, Development & Housing that set out a proposed Occupation Agreements for the council’s permanent and transit traveller sites, a Discretionary Succession Policy for the permanent traveller site and a proposed pitch fee and service charge in relation to both sites.

71.2      Councillor Barradell praised the report that was very thorough and provided assurance that it provided fair rent and conditions for those using the sites. Councillor Barradell expressed her disappointment that gender specific language had been used within the agreements, an approach she found very outdated.

71.3      The Head of Tenancy Services explained that the text had been lifted from government legislation and could be made gender neutral for the final version.

71.4      Councillor Janio moved a motion on behalf of the Conservative Group to amend recommendation 2.2(b) as shown in bold italics below:

2.2     That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee approve the:

(b)  Pitch fee, deposit and service charges for the transit traveller site plus an additional fee to cover costs of security on site.

71.5      Introducing the motion, Councillor Janio explained that whilst he was in favour of the policies in general, he had concerns that the full costs of the site would not be met under the proposals that would be an additional incurrence on an already expensive process establishing sites. Councillor Janio felt that providing direct ownership of security costs to residents of the sites would encourage good behaviour and a reduction of those costs over time.

71.6      Councillor Theobald formally seconded the motion.

71.7      The Chair asked for technical clarification that an approach had been taken for these new sites whereby the council would cover costs of security in order to ensure traveller safety from the beginning and to help the bedding-in process.

71.8      The Head of Tenancy Services confirmed that this was the position that had been reached. This was on the basis that to include security costs in the weekly cost would mean an additional charge of £46 per week to each resident which would push the overall charge up to a very high rate. In turn, it was expected that this could lead to reluctance to use the transit site. Furthermore, once the new sites had become settled, costs would be reviewed with the intention to reduce those over time.

71.9      Councillor Theobald stated that he felt that with CCTV provision on site, there was even more justification for residents to pay for security costs. Councillor Theobald felt that large sums of public money had already been spent on the sites and it was only fair that the residents met security costs even if that increased rental cost. Councillor Theobald noted his concern that occupants would be able to store licensed guns on the premises as he did not believe that sufficient, secure storage was available on site. Councillor Theobald noted that untaxed vehicles would not be allowed on site and suggested that in addition, this include uninsured vehicles and those without MOT. Furthermore, Councillor Theobald did not believe commercial vehicles should be allowed on site nor should non-hazardous commercial waste be permitted to be stored on site for any period of time.

71.10   The Deputy Head of Law clarified that the application process for a firearm licence dictated requirements on storage. Residents would have to satisfy those requirements and would be in breach of that licence if the conditions were not met.

71.11   Councillor Sykes stated that he was pleased that the report recorded the support of Friends and Families of Travellers for the occupation agreements. Councillor Sykes stated that he had found the guidance to be very prescriptive, sometimes detailing requirements and obligations that were already prescribed in law. Councillor Sykes added Councillor Sykes enquired as to the response to the agreement from potential and current tenants of the transit site to date.

71.12   The Head of Tenancy Services clarified that the agreement had to be clear and detailed that on the matter of illegal actions as that was the only recourse to enforce a breach of tenancy and eviction. The agreement replicated the council’s tenancy agreement in existing areas of social housing. It also provided detailed information on expectations of occupying the site. The Head of Tenancy Services added that the council had gone through the agreement in detail with Sussex Police and other agencies who were satisfied with the content. In response to the comments made on uninsured vehicles and vehicles with MOT, the Head of Tenancy Services stated that the site would have dedicated parking bays so therefore the rules on enforcement would be the same as enshrined in legislation whereby a vehicle could be stored on private premises and the vehicle would only be in breach of the law if it entered the highway. This was similarly the case with storage of commercial waste and the agreement replicated national legislation in this area. The matter had been raised with the Environment Agency who did not see the issue as a risk as long as the waste stayed in the vehicle.

71.13   Councillor Miller stated that he supported the Conservative Group amendment as he did not feel it fair that council tax payers should have to subsidise the costs of security on site. Councillor Miller asked if residents would be able to place their own static home on site as this may help reduce fees. In addition, Councillor Miller asked if Sussex Police would still be able to enforce their Section 62A powers if both the permanent and transit site were full. Furthermore, Councillor Miller asked if the charges would be reviewed annually and why the capital grant from government were not included in the report as this differed from the calculation for the council’s social housing tenants.

71.14   The Head of Tenancy Services clarified that it was normal practice that Travellers would have a static as well as touring caravan. Section 62A powers could only be used for the transit site and if that was full, Sussex Police could only direct travellers within the Brighton & Hove boundary. The Head of Tenancy Services explained that the grant provided by government was exclusively for this project, did not sit within the same framework as social housing and would not have to be repaid.

71.15   Councillor West stated that he was very keen that the new site be a success and it was regrettable that a link had not been made between unauthorised encampments and the council’s failure to provide proper provision. Councillor West stated that he could not support the Conservative Group motion as it risked drastically overpricing the use of the site and ultimately, stop people using the site that was a direct contrast to its purpose.

71.16   Councillor Robins stated that he too had found the document prescriptive but understood why it needed to be and fully supported the recommendations. Councillor Robins stated his dislike for the polarity and assumptions made in discussion of Traveller issues

71.17   Councillor Atkinson congratulated officers for a thorough and excellent report. Councillor Atkinson stated that he could not support the Conservative Group motion as it would represent a huge increase in cost and act as a disincentive to use the site and a continuation of the status quo.

71.18   The Chair then put the Conservative Group motion to the vote which failed.

71.19   RESOLVED-

1)           That Environment Transport and Sustainability Committee approve the:

(a)  Occupation Agreement for the permanent traveller site

(b)  Discretionary Succession Policy for the permanent traveller site

(c)  Occupation Agreement for the transit traveller site

2)           That Environment Transport and Sustainability Committee approve the:

(a)  Pitch fee and service charges for the permanent traveller site

(b)  Pitch fee, deposit and service charges for the transit traveller site.

3)            That Environment Transport and Sustainability committee delegates authority to the Executive Director of Environment Transport and Sustainability, in consultation with the Executive Director of Finance, to vary the estimated service charges on the transit site for water and electricity after 6 months to align the charge to actual costs.

4)            That the Committee agrees that beyond 2.3 above, the annual pitch fee and service charge review should be part of the council’s budget setting process for future years.