Watchdog brands Selby Travellers’ site scheme ‘arbitrary and unfair’ - Yorkshire

From the Yorkshire Post

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a new Travellers’ site on a Second World War airfield in North Yorkshire were “arbitrary and unfair”, a watchdog has ruled.

Residents fiercely opposed proposals to create 15 extra pitches in the village of Burn, near Selby, and they were ultimately rejected last month.

Now the local government ombudsman has found “evidence of fault” and a lack of transparency in the way Selby District Council selected the site.

The search for a new Traveller site for the district began in 2011, when nine preferred sites were selected.

Burn, which already accommodates 12 pitches on another part of the airfield, was not among them, having earlier been ruled out along with 60 others.

The ombudsman’s report noted that part of the reason for its exclusion was that “the balance of ethnic groups in a small community was fragile and domination of one group could lead to tensions, [and] residents of the existing site did not want it to grow”.

But the council’s “principal concern” was that land surrounding the existing site was not for sale at that time.

The nine preferred sites were also later discounted after the criteria were changed to exclude any within the green belt.

Burn was revisited after the Government issued new planning policy ordering councils to have a five-year supply of Travellers’ sites and officers began negotiations to buy a portion of the land in July 2012.

The council said it selected the site outside of the earlier process and under the new policy on the basis that it had become deliverable now the landowner was willing to sell it.

But the ombudsman’s report said there were other sites it could have used but the authority failed to consider them on the same basis. It also failed in a “basic tenet of good administrative practice” to explain the reasons for ruling them out, it added.

The report concluded: “There is evidence of fault in how the council selected a site in a village for a Gypsy and Travellers’ site.

“The council did not reconsider if other sites were available on the same basis that it selected the site in [Burn] and the council’s decision making was not transparent.

“As a result the council’s decision looks to be arbitrary.”

It added that since the plans had been refused there was no “outstanding justice” so its investigation had been completed.

The council’s planning committee rejected the proposals by a majority of seven to four but the authority still needs to find space for an extra 26 pitches by 2015, rising to 33 in 2028.

If it does not, it could lose some power to defend against illegal encampments.

“Delivering these is, inevitably, a complex and emotive issue,” a spokesman said.

“We consider that we did take reasonable steps to consider a range of options for identifying potential sites.

“This report, of course, follows the rejection of the proposed development of new pitches at Burn by the council’s planning committee.

“In light of this decision we intend to bring forward proposals for how we can meet our legal obligation to provide these sites within the district.”

The ombudsman cannot interfere if the council resubmits a planning application for the site.

But Graham Rawlings, of the village action group BANS, said residents would continue to fight any such move.

“We think there is a possibility they will try again but we hope the ombudsman’s findings will make it slightly more difficult for them,” he said.

“Nobody in the village is unhappy with the site that’s here at the moment but the feeling is to add the extra pitches would simply make it far too big.

“It would be the largest in North Yorkshire and the third largest in the whole of Yorkshire and we think for a tiny village of 380 people it is far too big.”