Question 33

Showing comments and forms 1 to 1 of 1

Support

Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers

Representation ID: 9277

Received: 21/01/2019

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation:

The proposals represent a clear approach to delivering sites to meet both the backlog identified from 2014 - 19 and further sites to meet the initial 5-year period post plan adoption. The proposals do not provide a supply of sites for years 6 to 10, however we note that there is a development management policy that could be used to deal with any additional sites coming forward during that time, and furthermore depending on progress delivering the four sites identified this may be an issue that could be reconsidered through the first Plan review. We do not consider that this under-supply of 3 pitches over the plan period represents a likely direct risk to increasing Sheffield's assessed needs.

Full text:


Question 1: Has the Council complied with the duty to cooperate in respect of the assessment of need and provision of sites for gypsies and travellers? How has that cooperation been undertaken and what outcomes have resulted from that process?

Response: We can confirm that North East Derbyshire Council approached Sheffield in early 2018 about the possibility of assisting them in meeting some of their need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, under the duty to cooperate. At that time, we were unable to commit to providing capacity to accommodate extra need from North East Derbyshire. This remains the case.

Question 33; Will a five year supply of specific developable sites for gypsies and travellers be provided on adoption of the plan together with a supply of specific, developable sites for years 6 to 10? How would any shortfall be addressed?

Response: The proposals represent a clear approach to delivering sites to meet both the backlog identified from 2014 - 19 and further sites to meet the initial 5-year period post plan adoption. The proposals do not provide a supply of sites for years 6 to 10, however we note that there is a development management policy that could be used to deal with any additional sites coming forward during that time, and furthermore depending on progress delivering the four sites identified this may be an issue that could be reconsidered through the first Plan review. We do not consider that this under-supply of 3 pitches over the plan period represents a likely direct risk to increasing Sheffield's assessed needs.