Ombudsman criticises Council transparency over travellers site plan
Selby District Council has been roundly criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman over the way in which it handled the selection of a site in Burn as its favourite to become a site for travellers.
Selby
An investigation by the Ombudsman service was carried out after a complaint by a resident of the village, known only as 'Mrs. X', alleged that the Council had failed to follow correct procedure throughout the selection process.
Ruling against the Council, the Inspector agreed with Mrs X's assessment, determining that the council's decision 'looked arbitrary' and that the process leading to the selection 'lacked transparency' and was unfair.
The search for a new gypsy and traveller site for the Selby district began in January 2011 after a shortfall in provision was identified.
More than 60 sites were considered, most of which were later discounted as unsuitable – including the site in question at Burn Airfield. By November a short-list of nine sites had been put forward as potential sites.
The Burn site did not come back into frame until July 2012 when the Council announced its intention to move forward with its development.
Crucially, whilst the Council had originally considered potential travellers sites as part of a wider public consultation into the allocation of land for future development, it promoted the Burn site “outside of this process”.
The Ombudsman ruled that although the council had discretion to do this, the original process was a public one and as such the residents of Burn had a reasonable expectation that the final decision would be public and transparent, but was not.
A report into the matter, published last week, said, “My final decision is that there is evidence of fault in how the council selected a site in a village for a gypsy and travellers’ site.
The council’s “failure to reconsider other sites and its lack of transparency in selecting the site means its decision appears to be arbitrary and unfair. As a result Mrs X cannot be sure if the decision to select the site in her village was properly considered,” the investigator said.
“The council did not reconsider if other sites were available on the same basis that it selected the site in Mrs X’s village and the council’s decision making was not transparent. As a result the council’s decision looks to be arbitrary.”
Responding to the outcome of the case a spokesperson for the Council said, "The Council has a legal requirement to provide a five year supply of sites for Traveller pitches. Delivering these is, inevitably, a complex and emotive issue.
"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."
Graham Rawlings, of the village action group BANS said, “If Selby District Council does decide to resubmit an application, we intend to pursue this matter again.”