Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of a notice of a call-in received from six Members of the Council regarding the Cabinet decisions made on 4 August 2026 on provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.

This item was previously marked to follow and has been circulated separately to the main agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee is of the opinion that it should be considered at this meeting as a matter of urgency as permitted under section 100B of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable the Committee’s consideration of the call-in at the earliest opportunity, taking into account the timing of the call in, which was received just prior to Agenda publication and facilitating this at a scheduled meeting of this Committee.

Estimated time: 45 minutes

Discussion:

The report advised the Committee of a notice of a call-in received from six Members of the Council regarding the Cabinet decisions made on 4 August 2026 on provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.

The Chairperson stated that the call in was in respect of Cabinet decisions 107/206 and 109/2026 which referred to the provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, and that the Committee would need to decide to do one of the following;

1)       accept the Cabinet decision and take no further action,

2)       refer the decision back to Cabinet for consideration setting out its reasons for doing so, or

3)       refer the decision to Full Council for consideration.

The Chairperson set out the procedure to be followed for this item, and asked the Committee for its agreement to have Councillor Shokar as an expert witness. After discussion this was put to the vote and agreed.

The Assistant Director introduced the report. The opposition spokesperson explained that the decisions had been called in due to: lack of public consultation; cost and capital requirement; appropriateness of the land for allocation as a gypsy and traveller site; and political expediency around the proposals and consideration of other options.

Councillor Shokar was given 5 minutes to address the Committee. He stated that he had spent the previous three years working closely with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families in Medway and had witnessed the challenges experienced by families without a lawful and stable place to reside. He outlined the social and health inequalities experienced by families prior to occupying the Wigmore site, including limited access to education, healthcare and public services. He stated that greater stability had enabled children to attend school regularly, families to register with health services and community organisations to provide support. He referred to positive educational outcomes and examples of improved health interventions, arguing that stable accommodation had produced tangible benefits for the families concerned. He further stated that provision of accommodation for the Gypsy and Traveller community was consistent with the Council's obligations and its commitment to the Marmot principles.

This item was opened for debate. During the ensuing discussion it was reiterated, as stated in paragraph 3.7 of the report, that only Cabinet decisions could be called in. Therefore, decision no. 108/2026, which was scheduled to be referred to full Council on 15 October 2026 for consideration, was not part of the call-in as all Members would have the opportunity to debate and vote on that at the full Council meeting.

Legal costs - In response to a question concerning the legal costs incurred from the previous unsuccessful attempt to remove gypsy and traveller families from this site, officers advised that the internal legal costs were estimated at approximately 140 hours, equating to just under £15,000 over three financial years. External counsel fees amounted to £36,750 plus VAT, with further costs arising from legal proceedings, including costs awarded against the Council (£60K) and a further legal invoice still awaited which was anticipated to be a further £60K.

Relocation during development - With reference to the ‘decanting’ of the current family group occupying the site, officers advised that discussions regarding temporary relocation had not yet taken place with residents and, consequently, the costs of any decanting arrangements were not yet known.

Site fees - In response to questions, officers advised that the current fees of £275 per week covered refuse collection and the portaloo facilities on the site, and confirmed that payments were currently up to date. It had been difficult to find private site comparators, but local authority owned sites were around £180 for single plots and £150 for double plots. It was pointed out that this site was being proposed for touring caravans, not static caravans / mobile homes. If agreed, residents would be subject to council tax, officers would see clarification as to whether it was being paid at the moment.

Air quality - In response to questions concerning the air quality and proximity to the motorway, officers advised that advised that these matters had been examined during both the planning application and subsequent appeal process and that the Planning Inspector had found the site acceptable in terms of air quality, noise and residential amenity.

Local Planand consultation - During discussion of the Local Plan, it was explained that extensive work had been undertaken through the Local Plan process, including multiple calls for sites and assessments of Council-owned land. Two separate calls for sites had failed to identify suitable privately-owned alternatives and the analysis undertaken was consistent with the detailed assessment methodology applied across all Local Plan allocations. Any ideas for alternative sites were still welcomed.

In response to concerns about lack of consultation, officers explained that consultation had taken place through the planning process, including site notices, neighbour notifications and appeal notifications. The Committee was informed that 33 objections from 32 households had been received in response to the planning application and that the application had been refused by the Council before subsequently being allowed on appeal. However the Council was required to comply with the Planning Inspector's appeal decision, which had concluded that the site was suitable for permanent Gypsy and Traveller use, and seek a practical solution that addressed both planning obligations and resident needs. The Committee was reminded that there would be further consultation if the site was progressed and proceeded to apply for planning permission, and further opportunities to consult on the Local Plan.

There was still some concern expressed regarding the perceived cost of the proposals, the lack of a dedicated consultation exercise, and whether all reasonable alternatives had been fully explored. It was suggested that local residents would struggle to understand the level of expenditure proposed for the site.

Housing responsibilities - In response to questions, officers confirmed that provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation should be regarded as part of the Council's housing responsibilities and not as special treatment. The Council had a responsibility to meet the needs of all residents and should not differentiate between groups when addressing housing need. It was further confirmed that where families were living without adequate services or secure accommodation, the Council would be expected to take appropriate action, as would be the case of any other residents living in unsuitable conditions.

A proposal was put that the decisions be referred back to Cabinet for reconsideration, however on being put to the vote the proposal was not agreed.

A proposal was then put that having considered the call in, the Committee agreed to accept Cabinet decisions 107/2026 to 109/2026 and therefore take no further action, and on being put to the vote the proposal was agreed.

Decision:

The Committee accepted the Cabinetdecision no.s 107/2026 and 109/2026, and agreed to take no further action.