Here are the minutes from the Public
meeting held on 26th February 2020

Minutes of SWRA General Meeting on 26^th February 2020
SWRA Committee Present: Rowan Dickman; John Finnegan; Pat Thompson; Richard Baxter; Jan Miller; Tim Knibbs, Cameron Dougherty (Chair)
Guests Present: Cllr Barry Lewis (KCC), Cllr Candy Gregory (TDC Salmestone Ward), Cllr Rob Yates, (TDC Margate Central) Adam Littlefield (TDC Community Development Officer), Kevin Pressland (TDC Biodiversity Officer)
Apologies:  Cllr Pauline Farrance (TDC Salmestone Ward)
Expected, no apologies received: Cllr Helen Whitehead (TDC Margate Central and Deputy Leader of the Council), Cllr Mick Tomlinson (TDC Westbrook Ward)
We were delighted to welcome c.90 members of the public.
 
The meeting was opened at 1900 by the Chair and the Agenda presented on the screen:
 
Welcome, Guest Introductions and Housekeeping
Previous Meeting (AGM) Minutes and Matters Arising
Treasurer’s Report
PCSO Report
 
Current Issues in Salmestone Ward:
“Tivoli Woods” Development
Tivoli Brooks – Proposed Demolition
Tivoli Brooks – TDC Proposals for Traveller’s Site
Construction & Access issues near Farley Road Development
Speed Watch Proposals
Other issues
 
Cameron welcomed the presence of so many members of the public despite the poor weather. We are fortunate to have the use of a venue which can accommodate over100 people comfortably. c.2000 SWRA Newsletters had been delivered in the Ward over the previous 2 weeks.
 
Rowan then read a résumé of the minutes of the last Public Meeting which was passed as a true record.
 
Treasurer’s Report: John reported that we had £548 in the bank, it had been an expensive month with legal fees and land searches. An appeal was made for members to pay their subs if they were due.
 
John noted that the PCSO was not present and the neighbourhood watch co-ordinator might turn up late.
 
Land adjacent to Tivoli Woods: Cameron thanked Alan Chapman (present) and Donna Garfield (not present) for their efforts in discovering and collating the documentation relating to the restrictive covenant on this site. The covenant states that the land “shall not be used for any other purpose than that of a Public Park Garden or Recreation Ground or for Allotment Purposes”
 
Alan informed the meeting that TDC had not shared this in their sales pack for the site, and in fact had stated “None” on the land transfer documentation when asked if any restrictive covenant existed. A copy of this page of the documentation was presented on screen for the meeting to see. Furthermore, it was stated that Donna has twice asked, in TDC Full Council Meetings, why the covenant has been ignored. No satisfactory answer was received on either occasion.
 
 
Whilst the concept of “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware), may well apply to this sale, the Committee notes that it’s clear that the spirit of this covenant has not been honoured during the process.
 
It was noted that the sale generated 150K+ for TDC against a guide price of 30K and it therefore seems possible that the buyer of the land was not aware of the details in the covenant. SWRA are aware that planning permission is being sought for this site and will organise objections once this enters the public part of the planning process.
 
The SWRA Committee believe from their research that as much as 800 acres of land has been covenanted to the people of Margate throughout history, with particularly generous donations from the Hatfeild Family. For TDC to ignore these covenants and sell with no consultation, and a lack of transparency is not easily accepted by SWRA. 
 
Cllr Yates explained that ultimately, it’s a situation which will not be resolved without further legal intervention as TDC maintain that their actions are legal, although he does understand why residents are concerned. Cameron stated that it was concerning that we had to pay to challenge our own council about land left to us by generous benefactors. Cllr Gregory suggested contacting the Law Clinic at University of Kent. Cameron, Donna and Alan will follow up.
 
Tivoli Brooks School Site: Various committee members and Cllr Lewis gave the background about the building and how it would be suitable for a community centre. The SWRA Committee, including Pat and Rowan, had been trying to establish a plan to get and use this building for c. 18 months.
 
Again, it is understood that a covenant exists on the site restricting its use to the educational use for SEND pupils. 
 
Cllr Yates replied, saying he personally was in favour of the idea, but it would be up to the council. He mentioned also that human excrement was present and would also require cleaning. Pat explained she has the necessary tools and experience to do this, having owned dogs for many years, this raised a good chuckle in the room.
 
A number of the SWRA Committee and our Ward Councillors met with Victoria Kellett of TDC in January. Victoria was the Interim Estates Surveyor at TDC then although she informed us, she was being promoted and would hopefully be able to spend more time in Thanet in future. This meeting was for us to understand the processes relating to Community Asset Transfer. During this meeting it was made clear that the physical state of the building was a concern, due to vandalism and potential contamination by asbestos. Various options were discussed and SWRA were encouraged to ally with other community parties with a view to raising funds to purchase. At no point was the imminent demolition of the building mentioned. SWRA were promised sight of the asbestos report as well as photographs of the interior of the building. At this point we were satisfied that transparency was being achieved. Then:
 

• 2 days after the meeting, “Intent to Demolish Signs” were placed on the site. Why the rush all of a sudden, and why wasn’t this mentioned in our meeting only 2 days previously?
• The promised photographs, whilst showing vandalism and probable (encased) asbestos did not provide evidence that demolition of this expensive asset was required. It seems no other mitigation was considered.
• No Asbestos Report was provided, despite reminders. SWRA do not accept that the building requires demolition based on the evidence provided. We would like either to see a Demolition Report from an accredited asbestos consultant or else to commission our own report.

 
 
 
 
Tivoli Brooks Traveller’s Site:
 
Cameron noted the Committee’s concern that Cllr Whitehead had not shown up to this meeting, as many of the questions relating to this point were expected to be addressed by her. As no apologies had been received Cameron promised to follow up and make sure she was OK.
 
The Committee furthermore noted the excellent support we have received from Cllr Gregory and Cllr Farrance (Salmestone Ward Councillors at TDC), as well as from Cllr Yates (TDC Margate Central).
 
Background
 
Cameron read a letter to the meeting that had been sent to Cllr Whitehead on 8 January, and is copied in full here:
 
Letter to Cllr Helen Whitehead – sent 8 January 2020
 
Proposal to Create a (Temporary) Travellers Site at Tivoli Brooks, Salmestone Ward, Margate
TDC have a responsibility to plan for the provision of sites suitable for, and available to Travellers who wish to stay within the TDC area. No such site currently exists.
A project to identify potential sites was undertaken during 2019 by TDC staff, who reported their findings to the TDC Scrutiny Panel in a public meeting on 19 November. One of the 3 sites selected was at Tivoli Brooks in the Salmestone Ward. 
The SWRA Committee, including myself, attended the meeting of 19 November and learned that whilst some consultation had (clearly) taken place with representatives of the other shortlisted sites (Potten Street and Ramsgate Port), no consultation had taken place with anyone from the Salmestone Ward, including the ward Councillors.
A proposal by Cllr Campbell in this meeting (that public consultation take place before any decisions were taken) was subsequently rejected by Cabinet in December. It was reported by the Isle of Thanet News that no public consultation was planned (although “representatives from Town and Parish Councils would be invited to discussions”).
The SWRA are concerned by this and we request a review, for the following reasons:

1.  The Planning and Policy Document for Travellers Sites (PPDTS) (Link to PPDTS on gov.uk) sets out the Government’s planning policy for traveller sites. This policy must be taken into account in the preparation of development plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.
   1.  A primary aim must be to “reduce tension between communities in plan-making and planning decisions” (Introduction, para 4 (i)). Should no consultation take place we feel this aim will not be achieved.
   2. In assembling the evidence base necessary to support their planning approach, local planning authorities should pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with both settled and traveller communities. (para 7 (a)). In the case of Salmestone/Tivoli Brooks this has not occurred with the settled community, nor has it taken place with the traveller community to the best of our knowledge.
   3.  In assembling the evidence base necessary to support their planning approach, local planning authorities should pay particular attention to: cooperate with travellers, their representative bodies and local support groups; other local authorities and relevant interest groups to prepare and maintain an up to-date understanding of the likely permanent and transit accommodation needs of their areas over the lifespan of their development plan, working collaboratively with neighbouring local planning authorities (para 7 (b)).

 
Whilst the SWRA understand that there may be objections to the siting of a traveller’s site at many locations, we don’t accept that the risk of such objections relieves TDC of their obligation to consult with both the settled and the travelling community. Further, we believe that we can add good value to the process as a result of our local knowledge and relations.
Cameron Dougherty
Chair SWRA
Cllr Whitehead did not provide a substantive response to this letter although she did say that the Officers responsible would do so -- Gavin Waite and Penny Button. Subsequent escalation to firstly Gavin Waite and Penny Button (31 January) and then to the TDC CEO Madeline Homer (17 February) have not been acknowledged.
 
Cllr Yates explained the council’s position and said as far as he was concerned the site would not be used as a traveller’s site. Candy explained that the travelling community had been consulted and so it seems only the residents and councillors of the Salmestone Ward were omitted.
 
The SWRA are also aware, and have documentation to evidence, that the selection process was not neutral as at least one Councillor (Mick Tomlinson) removed a potential site in his own ward without submitting it for evaluation. Cllr Whitehead is also aware of this.
 
Rowan made it clear to the meeting that this is not an issue relating to Travellers, it’s about consultation and transparency from TDC. This statement was warmly welcomed by the attendees.
 
At this point it was noted that time was tight and the Chair agreed to move on to the last items.
 
 
Farley Road:
 
A resident of Farley Road was concerned that the SWRA February Newsletter had stated that construction traffic for the development between Nash Road and Farley Road would need to go via Farley Road due to width restrictions on Nash Road. He stated that the developer had already ruled this out some time ago, and in fact the developer had been receptive to the feedback given by Farley Road residents at that time. This was a good point and well made. SWRA accept that the wording in the Newsletter created rather than reduced confusion. Additional points relating to grammar and spelling were taken on board for the next Newsletter.
 
Rowan has made a separate and complete statement regarding access to this site from either Nash Road or Farley Road, it is available on the SWRA Facebook Page or from the Secretary. In essence, it seems as if Planning has overlooked the width restrictions and this could have potentially serious traffic implications once development commences.
 
John will update members outside of the meeting regarding the Speed Watch initiative.
 
John mentioned the arrangements for the next street cleans.
 
The next meeting was announced to be 2^nd June.
 
 

read more about our website beta release.