Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 299)
TUESDAY 21 MARCH 2000
MR IAN
BASELEY, MS
JANET MONTGOMERY
AND MR
DAVID LOVEDAY
Mr Donohoe
280. If I can move then to the sites for the
showpersons' quarters; what sort of sites do travelling showpeople
need for their winter and all round quarters?
(Mr Baseley) I think that the game has moved on considerably
from winter quarters. Modern day living standards require that
showmen need the same standards of living as do the rest of the
world. One of the greatest difficulties that travelling showpeople
face is, the sheer nature of their lifestyle and business requires
that they live and work with their equipment, 24 hours a day;
and that means, in planning terms, that it is not a very easy
bedfellow with any of the other common urban land uses. There
would be very certain and definite complaints if a showmen's site
were located, for instance, directly adjoining a housing site;
equally, the planning system would act against showmen if they
were located adjacent to an industrial estate, because it would
be deemed unsuitable to be living within an industrial environment.
I have had difficulties with travelling showpeople who have had
the noise of their own generators, in testing, being quoted against
them as being an unreasonable intrusion on their living standards.
Therefore, showmen are forced to look beyond conventional development
areas, beyond the normal urban fringes, and this is where the
planning difficulties start.
281. So what representations do you make, in
that respect; you do not suggest to the showpeople that they break
the law to get these sites in the first place?
(Mr Baseley) Not at all.
282. Do you try to identify sites for the people?
(Mr Baseley) Yes, we do try to identify sites, and,
frankly, it is not an easy situation, because we find that as
soon as we talk to local planning authorities about the potential
for a site, I suppose quite understandably, they run for cover.
There is a presumption that most local authorities would be happy
for it to exist in the next authority, or the next authority along,
but not in their actual, own administrative area.
Mrs Dunwoody
283. But is not there a difference between the
two types of sites? I think we are in danger of confusing two
things. Surely, the sort of site that is needed for a travelling
fair that comes and goes in agreement with the authority, you
can encompass within the use of their recreational grounds, if
possible; but, surely, there is the differentiation between that
and something that is required for them as a permanent base?
(Mr Baseley) That is quite correct. We are talking
about two different problems relating to the same industry. The
questions that I commenced answering related to showmen's accommodation,
permanent accommodation, and it is a different planning problem.
In fact, I would chance to say that the fairground issues themselves
are not, strictly speaking, planning problems.
Mr Donohoe
284. But, as consultants, do you not try to
get this problem resolved by virtue of identifying sites, where
there has been a tradition of having such sites, and driving that
on, by virtue of making the application for the change of use
of land; that is your job, surely?
(Mr Baseley) Yes, of course.
(Mr Loveday) Of course we do, that is exactly what
we do, and we try to do it not only through—
285. So how successful have you been, have you
had instances where you have been successful in getting these
planning change of uses without there being an inquiry and without
there being any application to central government?
(Mr Loveday) Yes, there have been, and I can say that
Leicestershire is an area where I have been successful, I know
Ian has been as well, and the districts within Leicestershire
have been sympathetic. I have had sympathy within Cambridgeshire,
some of the local authorities of Cambridgeshire. I could also
name a number where I have not been successful, and never would
be in a million years.
286. But do you not try to target these areas
where you are not successful and drive them into operation, by
virtue of making the appeal all the way to the central government
levels?
(Mr Loveday) Yes, indeed, and also going through the
local plan process, but going through the local plan process,
which is the right and proper way, we even end up then where,
particularly, I have to say this, it is more sensitive where there
are green belt issues involved, where many local authorities and
the inspectors who judge the local plan say, "Well, there's
no need, because this is all green belt, for a policy."
287. Yes, but why should there be a difference
between the showpeople and the ordinary people, and, say, villages
which are surrounded by green belt; the people in these small
villages have got exactly the same needs, have they not, they
should not have some discrimination against them, when it comes
to getting accommodation for their offspring, or their older people?
This is the other area that you would have to address, where there
is a problem?
(Mr Baseley) There is a difference, in that, the general
man in the street, the planning system recognises their needs
and makes provision for them; the significant difference with
travelling showpeople is that the planning system has consistently
failed to recognise and tackle the needs of travelling showpeople.
That is the difference.
Mrs Ellman
288. You have just said that the planning system
consistently fails to meet the needs of travelling showpeople;
whose responsibility is it to make planning authorities more aware
of those needs?
(Mr Baseley) I suppose, the responsibility is shared.
We try, as planning consultants, we make representations about
local plans, we also make representations to Government, in the
preparation of Planning Policy Guidance Notes, and things like
that, and we try to talk to local planning authorities, on behalf
of our clients, to make them understand the qualities that can
be brought to areas and the benefits that can ensue, as well as
tackling the downsides of it. But it really is an uphill struggle.
David said, yes, of course, we have had success, and I bet we
could all measure the success that we have had, I, over 15 years,
on the fingers of one hand. The biggest area of success was actually
before the introduction of the Circular itself; and that authority,
which was so very, very helpful, once they had done their job,
put up the shutters. They said, "Done it; someone else take
some of the strain now."
(Mr Loveday) I think that is absolutely right. I have
found, over the years, and, I have to say, my involvement started
with showmen in 1988, which is just before the last Circular,
and my first inquiry was just after the publication of that Circular,
so I was involved quite heavily in the honeymoon period—I
call it the honeymoon period, in my memorandum—after the
Circular came in, and there were a lot of permissions given, both
on appeal and by local authorities without needing to go to appeal.
Since then, it does seem to me that it has now become part of,
or tried to be part of the system in the local plan system; the
local plan system takes five-plus years to sort itself out, and
longer. To me, there is a lack of understanding, within the planning
councils, the actual local planning authorities, of the needs
of showmen, and, as Ian said, quite rightly, it is a double-edged
thing. I think there needs to be assistance both from the Showmen's
Guild, into that system, and from elsewhere.
289. If there is no understanding within the
planning authorities in general, does not that mean that somebody
is not putting the case properly?
(Ms Montgomery) If I could just highlight a recent
example, a case that I have been involved with, within Surrey,
a problem site, where there are showpeople in breach of planning.
I wrote to about 150 local authorities, in the whole of the South
of England, highlighting the problem that we had in trying to
find another site, and this was independent of another search
that we carried out with land and estate agents; and each of those
local authorities was made aware that there was a big problem
within the South East of England generally, as well as the specific
problem with the particular showpeople involved in this particular
case. And these types of letters and contacts with the local authorities
have been made by myself, last year, and probably every year for
the last seven or eight years, looking, desperately looking, for
some showpeople, writing to local authorities and trying to get
as much feedback as we can, and I am sure my colleagues have done
the same sort of exercise. So local authorities should be aware
that there is a need for showpeople's sites within their area.
(Mr Baseley) I think there is a fear. I am an ex-local
authority director of planning, and, speaking from the other side,
or trying to imagine it from the other side of the fence now,
I am sure that many local authorities are filled with trepidation
at the thought of accommodating uses which do not fit the conventional
pattern and have a mixture of industry, caravans and testing activity,
and all those sorts of things, all in one, that cannot even compete
financially within urban areas for land. That is one of the other
big problems.
Mr Gray
290. I want to examine a bit further the reasons
why it is that these applications are failing. I am not certain,
your description of Sir Humphrey saying, "It doesn't fit
traditional patterns, and therefore we're going to turn it down
because it's all too confusing," that does not really make
much sense. Surely, there is prejudice here?
(Mr Loveday) Can I say, my view is that it is not
necessarily overt prejudice, I have come across open, rank prejudice,
in dealing with planning applications, "We don't want this
type of person near us," has been said in open meetings;
but that is something you can actually deal with, because it is
open and it is there. But I think the point that Ian is making
is that, I genuinely feel that underneath many, I do not say all
but many, local authorities, many, I do not say officers, even,
but perhaps the membership are more susceptible to the political
side of the planning process, more susceptible to lobby from pressure
groups within an area, they will be convinced that this is not
the right thing to do, so the way to do it is to deal with it
in the quite proper planning ground, so which is difficult noise,
difficult this, difficult that, but actually it is, "We don't
want them here."
291. So it is prejudice, but it is being covered
up by finding a legitimate reason. Do you think that comes about
because, in the earlier evidence, we were hearing about the confusion
in some people's minds, and I suspect in some local authorities'
minds, between gypsies, new age travellers, other travelling people
and travelling showmen, and that fact is that they are quite different,
but actually many, many people believe they are similar?
(Mr Loveday) I think, with local plans, you find a
lot of the policy base for local plans deals with, it will be
a policy relating either to mobile homes in the countryside or
travellers generally; and there is no splitting, no definition,
no mixing or changing, or separation between any of the different
groups. And they are different, whether we like it or not, they
are entirely different. The basic difference is that one moves
on and on and on, and one moves around and comes back and keeps
coming back to the same place, and that is the essence of the
showmen's style, and that is where they need the permanence. And
genuinely I just do not think people understand that; many people
I speak to think of a fair as being like a circus, going round
as a group, but, as you all will know, it is not like that at
all.
292. Two other questions then. First of all,
just to be devil's advocate, for a second, would you not agree
that a showmen's permanent residential site is actually pretty
unattractive, in fact, and if you came along to my local authority
and said, "I'm going to plonk this thing down on the green
belt that is in your constituency," I am going to object
to it, am I not, and would I not be perfectly reasonable, on behalf
of my constituents, I am being devil's advocate here?
(Mr Loveday) I could understand that entirely.
(Mr Baseley) I think that is the established perception;
but our job, part of our job, and we feel that we are having success
in this, is that, if one accepts that we are not going to find
sites, in competition with the rest of the development industry,
within urban areas, and, therefore, by definition, we are looking
into the countryside for sites, perhaps it comes down to the quality
of the sites that we identify, how discreet and how well-screened
they are, how well the site itself can be developed and landscaped.
And I believe that that is one of the `very special circumstances'
that could be taken, and should be taken, into account, in dealing
with applications.
293. It then goes to appeal, and I believe I
am right in saying that appeals against decisions against sites
are twice as likely to be overturned at appeal as any other planning
application; in other words, that there is a significant amount,
call it prejudice, call it what you will, at the local authority
level, they are twice as likely as anything else to be overturned
at appeal. Am I right in deducing from that that you would say
that the Planning Inspectorate actually treat you very well and
treat you perfectly fairly, and that you would have no criticism
against the Inspectorate, where you might have criticism against
the local authority?
(Mr Baseley) I think that the first part of your statement
I could agree with totally. One of the reasons, I believe, that
we enjoy a higher level of success on appeal is because it was
too hot a potato to handle by the planning authority, and therefore
things were perhaps stacked in our favour in all equity by the
time we got to appeal. The slight criticism I would have with
regard to the Inspectorate is inconsistency, and particularly
inconsistency in terms of deciding and determining what are acceptable
`very special circumstances'. And just one thing I think that
is worth mentioning here, when we talk about `very special circumstances',
the Planning Guidance always refers to green belt, and the same
premise is not alongside development in the countryside. But I
think, really, `very special circumstances' apply to both; green
belt is just more protected countryside, and I think that is quite
an important factor. With regard to consistency of `very special
circumstances', we would ask the Inspectorate perhaps, forgive
the expression, to get their act together, in terms of discussing
it amongst themselves, so that there is some general consensus
view about what can be `very special circumstances'. The other
case that will always rankle with me is that we have just, well,
about a year ago, failed on a site in Kent, where the inspector,
this is a senior inspector, with an application recovered by the
Secretary of State, went through every item, all of the criteria
in the Circular, and gave it a clean bill of health. And then,
when it came to `very special circumstances', we succeeded on
everything other than my perception that, whilst we had carried
out a survey both of local authorities and agents selling land,
throughout the whole of the South of England and East Anglia,
and the inspector asked me why I had not done the same survey
within Greater London; and I explained because land values were
so high there was no way that our clients could compete with the
development industry. And the appeal was turned down because we
had not actually carried out that last check, that it was felt
was needed to demonstrate `very special circumstances'. The Secretary
of State agreed with that, but also said that he could not believe
that a site could not be found within Greater London, and particularly
directed us to the Docklands. Now it is quite interesting, if
I may say, that the memorandum from the Department, the DETR,
with regard to this issue, the same people, presumably, who vetted
the actual appeal decision on recovery to the Secretary of State,
say: "Potential sites within Greater London and its neighbouring
counties are inevitably scarce, and those that do exist are likely
to be the subject of legal constraints or demands from competing
users." We have subsequently tried to tackle that problem,
and we are trying it again for the same group of travellers. We
have been to every authority in Greater London, we have been to
every estate agent, and two sites only were identified to us,
out of 70 or 80 inquiries that we made, both of them four-acre
sites where our clients actually occupy 13.5 acres of land. So
two four-acre sites were identified, neither of them were available
to purchase, they were available for a limited, five-year period
on lease, and the cheapest of the two areas of land was a quarter
of a million pounds a year to rent.
Chairman
294. The cynic in me thinks that this must be
quite good business for planning consultants?
(Mr Baseley) It is, Sir, and it did not ought to be.
295. That is alright; it is very nice to hear
someone wants to put themselves out of a job.
(Mr Baseley) But, I fear, if we are successful, I
guess that that is what is going to happen, but it does not cover
the injustice that exists at the present time within the system.
Mr Benn
296. Where do all these difficulties you have
just been describing leave this concept of `very special circumstances',
in relation to green belt land; can you give us an example of
where you have been able successfully to argue and get permission?
(Mr Loveday) Yes; the Turning-Wheel, which is the
first one straight after the publication of the Circular. We were
able successfully to argue that the family that had been there
for, I think, at the time, ten years, they had been through two
previous appeals, had been through the High Court; theirs is the
case that actually defines the difference between showmen and
gypsies, in the High Court, the Hammond case. They had been through
all of that, and then they were about to be turfed out, and we
went again, we amended the thing, we used the system, I am afraid
to say, to amend the application, to give them one last try, went
to appeal, we had been writing to local authorities for 12 years,
in the same way that they had, to local authorities, estate agents,
and we had seven volumes of appendices, this thick, with the answer
"No" emblazoned, long and hard. And then we were told
that we had proven that there was a very special need; that was
12 years, seven appendices. I was delighted for my clients, and
they are still there and it is fine, everybody is happy. But,
up until then, that had not been proven, the special need.
297. Right; but they were already there and
you finally got permission for them?
(Mr Loveday) Yes.
298. Any examples you can give us of new sites
that have been acquired, where permission has been given in green
belt land?
(Ms Montgomery) Yes, certainly. There is one at Bromsgrove,
that I think you may have had evidence on.
Chairman
299. The Committee, in fact, visited that, and
we were particularly interested in that, because not only did
the planning inspector find in favour of it, but he awarded costs,
which does suggest to the Committee, I think, that perhaps the
local authority had used the planning system to avoid themselves
having to take a difficult decision?
(Ms Montgomery) I think you have summarised that succinctly,
yes; but that is a classic case.
(Mr Baseley) We have just succeeded in the green belt
in Epping Forest to transfer a group of showmen who have lived
on a site since 1926, and, therefore, are probably the oldest-established
members of the village which they live in, there has never been
a problem with them; when they wanted to move, no-one wanted them.
The officers of Epping Forest District Council have helped us
tremendously, and we examined 21 other sites, including putting
in an application on a site; our clients were prepared to buy
21 acres of land to occupy five acres of land, surrounding by
woodland. And the whole community rose up against it, and said,
"These people are from another village, they should get back
to where they came from, we don't want them here," and the
application was turned down. We then found a derelict quarry,
on the edge of the village that they live in, and the whole of
that local community rose up again against them and caused an
awful lot of upset, where there had been no upset before. We have
just succeeded, on appeal, recovered by the Secretary of State,
who supported them, but it has taken us five years to relocate
an established group of showpeople, with the local planning authorities
trying and on our side.
|
