Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 359)
MR NICK
RAYNSFORD, MR
JEFF JACOBS
AND MR
CHRIS SHEPLEY
TUESDAY 18 APRIL 2000
Chairman
340. Can I welcome you to the Committee to help
us with two inquiries, one into travelling fairs and then the
planning inspectorate and public inquiries. Could you introduce
your team for the record, please, although I do see some parts
of your team have been before us relatively recently.
(Mr Raynsford) I am Nick Raynsford, Minister
for Planning and Housing. On my right is Jeff Jacobs, who heads
the planning division within our Department. On my left is Chris
Shepley, who is the Chief Planning Inspector.
341. Do you want to say a few words of introduction
on either of the topics or are you happy for us to go straight
into questions?
(Mr Raynsford) I am happy to go straight into questions.
I think they are both self-explanatory.
Mr Benn
342. Have you received any representations about
the loss of fairground sites in town centres?
(Mr Raynsford) We have received on average about four
letters a year over the last three years on issues relating to
provision for travelling showpeople. I have in a constituency
capacity had representations because the site of the Millennium
Dome was previously a site which was used by travelling showpeople.
I suppose what that highlights is the potential conflict between
our urban renaissance policies and the emphasis on the reuse of
brown field sites with provision for travelling showpeople who
may in the past have used some of those sites which were vacant
and unused and which provided a suitable location for them to
have as winter quarters.
343. Do you think there is any case for the
government offering some sort of protection for such sites—the
Millennium Dome is a rather unique case—in order to enable
travelling showpeople to continue to put on events in town centres
which are obviously very important for their business?
(Mr Raynsford) I would certainly accept the case for
there to be adequate provision made by local authorities and for
them to consider, in preparing their development plans, how they
can best meet the needs of travelling showpeople as well as all
other groups. I would be hesitant about the idea of special protection
because this would, I guess inevitably, sterilise those particular
sites from future development. While you rightly say that the
Millennium Dome is perhaps exceptional, this was an urban, derelict,
brown field site which had been empty for many, many years and
there was clearly an overwhelming case for regeneration benefits,
which have flowed from its redevelopment. If that land had been
sterilised because of special protection, the development that
has taken place would not have been possible.
Chairman
344. That site was not actually a fairground
site, was it? It was a showmen's winter quarters?
(Mr Raynsford) Yes.
345. The question we were really pursuing was
the question of town centre fairground sites so that there are
places for the fairs to be put on, as opposed to the fairground
winter quarters, which we will come onto.
(Mr Raynsford) I am sorry if I confused the two. It
has certainly been our view that perhaps the most difficult issue
has been winter quarters for showpeople. In terms of fairground
sites, while there is no specific reference in PPG17, PPG17 does
actually speak about the provision of sites that are suitable
for recreational purposes. Going back to my answer to the earlier
question, it would of course be appropriate for a local authority
to consider the need for sites for travelling fares as part of
its general preparation of its development plan.
346. Would you accept that a lot of local authorities
are worried about attracting people back into town centres? Would
you not accept that holding a fair in a town centre is one of
the ways of attracting people back into the town centre?
(Mr Raynsford) I would certainly accept that the provision
of fairs can provide a focus for the time that that fair is taking
place but of course, by their very nature, fairs are temporary.
The permissions that exist under the General Development Order
are restricted therefore to 28 days and for that reason you are
talking about a site that is likely to be not used for the bulk
of the year for that purpose. When looking at questions of urban
regeneration, the inevitable questions arise as to whether one
can revitalise an urban centre by temporary use of sites that
may be available or through permanent regeneration, possibly attracting
new people to live in the area which has previously lacked residential
accommodation. I am not sure that I would favour the former against
the latter as a vehicle for urban regeneration.
347. The fair in The Mall was an illustration
of the way in which a fair can be fitted in quite easily into
the existing, fairly attractive environment.
(Mr Raynsford) Absolutely. As I said, I would be only
too happy to endorse that provision but I do not think it would
be appropriate as a long term use for The Mall, which clearly
has other functions as well.
Mr Olner
348. We are not speaking about that, Minister.
We are thinking of trying to retain within the town centres some
areas of land that travelling fairs can settle on once, twice,
three or four times a year. If you build office blocks on them,
that land is gone for ever.
(Mr Raynsford) I agree entirely that ensuring that
sites are available that can provide for such visiting events
is an important consideration and that is provided for within
PPG17. There is a framework that does allow that, but I was trying
to answer a question as to the contribution towards urban regeneration.
I was trying to indicate that there might be longer term benefits
to an area where there has, for example, been a shortage of inner
city, urban, residential accommodation. The provision of new development
with residential accommodation might itself be a stronger, long
term benefit to the centre of that area. That does not detract
in any way from the importance of having sites that are available
for travelling fairs. I have one in my own constituency that I
greatly value that is currently setting up for the Easter period.
I know it is very popular and will continue to be available because
the land will continue to be available for that purpose. That,
in itself, I would argue, had a very much less—
349. You have managed to protect your own bit
of land?
(Mr Raynsford) It is a piece of metropolitan, open
land, so it is protected as such.
350. The council are never going to flog it
off and build on it?
(Mr Raynsford) No, it will never be flogged off and
built on. It is quite right that that should be available. In
terms of the regeneration of the area, the permanent regeneration
of various brown field sites probably has had a larger economic
and regenerative effect than simply maintaining the availability
of a site for visiting showpeople.
Mrs Dunwoody
351. Is that not exactly what we are saying
to you? We are saying that no one disputes your theory of economic
development, but the reality is that if there are no traditional
green field sites left the fairs will not come. Although you may
be faintly dismissive and say, "They are all right while
they are there and as long as they do not leave too much rubbish
behind them we are not against them", that is not a very
positive attitude. Do you not think that councils should traditionally
accept that where they have fairs, where people enjoy fairs, where
they come on a regular basis, there ought to be some acceptance
that you plan that in? You do not just say, "All brown field
sites are suitable for development for office blocks and yuppie
flats."
(Mr Raynsford) I might take exception to the view
that urban regeneration is only about office blocks and yuppie
flats, because I believe it is about a wider range of facilities.
352. Is that not what we are saying to you?
We are talking about common or garden people who actually like
fairs.
(Mr Raynsford) Exactly. What I was trying to say was
that fairs have a role to play and the local authority should
within the context of PPG17 be looking to ensure that it has suitable
facilities for a range of recreational activities, including visits
by travelling showpeople. That is within the existing planning
framework. It is possible that could be enhanced. There is a circular
that was issued some nine years ago which seems to me still to
effectively set out the necessary requirements for meeting those
conditions and it may well be a sensible move for us to remind
local authorities of that particular circular. I would certainly
be very happy to do that. I do not think there is a need for a
fundamental change in planning provisions to ensure the provision
of sites because PPG17 does actually cover that.
Mr Donohoe
353. It seems, on the basis of what you have
said, that you opened saying one thing and you finished saying
the complete opposite. Are you saying that you would protect green
sites within town centres for fairgrounds or whatever other activity
there might be, just as you would and do protect cemeteries, for
instance?
(Mr Raynsford) No. What I am saying is that PPG17
does require local authorities—and it is guidance which
local authorities must have regard to in preparing their development
plan—to have regard to a range of recreational and leisure
activities in the preparation of the development plan. While it
does not specifically refer to travelling fairs—
354. But you could amend it to have that within
it.
(Mr Raynsford) I do not think it would need to be
amended. I would certainly consider a reference because we are
revising PPG17 at the moment, but as I said in response to Mrs
Dunwoody's question earlier the key issue seems to me to be awareness
of the circular which was issued some nine years ago, which does
set out very clearly the steps that local authorities should follow
to take account of the needs of travelling fairs and, if that
circular is followed and put into practice, I believe the objectives
that you have will be met.
Chairman
355. Can I pursue this question of PPG17? You
are putting out a new consultation document on that, are you not?
(Mr Raynsford) Yes.
356. In a parliamentary answer to me, I think
you said you hoped to do it shortly. That was some time ago. Is
there a contradiction there?
(Mr Raynsford) As you will know, we have been working
very hard on a number of planning policy guidance documents and
also regional planning guidance documents. Inevitably, I think
you would probably accept, the need to ensure that we published
the final version of PPG3 has meant some delay in the preparation
of others, but I do expect to have PPG17 available in draft shortly.
357. A very short shortly?
(Mr Raynsford) I would hope so.
Mrs Dunwoody
358. A sort of medium term/long term shortly?
(Mr Raynsford) A medium to short term shortly.
Mr Donohoe
359. Can I return to the area that you made
mention of but did not specifically give an answer to, and that
was the question of showpeople's winter quarters. Your own assessment
on the scale of the problem is what?
(Mr Raynsford) It is difficult to say that there is
a significant problem because, as I mentioned earlier—and
I may, in responding to Mr Benn's question, have misled the Committee
because I referred to only four letters a year on average and
I was referring to correspondence about winter quarters on that
particular occasion—that is the scale of the correspondence
that we are receiving. It is not of a level as to suggest that
there are serious problems, certainly by contrast with other planning
matters on which we receive hundreds, and in some cases thousands,
of letters every year.
| 
