Memorandum by East Cambridgeshire District
Council (TF 54)
Thank you for your letter dated 22 February
regarding travelling fairs, which I have discussed with David
Archer who has asked me to reply to your request for evidence
on what is a difficult issue.
In structuring this letter I shall attempt to
respond to the questions raised by the Sub-Committee, namely:
whether this Council operates a Policy
towards showmans accommodation and if so how the Policy has been
applied; and
whether East Cambridgeshire District
Council takes account of the needs of travelling showpeople when
determining such applications and what action has been taken under
Section 15 of the Circular to help find appropriate sites.
I also intend to respond briefly to the representation
made by David J Loveday on this issue and in particular his reference
to East Cambridgeshire.
POLICY
There is no Policy relating to travelling showmen
in either the adopted 1991 Ely Local Plan or the 1993 East Cambridgeshire
Local Plan. The Council is however in the final stages of adopting
a District Local Plan (adoption mid 2000) which does contain a
specific policy relating to showmen. This Policy and its supporting
text (as amended) read as follows:
Paragraph 3.76
"Travelling showpeople are subject to separate
consideration from gypsies, although in many respects their locational
needs and requirements may be similar. Circular 22/91 states that
Showpeople are self employed businessmen who travel the country
holding fairs, chiefly during the summer months. Although their
work is of a peripatetic nature, showpeople nevertheless require
secure, permanent bases for the storage of their equipment and
more particularly for residential purposes. Showpeople's sites
are often unusual in that they combine residential, storage and
maintenance uses within a single site. These uses are rarely appropriate
within the built framework of our existing towns and villages
and it may be appropriate to consider alternative locations. Applications
from travelling showpeople for development in the open countryside
will be determined on their merits, taking account of the special
locational requirements of this group of people."
Policy 32
"Planning applications by travelling showmen
will be considered against the Council's normal policies of countryside
protection. The Council may grant planning permission for sites
in the countryside where the following criteria have been met:
(i) The applicants can demonstrate that their
particular requirements cannot be reasonably met within existing
towns and villages of East Cambridgeshire.
(ii) The proposed development would not cause
harm to the countryside or to the character or setting of settlements
within the countryside (either individually, or cumulatively).
(iii) The proposed development would not
cause harm to the amenities of adjoining land users by way of
noise or traffic movements.
(iv) Sites should be reasonably flat, be
easily accessible from the primary road network, but not via direct
access to a trunk or primary road and be reasonably convenient
for schools and other community facilities.
(v) Sites should be well related to the public
transport system.
Only in exceptional circumstances will applications
be permitted in the Cambridge Green Belt or in those areas designated
for their landscape, historic or wildlife value."
The above policy was subject to a number of
objections at the Deposit stages and I have attached the relevant
excerpts from the Inspectors report (Appendix A) [5]The
Council has resolved to accept all of the Inspectors recommended
changes in respect of this Policy and is currently consulting
on modifications to the plan.
APPLICATION OF
THE POLICY
Because of the advanced stage that the emerging
Local Plan has now reached the Council has attached considerable
weight to this guidance when determining applications from showmen.
The Council has determined three applications
for travelling showmen's sites since receiving the Local Plan
Inspectors report in June 1999. The first application was approved
on the 7 July 1999 and a copy of the relevant committee report
is attached (Appendix B) 4. The second application (also recommended
for approval) was refused by planning committee following consideration
of the application (report and reasons for refusal at Appendix
C) 4. The applicants have not sought to appeal against that refusal,
although a concurrent refusal for gypsies on the same site has
been allowed on appeal. The third application (by Mr Loveday)
was a resubmission of an application previously dismissed on appeal
following a major public inquiry and was also refused (report
at Appendix D) 4.
A fourth application is currently being determined.
ACTION UNDER
SECTION 15 OF
CIRCULAR 22/91 TO
IDENTIFY SITES
The Council attempts to give every assistance
to showpeople in search of sites as required by section 15 of
the circular.
You will be aware of course, that there is no
longer a requirement to maintain a register of unused or under-used
land owned by public bodies and that the circular needs to be
updated on that point. This Council owns very little land and
does not maintain a register. We have however, recently taken
part in the National Land Use Database Survey, the findings of
which I understand will be made public in due course. Unfortunately,
the result of this survey suggests that there is very little brownfield,
or previously used land in the District which would be suitable
for showpersons accommodation. Indeed, almost all applications
for gypsies and showpeople in the district have been on greenfield
sites, emphasising the lack of other sites suitable for this purpose.
Because of the shortage of unused or under-used
sites, the Council has developed a criteria based approach to
guide applications in the selection of suitable sites. Planning
officers are happy to give advice on the suitability or otherwise
of sites and indeed the consent referred to above was the culmination
of extensive discussions between a planning officer and showman
prior to an application being submitted.
COMMENTS ON
THE SUBMISSION
BY DAVID
LOVEDAY
Given that Mr Loveday has made a number of comments
in respect of East Cambridgeshires response to showmen, I believe
that it is necessary to briefly respond to some points raised
in his submission.
Paragraph 4.4 - East Cambridgeshire does
in fact contain parts of the Cambridge Green Belt, contrary to
Mr Lovedays assertion.
Paragraph 4.5 - Mr Loveday refers to his
objection to the Policy 32 in the deposit local plan. His objection
was to the use of the word "exceptionally" at the beginning
of the second sentence. In all other respects (including the criteria
used for judging sites) Policy 32 was acceptable to Mr Loveday.
The inspector accepted his objection and recommended that the
word be removed from Policy 32. The Council has accepted his recommendation.
In the light of this, I find Mr Lovedays criticism of both the
apparent lack of understanding of Local Authorities and his suggestion
that the local plan process does not address the needs of showmen
somewhat difficult to understand. The consultation process worked
exactly as intended and resulted in a number of changes to this
Policy. Indeed Policy 32 is now, (presumably) exactly as Mr Loveday
would wish and properly meets their needs.
Paragraph 4.8 - I wish to avoid spending
too much time rehearsing the pros and cons of the case referred
to by Mr Loveday. It is however worth pointing out that his clients
moved onto a site which has a long history of planning refusals
(upheld on appeal) for gypsy accommodation, without seeking prior
advice, or seeking to obtain planning permission. The Inspector
refused an application primarily on issues of harm, but felt that
the policies and practice of East Cambridgeshire towards showpeople
were sufficiently flexible that alternative sites could be found
(copy of the appeal decision at Appendix E). In the period since
the dismissal, planning permission has been given for a different
group of showpeople on a disused piggery site in very close proximity
to the appeal site. Although Mr Loveday has written to the Council
requesting a copy of the register of unused or under-used land
(which the council do not keep for the reasons outlined above)
there have been no other approaches to the Planning Department
with alternative sites. If I can help further in this issue please
let me know.
Geoffrey Hall
Principal Forward Planning Officer
March 2000
5 Ev. not printed. For further information please contact
East Cambridgeshire District Council. Back
|