Memorandum by Guildford Borough Council
(TF 63)
I thank you for your letter of 22 February 2000
it has fallen to me to reply as I have been involved with the
Showmen's site on the Guildford Road, Normandy, since it was first
unlawfully occupied in 1995.
Rather than give a history in relation to the
matter, I am attaching[12]
to this letter a chronology which has been prepared in connection
with Court proceedings to secure compliance with the valid Enforcement
Notice in relation to the land at present occupied as a Showmen's
site in Normandy.
It is apparent to me from my involvement in
two Public Local Inquiries and on consideration of the evidence
submitted to those Inquiries that the Department of the Environment
Circular 22/91 is not being used by travelling showpeople as intended
by the Circular as a means of securing sites within the planning
system.
Paragraph 6 of Circular 22/91 directs Local
Planning Authorities to take into account the needs of travelling
showpeople when preparing or revising Local Plans. In the course
of the preparation of the current Local Plan adopted in October
1993, notification was sent amongst others to the Showman's Guild.
No indication was given by the Showmen's Guild that there was
a need for showpeople's sites within the Guildford Borough and
the Council, being unaware of any particular need, made no provision
within the Plan adopted in 1993 for showpeople's sites. The current
Surrey Structure Plan makes no mention of a need for showpeople's
sites within Surrey, and so far as I am aware, the Showmen's Guild
has not made representations to the County Council of a need within
Surrey. I am not aware that the Draft Replacement Surrey Structure
Plan makes any reference to such need.
It is self-evident that paragraph 6 of Circular
22/91 depends upon Planning Authorities being aware that there
is a demand or need for travelling showpeople's sites within their
Districts. Quite simply stated, if local Councils are not aware
that a demand or need exists, then they will not and cannot be
expected to make provision when preparing Local Plans. The first
indication that this Council received that there was any demand
for such a site within Guildford Borough occurred in October 1995
when part of the site at Guildford Road, Normandy, was unlawfully
occupied. I would stress that there was no attempt by those showmen
involved to have any pre-occupation discussion with the Local
Authority. The only contact relating to this land from one of
the current occupants occurred shortly after the land was purchased
and at that time the enquiry centred upon enlarging the access
road for agricultural or forestry purposes. There was therefore
no prospect of applying the helpful guidance at paragraph 14 of
Circular 22/91.
The evidence given at the latest Public Inquiry
by Mrs J Montgomery BSc ARICS, who is stated to be an advisor
to the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain for the past eight years,
states that there are a large number of showpeople looking for
alternative sites in the south-east of England. Unfortunately
it does not seem to be the policy of the Showmen's Guild of those
showpeople who are seeking sites or the retained planning agent
to write to Local Planning Authorities making clear their needs
and seeking allocations within the Local plan.
I believe that one of the reasons why this course
of action is not pursued by travelling showpeople is that an allocation
of land within the Local Plan would increase its value and increase
the cost of acquisition to the showmen. It does seem that travelling
showpeople have adopted a strategy of choosing sites by price
and accepting the fact that fighting enforcement action will be
a necessary part of the cost of obtaining a site.
The pattern of development at Guildford is typical
and involves purchasing land at agricultural value, moving onto
the land and developing the land as quickly as possible. Because
of the numbers of persons involved, the fact some are children
and the amount of equipment it is very difficult for Local Authorities
to react to such large scale breaches of planning control, particularly
where the land is in the ownership of those living on the land.
A retrospective application for planning consent is then made
and it is argued on behalf of the showpeople that it is unreasonable
for the Local Authority to pursue enforcement action until such
time as that application has been dealt with. An appeal inevitably
follows if permission is refused, often as in the case of Guildford,
there will be two or three appeals, and as the showmen have had
considerable success in securing travelling showmen's sites in
this way, one must expect that they will continue to adopt this
tactic so long as there is a reasonable prospect of eventually
being granted planning permission for the use of the land. Such
an approach makes a mockery of a Plan-led system.
One of the features of the approach adopted
by the showmen to securing sites is to engage agents to carry
out an extensive search for suitable sites to show that no other
alternative sites are available. At the recent Public Inquiry
relating to the Normandy site, it was revealed that a possible
suitable site was rejected out of hand on the grounds of cost,
it being stated that showmen could not afford to fund a site for
their home and equipment at a cost of approximately £140,000.
If that is the case, then there are obviously serious implications
for travelling showmen and the continued existence of such businesses
within the south-east given the value of land with development
potential.
If travelling showpeople are to be accommodated
with a Plan-led system, then the onus must be upon the showpeople
themselves to carry out an audit of their requirements within
each county and make known, through the Structure and Local plan
process, their needs during the Plan period; in this way, Local
Authorities will be able to assist travelling showpeople as they
currently assist other businesses to find suitable locations within
the planning framework. The present situation where Circular 22/91
is ignored by travelling showpeople until such time as they face
an enforcement appeal or retrospective planning application is,
I suggest, wholly unacceptable. Travelling showpeople must accept
that the acquisition of suitable sites is a proper cost for which
provision should be made within their business. It is noted that
in some areas living accommodation and equipment storage have
been separated, such separation is likely to increase the number
of sites available to travelling showpeople and storage of business
equipment away from the home is very common and is acknowledged
as being a way forward by Mr Albert Ayers President of the Showmans
Guild.
L W Roberts
For Clerk and Solicitor
March 2000
12 Ev. not printed. For further information please
contact Guildford Borough Council. Back
| 
