Memorandum by Surrey County Council (TF
05)
I am responding to the request for comments
on issues raised in Press Notice No 6 pertaining to the Environment
Sub-committee's inquiry into matters concerning travelling fairs
and travelling showpeople. The following are officer comments.
In relation to the issues listed in the press
notice, the Sub-committee will perhaps be aware that Surrey is
the venue for a number of travelling fairs during the year, some
of considerable historical antecedence and importance to the various
travelling communities. The County Council does not take a particular
attitude to such fairs, except to recognise their importance and
the contribution that such regular events can make to the County's
calendar and to the general community at large.
In view of the number of travelling showpeople's
families resorting to Surrey there are a number of permitted sites
for travelling showpeople for overwintering purposes where the
provision of living quarters and space for the storage of equipment
exists. These sites are usually small and may be limited in occupation
through personal permissions, and sometimes temporary arrangements.
There are also sites where residence has existed
without planning permission leading to attempts to find alternative
accommodation and, ultimately, failure to gain a regularisation
of the planning position for the original site. New proposals
for sites are judged in the normal way against the policies of
the development plan and national guidance contained in Circular
22/91. Surrey District Councils, through policies in Local Plans,
seek to deal with travelling communities through an assessment
of need and the application of criteria for controlling the potential
impact of such development.
Generally, planning policies for Surrey are
restrictive, particularly within the Green Belt, although such
policies are not necessarily fatal to an application for permanent
quarters where benefits are judged to outweigh harm thus providing
for an exceptional case. But these cases are indeed exceptional.
By applying particularly Green Belt policies, it is undoubtedly
the case that travelling showpeople, in common with other travelling
communities, experience considerable difficulty in obtaining sites
for permanent quarters which suit their purposes.
In terms of evidence to inform the situation,
it has proved difficult for the Surrey authorities to assess the
adequacy of existing sites and the need for further provision.
In the past, the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain (London and
Home Counties Section) has also not been in a position to provide
figures for families requiring residence, or a list of sites in
the County and surrounding parts to assist with the investigation
of alternative accommodation. Nevertheless, to assist at public
inquiry, the Guild has consistently stated that the South-East
is deficient in sites for travelling showpeople.
Whilst we would suggest that, within Surrey,
there is not sufficient evidence to hand in relation to the need
for further sites to require a change to national planning guidance,
if the Sub-Committee were to conclude that the difficulty in providing
satisfactory accommodation was a common experience, then revised
national planning guidance may be a requirement to ensure that
the planning process properly addresses the need issue.
Nevertheless, what is clear is a requirement
for local authorities, in partnership with travelling showpeople's
representative bodies, to identify existing authorised and unauthorised
sites and to carry out a proper assessment of need amongst travelling
showpeople within their areas, in order to inform the policies
of the development plan.
February 2000
|