Memorandum by Mrs J Montgomery, Brimble,
Lea & Partners (TF 23)
1. INTRODUCTION
I am a Partner in the firm of Brimble, Lea &
Partners, where a major part of my time is spent in dealing with
planning matters. I have acted for a large number of individual
travelling showpeople over the last 10 years, particularly in
connection with the provision of quarters. I have been an adviser
to The Showmen's Guild of Great Britain over the last eight years
and I assisted The Guild in the preparation of their publication
"Travelling Showpeople's SitesA Planning FocusModel
Standard Package". I have been involved in a number of planning
applications and appeals on behalf of travelling showpeople and
have given evidence at many Public Inquiries.
This submission will deal briefly with the provision
of sites for travelling fairs and more substantially with the
provision of quarters for travelling showpeople.
2. PROVISION
OF SITES
FOR TRAVELLING
FAIRS2.1 The Problem
On behalf of The Showmen's Guild of Great Britain
I have made representations in the past to the DETR about the
continuing loss of fairground sites within town centres. The main
cause of these losses is through redevelopment, or indeed pedestrianisation/enhancement
schemes which thereafter preclude the setting up of fairs. Even
where an alternative site may be offered the location is often
not as suitable. The loss of fairground sites within the heart
of towns not only damages the viability of the showpeople's businesses
but also has a detrimental effect on the vitality of the town
centre.
2.2 Possible Solutions
A Government Direction could be issued protecting
town centre fairground sites (cf The Town and Country Planning
(Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998 which protects playing
fields). Alternatively, in any revision of Planning Policy Guidance
Notes (for example, PPG 6, PPG 17, PPG 21) reference could be
made to the importance of fairgrounds to town centres, to recreation
and tourist facilities. Whilst an earlier response from the DETR
stated that it would not be appropriate for national planning
guidance to give detailed guidance on issues such as fairgrounds,
I believe that without such reference Local Authorities are not
likely to give sufficient weight to the importance of fairgrounds
within town centres in considering other development options.
3. PROVISION
OF SITES
FOR TRAVELLING
SHOWPEOPLE'S
QUARTERS3.1 Need for More
Travelling Showpeople's Quarters
There is a considerable need for more travelling
showpeople's quarters sites. The need results from a number of
circumstances, including:
(1) The diminishing number of showpeople's
sites in the country as a whole, largely through redevelopment.
(2) The size of sites involved cannot cater
for any additional family units created, for example, through
marriage. For each successive generation this problem compounds.
(3) The amount of equipment now owned and
operated by each showman is much greater than in the past, thereby
exacerbating the pressure of space on sites.
(4) The demand for sites greatly outweighs
the supply, as evidenced by a large number of showpeople who do
not have an authorised site.
3.2 Magnitude of the Problem
Besides the problems demonstrated by the large
number of showpeople who are currently looking for sites and are
in occupation of unauthorised sites, a summary of those that I
have knowledge of in the South-East of England include:
(1) Land at Normandy within Guildford Borough
Council. A planning appeal is currently being heard in respect
of a temporary three year planning permission to allow 10 families
to continue to occupy a site whilst they search for an alternative
location.
(2) Site at Keston within Bromley District.
I believe that this site accommodates 28 families. A planning
appeal was dismissed and all of the showpeople have been desperately
searching for an alternative site. The site is subject to enforcement
action. The showpeople at Keston have, through their agent, carried
out a search for an alternative site over the last 12 months but
no suitable alternative site has been found. This indicates the
general difficulty that showpeople have in finding a site that
could be available for showpeople's use.
(3) Land at South Ockendon within Thurrock
District. There is already at South Ockendon a large and well-established
showmen's site, however, recently a further site has been established
where the estimated number of families involved is 41. This is
subject to enforcement action.
(4) Land at Shedfield within Winchester District.
Here travelling showpeople applied for planning permission, which
was refused, and appeals lodged in respect of the planning application
and Enforcement Notices were dismissed in December 1993. The showpeople
have been constantly searching for an alternative site, however,
the Council is issuing court proceedings against the showpeople.
(5) Land at Hambrook in Chichester District.
There are approximately 10 families involved here and the site
is subject to enforcement action. On an appeal against the refusal
of planning permission the Inspector granted a longer period for
compliance with the Enforcement Notice. The Council has ultimately
decided to assist these showpeople in finding an alternative site.
Initially the Planning Officers sought to allocate a site within
the Local Plan process, however, I am informed that the Officers
have been trying to find a site outside of this process.
(6) Land at Wickford within Basildon District.
Here five families are involved on a site within the Green Belt.
The showpeople have been looking for an alternative site for some
years and the site is subject to enforcement action.
(7) Land at Headley Down within East Hampshire
District. There are 13 family plots involved where families are
residing with the benefit of a temporary planning consent on the
basis that they and the Council are searching for an alternative
site.
(8) Land near Romsey within Test Valley Borough.
Planning permission has recently been refused for a site occupied
by seven showmen's families. Enforcement action is under investigation.
The evidence above demonstrates that there are
at least 139 showpeople's families desperately searching for an
alternative site within the South-East of England.
3.3 Reasons for the Problems Currently Being
Experienced
1. Local Planning Authorities do not, on
the whole, take the advice set out in Circular 22/91 seriously,
with often little assistance being given to the showpeople. At
planning appeals Inspectors quite often recognise the deficiencies
of the Local Planning Authorities, as exemplified by the three
following recent appeal decisions:
(a) Planning appeal against Bromsgrove District
Council (DoE Reference No APP/P1805/A/99/1024933/P7). In response
to a canvass to 18 Local Authorities searching for an alternative
site the Inspector concludes "this paints a very pessimistic
picture showing a general lack of suitable or identified sites
in the Midlands area with very few Councils adopting a proactive
approach".
(b) Planning appeal against Wigan Metropolitan
Borough Council (DoE Reference No APP/V4250/A/98/300786). This
appeal decision highlights the lack of assistance given, with
the Inspector stating "the Council believe the provisions
of the UDP are sufficiently flexible and robust to cater for development
such as that currently proposed. Whilst that may be the case,
and whilst I can also see that there may be difficulties in obtaining
details about the numbers and needs of showpeople, I consider
it could have assisted the appellants in this case in their search
for a suitable site if the needs of showpeople had been more clearly
addressed in the UDP as indicated in Circular 22/91 Paragraph
6".
(c) Planning appeal against Warrington Borough
Council (DoE Reference No APP/M0655/A/99/1022065/P5). The Inspector
confirms "the Council has so far felt unable to identify
one [site] through its local planning activities, despite the
advice to do so in Circular 22/91."
2. Despite Circular 22/91, relatively few
Local Plans contain policies considering the needs of and sites
for travelling showpeople. It would appear that Local Planning
Authorities only address the issue if a problem arises (ie they
do not plan for such a land use). This is exemplified in a recent
search of 153 County and District Councils in the South-East of
England, where details of existing and potential showpeople's
sites were sought. Whilst existing showpeople's sites were, on
the whole, identified by Local Planning Authorities, very few
offered any suggestions in respect of locations for a new site.
3. Due to the composite land use, travelling
showpeople's sites do not fit easily within any one particular
land use category. New sites tend to be located away from established
residential or commercial areas. Even if a commercial area was
considered appropriate, as some Local Authorities have suggested,
there is a great reluctance for owners to sell to travelling showpeople
for fear of jeopardising values on the remainder of the estate.
With the particular characteristics of showpeople's sites a new
site is unlikely to be found in established residential or commercial
areas, with new sites tending to be located outside of urban areas.
4. Where there are showpeople policies within
Local Plans, and they have been prepared without consultation
with The Showmen's Guild or others, these policies normally allow
for sites to be located within urban areas. With the land use
conflict inevitably arising, as set out in paragraph (3) above,
this is an unrealistic assessment to satisfy this particular land
use requirement.
5. Brownfield sites or sites with planning
permission for alternative forms of development usually command
such high land values that it makes them out of reach of the travelling
showpeople. For land to be available it needs to be affordable.
6. Sites need to be located within and ideally
at the centre of the circuit of fairs operated by the showpeople.
Where circuits of fairs include large tracts of land within the
Green Belts, a Green Belt location for a new quarters is almost
inevitable. Within Green Belts in particular Local Planning Authorities
are very reluctant to allow development of travelling showpeople's
sites, preferring to defer the responsibility to the Planning
Inspectorate or Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport
and the Regions.
7. Many Local Authorities inform us that
through the change in legislation, the respective Council no longer
keeps a register of publicly owned unused or underused land.
3.4 Possible Solutions
1. Circular 22/91 should be revised to achieve
the following:
(a) To update Government advice. The date
of the existing Circular is often seen by Local Authorities to
reduce the importance of the advice.
(b) Stronger advice must be given to Local
Authorities in the revised Circular. For example, in paragraph
6 of Circular 22/91 Local Authorities should be required to make
specific proposals for sites which would be suitable locations
for showpeople's quarters where there has either been a tradition
of sites occupied by showpeople and/or a local need for sites
has been demonstrated.
(c) Local Authorities should be directed
(rather than urged) to give every assistance to showpeople in
finding a site (see paragraph 15). Through my experience, it is
only after a particular problem has been identified, has been
in existence for a number of years and where a Planning Inspector
has given clear direct advice to Local Authorities to assist the
showpeople that any positive assistance is given.
(d) The use of Compulsory Purchase powers
should be examined and emphasised to encourage these powers to
be used to assist showpeople relocating to an acceptable site
in planning terms. I know of no case where Compulsory Purchase
powers have yet been used to assist showpeople in finding a site.
(e) The Circular should give clear examples
of very special circumstances (for example, the need for a site
and lack of alternative sites). This is particularly relevant
where sites are being considered within the Green Belt (paragraph
8).
(f) In some PPG's showpeople's sites should
be referred to where appropriate. For example, in PPG 2 where
exceptional circumstances are referred to, an example of showpeople's
sites should be given.
(g) Government advice should be more positive
about the possibility that suitable locations for quarters are
likely to be outside of existing development boundaries.
(h) In any revision of Government advice
consideration should be given to the issuing of a Planning Policy
Guidance Note. PPG's are increasingly seen as the main source
of policy guidance, whereas Circulars concentrate more on advice
on legislation and procedural matters.
2. The importance and relevance of Circular
22/91 should be reinforced to Planning Inspectors.
4. CONCLUSION
Government advice needs to be issued in respect
of fairground sites within town centres and updated in respect
of quarters sites in order that showpeople are recognised as a
separate land use within the Plan-led development control system.
February 2000
|