Memorandum by Ian Baseley Associates (TF
40)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Ian Baseley Associates are Chartered
Town Planners and professional practitioners in the fields of
planning and development consultancy; environmental and landscape
design and advisers to all sectors of the development industry.
1.2 We have extensive experience spanning
over 14 years of proposals for Showmen's permanent quarters on
sites of varying characteristics across the country. My practice
acts on a regular basis as advisers and planning consultants to
individual Showmen and groups and the Showmen's Guild of Great
Britain. In this capacity, together with its General Secretary
we represented the Guild in close liaison with the Department
of the Environment to assist in the formulation and preparation
of Circular 22/91, Travelling Showpeople. We have therefore been
involved in this very specialist field since well before the Circular's
publication. We have also worked for the Guild in the preparation
of general advice to its Members including the formulation of
the input material towards the preparation of model standards
for Showpeople's quarters.
2. SCOPE
2.1 The scope of our submission to the Environment
Sub-committee deals particularly with the planning aspects of
Showmen's accommodation sites and therefore only relates to two
of the five topic areas identified as part of the brief to this
exercise; these being: the effectiveness of the existing planning
guidance on the provision of quarters for Travelling Showpeople
and whether any action is necessary to ensure that appropriate
regard is had to the needs of Travelling Showpeople within the
planning system.
2.2 I feel it is important at this early
stage to stress that in making this submission, we are not seeking
funding, charity or favouritism on the Showmen's behalf, but a
level playing field from which they are able to help themselves.
This proud, fiercely independent and distinguished group of society
only request a fair deal from the planning system in the same
"Best Value" way as other customers of the system have
come to expect.
3. BACKGROUND
CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 The Travelling Showpeople's way of life
is uniqueit combines a traditional lifestyle of a peripatetic
nature, travelling from fair to fair predominantly through the
summer months, with one that is more settled, where a permanent
site "a home" is required, primarily during the winter
months.
3.2 For the Showpeople their business is their
life. Their job is the fairground from the cradle to the grave
and they will know no other occupation. There can be few other
ways of earning a living where the divide between work and leisure
is so conspicuously absent. It is one of the very few remaining
occupations where entry, with rare exception, is determined by
birth and most Showpeople can claim a family history in the business
which goes back several generations, some even several centuries.
Few would exchange their life for another, although it is far
from easy. Despite the vagaries of the weather and opposition
from the ill-informed and prejudiced, there is the security of
the family unit, the support of the closely knit travelling community
and the relative freedom, but also the responsibility of being
self-employed as compensation.
3.3 Showpeople's education is essentially
practical and all of the family is involved from an early age
in the running of the business. Showpeople are of necessity, characteristically
self-sufficientthey are their own engineer, carpenter,
painter, business manager, transport manager and accountant. Nevertheless
the opportunity of more formal education is crucially important.
Traditionally when the travelling season is over and they are
back at their living quarters, Showpeople's children attend local
schools. An increasing number of Showpeople's children attend
school all year round by remaining on sites, being cared for by
grandparents. Similarly, most Showpeople play an active part in
their local communities, many are members of voluntary organisations
and several have served as Councillors. There is in fact a strong
tradition of local authority work a month Showpeople and several
have become Mayors of their home towns. One notable achievement
was that of the late Patrick Collins, who served the Midland town
of Walsall, both as Mayor and Member of Parliament. Indeed, there
is a strong sense of awareness among Showpeople of the need to
help those less fortunate than themselves. During the season many
handicapped and disadvantaged children throughout the country
are treated to an afternoon of free entertainment at their local
fair and many hospitals have gained from the generosity of Showpeople
including the endorsement of beds and donations towards the purchase
of advanced medical equipment.
3.4 The greatest problem facing Travelling
Showpeople generally has been the loss of traditional winter quarters.
This has become a major concern to the Showpeople's community
and the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain. Showpeople need permanent
bases where they can spend the winter months, within reach of
schools and other community facilities but large enough to carry
out the vital maintenance work on equipment which is required
by the Guild as a strongly disciplined, self-regulating body and
by law via the Health and Safety legislation. The need for secure
storage of fairground equipment has been recognised by an Inspector
in a recent appeal who referred very accurately to the "umbilical
cord" which exists between a Showman and his equipment.
3.5 The needs of Showpeople have been recognised
by some local authorities who have shown considerable understanding
in the matter. Parliament, and Government too, have been sympathetic
in granting the Guild exemption from the licensing provisions
of the Caravan Sites Act and subsequently in the issue of Circular
22/91: Travelling Showpeople, which urges local authorities to
recognise the special needs of Showpeople and assist in meeting
them.
3.6 Nevertheless, many old established winter
and permanent quarters have been lost in recent years to redevelopment
schemes. In far too few instances have adequate or indeed any
plans been made for their replacement. In many cases, unfortunately,
displaced Showpeople have been treated with indifference and insensitivity.
A home is of vital importance to everyoneincluding Showpeople.
However, they seek neither charity nor favouritismthey
ask only to be affordable recognition and the same consideration
as any other member of the community.
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Prior to 1992, Travelling Showpeople
were an all-but excluded group of society within the planning
system, with only four paragraphs within the general Circular
23/83 concerned with the Caravan Sites and Control of Development
Act 1960 to represent them. This advice was limited to "Winter
Quarters" which, due to the changing nature of fairground
operations and the requirement for more permanent year-round Showmen's
sites, rendered such "seasonal sites" all but
redundant. The need for fresh advice, particularly pertinent to
Travelling Showpeople was long overdue.
4.2 The issue of Circular 22/91 in December
1991 was an important milestone in recognition within the planning
system the extreme difficulty being faced by Showpeople in finding
permanent accommodation insofar as it made the public authority
decision-makers, for the first time, aware of the problems and
gave some guidance for the consideration of planning applications.
It also demonstrated to local authorities that they had a responsibility,
particularly in relation to their plan making function, to take
account of and make provision for the needs to Travelling Showpeople.
4.3 Unfortunately, over the eight years since
the introduction of Circular 22/91, it is my practice's experience
that local authorities are not having regard to the needs of Showpeople
either in formulating their Development Plans and, particularly
as a direct result of that failure are not giving sufficient weight
to the advice of Circular 22/91 in reaching decisions on individual
planning applications or to the very special circumstances which
usually surround them. The Inspectorate have, on occasion, seemed
to excuse a local planning authority's failure to take account
of this guidance even though the Circular advises differently.
4.4 The decline of the Circular's impact, importance
and resultant effectiveness since the `heady' days of the early
to mid 1990's when its issue was still relatively recent, has
been exacerbated by the fact that the problems of overcrowding
and lack of sites have throughout this time in fact become even
greater.
5. THE PROBLEMS
5.1 Ignorance
5.1.1 In my opinion this is one of the greatest
problems that still continues to face Showpeople. It manifests
itself in two forms, one of who they are and secondly of their
need, like everyone else, to have a home base from which to continue
their unique and historical trade. They are constantly mistakenly
associated with gypsies and other (new age) travellers and not
recognised as fiercely independent and self-sufficient, self employed
business people. Unfortunately this ignorance prevails not only
amongst the general public, who as a result display bias and resistance
to them being located in their communities but all too often by
local planning authorities. It is not unusual when discussing
proposals for accommodation sites to have to explain to local
planning authorities the characteristics of the Showpeople's way
of life and their need for permanent sites, but, of greater concern,
we have had to point out the very existence of Circular 22/91
to some authorities.
5.1.2 There is still widespread ignorance of
the unique lifestyle of Travelling Showpeople. Notwithstanding
the "Background" section to Circular 22/91 which provides
a general insight into the characteristics of their lifestyle,
we believe that both local planning authorities and the Inspectorate
alike continue to experience great difficulty in grasping an understanding
of the very particular needs of this quite distinct group of Society
within the planning system.
5.2 Lack of Recognition of Accommodation Needs
5.2.1 This is effectively the second manifestation
of ignorance of the problem insofar as very many local authorities
welcome with open arms, often onto public land, the annual fair
with all the pleasure that it brings and then expect the Showpeople
and their equipment to "disappear into thin air" or
at least into the next Borough, District or County when the event
is over, so that it is no longer their problem. All too often
this attitude also influences the approach adopted towards the
consideration of planning applications for permanent accommodation.
5.2.2 In evidence of this I can confirm
that my practice is handling a proposal for a permanent Showpeople's
site within the administrative area of a London Borough. As a
result I can confirm that the Development Control Manager of the
authority did, at a Public Inquiry in 1998, admit eventually under
cross-examination, that there was a need for a site for the group
who are resident on the land at present and that he "did
not know" of any further efforts that they could make to
find one. Furthermore, despite their strong local connections,
he did not accept that there was any responsibility (despite Circular
advice very much to the contrary) for his authority to assist
in identifying a site or agree to the establishment of one within
the Borough. Moreover, this attitude is doubly ironic in that
instance because the Local Planning Authority had inherited by
a quirk of the dissolution of the GLC tenants (part of the current
applicant group) and disposed of the land to the Millennium Dome
project!
5.2.3 We also recognise, and acknowledge
the difficulties that local planning authorities and the Inspectorate
alike experience in coming to terms with the particular and unusual
land use requirements of Travelling Showpeople. Circular 22/91
defines the locational and land use requirements for Showmen's
sites which, by their very nature, do not fit easily into any
one contemporary land use category defined by the Use Classes
Order 1987. The primary difficulty which arises is that because
the need is for a mixture of living and working areas, such sites
do not fit easily into residential or industrial parts of urban
areas as one of those elements will not normally co-exist happily
with surrounding development and they are not readily acceptable
outside of urban areas because both elements of the activity are
usually seen as inappropriate.
5.2.4 One specific area which local planning
authorities and the Inspectorate have apparent difficulty with,
is that Showmen's permanent quarters are not particularly things
of great beauty and this creates an immediate hurdle to overcome.
As things have progressed with the modernisation of equipment,
rides, caravan etc, which have replaced the older, rusty caravans,
storage buses etc, it should however be possible, through design
and conditional control, to create sites/parks without are both
attractive and acceptable in the types of locations envisaged
by the Circular.
5.2.5 Their limited financial means also
often dictates that sites beyond the fringe of urban areas are
the only ones affordable because the Showmen cannot compete with
other urban land uses in land value terms. This need to seek sites
outside urban areas, particularly around major conurbations almost
inevitably leads to conflict with policies restricting forms of
development which are appropriate in the countryside and/or the
Green Belt.
5.2.6 It is evident therefore, that a purely
conventional approach, as is ingrained in the planning system
at all levels, will continue to fail to meet their accommodation
needs and a rather more flexible approach is required if the planning
agencies are to realistically "get to grips" with the
problem and a long term solution eventually found.
5.3 Lack of Regard to Circular Advice
5.3.1 It is the experience of my practice and
other professionals operating in this specialist field that precious
few local authorities have regard to the advice of Circular 22/91
advocating the quantification of the needs of Travelling Showpeople
in preparing Local Plans and making provision for them. Despite
this advice very few local authorities, including those where
there is a strong tradition of Showpeople have included policies
in their Local Plans. In this connection my practice has rather
disturbingly encountered authorities who appear to be acting responsibly
and making provision in their policies for Showpeople but are
not actually doing so in dealing with subsequent planning applications.
5.3.2 In this context, I refer to a site
in the Home Counties whereby my practice secured on appeal, permission
for two family groups living in overcrowded conditions to occupy
a site identified in the Local Plan for Travelling Showpeople.
The Inspector recognised this Authority as being "almost
unique" in identifying a site. However, the position was
far more complex and inequitable than it first seemed because,
although the Local Planning Authority had included that site in
the Local Plan as suitable for Showpeople, it considered that
it was only suitable for one paticular group of Showpeople who
lived nearby and who would be displaced if a planning application
for a Golf Course, which the Council favoured, was implemented.
As our clients although local were not part of that group, the
council refused them permission, notwithstanding that the site
was a general allocation for Travelling Showpeople. My partner,
Robert Fletcher, successfully persuaded the Inspector that the
Council's argument was wrong. However, both he and I are convinced
that the appeal was won on the technical Development Plan argument
alone, and not the misuse of unrelated planning objectives which
the Inspector was clearly reluctant to comment upon.
5.3.3 Going on from the above, our general
concern is however that, despite the advice of Circular 22/91,
very few local planning authorities incorporate a specific policy
for Sites for Travelling Showpeople. More particularly, it is
clear that even fewer have carried out any meaningful appraisal,
liaised with the Guild or in any other way tried to assess need.
In this connection, as part of the same appeal case referred to
is paragraph 5.3.2, the Inspector noted that there was no likelihood
of an early resolution of this problem through the Local Plan
process, because notwithstanding the inclusion of a "Travelling
Showpeople" policy within the existing Local Plan, the long
history of Showmen's sites in the Borough and the clearly evident
problem of overcrowding in that locality, these issues and the
topic of accommodation sites for Travelling Showpeople were not
identified in any form within the Borough Council's preliminary
stage of formal review of their Development Plan.
5.4 Lack of Precision in the Advice
5.4.1 In this context I refer to one particular
point that is clearly being experienced on a widespread basis
by all who are involved. This arises from the fact that the Circular
is expressed in general terms and does not set out in detail the
"very special circumstances" which normally need to
be demonstrated in support of Showpeople's cases particularly
in and around major conurbations as any land within their financial
means is likely to be found within the Green Belt.
5.4.2 The "very special circumstances"
capable of out-weighing Green Belt policies as stated in PPG2:
"Green Belts" also represent a major problem for Travelling
Showpeople to demonstrate and for the decision-makers to acknowledge
and accept. Most of these difficulties arise because there is
no definitive guidance on what might constitute very special circumstances
and therefore little established precedent. Through our extensive
experience dealing with planning applications and appeals for
Travelling Showpeople, we have formulated our own methodology
and list of factors which we believe, when taken as a whole, can
serve to demonstrate very special circumstances. This has been
altered and refined over past years and has been accepted by some
Inspectors (although not others) and very few local planning authorities!
5.4.3 The principal factors which add most
weight towards demonstrating very special circumstances are, in
our opinion: identifying and establishing the need for new sites,
ie the current level of accommodation is inadequate; and demonstrating
that there is a complete lack of alternative sites. However, whilst
various methods have been used as evidence to demonstrate and
justify both of these factors, there has in practice been a disappointing
level of consistency from local authorities and within the Inspectorate
in determining what constitutes adequate evidence.
5.4.4 Paragraph 8 of Circular 22/91 represents,
in our opinion, the "Achilles heel" in the ultimate
effectiveness of the guidance. It states that, "Nothing in
this advice contradicts that contained in other Circulars and
Planning Policy Guidance Notes . . ." Whilst we accept that
the principle of this statement is warranted, it is our experience
that it is often seized upon by Local Planning Authorities and
the Inspectorate alike to provide an all too easy loop-hole or
get out clause allowing justification for the refusal of an otherwise
strong case for very special circumstances. We feel that it is
essential that a re-wording of this sentence should be incorporated
into any revision to Circular 22/91 in order to overcome this
fundamental weakness in the guidance.
5.4.5 Within this same context, in order
for Circular advice to be effective, it is essential in our opinion
that cross-referencing with other Government guidance is necessary,
in order to ensure a proper integration and greater inter-relation
of advice. In particular, reference should be specifically made
to sites for Travelling Showpeople within the next revision of
PPG2: "Green Belts". Circular 22/91 advises local planning
authorities that sites essentially need to be located close to
conurbations but the inability of Showpeople to compete financially
with other urban land users is recognised and this inevitably
leads to Green Belt land having to be considered when need arises
from within and around the major conurbations. Similar cross-references
should also be sought within PPG3: "Housing" as an example
of special needs housing; PPG4: "Industrial and Commercial
Development and small firms" in recognising this group as
small businessmen and PPG7: "The Countryside: Quality and
Economic and Social Development" as it is of relevance to
the often inevitable more rural locations of sites.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The limited success to date would not
have been possible without the existence of Circular 22/91. It
would be helpful however, if local planning authorities could
be encouraged more strongly to assist in either identifying suitable
land which is likely to be affordable, or sympathetically considering
credible proposals for properly laid out and landscaped permanent
quarters when submitted by bona fide Showmen with genuine
accommodation difficulties.
6.2 It is unfortunately my firmly and sincerely
held view that since the "heady days" immediately after
its introduction, the impact and effectiveness of the important
advice of Circular 22/91 has been allowed to fade, with local
authority Planning Committees and Inspectors alike "preferring"
local policy provisions and constraints to Government advice.
6.3 There is, I believe therefore, an urgent
need to formally review its effectiveness and to update and refine
its advice to include some guidance on the approach to demonstrating
the "very special circumstances" of Showpeople's cases.
Such a review should take account of the experience of its operation
with the needs of Showpeople being confirmed as the responsibility
of local planning authorities in both plan making and the determination
of individual proposals. Far too many of them seem content to
rely on localised policy provisions or, as many applications relate
to Green Belt sites of necessity, to simply single out the phrase
in the Circular that nothing within it overrides existing advice
on development control in the Green Belt.
6.4 Cross reference to Showpeople's needs
should be made in other Planning Policy guidance such as the current
revision of PPG3 and in any future revision of PPG's 2, 4 and
7 the same approach is worthy of investigation.
6.5 I do not believe the Circular carries
enough weight with local planning authorities, as they generally
do not appear to take account of its "forward planning"
advice in paragraph 6 when preparing Local Plans. Few of them
contain a relevant policy or evidence of a "realistic assessment"
of accommodation needs having been undertaken. More particularly
in development control terms when it comes to dealing with planning
applications our experience is that all too many do not have such
information available to aid their decisions and hence resort
to sifting through the Circular and picking out only the negative
aspects (usually the end of paragraph 8) in order to find reasons
to resist such applications, ignoring on the way, all of the Circular's
positive advice.
6.6 Obviously the fundamental message behind
paragraph 8 cannot be changed in relation to Green Belts but it
could be very usefully amended in our view to place a greater
emphasis on a common duty to resolve the problem and on the special
circumstances which invariably surround Showmen's applications.
It should be stressed however, within that paragraph, that the
nature of the very special circumstances which need to apply deserve
a greater significance and role in the decision making process.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that Circular 22/91
is urgently reviewed to improve upon the areas where local planning
authorities have most difficulty in dealing positively and sensitively
with proposals to resolve Showmen's bona fide accommodation
problems.
7.2 Local planning authorities should have
an obligatory duty rather than merely the present encouragement
resulting in "lip-service" being paid, to seriously
attempt to make realistic provision for the needs of Travelling
Showpeople within their Development Plans.
7.3 Green Belt sites displaying exceptional
suitability to accommodate Showmen's quarters with minimal harm
to the countryside should be acknowledged as contributing importantly
towards the very special circumstances required in justifying
inappropriate development within the Green Belt, perhaps within
a reworded Paragraph 8. Such advice should make it clear that
in circumstances where need is proven, there is an evident lack
of alternative sites and where the quality of a proposed site
meets the revised criteria suggested above, together these factors
can constitute the very special circumstance necessary to justify
"allowing development for purposes not normally appropriate
in the Green Belt" (Paragraph 8, Circular 22/91) or the countryside.
7.4 A review of Circular 22/91 to take account
of the above recommendations is necessary but need not fundamentally
alter the existing format of the advice and would certainly not
conflict with nor create an unfortunate precedent which would
endanger the important and acknowledged principles relating to
countryside and Green Belt protection. It would however, in my
view, radically assist in overcoming the present intransigence
which threatens the very future of this proud and distinguished
group of society, that time and the planning system has inadvertently
failed to accommodate.
7.5 I trust that the above assists the Environment
Sub-Committee in their consideration of this most important issue.
February 2000
|