3 Park home licensing
32. Park home sites are required to be licensed by
local authorities under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development
Act 1960. Although the legislation was originally designed to
cover holiday and mobile caravan parks, it now provides the means
for local authorities to ensure that park home sites are safe,
and fit for habitation. Under the 1960 Act local authorities can
attach conditions to a licence, which can cover:
- the permitted number of caravans
(that is park homes) on the site;
- their spacing, density, size and siting; and
- the amenity of the land, health and safety issues
and facilities on the site.[45]
33. Under the arrangements the authority must issue
a licence (within a specified time) if it is satisfied the site
has planning permission for use as a caravan site and the applicant
has not within the previous three years had a site licence revoked.
Local authorities can refuse to grant licences only under exceptional
circumstances. This makes it difficult for authorities to require
that site standards are met before issuing a licence. Furthermore,
licences must generally be granted for an indefinite period. The
maximum penalty the magistrates' court can impose for a breach
of site license is £2,500. It is also an offence for a site
owner to
cause or permit any part of any land to be used as a caravan site
without a licence from the licensing authority. The fine for this
offence is £2,500. Under the 1960 Act a local authority has
power to apply to the magistrates' court to revoke a site licence.
However, this is only available on a third or subsequent conviction
for breach of a licence condition.[46]
The exercise of these powers is discretionary, and the local authority
is not obliged to take action for licence offences.
34. A number of organisations and individuals have
told us that the existing licensing regime is too weak to deter
unscrupulous site owners from failing to manage or maintain sites
properly nor does it provide local authorities with an adequate
means of monitoring the application of the legislation or enforcing
it.[47] Consumer Focus
submitted evidence that the 1960 Act was considered by most local
authorities to be "out of date" and that the current
regime "fails to make provision for effective enforcement".[48]
All the evidence we have received from local authorities called
for a strengthening of powers to regulate conditions on sites.[49]
We see no reason to dissent from this view. The question then
is what changes should be made.
Fines for site owners
35. Hart District Council was typical of many authorities[50]
in noting that the level of fines for breaching licence conditions
was inadequate. They argued that some authorities' legal sections
were reluctant to prosecute site owners because it was 'not in
the public interest' to prosecute because of the low level of
fines and the amount of resources required to do this successfully.[51]
The British Holiday and Home Parks Association (BH&HPA) agreed
and told us that currently:
the maximum fine for a breach of site licence [...]
is not sufficient. If you are talking about fraud, misrepresentation,
or that sort of thing, it should be much higher. It should be
a sufficient deterrent not to do it.[52]
A number of other local authorities noted that in
many cases the cost to a site owner of incurring a fine could
be less than the cost of undertaking works to comply with a breach
of a licence condition and fines need to be increased to "create
a sufficient incentive to effect a repair".[53]
36. The owner of the Stour Park Site in Bournemouth
told the Committee that the best way to prevent bad site management
was to increase significantly the scale of fines and suggested
an upper limit of £250,000.[54]
When we put this figure to other site owners (Malcolm Kent and
Katy Buswell) and representatives from the National Caravan Council
and the BH&HPA, they all agreed that an increase in that order
would be an acceptable deterrent, providing that such fines were
proportionate to the licence breaches.[55]
37. The Government's consultation document, A
Better Deal for Mobile Home Owners, provides a proposal to
"increase the maximum fine a court can impose on conviction
for breach of a site licence".[56]
The accompanying impact assessment describes two options, either
to cap fines at £50,000 or provide that fines could be unlimited:
upon conviction for that breach increasing the penalty
to either an unlimited fine (to enable the Court to take into
account the impact of the offence on residents), or to cap it
at £50,000, which would enable the Court to set a fine which
was an effective deterrent in the majority of cases.[57]
38. From evidence from local authorities, site owners
and home owners it is clear to us that existing financial sanctions
for breaches of licensing conditions do not deter site owners
from breaching licence conditions. Furthermore, because it is
difficult for licences to be revoked, unscrupulous site owners
are willing to risk the small financial sanctions that exist rather
than properly maintain their sites. We
welcome the Government's proposal to increase the fines for breaching
site licence conditions. To ensure that fines are an effective
deterrent and can be proportionate in even the most extreme cases,
we recommend that there be no upper limit on the fines that can
be imposed. To ensure that these increases are an effective deterrent
and are applied consistently the Government must ensure that the
Sentencing Council's guidance for Magistrates is updated to reflect
these changes and guide magistrates to impose fines in proportion
to the scale of the offence that has been committed.
Licence Fee
39. Increased resources for local authorities was
a common theme in submissions from authorities, park home owners
and the park home industry. The National Caravan Council called
for strengthening the powers of local authorities to take action
under the licensing regime against unscrupulous owners, and said
that extra resources and funding had to be made available to local
authorities to help them do this. They said that local authorities
must be given the resources and training to carry out their responsibilities
consistently.[58] Maria
Battle told us that the findings from the Consumer Focus survey
of local authorities site licensing showed that:
You have to revisit the licence over a number of
years. It needs to be more cost effective with more financial
incentives for local authorities to be more involved in the enforcement
regime. I am not asking for more regulation but for financial
incentive to enforce what is there at the moment.[59]
40. Local authorities are currently unable to charge
either for issuing a site licence to a site owner or for inspection
or enforcement of the licensing regime. These costs, particularly
enforcement, can be significant. Cheshire West and Chester Council
explained that:
In summary the costs to the local authority have
been high in officer time and interventions and benefits resulting
from this significant effort operating within the existing regime,
very limited, when viewed from both the perspective of the local
authority and park home residents.[60]
They called for a license fee that covered the cost
of carrying out the necessary preventive checks for new sites
and site inspection for existing sites.[61]
41. It is clear
that local authorities do not have the resources to monitor park
homes effectively. The existing regime should be changed to provide
local authorities with a funding source to resource adequately
their park home licensing activities. This
funding would have to come from either council tax income or a
charge for the licence. We consider these options below.
42. The Minister, Mr Shapps, told us that charges
for licences would provide a 'link' between licensing authorities
and sites which would result in more action being taken against
the worst site owners. The current Government's consultation document
sets out proposals to permit local authorities to charge a fee
for issuing a licence, an annual fee for licences, and a fee for
transfers of a licence and variations to a licence. The Impact
Assessment accompanying the consultation document estimates the
upfront cost of a new licence to be about £1,500, but it
would leave it to local authorities to set a price structure.[62]
43. A charge for issuing a license comes with a risk
of increased pitch fees for park home owners. Though increases
to pitch fees are regulated (see paragraph 7571) site owners are
able to pass on the increases incurred from some running costs.
Brian Doick, President of the National Association of Park Home
Residents, explained that "if there is a payment system for
licensing, it will not be the park owner but the residents who
pay it". Maria Battle explained that:
Many [park home owners] are cash poor, and that is
their capital. They have downsized and invested in this ideal
home. I hear all the time that they wanted peace and a lovely
site and to live in a community. They are very frightened of the
pitch fees going up.[63]
44. Park home sites tend to be concentrated in seaside
and rural locations.[64]
Authorities with a large number of park home sites may find that
a significant financial burden is placed on them unless the funding
to resource their licensing activities was linked to the number
of sites. The best way to do this would be to charge on a site
by site basis. We
conclude that the Government should allow local authorities to
charge for their costs of issuing licences for park home sites.
The legislation to enable them to charge should make a clear link
between fees received and resourcing activity to license and monitor
park home sites, to encourage more monitoring action across all
authorities and encourage consistent performance. The legislation
should also ensure that each licence is reviewed annually, so
that the existing licence is updated, and it should introduce
a fee for this so that authorities are resourced to carry out
this function. We consider that site owners should be able to
pass licence fees on to home owners but that this could only be
done fairly if:
- licence fees are linked to the
number of pitches on a site. If they are not, residents on smaller
sites would risk facing disproportionate pitch fee increases.
- licence fees
are not used to resource local authorities' enforcement action
but only to cover the cost of administration, review and monitoring.
Authorities should be able to resource their enforcement operations
through a cost recovery model instead. (We
consider this issue in the next section.)
Enforcement action and recovery
of costs
45. A number of local authorities have called for
powers to intervene and undertake works to improve sites when
licence conditions are not met and to recover their costs from
site owners.[65] The
1960 Act does not allow authorities to recover costs from any
work or enforcement action undertaken if licence conditions are
not met. The Government recognised that in practice, this "severely
limits a local authority's ability to provide effective scrutiny
of the sector".[66]
Mid Suffolk District Council explained when they might want to
exercise such a power:
there is a need to make provision for emergency improvement
powers, to be used where there is, for example, an imminent risk
to residents on site associated with failure to comply with a
site licence condition, with similar provision to prosecute, carry
out works in default, recharge and to recover costs through the
local land charges register.[67]
46. We received a range of evidence on how a charging
regime could operate. A number of local authorities favoured arrangements
similar to those that covered houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).[68]
This provides local authorities with a power to undertake work
and recover the costs from the HMO owner. Bromsgrove District
Council proposed that authorities should be able to issue improvement
notices, similar to those under the HMO scheme. These could be
issued to site owners to require that improvement works were carried
out. If work was not undertaken, the authority could undertake
the work and recover their costs from the site owner.
47. Ros Pritchard, from the BH&HPA, suggested
a different model based on the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE)
cost recovery practices.[69]
The HSE aims to recover any intervention costs where duty holders
are found to be in breach of health and safety law. Such a model
could be used to charge site owners for site visits and investigative
work along with improvement works. Charging operators of the worst
sites, that is those requiring enforcement and remedial action,
for the work undertaken by a local authority to ensure compliance
with the site owners' obligations for their sites, ensures that
the authority's costs in operating a licensing system for all
park homes, and thus the costs falling on those well-run sites
in compliance, would be unaffected.
48. The Government's consultation document proposes
that local authorities have the power to serve notices on site
owners requiring that they undertake works to comply with licensing
conditions and that, if works are not undertaken, to do the work
themselves and recover the cost from site owners. The document
also proposes that site operators will be unable to pass any of
these costs (other than licence fees) on to home owners.[70]
49. We welcome the Government's proposals to provide
local authorities with powers to undertake works and recover costs.
The cost recovery element is particularly important in keeping
licence fees at a minimum. As we have indicated, local authorities
must be able to disaggregate the cost of licensing and enforcement.
This will ensure that "good" site owners do not have
to pay to provide resources that authorities incur to deal with
licence breaches on other sites. Any new arrangements must also
provide that the cost passed on to home owners is kept to a minimum.
We recommend that the Government
give local authorities a power to undertake works to ensure sites
are safe and conform to licence conditions. This should reflect
the existing Houses in Multiple Occupation licensing regime by
providing authorities with a power to issue a notice to a site
owner to require that works are undertaken and that, if such works
are not undertaken, provide an authority with a power to undertake
the works themselves. It should also ensure that authorities are
able to recover costs from site owners for any work that is undertaken,
including visits (both investigatory and confirmatory), investigative
work and improvement works, when a site owner is found to be in
breach of licence conditions. We further recommend that the legislation
ensure that any of these charges or costs cannot be passed on
to park home owners by site owners through pitch fees or by any
other charge.
45 Ev 140, para 8 Back
46
Department for Communities and Local Government, Park Home
Site licensing-Improving the Management of Park Home Sites,
2009, para 48 Back
47
For example, Ev 108 [National Caravan Council ], Ev 101 [Independent
Park Home Advisory Service], Ev 114 [British Holiday and Home
Parks Association], Ev 85 [Consumer Focus] Back
48
Ev 93 Back
49
For example, Ev w184 [South Gloucestershire Council], Ev 125
[Cornwall County Council], Ev w183 [Ashford Borough Council],
Ev w186 [Epping Forest District Council] Back
50
Including Ev w163 [Eastleigh Borough Council] and Ev w183 [Ashford
Borough Council] Back
51
Ev w170 [Hart District Council] Back
52
Q 210 Back
53
Ev 124 [Cheshire West and Chester Council} Back
54
Q 62 [Richard Grigg] Back
55
Q 210 Back
56
Department for Communities and Local Government, A Better
Deal for Mobile Home Owners, April 2012, para 4.3 Back
57
Department for Communities and Local Government, A Better
Deal for Mobile Home Owners, and Department for Communities
and Local Government, Changes to the local authority site licensing
regime Impact assessment, April 2012, para 13 Back
58
Ev 106 Back
59
Q 159 Back
60
Ev 121 Back
61
As above Back
62
Department for Communities and Local Government, A Better
Deal for Mobile Home Owners: changes to the local authority site
licensing regime: impact assessment, April 2012, para 23 Back
63
Q 166 Back
64
Ev 140 Back
65
For example, Ev 127 [Cornwall Council], Ev w211 [Torbay Council],
Ev w164 [Eastleigh Borough Council] Back
66
Ev 140, para 10 Back
67
Ev w167 Back
68
For example, Ev w158 [London Borough of Bromley], Ev w180 [Rochford
District Council], Ev w182 [Ashford Borough Council] Back
69
Q 219 Back
70
Department for Communities and Local Government, A Better
Deal for Mobile Home Owners, April 2012, para 2.42 Back
|