Licensing of Caravan Sites in Scotland - An Analysis of Consultation Responses

2. PROPOSAL 1 - STATUTORY MINIMUM APPLICATION CRITERIA

2.1 The first proposal suggested the introduction of statutory minimum application criteria. This would require information to be submitted to a local authority at the point of requesting a licence and includes, for example, the applicant's name, address and date of birth, their correspondence address and the name and address of all joint owners^[10]. Local authorities would also retain the discretion to request further details they deemed appropriate to any particular application.

Question 1:

What key issues do you believe the introduction of statutory minimum application criteria would address?

2.2 Overall, most respondents who made a comment identified positive benefits that could result from the introduction of statutory minimum application criteria and the proposal was generally not seen as contentious. There were, however, a small number of respondents (3 individuals and 1 site owner respondent) who considered that the introduction of statutory minimum application criteria would not tackle any issues that cannot already be addressed under the current licensing regime.

2.3 A number of group respondents, and local authority respondents in particular, noted that although the current legislative framework assumes relatively simple relationships between land ownership, planning consent and the operation of a site, in reality these relationships are often complex. The lack of clarity, particularly when ownership is being transferred from one owner to another, was seen as a particular problem for a licensing authority which is required to consider whether a current or prospective licence holder passes the 'Fit and Proper Person' Test.

2.4 The principal benefit expected to come from the introduction of statutory minimum application criteria was equipping the licensing authority with sufficient information to inform their 'fit and proper person' determination and other key decisions relating to site licensing. Importantly, this information would be up to date and accurate. The licensing authority simply having the necessary information to make contact with the actual site owner was also seen as being of clear benefit.

2.5 Other issues raised by group respondents, in these cases by industry bodies, included that:

• The designation of a 'manager' would need to be flexibly drafted to allow for a broad range of ownership and management arrangements; and
• The scope of licensing authorities' duties with regard to site regulation requires clarification.

2.6 The key issues which individual and shared text respondents identified as being addressed through the introduction of minimum criteria were similar to those identified by many group respondents and include:

• The applicant's competence and trustworthiness to own and operate a site;
• The true ownership of the site and of the management officers associated with the site and by association allowing the 'fit and proper person' test to be carried out for the owner or all joint-owners of a site; and
• A range of other issues raised by a few respondents, including tackling unsatisfactory management standards and preventing the blocking of sales of mobile homes.

Question 2:

Do you perceive any difficulties in introducing statutory minimum application criteria and requiring that the local authority be informed of the statutory information changing?

2.7 The clear majority of respondents that answered Question 2 (78 out of 97) did not perceive any difficulties in introducing statutory minimum application criteria and requiring that the local authority be informed of the statutory information changing. The 19 respondents that did perceive there could be difficulties included 13 group respondents, 6 of which were local authorities. Analysis of further comments made suggests that all but one of these respondents was not objecting to the introduction of the criteria 'in principle', but they could nevertheless envisage practical challenges that could arise.

Table 2

Question 2 - Total Responses

	Yes	No	Not answered
Group	13	15	25
Individual	6	8	7
Standard Text	0	55	0
Total	19	78	32

Table 3

Question 2- Group Responses by Type of Respondent

	Yes	No	Not answered
Industry body	0	2	2
Local Authority	6	7	0
Other	2	3	4
Resident Group or Action group	3	1	2
Site Owners	2	2	17
Total	13	15	25

2.8 Among the issues raised by respondents considering the issue primarily from an industry perspective (someof the Industry Body and Site Owner respondents), were the following:

• The administrative burden associated with providing information must be taken into account;
• Information should only be collected for clearly defined purposes and must be held and used according to legislation governing information management;
• Some respondents disagreed with local authorities retaining the discretion to request further details as they deemed appropriate. Whilst recognising the need for local decision making, these Industry and Site Owner respondents did not think that the information required to make such decisions needs to vary and hence any information that is required should simply be included under the standard criteria. One site owner respondent felt it was important for practice to be consistent acrosslocal authority areasand that the same criteria should apply irrespective of where in Scotland someone is running their business;
• It was also suggested that there should be clear guidelines which take account of the administrative time associated with providing information and which recognise the potentially complex ownership and management structures to which the information may relate. It will also be important not to forget that compliance with planning and other regulatory regimes (such as that relating to fire safety) will still be required in respect of a proposed site and all efforts should be made not to duplicate existing requirements.

2.9 The principal concern raised by respondents considering the issue primarily from a resident perspective (including 2 Resident Group respondents) was that information supplied must be accurate, particularly with regard to the 'real' ownership of the site. There were also concerns that unscrupulous site owners might not advise the licensing authority of changes to the statutorily required information. Robust sanctions - such as heavy fines or the loss of the licence - were suggested.However, some respondents also noted that licensing authorities must have effective powers to require provision of information and critically must have sufficient resources and commitment to use those powers if necessary.

2.10 Four Local Authority respondents also raised the issue of enforcement. Specific suggestions were made including that applicants for a site licence should be required to make a legal declaration that the information they have provided is correct. One particular concern raised by a local authority respondent was around the identification of which companies own the land and operate the site. This issue arises because companies can be wound up, dissolved, made dormant or change names easily and in some cases without being fully transparent on Companies House records.

Question 3:

Do you agree that the minimum application criteria (as set out at paragraph 4.5) are appropriate? If 'no', please provide additional or alternative suggestions.

2.11 Moving on to consider the minimum criteria suggested within these proposals, a very clear majority of respondents who answered this question (80 out of 98) considered them to be appropriate. However, while individual and standard text respondents generally agreed, group respondents were evenly divided and Local Authority and Resident Group or Resident Action Group respondents more likely to disagree than agree.

Table 4

Question 3 - Total Responses

	Yes	No	Not answered
Group	14	15	24
Individual	11	3	7
Standard Text	55	0	0
Total	80	18	31

Table 5

Question 3 - Group Responses by Type of Respondent

	Yes	No	Not answered
Industry body	2	0	2
Local Authority	5	8	0
Other	4	1	4
Resident Group or Action group	1	4	1
Site Owners	2	2	17
Total	14	15	24

2.12 Most of the respondents who disagreed with the minimum criteria, and who then went on to make further comment, suggested additional criteria were required, with many of the more detailed suggestions coming from Local Authority respondents. Suggested additions included:

• The type of caravan site licence that is being applied for;
• The place of birth (town/city) and age of the applicant/agent (to enable police checks to be carried out). Details of criminal convictions of the applicant(s), of partners, directors and any manager;
• Details of all other sites currently or previously owned or managed by the applicant, either solely or in partnership with others which were/are licensed by other local authorities;
• If the application is by a company, the names and addresses of all directors of the company, together with those for the manager. Information should also be provided about any other companies within a group of companies if they are likely to be involved in any way with the site for which the application applies;
• Where the 'occupier' is not the owner, the relationship between the two must be explicit. For example, the lease concerned or intra-company relationship should be provided / demonstrated. Similarly, the names and addresses of all joint occupiers of the land should be provided;
• The contact details for the day to day operation of the site should include a phone number and where possible, an e-mail address;
• A clear and fully scaled site plan should be required and should include all infrastructure (water supply, surface and foul drainage, gas, electricity, phone and TV lines) existing or proposed, the boundaries of all pitches and common, amenity or recreation areas. Where sites have more than one type of caravan operation the areas for each should be clearly delineated;
• An 'approved' Fire Safety Risk assessment - the responsibility for fire safety on sites now rest with the Fire Authority and it was suggested that that the caravan licensing regime needs to be updated to take account of this and to create a formal connection between the two regimes;
• Applicants should be asked to provide Maintenance Plans and a clear statement of the site owner's responsibilities and those of the resident;
• Applicants should provide copies of proposed written statements including the park rules which will assist in identifying the applicant's responsibilities;
• Applicants should advise the level of the pitch fee chargeable to the resident and what it covered and should advise of any additional costs that would be chargeable to the resident.

2.13 Finally, thinking specifically about existing owners, one respondent suggested that there should be a focus on how the site is being managed and that the applicant's past record in running the park needs to be part of any criteria.

Summary of Views on Statutory Minimum Application Criteria

• Most respondents who made a comment identified positive benefits that could result from the introduction of statutory minimum application criteria, the principal one being that licensing authorities would be equipped with sufficient, accurate and up-to-date information to inform their 'fit and proper person' determination.
• A clear majority of respondents did not anticipate any difficulties would arise from the introduction of statutory minimum application criteria. The issues raised by those who felt the introduction of minimum criteria could present challenges included: the administrative burden that would be placed on both local authorities and site owners; and the importance of robust enforcement regulations being in place.
• Most of the respondents who disagreed with the minimum criteria as currently proposed felt additional criteria were required. Suggested additions included: details of all other sites currently or previously owned or managed by the applicant; the names and addresses of all directors of any company applying for a licence; contact details for the day to day operator of the site; and various information about the site itself (such as site plans, fire certificates etc).