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

5. PROPOSAL 4 - ISSUE OF A SITE LICENCE

5.1 Proposal 4 relates to the issue of a site licence. The 1960 Act currently states that the licensing authority has 2 months from the date they receive any information within which to issue the licence. It also provides that if after the information is received and the applicant does not have the relevant planning permission, the local authority has a further period of six weeks to make a decision from the date that planning permission is granted. If the licensing authority fails to issue the licence within these statutory time limits, the applicant does not commit an office by using the land as a caravan site.

5.2. It is proposed to amend this provision requiring the local authority to notify the applicant of the approval or decline of the licence as soon as practicable after a decision has been made, unless the parties agree in writing to extend the period the local authority has to make their decision.

Question 12:

What do you view as the key implications of the changes proposed to the current time limits awarded to a local authority to issue a site licence?

5.3 Many of those who commented on these proposals raised concerns. Some respondents (generally commenting from an industry perspective) stated their basic opposition to the proposed changes, often going on to suggest that the current time limits should remain in place. It was suggested that, for straightforward applications,in which no concerns are raised, it is reasonable to expect a time limit to be imposed, and that it seems reasonable to assume that a licensing decision can be made within the same 8 week timeframe as a planning decision. However, it was reported that current experience suggests that some local authorities may already take an inordinate amount of time to attend to issues which could be virtually rubber stamped.

5.4 From a business planning perspective, one respondent noted that time is of the essence in the transfer and issue of a site licence. For example, the costs associated with park development are high and on a highly geared development the cost of borrowing will be significant. Given these costs, this respondent felt it was only reasonable to require local authorities to consider applications in a timely way. Equally, where a licence already exists but ownership of a site is being transferred to a new owner, timescales can also be critical. This respondent suggested that there should be no penalty imposed on businesses which are 'unlicensed' in such periods through no fault of their own.

5.5 Other respondents, including some local authorities, were concerned that the current proposals lack clarity and detail and in particular that 'practicable'^[13] will require definition. Among other concerns raised were:

• The potential grounds for refusal are not explicit;
• There is no consideration as to the quality or acceptability of information provided by the applicant on request from the local authority;
• The option to extend the decision period is subject to agreement by the applicant. Given that the applicant will gain immunity from regulation if the local authority do not issue a licence within the specified time frame, there is no incentive to come to an agreement to extend the decision period.

5.6 Some respondents also had concerns that the immunity from prosecution for operating an unlicensed caravan site remains. This was seen as a particular problem when a licence holder provides requested information but it is not acceptable to the local authority. Equally, the site may simply not comply with the licensing conditions. Given that no site licence exists, no site licence conditions can be applied, no enforcement powers are available to the local authority and the site licence holder can operate with impunity. This means that a local authority can only take enforcement action if it first issues a licence, but the holding of a recently issued site licence could provide a line of legal defence argument if the local authority then took enforcement action.

5.7 Although some respondents were critical of the proposals, others did see advantages in the changes. These included:

• Ensuring that an applicant has a clear incentive to provide any requested information in a timely manner, since it would no longer be in the interests of an 'unscrupulous' applicant to stall the provision of information as it would simply delay the consideration of their licence application; and
• Relieving the pressure on sites if works have to be done to meet standards.

Question 13:

What do you view as the bases on which a local authority can refuse to issue a licence?

5.8 Turning at Question 13 to the basis on which a local authority should be able to refuse a licence, some respondents stated that once the standard set of application and Fit and Proper criteria had been met and planning permission obtained, it should be possible to issue a licence in all cases. Any issues should be resolved through negotiation between the park owner and the local authority and refusal of a licence should be a last resort.

5.9 Other respondents suggested specific circumstances under which a licence could reasonably be refused. These circumstances generally reflected respondents' earlier suggestions as to other reasons why a local authority should be able to refuse a licence (see analysis of comments made at Question 9, of this report). Again, the focus was very much on appropriate planning consents being obtained and complied with, requested information being supplied, the Fit and Proper Person criteria having been satisfied by all relevant persons and infrastructure complying with the relevant standards. Some respondents again suggested that non-compliance with, or breaches of previously held or existing licences, should also be taken into account.

Summary of Views on the Issue of a Site Licence

• Many of those who commented had concerns about the proposed changes to the current time limits awarded to a local authority to issue a site licence. Some respondents (generally commenting from an industry perspective) stated their basic opposition to the proposed changes, often going on to suggest that the current time limits should remain in place. It was suggested that, for straightforward applications it is reasonable to expect a time limit to be imposed.
• Other respondents, including some local authorities, were concerned that the current proposals lack clarity and detail and, for example, there is no consideration given to the quality or acceptability of information provided by the applicant on request from the local authority. Although some respondents were critical of the proposals, others did see advantages in the changes, including ensuring that an applicant has a clear incentive to provide any requested information in a timely manner.
• Some respondents stated that once the standard set of application and Fit and Proper criteria had been met and planning permission obtained, it should be possible to issue a licence in all cases. Others suggested specific circumstances under which a licence could reasonably be refused - for example if appropriate planning permissions were not in place on the applicant for the licence had not passed the Fit and Proper Person Test.