The long awaited new Standards were made available during the first week in April 2008.

Lets first consider what the Standards actually represent. Readers will be aware, (and here I have to default to the language of the law) that every ‘caravan’ site must be licensed by the LA in whose administrative area the site is situated.

It is generally a criminal offence to operate most forms of caravan site without a Site Licence but note, holiday caravan sites have their own Model Standards which remain unaffected by the new 2008 Standards. In practice when creating a site licenc, many LA’s have simply appended the Standards to the licence and as such, they became the conditions of that licence. The Standards represent the minimum standard and the LA is at liberty, within certain bounds defined by the legislation and courts, to create conditions more stringent should that be considered necessary. In this article, I will endeavour to summarise the new Standards within the limited space available by focusing on whats new and if necessary by drawing comparisons with the previous 1989 Standards relating to permanent residential sites.

At a cursory glance, the new Standards document appears a formidable 29 pages. In fact, the Standards actually consist of 12 pages devoted to the Standards alone and the remaining 17 pages are made up of, ’Explanatory Notes’. Frequently, park owners have used the conditions of their site licence as a weapon to claim breaches by the occupier in an attempt to prematurely terminate their agreement and/or deter a sale of a home. Indeed from experience, poorly drafted conditions by a LA with little thought of the practical consequences for the homeowner, are not unknown, leaving an unscrupulous park owner effectively able to hide behind the Local Authority.

Parts of the introduction section to the Standards pose the greatest conceptual difficulty. Paragraph 3 tells us that the Standards ‘should’ apply directly to, …’new sites and sites that have been substantially redeveloped’. That’s a relatively small number of sites in practice. In relation to existing sites and the replacement or amendment of existing licenses, the LA ‘should’, …. ‘consider whether it is appropriate for these standards to apply’. It is not mandatory that they are applied. This will leave LA’s who have always taken their site licensing role seriously wondering what or what not to do. Those who are lax with their responsibilities , will probably default to the easiest route and do nothing and if challenged, fall back on it being ‘inappropriate’ to apply these Standards. In support of this likely approach, Paragraph 5 of the introduction confirms the old residential Standards are replaced by the 2008 Standards yet where the existing licence is ‘adequate in serving its purpose…’, (which could be based upon the old Standards, I observe, will de facto continue to apply.

Paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Notes tells us that the Standards must be applied, …’ with regard to the particular characteristics of the site’. In practice, rarely will the conditions of the licence vary from one or indeed LA to another. I suspect that most LA’s would have much preferred a set of Standards that apply per se from a given date rather vthan this woolly approach to introduction.

Paragraph 3 of the introduction tells us that if the LA considers amending an existing licence by implication, introducing the New Standards, it ’….may wish to consult with residents or a Residents Association where appropriate’. So, LA, its potentially ’pick and mix’ time; ’you do apply, you don’t; you might consult or you might not’.

In imposing or amending conditions, a LA ’….should be able to justify the reasons having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the site’. I emphasise ’should’ which suggests a get-out for the LA incapable or unwilling to give reasons. I can hear it now being said by an LA to occupier or association, ’We are sorry but we are no obligation to provide you with the reasons why we have/have not…(when adding or deleting a particular condition that may disadvantage the occupier(s) )’.

In my view, there’s too much wriggle room with the residents last in the queue in terms of input, assuming of course, a busy LA officer ’may’ even botherto consult them, ’…where appropriate…’. In defence of the Government, this is a difficult area but nevertheless, the power to influence is, in effect, predominantly remaining with the park owner who is not always considering the welfare of the occupier. In Michael Wenman Ltd v MacNeice & Elkin , during the first hearing, Judge Wroath recorded his disbelief of the park owner’s denial that the condition in the site licence the Defendants were alleged to have breached was added at his (the park owners) request.

Standard 2 deals with probably the most difficult issue for the occupier and/or the owner who needs a convincing reason for deterring a sale, that of distance requirements for individual homes. Where the old Standard stated, ‘…every caravan should be not less than 6 metres from any other caravan….’, the Government has now added, ‘….where practicable…’. I guess that where a site has no available space to relocate homes temporarily to achieve the distance requirements, (as is normally the case) it would be ‘impractical’ to move a home. In this case, it is now acceptable to clad homes not complying, with fire retardant materials if deemed appropriate.

The Government is emphasising that LA’s considering enforcement action in relation to homes breaching the distance requirements should consider the balance between the benefits of the works against the impact upon the home owner. The Explanatory Notes in this respect simply suggest the LA, ‘…. should allow a reasonable period of time…’ for any new licence condition to be applied. It has been common practice for many LA’s to add a condition to the licence to the effect that, ‘…. the distance requirements must be achieved when X or Y unit is replacd…’. I would still expect to see a reasonable LA adding this condition when appropriate but LA’s must avoid the condition which is added, ‘….(when the unit) is replaced or sold’. If the object of this condition becomes an issue when the home is in the process of being sold, it can be deemed a condition imposed on the sale of the mobile home (by the park owner) contrary to Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983. This will mhave the potential to seriously compromise a park owner who would, in effect, be caught between the provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 on one side and the offending site licence conditions on the other. It may also result in the LA being embarrassed when the condition is likely overruled by a court as unenforceable in those circumstances.

In relation to porches, while the dimensions permitted by the new Standards have not changed, i.e. 1m x 2m, Standard 2 provides such porches must only have one door, either at the entrance to the home itself or the porch. This may pose practical problems for the occupier viz., draught versus security of property kept in the porch.

Standard 2 (f) makes it clear that where allowed, ‘fences and hedges’ between homes should be no more that one metre high but it is not made clear whether fences should be non-combustible. In view of the fact that elsewhere in Standard 2 where non-combustible is expressly stated as a requirement, i.e. in relation to any ’structure’, ‘garage or car port’ in the separation distance, 2(f) fails to do so. On this basis by default, it must be assumed combustible timber fences are acceptable.

Standard 2(g) (not I suggest, ‘(v)’ as shown), concerns the density of sited homes on the park. Previously this has been stated as 50 homes per hectare. (20 homes per acre) of usable land (excluding roads, footpaths etc). Now, the criteria is to be determined, ’…..in accordance with relevant health and safety standards and fire risk assessments’. Clearly, with the now ever varying dimensions of park homes, no ‘set’ dimension can be used to achieve regularity such that a simple formula can be applied as previously. Additionally, as it is explained in the Explanatory Notes, homes fitted with class 1 fire rated materials may be sited closer together. How long will it be before homes emerge from the factory clad with Class 1 fire rated materials as standard to maximise every square metre of park? This si likely to put a considerable onus on the LA in terms of assessing technical merits.

The 1989 Standard concerning roads, gateways and footpaths is now split into new Standard 3 for roads, gateways and overhead cables and Standard 4, footpaths and pavements. Standards 3 & 4 make it clear that both provisions shall be maintained in ’good condition’, which was not stated previously. Clearly the interpretation of what is ’good condition’ will rest upon the discretion of the relevant LA.

In relation to concrete bases under the mobile home covered by Standard 6, the Government now states that every home ’must stand on a concrete base or hard standing’ and the base ’must’ be constructed, ’to the industry guidance, current at the time of siting, taking account of local conditions’. The industry guidance is contained in the National Park Homes Council and the British Holiday and Home Parks Association Code of Practice relating to the ’Requirements for Manufacturing, Transporting, Siting, Commissioning and preparation of Park Home Bases’.

It should be noted that the stated specification in the Explanatory Notes is a minimal standard which will be subject to a number of factors including local ground conditions. How the LA will oversee the compliance with the ’….industry guidance…’ is anybodies guess. It will certainly take the licensing officer, (normally an environmental health officer) into unfamiliar territory, i.e. that of the concrete construction world. Experience tells me that in some instances, site owners cannot be relied upon to construct concrete bases to any particular quality standard much less adhere to the ‘industry guidance’. I have heard of those who simply ‘slosh’ over wet concrete directly onto the unprepared ground. The homes then sited may well be subject to the Gold Shield Warranty.

Those home owners with ‘old’ style written statements have been puzzled as to why, when the express term of their agreement relating to the owner’s responsibility for maintaining the park was clearly stated to be, keeping same, ’….in a good state of repair and condition….’, the new implied terms reduced that responsibility to maintaining a ’…clean and tidy condition…’. Standard 7, ’Maintenance of Common Areas, including Grass, Vegetation and Trees’, continues in the same inconsistent manner. Standard 7 (i) tells us that ‘Every part of the site…. shall be kept in a clean and tidy condition’ however, 7 (ii) tells us, ‘every road, communal footpath and pavement….shall be maintained in a good condition, good repair…’. The Explanatory Notes, Paragraph 50 adds to the inconsistances by then clarifying that the ‘ common parts’ must be maintained in a ‘clean and tidy condition’. For my part, I consider there to be a big difference between something ‘clean and tidy’ compared with ‘good condition, good repair’. While I was previously assured by Government that the two differing expressions fron the old express terms and the new implied ‘mean the same’, it is clear to me a Judge may not see it the same way based on an understanding of essential English.

Issues concerning the supply of water, electricity, sewage/drain services and LPG as one would expect, are governed by well established standards. All works on these services must be carried out by persons who are either ‘competent’ or ‘qualified. It is unfortunate that the stated need for a competent or qualified person to work on LPG installations is relegated to the ‘Explanatory Notes’ rather than be expressly stated in Standard 8 as is the case for other services.

Standard 13 concerns the vexed issue of communal car parking areas. As those intimately familiar with the behaviour of particular park ownersd who see car parking areas as areas upon which to site additional new homes, the Standard simply provides, ‘Suitably surfaced parking spaces shall be provided to meet the requirements of residents and their visitors’. This differs little from the previous Standards. What is deemed suitable to meet the requirements will be determined by the LA.

Recreational space is covered in Standard 14 which simply states that ’…. where practical to do so… about one tenth of the total area shall be allocated….unless… there are adequate recreational facilities within a close proximity to the site….’. The previous Standard referred to, ’….where children live on the site…..’ the one tenth rule applied. I doubt in practice whether it will ever be ’practical’.

A considerable amount of information is now required to be displayed on a notice board, ‘ in a prominent position at the entrance to the site’. Certain information has always been required to be displayed but many site simply do not and in my experience, few LA’s enforce this requirement so I guess its fingers crossed for the future.

Flooding is, not surprisingly, now a feature of the Standards. Having determined the park is at risk of flooding, a park owner will be obliged to take advice from the Environmental Agency including emergency procedures and what measures it will be appropriate to take. Whether that information will then be passed on to occupiers via the notice board as recommended, remains to be seen.

An interesting addition is a park owner making available the latest version of the fire risk assessment to residents and the LA if demanded. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires the ‘responsible person’ (the park owner in this context) to ‘….make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this Order’. For any assessment to remain valid, the ’responsible person’ must review any existing assessment, and consider whether, ’….there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates including when the premises, special, technical, and organisational measures, or organisation of the work undergo significant changes, extensions, or conversions…’ which may warrant amending the assessment.

In terms of enforcement, usefully, the Explanatory Notes fill in the ‘blanks’ for the various issues and should be consulted before any action is contemplated.

In conclusion, I have to say that over the period of time I have been involved with this industry, I am aware of only a handful of instances where a LA has actually taken enforcement action against a park owner. Indeed, I know not one who has lost his/her licence to operate the caravan site. As is stated in, ‘The Licensing of Permanent Residential Mobile Home Sites’ Chapter 6 Para. 6.01,’research shows that local authorities vary greatly in their approaches to the licensing of permanent residential caravan sites. In particular, some review their site licence conditions regularly while some do not. Most in both groups, fail fully to enforce the conditions which they do set. I observe that if, as Ian Wright MP recently stated, the LA’s are to be given more statutory responsibility to deal with complex caravan site issues, it will need robust legislation to alter attitudes.