CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT ACT 1960 (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 19 June 1973)

§ Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by compelling local authorities to adhere to the model standards for residential caravan sites as recommended in 1960 in relation to refuse collection, piped water, sanitary provision and roads. The Bill, which deals with mobile homes and caravan sites, is related to residential sites and to no others. At the moment, roughly 250,000 people live in 91.500 units of accommodation known as mobile homes. It appears from the figures that the tendency to adopt this type of abode is on the increase. The Bill would make mandatory some of the model rules adopted in 1960 and a revision of those rules in the light of existing circumstances. The particular rules which should be made mandatory on local authorities and site owners relate to piped water, sanitary provision, roads and electricity.

It goes without saying that many sites in this country are excellent, the provision is excellent and the mobile home is of a very high quality. It is also true that some local authorities discharge their duties very well. But there is no compulsion on local authorities to adhere to the model rules, and I regret to say that some do not make much effort to keep their sites up to date.

I think that the whole House would agree that community toilet facilities in 1973 are totally outmoded and should not be tolerated by anyone. It is also true that the electricity demands of mobile homes have greatly increased since the 1960 rules were brought into operation. The demand for electricity for refrigerators, heating and television sets has greatly increased, yet it is not mandatory for this to be supplied. Indeed, in many areas where owners and local authorities are prepared to make the electricity supply available, they find that it is far too costly.

In particular, the neglect of many such sites is due to the fact that they are made available on very short-term leases. Leases as short as for five years or 10 376 years are not uncommon. Therefore, it stands to reason that it is non-economic for owners to provide the facilities which should be provided in order to make the standard of living reasonable if the site is to fall into disuse within a short period. We should look carefully at the number of years allowed for a caravan site to be leased.

Again, there is great concern among site dwellers and some local authorities about the difficulty of collecting refuse. Some of this is due to the attitude of local authorities but more often to the fact that the roads on many sites are so narrow that refuse collection vehicles cannot get around them in a reasonable way. There is also increasing evidence that the larger mobile homes and the amenities now going with them—such as sheds—are taking up far more space, with increased fire risks. The result is that fire authorities, which have engines longer and wider than in the past, are pointing out that there is inability to reach or difficulty in reaching areas where there is a fire or a fire risk.

The whole situation concerning these homes needs careful consideration and legislation to compel local authorities and owners to bring them up to standard. We have seen over the years an increasing number of elderly people, when approaching retirement age, purchasing mobile homes because that is the way they want to spend their remaining years. Some of them, by ignorance or perhaps because they were not fully informed that the site had only a short-term lease—such as has occurred in my constituency and many others—find that they are at great financial risk, for these mobile homes are not inexpensive. Some elderly people may have spent a lifetime's savings only to find that the site chosen is to be acquired or its lease is shortly to run out. They thereby lose the value of their home because it is greatly diminished by there being no site available. They are therefore often pushed into accommodation they do not want.

Worse than that is the evidence that some local authorities are not taking the trouble to rehouse many of these people unless they have a certain compassionate or priority claim. There is no doubt that since 1960 great changes have taken place in the mode of mobile home dwelling, and as the homes are getting 377 bigger the sites, many of which were designed as long ago as 20, 30 and more years for smaller units, give rise to overcrowding and other problems.

It is also important to bear in mind that there are standard homes. I believe that British Standard 3632 is one of the best and is capable of being connected to all mains services. I believe that it is vital that local authorities should be compelled to provide the local services such as electricity, water and the rest to which these caravans can be fitted. Yet there is no way in which this can be done through present legislation.

Moreover, and as important, many mobile homes or caravans of very old design on residential sites are being used by growing families, although they are not suitable and were never designed for the purpose. It is difficult, however, for local authorities to prevent it.

I am asking the Government to look favourably on improving the conditions and, indeed, on putting a bomb under some of the local authorities which have been so lax in discharging their duties. I ask the Government not only to compel the local authorities to apply the model rules but to revise them in the light of developments in the 1970s.