15. A camping or touring caravan exemption certificate is issued by Natural England in certain circumstances. It allows a recreational organisation to camp or caravan on land without a site licence or the need to apply for planning permission. Organisations holding this type of exemption have considerable freedoms in arranging and supervising site facilities.
16. There are three types of exemption certificates for caravan clubs. Mr N’s complaint relates to an ‘approved sites’ exemption, also known as a paragraph five exemption. With this exemption, recreational organisations can select sites for its members to stay on by issuing certificates to the landowner or occupier. This means that Natural England grants an exemption certificate to the organisation, who in turn can issue a certificate to a landowner or occupier. In this case, Natural England granted an exemption certificate to the organisation, who issued a certificate to the campsite.
17. Mr N contacted the organisation to try and resolve the issue with shared access, because it has the responsibility as the paragraph five exemption holder to deal with complaints about the privately owned sites it issues a certificate to.
18. Mr N complains that Natural England is not doing enough to ‘police’ (monitor) the organisations who are granting certificates under a paragraph five exemption. Mr N says Natural England has guidance so it needs to make sure organisations are keeping to it.
19. We considered this point carefully and made enquiries to Natural England. It told us that, ‘Natural England has no statutory remit or responsibility to police exempted organisations. The power delegated to us by DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) is to issue and revoke exemption certificates.’ The Public Health Act 1936 explains these powers and we can see they do not extend to enforcement action. This means that Natural England has no power to ‘police’ organisations in the way Mr N describes.
20. We can see Mr N and his wife have had ongoing communication with the organisation and have been directed to the local authority about planning rights, who have also been involved in the discussions. We understand Mr N’s frustration because he has contacted everyone involved but is unable to come to a resolution.
21. We can only look at how Natural England has handled his complaint about the matters that fall within its own remit, although we can see that Mr N’s concerns are also to do with other parties like the local authority.
22. The Public Health Act 1936 explains Natural England’s remit:
‘If an organisation satisfies the Minister that it takes reasonable steps for securing— • that camping sites belonging to or provided by it, or used by its members, are properly managed and kept in good sanitary condition; and (b)that moveable dwellings used by its members are so used as not to give rise to any nuisance, the Minister may grant to that organisation a certificate of exemption.
A certificate so granted may be withdrawn at any time, but while in force shall for the purposes of this section have the effect of a licence.’
23. This means Natural England can withdraw a certificate and we have considered this carefully. For Natural England to consider withdrawing a certificate, the legislation says there must be evidence that the site is not properly managed and kept in good sanitary condition, or that moveable dwellings are causing a nuisance. But, it does not give specific examples where Natural England can or must withdraw a certificate. There is nothing to say that concerns about shared access to land are good enough reasons for the withdrawal of a certificate.
24. We have considered whether there is any policy or guidance that explains the criteria for withdrawing exemption certificates to better understand the circumstances for withdrawal. We looked for guidance that says what evidence Natural England needs to see, how it should consider that evidence and the process more generally, bearing in mind the areas of poor management, poor sanitation, and/or nuisance referred to in the Public Health Act.
25. There is currently no guidance available. Natural England tells us it is working with DEFRA as its parent government department to strengthen its guidance.
26. So we looked at the Natural England application process and its guidance. This is because we understand that any reasons for declining an application may also be seen as reasons for withdrawing a certificate. The guidance explains how an organisation may qualify for a camping exemption certificate, saying:
‘2.5 For an exemption certificate to be issued, the organisation will normally be expected to meet the following criteria: a) the organisation must be properly formed and have a constitution.
b) the objectives of the organisation must include the encouragement or promotion of recreational activities.
c) the organisation must apply for the certificate solely for its own benefit and that of its members.
d) the organisation must be able to effectively monitor compliance with the requirements and limitations of an Exemption Certificate: In order to show that these criteria are met the organisation should: e) have a formal code of conduct which its members must comply with.
f) ensure adequate arrangements are in place for the management and supervision of all its own sites, and any other sites used by its members; g) provide evidence of its experience of organising and running camp sites; and h) ensure a named officer of the organisation is appointed to be responsible for holding the exemption certificate and for making sure a copy is available for display and inspection at every camping event.’
27. We can see that an applicant must evidence all the above in the application form and if that evidence is provided, no further checks from Natural England are needed.
28. The above guidance also gives advice on good practice as part of certificate holders’ responsibility, saying:
‘b) organisations should be sensitive to the concerns of local residents who may be affected by frequent or large-scale camping or caravanning activity, and to avoid overuse of popular sites.
c) each organisation undertakes, via inclusion in its formal code of conduct, to thoroughly investigate complaints made about the activities of the organisation or its members.’
29. We have not seen anything in the above guide that says the organisation would not meet this criteria if it were applying for certification at this time. This means we have also not seen anything to say Natural England should have looked again at the certificate.
30. The evidence suggests Natural England acted in line with the Public Health Act and guidance. It has no powers to police an organisation but makes sure it meets the criteria before issuing an exemption. We can see it did this. The guidance we looked at says Natural England can investigate organisations, as Mr N correctly points out. But, from what we have seen we understand the key issue is that it has no grounds to investigate and take the type of action Mr N is looking for, that would lead to the withdrawing of a certificate.
31. Mr N says the organisation has not investigated his concerns at all and is no longer responding to residents’ concerns. He says Natural England should step in. We understand the organisation’s decision to not reply further does not allow Natural England to change its remit to include these matters.
32. As explained above, Natural England told us it ‘has no statutory remit or responsibility to police exempted organisations – this is the effect of legislation’.
33. Mr N says the campsite continues to hold a certificate under a paragraph five exemption, even though it has a modified access which needed planning permission. We can see from the above that this issue is not within Natural England’s remit. Natural England explains:
‘Where a Local Planning Authority is concerned about the appropriateness of camping or caravanning activity on a particular site, it has powers under planning controls to issue a Direction, if approved by the relevant Regional Government Office, known as an Article 4 Direction, withdrawing permitted development rights from that land. The effect of this would be that planning permission would be required to undertake any camping or caravanning activity on a site. An exemption certificate issued under the 1936 or 1960 Acts would not override this.’
34. We understand that the issue of modified access and safety concerns would need to be addressed by the local authority. Although Natural England does not have the legal powers to investigate as a regulator, we can see it was clear about its limitations in its response letters and it did contact the organisation as a result of Mr N’s concerns, asking for information about its complaints procedure in case there was any support it could give. We understand this is the most Natural England is able to do in its role. This tells us it has acted in line with our ‘Principles of Good Complaint Handling’ that say public bodies should, ‘Respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case. This means considering how the public body may need to adjust its normal approach to handling a complaint in the circumstances.’
35. Considering the evidence above, we can see no sign of a failing in the way Natural England handled Mr N’s concerns.
36. We understand that Mr N has been in communication with the local authority, and we hope he can resolve his concerns. He may also want to explore taking legal action for the land dispute with the campsite as the landowner. We recommend that he takes independent professional advice.