Hansard

I thank all the members across the chamber who signed my motion, allowing it to be debated this afternoon. This issue is clearly of interest to many members. I pay tribute to SCOPHRA—the Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Associations—for its excellent campaigning and lobbying work on behalf of its members. Gordon Morrison, the chair of SCOPHRA, is in the gallery this afternoon. I also acknowledge the work of Colin Beattie MSP, who chaired a cross-party group on park homes of which I was a member and which helped to get some changes made.

I will put the issue into context. Park homes are a growing component of the housing market in Scotland. It is estimated that there are 100 park home residential sites across the country, which are home to more than 8,000 residents. A park home is one that is classed as a temporary structure—what might be better known as a chalet or lodge—whereby the owner of the property pays a ground rent to lease the land on which the structure sits. However, such properties are not insubstantial structures; the average cost of such homes varies between £90,000 and £250,000, and they provide a high standard of comfortable accommodation with all the amenities of a more permanent building.

Park home developments tend to be situated in scenic rural areas, often with an attractive outlook, and have become a popular option, in particular for retirees and those looking to downsize who want to be part of a community of like-minded individuals while reducing their energy and maintenance costs and who do not want the worry of maintaining a large garden. We are seeing more of those lodge developments springing up, and their existence allows larger family homes to come on to the market and become available for those who need additional accommodation.

Park homes are a positive development but, unfortunately, a number of issues that have arisen and impacted their purchasers have led me to the conclusion that the law about the purchase and occupancy of those properties should be updated and reviewed.

There are cases of disputes between park home purchasers and site owners going unresolved and of residents feeling threatened and intimidated by unscrupulous developers. Unlike the purchase of a permanent residence, the acquisition of a park home does not involve a formal conveyance. Accordingly, many purchasers do not involve a solicitor in their purchase, even when parting with substantial sums of money, which can leave them vulnerable to exploitation.

At present, the purchaser of a park home has the right to be given a written statement, which is a contract between the site owner and the resident and is enforceable in law by both parties. That statement will set out the details of the location and size of the pitch on which the home sits, the rules of the park and the annual pitch fee payable. That fee typically rises each year in accordance with the retail prices index, although I know that the Scottish Government has plans to change that to the consumer prices index. Despite the requirement for a written statement, we know that, in practice, there are park home owners who are not given such a statement and cases of statement terms not being met by site owners.

One of the most concerning situations that I have come across relates to the park home development at Bendochy, just outside Blairgowrie in Perthshire. In March 2022, Heritage Park Estates Ltd was given planning consent for 43 lodges and 10 glamping pods on the site of a former poultry farm, with the planning consent making it clear that the units would be used “for holiday accommodation only”. In August 2023, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the site owners had misled the public into believing that the homes could be used as permanent residences, and that a number of people had purchased them on that basis.

Roy and Susan Robertson are in precisely that situation. They sold their family home to purchase a park home at Bendochy park, believing that it would become somewhere they could spend their retirement. Properties there were advertised under the strapline

“Your dream home built your way”

and a prominent bullet point in the sales material stated that the park was

“open 365 days a year”

and made reference to the units being “homes”. It was only after they parted with their funds that the Robertsons realised, too late, that the planning permission for the property restricted it to holiday use. They, along with a number of other residents, have now been served with planning enforcement notices that require them to find a permanent residence elsewhere or face eviction. As members can imagine, that is an extremely distressing situation for those affected, who have had to apply to the local council for accommodation elsewhere and are being treated as potentially homeless.

I have raised the issue with Perth and Kinross Council and with trading standards, which were pursuing it with the company that carried out the development. That company has now gone into liquidation and the park has been transferred to another company that cannot be pursued, which is very unfortunate.