Plans refused (1 Viewer)

[TERRY&PAULINE]

I don't think it has anything to do with the clubs, it is a legal issue and would need a change in the law.

So be it, the government is always ranting on about more leisure time

 

[John & Joan]

Natural England recognise that the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (amended 1968) is out of date and needs updating in many aspects. However as agent for DEFRA they can only work within the regulations laid down in that act. To change the act, would require a redraft and that would cost money. The government are not prepared to spend money on the redrafting. The 5 van rule is in the Act.

If a site owner wants more vans he is at liberty to apply to the Local Authority for a Caravan Site Licence. He would then have to follow the authorities regulation which include provision of toilets, wash basins and showers for each sex, paved roads to a specified width and pitch distance from water taps.

Before a CL site can be established an organisation (club) holding a paragraph 5 exemption has to approach those affected in the vicinity and take their objections into account. They also have to approach the local authority to see if they have any objections. As has been said before road access and visibility are deciding factors. CLs are not just the domain of the CC, MCC, CSMA, and C&CC, there are now about 15 clubs that can issue a paragraph 5 exemption (including FUN) and 400+ with other exemptions. No formal planning permission is granted, as the club has the power to grant the exemption. However the authority has the power to close a CL if it is not being run according to the regulations and prevent any further camping/caravanning on that land and request DEFRA to remove the exempt status of that club. Recently the "members only" regulation was sorted out. This was only a rule of the big clubs. It does not apply to the other organisations unless they want it to.

In theory there is no reason why a Gypsy or Traveller group couldn't apply to Natural England to get their own exemptions. As long as they were a properly constituted organisation and could show camping history.

 

[gus-lopez]

We also arrive in vehicles that are Taxed, MOT'd and have insurance too. Strange how we get done if we fail to have any of these yet "travellers" don't seem to need any

You left out " & have number plates "
I confronted a copper in an unmarked Volvo last year on a parking area on the North Devon link road. He came in to use the toilets & I spoke to him about the ones that had arrived earlier ( & we'd already had a set to with ) & had no number plates on rear of van or caravan. He didn't want to know; even when they drove off having realised he was Police , the copper still wasn't interested.
There was more chance of me being arrested than him doing anything.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

This Park n Ride near Southport Kew Shopping centre is massive and nearly alway deserted like in the picture, it would make a great Aire style site and make some money for the local council if only they thought about it. View attachment 63411

Have you contacted the council about it? Send them an e-mail with details of how much people would be likely to spend - but make sure it is real evidence not just a "we spend money" claim with nothing to back it or they will be likely to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[TERRY&PAULINE]

Natural England recognise that the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (amended 1968) is out of date and needs updating in many aspects. However as agent for DEFRA they can only work within the regulations laid down in that act. To change the act, would require a redraft and that would cost money. The government are not prepared to spend money on the redrafting. The 5 van rule is in the Act.

If a site owner wants more vans he is at liberty to apply to the Local Authority for a Caravan Site Licence. He would then have to follow the authorities regulation which include provision of toilets, wash basins and showers for each sex, paved roads to a specified width and pitch distance from water taps.

Before a CL site can be established an organisation (club) holding a paragraph 5 exemption has to approach those affected in the vicinity and take their objections into account. They also have to approach the local authority to see if they have any objections. As has been said before road access and visibility are deciding factors. CLs are not just the domain of the CC, MCC, CSMA, and C&CC, there are now about 15 clubs that can issue a paragraph 5 exemption (including FUN) and 400+ with other exemptions. No formal planning permission is granted, as the club has the power to grant the exemption. However the authority has the power to close a CL if it is not being run according to the regulations and prevent any further camping/caravanning on that land and request DEFRA to remove the exempt status of that club. Recently the "members only" regulation was sorted out. This was only a rule of the big clubs. It does not apply to the other organisations unless they want it to.

In theory there is no reason why a Gypsy or Traveller group couldn't apply to Natural England to get their own exemptions. As long as they were a properly constituted organisation and could show camping history.

As usual authority gone mad, the government would sooner spend millions building a railway to get you there a few minutes faster, what a load of rubbish !
two more vans per site would make no difference

 

[movan]

I got called gypsy, travelling scum by the man at the back of me in the queue when I asked the bus driver to tell me when to alight at the caravan park ....

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[DuxDeluxe]

I got called gypsy, travelling scum by the man at the back of me in the queue when I asked the bus driver to tell me when to alight at the caravan park ....

That is utterly charming....not. Just as well a load of funsters weren't there to support you and to encourage the man to change his mind........

 

[GJH]

As usual authority gone mad, the government would sooner spend millions building a railway to get you there a few minutes faster, what a load of rubbish !
two more vans per site would make no difference

A few million motorhomers and caravaners against tens of millions of train travellers. Not hard to see which is going to have most clout when it comes to allocating parliamentary time

 

[bigfoot]

I got called gypsy, travelling scum by the man at the back of me in the queue when I asked the bus driver to tell me when to alight at the caravan park ....

I think that 'gentleman' has a just case for a refund on his charm school fees!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Puddleduck]

I got called gypsy, travelling scum by the man at the back of me in the queue when I asked the bus driver to tell me when to alight at the caravan park ....

I hope he was put right...... if you were what he called you then you would have left the bus at what was the green or school playing fields!

 

[Jaws]

As many of you know, my son in law, Des, ( desndonna on here when he can be bothered to renew LOL !! He simply does not 'do' internet ) is a Romany.. His family are ( all bar one or two in the 'extended family' ) straight as a dye and good people..
Ask him or any of his family what their opinion of 'travellers' is .. Lets say they are not exactly complementary !!!

 

[Langtoftlad]

Is a landowner only allowed just one CL/CS licence?
Would it be permitted [lawful] to have both CC and C&CC sites on one field, if he had the room & allow 10 vans?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Is a landowner only allowed just one CL/CS licence?
Would it be permitted [lawful] to have both CC and C&CC sites on one field, if he had the room & allow 10 vans?

To comply with the legislation there would need to be separation into more than one field (perhaps only be a hedge). That is how some people can have a licensed site/CL/rally field adjacent to each other, for instance.

Whether the exempted organisations would grant certificates for 5 van sites adjacent to those of their "rivals" would be up to them.

 

[Langtoftlad]

Whether the exempted organisations would grant certificates for 5 van sites adjacent to those of their "rivals" would be up to them.

So in theory , if all/some of these organisations banded together in a loose alliance to put pressure for a change in the law, a landowner with enough space could have a site for 75+ without planning!
[ignoring the undoubted objections from neighbours and/or local authorities]

 

[GJH]

So in theory , if all/some of these organisations banded together in a loose alliance to put pressure for a change in the law, a landowner with enough space could have a site for 75+ without planning!
[ignoring the undoubted objections from neighbours and/or local authorities]

By coincidence we are now staying on a dual CL site, the first one I have seen. Newland Caravan site, near Malvern, has two fields separated by a fence. The first is a C&CC CS and the second (being used for an MCC rally at the moment) is a MCC CL.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jtp890]

Rallies fall under 28 day per year rule and are exempt planning. I think!!!!!!

 

[GJH]

Rallies fall under 28 day per year rule and are exempt planning. I think!!!!!!

Rallies fall under the para 4 or para 6 exemptions of Schedule 1 of the 1960 Act whilst 5 van sites come under para 5.
The fact that the CL field I referred to is currently being used for a rally is incidental. The point is that it is possible for a landowner to have adjacent 5 van sites certificated by different organisations.