Anti motorhome policy in the UK (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

So if we want to lobby then surely it's central government that needs to be lobbied to allow for planning permission to be assumed under certain conditions..

No need. The legislation (1960 Act) already exists. It is the cost which stops people setting up CLs/CSs close to towns.

 

[chaser]

Nothing - but they tend not to want to in the same way as motorhomers.

1. Several sites not open to non-members
2. Does everybody abide by the rules in everyday life? You only have to read posts about charges in private car parks to answer that one

Can you still overnight on tesco parks, always used to be one or two parked up in uttoxeter but not noticed any recently but might have just missed them as I don't get down there as much as I did.

 

[GJH]

You would think that when you have paid 30 odd quid to join ccc and cc they would let you park for one night at a time with no services

But their sites are not set up for that type of use and why should they spend extra to add such facilities (see earlier post)?

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

 

[GJH]

Can you still overnight on tesco parks, always used to be one or two parked up in uttoxeter but not noticed any recently but might have just missed them as I don't get down there as much as I did.

That (as with other supermarkets) was never official policy because it would fall foul of the 1960 Act. Some managers might allow it but that is all.

 

[chaser]

But their sites are not set up for that type of use and why should they spend extra to add such facilities (see earlier post)?

What extra facilities do they need, if you don't want anything

 

[GJH]

What extra facilities do they need, if you don't want anything

Pitches that have no facilities - as per earlier post, discussed on CC forum earlier this year.

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

 

[Bailey58]

I reckon it's threads like this that keep you going Graham. Old soldiers and all that.

 

[gluck]

After 10 countries in 3 years, Ireland is the best I have visited even though I live in Kent, 300 miles from the ferry. No language problems language, no Aires but have camped in a pub car park, a church car park (All with permission) and at the top of the Wicklow mountains.

Anyway, what's wrong with Accrington. Stanley are on the up and it has the friendliest people,

 

[Bobby22]

And a site licence or CL/CS certificate - plus, of course, the money to set it up.[/QUOTE
Many places already equipped with absolutely no outlay but would the the Clubs want to promote competition?

But their sites are not set up for that type of use and why should they spend extra to add such facilities (see earlier post)?

There are quite a few CS/CLs that have hard standing for winter storage, why can't they use these areas during the season when a lot of the 'vans are away?

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

 

[mjltigger]

The MCC already exists but it is the lobbying that is the problem. The vast majority just leave it to somebody else - plenty of moaning but no action in many cases

If I knew what needed to be changed and who needs to change it I would be happy to start lobbying but it seems there is nothing that actually does need to be changed just the money found to make it happen.. well personally I begrudge paying taxes to support art groups and pottery classes so I expect non motorhomers would begrudge paying to support our hobby.

 

[jongood]

The Caravan Club are definitely part of the problem.

2 or 3 years ago when I was feeling public spirited; I wrote a letter to the National trust, arguing that they ve got a lot of car parks doing nothing after 5 pm, they might get some more members if they allowed them to stay over like the CL at Stourhead.

I did get an answer but it basically said that they went to the CC for advise and they counselled against it.

I also wrote as a member to the CC putting the case for a different network and facilities for Motorhomers. The correspondent who answered clearly didnt accept that there was a difference in requirements.

I voted with my feet and cancelled the membership.

Having said all that I think the local councils have a responsibility to the growing numbers of MHs in this country, and should if possible supply a few MH sized pay and display parking spaces with a 48?hour limit and permit occupation inside the vehicle. That is afterall what an aire is, they dont need to supply a borne as most of us can survive for 48 hours on the tanks and those that cant will have to leave earlier.

Shrewsbury council could easliy do this but dont due to fear of gipsies.

Jon

 

[GJH]

I reckon it's threads like this that keep you going Graham. Old soldiers and all that.

It's like the A frame and gassing threads Rob. Same questions arise and you either ignore them or give the same answers.

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

 

[GJH]

There are quite a few CS/CLs that have hard standing for winter storage, why can't they use these areas during the season when a lot of the 'vans are away?

Certificates allow up to 5 vans only. They would need a site licence to offer more pitches.

 

[GJH]

If I knew what needed to be changed and who needs to change it I would be happy to start lobbying but it seems there is nothing that actually does need to be changed just the money found to make it happen.. well personally I begrudge paying taxes to support art groups and pottery classes so I expect non motorhomers would begrudge paying to support our hobby.

Like everything else - and everyone else who takes up a cause - it's a matter of doing the research and going from there.

 

[GJH]

The Caravan Club are definitely part of the problem.

2 or 3 years ago when I was feeling public spirited; I wrote a letter to the National trust, arguing that they ve got a lot of car parks doing nothing after 5 pm, they might get some more members if they allowed them to stay over like the CL at Stourhead.

I did get an answer but it basically said that they went to the CC for advise and they counselled against it.

The NT would have to obtain certification and/or a licence for each site. They would then have to have the staff to manage those sites (many, presumably, as competing dual use for parking and camping).

I also wrote as a member to the CC putting the case for a different network and facilities for Motorhomers. The correspondent who answered clearly didnt accept that there was a difference in requirements.

I voted with my feet and cancelled the membership.

The right of any consumer. In terms of the products the CC sells, though, there is no difference as they have to cater for both caravans and motorhomes. There is certainly no good business reason for them to create a separate network for motorhomes.

Having said all that I think the local councils have a responsibility to the growing numbers of MHs in this country, and should if possible supply a few MH sized pay and display parking spaces with a 48?hour limit and permit occupation inside the vehicle. That is afterall what an aire is, they dont need to supply a borne as most of us can survive for 48 hours on the tanks and those that cant will have to leave earlier.

Shrewsbury council could easliy do this but dont due to fear of gipsies.

Jon

You've answered your own point to an extent in that some LAs (not all) have to spend thousands of pounds of local taxpayers' money dealing with travellers so take preventative measures to minimise the cost.

As far as "responsibility" goes, where would that come from? As mjltigger says (more or less) similar claims could also be made by art groups and pottery classes etc. Do we all want our council tax increasing to provide support for every group that comes along?

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

 

[jongood]

The NT would have to obtain certification and/or a licence for each site. They would then have to have the staff to manage those sites (many, presumably, as competing dual use for parking and camping).

The right of any consumer. In terms of the products the CC sells, though, there is no difference as they have to cater for both caravans and motorhomes. There is certainly no good business reason for them to create a separate network for motorhomes.

You've answered your own point to an extent in that some LAs (not all) have to spend thousands of pounds of local taxpayers' money dealing with travellers so take preventative measures to minimise the cost.

As far as "responsibility" goes, where would that come from? As mjltigger says (more or less) similar claims could also be made by art groups and pottery classes etc. Do we all want our council tax increasing to provide support for every group that comes along?

Well the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish etc seem to manage it

 

[GJH]

Well the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish etc seem to manage it

Yes, under different legislative regimes which have arisen as a result of the differences between each country.

 

[John & Joan]

No need. The legislation (1960 Act) already exists. It is the cost which stops people setting up CLs/CSs close to towns.

Provision of Caravan Sites by Local Authorities.
The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Part 1 section 24 gives local authorities discretionary powers to provide caravan sites.

Quote:
24.—(1) A local authority shall have power within their
area to provide sites where caravans may be brought, whether
for caravans, for holidays or other temporary purposes or for use as permanent
residences, and to manage the sites or lease them to
some other person.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority
shall have power to do anything appearing to them desirable in
connection with the provision of such sites, and in particular—
(a) to acquire land which is in use as a caravan site, or which
has been laid out as a caravan site, or
(b) to provide for the use of those occupying caravan sites
any services or facilities for their health or convenience

Under the FIRST SCHEDULE
CASES WHERE A SITE LICENCE IS NOT REQUIRED
section 11
A site licence is not required by an authority to operate a site within its area
End Quote:

They are not permitted to provide Caravans.

Private site provision is governed by planning legislation. That would include anyone or business that wishes to provide a stopover, including the NT or a supermarket.

The Motorhome Tourism Organisation responds to Local Authority consultations regarding new or changes to Traffic Regulation Order or requests for Bylaws that affect Motorhome users.
We incorporate "The Motorhome Association" that has obtained Aire provision in Northern Ireland.

It is no good moaning about these things on forums we get out there and try to influence authority.

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

 

[Stephen & Jeannie]

We need to go to Plymouth for medical appointments over 2 days...... the only place we can find to park overnight is a camp site at £18 a night.(£36).....we do not need any facilities! Outrageous in winter. That is why we need aires.

I use the hospital car park when I have an appointment! Phone in advance !

 

[TheCaller]

Entrepreneurs open campsites, create CLs or join Britstops - they do not work for local authorities.

And, as oft said in the past, if there were a viable business opportunity they would open aires close to town centres. So why don't they?

Because there is a disconnect between the entrepreneurs who might provide the facilities for motorhomes & the other entrepreneurs who gain the income - the shops, restaurants & pubs.

That's where the local councils come in - they are the only body that connects the two groups. Aires & stopovers only work where there is a means for them to be subsidised by the people who gain the benefit. Britstops works because they identify places where there is a direct connection between the provision of facilities & the income that results from the presence of the motorhome.

 

[GJH]

Because there is a disconnect between the entrepreneurs who might provide the facilities for motorhomes & the other entrepreneurs who gain the income - the shops, restaurants & pubs.

That's where the local councils come in - they are the only body that connects the two groups. Aires & stopovers only work where there is a means for them to be subsidised by the people who gain the benefit. Britstops works because they identify places where there is a direct connection between the provision of facilities & the income that results from the presence of the motorhome.

But if local councils are the only body that connects the two groups how come Britstops works? Doesn't the latter disprove the former statement?

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

 

[chaser]

Britstops are not aires , they are in essence glorified camp sites without any facilities and very dear if you do use what they do supply, ok , they are free if you just draw on and off but , don't know about other people but I couldn't do that. Cc and ccc have already had 30 odd quid off you and then supply nothing for it unless you spend more with them and then their sites are dearer than any others to boot.
This country is totally different than others that supply aires , larger proportion of caravans to mhs for one ,smaller country , different laws, more hangers on , even the weather, who wants to sit in a field in the rain , you have got to have something else to do , can't just get your chairs out and sit in the sun as in other countries.
I know this is a bit of a ramble but I am sure you will see the various reasons why aires will never be viable in England and I think it's a bit of a waste of time contacting councils, better , as someone else suggested pressure the clubs to get themselves sorted out.

 

[GJH]

Looking back over this year we've stayed at the Canterbury P&R, a CC CL, MCC CL & Nightstop and about ten rallies/meets/THSs all either close to town/village centres and/or local transport links.

Who needs aires?

 

[chaser]

Looking back over this year we've stayed at the Canterbury P&R, a CC CL, MCC CL & Nightstop and about ten rallies/meets/THSs all either close to town/village centres and/or local transport links.

Who needs aires?

No more to be said
Just a thought though , they are all ok , but not always where you want them at the time

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

 

[gus-lopez]

No more to be said
Just a thought though , they are all ok , but not always where you want them at the time

& are you guaranteed wall to wall sunshine ?

 

[buttons]

Looking back over this year we've stayed at the Canterbury P&R, a CC CL, MCC CL & Nightstop and about ten rallies/meets/THSs all either close to town/village centres and/or local transport links.

Who needs aires?

That would depend how much you paid for them. Free is too much for some.

 

[TheCaller]

But if local councils are the only body that connects the two groups how come Britstops works? Doesn't the latter disprove the former statement?

No - Britstops works because it identifies places where there is no disconnect. The business providing the stopover facility is also the one to benefit from any spend by the motorhomer.

Where the council comes in is to provide the link between the provider of the stopover (be that the council themselves of a contractor the council engage) & the local businesses that stand to gain from the presence of the motorhomer in the area. It's exactly the same reasoning that applies to the provision of any similar service, including the provision of car parking for day visitors to towns & villages. In some cases the business provides it's own facility (out of town shops, pubs, hotels have their own car parks) & in others, the businesses depend on the facilities provided by the local council (high street shops etc without their own car parks). Where overnight facilities for motorhomes are concerned, councils have a particular advantage as they do not require campsite licences in the way that commercial businesses do.

As you have said on many occasions, there are two difficulties. The first is the need to bring the perceived need & subsequent benefit to the attention of any given council. The second is to obtain & provide to the council objective research to show that a real benefit will flow to the local area as a result of their investment.

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

 

[GJH]

As you have said on many occasions, there are two difficulties. The first is the need to bring the perceived need & subsequent benefit to the attention of any given council. The second is to obtain & provide to the council objective research to show that a real benefit will flow to the local area as a result of their investment.

Can't disagree with that can I?

The disconnect is that too few people can be bothered to take those actions

 

[DP+JAY]

Cl and CSs don't need planning permission.

Who mentioned CL's?
I thought the idea was to have an alternarive to rip off "clubs" ?

 

[The Wino]

As you have said on many occasions, there are two difficulties. The first is the need to bring the perceived need & subsequent benefit to the attention of any given council. The second is to obtain & provide to the council objective research to show that a real benefit will flow to the local area as a result of their investment.

No you need to find a way of there being votes in it councils do not do things for the benefit of the local business owners unless there are votes attached ( I know I run a business!!!)

David

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