Mmm Letters Page 17 (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

Sorry Graham but I do not agree with some of that. I am not sure Canterbury was ever designed with motorhomes in mind rather than it being added later. The ticketing barriers are already there in many P&Rs. And water and waste should be no real problem as most P&Rs also have a toilet facility. And in Canterbury you can't get in after about 8:00pm but can get out (as long as you use your ticket and pay) at any time, again just like many other P&Rs.

And finally in reality it is not the transit traffic that is important in most cases, it is the people who want to come and visit the city. After all Canterbury is a major tourist destination in its own right, as witnessed by the crowds of them when we were there in March. If places like Oxford, York and Cambridge did what Canterbury has done I am sure they would be full, and their economy would benefit as well. But then they would be full, and their economy would benefit. But then common sense and commercial nouse have never been strong points with some local councils.

1. Without actually asking Colin Perris I won't argue about design
2. Ticketing barriers exist at some P&Rs but not all. Some P&R sites are locked overnight so would need new exit barriers. That's why the costs for each place need to be established.
3. Yes, toilets exist but how close do the water and sewer pipes run to the area suitable for an aire? Again costs need to be established.
4. We stayed at Canterbury P&R last year as tourists, because we wanted to see for ourselves what the facility was like. Most other people were coming from or going to Dover though., something that would not be the case in places like Oxford, York and Cambridge.
5. As regards Oxford, York and Cambridge, do you have facts to show that they would be full, and their economy would benefit? If so then contact them with those facts. If not then why should they do anything if they don't have the same level of confidence.
6. Having a go at councils by saying something like "common sense and commercial nouse have never been strong points with some local councils" will get us nowhere. Anyone (council or not) faced with such an approach, without it being accompanied by evidence, is likely to react defensively/aggressively and simply counter along the lines of "the general public has no real clue about what is involved".

 

[GJH]

Yes but councils can only make decisions based upon sound planning issues, otherwise the decisions can and often are reversed on appeal. And "the public interest" is only one of many things they need to think about. What they can't do is decide based solely upon somebody objecting because it may adversely affect their business.

I thought that's what I had said

 

[peterc10]

As regards Oxford, York and Cambridge, do you have facts to show that they would be full, and their economy would benefit? If so then contact them with those facts. If not then why should they do anything if they don't have the same level of confidence.
.

Graham,

No facts other than the "fact" that we gave up on a visit to either Cambridge or Oxford because of a lack of facilities, and what there were (in Oxford's case) being full. And as for York, well yes we did visit it but had to use a busy and very expensive CS (10 minutes walk from the P&R) to do so, and you simply can't get in the CC site most of the year. BTW I used those 3 as examples because I know they all have park and ride facilities.

There are 200,000 of us in the UK and many many more in France, Holland, Germany, Scandinavia etc. If that isn't a market that can't be explored then my comments about local authorities not having commercial nouse (which I would never make to them when dealing with them) ring true. After all what commercial justification do they put forward for spending a fortune on P&Rs in the first place?

We are on the same side really. It just frustrates me that motorhoming is so much a better experience on the other side of the water than in the UK, and that is largely due the attitude of the local authorities who see it as a way to boost their city/town/village. And living in Kent I often feel that if we want a week or two away it is far better to pop over or under the water rather than head north or west. Any fares would be recouped with cheaper (or free) Aires and cheaper fuel. But then frittered away on sticky cakes and other great food.

And then many towns and cities complain about their city centres dying and I often think "hardly surprising". High rents = high prices in the shops. Costly or no parking facilities for visitors = no visitors.

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

 

[GJH]

Graham,

No facts other than the "fact" that we gave up on a visit to either Cambridge or Oxford because of a lack of facilities, and what there were (in Oxford's case) being full. And as for York, well yes we did visit it but had to use a busy and very expensive CS (10 minutes walk from the P&R) to do so, and you simply can't get in the CC site most of the year. BTW I used those 3 as examples because I know they all have park and ride facilities.

There are 200,000 of us in the UK and many many more in France, Holland, Germany, Scandinavia etc. If that isn't a market that can't be explored then my comments about local authorities not having commercial nouse (which I would never make to them when dealing with them) ring true. After all what commercial justification do they put forward for spending a fortune on P&Rs in the first place?

We are on the same side really. It just frustrates me that motorhoming is so much a better experience on the other side of the water than in the UK, and that is largely due the attitude of the local authorities who see it as a way to boost their city/town/village. And living in Kent I often feel that if we want a week or two away it is far better to pop over or under the water rather than head north or west. Any fares would be recouped with cheaper (or free) Aires and cheaper fuel. But then frittered away on sticky cakes and other great food.

And then many towns and cities complain about their city centres dying and I often think "hardly surprising". High rents = high prices in the shops. Costly or no parking facilities for visitors = no visitors.

The justification for P&R sites is based on removing traffic from city centres. To what extent that could be termed "commercial" I don't know, but it certainly passes the public interest test.

As regard city centres "dying", can that be applied to the places which are busy enough to justify P&Rs or is it an issue in smaller places with less tourist attractiveness?

Let's have a look at the three cities mentioned though.
1. York. Motorhomes can park at four of the six P&R sites. Of those, three are locked overnight (so would need revised access arrangements) and the other (Designer Outlet) is privately owned so does not enjoy the LA ownership which might make it suitable for an aire. Are we saying that all three sites should be made into aires or only one? If the latter which one and why?
2. Cambridge. Motorhome parking is only available at one of the five sites, Trumpington. The reason (well publicised in years gone by) is because of the horrendous problems which the council has experienced with traveller incursions and which cost the local taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds to clear up time after time. My correspondence with the council reveals that they have sympathy with motorhome owners but the problems they have experienced mean there are no practical measures they can take to provide aires (unless somebody can show them different of course).
3. Oxford. Motorhome parking is only available at two of the five sites, one of which (Water Eaton) is closed on Sundays. Access is by asking a security guard to open the barrier to allow you in. The gate can only be opened whilst the security patrols are on site. As with York, therefore, revised access arrangements would be required. Also as with York, should both sites become aires or only one and why?

It is pointless comparing the UK to the rest of Europe because the differences are far more wide reaching in terms of history, society, space and population.

Any vague approach to any of the councils concerned would result in these and other points arising, points which would need to be resolved before progress could be made. The more that can be resolved before any approach is made the better the chance is. Lack of progress as a result of previous vague approaches proves that.

 

[madgeD]

As I understand it a CAR PARK is designed to only have four wheeled vehicles parked on it! that is why motorhomes can get away with parking where caravans would probably be moved on! having said that in Germany on a Stalplatz a caravan came in reversed and parked unhitched and drove his car into a different car park just before the entrance!

 

[GJH]

As I understand it a CAR PARK is designed to only have four wheeled vehicles parked on it! that is why motorhomes can get away with parking where caravans would probably be moved on! having said that in Germany on a Stalplatz a caravan came in reversed and parked unhitched and drove his car into a different car park just before the entrance!

Not quite. Car parks in the UK generally tend to be designed for the parking of car sized motorised vehicles, hence bay and lane sizes &c. Most car parks in the UK prohibit the parking of trailers of any description, whether hitched to a towing vehicle or not.
The legislation in other countries is irrelevant to discussion of UK facilities

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

 

[peterc10]

Graham

I think I am going to give up now. Not everybody that disagrees with your detailed views are enemies of your cause you know, so you shouldn't really treat them as such. And I do not think that we British are that much different to the rest of Europe in reality. But we can sometimes have an Island race mentality.

I am going to continue voting with my feet (or wheels) and I will, unfortunately, continue to leave most of the UK to its own devices. I am sure that I alone won't be missed. But too many of us (and the millions of motorhomers from the rest of Europe) and we will be, although I am still not convinced that the powers that be actually understand just how big the motorhoming market is in Europe.

 

[GJH]

Graham

I think I am going to give up now. Not everybody that disagrees with your detailed views are enemies of your cause you know, so you shouldn't really treat them as such. And I do not think that we British are that much different to the rest of Europe in reality. But we can sometimes have an Island race mentality.

I am going to continue voting with my feet (or wheels) and I will, unfortunately, continue to leave most of the UK to its own devices. I am sure that I alone won't be missed. But too many of us (and the millions of motorhomers from the rest of Europe) and we will be, although I am still not convinced that the powers that be actually understand just how big the motorhoming market is in Europe.

I don't regard people as enemies but what is preferable - me asking the questions before an approach is made to local authorities so that those making the approaches can be better prepared or the local authorities asking the questions afterwards and putting people on the spot because they haven't thought the matter through?

As regards the powers that be actually understanding just how big the motorhoming market is in Europe, I am sure you are right. Time after time the answer I have received from local authorities (even in response to daytime parking requests never mind stopovers) is "nobody has ever asked us before" or "we've never been asked for information since your last request".

Every interest group (motorhoming or not) tends to have an "island mentality" in that they expect others to share the same level of knowledge when there is no reason for them to. If LA road and street teams (whose job is effective traffic management) have not been made aware of demand from motorhome owners they are unlikely to have such knowledge. When demands arrive with an insufficient level of detail how are they supposed to be able to provide a report justifying expenditure to satisfy a minority group rather than spending on something which they have evidence will be cost beneficial?

The reality remains though. As in any area of life, anyone who is really serious about achieving something will put in the effort necessary for success.

 

[scotjimland]

It is pointless comparing the UK to the rest of Europe because the differences are far more wide reaching in terms of history, society, space and population.

It's not pointless Graham

.. would I be correct in saying you have no personal experience of motorhoming outside the UK ?

Unless you have, you cannot appreciate how enjoyable and carefree it is compared to the UK. To be able to tour without needing to book, to stop for the night in almost any town or village and know you will be made welcome and that in all probability there will be a facility to park, replenish fresh water and dump waste at an aire, many for free or only a few Euro..

I know you are aware of all that, but without a personal experience you cannot appreciate it.. it's like looking at the Moon through a telescope compared to actually walking on it.. not the same.

This is not a criticism, far from it.. you have worked tirelessly with councils and others to provide parking facilities for MHs .. but try looking at the issue from the other end of the telescope.. It works in France, Germany, Belgium, Italy and even Spain is getting in on the act... we are not that different.. but as Peter says, I'd also rather spend money on a ferry and diesel and tour abroad than pay extortionate site fees in the UK .. most CLs are now anything but cheap and many are too far from town centers to be much use for the traveling motorhomer.. plus most are not hard standings so useless in winter or wet weather..

P&R are ideal.. they are already established and with very little money, most could accommodate motorhomes.. as I said.. Ipswich are spending money to PREVENT motorhomes.. how is that being fair or democratic to the tax paying motor home owners ? .. In a word.. it is NOT .. we pay VED and council tax, so should have an equal opportunity to park.. and not be excluded. .. there was parking for MHs .. now they are stopping it by erecting height barriers. Why ?

If there is an issue with traveling people using them, then find a better way (as Canterbury have done)..other than banning all high vehicles.. that is not democratic or fair.. it's a sledge hammer to crack nuts.

As for commercial sites losing trade... in France many live happily cheek by jowl with aires.. they are not the same.. and people who want an aire won't pay to use a site and visa versa.. there is no conflict of interest.. By banning motorhomes or not providing facilities, we just don't visit that town.. we certainly won't be cajoled into paying £22 to park on a site for the night..

In my example of £22 .. Aldeburgh.. yes, that old chestnut.. we don't visit now as they have an anti motorhome policy .. so .. lost my money.. and no doubt thousands of other motorhome owners who don't visit now.. and yes I know the reason they gave to you was about damage to the sea wall by motorhomes.. and of course you have to accept it.. but I don't.. It was plain and simple the local site did not want freeloaders in Aldeburgh.. also remember, that was where my van window was cracked by louts during the night while we were parked on the sea wall.. not many months before they banned it..

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

 

[GJH]

It's not pointless Graham

.. would I be correct in saying you have no personal experience of motorhoming outside the UK ?

Absolutely correct, Jim, but that wasn't my point about "pointless"
We live in a country where, unlike Europe, caravans are far more popular than motorhomes. Facilities - and legislation - in both the UK and Europe have grown to serve those demands. We are where we are, not starting from a blank sheet, and that is what I meant by pointless.

As regards the P&R site operated by Suffolk County Council at London Road in Ipswich, they are not spending money to prevent motorhomes. This is what the County Council told me on 4th February last year.

The supervisor on site at London Road will be able to open the height barrier for legitimate customers.

Unfortunately we had a number of incidents in the past where travellers accessed the Bury Road site (no longer open) and caused damage to the facilities as well as leaving us with large clean-up bills. At the time it was decided to put height barriers there and at the Martlesham site as car park layouts were not suitable to allow staff to reach the gates quickly enough to prevent such occurrences. It was thought that the London Road site was safer here as the gate is right outside the office and could usually be reached by the staff before access could be gained.

However, last year a member of staff at London Road was assaulted by a member of the travelling community when attempting to get on to the car park and the decision was then taken to add a height barrier here as well. Under the current operational contract with Ipswich Buses there are now fewer staff on site than before so this measure of protection for them is required more than previously.

I hope this information is of use.

Suffolk County Council has, thus, found a way of resolving an issue with traveling people other than banning all high vehicles.

 

[Stephen & Jeannie]

That is NOT what you should do. Doing that will be a quick way of making sure that motorhomers are not welcome. Where do you think that goes? Straight into the storm water drain and then into local watercourses. And "soapy" water is a pollutant, not to mention the grease in suspension from the washing up. It can have an detrimental effect on the flora and fauna, as well as smelling and looking awful after a while

I wonder where you wash your MH ?

 

[peterc10]

It's not pointless Graham

.. would I be correct in saying you have no personal experience of motorhoming outside the UK ?

Unless you have, you cannot appreciate how enjoyable and carefree it is compared to the UK. To be able to tour without needing to book, to stop for the night in almost any town or village and know you will be made welcome and that in all probability there will be a facility to park, replenish fresh water and dump waste at an aire, many for free or only a few Euro..

I know you are aware of all that, but without a personal experience you cannot appreciate it.. it's like looking at the Moon through a telescope compared to actually walking on it.. not the same.

This is not a criticism, far from it.. you have worked tirelessly with councils and others to provide parking facilities for MHs .. but try looking at the issue from the other end of the telescope.. It works in France, Germany, Belgium, Italy and even Spain is getting in on the act... we are not that different.. but as Peter says, I'd also rather spend money on a ferry and diesel and tour abroad than pay extortionate site fees in the UK .. most CLs are now anything but cheap and many are too far from town centers to be much use for the traveling motorhomer.. plus most are not hard standings so useless in winter or wet weather..

P&R are ideal.. they are already established and with very little money, most could accommodate motorhomes.. as I said.. Ipswich are spending money to PREVENT motorhomes.. how is that being fair or democratic to the tax paying motor home owners ? .. In a word.. it is NOT .. we pay VED and council tax, so should have an equal opportunity to park.. and not be excluded. .. there was parking for MHs .. now they are stopping it by erecting height barriers. Why ?

If there is an issue with traveling people using them, then find a better way (as Canterbury have done)..other than banning all high vehicles.. that is not democratic or fair.. it's a sledge hammer to crack nuts.

As for commercial sites losing trade... in France many live happily cheek by jowl with aires.. they are not the same.. and people who want an aire won't pay to use a site and visa versa.. there is no conflict of interest.. By banning motorhomes or not providing facilities, we just don't visit that town.. we certainly won't be cajoled into paying £22 to park on a site for the night..

In my example of £22 .. Aldeburgh.. yes, that old chestnut.. we don't visit now as they have an anti motorhome policy .. so .. lost my money.. and no doubt thousands of other motorhome owners who don't visit now.. and yes I know the reason they gave to you was about damage to the sea wall by motorhomes.. and of course you have to accept it.. but I don't.. It was plain and simple the local site did not want freeloaders in Aldeburgh.. also remember, that was where my van window was cracked by louts during the night while we were parked on the sea wall.. not many months before they banned it..

I agree entirely Jim. You have put it so much more eloquently than I could.

And after our little adventure last month you can add Portugal to the list of countries that welcome motorhomes with open arms. Some wonderful stays in beautiful places and nearly all of them free or for as little as 1.50E per night, and without ever having the hassle of booking. Each time we stopped we tried to spend some money in the local community as thanks. That is what motorhoming should be like. I am afraid I simply do not get that same feeling in the UK

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