NYCC Motorhome Ban Consultation halted (1 Viewer)

[Gorse Hill]

Partly because he is not a fellow motorhome owner. He doesn't own a motorhome. Also because he publishes mis-representative and misleading information and his confrontational methods are destructive rather than constructive.

Hi graham
Just because he doesn't have a Motorhome isn't a reason to dismiss him, otherwise there would be plenty of premiership managers out of a job just because they didn't play football at that level
Regarding his confrontational manner I can't comment on that as I don't know him, however I would say that in your own words over 240 councils are against M/H using the car parks or at least being obstructive
I bring you back to my main argument which is they are PUBLIC car parks paid for by us and I have seen plenty of bad parking, litter, noise etc ( the same things levelled at M/H) by car users and others that use the same car parks but no one seems to ban/obstruct them from using the public car parks
My experience of most but not all council officials is they are absorbed in there own importance and are difficult to reason with and maybe a more confrontational/robust approach is needed within reason to stand up for those that do wish to use public space

 

[GJH]

Hi graham
Just because he doesn't have a Motorhome isn't a reason to dismiss him, otherwise there would be plenty of premiership managers out of a job just because they didn't play football at that level
Regarding his confrontational manner I can't comment on that as I don't know him, however I would say that in your own words over 240 councils are against M/H using the car parks or at least being obstructive
I bring you back to my main argument which is they are PUBLIC car parks paid for by us and I have seen plenty of bad parking, litter, noise etc ( the same things levelled at M/H) by car users and others that use the same car parks but no one seems to ban/obstruct them from using the public car parks
My experience of most but not all council officials is they are absorbed in there own importance and are difficult to reason with and maybe a more confrontational/robust approach is needed within reason to stand up for those that do wish to use public space

Dunno where you get that figure from On the UK mainland (apart from Greater London) 192 councils have parking for motorhomes available at all times and a further 110 will help if you check with them. Only 82 have no such facilities. Those figures relate to off street parking - on street parking is available in all areas.

Car parks may be public car parks but most of them are just that - car parks, not parking areas suitable for large vehicles. Many car parks are constructed for regular use only by vehicles under 2 tonnes in weight and/or have narrow roadways unsuitable for large vehicles.

In addition, whilst LA car parks are for use by the public they are no different from any other car parks (e.g. those at supermarkets) in that they are owned by organisations not the public as a whole. As regards "paid for by us", we do, of course, pay for the likes of supermarket car parks through our purchases just as much as paying for LA car parks through taxes.

Your experience of council officials differs from mine and I spent nearly 36 years in local government where my DP/FoI &c work often brought me into conflict with people who, shall we say, felt "restricted" by legal requirements. I have suffered far more obstruction from employees of private companies who hide behind "commercial confidentiality" and the like to get their own way.

The other aspect (see the posts today on the Weymouth aire thread for example) is that, in most instances, car parks have planning consent for parking not for habitation. Whilst LAs do not need to have caravan site licences there is often a need for further planning consent to be obtained if car parks are to be used for habitation. That process has a cost which has to be borne by local taxpayers and may well be subject to objections - a process which councils obviously do not undertake lightly.

For those reasons, a constructive approach to working with councils is what is required, not a confrontational approach which will tend to put backs up and increase opposition.

EDIT - I've just realised where the 240 figure comes from. That is Cornwall Council's statement, not mine, and relates to overnight sleeping (i.e. habitation) not parking in their car parks not 240 councils.

 

[Gorse Hill]

Dunno where you get that figure from On the UK mainland (apart from Greater London) 192 councils have parking for motorhomes available at all times and a further 110 will help if you check with them. Only 82 have no such facilities. Those figures relate to off street parking - on street parking is available in all areas.

Car parks may be public car parks but most of them are just that - car parks, not parking areas suitable for large vehicles. Many car parks are constructed for regular use only by vehicles under 2 tonnes in weight and/or have narrow roadways unsuitable for large vehicles.

In addition, whilst LA car parks are for use by the public they are no different from any other car parks (e.g. those at supermarkets) in that they are owned by organisations not the public as a whole. As regards "paid for by us", we do, of course, pay for the likes of supermarket car parks through our purchases just as much as paying for LA car parks through taxes.

Your experience of council officials differs from mine and I spent nearly 36 years in local government where my DP/FoI &c work often brought me into conflict with people who, shall we say, felt "restricted" by legal requirements. I have suffered far more obstruction from employees of private companies who hide behind "commercial confidentiality" and the like to get their own way.

The other aspect (see the posts today on the Weymouth aire thread for example) is that, in most instances, car parks have planning consent for parking not for habitation. Whilst LAs do not need to have caravan site licences there is often a need for further planning consent to be obtained if car parks are to be used for habitation. That process has a cost which has to be borne by local taxpayers and may well be subject to objections - a process which councils obviously do not undertake lightly.

For those reasons, a constructive approach to working with councils is what is required, not a confrontational approach which will tend to put backs up and increase opposition.

EDIT - I've just realised where the 240 figure comes from. That is Cornwall Council's statement, not mine, and relates to overnight sleeping (i.e. habitation) not parking in their car parks not 240 councils.

My mistake graham I actually quoted the figure 240 which is what you quoted with reference to no overnight stay, however my personal feeling are that all of them should allow access 192 currently, 110 need to be asked and 82 nothing am I right in thinking that the 192 & 110 councils above obviously have no problem with vehicles over 2 ton
With regards to the 2 ton weight limit as a reason why M/H might be unsuitable, I have seen plenty of council vehicles (with trailers loaded) and some 4x4 using the car parks both of which are over 2 ton maybe this is another obstruction by LA in stopping M/H using the car parks
I accept that there is a case where access might be a problem as you state
I know you very knowledgable on the subject graham, but the LAs don't need a caravan site licence as you stated (I was not aware of this fact) and you indicated one problem might be getting further planning consent for habitation and the cost involved, however does the planning dept not come under the LA control and as such they are civil servants paid by us already via our taxes
all we are asking for them to do is there job and process a planning application ( dept to dept) not quite sure how there is a cost involved when this would be an internal process between dept

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

 

[GJH]

My mistake graham I actually quoted the figure 240 which is what you quoted with reference to no overnight stay, however my personal feeling are that all of them should allow access 192 currently, 110 need to be asked and 82 nothing am I right in thinking that the 192 & 110 councils above obviously have no problem with vehicles over 2 ton

No, those councils have some places where motorhomes can be parked; it is not the case that all their car parks are suitable.

With regards to the 2 ton weight limit as a reason why M/H might be unsuitable, I have seen plenty of council vehicles (with trailers loaded) and some 4x4 using the car parks both of which are over 2 ton maybe this is another obstruction by LA in stopping M/H using the car parks
I accept that there is a case where access might be a problem as you state

I obviously don't know the weight limits for the car parks which those council vehicles have used. In my own experience, if use is to be regular then they will be suitable car parks. Council vehicles will access other car parks occasionally (especially refuse vehicles emptying bins) but that is rather different from regular use by heavy vehicles. The question of 4x4 vehicles is something which has exercised a number of councils for the last few years as the number of such vehicles has grown. Several different approaches are taken but, because weight plates are not easily visible, enforcement is difficult unless the size of the vehicle exceeds bay size (which obviously includes commercial vehicles as well as motorhomes).

I know you very knowledgable on the subject graham, but the LAs don't need a caravan site licence as you stated (I was not aware of this fact) and you indicated one problem might be getting further planning consent for habitation and the cost involved, however does the planning dept not come under the LA control and as such they are civil servants paid by us already via our taxes
all we are asking for them to do is there job and process a planning application ( dept to dept) not quite sure how there is a cost involved when this would be an internal process between dept

Yes, planning is a LA function but that does not mean that LAs can simply give themselves permission to do what they want. LAs are subject to exactly the same laws that govern all of us and that includes change of use to allow habitation in a car park where it is not already covered by existing consents.
Apart from opportunity costs (which occur when any work is undertaken by employees of any organisation) there are costs of advertising, consultation &c which apply to any planning application.
On top of that, if habitation were to be allowed there could be costs associated with bay marking alteration, charging updates (e.g. pay & display machines) and scheme management. Any provision of water/waste facilities would also attract a cost.

 

[John & Joan]

Where weight restrictions apply, we have stipulated this in the details of car parks or authorites where there is a blanket ban in some cases, on the Parking Map at http://www.tmcto.org/index.php/motorhome-parking-uk. This information has been sourced as Graham has done, by FOI requests to all UK parking providers. Further searching of the relevant TROs or Off-Street Parking Orders. These locations are marked with a red X on our map.

Some council specify unladen weight not the loaded weight of the vehicle. The lowest I have found is 1500kg unladen. In checking most car parks other than coach or HGV parking is limited to 3 ton max.

John

 

[TheCaller]

East Lindsey District Council are not exactly encouraging when it comes to weights.

A typical (& recent) sign includes the line:
"This car park is ONLY to be used by cars and vans not exceeding 30cwt."

Firstly, when did a vehicle document last show a weight in cwt?
Additionally, it is not specified whether the weight refers to unladen weight, actual weight or gross weight.

The notice refers to the related Off-Street Parking Order being available on-line, but fails to give a link. However, having tracked it down, it has further definitions that the common man would not normally deduce - although nothing to clarify the weight issue.

A Commercial Vehicle is defined as any vehicle over 5.3m in length or over 2.0m wide (back in metric now). So a motorcaravan is now a commercial vehicle when it comes to parking it, even if you only use it for holidays. As a casual visitor to what is supposed to be a tourist area, would you have known that your pride & joy is a commercial vehicle?

A Motor Home is separately defined and results in most motorcaravans being simultaneously both Motor Homes & Commercial Vehicles. Note the use of the term Motor Home, not the DVLA category of Motorcaravan.

Sleeping, camping or cooking is banned in all car parks and parking places - so no brewing up a cup of tea. It doesn't matter what sort of vehicle you are in - you mustn't have a kip or a brew. Bring your tea ready made in a flask & have a salad for lunch. No afternoon siesta afterwards either. No discrimination here - you can't brew up in your motorbike & side car either.

IF you are in a Parking Place where you are not excluded for other reasons (if you can find one!) & you overhang another bay, you may do so long as you pay for all bays occupied, up to a maximum of 4 bays.

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

 

[GJH]

East Lindsey has a Parking Interactive Map page. Tick the MotorHome box and it shows you the eight ELDC car parks where motorhomes can be parked.

As regards parking orders in general, terminology does not have to be that used by the DVLA or anyone else. It simply has to be clear what the order means.

Parking orders over-ride signage as it is the order which is the legal instrument. Some councils simply use signs saying something like "Parking must be in accordance with the current order" with no indication as to how to access the order - but that is legal. That is why it is misleading for anyone to claim that an order is invalid just because a council has said it will change the wording of a sign.

 

[TheCaller]

East Lindsey has a Parking Interactive Map page. Tick the MotorHome box and it shows you the eight ELDC car parks where motorhomes can be parked.

Which shows where East Lindsey's priorities lie. East Lindsey includes nearly all of the Lincolnshire Wolds & at least four non-coastal market towns (depending how you count them). The only non-coastal off-street provision is in Louth (with none on a Thursday) & that in a cattle market ELDC have just agreed to sell to ASDA. The cattle market is out of the town centre & at the top of a steep hill. Many of Louth's car parks are quite unsuitable for larger vehicles, but two of the town centre car parks would be suitable for a 3.5t limit rather than 30cwt. At the moment, even those affluent people with Range Rovers (who's cash the local shops would love to have) would appear to be excluded. Those that represent the town have tried, but it's all on deaf ears.

As regards parking orders in general, terminology does not have to be that used by the DVLA or anyone else. It simply has to be clear what the order means.

Parking orders over-ride signage as it is the order which is the legal instrument. Some councils simply use signs saying something like "Parking must be in accordance with the current order" with no indication as to how to access the order - but that is legal. That is why it is misleading for anyone to claim that an order is invalid just because a council has said it will change the wording of a sign.

I'm sure that's right, but just because it's legal doesn't make it a sensible thing for a council to do. Not to standardise on common terms & to have regulations that are not displayed to visitors & which couldn't easily be inferred is bad public policy. It brings government into disrepute. If done by a private parking contractor, it would be subject to challenge under Unfair Contracts legislation.

 

[GJH]

Which shows where East Lindsey's priorities lie. East Lindsey includes nearly all of the Lincolnshire Wolds & at least four non-coastal market towns (depending how you count them). The only non-coastal off-street provision is in Louth (with none on a Thursday) & that in a cattle market ELDC have just agreed to sell to ASDA. The cattle market is out of the town centre & at the top of a steep hill. Many of Louth's car parks are quite unsuitable for larger vehicles, but two of the town centre car parks would be suitable for a 3.5t limit rather than 30cwt. At the moment, even those affluent people with Range Rovers (who's cash the local shops would love to have) would appear to be excluded. Those that represent the town have tried, but it's all on deaf ears.(snip)

I hear what you are saying but does the availability of motorhome parking equate to where people in motorhomes want to go? Is there actually an unsatisfied demand?

For instance, (another area of the country I know) there is no off street parking for motorhomes in Hyndburn Borough - but who wants to go to Accrington in a motorhome?

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

 

[TheCaller]

We are in danger of taking this thread off-topic, but...

ELDC themselves claim they want to promote tourism throughout the whole district - not that many people are convinced.

All the market town councils say that they do want provision for visitors of every type, but they don't have control of off-street parking.

The Lincolnshire Wolds is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It has reasonable campsite provision, but that's no help to the motorhome user who also wants to visit the local towns during the daytime.

It isn't just motorhomes that are not provided for. Many car parks ban all vans (of any size) & anything larger than a mid-sized car. I haven't been round the whole district's car parks to see if the 30cwt limit applies to everywhere other than the 8 listed as motorhome suitable, but when I last checked a few months ago, it applied to all the Louth car parks, with the exception of the cattle market.

They don't need to make special provision - they just don't need to ban everything. They don't even need special bays - there is already provision for occupying multiple bays. If there really is no demand, then there is no loss.

Strangely, although the signs make reference to the 30cwt limit, the Parking Order itself doesn't. The Parking Order was recently revised & generally makes reference to any changes enacted by it. But maybe I'd better check that the signs haven't changed in the last month or so. I may walk past them several times a week, but that doesn't mean I read them every time!

 

[GJH]

I don't know the ELDC area but wonder if it is the case that the car parks which ban anything larger than a mid-sized car are old ones (built decades ago) which simply aren't capable of sustained use by larger vehicles. That is certainly the case in many places.

 

[John & Joan]

It must be remembered that Motor Caravans are passenger vehicles usually M1 (SP) not just accommodation, so if someone wishes to visit a relative or friend in their vehicle in these places they have nowhere to park. Not everyone has a separate car. There are 25 Small Motorhomes/Campervans listed in MMM ( July 2013) that fit under a 2m barrier and fit a standard bay. A few more are under 5.5m long or just over 2m high. These are still motor caravans.

Using the word Motorhome or Motor Caravan is misleading in these descriptions. A length or height definition would be less confusing.

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

 

[John & Joan]

Slow link - Double post

 

[DBK]

As a MH owner I too would like to see better provision for MH parking, especially round here in Devon. So why don't the CCs provide it? Is it because, to use the 'T' word, they don't want travellers setting up camp? Is this what is really behind this anti-MH stance in most cases?

 

[Gorse Hill]

O

East Lindsey has a Parking Interactive Map page. Tick the MotorHome box and it shows you the eight ELDC car parks where motorhomes can be parked.

As regards parking orders in general, terminology does not have to be that used by the DVLA or anyone else. It simply has to be clear what the order means.

Parking orders over-ride signage as it is the order which is the legal instrument. Some councils simply use signs saying something like "Parking must be in accordance with the current order" with no indication as to how to access the order - but that is legal. That is why it is misleading for anyone to claim that an order is invalid just because a council has said it will change the wording of a sign.

Hi graham as you have pointed out above ( no indication as to how to access the order) seems obstructive to me and judging by various post by people who know a lot more about this than me there is clearly a anti Motorhome agenda by a lot of councils
Personally I think the weight issue is a red herring simple on this basis, a full loaded 4x4 with 4/5 people would weigh in the region of 3 ton and if it is the land rover discovery (which has kerb weight of 2705kg) then clearly over 3 ton (also most M/H have a 3 or 3.5 max weight) and to add to that there was 80.000 new reg last year for land rover alone never mind all the other 4x4 which is far more than the 177.000 M/H in this country and remember these vechicles are used on a daily basis unlike a M/H
Regarding the cost involved with the habitation application by LA am sure this would be adequately paid for by the extra charge for using your M/H in these car parks
As I've said before I don't use car parks with my M/H and the main reason being I am unsure of the exact requirements for doing so as the councils don't make it easy for me to park there, with my 4x4 it's easy I turn up pay the fee and I know I won't be getting a fine.
Why should I be penalised for having a M/H when vechicles which are also over the weight limit allowed and in much larger qt

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

 

[TheCaller]

I don't know the ELDC area but wonder if it is the case that the car parks which ban anything larger than a mid-sized car are old ones (built decades ago) which simply aren't capable of sustained use by larger vehicles. That is certainly the case in many places.

That would be a very sensible policy, if selectively applied. Louth has a number of very small car parks in the old part of the (Georgian) town where size &/or weight restrictions make perfect sense. But it has two largish long stay car parks, both still within the town, both reasonably recent, one of which seems to have withstood showman's wagons for the fair's annual visit for many years, which have the same restrictions. Officially, there is no off-street parking in the town for any car-derived van (however small), for any large 4x4 (& remember this is an agricultural area), nowhere for a VW T4/5, whether a campervan or the plumber's work van and so on.

In other words, it's not just that there is an anti-motorhome policy to avoid perceived campsite competition & the sort of problems they have at Huttoft - the whole approach to parking in the district is a complete shambles & defies all logic.

To come back to motorhome specific parking for a moment, the stupid thing is that by banning daytime parking, they are reducing local campsite revenue. If they can't visit the local towns, many people won't come & camp in the area at all. Which is a shame, because although much of the Lincolnshire coastline is all amusement arcades & Kiss Me Quick hats, the rest of the district is lovely.

 

[timdownieuk]

GJH
Re:NMO. bet you can't guess which non Motorhomer started it

Hmm, that rules out Jimmy Saville then...

 

[GJH]

As a MH owner I too would like to see better provision for MH parking, especially round here in Devon. So why don't the CCs provide it? Is it because, to use the 'T' word, they don't want travellers setting up camp? Is this what is really behind this anti-MH stance in most cases?

I presume that by "CCs" you mean County Councils. Counties are responsible for on street parking and districts for off street (unitaries like Cornwall both, obviously). There are many reasons, documented on this and other threads and elsewhere. "Travellers" are a problem in some areas but not others. Many height barriers are erected to prevent commercial vehicle access. There are all sorts of conflicting calls on parking in different areas and councils have to try to strike a balance based on demands they are aware of.

In the last 8 years of researching motorhome parking I have come across little or no bias against motorhomes per se, only against the activities of certain motorhome users.

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

 

[GJH]

Hi graham as you have pointed out above ( no indication as to how to access the order) seems obstructive to me and judging by various post by people who know a lot more about this than me there is clearly a anti Motorhome agenda by a lot of councils
Personally I think the weight issue is a red herring simple on this basis, a full loaded 4x4 with 4/5 people would weigh in the region of 3 ton and if it is the land rover discovery (which has kerb weight of 2705kg) then clearly over 3 ton (also most M/H have a 3 or 3.5 max weight) and to add to that there was 80.000 new reg last year for land rover alone never mind all the other 4x4 which is far more than the 177.000 M/H in this country and remember these vechicles are used on a daily basis unlike a M/H

As I mentioned earlier, the question of 4x4 vehicles is something which has exercised a number of councils for the last few years as the number of such vehicles has grown. I'm sure if anyone has a simple answer then all councils would be interested

Regarding the cost involved with the habitation application by LA am sure this would be adequately paid for by the extra charge for using your M/H in these car parks

Would it though? The costs could be thousands of pounds - lots of £5/£10 a night. That is why we need to be able to provide targeted evidence for individual sites to be successful.

As I've said before I don't use car parks with my M/H and the main reason being I am unsure of the exact requirements for doing so as the councils don't make it easy for me to park there, with my 4x4 it's easy I turn up pay the fee and I know I won't be getting a fine.
Why should I be penalised for having a M/H when vechicles which are also over the weight limit allowed and in much larger qt

It isn't a matter of being penalised. We all choose to buy motorhomes in the full knowledge that there are parking problems in some places. As in any other aspect of life we cannot simply demand that public money be spent because we want support for what we choose to do. It could be said that we are penalising ourselves

As regards knowing how easy it is to park (or not) in different places, that is the main aim behind http://www.motorhomeparking.co.uk/

 

[sadlonelygit]

we went to york at whitsun not knowing about their dislike of m/h's.
we parked down by the coach park in the car park. no-one attempted to warn us away and nothing came through the post to us...........so possibly if nobody actually listens to them........then they'll have a hard job enforcing their rules.