UK Aires (1 Viewer)

[johnp10]

I think that biggest fear for most counciles is that these aires would be taken over by the 'travelling communities'

Because our Police don't have the balls or the political back up to move them on.

How do they deal with this in Europe?

Like this:

Simple, they force them to move at gunpoint if needed, whereas we have to wait for a court summond to be issued against Mr Gligmaglog of no fixed abode- by which time they are gone.

 

[GJH]

Because New Labour's stupid ruling under the HRA/RRRA means our Police and councils [STRIKE]don't have the balls or the political back up to[/STRIKE] can't legally move them on without jumping through hoops.

.

 

[johnp10]

Originally Posted by johnp10 Link Removed
Because New Labour's stupid ruling under the HRA/RRRA means our Police and councils don't have the balls or the political back up to can't legally move them on without jumping through hoops.


Thanks for the PC version, Graham.

I'm sure you mean New Labour's stupid ruling which the no alition have' as with everything else, done sod all about.
They are no less to blame for the Police being handcuffed by crap.
(No pun intended.....good though, eh?)
Anyway, this isn't about how shite the no alition is now and how shite the other crowd were before them, it's about the WILL to move them on.
The call themselves "Travellers", let them travel.
Unlike the Police on the continent, ours have no backing and are surrounded by pisspotical HRA issues.

Todays word is "Pisspotical".

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

 

[GJH]

Originally Posted by johnp10 Link Removed
Because New Labour's stupid ruling under the HRA/RRRA means our Police and councils don't have the balls or the political back up to can't legally move them on without jumping through hoops.


Thanks for the PC version, Graham.

I'm sure you mean New Labour's stupid ruling which the no alition have' as with everything else, done sod all about.
They are no less to blame for the Police being handcuffed by crap.
(No pun intended.....good though, eh?)
Anyway, this isn't about how shite the no alition is now and how shite the other crowd were before them, it's about the WILL to move them on.
The call themselves "Travellers", let them travel.
Unlike the Police on the continent, ours have no backing and are surrounded by pisspotical HRA issues.

Todays word is "Pisspotical".

I agree John, the current government should have done something about it by now. Trouble is that the Will matters little if the Law doesn't allow it to function.

 

[Linda and Steph]

Probably (very probably) a stupid thought.

Canal boat owners pay a licence to British Waterways which allow them to use the canals, locks etc and, importantly, allows them to moor almost anywhere along the canal for certain periods. What if motorhomers could do something similar - pay for a licence which would allow us to ignore these 'no overnight parking' and 'no motorhomes' signs - would anybody be interested?

 

[Fireman Sam]

Good thread this.
No slagging anyone off, other than the local authorities, the raggle-taggle-gipsy ohs, New Labour, the coalition, Human Rights act, the law and the police. Oh and Swift.

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

 

[sdc77]

The pass idea seems quite a good one... If it could incorporate the big clubs as well that would be even better.. As it stands c&cc charge £7 for three hours for members to use any facilities.. Now if that could be obtained from an 'asci' style card that would be good for me.

 

[GJH]

Probably (very probably) a stupid thought.

Canal boat owners pay a licence to British Waterways which allow them to use the canals, locks etc and, importantly, allows them to moor almost anywhere along the canal for certain periods. What if motorhomers could do something similar - pay for a licence which would allow us to ignore these 'no overnight parking' and 'no motorhomes' signs - would anybody be interested?

It's rather more complicated unfortunately

First of all whilst there is one British Waterways there are 400+ local authorities of different types with parking responsibilities. National legislation changes would be necessary to make them all comply with such a scheme.

Also, one of the main problems is that the design, construction and planning consent applying to car parks means many are unsuitable for regular use by vehicles weighing more than 2 tonnes.

 

[zulurita]

How do they deal with this in Europe?

The police in France act quickly in my experience and soon move them on. No faffing about like our Councils/police.

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

 

[GJH]

The police in France act quickly in my experience and soon move them on. No faffing about like our Councils/police.

The police in France have the opportunity to act quickly because the law in France is different. UK councils/police don't "faff about" they act within the law as they have to do. Having experienced the problems suffered by local councils at first hand I know very well that they would welcome having the same freedom that French law allows.

 

[ShiftZZ]

The law in France may well be different, the issue is the travellers in the UK know what they can do , the councils have appointed no end of Liaison officers to assist them with their rights. The difference in France is the travellers in France know not to mess with the French authorities. Look at any official ‘traveller’ site in France, very tidy, they usually have a brick building etc.
Bottom line is this, the UK law allows people to push the boundaries and those in the know, will do this time and time again, they claim that one of their own is ill and that opens a can of worms, combined with the do-gooders and the abuse the HRA and anything else they can.

 

[GJH]

The law in France may well be different, the issue is the travellers in the UK know what they can do , the[HI] councils have appointed no end of Liaison officers to assist them with their rights[/HI]. The difference in France is the travellers in France know not to mess with the French authorities. Look at any official ‘traveller’ site in France, very tidy, they usually have a brick building etc.
Bottom line is this, the UK law allows people to push the boundaries and those in the know, will do this time and time again, they claim that one of their own is ill and that opens a can of worms, combined with the do-gooders and the abuse the HRA and anything else they can.

Under the HRA/RRRA (see posts above) councils have no option but to appoint liaison officers.

It is pointless criticising councils/police when it is national law that ties their hands.

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

 

[WynandJean]

It seems to have become the default position these days in this country to look at any problem from the viewpoint of, ''what reasons can we come up with that mean we can't do this or can't do that". We seem to have no "can do" attitude any more. We are just so hidebound.

Wyn

 

[sdc77]

Under the HRA/RRRA (see posts above) councils have no option but to appoint liaison officers.

It is pointless criticising councils/police when it is national law that ties their hands.

Graham.. I agree with re national issues.. But I dont know which law states that a job has to be created to liase. They just have to liase. A liason officer can liase with all sorts of people. I think some people are confusing policy with law. The HRA does not demand jobs are created.. Public bodies just have to abide by the law.. Just as they do with any other law such as health and safety or DDA..

As an example.... Anyone who has seen the Corporation of London deal with 'travellers' will know that where there is a will and determination it is very easy to deal with them within the law.
The problem is weak and hand wringing councils.

 

[GJH]

It seems to have become the default position these days in this country to look at any problem from the viewpoint of, ''what reasons can we come up with that mean we can't do this or can't do that". We seem to have no "can do" attitude any more. We are just so hidebound.

Wyn

That's exactly why I keep saying to people that in order to make progress they need to show real evidence to local authorities, other public authorities or private sector organisations that doing something would be beneficial. Instead we too often see "I can't do it because I'm too busy" or "I can't do it because I don't know how".

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

 

[GJH]

Graham.. I agree with re national issues.. But I dont know which law states that a job has to be created to liase. They just have to liase. A liason officer can liase with all sorts of people. I think some people are confusing policy with law. The HRA does not demand jobs are created.. Public bodies just have to abide by the law.. Just as they do with any other law such as health and safety or DDA..

As an example.... Anyone who has seen the Corporation of London deal with 'travellers' will know that where there is a will and determination it is very easy to deal with them within the law.
The problem is weak and hand wringing councils.

OK, I take the point that councils don't have to have a post entitled Traveller Liaison Officer. What they do have to have is somebody whose job description and time available enables undertaking the statutory functions.

That will vary between authorities and the extent of the work in their area. In some places it may well be less that one full time equivalent and in others it may well be more.

I don't know how the Corporation of London deal with travellers. Indeed I didn't even realise there was a problem with travellers in the 'Square Mile'. I'd be interested in seeing the details though.

 

[frogijock]

How do they deal with this in Europe?

In France they have areas set aside for the so-called travelling community complete with toilets,showers,laundry rooms etc; the authorities also do not mess around, any travellers parked where they shouldn't have their vans towed away :thumb:

 

[Roxie]

Excellent thread - it has prompted me to send off a note to my local council (West Berkshire) quoting the pro-active attitude of Torridge & Weymouth councils - areas where there are also plenty of campsites. Here - the home of Newbury Racecourse & Downton Abbey, there are very few campsites , and no motorhome parking - shameful. I also pointed them to Graham's great motorhome parking site.

Let's see how we get on!

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

 

[jezport]

I know there are different views on this thread but I think if more of us could just do a bit towards promoting the benefits of motorhomers to area where we stop we could do a lot for our reputation.

When we stop somewhere why not mention that we are motorhomers in the cafe, restaurant,shop or pub that we visit. That way at least they know that we are contributing to their business.

Why not contact the council where you have visited and if you have had a pleasant experience and feel the council has done their part in making motorhomes welcome let them know. i.e. Fylde Council has allocated a carpark for overnight motorhome parking, they have painted wider ad longer spaces.

And finally park sensibly and leave no waste or damage behind.

 

[jezport]

If you have parked at the swimming pool carpark at St Annes please follow this link Broken Link Removed

 

[jezport]

Fylde Council to trial motorhome car park scheme

27/04/2012

Fylde Borough Council in is to open up one of its car parks for the use of people with motorhomes.

The car park behind St Annes Swimming Pool in Lytham-St-Annes will permit people with motorhomes to park there overnight. The council hopes that opening up the car park will solve the frustrations of local residents who have seen the homes take up valuable space on streets.

The council will also earn valuable cash from the parking permits, which aim to emulate the popular “aires” found in car parks across France.

Local councillor, Albert Pounder, said that they had high hopes for the new system of car park management and predicted that it would aid the area’s tourism trade.

“We know some residents dislike seeing motorhomes parked on the Prom,” he said. “Opening the car park at the back of the pool is a good position for visitors while meaning that residents don’t have to see them in front of their homes all night. The new scheme will allow them to stay for up to three consecutive nights.”

He said that while the scheme was still in its trial period, other facilities for the homes would not be provided, but that has the potential to change if the scheme becomes permanent.

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

 

[GJH]

Excellent thread - it has prompted me to send off a note to my local council (West Berkshire) quoting the pro-active attitude of Torridge & Weymouth councils - areas where there are also plenty of campsites. Here - the home of Newbury Racecourse & Downton Abbey, there are very few campsites , and no motorhome parking - shameful. I also pointed them to Graham's great motorhome parking site.

Let's see how we get on!

Thanks for the compliment

I wish you luck with West Berkshire. The Broken Link Removed states "The Council has no provision for motor-home parking in any of the car parks". As far as I know, though, there are no specific on-street restrictions on motorhomes (obviously general restrictions apply as to other vehicles).

I am in the process of adding information for Attractions to my web site. I hadn't contacted Highclere but have just e-mailed them asking if they will publish motorhome parking information on their web site. Your mention of Newbury racecourse prompts me that I haven't contacted any racecourses so I've made a note to do so.

 

[GJH]

If you have parked at the swimming pool carpark at St Annes please follow this link Broken Link Removed

The Fylde facility is a prime example of the evidence based approach I keep banging on about. Fylde suffered for years with people ignoring perfectly legal No Camping signs and at one time banned motorhomes from all car parks completely (including during the day) as a result. It was purely through individual efforts (not connected in any way with me) in working with Fylde Council to show them that there was a valid economic case that the facility was opened.

Such a case cannot simply be copied because the equivalents are individual to each area, so each needs effort to put it together, but the Fylde example proves that the approach works.

 

[jezport]

The Fylde facility is a prime example of the evidence based approach I keep banging on about. Fylde suffered for years with people ignoring perfectly legal No Camping signs and at one time banned motorhomes from all car parks completely (including during the day) as a result. It was purely through individual efforts (not connected in any way with me) in working with Fylde Council to show them that there was a valid economic case that the facility was opened.

Such a case cannot simply be copied because the equivalents are individual to each area, so each needs effort to put it together, but the Fylde example proves that the approach works.

I think some councils could copy it, but even if is just shows them that there is a way round the problem.
BTW I was involved with the original plans at Fylde.

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

 

[GJH]

I think some councils could copy it, but even if is just shows them that there is a way round the problem.
[HI]BTW I was involved with the original plans at Fylde.[/HI]

Our thanks are due to you then :thumb::thumb:

 

[jezport]

Our thanks are due to you then :thumb::thumb:

To be honest Fylde council were really good at listening to what we said and they were 100% honest to both residents and motorhomes. They used common sense in solving the problem of overnight parking.

 

[GJH]

To be honest Fylde council were really good at listening to what we said and they were 100% honest to both residents and motorhomes. They used common sense in solving the problem of overnight parking.

It was the same with Redcar & Cleveland regarding Guisborough. The common factor is the approach made to them.

The same sort of approach has worked in Torridge and a few other places but "less constructive" approaches have made things worse elsewhere.

Given that there is an approach which seems to work consistently I would contend that it is the one to go with rather than any alternative.

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

 

[GJH]

Thanks for the compliment

I wish you luck with West Berkshire. The Broken Link Removed states "The Council has no provision for motor-home parking in any of the car parks". As far as I know, though, there are no specific on-street restrictions on motorhomes (obviously general restrictions apply as to other vehicles).

I am in the process of adding information for Attractions to my web site. I hadn't contacted Highclere but have just e-mailed them asking if they will publish motorhome parking information on their web site. [HI]Your mention of Newbury racecourse prompts me that I haven't contacted any racecourses so I've made a note to do so.[/HI]

I've e-mailed every racecourse listed on the Racing Index web site (supposedly all UK racecourses) this afternoon/evening.

Bath deleted the e-mail without reading it but Cartmel, Chester and Ffos Las sent replies almost immediately. The three were different responses but dictated by different circumstances so equally valid. Details on This Page.

 

[jezport]

It was the same with Redcar & Cleveland regarding Guisborough. The common factor is the approach made to them.

The same sort of approach has worked in Torridge and a few other places but "less constructive" approaches have made things worse elsewhere.

Given that there is an approach which seems to work consistently I would contend that it is the one to go with rather than any alternative.

I emailed the council at Scarborough when I saw the first press reports of the councils issues with motorhomes. They didn't bother to reply. I have emailed them twice since then with no reply.

 

[GJH]

I emailed the council at Scarborough when I saw the first press reports of the councils issues with motorhomes. They didn't bother to reply. I have emailed them twice since then with no reply.

Strange. I e-mailed them as well and received a full explanation of the problem they found with the planning policy and why they could not, in the circumstances, grant themselves planning permission for the use of car parks for camping.

I did post details on here at the time but can't remember the thread. However, the report is on their web site as a PDF - Motor Caravans Parking off Street Car Parks PDF 176. I can't post a direct link as it is PDF rather than a web page but putting the text into the search box on the SBC home page brings it up as the first result.

It was a pity because several officers and members were in favour of the idea but were basically stuffed by the planning policy.

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