Was that you emptying your Elsan over the cliff? (1 Viewer)

[DBK]

Scarborough council decided that as they had refused planning for campsites previously they would be seen as allowing their car parks permission that other people had been refused in the past.
This is complete BULL but suits them to appease the local site and hotel owners (I'm not saying that because one Councillor has interests in a local site it would sway the decision!). Planning policy changes on a regular basis. What would it be like if we still had to drive cars down bridle paths because roads were against planning practice. I'm sure Flyde council has refused unsuitable planning for sites, but it saw sense and sorted planning and the problem was solved.

Thanks for that, the murky world of local politics. Assuming they had valid grounds for refusing the applications for campsites I don't see what problem they would have with a very slight change of use of existing car parks but I guess unless there is someone on the council championing the cause of MH owners then they will always take the route of least risk and least resistance and of course out of area MH owners don't vote in their council elections!.

 

[mjltigger]

and of course out of area MH owners don't vote in their council elections

I'm going to suggest local elections are fought over local issues.. a councillor telling people he will do away with these freeloading tossers is going to get votes from locals who don't like their place being 'spoilt' by freeloading tossers.. he probably won't lose votes from people who use their MH to go off elsewhere as it won't affect them.. it is a different council that deal with where they park.

 

[GJH]

Thanks for that, the murky world of local politics. Assuming they had valid grounds for refusing the applications for campsites I don't see what problem they would have with a very slight change of use of existing car parks but I guess unless there is someone on the council championing the cause of MH owners then they will always take the route of least risk and least resistance and of course out of area MH owners don't vote in their council elections!.

The problem, as quoted ad nauseam, is the planning policy.

Whether we like it or not, Scarborough Council decided many years ago that there would be no caravan sites allowed in certain areas. In pursuit of that policy they refused planning permission to a number of private applicants over the years. When councillors put forward a scheme to allow change of use of car parks (to include the status of caravan sites) they, as they are required to, asked officers to report on the implications. It was that investigation which highlighted the policy problem.

If the council had overturned the policy then, first of all, they would have been accused of partiality - one rule for them and another for everyone else - which could well have ended up in court. Secondly, they would have had no grounds for refusal of subsequent applications from private applicants. At the very least it would have been a waste of money for local taxpayers.

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

 

[EuroTrotters]

Wonder where all the truckers on the M20 Operation stack dumped their waste?

 

[GWAYGWAY]

KCC did put temporary toilets in and they did get used a lot.
I was wondering if the toilet emptiers over the cliif from MH are the same one that do it in theGateway front garden???????????
It is always easy to accuse when in actual fact it never happened

 

[frogijock]

So why does this not happen to Aires in other Countries, they have "Travellers too".

In France they have dedicated traveller sites, also if travellers park in an Aire the Gendarmes will tell them to move, if they do not comply along comes a tow truck and helps them on their way none of this 28 days nonsense. Also Aires are designated for motorhomes ( camping cars) only.

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

 

[DBK]

The problem, as quoted ad nauseam, is the planning policy.

Whether we like it or not, Scarborough Council decided many years ago that there would be no caravan sites allowed in certain areas. In pursuit of that policy they refused planning permission to a number of private applicants over the years. When councillors put forward a scheme to allow change of use of car parks (to include the status of caravan sites) they, as they are required to, asked officers to report on the implications. It was that investigation which highlighted the policy problem.

If the council had overturned the policy then, first of all, they would have been accused of partiality - one rule for them and another for everyone else - which could well have ended up in court. Secondly, they would have had no grounds for refusal of subsequent applications from private applicants. At the very least it would have been a waste of money for local taxpayers.

I wonder if the bit I have put in bold was the real reason? They would still have retained the right to refuse campsites on greenfield sites, allowing overnight stays in car parks hardly acts as a precedent for allowing a new campsite and I see no reason why it should have opened the floodgates for litigation over previous refusals. Councils are elected bodies and they are allowed to change policy.

Or was it there had been applications for campsites on brownfield sites? If so, then they could have allowed them if they met the usual planning requirements - local consultation, impact on roads etc etc. But if there were vested interests at work trying to ensure existing campsites did not have any new competition.....

 

[GJH]

I wonder if the bit I have put in bold was the real reason? They would still have retained the right to refuse campsites on greenfield sites, allowing overnight stays in car parks hardly acts as a precedent for allowing a new campsite and I see no reason why it should have opened the floodgates for litigation over previous refusals. Councils are elected bodies and they are allowed to change policy.

Or was it there had been applications for campsites on brownfield sites? If so, then they could have allowed them if they met the usual planning requirements - local consultation, impact on roads etc etc. But if there were vested interests at work trying to ensure existing campsites did not have any new competition.....

Believe what you like but, perhaps, studying the restrictions that local authorities have to work under might educate that belief.

 

[etap]

Why don't we just stop everyone from parking more than two nights continuously on public roads and public land, if people want to stay longer then they should ask permission from the local council and be issued with a certificate if it is agreed for another two nights, then they must move away and return only after a week if they want to stay for another two nights. People who do not adhere have a fine of £200.00 or have their vehicle removed until fine is paid.
I bet this idea doesn't go down well with funsters so perhaps I should say sorry now!
Etap

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