appeal from liverpool marina to allow motorhome parking (1 Viewer)

[sueandjohn]

i just received the following email. Liverpool Marina previously allowed overnight motorhome stays with facilities and they have been stopped pending appeal. If anyone would like to send a supporting letter they would be grateful - i just did it online and you dont need to create an account, just enter the reference

"Im not sure if you were aware of our problems with having motorhome here at the marina but I now have information for people to voice their support
here is the info for the appeal. Please support it and forward the info to as many websites - britstop, facebook etc / and friends as possible - we have until the 6th August

be a bit descriptive about your support -
you have stayed here - reason for visit? Friends, Concert, Tourism etc what you did and spent
Ideal location etc
You want to visit or just want to support



MOTORHOME APPEAL INFO:

Applicants name: Liverpool Marina
Appeal ref: APP/Z4310/W/18/3203773
Appeal start date: 5th July 2018

Appeal online at:
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/appeals/online/comment


or Email
West2@pins.gov.uk

 

[SandJ]

Your title implies you received an email from Liverpool Marina is that correct?

 

[sueandjohn]

Your title implies you received an email from Liverpool Marina is that correct?

yes i did as i had previously emailed them a query about staying in the marina

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

 

[iandsm]

So the Marina, presumably in private ownership and which allows boats on the water is now being told they cannot any longer allows motorhomes to stay overnight. I wonder if someone has found it necessary to complain and whether they have good grounds to do so or are just miserable sods. I wonder if the motorhomes caused any inconvenience, I doubt it.

Take a look on satellite view. The parking areas are not in line of sight to any residential property and just overlook the marina it’s their own car park.

 

[lesleyjean]

I also received the same email. I have completed my appeal. It would be really good if we could gather a whole lot of Funsters to appeal as well. We must try to keep the Liverpool Marina open to Motorhomes.
Hope you will all support this.

 

[Nasher]

Can someone please provide a link or copy of the background (what happened to stop motohomes staying there) I have followed the link but there is no information that I can find.

Thanks in advance

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

 

[Tanya_and_Mick]

@GJH ?

 

[olley]

Done

 

[GJH]

Can someone please provide a link or copy of the background (what happened to stop motohomes staying there) I have followed the link but there is no information that I can find.

Thanks in advance

The possibility of marina companies also becoming licensed caravan sites in order to allow motorhome camping was raised on the Whitby thread last Tuesday (see ).
I posted this link to the information about Liverpool. The Marina has apparently been allowing motorhomes so far without a licence or planning consent (shades of Ambleside).

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

 

[GJH]

The full documentation of the original (refused) planning application is Here.

 

[iandsm]

All they want to do is have 12 motorhomes for God’s sake.

 

[olley]

The reasons for refusal:

The proposal is considered unacceptable. Based on the requirements of local and national planning policy the proposal is considered to have a materially adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area and the living environment and conditions of the surrounding residential apartments contrary to Policies E6, E8 and HD18 of the Liverpool UDP and the overarching principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

 

[chaser]

seems to me another stirring of a hornets nest by applying to a council for change of use from a car park to a campsite, instead of leaving well alone.

 

[DP+JAY]

Reasons 1
The proposal is considered unacceptable. Based on the requirements of local and national planning policy the proposal is considered to have a materially adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area and the living environment and conditions of the surrounding residential apartments contrary to Policies E6, E8 and HD18 of the Liverpool UDP and the overarching principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Or more likely someone on the council has a vested interest.

 

[sueandjohn]

seems to me another stirring of a hornets nest by applying to a council for change of use from a car park to a campsite, instead of leaving well alone.

They had to stop accepting Motorhomes due to enforcement if my memory serves me right

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

 

[chaser]

They had to stop accepting Motorhomes due to enforcement if my memory serves me right

ok accept that if thats the case,

 

[westhamman]

Now I will play devils advocate, you live near open space, privately owned, who decides that they were going to allow travellers to park there. Would you happily think.
They are only travellers, no harm done.
I cant see them, there lovely children only make noise from 7am and the dogs bark for 6 hours a day.
They have every right to park where they like iif the owner wants them there or
They can't bloody stop there, thats not I moved next too when I moved here.

 

[Teuchter]

It would appear that unlike Whitby there have been no "locals" objecting, no reports of emptying toilets illegally and I cannot see anyone having a "vested interest" in this case so I can fond no obvious reason to reject the proposal! - The printed reasons for the rejection are somewhat "Official speak" and I do not really understand them - perhaps Graham @GJH could help me here please

Is it possible that the rejection was done more in ignorance than anything else? ie Councillors at the planning meeting not having the benefits (such as they are) explained to them so rather than think of a well run area with the acceptable space & facilities they think of the often publicised "Traveller mess" seen in the press??

On the other hand is it possible that really it was just straightforward bias (subliminal or not) against motorhomes/campervans/caravans and before anyone says caravans were not included, I am well aware of that, however, when it comes to bias the general public, including Councillors, often class MoHos, caravans, RVs etc all as one!

Either way I am puzzled by the decision and would really like to find out the thinking behind it

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

 

[scotjimland]

there have been no "locals" objecting,

we don't know that for a fact.. does this marina not have expensive residential flats overlooking it .. ?

materially adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area and the living environment and conditions of the surrounding residential apartments

I would think someone or something drew there attention to the fact that it didn't have planning consent and they had to act.

 

[chaser]

we dont know the full facts but what it looked like to me was the owners had had some motorhomes stopping on their carpark no problem and thought ay up theres an earner here, we,ll apply to turn it into a campsite, so alerting council, h&s, enviourment and untold officials, so everyone around has to be told about something they had no idea what was happening and lo and behold they start protesting about something they know nowt about.
its what happens when you get greedy and start involving "officials"

 

[chaser]

in fact presumably you can sleep on the boats 10 foot away but not in a van

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

 

[GJH]

It would appear that unlike Whitby there have been no "locals" objecting, no reports of emptying toilets illegally and I cannot see anyone having a "vested interest" in this case so I can fond no obvious reason to reject the proposal! - The printed reasons for the rejection are somewhat "Official speak" and I do not really understand them - perhaps Graham @GJH could help me here please

Is it possible that the rejection was done more in ignorance than anything else? ie Councillors at the planning meeting not having the benefits (such as they are) explained to them so rather than think of a well run area with the acceptable space & facilities they think of the often publicised "Traveller mess" seen in the press??

On the other hand is it possible that really it was just straightforward bias (subliminal or not) against motorhomes/campervans/caravans and before anyone says caravans were not included, I am well aware of that, however, when it comes to bias the general public, including Councillors, often class MoHos, caravans, RVs etc all as one!

Either way I am puzzled by the decision and would really like to find out the thinking behind it

I haven't studied the documents in full (or chased up exactly what the policies in the Urban Development Plan cover) but the planning documents include one describing the benefits as far as the applicants see them. Unlikely, therefore, that the decision has been made in ignorance or on the basis of bias with no grounds.

Or more likely someone on the council has a vested interest.

Why? Where is there any evidence of that at all?

I would think someone or something drew there attention to the fact that it didn't have planning consent and they had to act.

I would guess it is either that or the applicant decided that he had better try to obtain consent before anything happened.

The fact that it has gone to appeal will hopefully (if it is anything like Ambleside) end up with a report detailing the full history and reasons if the rejection is upheld. All appeals are decided upon their merits and the inspector is an independent representative of the Secretery of State who certainly has no vested interest.

 

[jollyrodger]

A

we dont know the full facts but what it looked like to me was the owners had had some motorhomes stopping on their carpark no problem and thought ay up theres an earner here, we,ll apply to turn it into a campsite, so alerting council, h&s, enviourment and untold officials, so everyone around has to be told about something they had no idea what was happening and lo and behold they start protesting about something they know nowt about.
its what happens when you get greedy and start involving "officials"

They already charge £15 (£5 refundable on return of key card)
According to camper contacts.

And roadside on the beach is free up at new Brighton Wallasey

 

[barsteward]

[QUOTE="jollyrodger, post: 2931194, member: 2310

And roadside on the beach is free up at new Brighton Wallasey[/QUOTE]

Yes, but not for much longer I suspect

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

 

[jollyrodger]

[QUOTE="barsteward, post: 2931231, member: 33

Yes, but not for much longer I suspect[/QUOTE]



Why ?
N 53.43442 W 3.07388

 

[scotjimland]

in fact presumably you can sleep on the boats 10 foot away but not in a van

then buy an amphibious camper.. sorted ..

 

[Riverbankannie]

Done
We intend to stay there in August and I have already booked tickets for the Terracotta Warriers exhibition for my birthday. Don’t know where to stay if not at the marina.

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

 

[sueandjohn]

I think you can park and stay st Kings Dock

 

[sueandjohn]

https://www.searchforsites.co.uk/markerMobile.php?id=23143

 

[Riverbankannie]

https://www.searchforsites.co.uk/markerMobile.php?id=23143

Thanks for that.

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