CL,s versus Aires (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

Personally I think the CC are obstructing the formation of aires in the UK

Interesting comment as I've never seen any evidence of it. Certainly when I have spoken to councils about potential aires there has never been any mention of the CC. Do you have any links to articles showing such obstruction?

 

[roadster55]

Sounds like you've been extraordinarily unlucky TBH.

The secret is pick the out-of-the-way Aires if you're going in peak season. Having said that I can only remember having to move on once in all the time I've toured French aires because of overcrowding.

I suppose preferring a compact campervan as opposed to a large motorhome makes every aire and every road available to me which might partially explain it. Not so much space or luxury but I go to the most amazing places and I can have my home comforts when I return home!
I've also wild-camped many times without any problem too. The other thing that helps enormously is if you switch off motorways/toll routes on your satnav (presuming you're not in a rush), that way you'll end up using all the really beautiful aires off the beaten track in some stunning and quiet locations. I have never used a campsite on any of my trips abroad.
These piccies were when I had a Honda conversion (Japanese import) from Wheelhouse Leisure in 2012.

 

[jongood]

Interesting comment as I've never seen any evidence of it. Certainly when I have spoken to councils about potential aires there has never been any mention of the CC. Do you have any links to articles showing such obstruction?

Not any more sadly. But I wrote to them when I was a member 10ish years ago and suggested that they should promote an aires network and got a very dismissive letter back. Then at a later date I suggested to NT that they should allow overnighting in their carparks to members as a no cost inducement to being a member (I thought it was a good idea considering the profile of the typical mh owner) and got a letter back saying that they had consulted the caravan club who had told them that it was undesirable and unnecessary.

Jon

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

 

[GJH]

Not any more sadly. But I wrote to them when I was a member 10ish years ago and suggested that they should promote an aires network and got a very dismissive letter back. Then at a later date I suggested to NT that they should allow overnighting in their carparks to members as a no cost inducement to being a member (I thought it was a good idea considering the profile of the typical mh owner) and got a letter back saying that they had consulted the caravan club who had told them that it was undesirable and unnecessary.

Jon

There is a difference between not promoting an aires network and actively obstructing
My contacts with the NT (and other similar bodies) suggests that the main reason that they don't allow overnight camping is because of the administrative/management burden of licensing and running caravan sites.

 

[roadster55]

I haven't read every word of this thread so if this has been already mentioned I apologise, but I swear by the excellent series of Aires Guides from Vicarious books. Buy the set which includes detailed maps and GPS coordinates and you're pretty much ready to go anywhere in Europe at any time of the year without even thinking about campsites - complete freedom.
They do 2 books for France now - north and South, because there are so many! Also covered are the Benelux countries and Spain and Portugal. There are also guides to similar things in Italy and Germany.
The Vicarious books have 2-3 colour photos of each Aire and you can get a pretty good idea from just that one image of what to expect. Also main features are covered which includes things like river or lake views etc. plus of course amenities, including parking surface, distance to village and shops and even quietness of surroundings etc.

https://www.vicarious-shop.com/Aires-and-Stopovers/

Another massive bonus not often mentioned is that these Aires are usually funded and built by local communes, hence they may be the only possible parking place for a large motorhome within short walking distance of a village or some other local attraction. I've been to beautiful and isolated little historic villages in France, often with ancient churches, fortifications etc. that the guides books never mention, but because the local community have built an Aire beside the village, you get a chance to see something special. Also they usually build them in the prettiest spots, so waterside or mountain/hill views are fairly commonplace.

Try and spend a bit of money whilst you're there - there's usually a Boulangerie!
Chances are the local campsite is several miles away because the villages prefer it that way, often because these ancient places are not on through roads. Although in fairness the Municipal campsites are often central, but don't have a very long season, so if you go at the quieter times of year and want to see the real France then Aires definitely work the best.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Yes, I know the difference between them Nick. However, the activity is constant. The OP contrasts using CLs and aires for habitation (camping) in both cases so the comparison is valid in that it describes how much more suited CLs are to that than aires.

That last bit is the bit I don't really agree with. I don't see either type of place as more or less suited unless you are specifically talking about "campsite" type habitation with chairs, tables, BBQs, awnings etc.

We rarely use the van like that so as far as I'm concerned anywhere I can park overnight is perfectly suitable.

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

 

[Deleted member 29692]

OP hasn't been back to comment but I wonder if he didn't really understand what aires are or what they're intended for before he went.

If he was expecting them to be a French version of the CL/CS network then I can see how he might have been disappointed.

 

[chaser]

We, and I suspect most others that use them, prefer the Aires way, don't do the regimental camps or cls unless we need washing or something, but with more and more supermarkets getting laundry spaces that is fast becoming unneeded, we just want to park where we want reasonably safe and access to water and emptying, no need for hookup, or anything else and we have found if you want your table a chairs out no one objects, even a small canopy on most we've been on is tolerated as long as it doesn't stop someone else parking.

 

[GJH]

That last bit is the bit I don't really agree with. I don't see either type of place as more or less suited unless you are specifically talking about "campsite" type habitation with chairs, tables, BBQs, awnings etc.

We rarely use the van like that so as far as I'm concerned anywhere I can park overnight is perfectly suitable.

There is also the space/uncontrolled overcrowding issue, Nick, which is what the OP highlights and goes on to wonder why there are calls for such places when CLs/CSs exist.

With properly run aires, like the few places we currently have in the UK, I don't see a problem but does anyone really want to go down the route of the description in the OP of places where "Some people could barely open their doors"?

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

 

[Deleted member 29692]

There is also the space/uncontrolled overcrowding issue, Nick, which is what the OP highlights and goes on to wonder why there are calls for such places when CLs/CSs exist.

With properly run aires, like the few places we currently have in the UK, I don't see a problem but does anyone really want to go down the route of the description in the OP of places where "Some people could barely open their doors"?

I have never accepted the stupid 9 metre rule as necessary so I don't believe that to be an issue.

I've been on aires that have been that busy and I don't have an issue with it. I'm parked not camping so I don't need metres of space all around my van.

As I said in a previous post I think it's probable that the OP set off with an entirely incorrect idea of what aires actually are.

 

[GJH]

I have never accepted the stupid 9 metre rule as necessary so I don't believe that to be an issue.

I've been on aires that have been that busy and I don't have an issue with it. I'm parked not camping so I don't need metres of space all around my van.

There we will have to agree to differ as I don't see the rule as stupid
Having said that, it doesn't have to be hard and fast if people act responsibly. At Canterbury, for instance, there isn't that much space but also there isn't stupid overcrowding as described in the OP.
If anyone were to promote aires in this country on the basis that they might be used as described in the OP there would be even less chance of success (because of the UK distinction between parking and camping if nothing else)

 

[Deleted member 29692]

There we will have to agree to differ as I don't see the rule as stupid
Having said that, it doesn't have to be hard and fast if people act responsibly. At Canterbury, for instance, there isn't that much space but also there isn't stupid overcrowding as described in the OP.
If anyone were to promote aires in this country on the basis that they might be used as described in the OP there would be even less chance of success (because of the UK distinction between parking and camping if nothing else)

Calling it "stupid overcrowding" is trying to apply UK rules and standards to another country. What right do any of us have to do that?

The bays at Canterbury aren't that wide. If you had several larger vans all next to each other there would be quite a bit less than a metre between them and I don't see any issue with that.

With regard to the 9 metre rule it has always seemed to me to be nothing more than an arbitrary figure someone came up with however many years ago just for the sake of having a rule. Why not 6 metres or 8 or 10 or some other random number? It doesn't even seem to be based on anything sensible.

It's only the UK that feels the need. Even campsites in Europe don't worry about it. You have your pitch and how you use it is entirely up to you.

Is there any report or evidence anywhere that anything bad has ever happened to any motorhome or caravan as a direct result of being closer together than that?

If you're suggesting that aires in this country should only happen if some kind of CCesque regimented restrictive set of rules are applied then I for one would rather there weren't any.

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

 

[scotjimland]

Le Touquet, Equestrian Aire ... has a 3 mt spacing rule.. only one I've ever seen in France.. there may well be others..

and plenty of space for big un's

 

[chaser]

Apart from the fire issue, which I have never seen any reports of it happening, what's it matter how close you are to the next van, you are only going to sleep, and a row of terraced houses are a lot closer together than that and no one lies awake at night wondering what happens if there's a fire next door.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Le Touquet, Equestrian Aire ... has a 3 mt spacing rule.. only one I've ever seen in France.. there may well be others..

View attachment 108454

I've never been to that one. Is the rule enforced or on a busy weekend do the French take it as a suggestion and ignore it like they do with most other rules they don't like?

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

 

[scotjimland]

Apart from the fire issue,

nothing I guess.. if you discount being roasted alive..

 

[scotjimland]

I've never been to that one. Is the rule enforced or on a busy weekend do the French take it as a suggestion and ignore it like they do with most other rules they don't like?

no idea.. never seen it packed.. as you can see from the second picture.. tons of space.. we were there for a week

 

[scotjimland]

and this one has miles of space.. 1st August 2008

St Dizant du Gua France

as I said.. they vary enormously..

a more 'typical ' busy aire

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

 

[GJH]

Calling it "stupid overcrowding" is trying to apply UK rules and standards to another country. What right do any of us have to do that?

The bays at Canterbury aren't that wide. If you had several larger vans all next to each other there would be quite a bit less than a metre between them and I don't see any issue with that.

With regard to the 9 metre rule it has always seemed to me to be nothing more than an arbitrary figure someone came up with however many years ago just for the sake of having a rule. Why not 6 metres or 8 or 10 or some other random number? It doesn't even seem to be based on anything sensible.

It's only the UK that feels the need. Even campsites in Europe don't worry about it. You have your pitch and how you use it is entirely up to you.

Is there any report or evidence anywhere that anything bad has ever happened to any motorhome or caravan as a direct result of being closer together than that?

If you're suggesting that aires in this country should only happen if some kind of CCesque regimented restrictive set of rules are applied then I for one would rather there weren't any.

I called it "stupid overcrowding" because (as described in the OP) there were 168 vans on a site meant for 70, nothing to do with UK rules.
I agree about Canterbury - as I said there isn't that much space - but it is controlled so that there are no more vans than spaces.

The spacing required is actually 6 metres, not 9, and is in place as a fire precaution. From the model standards:

Spacing
3. Every unit should be not less than 6 metres from any other unit in separate family occupation and not less than 3 metres should be permitted between units in any circumstances.
4. Vehicles and other ancillary equipment should be permitted within the 6 metres space between units in separate family occupation but, in order to restrict the spread of fire, there should always be 3 metres clear space within the 6 metres separation.
5. Emergency vehicles should be able to secure access at all times to within 90 metres of any unit on the site.

There are a number of stories to be found about fire spreading between caravans/motorhomes in storage locations where spacing isn't enforced, and plenty of reports of fire spreading to buildings when caravans are parked close.

I don't think one needs a "regimented restrictive set of rules" but the reality is that legislation is in place and it would be a waste of time to promote aires which may be likely to lead to such legislation being flouted.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

There are a number of stories to be found about fire spreading between caravans/motorhomes in storage locations where spacing isn't enforced, and plenty of reports of fire spreading to buildings when caravans are parked close.

How many stories are there about similar things happening on the continent, on aires or sites with vans in use, where there aren't such ridiculous rules?

called it "stupid overcrowding" because (as described in the OP) there were 168 vans on a site meant for 70, nothing to do with UK rules.

Meant for 70? If that's going by Camper Contact or similar it's meaningless. If there were 168 vans on the aire then that's how many it can take.

I agree about Canterbury - as I said there isn't that much space - but it is controlled so that there are no more vans than spaces.

You are basically incorrect on this point. Canterbury has automated barriers with no control on the type of vehicle so there's absolutely nothing to stop as many motorhomes who want to enter from doing so. The fact that it doesn't happen is irrelevant.

The spacing required is actually 6 metres, not 9, and is in place as a fire precaution. From the model standards: There are a number of stories to be found about fire spreading between caravans/motorhomes in storage locations where spacing isn't enforced, and plenty of reports of fire spreading to buildings when caravans are parked close.

Model standards written by who and based on what?

 

[GJH]

How many stories are there about similar things happening on the continent, on aires or sites with vans in use, where there aren't such ridiculous rules?

I haven't a clue.

Meant for 70? If that's going by Camper Contact or similar it's meaningless. If there were 168 vans on the aire then that's how many it can take.

The number was stated in the OP, which also documented what was obviously a potentially dangerous situation. Whilst nothing went wrong why take the risk?

You are basically incorrect on this point. Canterbury has automated barriers with no control on the type of vehicle so there's absolutely nothing to stop as many motorhomes who want to enter from doing so. The fact that it doesn't happen is irrelevant.

Canterbury also has staff on site when the barrier can be raised to stop such overcrowding.

Model standards written by who and based on what?

Government standards based on UK common sense as far as I'm concerned

The overall point though is that if authorities here see places like that as representative of the aires system we have no chance of getting anywhere - and they will point to the fact that the CL/CS networks fulfill the same function.

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

 

[sdc77]

We both have no issue with a set space between vans .. but accept that's not going to happen on Aires.
As for Aires I think we're probably campercontact snobs. We always look for Aires rated over 7 ...
We've slummed it a few times in dusty car park Aires because they were in a great location but we do like to park somewhere nice.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

The number was stated in the OP, which also documented what was obviously a potentially dangerous situation

Why exactly was it potentially dangerous? Vans parked close together is not dangerous.

Canterbury also has staff on site when the barrier can be raised to stop such overcrowding.

I think you've missed the point there. If there was one van in each of the marked bays they would be that close together. How could one van per bay be termed overcrowding?

Government standards based on UK common sense as far as I'm concerned

Different idea of common sense to me then. I would point to the French system as far more sensible and suitable for motorhomes.

The overall point though is that if authorities here see places like that as representative of the aires system we have no chance of getting anywhere - and they will point to the fact that the CL/CS networks fulfill the same function.

And as I posted previously I would rather not have aires in this country if they ended up restrictive and controlled to that degree. If it was just another CL type network it would be pointless. I'd rather stick to pub car parks.

 

[magicsurfbus]

A fire broke out in one of the first aires we stopped at, Ave de Milady in Biarritz where they're packed in like sardines. There were some pretty rapid MH exits going on as you can imagine, but it was dealt with by Les Pompiers quickly and it didn't put me off using other aires since.

Although the primary function of aires is parking, most have some sort of green open space close by, often with picnic tables and the like, and very few are strict about sitting outside your vehicle. Generally speaking the views I've seen from aires are far more interesting than what I've seen from most campsite pitches, because campsites are usually enclosed. If you assume all aires are just sterile tarmac slabs you're missing out on a great deal.

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

 

[Brightonian]

and this one has miles of space.. 1st August 2008

St Dizant du Gua France

View attachment 108456

Looks very nice!

 

[scotjimland]

Looks very nice!

It certainly is.

Aire Municipale
Rue du Perat
17240 St. Dizant du Gua
France

More info ..
http://www.campercontact.com/en/fra...a/1627/motorhome-parking-aire-municipale.aspx

 

[Lot lover]

We are new to this life but from what I have seen and read there seem to be several options in France

Aires - somewhere to park with occasional extras, generally free.

France Passion - somewhere to park, number of extras varies, pay an annual sub but free at the point of usage (subject to possible moral pressure to buy something).

ACSI sites - loads of extras, pay an annual sub, pay reduced rates in low season

High season - pay more for more crowds, particularly cheese eaters

You pays your money and takes your choice but remember "free" is an acronym for "someone else pays" - in the case of aires it is us, the tax and ratepayers of France.

The system may not be perfect but anyone who is not happy can either try to change it or move on

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

 

[GJH]

Why exactly was it potentially dangerous? Vans parked close together is not dangerous.

Until one catches fire as discussed yesterday

EDIT - Just seen .

I think you've missed the point there. If there was one van in each of the marked bays they would be that close together. How could one van per bay be termed overcrowding?

Yes, already accepted for Canterbury. However, where a site is advertised as suitable for 70 vans then presumably that is 70 spaces (whether marked bays or not) and squeeezing 168 ion is a different matter.

Different idea of common sense to me then. I would point to the French system as far more sensible and suitable for motorhomes.

Then we shall have to agree to differ

And as I posted previously I would rather not have aires in this country if they ended up restrictive and controlled to that degree. If it was just another CL type network it would be pointless. I'd rather stick to pub car parks.

Aires allowing use such as documented in the OP will not happen in this country and the closest we shall ever get is somewhere equivalent to Canterbury - but it would also be in compliance with the 1960 Act rather than just some landlord out to make a bit extra income.

 

[scotjimland]

Aires - somewhere to park with occasional extras, generally free.

In my experience most are now charging, and if it's 'free' to park.. water and or electricity is usually charged for.

Some are quite expensive.. for example.. €15 at Mimizan Plage .. which I expect all goes to the local council..

when busy you can hardly walk between the vans.. last summer it was heaving.. I couldn't open a locker door without moving forward..

some that were free are now charging.. for example La Mailleraye , parking now €5 , Water: € 3,00 | Electricity: € 3,00

No complaints.. just saying..

France's Municipal sites are often better, and good value for money ..

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Until one catches fire as discussed yesterday

I saw that story. It looked to me like the vans were pretty well spaced out in that compound. There was at least a vehicle width between each one and they burnt anyway. It demonstrates quite well that the rule is pointless as it stands. If the sole reason for it is to prevent the spread of fire than the distance obviously needs to be much greater.

Yes, already accepted for Canterbury. However, where a site is advertised as suitable for 70 vans then presumably that is 70 spaces (whether marked bays or not) and squeeezing 168 ion is a different matter.

The number of spaces advertised often bares no relationship to the actual space available. I've been to aires that have advertised 7 or 8 spaces and have actually had ample space for many more than that without even being that close together. In the example if there were 168 vans there then that's how many it had space for. The local police usually keep an eye on aires and they wouldn't have hesitated to move people off if they had any concerns.

Then we shall have to agree to differ

We shall

Aires allowing use such as documented in the OP will not happen in this country and the closest we shall ever get is somewhere equivalent to Canterbury - but it would also be in compliance with the 1960 Act rather than just some landlord out to make a bit extra income.

Places like Canterbury would suit me perfectly well. Places forced to be campsites in all but name - no thanks.

I don't think they would ever be viable as standalone commercial operations though, it would need to be local authority driven, so there won't be many landlords around. Designating certain car parks or parts of car parks for overnighting would be my solution. That discussion has been had many times though and we all know what the situation is, no need to rehash it again here

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