Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But why has he addressed it "To All Local Authorities" rather than just those which don't provide parking?From the wording in MMM it seems the author Mr Keith Moore urges others to use this as a template so I'm sure he won't mind us sharing it here.
This is the very point. In order to expect facilities we must be able to show hat they are self-financing rather than being at the expense of anyone.I don't see why the local tax payers should provide special facilities just for a specific group.
There are just as many tuggers who would like overnight facilities from time to time.
What is good for one is good for all.
I would certainly raise an objection to my local taxes, being used to provide facilities to just one group, at the expense of others.
![]()
How many caravan ears do you know who carry enough water for self sufficiency for 48 hours, it's not what they do.
Gary[/QUOTE
I beg to differ ! I have just moved from motor home to caravan !
I carry a 25 litre water container which is adequate for 48 hours, sufficient for me to stop off at Moffat and Kyleakin on my journey to the "frozen north" !![]()
What about disposal though? Do you have an on-board grey tank? Most caravans won'tI beg to differ ! I have just moved from motor home to caravan !
I carry a 25 litre water container which is adequate for 48 hours, sufficient for me to stop off at Moffat and Kyleakin on my journey to the "frozen north" !![]()
As it's washing water, bucket then down a nearby drain ! Failing that into another carrier !What about disposal though? Do you have an on-board grey tank? Most caravans won't![]()
That is NOT what you should do. Doing that will be a quick way of making sure that motorhomers are not welcome. Where do you think that goes? Straight into the storm water drain and then into local watercourses. And "soapy" water is a pollutant, not to mention the grease in suspension from the washing up. It can have an detrimental effect on the flora and fauna, as well as smelling and looking awful after a whileAs it's washing water, bucket then down a nearby drain !
Every town or city that has a park and ride could easily do this and pump extra cash into the economy. The various European countries consider this to be a valuable addition to their tourist trade. Why don't we?
On the face of it using other P&R sites is easy - but is it that simple?
As pointed out beforehand, Canterbury has the USP of being on the road to Dover so has transit traffic that other P&Rs do not have.
That enabled Canterbury to be designed to accommodate motorhomes with fresh water and dump points designed in, something which (because they do not have the same traffic) was not a requirement identified at other P&R sites.
Both the P&Rs at Ipswich are on the main tourist routes to Suffolk and further north to Norfolk and the Norfolk Broads .. A14 and A12 so plenty of tourist traffic. In fact too much at times..
Many P&R sites are locked overnight so people staying could not leave when they wish to without the arrangements being altered.
So, could the cost of providing water, dump points and ticketing/barriers like Canterbury be justified by the potential take-up?
Yes, I believe so.
Would there be objections to planning consent to be overcome? In tourist areas the potential economic damage to existing caravan sites may produce legitimate objections, as we have seen at Weymouth.
Perhaps, but objections from other private caravan sites should not stop or hinder the council from providing aires for motorhomes.. it is called free enterprise.. or market forces.
Having said that, I have approached a number of councils which run P&R sites and am aware that a couple are considering what they might be able to do in future.
What might bring progress is for people who live close to a particular P&R site and/or know one through having visited the area to consider what alterations would be needed at that site and the potential benefits which might accrue. They could then make a reasoned approach to the authority which runs the site rather than just a vague "it would be great if we could have this" style approach.
Agreed
There is a template on my web site which I invite everyone to use as a basis for an approach rather than starting from a blank sheet of paper.
But since they have already barred motorhomes from using the P&R by spending more money installing height barriers.. I doubt they will be interested in changing that decision and also providing facilities .
Perfectly happy with that Jim. As to the individual points.With your permission Graham, I will address your points one at a time within the quote in Red ..
Thanks
Yes, but that is tourist traffic, not transit traffic as at Canterbury and that is the important difference. Tourists are there to visit the area already so would stay at the P&R site in preference to other sites.Both the P&Rs at Ipswich are on the main tourist routes to Suffolk and further north to Norfolk and the Norfolk Broads .. A14 and A12 so plenty of tourist traffic. In fact too much at times..
We also believed so at Guisborough and we were wrong. That's one thing that convinced me that we need to be able to provide real evidence of how much people would spend (I'm sure you will recall the thread from last year when we established a great deal of variability in what people spend).So, could the cost of providing water, dump points and ticketing/barriers like Canterbury be justified by the potential take-up?
Yes, I believe so.
Councils have no choice to take objections into account under planning legislation and to make decisions based on their validity. Councils are also required to make decisions which are in the public interest. If the benefits of creating an aire were outweighed by the economic damage to local businesses/employment then it would be against the public interest. Again, that is why we need real evidence of what benefits would accrue.Would there be objections to planning consent to be overcome? In tourist areas the potential economic damage to existing caravan sites may produce legitimate objections, as we have seen at Weymouth.
Perhaps, but objections from other private caravan sites should not stop or hinder the council from providing aires for motorhomes.. it is called free enterprise.. or market forces.
Sorry Graham but I do not agree with some of that. I am not sure Canterbury was ever designed with motorhomes in mind rather than it being added later. The ticketing barriers are already there in many P&Rs. And water and waste should be no real problem as most P&Rs also have a toilet facility. And in Canterbury you can't get in after about 8:00pm but can get out (as long as you use your ticket and pay) at any time, again just like many other P&Rs.On the face of it using other P&R sites is easy - but is it that simple?
As pointed out beforehand, Canterbury has the USP of being on the road to Dover so has transit traffic that other P&Rs do not have. That enabled Canterbury to be designed to accommodate motorhomes with fresh water and dump points designed in, something which (because they do not have the same traffic) was not a requirement identified at other P&R sites.
Many P&R sites are locked overnight so people staying could not leave when they wish to without the arrangements being altered.
So, could the cost of providing water, dump points and ticketing/barriers like Canterbury be justified by the potential take-up?
Would there be objections to planning consent to be overcome? In tourist areas the potential economic damage to existing caravan sites may produce legitimate objections, as we have seen at Weymouth.
Having said that, I have approached a number of councils which run P&R sites and am aware that a couple are considering what they might be able to do in future.
What might bring progress is for people who live close to a particular P&R site and/or know one through having visited the area to consider what alterations would be needed at that site and the potential benefits which might accrue. They could then make a reasoned approach to the authority which runs the site rather than just a vague "it would be great if we could have this" style approach.
There is a template on my web site which I invite everyone to use as a basis for an approach rather than starting from a blank sheet of paper.
GREY WATER ALERT !!! Naughty Naughty boyAs it's washing water, bucket then down a nearby drain ! Failing that into another carrier !
Yes but councils can only make decisions based upon sound planning issues, otherwise the decisions can and often are reversed on appeal. And "the public interest" is only one of many things they need to think about. What they can't do is decide based solely upon somebody objecting because it may adversely affect their business.Councils have no choice to take objections into account under planning legislation and to make decisions based on their validity. Councils are also required to make decisions which are in the public interest. If the benefits of creating an aire were outweighed by the economic damage to local businesses/employment then it would be against the public interest. Again, that is why we need real evidence of what benefits would accrue.