Petition for Aires in UK (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

where have you been in all these discussions at last someone who can talk to @GJH in his own language

These pops are becoming rather tiresome.
It isn't my language, it is all part of the English language.
If anyone can't be bothered to put the effort into understanding how the English language is used in particular circumstances that is their decision, not my fault.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

The power of local authorities to attach conditions to site licences is provided by S5 of the Act. The overriding consideration is safety but the Act allows judgement to be made depending on the particular circumstances.

All the CAMC response does is assume that similar spacing conditions would be applied as to CLs. It doesn't say that they have actually asked.
If an authority which uses the Para 11 exemption to allow camping in its car parks were to attach different conditions to a CL set up in a similar way then it would face action on the grounds of partiality (the same sort of grounds which stopped Scarborough Borough from allowing camping in its car parks).

OK.

So the model spacing is not an absolute requirement of the Act. That's a good start.

So hypothetically if somebody seeking exemption under Para 5, or even applying for a full site licence, wanted to not use the model spacing, instead relying on something else to prevent the theoretical spread of fire and produced a thorough RA supporting their proposal there is nothing specific in the Act giving a good reason for the LA to object?

Do LAs ever attach conditions to a Para 5 exemptions? Unless they have grounds to object completely they don't have any say in the matter do they? Surely any rules and conditions are set by the organisation granting the exemption?

I think we're getting away from the point anyway. It's highly unlikely that any private organisation is going to want to set up any kind of parking type stopover (deliberately not using the word "aire") any time soon because it wouldn't be financially viable. If a private organisation did want to try though it the real issue with using Para 5 is the 5 unit limit. To make such an enterprise even self sustaining it would need to be able to accept more units than that.

The focus really needs to be on LA car parks or land for which they already have sufficient power under Para 11. This whole discussion is a distraction from that.

 

[chaser]

OK.

So the model spacing is not an absolute requirement of the Act. That's a good start.

So hypothetically if somebody seeking exemption under Para 5, or even applying for a full site licence, wanted to not use the model spacing, instead relying on something else to prevent the theoretical spread of fire and produced a thorough RA supporting their proposal there is nothing specific in the Act giving a good reason for the LA to object?

Do LAs ever attach conditions to a Para 5 exemptions? Unless they have grounds to object completely they don't have any say in the matter do they? Surely any rules and conditions are set by the organisation granting the exemption?

I think we're getting away from the point anyway. It's highly unlikely that any private organisation is going to want to set up any kind of parking type stopover (deliberately not using the word "aire") any time soon because it wouldn't be financially viable. If a private organisation did want to try though it the real issue with using Para 5 is the 5 unit limit. To make such an enterprise even self sustaining it would need to be able to accept more units than that.

The focus really needs to be on LA car parks or land for which they already have sufficient power under Para 11. This whole discussion is a distraction from that.

What I have been trying to say from the start, pity I drove tractors and milked cows when I could have been learning fancy language

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

 

[sdc77]

What I have been trying to say from the start, pity I drove tractors and milked cows when I could have been learning fancy language

I think to be honest it's not about you learning English
Its about the current law . (Applies to all of us)
The need for overnight camping spot for motorhomes ... when there's not the demand
I can see where @NickNic is coming from but again ... I can't see a problem with the 6m current rules. I think they're a good thing.
I think @chaser and Co's argument seems to be that they should be either able to park and sleep in their motorhome anywhere they want (Within reason) or that local authorities should have to provide sites for motorhomes.
Some of the arguments are that the above should happen in spite of legislation to the contrary or that legislation should be changed because they (a 'huge' minority) demand it.
I can't agree with either position.

 

[chaser]

I think to be honest it's not about you learning English
Its about the current law . (Applies to all of us)
The need for overnight camping spot for motorhomes ... when there's not the demand
I can see where @NickNic is coming from but again ... I can't see a problem with the 6m current rules. I think they're a good thing.
I think @chaser and Co's argument seems to be that they should be either able to park and sleep in their motorhome anywhere they want (Within reason) or that local authorities should have to provide sites for motorhomes.
Some of the arguments are that the above should happen in spite of legislation to the contrary or that legislation should be changed because they (a 'huge' minority) demand it.
I can't agree with either position.

it just comes down to mixing camping with parking, if you parked your car and had a sleep in it , are you camping?

 

[chaser]

in the earlier post , ok gjh pointed out its scottish law , but by the definition that has been touted on here from the start, you cant on one hand say that parking a motorhome is camping but then on the other say that camping isnt parking a motorhome.

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

 

[Deleted member 29692]

I can see where @NickNic is coming from but again ... I can't see a problem with the 6m current rules. I think they're a good thing.

It's OK on a campsite I suppose.

If anyone tried to apply it to a carpark/aire type stop over it would beyond absurd.

Really it's about identifying levels of risk and deciding what's acceptable.

Yes, obviously the closer vans are parked together the greater the chance of fire spreading if one breaks out. The likelihood of it happening however? Negligible to the point of not being worth worrying about (Yes I know a van caught fire at Upton, nobody needs to bother posting that)

When you go on the motorway you have the risk of being hit by a lorry.

You have the risk of a tyre blowout flipping your van

Both also negligible to the point of not being worth worrying about but both far more likely to happen than your van catching fire because it's parked to close to another van that's on fire.

Do we say don't go on the motorway because of the risk? No of course not, that would be stupid, yet so many of us are obsessed to the point of mania with this bloody 6 metre gap.


Please nobody bother posting random pictures from Google of vans on fire with no context or detail. You don't add anything to your argument.

 

[GJH]

OK.

So the model spacing is not an absolute requirement of the Act. That's a good start.

So hypothetically if somebody seeking exemption under Para 5, or even applying for a full site licence, wanted to not use the model spacing, instead relying on something else to prevent the theoretical spread of fire and produced a thorough RA supporting their proposal there is nothing specific in the Act giving a good reason for the LA to object?

Do LAs ever attach conditions to a Para 5 exemptions? Unless they have grounds to object completely they don't have any say in the matter do they? Surely any rules and conditions are set by the organisation granting the exemption?

I think we're getting away from the point anyway. It's highly unlikely that any private organisation is going to want to set up any kind of parking type stopover (deliberately not using the word "aire") any time soon because it wouldn't be financially viable. If a private organisation did want to try though it the real issue with using Para 5 is the 5 unit limit. To make such an enterprise even self sustaining it would need to be able to accept more units than that.

The focus really needs to be on LA car parks or land for which they already have sufficient power under Para 11. This whole discussion is a distraction from that.

A model scheme is always just that, a model. In this case it saves about 400 LAs having to duplicate work to create the same thing individually.

In practice, exempted organisation status is granted by Natural England, on behalf of DeFRA, and (as I understand it) LAs would only usually become involved in objecting in exceptional circumstances - to a large extent because exempted organisations are careful in their selection of sites to which the give certificates.

Exempted organisations are bound by the same legislation as everyone else but within that they can set certain rules. For instance, the CAMC and C&CC have contracts with their certificate holders which state that only members can stay on their sites. That (as I and others established with NE/DeFRA a few years ago) is only a rule not a legal requirement. With safety the setting of the rule has to be, understandably, more rigorous.

I agree that financial viability probably depends on exceeding a 5 van limit - but that doesn't just apply to private organisations. For instance Glencaple (separate thread) apparently only has space available for 5 vans.

 

[GJH]

in the earlier post , ok gjh pointed out its scottish law , but by the definition that has been touted on here from the start, you cant on one hand say that parking a motorhome is camping but then on the other say that camping isnt parking a motorhome.

May I please suggest that, before putting words into my mouth in future, you take the time to understand the different circumstances being discussed. That will, hopefully, enable you to answer questions, such as you have just posed, yourself.

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

 

[chaser]

May I please suggest that, before putting words into my mouth in future, you take the time to understand the different circumstances being discussed. That will, hopefully, enable you to answer questions, such as you have just posed, yourself.

dont think i asked a question

 

[chaser]

May I please suggest that, before putting words into my mouth in future, you take the time to understand the different circumstances being discussed. That will, hopefully, enable you to answer questions, such as you have just posed, yourself.

in fact i think its maybe you thats having "pops" at me now , dosnt bother me in the slightest as it might be a sign that you coming round a bit.

 

[GJH]

dont think i asked a question

It was implicit in your post that you are still questioning what is and what isn't camping and why different forms of camping are not allowed everywhere.

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

 

[chaser]

It was implicit in your post that you are still questioning what is and what isn't camping and why different forms of camping are not allowed everywhere.

i did give you credit for pointing it out

 

[chaser]

It was implicit in your post that you are still questioning what is and what isn't camping and why different forms of camping are not allowed everywhere.

ok this is not a pop as you say , but how is it one council can do one thing and another do just the oppisit and yet by your terms it is ilegal, the 1960 laws dont count for a lot then do they, and yeah ok that is a question

 

[GJH]

ok this is not a pop as you say , but how is it one council can do one thing and another do just the oppisit and yet by your terms it is ilegal, the 1960 laws dont count for a lot then do they, and yeah ok that is a question

You've lost me again.
What do you mean by "how is it one council can do one thing and another do just the oppisit and yet by your terms it is ilegal" please.

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

 

[sdc77]

ok this is not a pop as you say , but how is it one council can do one thing and another do just the oppisit and yet by your terms it is ilegal, the 1960 laws dont count for a lot then do they, and yeah ok that is a question

I think you are just having a pop to be honest. It's legislation... written like all legislation is.
Everyone is bound by the laws of the land... it's simple. The laws may be complicated and contain amendments and the like but it's still the law. You cannot just whine on at one person just because they have a better grasp of it than you or I.
If you provide an example of a council's actions that you don't understand I'm sure someone will try and explain it.

 

[chaser]

I think you are just having a pop to be honest. It's legislation... written like all legislation is.
Everyone is bound by the laws of the land... it's simple. The laws may be complicated and contain amendments and the like but it's still the law. You cannot just whine on at one person just because they have a better grasp of it than you or I.
If you provide an example of a council's actions that you don't understand I'm sure someone will try and explain it.

Ok you can park on the maltings in uttoxeter but not in whitby, so uttoxeter council want locking up, which wouldn't be a bad thing come to think of it

 

[Doctor Dave]

We'd like to visit Norwich next February but the CCC site is shut then ...... it has to be February as that is when our son needs us to babysit and we want to use the family history research facilities in the city. Not sure where we will stay....... or even if we will bother to visit at all.

There is a CS at North Walsham (Honing Hideaway at Gunners Farm) that is open all year, don't know if that's any use Helen.

Edited to add a link https://www.campingandcaravanningcl...folk/northwalsham/honinghideawayatgunnersfarm

Dave

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

 

[GJH]

Ok you can park on the maltings in uttoxeter but not in whitby, so uttoxeter council want locking up, which wouldn't be a bad thing come to think of it

Camping at The Maltings is a breach of the parking order, just as it was with Whitby before the recent change.
The East Staffordshire Borough Council (Off-Street Parking Places) (No 2) Order 2008 states, at S9(3) "No person shall permit any vehicle (or caravan) in a Parking Place to be used for residential purposes or to be occupied overnight.".
I suspect that, as with Whitby in the past, the council has decided that the cost to local taxpayers of enforcing that condition is too high but that could easily change if camping becomes a nuisance.
You could, of course, complain to your local councillor and the Chief Executive that the council should be enforcing the parking order in full, despite the extra cost to taxpayers.

 

[chaser]

We'd like to visit Norwich next February but the CCC site is shut then ...... it has to be February as that is when our son needs us to babysit and we want to use the family history research facilities in the city. Not sure where we will stay....... or even if we will bother to visit at all.

 

[sdc77]

Ok you can park on the maltings in uttoxeter but not in whitby, so uttoxeter council want locking up, which wouldn't be a bad thing come to think of it

I'm not really sure now but I do think you're just on a wind up and having a good laugh.
I can see Graham has bothered to reply.

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

 

[GJH]

View attachment 250305

£15 a night?
Not only an unlicensed chancer but a greedy unlicensed chancer

 

[chaser]

£15 a night?
Not only an unlicensed chancer but a greedy unlicensed chancer

how do you know hes unlicenced, i would have thought the fact that he is charging £15 would meen hes got some sort of site.
just saying,

 

[Deleted member 29692]

how do you know hes unlicenced, i would have thought the fact that he is charging £15 would meen hes got some sort of site.
just saying,

Nope.

Just some one trying to charge that for their pub car park.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6327833,1.3085055,69m/data=!3m1!1e3

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

 

[GJH]

how do you know hes unlicenced, i would have thought the fact that he is charging £15 would meen hes got some sort of site.
just saying,

Nope.
Just some one trying to charge that for their pub car park.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6327833,1.3085055,69m/data=!3m1!1e3

And if he was licensed he would publicise the fact on his web site plus make sure he could be found on proper site search engines.
The more people who do that the less incentive there will be for anyone to invest in establishing the sorts of stopovers that are frequently called for.

EDIT. It would be interesting to see if his business insurance would pay out if any damage resulted from use of the car park for camping.

 

[SandJ]

void sorry

 

[Deleted member 29692]

And if he was licensed he would publicise the fact on his web site

It's funny you say that.

I stayed on what turned out to be a CS once. I found their website by Googling the location I wanted to stay at.

The place makes no mention of the CCC on its website and made no mention of them when I phoned to book.

It's only when we arrived that the lady asked if we were CCC members. When I said no she wasn't bothered in the slightest. She said something along the lines of "You can stay once as a guest" or something equally made up.

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

 

[SandJ]

A thought how it could be set up to work using the 6mtr rules , it states a car can park next to the caravan/motorhome then a 3mtr gap to the next part so in theory it is a 3mtr gap between Motorhomes providing no awning or tents in between. That means the C&MC or ??? Could provide A smaller space for Motorhomes so they therefore could charge less?
A traditional caravan parking space is 9mtr and a Motorhomes would only be 6mtr so saving a third?

https://www.campingandcaravanningcl...=fAAyADgANQAyADEAfAB8AFQAcgB1AGUAfAB8ADAAfAA1

 

[GJH]

It's funny you say that.

I stayed on what turned out to be a CS once. I found their website by Googling the location I wanted to stay at.

The place makes no mention of the CCC on its website and made no mention of them when I phoned to book.

It's only when we arrived that the lady asked if we were CCC members. When I said no she wasn't bothered in the slightest. She said something along the lines of "You can stay once as a guest" or something equally made up.

Maybe they think inclusion in the C&CC book and web site is sufficient.
C&CC CSs are supposed to only allow non-members if they join the club on site. It is only a contractual obligation with the C&CC though, not required by law.

 

[GJH]

A thought how it could be set up to work using the 6mtr rules , it states a car can park next to the caravan/motorhome then a 3mtr gap to the next part so in theory it is a 3mtr gap between Motorhomes providing no awning or tents in between. That means the C&MC or ??? Could provide A smaller space for Motorhomes so they therefore could charge less?
A traditional caravan parking space is 9mtr and a Motorhomes would only be 6mtr so saving a third?

https://www.campingandcaravanningcl...=fAAyADgANQAyADEAfAB8AFQAcgB1AGUAfAB8ADAAfAA1

If it did happen that either of the big clubs set up "stopover" sites I think that is quite likely to be a solution to the spacing question.

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