Potential legal prevention of UK "aires" and "pub stopovers"? (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

Please explain......

The model standards define what is required "with respect to the lay-out of, and the provision of facilities, services and equipment for caravan sites or particular types of caravan site".
Exempted organisations apply those standards to their CLs and Rallies &c.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

There are the model standards, which are applied by the exempted organisations to CLs and rallies &c. I wouldn't be pedantic about whether "test" is the correct terminology but it is the measure used in practice.

Are requirements for sewage and similar defined in the Model Standard?

EDIT: found a copy. Having a read now

http://webarchive.nationalarchives..../documents/housing/pdf/modelstandards2008.pdf

 

[Deleted member 29692]

@GJH

6 (i) is an interesting one if we’re saying the standard has to apply to everything.


Standard 11 covers sewage and all it says is that there must be sufficient provision and that it must comply with legislation and relevant British and European standards.

That’s sufficiently vague as to be meaningless isn’t it. Who gets to decide what’s sufficient?

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

 

[GJH]

Are requirements for sewage and similar defined in the Model Standard?

EDIT: found a copy. Having a read now

http://webarchive.nationalarchives..../documents/housing/pdf/modelstandards2008.pdf

I think that, strictly speaking, that document is for permanent caravans. There are several on council cites for touring cans. is one such.
See paras 6 to 10.

 

[GJH]

@GJH

6 (i) is an interesting one if we’re saying the standard has to apply to everything.


Standard 11 covers sewage and all it says is that there must be sufficient provision and that it must comply with legislation and relevant British and European standards.

That’s sufficiently vague as to be meaningless isn’t it. Who gets to decide what’s sufficient?

In regard to licensed sites the local authority decides. They use trained people.
In regard to rallies, CLs &c the exempted organisation decides (with the LA as backup) - which is why exempted status isn't given out to just anyone.

 

[Barclaybasher]

Sorry Graham @GJH I know you mean well but discussing para/sub section of the 1960 Act really doesn't help us get what we need - simple rules and facilities to just get round the UK

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

 

[GJH]

Sorry Graham @GJH I know you mean well but discussing para/sub section of the 1960 Act really doesn't help us get what we need - simple rules and facilities to just get round the UK

That is what the legislation provides us with, simple rules. There is nothing complicated about the 1960 Act so long as people approach it with a willingness to understand it rather than viewing it as simply an obstruction.
Realisation that some people might still have some difficulty is why I wrote my analysis and, as far as I know, why Andy Clarke wrote his. One thing nobody can do when producing an accurate summary, though, is change things just because some people might not be suited - which is why the two documents, written completely independently, reach the same conclusions.
If people still find difficulty understanding the legislation, even when it is simplified for them in that manner, then I am afraid they need to look elsewhere than at the content of the legislation for the reason for their difficulty.

 

[GJH]

@GJH

6 (i) is an interesting one if we’re saying the standard has to apply to everything.


Standard 11 covers sewage and all it says is that there must be sufficient provision and that it must comply with legislation and relevant British and European standards.

That’s sufficiently vague as to be meaningless isn’t it. Who gets to decide what’s sufficient?

As an extra thought, Nick, the model standards by their very nature tend not to be over prescriptive so that they can be varied according to circumstances - on the grounds that those applying them will be responsible adults.

 

[Barclaybasher]

That is what the legislation provides us with, simple rules. There is nothing complicated about the 1960 Act so long as people approach it with a willingness to understand it rather than viewing it as simply an obstruction.
Realisation that some people might still have some difficulty is why I wrote my analysis and, as far as I know, why Andy Clarke wrote his. One thing nobody can do when producing an accurate summary, though, is change things just because some people might not be suited - which is why the two documents, written completely independently, reach the same conclusions.
If people still find difficulty understanding the legislation, even when it is simplified for them in that manner, then I am afraid they need to look elsewhere than at the content of the legislation for the reason for their difficulty.

Sorry again Graham but what was relevent in 1960 is not relevent in 2018

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

 

[GJH]

Sorry again Graham but what was relevent in 1960 is not relevent in 2018

Vic will you please read and remember what I post. As I have pointed out on several occasions, the 1960 Act has been reviewed on several occasions in the intervening period and has been amended where parliament deemed it necessary. At the moment, parliament is obviously content that the Act, in its current state, is relevant in 2018. As parliament is the only body which has the power to make changes then it is obviously not going to be changed so long as parliament remains content.
If you are so convinced that the Act is not relevant then presumably you also have a good idea as to what, in your opinion, is relevant. The only way you are going to have any hope of change, then, is to go through the Act, clause by clause, draft what you think it should say and lobby MPs with what you come up with. Simply saying "it isn't relevant" will get you nowhere and is, therefore, a waste of everybody's time.

 

[grumps147]

And taking all the know facts into consideration having not addressed the unknown facts, on the one the one hand and perhaps on the other after giving due consideration to those pertinent matters as well as the non pertinent matters. At this juncture it may be to soon to say, or indeed a positive or negative outcome cannot be advanced bearing in mind the above issues.

Clearly missing out on writing a sequel to Yes Minister.... brilliant.

 

[Barclaybasher]

Vic will you please read and remember what I post. As I have pointed out on several occasions, the 1960 Act has been reviewed on several occasions in the intervening period and has been amended where parliament deemed it necessary. At the moment, parliament is obviously content that the Act, in its current state, is relevant in 2018. As parliament is the only body which has the power to make changes then it is obviously not going to be changed so long as parliament remains content.
If you are so convinced that the Act is not relevant then presumably you also have a good idea as to what, in your opinion, is relevant. The only way you are going to have any hope of change, then, is to go through the Act, clause by clause, draft what you think it should say and lobby MPs with what you come up with. Simply saying "it isn't relevant" will get you nowhere and is, therefore, a waste of everybody's time.

I wouldn't go through any clauses in the 1960 Act - it needs to be scrapped

If all this latest bill does is that I would be happy

A fresh look at 'travelers' (which we are) is needed and nationally - not left to LAs and the camping clubs - but hey I'm in France, plenty of places to 'park'

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

 

[pappajohn]

As said earlier, roads don't have to be tarmac. They aren't at many rallies.
Safe distances do not have to be marked, just applied. It's easy enough.

Ex gf's parents had a C&CC CS years ago.
A field with a gate...... No road, no track, no path.... A 1.5 acre grass field with a gate.
The nearest thing to a road were the two ruts through the gate.
Have the rules changed in 35 years

 

[pappajohn]

At the moment, parliament is obviously content that the Act, in its current state, is relevant in 2018.

Parliament is content its relevent.... It doesn't follow that it truly is relevant in 2018.

Parliament once decreed it was correct to behead or hang, draw and quarter heretics.... That didn't make it right.

 

[G7UXG]

I don't imagine any of this is high on the legislative agenda at the moment.
Keep calm, carry on...

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

 

[Deleted member 29692]

As an extra thought, Nick, the model standards by their very nature tend not to be over prescriptive so that they can be varied according to circumstances - on the grounds that those applying them will be responsible adults.

Absolutely, which I guess is how the relaxed interpretation of the model standards in relation to Para 11 has come about.

The problem we're facing is that if parliament are taking an interest is the term "responsible adult" appropriate?

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Sorry again Graham but what was relevent in 1960 is not relevent in 2018

Doesn't matter. Relevant or not the 1960 Act is the applicable legislation.

That is not going to change and it cannot simply be bypassed or ignored however much you find it inconvenient.

The sooner you accept that the sooner you will be able to contribute something useful to the debate.

 

[tonyidle]

Something to consider when trying to "simplify" existing legislation: I would not like the job of trying to define the various legitimate uses to which a motorcaravan can be put, then, based on those uses, dividing the users into groups, and finally deciding which facilites each group can access. The legislation has to encompass all users and all facilities to be useful as the above would be unmanageable.

Or more simply why would legislation that applies to 'travellers' not apply to leisure users and vice versa.

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

 

[EuroTrotters]

Why has this site become so rude . If you post something which touches a nerve it is either ignored as ears are closed or rude comments are made .

Probably keep their mouth buttoned vis-a-vis.

 

[Langtoftlad]

anywhere used for camping that doesn't have water and waste supplies.

...as far as Pub car parks are concerned, I would have thought most have an outside tap, and a manhole cover.
Depends on how specific the requirements are written I guess.
And realistically, how much resource will a LA direct to enforcement?

 

[Barclaybasher]

Doesn't matter. Relevant or not the 1960 Act is the applicable legislation.

That is not going to change and it cannot simply be bypassed or ignored however much you find it inconvenient.

The sooner you accept that the sooner you will be able to contribute something useful to the debate.

As a fan of regulations perhaps you should read Rule 1

And I will continue to contribute

Do you know why the 1960 Act was necessary?.....it had nothing to do with touring caravans

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

 

[GJH]

I wouldn't go through any clauses in the 1960 Act - it needs to be scrapped

If all this latest bill does is that I would be happy

A fresh look at 'travelers' (which we are) is needed and nationally - not left to LAs and the camping clubs - but hey I'm in France, plenty of places to 'park'

How many times Vic? It doesn't matter if you - or I, or any other individual - thinks the 1960 Act should be scrapped because we don't have the power to do it.
If you re-read what I posted before you will also realise that the legislation which is expected to come out of the consultation exercise will most likely not touch the 1960 Act and is aimed at controlling illegal "traveller" camps.
You will also see that I started the thread because there is a possibility that the legislation which does result could introduce further restrictions depending how it is worded - and to give those who are interested the heads up so that they could monitor and do something to try to stop such restrictions. In short I did it to try to help, not to become the target of criticism from those who complain but have no intention of helping themselves.
Perhaps, in future, I should just keep quiet and then when something adverse does result say "Yes, I thought that might happen but didn't say anything because I couldn't be bothered dealing with all the people who don't read posts properly".

 

[GJH]

Ex gf's parents had a C&CC CS years ago.
A field with a gate...... No road, no track, no path.... A 1.5 acre grass field with a gate.
The nearest thing to a road were the two ruts through the gate.
Have the rules changed in 35 years

No, why should they if it was adequate?

 

[GJH]

Parliament is content its relevent.... It doesn't follow that it truly is relevant in 2018.

Parliament once decreed it was correct to behead or hang, draw and quarter heretics.... That didn't make it right.

But is was relevant to the time.

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

 

[GJH]

Absolutely, which I guess is how the relaxed interpretation of the model standards in relation to Para 11 has come about.

The problem we're facing is that if parliament are taking an interest is the term "responsible adult" appropriate?

Appropriate from the point of view of the law, yes.
Appropriate when thinking of some MPs - and some motorhomers - probably not

 

[GJH]

...as far as Pub car parks are concerned, I would have thought most have an outside tap, and a manhole cover.
Depends on how specific the requirements are written I guess.
And realistically, how much resource will a LA direct to enforcement?

It may well be that some pubs would be OK.
I agree that it will depend on the wording and, as said, that is why I highlighted the matter.
I would expect that LAs will welcome the legislation as it will make resourcing easier from their perspective.

 

[GJH]

Do you know why the 1960 Act was necessary?.....it had nothing to do with touring caravans

Of course it did. Have you read the Bill from which the Act resulted? Given previous exchanges I assume not.
The Bill makes it clear that it was to deal with both permanent and touring caravans, taking the place of the "licensing system for so-called moveable dwellings in the Public Health Act, 1936.".

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

 

[Deleted member 29692]

As a fan of regulations perhaps you should read Rule 1

And I will continue to contribute

Do you know why the 1960 Act was necessary?.....it had nothing to do with touring caravans

It doesn’t matter why it was introduced, whether it’s outsated, irrelevant, written in Spanish or any of the other reasons why you don’t like it.

It’s the applicable legislation covering this issue.

Nobody who refuses to accept that can add anything useful to the debate.

 

[Gaston aires]

Making things legal or illegal only applies to law abiding citizens. The “others” you know who I mean, don’t give a damn anyway.
Phil

 

[GJH]

Making things legal or illegal only applies to law abiding citizens. The “others” you know who I mean, don’t give a damn anyway.
Phil

That would be all the landlords allowing their unlicensed pub car parks, and the like, for camping would it?

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