# Are Councils getting the message?



## thomasplc (Apr 30, 2014)

Found this article not approved yet but at least shows they are beginning to look at possible benefits:-
http://www.tmcto.org/index.php/motorhome-news/item/76-winchcombe-gloucestershire-campervan-parking


----------



## wtrlnds64 (Apr 30, 2014)

Brilliant...let's hope more Councils follow...


----------



## John H (Apr 30, 2014)

Excellent - I have e-mailed Winchcombe Town Council to congratulate them on their proposed initiative.


----------



## johnkyte (Apr 30, 2014)

Well done   Winchcombe!


----------



## Tezza (Apr 30, 2014)

If you all remember weymouth was going to do the same and have it open for Easter  they forgot to mention which year. Believe it when you see it


----------



## Mutt (Apr 30, 2014)

At last, councils and local communities are getting the message regarding the mutual benefit of controlled stop over areas for camper vans and motorhomes. 

The French are putting the UK to shame with their Aires, and we have a serious amount of catching up to do!

Anyone know of any other similar initiatives around the country?

Mutt


----------



## Deleted member 21686 (Apr 30, 2014)

Perhaps other councils could be sent this to encourage them to follow this example.
Aberystwyth Wendywoo?


----------



## steco1958 (Apr 30, 2014)

MORGANTHEMOON said:


> Perhaps other councils could be sent this to encourage them to follow this example.
> Aberystwyth Wendywoo?



just sent over to Windsor also


----------



## Tbear (Apr 30, 2014)

I have sent it to Peterborough Council but I don't hold out much hope of a change there. They have their heads well and truly buried in the sand. At least it gives plenty of places to park your bike 

Richard


----------



## kimbowbill (May 2, 2014)

I have posted my comments, councils obviously don't communicate, i have tried with Scarborough giving them links to others that have offered car park stays but the don't want to know, its a real shame when there is so much potential to support local businesses.


----------



## Deleted member 8468 (May 2, 2014)

*Missed opportunity*

Portsmouth City Council has just opened a brand new, purpose-built park and ride just a couple of minutes from the ferry port. Unfortunately it's closed at night. I can't help thinking it would have been ideal for people travelling for early ferries to be able to park overnight.


----------



## Tbear (May 2, 2014)

Well surprise, surprise, I got a reply. They spelt my name wrong but it has been sent for consideration and I have been promised notification of the result. Still not going to hold by breath while I wait as I have had dealings with them in the past but at least it's not negative.

Richard


----------



## QFour (May 3, 2014)

They are really missing out. Some of these places are like ghost towns at night with a few locals hanging around. They don't see that the Caravaners go off out during the day but tend to return to a site in the evening so they can have a few beers without the risks of driving. The site has also cost them a packet to stay because its been upgraded with WiFi and showers. So that then leaves the people who are booked into the pubs and B&B's some of these places are so expensive you cannot afford to go out. We have been to pubs and seen the room charges £80 - £100 a night + evening meals.

So at last they are starting to realise. Well the odd one is that that we may want to park overnight and we don't mind paying a reasonable amount. After all they are hardly providing anything extra. We went to Lymington the other week. Hardly anyone in the car park by the sailing clubs. Big sign saying No Overnight Parking, No Camping, No Sleeping etc. So we parked on the road outside a very nice house for a couple of nights.

So that upsets a resident and the Council could have made a few ££ but they are so far up their own a*ses they cannot see it. All they see is a load of travellers moving into their car park. If they have restrictions like max stay two nights then they can certainly move them on. Have a limit of only 3 MHs in specified bays.


----------



## Bushtrekker (May 12, 2014)

*Hooray, finally the wording we need.*

Visitors to Winchcombe, specifically those who travel there in a camper van, *may be able to spend more time and money in the town* should a new proposal be approved.

It looks like at least one council sees the benefits of Aires and in a perfect place, handy for the Cotswolds and good for an overnight stop and a look round the area.
It's also a great area in which to spend money, with fresh produce, farmer's markets and rare breed meat on the menu.


----------



## jeffmossy (May 12, 2014)

Motorhome news from around the UK


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

One factor as to why more councils don't provide facilities (either daytime parking or overnight camping) is that they simply are not aware of the demand. Why don't they do it? Because *we* have not made then aware of that demand.

Something everyone can do is look around the area where they live. Is there a car park (or other area) which is underused? If there is then get in touch with the council (or private landowner) and offer to work with them to create a motorhome parking and/or camping area. Can't do any harm can it?


----------



## Deleted member 21686 (May 13, 2014)

jeffmossy said:


> Motorhome news from around the UK



This is great news.


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

Height barriers are sometimes in place to stop commercial vehicles taking up spaces aimed at shoppers/commuters or to stop heavier vehicles using car parks built to standards for lighter vehicles (leas than 2 tonnes typically).

Bans on overnighting/sleeping (which is camping even if there are little or no facilities associated with caravan sites) are in place because they are car parks not caravan sites and they do not have planning permission for camping. That is the reason, for instance, why Scarborough Borough found that they could not go ahead with allowing camping in some car parks - it would have contravened a long standing planning policy which had prevented private sector applicants obtaining licences.

In areas which have such bans they obviously do know the difference between camping and parking because they ban the former. In other areas it is often the case that underused car parks could be given planning consent for camping but the councils concerned simply aren't aware of the demand. Whichever is the case is immaterial really, it can't do any harm to ask can it?

Graham


----------



## patbhoy (May 13, 2014)

They've got it right in the Isle of Man. 

New Camper Stop in Douglas, Isle of Man


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

patbhoy said:


> They've got it right in the Isle of Man.
> 
> New Camper Stop in Douglas, Isle of Man



That is a caravan site, equivalent to municipal caravan sites on the mainland, but restricted to motorhomes only. The true extent of parking for motorhomes on the Isle of Man is detailed Here.


----------



## Tbear (May 13, 2014)

mhp said:


> Height barriers are sometimes in place to stop commercial vehicles taking up spaces aimed at shoppers/commuters or to stop heavier vehicles using car parks built to standards for lighter vehicles (leas than 2 tonnes typically).
> 
> Bans on overnighting/sleeping (which is camping even if there are little or no facilities associated with caravan sites) are in place because they are car parks not caravan sites and they do not have planning permission for camping. That is the reason, for instance, why Scarborough Borough found that they could not go ahead with allowing camping in some car parks - it would have contravened a long standing planning policy which had prevented private sector applicants obtaining licences.
> 
> ...



Hi Graham,

They are very much aware of the demand. Trouble is that a lot of the demand is from the "travelling community". The hight barriers are there to reduce that sort of demand. I have been trying ,as many others have, to convince my local council of the benefit of attracting the right sort of Motorhomer. It's an uphill struggle but you do get the odd bit of encouragement. I got a letter from Stewart Jackson MP the other day promising to write to the Director of Growth and Regeneration at the City Council on my behalf. Little Acorns and all that. 

Richard


----------



## patbhoy (May 13, 2014)

mhp said:


> That is a caravan site, equivalent to municipal caravan sites on the mainland, but restricted to motorhomes only. The true extent of parking for motorhomes on the Isle of Man is detailed Here.



If you reckon that's a caravan site then please direct me to sites on the mainland that I can use 4 nights out of 7 for £12 a year please.


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

patbhoy said:


> If you reckon that's a caravan site then please direct me to sites on the mainland that I can use 4 nights out of 7 for £12 a year please.



Cost is immaterial. It is the site purpose which is important. As the sign says, it is a Motorhome Camping Area, not a car park.


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

As far as the law in this country is concerned, whether we like it or not, sleeping in a vehicle (other than a quick nap) comes into the definition of human habitation. That is the point we have to start from and to try to pretend otherwise is at least futile and, if pushed to excess, can invite opposition to those of us who seek to increase legal provision.

As you, more or less, say the reason there aren't the same problems with travellers in France is that the laws are different. There is nothing to stop anyone who wants UK legislation amending to lobby their MP about it but until it does happen then, once again, we are where we are.

It isn't the case that van drivers are not "permitted" to be shoppers or commuters, merely that their vehicles are too large for parking spots and may well be too heavy for the sub-structure of the car park.

In addition to the best interests of leisure seekers, councils have to look after the best interests of other sections of the community and doing so can be a difficult balance. What I am saying is rather than simply _complaining_ that we cant use car parks for camping (something which is easy to dismiss) we need to be looking for opportunities to build extra amenities into underused resources.

Graham


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

Tbear said:


> Hi Graham,
> 
> They are very much aware of the demand. Trouble is that a lot of the demand is from the "travelling community". The hight barriers are there to reduce that sort of demand. I have been trying ,as many others have, to convince my local council of the benefit of attracting the right sort of Motorhomer. It's an uphill struggle but you do get the odd bit of encouragement. I got a letter from Stewart Jackson MP the other day promising to write to the Director of Growth and Regeneration at the City Council on my behalf. Little Acorns and all that.
> 
> Richard



It's nice to see somebody actually trying, Richard.

I didn't mention the "travelling community" because they tend to be a problem in isolated pockets as far as car parks are concerned rather than as widespread as other reasons for height barriers. Having said that I am aware that Cambridgeshire County Council has suffered at least as much as most over the years and that is the reason for barriers in the area. The alternative is thousands of pounds having to come from local tax payers to eject the travellers and clear up the mess each time.

Good luck, hopefully a solution can be found.

Graham


----------



## Tbear (May 13, 2014)

mhp said:


> It's nice to see somebody actually trying, Richard.
> 
> I didn't mention the "travelling community" because they tend to be a problem in *isolated pockets* as far as car parks are concerned rather than as widespread as other reasons for height barriers. Having said that I am aware that Cambridgeshire County Council has suffered at least as much as most over the years and that is the reason for barriers in the area. The alternative is thousands of pounds having to come from local tax payers to eject the travellers and clear up the mess each time.
> 
> ...



I think you will find that community is almost totally responsible for nearly all council height barriers. My argument is that they still have to spend vast sums of money clearing up after them as it just moves them onto park or private land. Every time you move them it takes a court order which cost a fortune to get and another fortune to impose. Therefore the present system is not a good one. A system of Aires removes the argument that they have nowhere else to go. Not a total answer to the problem but a start at least.

Richard


----------



## antiqueman (May 13, 2014)

patbhoy said:


> They've got it right in the Isle of Man.
> 
> New Camper Stop in Douglas, Isle of Man



they hate tuggers though :hammer:


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

That is your opinion, David, and you are entitled to it. Unfortunately it cuts no ice with authority (here or abroad) as it has no greater weight than anybody else's opinion.

As I said simply complaining is easy to dismiss. Constructive approaches don't always work but they have far more chance.

Graham


----------



## antiqueman (May 13, 2014)

*island like uk*



mhp said:


> That is a caravan site, equivalent to municipal caravan sites on the mainland, but restricted to motorhomes only. The true extent of parking for motorhomes on the Isle of Man is detailed Here.



parked and slept all over in iom never had a problem harbours pub car parks wherever I lay my hat.


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

Tbear said:


> I think you will find that community is almost totally responsible for nearly all council height barriers. My argument is that they still have to spend vast sums of money clearing up after them as it just moves them onto park or private land. Every time you move them it takes a court order which cost a fortune to get and another fortune to impose. Therefore the present system is not a good one. A system of Aires removes the argument that they have nowhere else to go. Not a total answer to the problem but a start at least.
> 
> Richard



I agree totally that the present system is not good but contacts I have had with all UK councils over the last 7 years or so indicate that travellers are not the main reason for height barriers. Having said that, even where there are proper traveller camps (as against aires for touring motorhomers), some families refuse to use them. I think, though, that when private land is occupied it is the landowner rather than the council who is faced with the bill.

Graham


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

I'm not in a position any more special than any other private individual, David.

I have, however, studied the relevant legislation in depth as part of building and maintaining Motorhome Parking for the last 7 and a half years. As a result I probably do know more about "the law on this matter" than many people.

Graham


----------



## antiqueman (May 13, 2014)

mhp said:


> As far as the law in this country is concerned, whether we like it or not, sleeping in a vehicle (other than a quick nap) comes into the definition of human habitation.
> 
> Graham



ok I like a 6 hour nap at times.:bow:its my age.


----------



## Tbear (May 13, 2014)

English Law, simple and rational:lol-053::lol-053:

There are many travellers sites but it seems not all wish to spend all their time there.

Richard


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

Tbear said:


> English Law, simple and rational:lol-053::lol-053:
> 
> There are many travellers sites but it seems not all wish to spend all their time there.
> 
> Richard



Unfortunate but true - and with the way the HRA was worded in this country (as against others where far more of the available derogations were used) that is what we are stuck with until some government changes it to stop some sections of society abusing others


----------



## Tbear (May 13, 2014)

mhp said:


> I agree totally that the present system is not good but contacts I have had with all UK councils over the last 7 years or so indicate that travellers are not the main reason for height barriers. Having said that, even where there are proper traveller camps (as against aires for touring motorhomers), some families refuse to use them. I think, though, that when private land is occupied it is the landowner rather than the council who is faced with the bill.
> 
> Graham



Well it seems we talk to different officials. In all the conversations I have had the Travellers or perceived risk of, has been the main excuse for the barriers. Yes private land owners do have to meet the huge cost of shifting them but none of us profit from bankrupting some poor farmer. The fact that the council has shifted them of public land onto private is little short of criminal. Imagine if you where the land owner?

Richard


----------



## Tbear (May 13, 2014)

I hate violence but sometimes boot and *rse come to mind 

Richard


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

Tbear said:


> Well it seems we talk to different officials. In all the conversations I have had the Travellers or perceived risk of, has been the main excuse for the barriers. Yes private land owners do have to meet the huge cost of shifting them but none of us profit from bankrupting some poor farmer. The fact that the council has shifted them of public land onto private is little short of criminal. Imagine if you where the land owner?
> 
> Richard



I suppose it depends how many different councils you talk to. All councils have problems with travellers but in many areas the problems don't affect car parks. As I said earlier, I know that Cambridgeshire has had a particular problem with travellers on car parks. Worcestershire is another. Here in the Tees-side area though, for example, travellers leave car parks alone.

I don't agree that councils shift them off public land onto private - they do the first but it is the travellers themselves who occupy the next victim's land, councils don't force them to.


----------



## Tbear (May 13, 2014)

Its a thin line though, no council land then where else?


----------



## patbhoy (May 13, 2014)

mhp said:


> Cost is immaterial. It is the site purpose which is important. As the sign says, it is a Motorhome Camping Area, not a car park.



I don't get what point your trying to make, if similar facilities were available on the UK mainland I think motorhome and campervan owners would welcome them with open arms. 
I can only guess that you want everything for free and don't want to put any money into communities but are quite happy to use their facilities. 
This is the type of thing that locals abhor, people who only want to take and not give.


----------



## Tbear (May 13, 2014)

patbhoy said:


> I don't get what point your trying to make, if similar facilities were available on the UK mainland I think motorhome and campervan owners would welcome them with open arms.
> I can only guess that you want everything for free and don't want to put any money into communities but are quite happy to use their facilities.
> This is the type of thing that locals abhor, people who only want to take and not give.



C&CC just charged me £42 just for membership, then you have to pay a site fee so £12 sounds a bargain to me.

Richard


----------



## mhp (May 13, 2014)

patbhoy said:


> I don't get what point your trying to make, if similar facilities were available on the UK mainland I think motorhome and campervan owners would welcome them with open arms.
> I can only guess that you want everything for free and don't want to put any money into communities but are quite happy to use their facilities.
> This is the type of thing that locals abhor, people who only want to take and not give.



Excuse me? You were the one who brought cost into it by saying "If you reckon that's a caravan site then please direct me to sites on the mainland that I can use 4 nights out of 7 for £12 a year please.". Rightly or wrongly I took that to mean that you did not want to pay any higher fees on the mainland. I don't want to take and not give so goodness knows where you g that impression from.

From my point of view, I don't want everything for free at all. I am quite happy to pay reasonable costs - and view £5 a night for somewhere safe with no facilities (fresh water or waste dump) as perfectly reasonable.


----------



## patbhoy (May 13, 2014)

mhp said:


> Excuse me? You were the one who brought cost into it by saying "If you reckon that's a caravan site then please direct me to sites on the mainland that I can use 4 nights out of 7 for £12 a year please.". Rightly or wrongly I took that to mean that you did not want to pay any higher fees on the mainland. I don't want to take and not give so goodness knows where you g that impression from.
> 
> From my point of view, I don't want everything for free at all. I am quite happy to pay reasonable costs - and view £5 a night for somewhere safe with no facilities (fresh water or waste dump) as perfectly reasonable.



I think your starting to talk in riddles now, you called it a caravan park not me. 
I merely stated I thought it a great idea and would love to see it on the mainland as I'm sure many on here would and at £12 per year is fantastic value.


----------



## 666jw (May 14, 2014)

mhp said:


> I'm not in a position any more special than any other private individual, David.
> 
> I have, however, studied the relevant legislation in depth as part of building and maintaining Motorhome Parking for the last 7 and a half years. As a result I probably do know more about "the law on this matter" than many people.
> 
> Graham



Oh yes Graham, I remember your website from a couple of years back when finding myself passing through Darlington one night. On your advice I stopped at a town centre car park for the night, and called in at the Indian restaurant close by on the main road. A excellent meal and a peaceful nights sleep. 

A little late I know, but thanks for providing that info and thankyou to the local council for the overnight parking spot. So simple, just a shame its not the norm.


----------



## mhp (May 14, 2014)

patbhoy said:


> I think your starting to talk in riddles now, you called it a caravan park not me.
> I merely stated I thought it a great idea and would love to see it on the mainland as I'm sure many on here would and at £12 per year is fantastic value.



Fine, certainly we agree that it is a great idea and we would love to see sites like it on the mainland.

So, we come back to my original point. In order for such facilities to be created, councils (and/or private landowners) need to be made aware of the demand. Taking Richard's earlier point, it may be that they are aware but are doing nothing about it. Either way, unless *we* (motorhome owners) do something then nothing is likely to happen.

So (everyone) do you know of a car park (or other area) which is underused? If you do then get in touch with the council (or private landowner) and offer to work with them to create a motorhome parking and/or camping area. Don't just leave it to somebody else to do.


----------



## mhp (May 14, 2014)

Whether we like it or not "the freedom to use an otherwise empty car park space for a kip overnight" is special treatment because of the way legislation and planning policies apply. It might be convenient to ignore that fact because it makes the argument seem easier to justify but it doesn't work.

Under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, as soon as a caravan (which includes a motorhome) is stationed on land for the purposes of human habitation (which includes a kip overnight) it becomes a "caravan site". We might not like that but local authorities have no choice but to operate within the law as it stands - because if they don't then people who are opposed to use of car parks for motorhome nightstops have a cast iron case of maladministration.

The fact that things are different in France is irrelevant because the different French system does not apply.

Criticising other local authority activities is also irrelevant. Apart from the fact that they are nothing to do with what we are discussing, in many cases the LAs have no option because they are bound by national legislation. Unfounded criticism simply breeds contempt.

Like it or not we have to work within the system that exists.

Graham


----------



## John H (May 14, 2014)

I agree that a change in the law is needed and it is only the national government that can do that. However, I disagree with your final point. Sometimes, mass action/protest is a good idea (poll tax, petrol prices, votes for women etc); sometimes it is futile. The difference is that government policy can be changed by protest that is on behalf of lots of voters; it can't be changed by protest from a few fringe members of society. Like it or not, we are a very small group and will not get what we want by being belligerent; only by reasoned argument and gentle persuasion.


----------



## mhp (May 14, 2014)

No, it is not futile dealing with local councils. The law allows LA owned land (including car parks) to be used for nightstops but car parks are normally only legally able to be used for parking. It is the way in which councils are approached which matters in achieving a change to the car park order. Simply complaining that it's not fair will get nowhere. Go to a council with constructive ideas for beneficial opportunities and most will, at least, listen.

I imagine that if motor home owners undertook a mass 'sit-in' of car parks then (the far larger number of) the general public adversely affected would create enough fuss to knock any ideas of nightstops on the head for good and all in that area.


----------



## John H (May 14, 2014)

Yes I have heard of UKIP and they have gained influence by appealing to the fears and concerns of a LARGE number of people (but not me!). Whichever way you look at it, wildcamping motorhomers are never going to become more than a small group on the fringe.


----------



## Tbear (May 14, 2014)

mhp said:


> Whether we like it or not "the freedom to use an otherwise empty car park space for a kip overnight" is special treatment because of the way legislation and planning policies apply. It might be convenient to ignore that fact because it makes the argument seem easier to justify but it doesn't work.
> 
> Under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, as soon as a caravan (which includes a motorhome) is stationed on land for the purposes of human habitation (which includes a kip overnight) it becomes a "caravan site". We might not like that but local authorities have no choice but to operate within the law as it stands - because if they don't then people who are opposed to use of car parks for motorhome nightstops have a cast iron case of maladministration.
> 
> ...



The trouble with English law is that it has more holes than the average sieve. Many rules oppose each other such can't stop here mate but can't drive while tired thing. Is a car driver having a nap turning the carpark into a campsite. If you can't have a nap in a carpark, designate it a lorry park for small lorries. There is always a way around things. Councils are good at cherry picking the rules which they vigorously enforce. Park outside our town hall for a few mins over your time and you get a ticket while the Majors car sits on double yellow lines.They are happy to bend the rules in there own direction. How often have we heard of illegal or unenforceable parking restriction signs.

Most councils have made there mind up and do not wish to have the bother of changing it and admitting they where wrong. This is human nature. The only way to change this mind set is to make it less hassle to accommodate us or make it profitable. The more people that write to there councillors and MP,s then the more work they have to do. If we produce enough arguments for then the grumpy g*ts in parking have to explain the fortune they spend on height barriers.

Richard


----------



## John H (May 14, 2014)

In order to make us anything other than a fringe group you'd have to supply an awful lot of people with motorhomes. Like it or not, we are seen as a small elitist group with absolutely no chance of becoming a large and influential one. The reason is simple; most people cannot afford to own motorhomes (assuming that they would want to anyway!) - they have too many other financial commitments without spending a lot of money on something that they will only be able to use for a few weeks a year. Yes, I know you don't have to spend a lot on buying one but when you factor in tax, insurance, maintenance, where to put the bloody thing etc, then it is not something most families have a desire to take on (especially with package holidays being relatively cheap). As far as the wider public is concerned, we fall into the same category as people who own jets or yachts.  Good luck with trying to organise sympathy for that lot! It doesn't matter whether the perception is true or not. Personally, I have better things to do with my time than banging my head against a wall by claiming my so-called rights. As with all minorities, we only stand a chance of getting the majority on our side by gentle persuasion. Show them we will do them no harm and might actually produce a small benefit for them and they are more likely to listen to us. That is why I always e-mail councils who make positive moves in order to congratulate them. It is a slow process but it offers the only real chance of change.


----------



## John H (May 14, 2014)

You have a family member who works in the public sector, David???? Your dinner table conversations will be a hoot, I bet.


----------



## mhp (May 14, 2014)

May I point out, David, that local councils and housing associations are different types of organisation? The latter are private sector companies.

How does giving an example of how the private sector gets it wrong demonstrate problems of dealing with local councils?


----------



## Tbear (May 14, 2014)

mhp said:


> May I point out, David, that local councils and housing associations are different types of organisation? The latter are private sector companies.
> 
> How does giving an example of how the private sector gets it wrong demonstrate problems of dealing with local councils?



I have never understood how council housing has morphed in a private company but still seems to be run by the same people and still takes a huge chunk of the public purse  Another Government improvement. 

Richard


----------



## John H (May 14, 2014)

mhp said:


> May I point out, David, that local councils and housing associations are different types of organisation? The latter are private sector companies.
> 
> How does giving an example of how the private sector gets it wrong demonstrate problems of dealing with local councils?



Oops! just noticed that - so he doesn't have a public sector worker in his family after all. Shame!


----------



## mhp (May 14, 2014)

Tbear said:


> I have never understood how council housing has morphed in a private company but still seems to be run by the same people and still takes a huge chunk of the public purse  Another Government improvement.
> 
> Richard



Some housing associations were created from council housing departments but others were formed completely independently of councils and some. Many of the former came into being following the election of the Labour government in 1997. Councils assumed that Labour would change the Right To Buy legislation so that they could keep the proceeds of sales (instead of the money going to central government) and that they would increase housing maintenance support from central government funds. Instead, John Prescott wrote to all councils saying, basically, if you want extra funding you have to transfer the housing stock to new or existing associations because they can borrow from the open market (i.e. borrowing didn't show up in the PSBR so Gordon Brown could pretend that borrowing was less than it really was).

I recall an association being created in the Teesside area as a result of that. The first thing that happened was a massive salary rise for the top management "because we are in the private sector now and have to pay private sector salaries".

I don't know how huge the chunk of the public purse housing associations take but it is made up of housing benefits and subsidy of new builds.


----------



## John H (May 14, 2014)

Well, you've made a reasonable stab at getting out of that one but, since this thread is about councils getting the message about overnighting and since housing associations are in your view neither public not private, I wonder what relevance your original post has.

Incidentally, my wife used to be secretary of a Housing Association and it was run by people from private sector backgrounds so I don't know where you get this "same sort of people" thing from.


----------



## John H (May 14, 2014)

So there we have it - if a housing association is run badly then it must be by "the sort of people generally to be found in the public sector" (whatever that means) but if it is run well then it must be by people from the private sector. Good to see there's still some life in those blinkers!


----------



## mhp (May 14, 2014)

Probably quite accurate in many cases.

The reason is the growth of private sector "strategic partners" coming into the public sector over the last 10 years. Their primary aim is to make a profit of course, providing excellent customer service coming way behind. So, they cut jobs, they cut pay, they cut training &c &c

Few of them have got the training and service levels down as low as in their own call centres but give them time


----------



## Tbear (May 14, 2014)

mhp said:


> Some housing associations were created from council housing departments but others were formed completely independently of councils and some. Many of the former came into being following the election of the Labour government in 1997. Councils assumed that Labour would change the Right To Buy legislation so that they could keep the proceeds of sales (instead of the money going to central government) and that they would increase housing maintenance support from central government funds. Instead, John Prescott wrote to all councils saying, basically, if you want extra funding you have to transfer the housing stock to new or existing associations because they can borrow from the open market (i.e. borrowing didn't show up in the PSBR so Gordon Brown could pretend that borrowing was less than it really was).
> 
> I recall an association being created in the Teesside area as a result of that. The first thing that happened was a massive salary rise for the top management "because we are in the private sector now and have to pay private sector salaries".
> 
> I don't know how huge the chunk of the public purse housing associations take but it is made up of housing benefits and subsidy of new builds.



Thankyou 

Richard


----------



## John H (May 14, 2014)

Ignoring the attempts to divert attention (your classic approach to a difficult question) I am still waiting to discover what your criticism of a non-public sector organisation has to do with local authorities and their attitude to overnight parking. But, once again, I won't hold my breathe!


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 15, 2014)

Councils already get the message they just have chosen to take the cheap and easiest option . They will use lack of funds as an excuse but they didn't do anything pre crash n when this depression well for ppl at the bottom ends the council will still nothing


----------



## mhp (May 15, 2014)

landyrubbertramp said:


> Councils already get the message they just have chosen to take the cheap and easiest option . They will use lack of funds as an excuse but they didn't do anything pre crash n when this depression well for ppl at the bottom ends the council will still nothing



It's easy to be negative and take that view. Have you actually approached any councils with specific ideas for a nightstop where there is land which might be developed for such? If so did they reject the idea out of hand or actually consider it?

Graham


----------



## John H (May 15, 2014)

landyrubbertramp said:


> Councils already get the message they just have chosen to take the cheap and easiest option . They will use lack of funds as an excuse but they didn't do anything pre crash n when this depression well for ppl at the bottom ends the council will still nothing



Hardly helpful if this is being read by councillors from places like North Devon, Powys, Hawick and others that have agreed to provide facilities for us. True, many want to get rid of motorhomes and but the way forward is not to insult them; it is to demonstrate to them that it could be of benefit to them to provide facilities for us.


----------



## John H (May 15, 2014)

Spoken like a man who truly lives on another planet. The reason why it does us no good to insult councillors is because we are an insignificant minority compared to the taxpayers who vote for them and who don't want us in their backyard. As such, the only chance we have of convincing them is to be positive. On this planet, it is human nature not to be convinced by someone who is insulting you. It is also true that, in both our personal and business lives, we have to pretend to others that they are not the idiots they actually are - otherwise we don't get what we want (or indeed may end up being sacked!). It may be different on your planet but one day perhaps you'll visit this one and encounter reality.

PS I'm still waiting...............


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 15, 2014)

Just to responded I use to be a ward Cllr my self in a village not far from leek staffs . I raised this issue on numerous levels without any . What needs to be remembered us that it's the council officers that run councils not called and despite them having to work to policy by Cllr the reality is the culture us for officers to ignore such policies in order to make thier day to day life easier . My sister miss Lisa Martin is a district councilor of Staffordshire moorlands district Cllr so feel free to contact her as she like me raises this issue all the time again with no joy . Believe me on not a negative person but I see things as they are in the real wold . My advice re all this is forget it and carry on doing the tight thing as a decent person and free yourself from thinking the council can solve all your problems and make your life better . The reality is they are not the salutiob but the problem itself . Regards lee


----------



## John H (May 15, 2014)

landyrubbertramp said:


> What needs to be remembered us that it's the council officers that run councils not called and despite them having to work to policy by Cllr the reality is the culture us for officers to ignore such policies in order to make thier day to day life easier .



I have certainly met those officers you talk about and tend to agree with you! However, if the controlling group is strong enough then the officers have to implement policy whether they like it or not. Of course they will prevaricate (Sir Humphrey is alive and well in the Town Hall as well as in Westminster!) but strong councillors will always win in the end. However, whatever the balance of power, it does no good for our little minority to insult council officers either!


----------



## John H (May 15, 2014)

Honesty of the sort you describe is certainly the way to go if you are in a position of power (a manager, for example, or a customer whose demands have not been properly met) but if you have no power then they will ignore you. It is called basic human nature and it may make you feel better to shout at them but it won't achieve anything. We, as wildcamping motorhomers, are and always will be an insignificant group whose demands will always be secondary to those of the voters who want their councillors to do something about their complaints. 

Of course, it is true that "with a little intelligent management of resources they would not have to exclude motorhomes" but you miss the point entirely. They are not introducing restrictions on us because they are unintelligent or have no financial brain; they are making restrictions on us because they need to be seen to be doing something when their voters complain. You may call your planet Earth but it is not this one!


----------



## Tezza (May 15, 2014)

Just a thought....are councils putting the by laws into place...not to stop motorhomers...but to stop travellers taking up residence in all their car parks. And the only way they can do that is not to allow overnighting and sleeping in vehicles...which then affects us. I dont like 
councils as a rule...but i do sort of see where they are coming from. How do they differentiate between a traveller gypsy and a motorhomer???


----------



## mhp (May 15, 2014)

landyrubbertramp said:


> Just to responded I use to be a ward Cllr my self in a village not far from leek staffs . I raised this issue on numerous levels without any . What needs to be remembered us that it's the council officers that run councils not called and despite them having to work to policy by Cllr the reality is the culture us for officers to ignore such policies in order to make thier day to day life easier . My sister miss Lisa Martin is a district councilor of Staffordshire moorlands district Cllr so feel free to contact her as she like me raises this issue all the time again with no joy . Believe me on not a negative person but I see things as they are in the real wold . My advice re all this is forget it and carry on doing the tight thing as a decent person and free yourself from thinking the council can solve all your problems and make your life better . The reality is they are not the salutiob but the problem itself . Regards lee


Thanks for the explanation.

I have met council officers who are obstructive but no more so than people working in different industries.

I have also met elected members who, not to put too fine a point on it, hadn't a clue about the legislation governing the subject they were discussing and had little or no understanding of council policies and their implementation. One, on being told she could not have access to certain information because the council's cabinet had decided that she had no right to it, protested that she thought it was councillors who decided policy not officers. She simply could not get her head round the fact that the members themselves had delegated such decisions to cabinet members when they chose them.

I've also been in contact with motorhome owning councillors who have tried to get the support of their fellow party members or nightstop facilities and been rebuffed because their fellow councillors are either not interested or actually against such moves.

As places like North Devon, Powys, Hawick and so on show, though, building positive cases and presenting them properly can result in nightstops being created. On the other hand, insulting officers and/or elected members will achieve nothing other than put their backs up.

Graham


----------



## mhp (May 15, 2014)

Tezza said:


> Just a thought....are councils putting the by laws into place...not to stop motorhomers...but *to stop travellers taking up residence in all their car parks*. And the only way they can do that is not to allow overnighting and sleeping in vehicles...which then affects us. I dont like councils as a rule...but i do sort of see where they are coming from. How do they differentiate between a traveller gypsy and a motorhomer???



In some cases that is true - we touched on it in posts on page 2 of this thread - but not in all cases. It is possible, as some councils who do provide nightstops have shown, to prevent unauthorised camp sites taking over their car parks. To a large extent, though, it depends on the general extent of that problem in their area.
Graham


----------



## Tbear (May 15, 2014)

mhp said:


> It's easy to be negative and take that view. Have you actually approached any councils with specific ideas for a nightstop where there is land which might be developed for such? If so did they reject the idea out of hand or actually consider it?
> 
> Graham



Two or three spots that needed white lines and a sign. I did not know that so much Red Tape existed or that number of departments or that number of officials that suddenly where not available.

I confess, they won, I pretty much gave up. Still send the odd email so they cannot put the idea to bed and the hope that one may land on the correct desk.

Richard


----------



## Tbear (May 15, 2014)

Tezza said:


> Just a thought....are councils putting the by laws into place...not to stop motorhomers...but to stop travellers taking up residence in all their car parks. And the only way they can do that is not to allow overnighting and sleeping in vehicles...which then affects us. I dont like
> councils as a rule...but i do sort of see where they are coming from. How do they differentiate between a traveller gypsy and a motorhomer???



People can switch between the two so you have to have a system that covers both. It needs to be backed up in Law. Park here for max of x number of days at X cost.  Park within the the lines or pay for two tickets. No littering. No fires. Fail to comply with a simple set of rules and get your van crushed. Ok a bit extreme but you get the idea.

Richard


----------



## mhp (May 15, 2014)

Tbear said:


> Two or three spots that needed white lines and a sign. I did not know that so much Red Tape existed or that number of departments or that number of officials that suddenly where not available.
> 
> I confess, they won, I pretty much gave up. Still send the odd email so they cannot put the idea to bed and the hope that one may land on the correct desk.
> 
> Richard





Tbear said:


> People can switch between the two so you have to have a system that covers both. It needs to be backed up in Law. Park here for max of x number of days at X cost.  Park within the the lines or pay for two tickets. No littering. No fires. Fail to comply with a simple set of rules and get your van crushed. Ok a bit extreme but you get the idea.
> 
> Richard



You answered your own point really, Richard. It is more than just a drop of white paint and a sign. The set of rules may be simple in the end but the procedure to ensure that is is legal and enforceable isn't. Not the fault of councils, or even of the UK government, it is the nature of legislation in a developed country world wide. Finance and other resources are required for initial set-up and ongoing management - and that isn't always within the control of councils under the increasing centralisation we've seen in the last 10 to 20 years.

It isn't a quick process but if a sound case can be made, with at least prima facie evidence, then it can pay off as has been shown elsewhere.

Graham


----------



## mhp (May 15, 2014)

Sorry David but this point indicates a lack of understanding of the full picture. Highways, including lay-bys (which your attachment shows rather than the municipal car parks under discussion) come under different legislation. Legislation also recognises the restrictions placed on HGV drivers (which don't affect we motorhomers who are able to plan our journeys more freely) and that is why some lay-bys allow HGV drivers to overnight but ban motorhomes.

Graham


----------



## John H (May 15, 2014)

In Spain, where overnighting is allowed anywhere that there isn't a specific ban, they have solved the problem very neatly. "Parking" (which is allowed) is where only the wheels are in contact with the ground (no steadies, awnings etc - although some say levelling blocks are allowed) and where there is nothing placed outside the vehicle (ie no tables, chairs, washing lines etc). "Camping" (which is anything else) is not allowed outside campsites. Nobody is bothered about whether the vehicle is occupied or not - or what you might be doing inside. All this is enshrined in Spanish law. It is easy to do if there is a will; the problem in the UK is the lack of will.


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 15, 2014)

Thank you for your reply Mhp I may not agree with your thinking but respect your thinking kind regards lee. John h point on parking and camping and the difference is key not outing anything outside the vehicle or say being able to just drive off in a road legal vehicle to me is parking and not camping . That's how I think Bout it and use that position when I move from one place to another


----------



## mhp (May 15, 2014)

John H said:


> In Spain, where overnighting is allowed anywhere that there isn't a specific ban, they have solved the problem very neatly. "Parking" (which is allowed) is where only the wheels are in contact with the ground (no steadies, awnings etc - although some say levelling blocks are allowed) and where there is nothing placed outside the vehicle (ie no tables, chairs, washing lines etc). "Camping" (which is anything else) is not allowed outside campsites. Nobody is bothered about whether the vehicle is occupied or not - or what you might be doing inside. All this is enshrined in Spanish law. It is easy to do if there is a will; the problem in the UK is the lack of will.



It would be nice but I suspect lack of will is at least matched by lack of perceived importance. I can't imagine a government (of any party) giving time to passing such legislation unfortunately.

Graham


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 15, 2014)

I fear your right graham on this


----------



## John H (May 15, 2014)

mhp said:


> It would be nice but I suspect lack of will is at least matched by lack of perceived importance. I can't imagine a government (of any party) giving time to passing such legislation unfortunately.
> 
> Graham



I have to agree. There are no votes in it - as far as political influence goes, we probably rank below buskers!

It is my belief that the reason for the difference in attitude here and on the mainland of Europe has something to do with us being an island nation. The culture in France, Spain etc seems to be to welcome strangers; here it seems that we are suspicious of them. Never mind, I spend at least half the year over the Channel anyway!


----------



## Tbear (May 15, 2014)

mhp said:


> *You answered your own point really*, Richard. It is more than just a drop of white paint and a sign. The set of rules may be simple in the end but the procedure to ensure that is is legal and enforceable isn't. Not the fault of councils, or even of the UK government, it is the nature of legislation in a developed country world wide. Finance and other resources are required for initial set-up and ongoing management - and that isn't always within the control of councils under the increasing centralisation we've seen in the last 10 to 20 years.
> 
> It isn't a quick process but if a sound case can be made, with at least prima facie evidence, then it can pay off *as has been shown elsewhere*.
> 
> Graham



It has been done so precedent is set. Just needs a Can Do attitude and less waffle.

Richard


----------



## mhp (May 15, 2014)

Tbear said:


> It has been done so precedent is set. Just needs a Can Do attitude and less waffle.
> 
> Richard



Are we back to my point in post #18? 

Graham


----------



## Tbear (May 15, 2014)

See # 89 

Richard


----------



## mhp (May 15, 2014)

Tbear said:


> See # 89
> 
> Richard


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 15, 2014)

It's more how democracy is shaped . Weather we like the concept if elected mayors or not . The fact is it allows things to get done that would never be done with a cabinet style local governant. Yes it may be anti democratic but in the experience if stoke in Trent when we had an rejected mayor for a short period he got things done that never would gave been done and many tears on the projects self finding I might add are stronger than ever


----------



## Tbear (May 15, 2014)

landyrubbertramp said:


> It's more how democracy is shaped . Weather we like the concept if elected mayors or not . The fact is it allows things to get done that would never be done with a cabinet style local governant. Yes it may be anti democratic but in the experience if stoke in Trent when we had an rejected mayor for a short period he got things done that never would gave been done and many tears on the projects self finding I might add are stronger than ever



Did you read that before you posted it 

Richard


----------



## mhp (May 15, 2014)

landyrubbertramp said:


> It's more how democracy is shaped . Weather we like the concept if elected mayors or not . The fact is it allows things to get done that would never be done with a cabinet style local governant. Yes it may be anti democratic but in the experience if stoke in Trent when we had an rejected mayor for a short period he got things done that never would gave been done and many tears on the projects self finding I might add are stronger than ever



It might get things done but are they value for money? We've had an elected - wish he *had* been rejected :lol-053: - mayor in Middlesbrough and it hasn't done us any good at all. Millions of pounds wasted on a "regeneration" scheme that blighted a large area of the town, millions more on a modern art gallery that the vast majority of the town doesn't want (and certainly doesn't need) &c &c.

Graham


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 15, 2014)

Hi Richard no i didn't lol oops sorry for the spelling but you get the drift 

Yes your right graham it can work well but as you mention it can turn out to be a mistake .


----------



## richardstubbs (May 15, 2014)

John H said:


> I have to agree. There are no votes in it - as far as political influence goes, we probably rank below buskers!
> 
> It is my belief that the reason for the difference in attitude here and on the mainland of Europe has something to do with us being an island nation. The culture in France, Spain etc seems to be to welcome strangers; here it seems that we are suspicious of them. Never mind, I spend at least half the year over the Channel anyway!



I don't really think that the island thing is true actually, much as it may seem like it at times. I can only speak for France, but I think they're sometimes more suspicious and less welcoming in some ways. Look at the incessant rise in popularity of the Front Nationale.

No, your first sentence is the truth, in my opinion. In France, motorhomers are better treated, fact. I think the reasons are:

1) There are a lot more motorhomes
2) Motorhomes are mostly owned by pensioners
3) Pensioners vote

Politicians, local or national, need votes to pursue their agenda. People who own motorhomes in France, Spain Italy etc are a much more significant constituency than here, so the politicians are more likely to pander to their needs. Also, there's more space. Lots more.

The biggest problem in gaining motorhome parking, as has been said before, is that some people abuse it. If everyone acted responsibly then it would be a load easier. There aren't going to be enough responsible motorhomers any time soon, so what's needed is to get other people on message. Shopkeepers, pub landlords, people like that. They can benefit. If we don't take everything in the van with us 

I haven't got any clever ideas how though, sorry.

By the way, I don't agree with a certain nameless (not allowed to name) person's 'direct action' approach. I think it just inflames the situation, and he doesn't speak for me when he claims to be campaining on our behalf.

Richard.
(different one)


----------



## John H (May 15, 2014)

richardstubbs said:


> I don't really think that the island thing is true actually, much as it may seem like it at times. I can only speak for France, but I think they're sometimes more suspicious and less welcoming in some ways. Look at the incessant rise in popularity of the Front Nationale.
> 
> No, your first sentence is the truth, in my opinion. In France, motorhomers are better treated, fact. I think the reasons are:
> 
> ...



Hi

I agree with much of what you say - especially the bits about responsible motorhoming being the way forward and your objections to a certain campaigner's bull-in-a-china-shop approach. The "space" argument is often used too but I have to say that I don't really buy it. The space for "aires" is there in the UK because most of our car parks are empty at night - when we would want to use them. I take your point about the rise of the Front Nationale in France and you can find areas in all countries where we are not welcome - but I just feel, as I travel around Europe, that the welcome for strangers is greater almost everywhere (except possibly Croatia!) than it is in England. No objective evidence; just a feeling.


----------



## richardstubbs (May 15, 2014)

John H said:


> Hi
> 
> I agree with much of what you say - especially the bits about responsible motorhoming being the way forward and your objections to a certain campaigner's bull-in-a-china-shop approach. The "space" argument is often used too but I have to say that I don't really buy it. The space for "aires" is there in the UK because most of our car parks are empty at night - when we would want to use them. I take your point about the rise of the Front Nationale in France and you can find areas in all countries where we are not welcome - but I just feel, as I travel around Europe, that the welcome for strangers is greater almost everywhere (except possibly Croatia!) than it is in England. No objective evidence; just a feeling.



You're right about the space argument of course, although I think that the 'this country is full' argument is a powerful and emotive one, which is less easy to make in a country as manifestly huge as France. It's wrong of course - I once read that a smaller percentage of land in the UK is developed than in France. Don't know if that's true, but certainly the high concentration of people in urban parts of the UK reinforces some people's perception that it's crowded. Doesn't feel crowded here in Machynlleth though.

I guess my experience of France is a bit different - when we lived there we found a great deal of anti-British sentiment - my wife speaks fluent French, mine is worse but serviceable - and she interviewed a lot of French people for the English-language newspapers. Normal stuff - 'these people come over here' sort of thing like you get everywhere. Not directed at her, or any individual, but at 'les Britanniques' in general.

Most people of course, excepting those in government offices, were nice, same as here. And officially, certainly, the welcome is greater for motorhomers than here. But also, parking in general is less of a bone of contention. I was surprised when we came back to live in Wales just how stressed people get about parking in the UK. I'd completely forgotten.

Actually, I believe that few people really _like _tourism in their area, here or anywhere else, even if we are tourists ourselves sometimes. I certainly get mad at the McDonalds wrappers thrown out of car windows outside our house in summer, because I wouldn't do that myself. But nearly 50% of the local economy here depends on it, and the individual visitors are normally just nice, friendly people like everyone else. Same thing - the few spoiling it for the many.

But we agree in general. I just think that Britain gets a bad press, but after 8 years living in the south-west of France and finding people quite aloof I really relish the friendliness of mid-Wales. We find everywhere we visit in the van friendly though really, here, France, Ireland, Italy, wherever (never been to Croatia!). Apart from the bloke in Devon who deliberately ran me off my bicycle (and told me so) and got all the people standing around to tell the police that I crashed into him, but I don't think that's typical. 

I don't believe (and don't want to believe) that the councils' approach to parking is born out of any innate unfriendliness in the British people, just a desire to get elected. And the people who's vote is most important in council elections are a group who are a bit uppity about parking. The truth is probably that simple.

That was longer than I intended, sorry. Now then, any clever ideas to get more people on our side, and stop a few motorhomers from ruining it for the rest of us? Because I'm damned if I know...


----------



## mhp (May 15, 2014)

richardstubbs said:


> (snip just to answer this point) Now then, any clever ideas to get more people on our side, and stop a few motorhomers from ruining it for the rest of us? Because I'm damned if I know...



I'm afraid the answer is that individuals have to come up with ideas and do it themselves.

When I started the Motorhome Parking web site I naively assumed that people would fall over themselves to contribute places they knew of. I very quickly learned that was not the case so had to be much more proactive than originally envisaged. As far as numbers go there were about 475 individual contributors in the site's first 6 years (when contributions were collected and published) which is rather less than the 170,000+ visit count for 2012.

Plenty of people want more - and complain/whinge when they don't get it - but precious few are willing to put in effort to achieve what they want 

Graham


----------



## richardstubbs (May 15, 2014)

mhp said:


> I'm afraid the answer is that individuals have to come up with ideas and do it themselves.
> 
> When I started the Motorhome Parking web site I naively assumed that people would fall over themselves to contribute places they knew of. I very quickly learned that was not the case so had to be much more proactive than originally envisaged. As far as numbers go there were about 475 individual contributors in the site's first 6 years (when contributions were collected and published) which is rather less than the 170,000+ visit count for 2012.
> 
> ...



I was kind of being a bit tounge-in-cheek really, but totally agree.

For me, I think the way is softly-softly. I try to park responsibly, in a secluded place where nobody else is or somewhere where it's explicitly allowed, and move on after a night or maybe two, whatever seems appropriate for the place. I also use small, basic campsites frequently and I try to tell people that I'm in a motorhome if it's relevant. Especially if I'm spending money in their shop / pub / restaurant.

I suppose I hope that, in an argument in the future, someone will say _'we had one of those motorhome types in here with his wife and baby and he seemed nice, not at all like you say'_. And the world will all be lovely and everyone will get on and the war in Syria will stop. Of course it's ridiculously naive and depends on my actually *being *a nice bloke, which I might not be, but if everyone was careful, responsible and polite I think it would go a long way.

And well done on your efforts Graham, I appreciate it and I'm sure others do too.

Richard.


----------



## mhp (May 16, 2014)

Richard, I'm sure if everyone took the same approach then progress would be much easier.

Graham


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 16, 2014)

I can see your point about direct action not being the way forward . But if you look bk in history most equality has come from direct action . I e e Pankhurst . The blk lady unwilling to give her seat up on the cosh in the states. . Communities blocking raids to highligh mobile phone towers fracking . New housing developments etc. Lawful protest is a key part of change . Do you think democracy would have been established in some other countries by sending a letter to the sadam starting please sadam please be a nice person. I and we would need no arm forces as is that not direct action with a belief that your right. Dear my hitler England does not like to take direct action could you please stop being a bad person . No direct action at times is essential .


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 16, 2014)

Direct action within the law dies not mean a person does not act irresponsible . Magen I park I'm considerate and respectful . Teachers fireman etc I believe are considerate and resptable but take direct action three strikes  do they not . Ironically the governant is trying to stop such things for what they deem essential . Is a child not going to school for a day really essential like the police no shutubg down the tubes is that really essential service errr no . This governant is using divide and rule to head Tierra's a more communist state . No legal aud which means in family courses the patent with the most money has more chance if wining by pro longing the case till the poorer party runs outs if money etc . Sad but very true . Zero hour contracts . Ppl that find work still needs housing benifits etc to cover  diffrance . I'm not one part or another but this is not healthy democracy . Going into other areas but one thing is connected to the other as it's a mindset .


----------



## mhp (May 16, 2014)

True that direct action can work but the examples given are where relatively large numbers of people, within the overall population of the country/town &c, are advantaged by the outcome.

As was pointed out previously, motorhomers who want nightstops are a pretty small minority of the population as a whole (maybe even a minority of motorhomers as a whole) so it is easy for other people to associate direct action with anti-social behaviour and for teh merits of the argument to be lost.

Graham


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 16, 2014)

Yes I can see that point . M homers that drive to the coast don't have a vote in that area hence councils and many cllrs therefore see no votes in it .


----------



## Tbear (May 17, 2014)

It's clear that there is no simple answer and it's equally clear that wingeing and doing nothing is not going to help. There are many intelligent and motivated people on here, often proven by there qualifications and success in life. Many are now retired and some do give a lot of time to promote Motorhoming in a positive manner. I feel it's a bit of a shame that we cannot get a few small groups of like minded people to get together to take on a few councils. I tried taking one on, on my own and found it was me against the entire council. I did receive a lot of distance support from several members on here but nothing gives more support than someone backing you up in a face to face meeting.

Richard


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 17, 2014)

Hi Richard your post is correct it is a Shame I agree but given it's not one problem at one location and we are living in different places it makes things difficult to liaise with a local council. . The best salutiobs is to gain signatories and attend a local council meeting where your given a few mins to give a speech about your prob most councils you only need 100 signatures the prob is the signatures need to be from p that live it wiork in the council boundary and being a visitor or a tourist dies not count , a way forward could be to focus on the lga local governant association as they represent all councils we could identify ppl witin the lga and focus resources more direct


----------



## John H (May 17, 2014)

Tbear said:


> It's clear that there is no simple answer and it's equally clear that wingeing and doing nothing is not going to help. There are many intelligent and motivated people on here, often proven by there qualifications and success in life. Many are now retired and some do give a lot of time to promote Motorhoming in a positive manner. I feel it's a bit of a shame that we cannot get a few small groups of like minded people to get together to take on a few councils. I tried taking one on, on my own and found it was me against the entire council. I did receive a lot of distance support from several members on here but nothing gives more support than someone backing you up in a face to face meeting.
> 
> Richard



Its a long slow process but if you want to change a council's collective mind, probably the best way to do it is to seek out a councillor or senior officer who owns a motorhome and is sympathetic and use him/her as your mouthpiece on the council. Since the local business community has a big influence on any council decisions, you might also need to get them on side - by, for example, getting the Mayor of a French town to address the Chamber of Trade about how to encourage business (and get him to emphasize the additional income from passing motorhomes!). The "Hawick Welcome" group and other similar organisations around the country knew that motorhomes would bring economic benefits, they persuaded their council to let them try and so far they have been proved right, so there are UK examples to point to. The foot is in the door but it a very heavy door and a lot of gentle pushing is going to be needed. Don't expect this country to turn into France overnight!


----------



## Tbear (May 17, 2014)

John H said:


> Its a long slow process but if you want to change a council's collective mind, probably the best way to do it is to seek out a councillor or senior officer who owns a motorhome and is sympathetic and use him/her as your mouthpiece on the council. Since the local business community has a big influence on any council decisions, you might also need to get them on side - by, for example, getting the Mayor of a French town to address the Chamber of Trade about how to encourage business (and get him to emphasize the additional income from passing motorhomes!). The "Hawick Welcome" group and other similar organisations around the country knew that motorhomes would bring economic benefits, they persuaded their council to let them try and so far they have been proved right, so there are UK examples to point to. The foot is in the door but it a very heavy door and a lot of gentle pushing is going to be needed. Don't expect this country to turn into France overnight!



All very true John but it takes time and effort to research all the councillors and senior officials. I am neither a Mason nor a Businessman, I don't even play golf so I lack the contacts to do it quickly. 

I made several references to our twin towns at the time. All ignored. If my French had been a little better, I may have tried to contact their majors but French politics is beyond me at present. Be nice to find out if a French official was visiting though 

Richard


----------



## John H (May 17, 2014)

Tbear said:


> All very true John but it takes time and effort to research all the councillors and senior officials. I am neither a Mason nor a Businessman, I don't even play golf so I lack the contacts to do it quickly.
> 
> I made several references to our twin towns at the time. All ignored. If my French had been a little better, I may have tried to contact their majors but French politics is beyond me at present. Be nice to find out if a French official was visiting though
> 
> Richard



Very true - it takes a lot of time and effort and is not always successful (as I know from personal experience!). Perhaps the best way into the system might be to seek out a local community group that already has the kinds of contacts you might need. I keep coming back to the "Hawick Welcome" group because they are a perfect example of how to do it. If your area has a local civic group of that kind, perhaps joining it and convincing them might be a way forward.


----------



## landyrubbertramp (May 17, 2014)

Hi john but like my earlier post the forum is a community of opl but unfortunately in this case not a local geographic group. . We have a community if interest where by local groups have a local group of interest plus a geographical interest .  I chair numerous community groups sit if funding panels been a local Cllr sat in lsp the lot and been thinking about our issues since I started wild camping but I've not yet come up with a USp that we could use . I've not stioed thinking about this and will continue . There are a lot of weaknesses and not a lot if strengths from a point if view if a council . I am surprised tho the private sector has not worked this out . Good location offering basics stuff around 100 pitches where you can chose any service from filing up water to camping all week and breakdown each price so you could turn up pay 1 .00 for just water etc then be gone in 10 mins etc


----------



## Tbear (May 17, 2014)

landyrubbertramp said:


> Hi john but like my earlier post the forum is a community of opl but unfortunately in this case not a local geographic group. . We have a community if interest where by local groups have a local group of interest plus a geographical interest .  I chair numerous community groups sit if funding panels been a local Cllr sat in lsp the lot and been thinking about our issues since I started wild camping but I've not yet come up with a USp that we could use . I've not stioed thinking about this and will continue . There are a lot of weaknesses and not a lot if strengths from a point if view if a council . I am surprised tho the private sector has not worked this out . Good location offering basics stuff around 100 pitches where you can chose any service from filing up water to camping all week and breakdown each price so you could turn up pay 1 .00 for just water etc then be gone in 10 mins etc



C&CC Motorhome stopovers I think are running at about £7.oo a go with 5 van sites at about £10 for the same but you get to stay for the night.

Richard


----------



## John H (May 17, 2014)

One of the problems here is that central government has progressively (from Thatcher, through Blair to the present) forced local councils to act more and more like profit-making businesses. So in order to get back to the kind of ideal you describe we need to change things at the centre - but that is unlikely to happen because central government has discovered that by forcing, for example, local councils to sell council houses and only build more (through housing associations) they have to act as private businesses and borrow on the open market and all this enables them to pretend that debt is less than it is.


----------



## John H (May 17, 2014)

I agree with a lot of that but have to point out that the failure of central government to set prudential limits was not an oversight but a deliberate action. They have pushed more and more responsibilities onto local councils but not made any provision for funding them. Indeed, successive governments have threatened action against councils who try to raise funds by raising council tax. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of increases in council tax, this is an untenable situation. "Let others take the responsibility and the blame" seems to be the main mantra coming out of Westminster and has been for some time. 


And the "pet projects" thing is not limited to local councils. The disastrous "free schools" policy of Gove certainly comes into that category!


----------



## yorkslass (May 17, 2014)

it would probably attract huge amounts in funding also, as  minority causes seem to do here.


----------

