# Sometimes we're our own worst enemies!



## Northerner (Jul 11, 2012)

I’ve been moved to start this thread by what I consider to be a very unpleasant post on the ‘Call to Arms’ thread so, at the risk of making myself even more unpopular, I’m going into the ‘home truths’ department!

First of all, objection to motorhomes isn’t just in the U.K. Because of height barriers I recently gave up trying to find somewhere to park in Sète on the Med and it’s the same along huge stretches of that coast.

Why do the French do this? Why are they turning away the (imagined!) millions of Euro in income from all of us motorhomers and why is it happening in other countries and in cities all over Europe?

But first of all, and this is something that a few members of this forum seem unable to do, let’s try to look at this problem from a point of view other than our own selfish needs.

Let’s start with this, and I quote: ‘Fat greedy councillors who own campsites’.  There is no evidence whatsoever that these objections come primarily from site owners. My opinion is that campsite owners couldn’t care less about the tiny number of motorhomers who wild camp. We really are an incredibly small number as compared to those who prefer  to use sites, and site owners know that the kind of people who will spend the night on a car park are not the ones who will suddenly decide to use a site just because the car park is no longer available. The camp site argument is a total red herring!

But in the spirit of trying to see things from a point of view other than our own, what is wrong with campsite owners suggesting that the council should not allow free overnight parking for motorhomes and even caravans? If you opened a campsite and the council charges you tens of thousands of pounds in business rates, you have to spend a fortune on insurance and the other costs, and then the council decided to allow people to overnight for nothing on a large car park near to your site, wouldn’t you feel aggrieved? So just as you are allowed to protest to the council about its policies, so are campsite owners, and why should anyone feel that in doing so, they are being unreasonable? But as I said, I put this in just as an example of how some people feel that only their views matter because I really do believe that campsite owners couldn’t care less about a few motorhomers who won’t use their sites.

People talk about ‘their rights’ and ‘being discriminated against’. What about the rights of the people and businesses in Scarborough? These are the ones represented by councillors, not motorhomers who come for a day or so, spend virtually nothing and mount campaigns because they haven’t been allowed free parking all night! And isn’t it a reasonable assumption that people who are too mean to spend a few pounds on a local CL are not the ones who will be flashing their cash all over the town?

If you were a councillor and you had a choice of your car parks being filled with families in cars who will eat in restaurants, visit the attractions and spend a lot of money, or motorhomers who arrive with all their own facilities, eat and sleep in the ‘vans, which would you choose, remembering that, as a councillor, your loyalties must be to those who elected you?

And before you all start claiming that you spend a lot of money in these places, perhaps a tiny number of you do but my experience of most motorhomers, especially those who always wild camp, is that their prime ambition is to go away and only spend money on diesel fuel!

But I now get back to the original question, which is: Why are we being turned away from towns and cities all over Europe? One of the first and obvious reasons is that giving anyone cart blanche to overnight on public cars will guarantee an invasion of travellers. There is no anti-traveller agenda or racism here, it’s simply a fact. They have to go somewhere and if the car parks are available they’ll clog up our towns and cities. The French have learned this to their cost, which is why there is a proliferation of height barriers all over the place.

The second is that our contribution to the local economy, as compared to people who arrive in cars, use restaurants and campsites is absolutely miniscule. Scarborough, as an example, has a tourist income of over £450 million pounds a year. How much of that do you think the tiny number of ‘wild camping’ motorhomers contribute? Next to nothing is the real truth!

So what’s the answer? The first thing to do is to stop the silly accusations about council corruption and ‘fat councillors who own camp sites' and to try to see things from the point of view of the residents and businesses of Scarborough or any other town with similar policies.

The second thing to do is to accept that, if we wish to park overnight in town centres we should be prepared to pay a modest cost towards the upkeep of the car parks or we should be prepared to drive into the countryside and really wild camp away from anyone else. 

Continuing to assert that, because we’ve spent a few bob on a motorhome, we have the God-given right to park them just wherever we like without let or hindrance is selfish, does not take into account the wishes of the general population and simply shows the public that we are mean and care only for our own conveniences and wallets. Should tent campers be allowed to pitch in the local parks? Should anyone be allowed to park just anywhere? 

The ‘Call to Arms’ thread is typical of the attitude of many motorhomers. A man saw a notice and completely misinterpreted it. He came on this forum absolutely ranting about persecution from councils and his rights to park anywhere etc. and accused the council of banning all motorhome parking on its 60 car parks. As a result of this other members have sent emails to the council protesting about this gross infringement on our liberty.

But guess what? Because another member took the trouble to drive to the car park and read the notice properly, we now know that it actually gives intention of banning just overnight parking on 15 car parks! So some councillor or chief executive is going to receive a load of emails, castigating him for something that isn’t going to happen. And we wonder why we’re not flavour of the month!

I'd love to see councils opening aires, or at least allowing us to overnight on car parks at a modest cost, but we need to go about it in a civilised, polite and sensible manner, which doesn't include insulting councillors and stating that they all own camp sites and have a vested interest. Their main interest is their constituents who elect them


----------



## whitevanwoman (Jul 11, 2012)

Northerner said:


> I’ve been moved to start this thread by what I consider to be a very unpleasant post on the ‘Call to Arms’ thread so, at the risk of making myself even more unpopular, I’m going into the ‘home truths’ department!
> 
> First of all, objection to motorhomes isn’t just in the U.K. Because of height barriers I recently gave up trying to find somewhere to park in Sète on the Med and it’s the same along huge stretches of that coast.
> 
> ...



I never thought I'd be saying this, but I actually agree with the vast majority of what you say here Northerner :cheers:


----------



## maingate (Jul 11, 2012)

You are also a wee bit guilty of jumping in a bit too quickly.

You should have realised by now that although this is a wildcamping site, only a very small minority on here *never* use sites of some description. Many members also travel in Europe and (rightly) feel aggrieved at the British attitude to motorhomes and campervans.

You will notice that I took no part in the debate on Scarborough and would not with that place or any other similar seaside resort. They are not my cup of tea, although I have had the odd overnighter in Whitby and Scarborough in wintertime (you will never see me there in summer).

I will however sympathise with others that they seem incapable of coming up with a half decent solution to motorhomes, considering that they had the potential help of Maureen and Tom in this matter. The Council would have been starting with a clean slate and could have imposed conditions and charges to suit themselves without spending large sums of money. Their answer seems to be ill thought out when it could just as easily been more rewarding to us and them. I doubt if they will see any £10 notes for a car park stopover.


----------



## Rubbertramp (Jul 11, 2012)

Northerner said:


> I’ve been moved to start this thread by what I consider to be a very unpleasant post on the ‘Call to Arms’ thread so, at the risk of making myself even more unpopular, I’m going into the ‘home truths’ department!
> 
> First of all, objection to motorhomes isn’t just in the U.K. Because of height barriers I recently gave up trying to find somewhere to park in Sète on the Med and it’s the same along huge stretches of that coast.
> 
> ...



I too would like to say that I agree with a lot of what you have said but feel I have to point out a little bit of hypocrisy in that you have considered comments in one post on one thread to be unpleasant, indeed you have attacked the poster and described his post as vile, where in another thread you have liked a post which is (in my opinion) far more distasteful ( for which the poster has apologised by the way)



			
				Jonas said:
			
		

> It cost Basildon council millions to get rid of the from Dale Farm. A week later and they were back again. Bloody vermin is what they are.
> Like
> Northerner, masie, ragnarok and 2 others like this.



I do think a little re-reading of your own stuff and some forethought could help before aggressively attacking another member for airing their prejudices


----------



## bopper (Jul 11, 2012)

I have to agree with northener on most of his comments, but for two points that I would like to add:

1/   I have had to find insurance and in particular 'Road fund licence" (Tax) on my vehicle. This tax and insurance allows me to park anywhere that does not obstruct the public highway or contravene the road traffic act. My vehicle is the same as a long wheelbase / hightop van that is used by thousands upon thousands of white vanmen all over the country. I do not see any difference between me parking in a public car park and white vanman. Every car park in the country has these vans parked overnight, so just what is the difference between a commercial vehicle being parked on a public car park overnight and me doing the same but staying with mine. The difference must be that I am a camper; so who is it that doesn't like campers? These are the prejudiced ones that most people who wildcamp ask to back off and leave us alone. Apart from staying in the van there is no difference, yet by their actions, they are shutting out commercial vehicles as well.

2/   To say that we are a small minority is defeatist talk. Many small minorities in the past have been trodden on and gone under. Some have rallied together and pressed home good points that have been taken up and things have changed. My email to the Scarborough council received a reply from them stating that this week they are going to revise the £10 per night parking charge. I hope that they will, for many of us would gladly pay a reasonable fee to stay overnight.

I am of the firm belief that, as you say, the travelling community have caused these problems for us. I see the answer to this as organisations such as ours should be working together with the powers that be to assist them in getting these bad apples out of the barrel.


----------



## Firefox (Jul 11, 2012)

To Northerner, I do support the local economy when I wild camp, especially if it is a rural one. I make a point of using local shops and pubs because they are important to the local community and our passing trade helps them too. From what I've seen at both formal and informal meets most other members of this forum do likewise.

If you run a rural shop taking small amounts like £100 a day and a couple of motorhomers drop by and spend £15 each, that £30 will be a useful boost to your cashflow. To keep on suggesting motorhomers spend next to nothing is wrong, and to be honest, insulting to those of us who do try to do our bit.

Otherwise you make some fair points. Councilors are elected by local people and their concerns are important, but councils have to take the whole community into account and that can include a sometimes fragile tourist economy.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 11, 2012)

Firefox said:


> To Northerner, I do support the local economy when I wild camp, especially if it is a rural one. I make a point of using local shops and pubs because they are important to the local community and our passing trade helps them too. From what I've seen at both formal and informal meets most other members of this forum do likewise.
> 
> If you run a rural shop taking small amounts like £100 a day and a couple of motorhomers drop by and spend £15 each, that £30 will be a useful boost to your cashflow. To keep on suggesting motorhomers spend next to nothing is wrong, and to be honest, insulting to those of us who do try to do our bit.
> 
> Otherwise you make some fair points. Councilors are elected by local people and their concerns are important, but councils have to take the whole community into account and that can include a sometimes fragile tourist economy.



If you read my post carefully nowhere did I say that all motorhomers don't spend money. I know that some do and I also know that there are many whose ambition is to go away for weeks on end and spend on nothing but diesel and fuel. This was posted by the member who started the 'Call to arms' thread where he castigates the council for its attitude to motorhomers:

_'Its true, I spend very little where ever I visit. Thats the whole idea of a motorhome. I hate being vulnerable to rubbish restaurants/B&B's over priced campsites that are charging £15-20 per night to park in a field. Why would I want to do that when I don't have to? I believe my motorhome is a sound investment that allows me freedom to travel, cook my own food that I know I love! To shower in a shower I know is clean, sleep in a bed that I know is comfortable and clean. It gives me independence from business.'_

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! But it's the silly rhetoric. Over-priced camp sites (translation, any sites that costs him money) rubbish restaurants (translation, any restaurant that costs money). I like the bit about campsites that charge £15-20 to park in a field. Really, I thought that they were called CLs and were from about five or six pounds?  Every campsite that I've used for £15-20 gives me EHU, nice shower blocks and other facilities. But of course the problem is that they still cost money!

So yes, many people will eat in restaurants, cafes and pubs and many will shop locally, but a whole lot of people load up with food and fuel from the supermarket before setting off and spend next to nothing. Funnily enough it's often those who are the most vociferous in their demands for free parking in the towns that they don't contribute one penny to!


----------



## Firefox (Jul 11, 2012)

Some people will make strange comments and be different, but I do have the advantage of meeting in real life (on 20+ occasions) many of the members of this forum (and another wild camping forum) and they do mostly spend quite a bit of money in local pubs and shops when they are wild camping. I've actually seen them do it! Even at places like Ribblehead or Helwith where we are not using the pub car park as a base, the facilities are still well patronised. 

So my statement is based on real life observation of members of this forum and another forum, not just on what I read or have surmised.

What other people do when they are wild camping, I can't say because I wasn't there.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 11, 2012)

Firefox said:


> Some people will make strange comments and be different, but I do have the advantage of meeting in real life (on 20+ occasions) many of the members of this forum (and another wild camping forum) and they do mostly spend quite a bit of money in local pubs and shops when they are wild camping. I've actually seen them do it! Even at places like Ribblehead or Helwith where we are not using the pub car park as a base, the facilities are still well patronised.
> 
> So my statement is based on real life observation of members of this forum and another forum, not just on what I read or have surmised.
> 
> What other people do when they are wild camping, I can't say because I wasn't there.



But isn't that what happens on rallies and meets? People don't sit in their 'vans on their own but get together in the pub. I go on rallies with an organisation I'm a member of and we arrange a night at the local but I have to say that the majority come fully loaded with food and only top up on essentials at the local shop, bread and milk for instance. However, I suspect that if they're on their own and not on a rally then there is far less chance of them patronising the local boozer.

Anyway, let's agree to agree. I know that there are motorhomers who will spend some money locally but I'm sure that you also know that there are many who won't, as illustrated by one of our own members in the post above!

But can I make one thing clear. I have no objection to anyone going away and not spending any money. If that makes them happy then it's great. But what I do object to is the same people moaning about local authorities which won't build aires so they can stay for nothing in a community to which they have contributed nothing!


----------



## maingate (Jul 11, 2012)

You seem to forget that some members love motorhoming but have no choice but to do it on a tight budget. Especially as the last few years have been difficult for many. I know it is not intentional on your part but many of your comments only antagonise other members. I am referring to your many comments about them not spending money. Perhaps they have none to spend. This forum is a broad Church and is fairly representative of the public.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jul 11, 2012)

bopper said:


> > in red.
> >
> > 1/   I have had to find insurance and in particular 'Road fund licence" (Tax) on my vehicle. This tax and insurance allows me to park anywhere that does not obstruct the public highway or contravene the road traffic act. My vehicle is the same as a long wheelbase / hightop van that is used by thousands upon thousands of white vanmen all over the country. I do not see any difference between me parking in a public car park and white vanman. Every car park in the country has these vans parked overnight, so just what is the difference between a commercial vehicle being parked on a public car park overnight and me doing the same but staying with mine. The difference must be that I am a camper; so who is it that doesn't like campers? These are the prejudiced ones that most people who wildcamp ask to back off and leave us alone. Apart from staying in the van there is no difference, yet by their actions, they are shutting out commercial vehicles as well.
> >
> > ...


----------



## Northerner (Jul 11, 2012)

maingate said:


> You seem to forget that some members love motorhoming but have no choice but to do it on a tight budget. Especially as the last few years have been difficult for many. I know it is not intentional on your part but many of your comments only antagonise other members. I am referring to your many comments about them not spending money. Perhaps they have none to spend. This forum is a broad Church and is fairly representative of the public.



I really do despair. Did you read the last paragraph of my post just above yours? I think it's great that people motorhome on a tight budget and it's better that they follow the hobby in their way than not at all. What is annoying though is the constant denigration of things that they don't want to spend money on, so you get 'rubbish restaurants, 'over-priced' camp sites. How do they know that they're over-priced? Camp sites charge whatever the market rate is and have to match competition but for some folk, if something is out of their price, it must be a rip-off or over-priced! I just wish that they could say " I really don't want to spend money on camp-sites". No one is going to argue with that but why do they feel the need to constantly imply that those of us who do use sites occasionally are some kind of gullible idiots who are prepared to pay through the nose?


----------



## John H (Jul 11, 2012)

Northerner said:


> But what I do object to is the same people moaning about local authorities which won't build aires so they can stay for nothing in a community to which they have contributed nothing!



I think you have got this the wrong way round. I am not aware of many people complaining about councils not building aires (although if they did build them it would be nice!) but there are lots of people complaining that we are being turned off car parks at night when nobody else would be using that space. And if these Councils were more amenable to us it would be they who were getting something for nothing, not us - for the simple reason that some of us would do our shopping in that area (we, like many others, always make a point of giving something back to a local community if we stay there).


----------



## maingate (Jul 11, 2012)

I believe that I have tried to put up a rational, non-aggressive conversation with you and you still go on the attack (as you do with anyone who has a different opinion to yours). This will be the last time I enter into any dialogue with you on here as I hate wasting my time with someone who refuses to listen to any other point of view.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 11, 2012)

maingate said:


> I believe that I have tried to put up a rational, non-aggressive conversation with you and you still go on the attack (as you do with anyone who has a different opinion to yours). This will be the last time I enter into any dialogue with you on here as I hate wasting my time with someone who refuses to listen to any other point of view.



Well that's rich! This is what I said in the last paragraph of the post immediately above yours:

_'But can I make one thing clear. I have no objection to anyone going away and not spending any money. If that makes them happy then it's great. But what I do object to is the same people moaning about local authorities which won't build aires so they can stay for nothing in a community to which they have contributed nothing!'
_

You then posted this:

_"You seem to forget that some members love motorhoming but have no choice but to do it on a tight budget. Especially as the last few years have been difficult for many."_

And you wonder why I despair? You don't appear to have read the post properly and yet you have the nerve to come along, yet again, complaining about what I'm saying.

And as for your 'rational, non-aggressive confrontation let me remind you what you also said:

_'I know it is not intentional on your part but many of your comments only antagonise other members'_

Why did you feel the need to make that comment? Is that what you consider rational non-aggressive conversation?

Anyway, I can't tell you how delighted I am that you won't be conversing with me any more. You don't appear to even read my posts properly and your method of having a non-confrontational conversation is to tell someone how their posts antagonise others!

But once more, a thread has degenerated because you, and one or two others like you, because of the odd disagreement in the past, would rather make personal attacks on someone than discuss the subject of the thread.

Goodbye.


----------



## Canalsman (Jul 11, 2012)

maingate said:


> You seem to forget that some members love motorhoming but have no choice but to do it on a tight budget. Especially as the last few years have been difficult for many. I know it is not intentional on your part but many of your comments only antagonise other members. I am referring to your many comments about them not spending money. Perhaps they have none to spend. This forum is a broad Church and is fairly representative of the public.



I am one such who has a very limited budget, and I am careful how I spend it.

I would rather fuel the 'van and use it, and enjoy it, than see it parked outside the house.

To do that, in the main food and drink HAS to be purchased where it's cheapest, and that means supermarkets.

I do not use campsites, not because of budgetary considerations. I prefer the freedom of parking where I choose, whilst being considerate of others and obeying any posted restrictions. I will not be using council car parks at £10 a night.

Any funds that are spare I use in local pubs, because I believe that these are vital to the local community and they are often under threat, particularly in more remote places.


----------



## big tom (Jul 11, 2012)

*Contradiction*

These two statements conflict unless you are saying yes wild camp but no where near a camp site.(1)My opinion is that campsite owners couldn’t care less about the tiny number of motorhomers who wild camp.(2) If you opened a campsite and the council charges you tens of thousands of pounds in business rates, you have to spend a fortune on insurance and the other costs, and then the council decided to allow people to overnight for nothing on a large car park near to your site, wouldn’t you feel aggrieved.

 I’ve been moved to start this thread by what I consider to be a very unpleasant post on the ‘Call to Arms’ thread so, at the risk of making myself even more unpopular, I’m going into the ‘home truths’ department!

First of all, objection to motorhomes isn’t just in the U.K. Because of height barriers I recently gave up trying to find somewhere to park in Sète on the Med and it’s the same along huge stretches of that coast.

Why do the French do this? Why are they turning away the (imagined!) millions of Euro in income from all of us motorhomers and why is it happening in other countries and in cities all over Europe?

But first of all, and this is something that a few members of this forum seem unable to do, let’s try to look at this problem from a point of view other than our own selfish needs.

Let’s start with this, and I quote: ‘Fat greedy councillors who own campsites’.  There is no evidence whatsoever that these objections come primarily from site owners. My opinion is that campsite owners couldn’t care less about the tiny number of motorhomers who wild camp. We really are an incredibly small number as compared to those who prefer  to use sites, and site owners know that the kind of people who will spend the night on a car park are not the ones who will suddenly decide to use a site just because the car park is no longer available. The camp site argument is a total red herring!

But in the spirit of trying to see things from a point of view other than our own, what is wrong with campsite owners suggesting that the council should not allow free overnight parking for motorhomes and even caravans? If you opened a campsite and the council charges you tens of thousands of pounds in business rates, you have to spend a fortune on insurance and the other costs, and then the council decided to allow people to overnight for nothing on a large car park near to your site, wouldn’t you feel aggrieved? So just as you are allowed to protest to the council about its policies, so are campsite owners, and why should anyone feel that in doing so, they are being unreasonable? But as I said, I put this in just as an example of how some people feel that only their views matter because I really do believe that campsite owners couldn’t care less about a few motorhomers who won’t use their sites.

People talk about ‘their rights’ and ‘being discriminated against’. What about the rights of the people and businesses in Scarborough? These are the ones represented by councillors, not motorhomers who come for a day or so, spend virtually nothing and mount campaigns because they haven’t been allowed free parking all night! And isn’t it a reasonable assumption that people who are too mean to spend a few pounds on a local CL are not the ones who will be flashing their cash all over the town?

If you were a councillor and you had a choice of your car parks being filled with families in cars who will eat in restaurants, visit the attractions and spend a lot of money, or motorhomers who arrive with all their own facilities, eat and sleep in the ‘vans, which would you choose, remembering that, as a councillor, your loyalties must be to those who elected you?

And before you all start claiming that you spend a lot of money in these places, perhaps a tiny number of you do but my experience of most motorhomers, especially those who always wild camp, is that their prime ambition is to go away and only spend money on diesel fuel!

But I now get back to the original question, which is: Why are we being turned away from towns and cities all over Europe? One of the first and obvious reasons is that giving anyone cart blanche to overnight on public cars will guarantee an invasion of travellers. There is no anti-traveller agenda or racism here, it’s simply a fact. They have to go somewhere and if the car parks are available they’ll clog up our towns and cities. The French have learned this to their cost, which is why there is a proliferation of height barriers all over the place.

The second is that our contribution to the local economy, as compared to people who arrive in cars, use restaurants and campsites is absolutely miniscule. Scarborough, as an example, has a tourist income of over £450 million pounds a year. How much of that do you think the tiny number of ‘wild camping’ motorhomers contribute? Next to nothing is the real truth!

So what’s the answer? The first thing to do is to stop the silly accusations about council corruption and ‘fat councillors who own camp sites' and to try to see things from the point of view of the residents and businesses of Scarborough or any other town with similar policies.

The second thing to do is to accept that, if we wish to park overnight in town centres we should be prepared to pay a modest cost towards the upkeep of the car parks or we should be prepared to drive into the countryside and really wild camp away from anyone else. 

Continuing to assert that, because we’ve spent a few bob on a motorhome, we have the God-given right to park them just wherever we like without let or hindrance is selfish, does not take into account the wishes of the general population and simply shows the public that we are mean and care only for our own conveniences and wallets. Should tent campers be allowed to pitch in the local parks? Should anyone be allowed to park just anywhere? 

The ‘Call to Arms’ thread is typical of the attitude of many motorhomers. A man saw a notice and completely misinterpreted it. He came on this forum absolutely ranting about persecution from councils and his rights to park anywhere etc. and accused the council of banning all motorhome parking on its 60 car parks. As a result of this other members have sent emails to the council protesting about this gross infringement on our liberty.

But guess what? Because another member took the trouble to drive to the car park and read the notice properly, we now know that it actually gives intention of banning just overnight parking on 15 car parks! So some councillor or chief executive is going to receive a load of emails, castigating him for something that isn’t going to happen. And we wonder why we’re not flavour of the month!

I'd love to see councils opening aires, or at least allowing us to overnight on car parks at a modest cost, but we need to go about it in a civilised, polite and sensible manner, which doesn't include insulting councillors and stating that they all own camp sites and have a vested interest. Their main interest is their constituents who elect them[/QUOTE]


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 11, 2012)

*Charging for Aires.*    It's my view that free Aires will pretty soon be a thing of the past.   I posted something about my last French trip in another thread.  We've lived through a golden age of motor caravanning.

Another member returned from France only a few days ago and reported to us that she'd stayed at 12 Aires - 5 of them chargeable.

Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free.   No stats to back that up of course, there never are, but it could be true.  Perhaps overall, French Aires are still free.   But that's not my experience.

My preference is for sea, sand and sun.  My favoured French spots are coastal and, you know, my impression is that we have to wild camp like we used to do all the time or, increasingly, we have to pay for Aires in touristy attractive spots.   Inland spots are possibly, even probably, still free but not so many in places where I want to go.

From the top of my memory.   Cap d'Agde was ten Euros three or four years ago.  Quite nearby, Balaruc, was six Euros a couple of years ago.   Over on the Atlantic coast, Anglet was six Euros, Capbreton was the same, Ondres about the same (five I think).   These three just last year - or the year before maybe.  Just over the Spanish border San Sebastian was a few Euros - can't remember exactly how much, five or six maybe.   St Gilles, La Rochelle - all where I want to go there are more and more Aires charging.  A free one in these popular spots is getting to be a rarity. 

(My favourite, favourite, favourite place in all the world has started charging 3 Euros but luckily there is another Aire only 4 or 5 km away still free.   That's the last free one anywhere around there and after that, it's back to proper wilding again or pay what the council want.)

I haven't often paid.  But now and again I have and when I have, I've not grudged it, though I do avoid it.  The last only two or three weeks ago and I reported it in a thread somewhere.  Probably the Scarborough Traders one.

Now, I'm not for one moment suggesting that Cap d'Agde and Scarborough or Blackpool are anywhere near equally attractive but Scarborough and Blackpool are what we've got and there's plenty of us who do want to go to both places.

Once I gently suggested that it was a little hypocritical to pay willingly in France but not in Scarborough and I got the expected response.   I still think Scarborough has got the price wrong;  we've been told they're reviewing the amount.  So why aren't we enthusiastically encouraging them?   Why such condemnation for them when they're doing, almost, what almost all of us say this is what we have wanted.

I do so want to know.


----------



## Viktor (Jul 11, 2012)

Good thread starting post Northerner...there is our view and there is 'their' view (the people you mention in your post)....probably the truth is somewhere in between....some of us (motorhome and campervan owners in general) and some travellers (not all) are always going to cause the rest of us problems with selfish attitudes and a free for all attitude....I guess all we can do is to be *seen to act responsibly* by being curteous and perhaps lifting other litter that doesn't belong to us so that members of the public who are not motorhome owners see most of us in good light.

I noticed that at one of our arranged meets an amount of money was raised for a good cause.....we should consider being more aggressive in our promotion and try and get more coverage in local papers for such actions.....that would probably do a great deal of good in the public view.


----------



## Canalsman (Jul 11, 2012)

Viktor said:


> I noticed that at one of our arranged meets an amount of money was raised for a good cause.....we should consider being more aggressive in our promotion and try and get more coverage in local papers for such actions.....that would probably do a great deal of good in the public view.



Good idea


----------



## AndyC (Jul 11, 2012)

They would need a caravan site licence and planning permission. Unless they were granted an Exemption Certificate which would allow them to accommodate up to 5 motorhomes.

AndyC


----------



## maingate (Jul 11, 2012)

I have tried talking to Supermarket chains David. There is a terrific Asda just off the A1. The reply I got from Asda sounded promising but nothing ever came of it because a private parking company is making money by trying to fine anyone who stays more than a couple of hours in the car park.

We may not talk about it but a number of us are actively engaged in trying to get amenities for motorhomes. It is a long slow process but more productive than just arguing amongst ourselves.

I mentioned in another thread about the 'Portas Plan'. This is a scheme put forward by Mary Portas to revive the 'High St.' in towns and cities. If you google it, you will see that a number of towns are interested. What we need is an input in these local discussions to try and get some sort of facility, however basic. A member on outandaboutlive is currently involving himself in the town of Biggar.


----------



## John H (Jul 11, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> *Charging for Aires.*
> Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free.   No stats to back that up of course, there never are, but it could be true.  Perhaps overall, French Aires are still free.   But that's not my experience.



Check out CAMPINGCAR-INFOS - the majority ARE still free and we rarely use any that are not.


----------



## John H (Jul 11, 2012)

AndyC said:


> They would need a caravan site licence and planning permission. Unless they were granted an Exemption Certificate which would allow them to accommodate up to 5 motorhomes.
> 
> AndyC



Not so. If they simply allowed 24 hour parking they would not need any kind of licence. Remember there is no law against sleeping in vehicles.


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 11, 2012)

John H said:


> Check out CAMPINGCAR-INFOS - the majority ARE still free and we rarely use any that are not.



As always, John, bit short on stats.   Big enough on assertions but, truly you know, if you make the assertion you should do the counting too.

But, ok, I'll count up for you.  Not all of them.  Just the places where I want to go.   Now this is what I did.  I went to the website you don't have the stats for and I selected a department.  I picked one where I would want to go.  Department 06.   Then I selected the icon I thought would do for me.  The icon which is a camping car half day and half night expecting that I would then have overnight stopping places, yes?

I got this:







Came up with 9 Aires.

Look them up - I did - two of them are free;  seven are chargeable.

On this basis, where I want to go 78% of Aires are chargeable.

Next time, John, do the stats yourself.


----------



## Firefox (Jul 11, 2012)

This needs to be done for all the departments to get any kind of overall view as I think John was talking in general. Any takers to do more research on the numbers :lol-053:


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 11, 2012)

Firefox said:


> This needs to be done for all the departments to get any kind of overall view as I think John was talking in general. Any takers to do more research on the numbers :lol-053:



Doubt it.  But John made the assertion.  

I did my stats based on what was in my original post;  that is, that increasingly Aires are being charged for in touristy, attractive areas.

This bears it out.


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 11, 2012)

Don't patronise me.

Yes, I do know how big France is.  Yes, I know the sample is ludicrously small.

No, I'm not about to count all 2 or 3 thousand Aires.   What I can do is what I've done.   Pick an area I want to go to - look at my original post for what I want;  sea, sand, sun - and then do a quick count.   

And . . . I can see the changes from year to year.  

And then again Lotty has just come back from France.   No idea where she got to but she did tell us that she stayed at 12 Aires with 5 chargeable.   That's 42% chargeable and that's without the filter of my preferences for sun, sea, sand.


*Edit:*   On reflection, the sample isn't ludicrously small.

On the basis on which I made the selection, my requirement for overnight stops in Dept 06, it is 100% of those available - or at least of those available in John's quoted website.


----------



## vwalan (Jul 11, 2012)

i always look at the aires book to see where the aire is free and go there . hopefully you can still find some free ones near the sea . mind there are so many nice places to stay even where there are no aires . i only use aires if i cant find somewhere better. usually can. 
but lets not fall out .i,m sure nobody wants to. 
i like this as a thought .you save up a thousand pounds .you are off on holiday. just before you go you win another thousand pounds on the lottery .
question .how much have i got to spend?












answer.... nothing unless i have to .i may now have 2000 pounds but i dont have to spend it .


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 11, 2012)

vwalan said:


> i always look at the aires book to see where the aire is free and go there . hopefully you can still find some free ones near the sea . mind there are so many nice places to stay even where there are no aires . i only use aires if i cant find somewhere better. usually can.
> but lets not fall out .i,m sure nobody wants to.
> i like this as a thought .*you save up a thousand pounds* .you are off on holiday. j*ust before you go you win another thousand pounds* on the lottery .
> question .*how much have i got to spend*?
> ...



Hang on - that's my 2000 pounds!!


----------



## vwalan (Jul 11, 2012)

i messed that one up. perhaps i should go to bed .ha ha .
but whats yours we share .whats mines me own


----------



## Tbear (Jul 12, 2012)

Going back to the original post

I think Northerner was painting a bit of a bias picture;-

"If you were a councillor and you had a choice of your car parks being filled with families in cars who will eat in restaurants, visit the attractions and spend a lot of money, or motorhomers who arrive with all their own facilities, eat and sleep in the ‘vans, which would you choose, remembering that, as a councillor, your loyalties must be to those who elected you?"

I am sure many day trippers take a cold box of food and spend the day on the beach, spending very little in the town. I am just as sure there are motorhomers in the town spending money. I really don,t think it matters whether you arrive on a bus or in a top of the range RV, its numbers they need and if you look along the coast you used to see a lot of motorhomes. I am not pretending that what we spend runs into hundreds of millions of pounds but I bet its a sum that most councils would be envious of. 

I agree that many supermarkets have lots of space overnight and of course you would then go there for papers and breakfast. I have written to a couple and asked about the possibility of parking overnight and if they do not have a private security company looking after them then they have said that it was up to the manager on the day. However I would much rather give my dosh to l shops if possible

Richard


----------



## sean rua (Jul 12, 2012)

Some interesting and diverse points as ever! Thanks to all who contibuted.

Whilst we are attempting to be broad-minded and trying to look at things from the viewpoint of others, I suppose it should be mentioned that places are inhabited by many, many, more folk than just
councillors, shopkeepers, publicans and hoteliers ( be they fat, thin, or otherwise).

The vast majority of the population of most towns are actually users of the services provided by the afore-mentioned categories.
 Though the standard claim is often made that employment is provided by the enterprise of these folk, my own view is that the net impact of tourism - especially motorised tourists - is negative overall,
 when judged from the standpoint of the majority of residents.

No, I have no break-down of the figures; don't know the personal details of each and every resident ; blah-di-blah- di yakkety-yak, etc. - but, for instance, from my own personal experience,
 I'd hazzard a guess that 
the folk living in Wembley and the folk living near Stratford, London ( if there any left) get more aggravation than benefit
from  major local events.

I very much doubt that they relish the prospect of full car-parks, teeming shops and pubs, jammed up streets, etc etc.

So, that's just the other side of the coin. I don't expect anybody to take a blind bit of notice, of course, and I wish you all well in your travels, wherever you may go.

I'm heading for Aberystwyth today myself, and will spend at least a hundred times more money in the pubs and betting shops than I will in any place else. Can't see me getting a Blue Peter badge for that, but not to worry.

Last time I went I got arrested, but quickly released, so Goodness what will happen today! :angel::have fun::danger::heart::sleep-027:

Btw, Maureen is quite right. Even King Canute could see which way the tide is going. Since the Sixties the game has been over for the Travelling man.
 Having bigger and better ice-cream vans with posh folk at the wheel ain't gonna change that. There's too much traffic about, and even if we all went round on skateboards, they'd still try to sting us as much as they could, imo.

sean rua.

"Ignorance is treatable; Arrogance is Terminal."


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> Not so. If they simply allowed 24 hour parking they would not need any kind of licence. Remember there is no law against sleeping in vehicles.



John you are wrong.

If the vehicle is a caravan as defined on the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.  



> "caravan" means any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved
> from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) *and
> any motor vehicle so designed or adapted*,



The owner of land is required to hold a caravan site licence and have planning permission for 1 or more caravan to be stationed on his land for human habitation. 



> 1.—(l) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, No occupier of land shall after the commencement of this Act cause or permit any part of the land to be used as a caravan site unless he is the holder of a site licence (that is to say, a licence under this Part of this Act authorising the use of land as a caravan site) for the time being in force as respects the land so used.



Also  



> Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
> 1994 c. 33Part V Powers to remove unauthorised campers Section 77
> 
> Power of local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land..
> ...



John


----------



## Dezi (Jul 12, 2012)

Picking up on bits of this thread the only points I would add are :-

Many of the free Aires on mainland Europe that I have used over the past twenty years are now charging.
The one I noticed on my last trip in May was at port pleasance in Rochfort  - now 5 euros a night.

Living in a seaside tourist spot I have commented before on how inconsiderate motorhomers brand us all. Adding fuel to some hoteliers who want us out of sight. 

Finally I am pleased to see that Canalman Chris while only having a limited budget prefers to spend it in the local pub. 

There is a citizen who in a turbulent and ever changing World has correctly sorted out life’s priorities.   :cheers: 

Dezi   c:


----------



## fairytooth (Jul 12, 2012)

Once again much debate on a sensitive topic ...

Recently in making arrangements for overnight PARKING of motorhomes at Hayling seafront, Havant Borough Council made it clear to grumpy competition hating local caravan site owners that the site licensing did NOT apply to this situation.

The distinction was made, once again, that PARKING is not CAMPING - provided that you do not set down anything outside your motorhome, leave 4 wheels on the ground, etc. etc.

Havant BC and their legal team seem happy with their analysis of the issue so why can't others?


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

[No message]


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> increasingly Aires are being charged for in touristy, attractive areas.



Yes, we can all agree on that - and probably all have experience of it. But you cannot generalise from that to your original claim. For what it's worth I have just done a random search of the campingcar-infos site and out of 20 sites that came up only two charged for parking (they were on the south and west coasts) and only six charged for services. I can't say this is a scientific survey but it is probably more representative than taking one Department in a popular tourist area.


----------



## Bigpeetee (Jul 12, 2012)

As I have mentioned before and reiterated by Tbear, the councils are happy to provide free facilities for those that take a picnic with them free advice on those that choose to walk or cycle around their area, many of these tourists put nothing into the local business's but are accepted, but suddenly free becomes an issue during the hours of darkness.

Many of the coastal roads in the county of Conwy have restrictions for motorhome parking between the hours of midnight and 8am. When questioning the council, they stated that the hoteliers complained that the view was being obstructed for paying guests, strange because the view overnight is usually one of darkness, and very few customers are up and about admiring the view before 8am. But I could park my Movano Hi Top LWB there quite legally.

Not buying in local shops is not just restricted to motorhomers!!, my wife used to run a "Camp Shop" on a large caravan park, the great majority brought the first load of food with them from home, then used the local supermarkets for food & booze. Her shop was used predominantly for newspapers and cigarettes, and some occasional bits and bobs that had been forgotten. Kids sweets were also popular in the "Here's a quid, now bugger off and get some sweets so we can get some peace and quiet" Of course the money coming in to the camp owners from ground rent etc has enabled them to have a very good life style. I don't know of a poor camp owner.

But where does all this Tourist income go?? Well most of them have got a villa somewhere warm, with boats etc, so a lot of it's not staying in the local economy.

Living in a tourist area, I see a lot of people abusing the facilities, but as always, there's good and bad. There are regular visitors to the prom at the end of our road, the majority are transitory but there's always one that claims the one spot for a fortnight. They never move the van in two weeks. maybe they just fish every tide.

What does puzzle me is that although I've given plenty of locations very close to the coast, I've never seen anyone on them. Peace and quiet, within five mins of the sea, yet like lemmings, almost everyone heads for the same stretch of coastline.

But Hey Ho, we're all different.

PS, if any member is a Tag Axle VAT, Hi, often see you parked overnight.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 12, 2012)

fairytooth said:


> Once again much debate on a sensitive topic ...
> 
> Recently in making arrangements for overnight PARKING of motorhomes at Hayling seafront, Havant Borough Council made it clear to grumpy competition hating local caravan site owners that the site licensing did NOT apply to this situation.



It's statements like this that prompted me to start this thread. Once again we have someone who lacks the ability to see things from anyone's point of view but his own!

Imagine that you have a campsite, which is your entire life and in which everything you own is invested. You pay the council tens of thousands of pounds in rates and they they allow motorhomers to park for nothing on a huge car park near to your site. What must be more infuriating is that it's your rates that are paying for that car park and its upkeep. Is it really so hard to understand why a site owner would complain? To me they are businessmen who provide jobs and a service that really does help the local economy, to you they are grumpy site owners who don't like competition. Well, there's competition and there's competition. If you were a plumber and your local council suddenly decided that it would offer free plumbing services to all its residents, how would you feel? If you were unhappy, would you consider yourself a a grumpy competition-hating plumber, or a businessman with a legitimate right to complain?


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 12, 2012)

fairytooth said:


> Once again much debate on a sensitive topic ...
> 
> Recently in making arrangements for overnight PARKING of motorhomes at Hayling seafront, Havant Borough Council made it clear to grumpy competition hating local caravan site owners that the site licensing did NOT apply to this situation.
> 
> ...



Now that's really interesting.  I hadn't been aware of Havant and I'll put it on my list.

It does raise an even more interesting point.







The situation is almost exactly that in Scarborough.   Like Scarborough, Havant want to put overnighting motorhomes in one car park and forbid them in others.

They make an almost identical charge of £10 reduced to £8 out of season.

JohnH, you've "liked" that.  I'm now intensely interested in why this finds favour with you but the identical scheme in Scarborough rouses you to anger.   I'm not getting at you - I want to know why.   The "why" has value to me.


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> Like Scarborough, Havant want to put overnighting motorhomes in one car park and forbid them in others.
> 
> They make an almost identical charge of £10 reduced to £8 out of season.
> 
> JohnH, you've "liked" that.  I'm now intensely interested in why this finds favour with you but the identical scheme in Scarborough rouses you to anger.   I'm not getting at you - I want to know why.   The "why" has value to me.



I "liked" the post about Havant because of the statement that there was a clear distinction between parking and camping and therefore this regulation did not come under the 1960 Act. 

It takes a lot to "rouse me to anger" so you will be pleased to know I am very calm today! The situation in Scarborough has never roused me to anger either. I have said several times that any move to making provision for motorhomes is to be welcomed but that some areas are a lot better than others in doing that. I suspect Scarborough Council's motives and I don't think their pricing policy makes any business sense at all, so I won't be staying there - but if others choose to do so, then that is up to them; I won't start telling them they shouldn't (and never have). 

PS now that I am aware that Havant is charging a similar ammount, I probably won't be going there either - but I still "like" the message given in the distinction between camping and parking.


----------



## Teutone (Jul 12, 2012)

Northerner said:


> It's statements like this that prompted me to start this thread. Once again we have someone who lacks the ability to see things from anyone's point of view but his own!
> 
> Imagine that you have a campsite, which is your entire life and in which everything you own is invested. You pay the council tens of thousands of pounds in rates and they they allow motorhomers to park for nothing on a huge car park near to your site. What must be more infuriating is that it's your rates that are paying for that car park and its upkeep. Is it really so hard to understand why a site owner would complain? To me they are businessmen who provide jobs and a service that really does help the local economy, to you they are grumpy site owners who don't like competition. Well, there's competition and there's competition. If you were a plumber and your local council suddenly decided that it would offer free plumbing services to all its residents, how would you feel? If you were unhappy, would you consider yourself a a grumpy competition-hating plumber, or a businessman with a legitimate right to complain?



I can see your point. But in my opinion NOBODY should interfere in competition with restrictions to others.
If you open a sandwich shop, would you expect the council banning the supermarket up the road to sell food?

And the councils do not give away FREE parking. YOU already payed for it with your road tax etc.

I am a small business myself, if I want to win work I have to compete with others. So I have to offer either a better service, cheaper service or something my competition isn't. As easy as that.

And comparing a CAMPsite with PARKING for a night isn't really fair. If I am on a journey to see many places, I would want to park for a night NOT expecting campsite facilities and move on next day. If I want to stay a few days and relax, I would go to a campsite. I think that is the whole point of aires. They don't want to compete with campsites.


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> I "liked" the post about Havant because of the statement that there was a clear distinction between parking and camping and therefore this regulation did not come under the 1960 Act.
> 
> It takes a lot to "rouse me to anger" so you will be pleased to know I am very calm today! The situation in Scarborough has never roused me to anger either. I have said several times that any move to making provision for motorhomes is to be welcomed but that some areas are a lot better than others in doing that. I suspect Scarborough Council's motives and I don't think their pricing policy makes any business sense at all, so I won't be staying there - but if others choose to do so, then that is up to them; I won't start telling them they shouldn't (and never have).
> 
> PS now that I am aware that Havant is charging a similar ammount, I probably won't be going there either - but I still "like" the message given in the distinction between camping and parking.



Thank you.   It was just that you didn't have enough information.  I understand. I too like the distinction between camping and parking and I've used the argument now and again.  Today is the day, I think, when Scarborough are to review their overnight charge and let's hope their business sense will assert itself.

Thank you also for the acknowledgement that Aires, especially in touristy areas are increasingly being charged for.

We will look back on these golden free days with nostalgia.


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> Thank you also for the acknowledgement that Aires, especially in touristy areas are increasingly being charged for.
> 
> We will look back on these golden free days with nostalgia.



I don't think anybody disputed that - but for those of us who are in no hurry and want largely to avoid the tourist traps, those "golden free days" are still with us. We will be spending about three weeks going through France in September (it would be more but we have an appointment in Barcelona) and I don't expect to pay for more than one aire on the way (I have one particular one in mind on the Mediterranean coast that we like). Similar story in Spain, where there are an increasing number of aires and all free (although admitedly not on the scale of France).


----------



## westbay (Jul 12, 2012)

Just read through all this stuff and I have to admit did my usual laugh-out-loud bit at all these so-called wild campers moaning that they can’t park up on the sea front, 10ft from the nearest pub or fish’n’chip shop et al.  

Sleeping in busy town car parks or along the promenade IS NOT WILD CAMPING. :hammer:

By all means visit for the day if it really is your scene, then off out to somewhere WILD for the night.  I know that in these ever more crowded isles, finding somewhere truly wild is not that easy, but you’d be surprised how easy it is to do demi-wild even close to large towns – a look at the database will show you this.  

If we don’t want more stringent nationwide laws cracking down on sleeping in vehicles we need to be a bit more thoughtful before pissing off people living in tourist hotspots.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 12, 2012)

Teutone said:


> I can see your point. But in my opinion NOBODY should interfere in competition with restrictions to others.
> If you open a sandwich shop, would you expect the council banning the supermarket up the road to sell food?
> 
> And the councils do not give away FREE parking. YOU already payed for it with your road tax etc.
> ...



So we should all be allowed to park for nothing because we've paid our road tax should we? That's an interesting argument! Perhaps you should try that one on with your local traffic warden! Come on! This argument about we've paid our road tax is ludicrous! It's nothing to do with parking charges and nowhere in the legislation regarding road tax does it say that payment allows you to park just wherever you like for nothing!

And your sandwich shop analogy is pointless. The camp site owners were objecting to *free* parking for motorhomes. So, let me ask you this, if you opened a sandwich shop and you pay business rates and the council suddenly started giving away *free* sandwiches from a shop next door, how would you feel?

And as I said, there is competition and competition, so please tell me how a camp site can compete with a free parking facility for motorhomes? I know, it could be really competitive and not charge anyone for using its site! That would make it a really busy site!

Can't you understand why a camp site owner, who pays a fortune in rates, may feel that allowing motorhomes to park next to his site for nothing, is not competition in any real and fair sense of the word? How can he compete with that? And where do we stop? Should caravans be allowed to park on the same car park? Should tent campers be allowed to pitch their tents on the grass verges. After all, they've paid their road tax!

Just for once I wish that some people would try putting themselves in others' shoes and try to understand that they too have rights and they too have to make a living and, most of all, they have the right to protest if they think that something is unfair, without being labelled as grumpy and anti-competition, and there have been far worse epithets than that I can assure you!


----------



## al n sal (Jul 12, 2012)

westbay said:


> Just read through all this stuff and I have to admit did my usual laugh-out-loud bit at all these so-called wild campers moaning that
> 
> If we don’t want more stringent nationwide laws cracking down on sleeping in vehicles we need to be a bit more thoughtful before pissing off people living in tourist hotspots.



agree, there a lot of motorhome owners, definitely not all, who stay for days on end in one spot, chairs out, awning rolled out, wheel chocks slipped under, effectively camping on a street. the locals are definitely going to trow up arms.


----------



## bopper (Jul 12, 2012)

And to think that right from a boy, over 60 years now, I thought the WILD west was Dodge CITY, Tombstone etc;


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

Northerner said:


> So we should all be allowed to park for nothing because we've paid our road tax should we?



Once again, you have missed the point, which is that there is no logical reason why motorhomes shouldn't be allowed to park wherever cars and other road vehicles are allowed to park. As others have said, parking is not camping.


----------



## Teutone (Jul 12, 2012)

Northerner said:


> So we should all be allowed to park for nothing because we've paid our road tax should we? That's an interesting argument! Perhaps you should try that one on with your local traffic warden! Come on! This argument about we've paid our road tax is ludicrous! It's nothing to do with parking charges and nowhere in the legislation regarding road tax does it say that payment allows you to park just wherever you like for nothing!
> 
> And your sandwich shop analogy is pointless. The camp site owners were objecting to *free* parking for motorhomes. So, let me ask you this, if you opened a sandwich shop and you pay business rates and the council suddenly started giving away *free* sandwiches from a shop next door, how would you feel?
> 
> ...



The terms I refer to are PARKING and CAMPING.......

PS, how long do you think it would take to get people complaining to their local council if they would give goods (in this example sandwiches) away for FREE? Who paid for the sandwiches in the first place....

We are comparing apples and oranges.

It's the same thing, all depends on what side you stand. As a business, you want the least competition, as a customer you want the best value for money (didn't say free if you haven't noticed)

I would be more than happy to pay a reasonable parking fee for PARKING, I am also happy to pay on a campsite, CL or whatever facility if want to be there and the value for money if what I think it should be.

No reason to get so wound up.


----------



## bopper (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> Once again, you have missed the point, which is that there is no logical reason why motorhomes shouldn't be allowed to park wherever cars and other road vehicles are allowed to park. As others have said, parking is not camping.



He always misses the point.... because it's not HIS point.
I will reiterate what I posted earlier:
I have paid my insurance and road tax.  I can park my vehicle ANYWHERE where I do NOT cause an obstruction and where I conform to the road traffic act. This means where it is lawful to park a car or van, so can I; and I can sleep in it if I wish because I am not camping, I am parking.

To all the barrack room lawyers on here. I am not, nor ever will listen to you!!!!


----------



## Teutone (Jul 12, 2012)

al n sal said:


> agree, there a lot of motorhome owners, definitely not all, who stay for days on end in one spot, chairs out, awning rolled out, wheel chocks slipped under, effectively camping on a street. the locals are definitely going to trow up arms.



and with all due respect, they should be moved on


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

Teutone said:


> and with all due respect, they should be moved on



In France, Spain, Portugal and presumably lots of other countries too they have found the ideal solution - there are few aires where you are allowed unlimited stays and many have 24 or 48 hour limits. The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that in the UK we (or at least the powers-that-be) can't see the obvious: that any vehicles parked in their towns are likely to contain potential customers for that town and, if you make it clear that they should do nothing but park and stay only a short time (but not too short!) then everybody wins. If the French, Spanish, Portuguese and others can see it why are our rule-makers so blinkered. I can see only one explanation and it has nothing to do with competition or business - it is NIMBYism (something the Brits are very good at!).


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> I don't think anybody disputed that - but for those of us who are in no hurry and want largely to avoid the tourist traps, those "golden free days" are still with us. We will be spending about three weeks going through France in September (it would be more but we have an appointment in Barcelona) and I don't expect to pay for more than one aire on the way (I have one particular one in mind on the Mediterranean coast that we like). Similar story in Spain, where there are an increasing number of aires and all free (although admitedly not on the scale of France).



As ever John, you wear your own blinkers.  I detect a dismissive, slightly superior tone when you say you want to avoid tourist traps.   The tourist traps are tourist traps because that's where tourists want to go.   It's these (do you never read and understand?) areas where charges will be made.   Scarborough, Blackpool and Havant can charge because people will still go there.  Other places will never charge or be able to charge.


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> As ever John, you wear your own blinkers.  I detect a dismissive, slightly superior tone when you say you want to avoid tourist traps.   The tourist traps are tourist traps because that's where tourists want to go.   It's these (do you never read and understand?) areas where charges will be made.   Scarborough, Blackpool and Havant can charge because people will still go there.  Other places will never charge or be able to charge.



Surely we all can only speak from our own perspective, so I'm not clear what you are saying - and I have repeatedly said that I am not criticising others for wanting to park in Scarborough or anywhere else. I made the point about avoiding tourist traps in response to your statement that you doubted whether the majority of French aires were still free. When you later modified that to talking about tourist hot-spots I agreed with you but I was making the simple point that for anyone not bothered about going to such places then the majority are still free. What is the problem? 

PS if anybody else thinks I came over as dismissive and superior then I apologise - that was certainly not my intention.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jul 12, 2012)

[No message]


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> Surely we all can only speak from our own perspective, so I'm not clear what you are saying - and I have repeatedly said that I am not criticising others for wanting to park in Scarborough or anywhere else. I made the point about avoiding tourist traps in response to your statement that you doubted whether the majority of French aires were still free. When you later modified that to talking about tourist hot-spots I agreed with you but I was making the simple point that for anyone not bothered about going to such places then the majority are still free. What is the problem?
> 
> PS if anybody else thinks I came over as dismissive and superior then I apologise - that was certainly not my intention.



Rubbish, John.   

My original post:



maureenandtom said:


> *Charging for Aires.*   . . .
> 
> My preference is for sea, sand and sun.  My favoured French spots are coastal and, you know, my impression is that we have to wild camp like we used to do all the time or, increasingly, we have to pay for Aires in touristy attractive spots.   Inland spots are possibly, even probably, still free but not so many in places where I want to go.
> 
> . . .


----------



## Teutone (Jul 12, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> The tourist traps are tourist traps because that's where tourists want to go.   It's these areas where charges will be made.   Scarborough, Blackpool and Havant can charge because people will still go there.  Other places will never charge or be able to charge.



fully agree. (have deleted a few bits of the original posting to be clearer)

That's what competition is about. You have something others don't have, the market regulates itself. Nobody should be allowed to interfere with this to shift profits.

Apply some common sense. You wouldn't open an ice cream shop in antarctica. Supply and Demand.


----------



## vwalan (Jul 12, 2012)

i think in practice the authority would have a hard job taking a super market to court as so long as you moved off .they cant be bothered .each different van makes a new case .they would and do turn a blind eye . they may change views but i doubt it .just ind somewhere stay and move on tomorrow .
as for wild camping .hardly that many really go anywhere wild in this country so anyone condeming folk for staying in a town are just pedantic . some of us do really wild camp . 
but i do like parking in towns as well handy for annoying the locals .ha ha .


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> *Charging for Aires.*
> Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free................................that's not my experience.



This was your first statement in relation to French aires and it is this that I was referring to - and all I did was to politely refer you to the campingcar-infos website. Why are you getting so uptight about it?


----------



## Northerner (Jul 12, 2012)

Teutone said:


> fully agree. (have deleted a few bits of the original posting to be clearer)
> 
> That's what competition is about. You have something others don't have, the market regulates itself. Nobody should be allowed to interfere with this to shift profits.
> 
> Apply some common sense. You wouldn't open an ice cream shop in antarctica. Supply and Demand.



You just don't get it do yo? It's nothing to do with a free market. Camp sites have lots of competition from other sites, from club sites and CLs and no one is protecting them from that or wants to. This is about denigrating a site owner because he objected to the council allowing free overnight parking for motorhomes on a large car park near his site. As a businessman who pays a lot of money to the council for the privilege of running his business he has the right to feel aggrieved if the council cuts his feet from under him by allowing such parking. Can't you understand that? It's nothing to do with fair competition. How can anyone compete with a local authority giving something away for nothing? I wish you'd answer that.

To sum up, I'm for for competition but it must be fair. Just as you have the right to protest if you think that you are being treated unfairly, so has the camp site owner and he shouldn't be branded by some of the appalling epithets that have been hurled at him on this site.

And to be honest, your Antarctica analogy just shows the depth of your argument. This site owner has been there for years and opened long before this started. And if you really believe that nothing should be able to interfere with the free market you are very deluded. Haven't you heard of the Monopolies Commission? An unregulated free market would be a disaster with the biggest growing bigger until they had total control of the market. Then there really would be no competition.


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

John Thompson said:


> Hi John
> 
> It is not the 24 hour vehicle parking that is the problem.  It is the interference by the legislation in what is going on in the vehicle.  They say if you use it for human habitation (cooking, eating or sleeping) then it ceases to be a means of transport and becomes a caravan.  They then go on to say that the landowner requires a site licence and PP to allow caravans to use the land for human habitation.  So parking is OK, but if you inhabit the parked vehicle it is not.
> 
> ...



As vwalan has said, and as policemen of my acquaintence have told me, there is virtually zero chance of the police enforcing such a ruling. Many laws have unintended consequences and such consequences are rarely followed through. And if a supermarket were to allow 24 hour parking then no court in the land would expect them to monitor the car park continuously in such a way as to ensure that nobody was inside the vehicle, so there is no question of them requiring a licence. This is not speculation - in (admitedly rare in this country) cases where supermarkets have allowed 24 hour parking I cannot recall one case of the 1960 Act being used against them. Finally, I repeat that there is no law forbidding sleeping in vehicles in England.


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

Northerner said:


> How can anyone compete with a local authority giving something away for nothing? I wish you'd answer that.



I have said it before but I think it is worthy of repetition: if a Council allows people to park at night on car parks which would otherwise be empty and on which no services are provided then it is the local businesses that are likely to get something (ie custom) for nothing (ie no financial outlay by either them or the Council). Further, as anyone who has been moved on from a wilding spot will tell you, there is a miniscule chance of those being moved on meekly turning up at the local campsite. So banning overnighting benefits nobody. Where is the business sense in that?


----------



## vwalan (Jul 12, 2012)

hi david .i stop at benidorm regularly .its easy to park there .possibly the easiest place in spain . 
i only stop as my brother as an apartment there .we visit him if he is over there. just street parking .have stopped a week sometimes .loads do it . 
you can play being a uk tourist for a week then go on your way .even play bingo or spend all night in kareoke bars . ha ha 
i used to stop outside the golf club in altea nice there. now i prefer it closer to moriara.
madrid is another easy place . i find busier the place easier it is . same every where.


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 12, 2012)

Not snobbish at all.  Exercising personal preference.  And as you say, you wouldn't expect to see facilities in these places. They do very well without them.

However...

Where these places do provide places for motorhomes, it is unrealistic to condemn them, like Blackpool, Scarborough and now that I know if it, Havant for charging.   




As an Aside:   I typed this originally as "wouldn't expect to see Aires in these places."   I deleted *Aires *and inserted your original "*facilities*" so as not to upset those who like all tees dotted and eyes crossed.   

Why, or why, does everything have to be spelled out in the minutest detail?


----------



## Teutone (Jul 12, 2012)

Northerner said:


> You just don't get it do yo? It's nothing to do with a free market. Camp sites have lots of competition from other sites, from club sites and CLs and no one is protecting them from that or wants to. This is about denigrating a site owner because he objected to the council allowing free overnight parking for motorhomes on a large car park near his site. As a businessman who pays a lot of money to the council for the privilege of running his business he has the right to feel aggrieved if the council cuts his feet from under him by allowing such parking. Can't you understand that? It's nothing to do with fair competition. How can anyone compete with a local authority giving something away for nothing? I wish you'd answer that.
> 
> To sum up, I'm for for competition but it must be fair. Just as you have the right to protest if you think that you are being treated unfairly, so has the camp site owner and he shouldn't be branded by some of the appalling epithets that have been hurled at him on this site.
> 
> And to be honest, your Antarctica analogy just shows the depth of your argument. This site owner has been there for years and opened long before this started. And if you really believe that nothing should be able to interfere with the free market you are very deluded. Haven't you heard of the Monopolies Commission? An unregulated free market would be a disaster with the biggest growing bigger until they had total control of the market. Then there really would be no competition.



why are you so wound up? Please lower your tone towards me. You can't force your opinion on me, like it or not.

I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it. I am not deluded, please stop patronising me.

And the Monopolies Commission is excatly there to stop for what you are basically asking, forming a monopol. (i.e. only WE sell sandwiches, so stop all the other as I am paying you to do so)

I give everybody the right to be aggrieved and speak up if one feels to be treated unfairly and I agree with you, the camp site owner shouldn't be branded. He has the right of free speech and his own opinion.

And as per dragons den, I am out. Has taken too much of my time already.


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 12, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> *Charging for Aires.*
> 
> Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free.   .... ..... .  But that's not my experience.







John H said:


> This was your first statement in relation to French aires and it is this that I was referring to - and all I did was to politely refer you to the campingcar-infos website. Why are you getting so uptight about it?



That's right, John.  It was.  Here it is again.   This time without omitting crucial words.



maureenandtom said:


> *Charging for Aires.*    I
> 
> Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free.   No stats to back that up of course, there never are, but it could be true.  Perhaps overall, French Aires are still free.   But that's not my experience.
> 
> My preference is for sea, sand and sun.  My favoured French spots are coastal and, you know, my impression is that we have to wild camp like we used to do all the time or, increasingly, we have to pay for Aires in touristy attractive spots.   Inland spots are possibly, even probably, still free but not so many in places where I want to go.



We can all strip out words from a statement and make it sound like something else.  Politicians do it all the time.  Anyone would think you were a .... (oops)

Lies through innuendo and omission?  Hmm.


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> *Charging for Aires.*
> Yet another member asserted that the majority of French Aires are free.   No stats to back that up of course, there never are, but it could be true.  Perhaps overall, French Aires are still free.   But that's not my experience.
> 
> My preference is for sea, sand and sun.  My favoured French spots are coastal and, you know, my impression is that we have to wild camp like we used to do all the time or, increasingly, we have to pay for Aires in touristy attractive spots.   Inland spots are possibly, even probably, still free but not so many in places where I want to go.



Quite happy for you to reproduce the quote in full - and just in case anybody missed it, I have reproduced it again. I edited simply for clarity - it would be daft to do it for any other reason since the original is here for everyone to see (three times now!). You took issue with somebody who said that the majority of French aires are free. In response I did not jump down your throat but simply referred you, politely, to a website that would demonstrate that in reality they are. Again, I ask - why are you getting so uptight about it?


----------



## Canalsman (Jul 12, 2012)

Agreed.

If the campsite owner chose to do so, he could offer a parking option without use of facilities, and presumably at a reduced rate.

That might be an option that increases his turnover at very little cost to his business, in particular if this used capacity not taken up by those who were camping.


----------



## Funky Farmer (Jul 12, 2012)

I'm somewhat bewildered here but that's nothing unusual.
Why should motorhomers be treated any differently to the rest of the camping fraternity? I can't see it myself.
Just askin'. Before anyone jumps down my throat.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> As vwalan has said, and as policemen of my acquaintence have told me, there is virtually zero chance of the police enforcing such a ruling. Many laws have unintended consequences and such consequences are rarely followed through. And if a supermarket were to allow 24 hour parking then no court in the land would expect them to monitor the car park continuously in such a way as to ensure that nobody was inside the vehicle, so there is no question of them requiring a licence. This is not speculation - in (admitedly rare in this country) cases where supermarkets have allowed 24 hour parking I cannot recall one case of the 1960 Act being used against them. Finally, I repeat that .



Hi John

It is not a Police matter, they would only get involved if there was a possibility of violence. It is planning law enforced by the local authority planning officers.  I know from experience that they will spend time monitoring situations and then act after they have gathered the evidence.  They are not like the Police when they get a bit between their teeth they are not easily shaken off and planning law is there only concern.

Because there have been no reported prosecutions.  It does not mean they haven't interviened and issued warnings.  This could be seen in the same way as A-Frames.  There have been no presecutions but the trailer regulations are still law.

We will simply have to agree again to disagree on the topic of "there is no law forbidding sleeping in vehicles in England".  Quote: A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

John


----------



## vwalan (Jul 12, 2012)

hi jonas try here.Portal CampingCar Portugal - O Portal Portugus de Autocaravanismo'
there is also a spanish document but it really only repeats whats here. but google 08/v-74 instructions from the general direction of traffic on the motor homes.
http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/spain/12586-instruccion-08-v-74-english.html.here you are already been done on this site.


----------



## Funky Farmer (Jul 12, 2012)

vwalan said:


> hi jonas try here.Portal CampingCar Portugal - O Portal Portugus de Autocaravanismo'
> there is also a spanish document but it really only repeats whats here. but google 08/v-74 instructions from the general direction of traffic on the motor homes.
> http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/spain/12586-instruccion-08-v-74-english.html.here you are already been done on this site.



The page wasn't found!  OK now I have found it and now my head is spinning  LOL Anyway what has Spanish law got to do with parking over night in the UK. :sad:
Forget I asked the question but thanks for trying :lol-053:


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

John Thompson said:


> Hi John
> 
> It is planning law enforced by the local authority planning officers.



I think you'll find that car parking on private land, not land under the control of the local authority, which is what a supermarket car park is, is not monitored by local authority planning officers.


----------



## vwalan (Jul 12, 2012)

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/spain/12586-instruccion-08-v-74-english.html


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

Jonas said:


> I'm somewhat bewildered here but that's nothing unusual.
> Why should motorhomers be treated any differently to the rest of the camping fraternity? I can't see it myself.
> Just askin'. Before anyone jumps down my throat.



In addition to what has already been said, Jonas, I think there are insurance implications. An hitched caravan is covered by the road tax and insurance of the towing vehicle but an unhitched one isn't.


----------



## vwalan (Jul 12, 2012)

jonas the spanish govt were taken to the eu courts this is a statement by their authority under the guide lines of the eu. we are part of the eu. portugal acept it thats why the first thread . we are obliged to acept it as eu ruling can sometimes over rule individual countries rules .


----------



## AndyC (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> I "liked" the post about Havant because of the statement that there was a clear distinction between parking and camping and therefore this regulation did not come under the 1960 Act.
> 
> It takes a lot to "rouse me to anger" so you will be pleased to know I am very calm today! The situation in Scarborough has never roused me to anger either. I have said several times that any move to making provision for motorhomes is to be welcomed but that some areas are a lot better than others in doing that. I suspect Scarborough Council's motives and I don't think their pricing policy makes any business sense at all, so I won't be staying there - but if others choose to do so, then that is up to them; I won't start telling them they shouldn't (and never have).
> 
> PS now that I am aware that Havant is charging a similar ammount, I probably won't be going there either - but I still "like" the message given in the distinction between camping and parking.



The distinction between 'parking' and 'camping' is not relevant. The 1960 Act refers to the use of the vehicle for 'human habitation', nothing to do with whether you put anything outside. Local councils do not need a site licence because, unlike other land owners, they are exempted from the part of the Act that requires a site licence to be held in order to operate a  'caravan site' on land in their control.  Planning rules, however, do apply. The local planning department may take an interest if they consider that there has been a change of us of the land. In the case of Havant BC I understand that the local planners decided that the car park was still essentially a car park and therefore there was no change of use. In the case of Dawlish Warren the Teignbridge DC planning department considered that there would be a change of use and therefore planning permission was required. The potential expense involved caused the council to drop their plan to make the experimental motorhome overnight parking scheme permanent.

AndyC


----------



## AndyC (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> I think you'll find that car parking on private land, not land under the control of the local authority, which is what a supermarket car park is, is not monitored by local authority planning officers.


Quite likely not.

However the regular stopping of several motorhomes might cause them to take an interest. 

What's more likely is that any permission to stay overnight would of necessity need to be approved by the supermarket head office, as soon as their legal dept looked into the licencing and other issues they would likely regard it as not being worth the hassle.

AndyC


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> Quite happy for you to reproduce the quote in full - and just in case anybody missed it, I have reproduced it again. I edited simply for clarity - it would be daft to do it for any other reason since the original is here for everyone to see (three times now!). You took issue with somebody who said that the majority of French aires are free. In response I did not jump down your throat but simply referred you, politely, to a website that would demonstrate that in reality they are. Again, I ask - why are you getting so uptight about it?



No John, you edited it to distort it.

My original meaning was perfectly clear to any reasonable person.

Through misrepresentation you changed the meaning.

This is not the first time you have done so;  you rely on people not referring back to the original quotation.  By this means you re-write the history of a subject to your own satisfaction.

Reasonable debate is one thing - deliberate distortion is another.   No quotation is safe if it can be changed unchallenged.

You, Sir, a hypcocrite of the worst kind.  A thief only takes your belongings.   A liar can hang you.


----------



## AndyC (Jul 12, 2012)

The planning department might have cause to take an interest if the issue was raised by, for example local residents, or even local campsite owners.

I quite agree that, in general, the local planning office would not be interested in, or even be aware of, a few motorhomes staying occasionally in a supermarket car park, however in a popular area you could well have a situation where there were several motorhomes staying on a regular basis.

AndyC


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> No John, you edited it to distort it.
> 
> My original meaning was perfectly clear to any reasonable person.
> 
> ...



Ok, this has gone far enough. For reasons known only to you, one of your regular tactics is to try to make me angry. You have called what I said rubbish; you have called me a liar and a hypocrite. I refuse to be made angry by someone who simply does not like the truth. Your tactic has never worked before and it won't work now. Have a nice day.


----------



## AndyC (Jul 12, 2012)

The problem is that, when a car park owner permits motorhomes (vehicles adapted or constructed for human habitation) to stay overnight (used for human habitation) the car park becomes, in law, a caravan site.

You may argue that the law is outdated, wrong, or stupid, and I would agree with you. It is however the current law.

AndyC


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 12, 2012)

Truly, I have never thought that was what I was doing.   I've always thought I was open - and maybe a bit too open for my own good sometimes.  Mostly it is Tom writing - and that's me right now.

It was probably a mistake having the name Maureenandtom but I'll have a look at our profile and see about putting something informative in there.   Have you thought of looking at our introductory post.  I seem to remember that was pretty full of information.  I'll have to have a look at it myself now.

I never snipe from the undergrowth.  I stand in the open and say, I hope with clarity, what I mean;  I'm aware that not all I write is palatable to all but I have faced worse fears than disapproval and I don't fear being quoted and remembered.


Tom

*Edit:*  I see that the Introductory Posts section goes back to almost exactly the date we joined - July 2007.   By some unfortunate coincidence our own introductory post isn't there - unless you can find it.  If I can amend the profile, I will.   I may even write another introduction.


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

AndyC said:


> The problem is that, when a car park owner permits motorhomes (vehicles adapted or constructed for human habitation) to stay overnight (used for human habitation) the car park becomes, in law, a caravan site.
> 
> You may argue that the law is outdated, wrong, or stupid, and I would agree with you. It is however the current law.
> 
> AndyC



I've never heard that interpretation of the law before. Can you provide the relevant clause?


----------



## Tbear (Jul 12, 2012)

Do we really give a stuff about the letter of the law as nobody is harmed, we get a place to overnight and the shop gets a few quid out of us.

Richard


----------



## AndyC (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> I've never heard that interpretation of the law before. Can you provide the relevant clause?


Part 1 Section 1 para (4): "In this Part of this Act the expression “caravan site” means land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed."

AndyC


----------



## AndyC (Jul 12, 2012)

Tbear said:


> Do we really give a stuff about the letter of the law as nobody is harmed, we get a place to overnight and the shop gets a few quid out of us.
> 
> Richard



I'm looking at if from the point of view of a supermarket's legal department - they might "give a stuff about the letter of the law."

Personally I'd be quite happy to ask a supermarket manager if I could stay in their car park, I wouldn't be worrying about their possible contravention of site licencing requirements.

However because of the current law I don't think there is any future in asking for supermarkets to officially allow motorhome overnight stays.

AndyC


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

AndyC said:


> Part 1 Section 1 para (4): "In this Part of this Act the expression “caravan site” means land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed."
> 
> AndyC



Thank you.

It seems to me that, reading between the lines, the law did not intend to ban the kind of thing we are talking about but that technically we could be bound up in it. I talked about unintended consequences before and I think this would come under that heading. Otherwise, every time a pub landlord allowed us to stay he could be prosecuted - and the few supermarkets that have allowed us to would also be liable to prosecution.

It also seems to me that any supermarket chain that applied for exemption could corner the market in motorhome trade!


----------



## AndyC (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> Thank you.
> 
> It seems to me that, reading between the lines, the law did not intend to ban the kind of thing we are talking about but that technically we could be bound up in it. I talked about unintended consequences before and I think this would come under that heading. Otherwise, every time a pub landlord allowed us to stay he could be prosecuted - and the few supermarkets that have allowed us to would also be liable to prosecution.


Unlikely to face prosecution, at least in the first instance. More likely to get a bit of friendly advice from the planning office, then if that's not heeded, an enforcement notice, if that wasn't complied with it would eventually go to court.   

The 1960 Act is certainly outdated and overdue for reform - can't see it happening any time soon though.

AndyC


----------



## paganplasma (Jul 12, 2012)

*Wild camping*

Hi,I have noted the comments about free parking in British towns and i have to say, when we go about in our motor home we try and find a pub with a large car park and have a deal with them because we tow a car trailer and town  car parks have anti traveller  bars on them,in France we find its better because the gypsy community know their place and behave otherwise the police deal with them aggressively ,even the large super markets let campers over night in their vans  ,it seems everything in Britain is back to front we just do not see what works well in other country's  and apply it here.We go abroad and spend a lot of money on fuel, water  and food because it is easy to enjoy our holiday using the facilities that are provided by the towns,villages and A roads its only a few Euro ,but we cannot do the same here because they do not exist ,only on camp sites so until Britain wake up and catch up with Europe we will always have this problem i think .:wave


----------



## AndyC (Jul 12, 2012)

Once again not my area of expertise but I don't think that a public house can legally be considered a dwellinghouse. They are certainly distinct entities in planning terms.

AndyC


----------



## John H (Jul 12, 2012)

AndyC said:


> Unlikely to face prosecution, at least in the first instance. More likely to get a bit of friendly advice from the planning office, then if that's not heeded, an enforcement notice, if that wasn't complied with it would eventually go to court.
> 
> The 1960 Act is certainly outdated and overdue for reform - can't see it happening any time soon though.
> 
> AndyC



Unless you are aware of information to the contrary, I suggest that my comment about unintended consequences holds sway here and that not even a friendly warning would be issued. Yes, the law is outdated but if it is not being enforced against us maybe we should not push for a change because changes don't always move in the direction you want them to!


----------



## Tbear (Jul 12, 2012)

AndyC said:


> I'm looking at if from the point of view of a supermarket's legal department - they might "give a stuff about the letter of the law."
> 
> Personally I'd be quite happy to ask a supermarket manager if I could stay in their car park, I wouldn't be worrying about their possible contravention of site licencing requirements.
> 
> ...



Is the council really going to take asda to court over a van parked in a carpark doing no harm when they are spending thousands removing "travellers" from their parks and beauty spots


----------



## AndyC (Jul 12, 2012)

Tbear said:


> Is the council really going to take asda to court over a van parked in a carpark doing no harm when they are spending thousands removing "travellers" from their parks and beauty spots


Quite likely not, but Asda's lawyers might not be happy to allow their managers to permit something which they may not legally be allowed to do.

There's always two sides, 'we' can't see the problem but company lawyers have a different perspective.

AndyC


----------



## AndyC (Jul 12, 2012)

John H said:


> Unless you are aware of information to the contrary, I suggest that my comment about unintended consequences holds sway here and that not even a friendly warning would be issued. Yes, the law is outdated but if it is not being enforced against us maybe we should not push for a change because changes don't always move in the direction you want them to!


Sadly I tend to agree John, I would very much like to see the law changed but I can guess which organisations would have the most input into any revisions and neither of them want to see motorhome stopovers or 'aires' deveoped in the UK.

AndyC


----------



## Tbear (Jul 12, 2012)

AndyC said:


> Quite likely not, but Asda's lawyers might not be happy to allow their managers to permit something which they may not legally be allowed to do.
> 
> There's always two sides, 'we' can't see the problem but company lawyers have a different perspective.
> 
> AndyC



Corporate lawyers of a major international companies have more to worry about than me having an hours kip in one of their supermarket carparks. More chance of them thanking me for discouraging the local yobs from misbehaving on their property:lol-053:


----------



## runnach (Jul 13, 2012)

Northerner said:


> You just don't get it do yo? It's nothing to do with a free market. Camp sites have lots of competition from other sites, from club sites and CLs and no one is protecting them from that or wants to. This is about denigrating a site owner because he objected to the council allowing free overnight parking for motorhomes on a large car park near his site. As a businessman who pays a lot of money to the council for the privilege of running his business he has the right to feel aggrieved if the council cuts his feet from under him by allowing such parking. Can't you understand that? It's nothing to do with fair competition. How can anyone compete with a local authority giving something away for nothing? I wish you'd answer that.
> 
> To sum up, I'm for for competition but it must be fair. Just as you have the right to protest if you think that you are being treated unfairly, so has the camp site owner and he shouldn't be branded by some of the appalling epithets that have been hurled at him on this site.
> 
> And to be honest, your Antarctica analogy just shows the depth of your argument. This site owner has been there for years and opened long before this started. And if you really believe that nothing should be able to interfere with the free market you are very deluded. Haven't you heard of the Monopolies Commission? An unregulated free market would be a disaster with the biggest growing bigger until they had total control of the market. Then there really would be no competition.


last time I replied to one of your posts you suggested  I was attacking you, and yet in your world telling people they don't get it and bloody hell etc seems fair game.

You pupport to be a businessman, and  in that capacity since when has business been fair.?

For what it is worth, I totally understand the point you are making and perhaps trying to provoke a little empathy within people

For better or worse I have found myself back in the licenced trade caretaking a public house.

I. Can't realistically compete with witherspoons on price as an example , but I can do my best to offer a unique selling point......I.e interact with customers and ensure they feel their custom is valued that they want to come back.

Retention is a must in my world.



The point I am trying to make, without arguing is life is rarely a level playing field, so you maximise what you have got.

I understand why a campsite owner becomes frustrated with the wildy lot considering investment 
And returns on ..

I thiink or for me at least, it isn't really about saving a few quid, it is the ability to pretty much do as I want without interference.

If people choose to site their perogative , I don't knock it , but please don't berate my choice to remain self sufficient and choose not to stay on sites

Site owners naturally have their own Interests at heart, they have investment and need a return....but the bigger picture like in my work doesn't guarantee it and why should it?

Very few motorhomers in the grand scale seem to wild camp...therefore those that choose too in my book are in a minority, a minority that in real terms has minimal impact on the tourist economy
Channa


----------



## Northerner (Jul 13, 2012)

channa said:


> last time I replied to one of your posts you suggested  I was attacking you, and yet in your world telling people they don't get it and bloody hell etc seems fair game.
> 
> You pupport to be a businessman, and  in that capacity since when has business been fair.?
> 
> ...



Where have I ever berated anyone's wish not to stay on sites? I do it myself. This discussion was about one thing, the inability of members on this site to see things from the perspective of others. We have a site owner who objects because the council allowed free motorhome camping on a large car park near his site. He raised an objection and was absolutely insulted on here for his temerity. The post of mine above came after a frustrating debate with another member who can't seem to understand that this man has the right to object and probably a good reason.

Trying to compete with a service that your council offers for nothing isn't fair competition! How would you feel if your council set up a drop-in centre next to your pub and served free beer? Would you call that competition? I'd call it damn unfair that the council is using my rates to cut the feet from under me. And this is why I started this thread, which is just about members of this site who think that all that matters is their convenience and that anyone who doesn't allow them to park anywhere at all is a fat greedy councillor or has a relative with a campsite.

Finally, I don't 'pupport' to be a businessman, I am, and in one of the most competitive trades there is and we've survived when most of our competitors have gone under. And we do that by trying harder and by being pro-active, so yes, I know all about competition, and I'll be happy to PM you with my business details and proof but I don't wish it to be public.

Edited to say: This was your last line:

'Very few motorhomers in the grand scale seem to wild camp...therefore those that choose too in my book are in a minority, a minority that in real terms has minimal impact on the tourist economy'

I'm pleased to read that we have at least one person on here (apart from me) who understands that our contribution to the local economy is peanuts! It's laughable to hear people banging on about how much business Scarborough is going to lose, and that we should boycott the place and bring it to its knees!


----------



## John H (Jul 13, 2012)

Northerner said:


> I'm pleased to read that we have at least one person on here (apart from me) who understands that our contribution to the local economy is peanuts! It's laughable to hear people banging on about how much business Scarborough is going to lose, and that we should boycott the place and bring it to its knees!



You are still not getting it - which, as a businessman, I find very interesting. It doesn't matter that we only bring a little business into an area - it IS business and it costs the local authority and the local business community NOTHING to allow us to park overnight in car parks that would otherwise be empty.


----------



## Funky Farmer (Jul 13, 2012)

Yawn, scratch, cough.  Mornin' all.

So, after twelve pages, what conclusion have we come to then? :sleep-040:

Just enquirin'


----------



## Deleted member 21686 (Jul 13, 2012)

We don't agree.


----------



## runnach (Jul 13, 2012)

AndyC said:


> Quite likely not, but Asda's lawyers might not be happy to allow their managers to permit something which they may not legally be allowed to do.
> 
> There's always two sides, 'we' can't see the problem but company lawyers have a different perspective.
> 
> AndyC



I know it to. be the case in Doncaster, but Asda has it happens lease land from the council.

It is not unreasonable to assume in some supermarket car parks, covenants are in place

Channa


----------



## al n sal (Jul 13, 2012)

Hello


----------



## John H (Jul 13, 2012)

al n sal said:


> I distrust most ........councillors (fat cats), but not all, majority are completely honest and straight I’m sure



Hi

Being a councillor is a bit like being a motorhomer - you get the blame for the actions of a few! In my experience, the majority are well-meaning and hard-working but there are a significant minority who are there for their own ends. This may simply be that they like the kudos (for doing nothing) or it may be that they are there to push their business interests (be they a shopkeeper, caravan site owner or publican). I have known all these types in my time on the local council and I suspect Scarborough is no different from the councils I have experience of.


----------



## maingate (Jul 13, 2012)

This is for Channa but also anyone else who is interested.

I cannot understand how we now seem to think that Site owners are complaining about wild campers in order to get us to use their sites instead. It does not hold water in my estimation.

The boom in Caravanning and Motorhoming in the last 10 years or so has outstripped the number of pitches available. This has put the Site owners in a very privileged position. They are almost guaranteed a high occupancy rate for most of the season. The vast majority close for Winter and we therefore make no difference to their business at that time. 

Pitch prices have increased steadily. The site owners know all about the Law of Supply and Demand. The only cloud on the horizon this year (deliberate pun) has been this atrocious Summer. It may be even possible to get a reduction on some sites. I have had an offer of 25% of C & CC pitches at Club sites. When Hell freezes offer, I might take them up on that. :lol-049:


----------



## Northerner (Jul 13, 2012)

al n sal said:


> Hello Mr Northerner Sir,
> 
> as you are hell bent in turning this into something it wasn’t, I now feel I have to respond, it most certainly wasn’t my intention to upset anyone, and my statement was meant as a fact, in regards to what I will , will not be doing, I.e, going to scarborough.
> ok maybe i should of explained my words better, but you as always twist what people are saying and very often accuse them of victimizing you if they disagree, poor soul....
> ...



I'll just remind everyone what you said!

_"I'm still happy to not spend fuel and definitely not any time or money visiting a place or area that doesn't want my custom, unless I'm happy to be bullied into using an over priced campsite belonging to a fat greedy councilor. 
i don't know about my comments being racist, but it is probably fat councillor-ist."_

Now you're saying that you didn't really mean that they were fat, just fat cats. Yes, we all believe you I'm sure!

This was an intemperate and hateful rant by someone who has a conspiracy theory running riot in his or her mind. The problem arose because of complaints from councillors' constituents, not from owners of camp sites who couldn't give a toss about a few motorhomes staying in the town centre on public roads.

And you're not alone on here with this kind of view, We've just had someone who was moved on for wild camping in a National Park. A helpful bobby directed them to a local site but of course the site just has to be owned by one of his relatives doesn't it? Ye gods!

The only evidence that this is a huge conspiracy by campsite owners and councillors who are in their pockets is in your mind! And your comment about being bullied into 'over-priced camp sites' is another indication of your total unreasonableness. Who is bullying you to go on to sites? Do please let me know. Which sites are over-priced and how do their prices compare to others?

I'll tell you a little bit about business, which includes camp-sites. If your prices are too much and are more than the competition, you won't get any customers. So what defines 'over-priced? As far as I can see over-priced is just a price that you don't want to pay.


----------



## al n sal (Jul 13, 2012)

Northerner said:


> I'll just remind everyone what you said!
> 
> _"I'm still happy to not spend fuel and definitely not any time or money visiting a place or area that doesn't want my custom, unless I'm happy to be bullied into using an over priced campsite belonging to a fat greedy councilor.
> i don't know about my comments being racist, but it is probably fat councillor-ist."_
> ...



:sleep-027::sleep-027:


----------



## Northerner (Jul 13, 2012)

al n sal said:


> :sleep-027::sleep-027:



The usual answer from someone who has no rational argument to support his/her case.

By the way, can some one tell me which Scarborough councillors own camp-sites, how many there are and how many other councillors there are of all the different political parties? Can they also show us minutes of any meetings, which are all in the public domain, where the issue of camp-site owners recusing themselves from the debates is mentioned. 

Let's put and end to these people who think that, if they get a parking ticket it's because the warden's auntie owns a car park, or if a policeman shows an illegally parked 'van to a camp site it must belong to a relative.

It's these kind of appalling, untrue and in some case, slanderous allegations that will lower our esteem in the eyes of the residents of the towns in question, much more than the illegal parking itself.


----------



## al n sal (Jul 13, 2012)

:sleep-027:


----------



## maingate (Jul 13, 2012)

:sleep-027:


----------



## Admin (Jul 13, 2012)

Northerner said:


> This was an intemperate and hateful rant by someone who has a conspiracy theory running riot in his or her mind.



be careful Northener


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jul 13, 2012)

John H said:


> I think you'll find that car parking on private land, not land under the control of the local authority, which is what a supermarket car park is, is not monitored by local authority planning officers.



Hi John

We were parked in a field well away from anywhere in a rural location in the Durham/Northumberland dales with the permission of the land owner.  No one could see us from any road.  The landowner even laid us a drinking water supply to the site from his field supply.  A planning officer made a number of visits to this site, noting its use when there was no one there.  He did this during working hours but also at night and weekends.  After gathering the evidence that the place had been used for camping and caravaning, he made a visit while we were there and spoke to us.  He then went to the landowner and told her she was breaking the law and if we were not off that land the next day he would procesute and put a paragraph 13 order on the land preventing it from being used again for a rally.



> Local authorities can, however, apply for an order under paragraph 13 of the 1960 Act withdrawing the exemptions provided by certificates from a site. The effect of a paragraph 13 order would be to require a site licence or planning permission to be sought for the use of the site as a caravan site.



The landowner came down and hassled us to leave ASAP.  It was because of this action I began to study the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and get involved with caravan exemptions.

When I was involved with ACCEO in the early 1980s it was common to see paragraphs in their newsletter informing exempted groups of land that has paragraph 13 orders recently imposed on them.

So yes planning officers do take an interest in the use of private land and they *will* take action.

I agree with the definition of parking and not camping myself.  But that is a Spanish law it has no bearing on the UK.  I only wish it did.

John


----------



## Northerner (Jul 13, 2012)

Phil said:


> be careful Northener



So what's your opinion on a comment such as this on a public forum?

"I'm still happy to not spend fuel and definitely not any time or money visiting a place or area that doesn't want my custom, unless I'm happy to be bullied into using an over priced campsite belonging to a fat greedy councilor. 
i don't know about my comments being racist, but it is probably fat councillor-ist."

And how do you think the councillors of Scarborough would react to such an accusation? And do you think that it would raise or lower the overall acceptance of motorhomers? I can just imagine the fun if this was picked up by the local newspaper!


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Jul 13, 2012)

AndyC said:


> The 1960 Act is certainly outdated and overdue for reform - can't see it happening any time soon though.
> 
> AndyC



Hi Andy

I have an officer from Natural England say to me The 1960 Act is outdated and overdue for reform.  He then went on to say that it would not be altered in the foreseeable future due to the cost of drafting new regulations. 

We are all agreed that the Act is outdated but we are stuck with it.  Some planning officers treat it in a relaxed manner other will stick by the letter of the Act.  Some officers of Natural England have even tried to enhance the act with their own interpretations aided by the big clubs.

John


----------



## Admin (Jul 13, 2012)

Northerner said:


> So what's your opinion on a comment such as this on a public forum?
> 
> "I'm still happy to not spend fuel and definitely not any time or money visiting a place or area that doesn't want my custom, unless I'm happy to be bullied into using an over priced campsite belonging to a fat greedy councilor.
> i don't know about my comments being racist, but it is probably fat councillor-ist."
> ...



Please read the forum rules.



			
				Forum Rules said:
			
		

> *Ad Hominem
> 
> Ad Hominem comments/personal attacks towards anyone - staff, forum member, or a visitor who is likely to view it on the forums - is subject to the message being deleted and action taken against the user, regardless of how pertinent or thoughtful the rest of the message might be.*


----------



## Admin (Jul 13, 2012)

You think it is ok for one member to state that another members opinion is "_a conspiracy theory running riot in his or her mind." ?_


----------



## Smaug (Jul 13, 2012)

Phil said:


> You think it is ok for one member to state that another members opinion is "_a conspiracy theory running riot in his or her mind." ?_



I suspect that, because his argument is feeble, he feels obliged to overstate his case rather forcefully. :lol-053:

My original (campsite owner related to bobbies) comment was a throwaway tease at previous paranoia. I was surprised that Northerner failed to see that, but I guess he is perhaps not the most subtle of posters. I was not bothered by his post, just saddened that he missed the reference. So it goes. :cheers:


----------



## Dezi (Jul 13, 2012)

I think that after 14 pages this thread has exhausted most of the different opinions related to the original subject and now simply relies on exchanges of personal abuse to keep it running.

Dezi   c:


----------



## Northerner (Jul 13, 2012)

Phil said:


> You think it is ok for one member to state that another members opinion is "_a conspiracy theory running riot in his or her mind." ?_



Well, at the risk of being banned I do believe that the following comment shows all the evidence of a conspiracy theory, and of course conspiracy theories are only in the mind, they're not in your foot or up your nose.

"I'm still happy to not spend fuel and definitely not any time or money visiting a place or area that doesn't want my custom, unless I'm happy to be bullied into using an over priced campsite belonging to a fat greedy councilor. 
i don't know about my comments being racist, but it is probably fat councillor-ist."

And I ask you again. Do you think that this is a suitable comment to publish in a public forum? Can you just imagine the headlines in the Scarborough Daily Whatsit?

"Motorhomers accuse Scarborough councillors of corruption, being fat, greedy and of trying to bully them onto camp sites that they own". That would really help our cause!

And I really do think that you should read the post to which I responded! Needless to say I haven't moaned about it, or complained because it's a forum and I'm not some wimp who can't defend himself.

I find it odd that I can be mildly rude, and that's all it was, and in response to something much ruder I might add, and yet comments that are insulting, libellous and downright untrue are acceptable because it's just local councillors that are being traduced.

Finally, I admit that I am vigorous in debate and perhaps a touch arrogant! But it's my way and if I am rude it's usually in response to someone who deserves it, and in this case he or she did. If people are going to come on public forums spouting unsubstantiated rubbish that actually libels businessmen and councillors they should expect to be challenged.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 13, 2012)

Smaug said:


> I suspect that, because his argument is feeble, he feels obliged to overstate his case rather forcefully. :lol-053:
> 
> My original (campsite owner related to bobbies) comment was a throwaway tease at previous paranoia. I was surprised that Northerner failed to see that, but I guess he is perhaps not the most subtle of posters. I was not bothered by his post, just saddened that he missed the reference. So it goes. :cheers:



Pretty odd of course that the post in question showed no hint of irony or humour, had no smilies or other emoticons (which you appear to like using on other occasions and even on the post above!) and appeared to be deadly serious. Now of course that you've been challenged on it there's a claim that it was a 'throw away tease'. Yes, of course it was!

And which part of my argument is feeble? Is it that Scarborough Council doesn't have a fat, greedy campsite owner who is behind all this? You ought to check the number of likes on my original post to see whether members think that my argument is feeble!


----------



## maingate (Jul 13, 2012)

It is a fact that at least one Councillor owns a campsite.

Whether he is fat and/or greedy is subjective. It would depend on which Scarborough resident you spoke to.


----------



## John H (Jul 13, 2012)

John Thompson said:


> Hi John
> 
> We were parked in a field well away from anywhere in a rural location in the Durham/Northumberland dales with the permission of the land owner.  No one could see us from any road.  The landowner even laid us a drinking water supply to the site from his field supply.  A planning officer made a number of visits to this site, noting its use when there was no one there.  He did this during working hours but also at night and weekends.  After gathering the evidence that the place had been used for camping and caravaning, he made a visit while we were there and spoke to us.  He then went to the landowner and told her she was breaking the law and if we were not off that land the next day he would procesute and put a paragraph 13 order on the land preventing it from being used again for a rally.
> 
> ...



Hi John

I suppose that there will always be jobsworths willing to use the law for things it was not intended to be used for. Do you think that large supermarkets would allow themselves to be intimidated in the same way - especially if they were not laying on water or anything else that could be construed as allowing camping?


----------



## John H (Jul 13, 2012)

Northerner said:


> Pretty odd of course that the post in question showed no hint of irony or humour, had no smilies or other emoticons (which you appear to like using on other occasions and even on the post above!) and appeared to be deadly serious. Now of course that you've been challenged on it there's a claim that it was a 'throw away tease'. Yes, of course it was!



Well, as an ex-councillor who has - like all councillors - had to put up with this kind of thing, all I can say is it is par for the course - if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen - and I DID see the original statement as humourous (see my post which followed it). Further, Northerner, you cannot libel councillors in general and no specific councillor was libelled in any post on this thread. And finally, you seem to assume that no negative comments are to be allowed against business or councillors whereas the reality is that all groups are fair game. Any negative comment about a specific individual, however, needs to be considered very carefully - and that is where you get very near to the line (some would say, even cross it).


----------



## Northerner (Jul 13, 2012)

maingate said:


> It is a fact that at least one Councillor owns a campsite.
> 
> Whether he is fat and/or greedy is subjective. It would depend on which Scarborough resident you spoke to.



I attach a link to a list of all 49 Scarborough councillors. They are a typical mixed bunch and surprisingly, very few of them have businesses. I have patiently scoured through their declarations and interests and found out that you are, almost, correct. Out of the 49, one councillor has declared an interest in a camp site. None of the others have anything to do with sites whatsoever and only a tiny number could be described as even being in the tourist business.

However, the councillor with a campsite is Andrew Backhouse, who is not the slightest bit fat by the way! Technically it isn't even his as it's owned by his parents, but I'll concede that it might as well be his. But lets have the best bit shall we?

His campsite is called Haven Campsite and is in a place called Burniston, north of Scarborough. I also attach a link to that. The link will show, as will a quick glance on Google Earth, that it is a small family-owned park comprising 52 static holiday caravans. The site doesn't even take tourers or motorhomes. So much for fat greedy councillors bullying people on to their camp sites.

And this is typical of how these conspiracy theories develop and grow. I've already been told that there are thousands of references to these councillors who own camp sites but it is utter tosh!

So in fact there is not one Scarborough councillor who will benefit in the slightest by motorhomers being bullied off the streets and into camp sites. As if we would anyway!

So can we now please accept, that the 49 councillors of Scarborough are actually acting on behalf of their constituents and not some fat and greedy camp site owner who is dominating the council and somehow overruling the Labour, independent, Green Party and Lib Dem members?

Your Councillors

The Haven Caravan Park


----------



## maureenandtom (Jul 13, 2012)

We knew all this.   All of it was well documented in the Scarborough Traders thread.   All the councillors, all the business interests, Cllr Backhouse's lack of involvement.

Below is what I posted when it came up in that thread - also in response to a "Northerner" post.

No one has yet attempted to give an explanation of why we are so keen on Aires in France - and even keen when other councils in Britain take steps to try trials with Aires - but when it comes to Scarborough people are virulently against their trial.   I know about the price.  People don't like the proposed charge of £10 - which the council were to look at again and which may already have come down and we don't yet know about it.  Or it may have stayed the same.   How many of us tried to influence the price?   I know some did.  I know I did.

A little research shows that more and more Aires are charging, even in France no matter how much some will wriggle about it;  the fact is that they are - my own research shows that touristy areas are increasingly making a charge. There's little point in saying much of the rest of France is still free;  it's only the coastal popular spots.  The coastal spots are popular because that's where people want to be.  That's why there's a charge.

I can understand that some do not want Aires in any event but I can't believe that even those who don't want them for themselves would try to deny them to others.   I don't want campsites but I don't want to deny them to others.  

There are some who believe that we shouldn't try to influence councils; we should let sleeping dogs lie;  that if we try to influence them then we may end up with something worse than we have right now.  At our age we don't like change.   But that can't be the case with Scarborough;  the motorhome problem was being discussed in response to repeated loud insistence from Scarborough residents and this was one time when we must make our voice known.  Change was going to come with or without our influence.

Change *is *going to come with or without our influence.  Everywhere.



maureenandtom said:


> Notherner's right.  There is, however, at least one interested member and he has declared his interest and, if he was influential, he was influential behind the scenes.  If he was!   He would have been the cabinet member responsible for this but his duties have been taken over by another councillor.  Councillor Penny somebody or other.
> 
> And we know what has moved the council.   It is well documented.  It began with the title of this thread - "Scarborough Traders Complain" and it was followed up by a largish number of letters - on more than one occasion - from residents in Scarborough.  The council are responding to public opinion in the town.   Those who think it is inadvisable to stir up the council would be best asking local residents to cease doing so.   All this is well documented here but, unfortunately, spread over several different threads.
> 
> ...


----------



## Northerner (Jul 13, 2012)

maureenandtom said:


> We knew all this.   All of it was well documented in the Scarborough Traders thread.   All the councillors, all the business interests, Cllr Backhouse's lack of involvement.
> 
> Below is what I posted when it came up in that thread - also in response to a "Northerner" post.
> 
> ...



Thank you for that. I hadn't really gone too deep into that thread as, believe it or not, there are very few threads that actually interest me. However, I would question the statement "We knew all this. All of it was well documented in the Scarborough Traders thread." You are correct obviously, but it appears that lots of people didn't know it as, since then, we still get them banging on about fat, greedy councillors who own camp sites.

Anyway, it's a pleasure to read a post from someone who's pragmatic about this and isn't utterly convinced that the actions of Scarborough Council are as a result of corruption and greed from some mythical camp site owners.


----------



## John H (Jul 13, 2012)

basildog said:


> I personally cannot see supermarkets being interested at all as what are we actually offering them ?
> As stated by many we are a tiny minority of a small group of the population and as some will be happy to stay with no water or facilities ,others will start asking for water and places to dump waste then others will want to leave rubbish behind and suddenly the supermarket has to clear up and commit staffing resources to an unprofitable nuisance !



Hi

The simple answer to that is that we are offering them potential custom when the alternative is an empty car park. Its a win-win situation and if the amount of rubbish to clear up significantly increases their workload they would be free to revert to an overnight ban or to impose a small charge to cover the extra cost. Yes there will always be some who abuse any system but do you hear of resorts banning picnickers because many of them leave piles of rubbish behind them? I can imagine any supermarket chain that opens itself to us cornering the market in motorhome custom (and I don't just mean while we are in motorhomes either).


----------



## dodge2transit (Jul 14, 2012)

iv got at page 12 and had to stop there is to much  reading to do  and is making me dizy lol and getting even more confused to why  it gone the way it has so ,replying to post 1/ 
i do feel it was a litle unfair that the chap that messed up was pulled up again.  whats done is done , i feel management should of gone in and done a edit on the post and changed a few things after it was established a cock up was made, 2nd i posted on that thread and made it very very clear if we stuck together we could achieve lodes but it was pointed out to me that we dont now  how to stand as one. 
may be may be not  until someone  trys we will never know, hay pople.
as for car parks well im easy on this. its a car park not a camp site. its pointed out on  post 1, that travelers are to blame, well hmm tuff one to say they are or are not realy as every time i see travelers gypsy  there in forests or  commen or waist land , sorry iv never seen them in large numbers in car parks , thats the truth. however  i suppose you could be right about the councils be afraid they will be hit by them if we  park , fair post. 
comes down to cost to clean up and local opposition to them.
however it defantly can be blamed  on  some of them campers that abuse the car parks by leaving liter  and so forth. so it stems to that, us,  you, me,  him, her, that dog. how we behave  and represent  what we do and how we do it. i will try and clean up behind others as i may wish to come back to the car park again and yes it's for me the reason. and i do feed the  local economy i visit even if its £10 or 50. 
may be a solution to the problem of parking  could be  if you stay pay , or if you stay only 5 van in at one time , or be gone by 7 am or pay a fine.  but as no one will gather  and form  a  org or Union or a league it will never be put to the councils sao it will never be fixed.     
so thats my pennies worth and i stand by every thing i put in the offending thread.


----------



## sean rua (Jul 14, 2012)

To all who may be interested in the relevant law:

There are at least two posters on this thread who know the relevant law. These are

Mr John Thompson

and

AndyC.


As several have intimated, the law is complex and borders on the ridiculous in places, but it is still the law.

--
@ JohnH:

Whatever about anything else , John,
I am sad to say that *you are wrong* about the sleeping issue.
If "they" don't want you sleeping overnight, "they" can find umpteen laws that forbid it. 

In my opinion, much of it is to do with the ancient fear of darkness.
 Generally, modern man is as frightened of the dark as were his/our ancestors who faced  nightly predators such as wolves.
Nowadays we have the fear of criminals who "come like thieves in the night".

 This is why most civilisations brought in street lighting. "Public Safety" was the motivation.
It's also why there are laws against "loitering" etc, and why it is technically illegal to kip on a park bench at night or even in a shop doorway.

Now, to be a little more specific:
 we were told at Dale Farm, by the powers-that-be, that it would be illegal for even one person to sleep on the site with nothing more than a sleeping bag! This is privately-owned land we're talking about.
 How can you keep saying there are no laws against sleeping overnight? 

When trying to take the matter further, we were told by an irate person who farmed locally, that she was not even allowed to abide in a shepherd's hut on some rented land, even though this would have made her farming life so much easier. :rolleyes2:

Despite this obvious nonsense of a law, she took the view that we, the travellers, should NOT be allowed any "preferential treatment" ( her words) by being allowed to stay on our land.
 In reasonable conversation, she agreed that the law was ridiculous, but she took the hard-line, party-line,
 that " the law is the law" and must be obeyed at all times by all, however silly.

I note, with an interested smile, that several on here do not believe in such a religious adherence to the very letter. 
 In fact, on other threads, we have had advice offered regarding carrying bolt-croppers, various weaponry, etc etc, the use of which would be in total breach and contravention under UK law.

The truth is that, every now and again, the the large developers of private property have to get the politicians and councillors to flex their muscles, and so "test cases" are brought ( despite the huge cost of such endeavours).

The whole point of these is to reinforce the principles of private property and help clear the way for the Big Boys to carry out their plans when they wish.

And, finally, that is one major reason why the supermarket parking idea will *not*become law.
 On the other hand, it may become a temporary fact of life, which will be tolerated so far until, it is deemed time to act, but all the time, it will never quite be legal. 
Then, with all the relevant paperwork in place, the authorities are able to swiftly removed anything from their way, when the time is right.

I'm sure AndyC will be able to confirm that, even though overnighting in motorhomes is tolerated
at the Park and Ride, New Dover Road, Canterbury, there is, in fact, a TRO prohibiting this. In other words, it's just a law waiting to be enforced.
 One of many technical issues, imo, that are disregarded for reasons of commonsense, BUT, can be quickly enforced by the rulers, if and when they feel the need.


sean rua.


"Ignorance is treatable; Arrogance is Terminal."


----------



## John H (Jul 14, 2012)

sean rua said:


> Whatever about anything else , John,
> I am sad to say that *you are wrong* about the sleeping issue.
> If "they" don't want you sleeping overnight, "they" can find umpteen laws that forbid it.
> 
> ...



Hi Sean

I was very specific in what I said - there is no law about sleeping in vehicles (and Andy C has also said the same thing in a previous post). I obviously don't know the details of the specific cases you quote but, from what I know of the general situation, the Dale Farm residents were guilty of not having the appropriate planning permission (for residence). They may have improved the site but it was the lack of planning permission that got them in the end. I do agree with you, however, that if the authorities are determined to get you then they will find a way. For example, if the police want to find something wrong with your vehicle then they will find it - none of us has a perfect vehicle! That is why, whenever I am approached by the police or other authority figure I am always very polite and compliant. I have never been moved on in this country (once in Spain and once in Greece and on both ocassions the mayor/police advised me of an alternative spot where it would be suitable to stop for the night). 

PS just re-read the above and I did not mean to imply that you weren't polite to the police!


----------



## wolly (Jul 14, 2012)

maingate said:


> I believe that I have tried to put up a rational, non-aggressive conversation with you and you still go on the attack (as you do with anyone who has a different opinion to yours). This will be the last time I enter into any dialogue with you on here as I hate wasting my time with someone who refuses to listen to any other point of view.



well said maingate


----------



## sean rua (Jul 14, 2012)

Thank you for your reply, JohnH.

I regret to say that I have been "moved on" many times, so I'm going on what has actually happened, rather than any fine understanding of the intricacies of English law.
Your reply, btw, was perfectly polite as far as I can see, though I honestly think you're wrong about this sleeping thing. The point is that when we come on these modern day fora, the last thing I expect is
politeness and folks being reasonable, so when we find both of these, 'tis something of an unexpected bonus! 
Thanks again.

Basically, I know from past experience that, on the pretext of " we have received a complaint from a member of the public"
the police and other agencies can and will move folk on, even if those people   have no vehicle at all.
 On that premise alone, I cannot, for the life of me, see how having some sort of habitation or transport would do anything but make matters worse.
 After all, I'd expect that the vast majority of serious criminals, who may be lurking with ill-intent, under cover of darkness, would be equipped with some sort of wheels in the modern world.
 This is why the police stop a far greater percentage of motorists in the early hours of the morning , between three and four a.m., than they do at other times of the day ( my own calculations, that may, or, may not, be backed up by those with access to police records).

I'll leave it at this for now, as the thread is long enough already, imo. I don't want to prolong it by starting a pantomime of "oh, yes, it is/oh, no, it isn't." :lol-053: 


sean rua.


"Ignorance is Treatable; Arrogance is terminal."


----------



## John H (Jul 14, 2012)

sean rua said:


> Thank you for your reply, JohnH.
> 
> I regret to say that I have been "moved on" many times, so I'm going on what has actually happened, rather than any fine understanding of the intricacies of English law.
> Your reply, btw, was perfectly polite as far as I can see, though I honestly think you're wrong about this sleeping thing. The point is that when we come on these modern day fora, the last thing I expect is
> ...



Just to clarify, Sean, I was stating what the actual legal situation is but I agree with you that if the authorities are bent on a course of action they can find ways of approaching the situation "laterally". I appreciate that for someone being moved on the distinction may be a fine (and meaningless) one!


----------



## AndyC (Jul 14, 2012)

sean rua said:


> I'm sure AndyC will be able to confirm that, even though overnighting in motorhomes is tolerated
> at the Park and Ride, New Dover Road, Canterbury, there is, in fact, a TRO prohibiting this. In other words, it's just a law waiting to be enforced.
> One of many technical issues, imo, that are disregarded for reasons of commonsense, BUT, can be quickly enforced by the rulers, if and when they feel the need.


That is the case at the Canterbury P&R but I have to say that it's rather unusual. Virtually all the other council operated car parks that I list as allowing overnight stays have no such TRO in place. Off the top of my head the only other one I can think of is Exeter where overnight stays are tolerated at the Matford P&R, no facilities like at Canterbury though and only one night is tolerated.

AndyC


----------



## Canalsman (Jul 14, 2012)

AndyC said:


> ... overnight stays are tolerated at the (Exeter) Matford P&R, no facilities like at Canterbury though and only one night is tolerated.



Added to the POIs 

Thanks.

Chris


----------



## runnach (Jul 15, 2012)

Northerner said:


> Where have I ever berated anyone's wish not to stay on sites? I do it myself. This discussion was about one thing, the inability of members on this site to see things from the perspective of others. We have a site owner who objects because the council allowed free motorhome camping on a large car park near his site. He raised an objection and was absolutely insulted on here for his temerity. The post of mine above came after a frustrating debate with another member who can't seem to understand that this man has the right to object and probably a good reason.
> 
> Trying to compete with a service that your council offers for nothing isn't fair competition! How would you feel if your council set up a drop-in centre next to your pub and served free beer? Would you call that competition? I'd call it damn unfair that the council is using my rates to cut the feet from under me. And this is why I started this thread, which is just about members of this site who think that all that matters is their convenience and that uanyone who doesn't allow them to park anywhere at all is a fat greedy councillor or has a relative with a campsite.
> 
> ...



If you re read my post, I clearly state  I  get the drift of your post, infact I used the word empathy , and I think that is your point? Empathy for campsite owners.
When I used the word berate, it was in the context I choose to wild camp not necessarily. For financial reasons,more. The flexibility it affords me
 Channa


----------

