Devon council trials Motorhome stop over scheme

About time to, main thing is will folk keep it clean.
£5 to £10 would be ok as no lecy.
 
Slapton and Torcross were removed from the list.
 
I visited Slapton in my car a couple of weeks ago and the barrier was still in place. There were signs saying the car park was only open during the day, but no physical barrier apart from the height one.
This sign was also there.


7216D760-E0E8-4432-97A8-A0406B969082.jpeg
 
Haven't North Devon been allowing over nighting in several car parks for some years now ?
 
£15 pn on a car park with no facilities, they can shove it. I would far rather give my £15 to some farm cl where they need a bit of extra income than some feckless councils that are just seeing MHs now as some cash cow.
 
Where do they get this 6m between Motorhome rule from. They should visit a few like Canterbury or head over to France or Spain or look at the video of the sea front with a long line of MHs. Talk about out of date. These Councils need to sort themselves out and realise that campsites are not what MHs want. They also fail to see that MHs are out all year round where the campsites don't open till Easter and close at the end of September.
 
QFour said:
Where do they get this 6m between Motorhome rule from. They should visit a few like Canterbury or head over to France or Spain or look at the video of the sea front with a long line of MHs. Talk about out of date. These Councils need to sort themselves out and realise that campsites are not what MHs want. They also fail to see that MHs are out all year round where the campsites don't open till Easter and close at the end of September.
Click to expand...

6 metres is a legal requirement for campsites, so I expect they base it on that.
 
QFour said:
Where do they get this 6m between Motorhome rule from. They should visit a few like Canterbury or head over to France or Spain or look at the video of the sea front with a long line of MHs. Talk about out of date. These Councils need to sort themselves out and realise that campsites are not what MHs want. They also fail to see that MHs are out all year round where the campsites don't open till Easter and close at the end of September.
Click to expand...
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 [Fire Safety Order] is the main fire safety legislation in England and Wales and this came into force on 1st October 2006.


And for Scotland


I doubt if this would be enforced by the local authorities, but if a fire breaks out and it spreads to other vans (which is very likely) then the fact that they have made this a requirement should avoid litigation.
But I have witnessed what happened years ago when buses went on fire that were not 6 metres apart in a depot, they were all destroyed. And they were not made from GRP plastic.
 
Last edited:
Fisherman said:
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 [Fire Safety Order] is the main fire safety legislation in England and Wales and this came into force on 1st October 2006.


And for Scotland


I doubt if this would be enforced by the local authorities, but if a fire breaks out and it spreads to other vans then the fact that they have made this a requirement should avoid litigation.
But I have witnessed what happened years ago when buses went on fire that were not 6 metres apart in a depot, they were all destroyed.
Click to expand...

Quite right Bill. There are several pictures online of what happens in a caravan storage facility fire and that is unmanned vehicles.

Imagine 50 manned vehicles burning with several casualties. You can't really blame the councils for covering their backs in this instance.
 
The Havant Westbeach Fire Report recommends a minimum distance of 3m between motor caravans and states the reasons why.

Much confusion has resulted from the original Model Standards associated with the 1963 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act which gave a figure of 6m separation between units without actually staying the reason behind that separation or clearly defining what construed a unit.

Subsequent Guidance issued in 1983 clarified that the Act in question was never intended to apply to touring caravan sites ( or indeed by implication parking of motorhomes which didn’t exist in their modern self contained form in 1963), it was designed for static Park Homes. For touring sites it acknowledged different standards may be considered having regard for the particular circumstances of the intended use and location.

However, the original model standards in the absence of clear unambiguous guidance somehow had became engrained in the minds of many local authorities and organisations.

The guidance of Natural England who ‘manage’ the caravan site planning exemption scheme makes contradictory statements. In the body of their document they state a minimum distance of 6m between ‘units’, and in the diagrams in the appendices a minimum of 3m ( or 4m where possible). The diagram in their Appendix is similar to that in the European Federations Guidance mentioned in Havant Report.

In recognition of the fuzzy state of guidance Havant commissioned its own professional Fire Report specifically applying to self contained motor caravans parking, not camping. ie. with nothing placed outside, no awnings, chairs, tables or anything else, and this recommended 3m separation, 4m where practicable. This being in line with the recommendations of CFPA the federation which represents fire services throughout Europe, including UK.

Of course as many of us have observed that the application of this standard is somewhat haphazard in some countries, albeit new Aires, generally now comply with 5.5m bays giving 3m separation. It may be of interest that the 5.5m motorhome parking bays mentioned in the report are the same size as also adopted in New Zealand.

It may be of interest that CAMpRA have also commissioned a similar report from the same source as Havant. This may be found in the Business Hub on CAMpRA’s website www.campra.org.uk .
 
barge1914 said:
The Havant Westbeach Fire Report recommends a minimum distance of 3m between motor caravans and states the reasons why.

Much confusion has resulted from the original Model Standards associated with the 1963 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act which gave a figure of 6m separation between units without actually staying the reason behind that separation or clearly defining what construed a unit.

Subsequent Guidance issued in 1983 clarified that the Act in question was never intended to apply to touring caravan sites ( or indeed by implication parking of motorhomes which didn’t exist in their modern self contained form in 1963), it was designed for static Park Homes. For touring sites it acknowledged different standards may be considered having regard for the particular circumstances of the intended use and location.

However, the original model standards in the absence of clear unambiguous guidance somehow had became engrained in the minds of many local authorities and organisations.

The guidance of Natural England who ‘manage’ the caravan site planning exemption scheme makes contradictory statements. In the body of their document they state a minimum distance of 6m between ‘units’, and in the diagrams in the appendices a minimum of 3m ( or 4m where possible). The diagram in their Appendix is similar to that in the European Federations Guidance mentioned in Havant Report.

In recognition of the fuzzy state of guidance Havant commissioned its own professional Fire Report specifically applying to self contained motor caravans parking, not camping. ie. with nothing placed outside, no awnings, chairs, tables or anything else, and this recommended 3m separation, 4m where practicable. This being in line with the recommendations of CFPA the federation which represents fire services throughout Europe, including UK.

Of course as many of us have observed that the application of this standard is somewhat haphazard in some countries, albeit new Aires, generally now comply with 5.5m bays giving 3m separation. It may be of interest that the 5.5m motorhome parking bays mentioned in the report are the same size as also adopted in New Zealand.

It may be of interest that CAMpRA have also commissioned a similar report from the same source as Havant. This may be found in the Business Hub on CAMpRA’s website www.campra.org.uk .
Click to expand...

I've had dealings with Natural England regarding temporary sites for meets and was warned that the 6 metre rule must be adhered to and if it was found that the rule was being breached then the certificate would be taken away.

I've no idea what a safe distance would be but imagine the greater distance the safer, but that would have to remain practical.

I would say though, a couple of years ago a mate of mine was parked in a caravan 6 metres from the van next door (on a site). His neighbours caravan caught fire and there was a gas explosion and this caused extensive damage writing off my mates caravan, luckily nobody was badly hurt. What I am trying to say is that it is not just a need for a fire break, but also explosive materials have to be taken into consideration.
 
barge1914 said:
The Havant Westbeach Fire Report recommends a minimum distance of 3m between motor caravans and states the reasons why.

Much confusion has resulted from the original Model Standards associated with the 1963 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act which gave a figure of 6m separation between units without actually staying the reason behind that separation or clearly defining what construed a unit.

Subsequent Guidance issued in 1983 clarified that the Act in question was never intended to apply to touring caravan sites ( or indeed by implication parking of motorhomes which didn’t exist in their modern self contained form in 1963), it was designed for static Park Homes. For touring sites it acknowledged different standards may be considered having regard for the particular circumstances of the intended use and location.

However, the original model standards in the absence of clear unambiguous guidance somehow had became engrained in the minds of many local authorities and organisations.

The guidance of Natural England who ‘manage’ the caravan site planning exemption scheme makes contradictory statements. In the body of their document they state a minimum distance of 6m between ‘units’, and in the diagrams in the appendices a minimum of 3m ( or 4m where possible). The diagram in their Appendix is similar to that in the European Federations Guidance mentioned in Havant Report.

In recognition of the fuzzy state of guidance Havant commissioned its own professional Fire Report specifically applying to self contained motor caravans parking, not camping. ie. with nothing placed outside, no awnings, chairs, tables or anything else, and this recommended 3m separation, 4m where practicable. This being in line with the recommendations of CFPA the federation which represents fire services throughout Europe, including UK.

Of course as many of us have observed that the application of this standard is somewhat haphazard in some countries, albeit new Aires, generally now comply with 5.5m bays giving 3m separation. It may be of interest that the 5.5m motorhome parking bays mentioned in the report are the same size as also adopted in New Zealand.

It may be of interest that CAMpRA have also commissioned a similar report from the same source as Havant. This may be found in the Business Hub on CAMpRA’s website www.campra.org.uk .
Click to expand...
To be perfectly frank 3m would not be sufficient to prevent fire spread.
The radiated heat from a vehicle consumed by fire would spread the fire between vehicles. As I stated previously local authorities and other bodies will for legal reasons follow the 2006 act. But I doubt if they would or could enforce them. Also there could be insurance implications here.
 
Robmac said:
I've had dealings with Natural England regarding temporary sites for meets and was warned that the 6 metre rule must be adhered to and if it was found that the rule was being breached then the certificate would be taken away.

I've no idea what a safe distance would be but imagine the greater distance the safer, but that would have to remain practical.

I would say though, a couple of years ago a mate of mine was parked in a caravan 6 metres from the van next door (on a site). His neighbours caravan caught fire and a gas bottle exploded and this caused extensive damage writing off my mates caravan, luckily nobody was badly hurt. What I am trying to say is that it is not just a need for a fire break, but also explosive materials have to be taken into consideration.
Click to expand...

...correction - having just checked it wasn't a gas bottle explosion, but a gas leak causing an explosion.

Post now edited.
 
Robmac said:
...correction - having just checked it wasn't a gas bottle explosion, but a gas leak causing an explosion.

Post now edited.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it Rob, I have seen cylinders glowing red that did not explode. These cylinders are designed to remain intact in extreme fire situations. It’s rare for one to explode, if constructed of steel.
 
Fisherman said:
You beat me to it Rob, I have seen cylinders glowing red that did not explode. These cylinders are designed to remain intact in extreme fire situations. It’s rare for one to explode, if constructed of steel.
Click to expand...

Yes I sent him a text to check Bill - the old memories not so hot these days!
 
I don’t take this subject lightly, I have spent much of my life dealing with fire safety issues in the design of major hospitals and laboratories where risks to life are most extreme, the occupants most vulnerable, immobile and numerous and and mitigating measures and fire safety design standards very onerous. We are somewhere on the same page but coming from different directions.

Risk assessment as we know from our previous occupations is is a careful but pragmatic process balancing the likelihood and severity of risk factors against mitigating factors and the reasonable extent of the measures that can be taken to address or offset those risks.

I understand your points and if the parked motorhomes were immobile or encumbered with external camping equipment, awnings or suchlike needing detaching, hitching up or dismantling before they could be moved I would agree entirely with what you say about fire spread and separating distances and would accept the normal separation of 6m for tents or caravans should apply, such as with CL sites and other locations where camping behaviour is permitted.

But this is not the case, within the the site rules for an Aire such encumbrances and camping behaviours are prohibited, and once the occupants are alerted they can quickly either evacuate themselves with very short escape travel distance, alert neighbours who can move adjacent vehicles away from immediate danger.

By the time a vehicle fire has reached such an intensity where fire spread to an adjacent motor caravan becomes an issue it’s occupants will have already evacuated and been able to alert neighbours, otherwise they will be dead. In either event the amount of noise and disturbance and probably smoke alarms would alert others.

The risks for Aires need assessing with regard to the particular risks of fire in Aires and not by simply applying a set of assumptions or rules derived from for a different category of installation, namely campsites and caravan parks.

Havant, recognising that Aires are something new and unprecedented to the UK regulatory framework, and in order to discharge their responsibilities under the 2005 Act they commissioned their own fire risk assessment report. The conclusions of which are not dissimilar to those adopted as good practice in the rest of Europe where Aires are commonplace, and that have already been accepted for recent Aires in Eire.

Apart from addressing the issues of fire escape, combustibility, travel distances, means of escape and suchlike that one would normally expect to find in a fire risk assessment, the report also highlighted the way fire develops in motorhomes, initially breaking out vertically through roof windows, only later breaking out through side windows which then feed in air to further intensify the fire emerging at roof level. the vehicle being consumed from top downwards. Albeit strong wind can of course to a degree distort this pattern. The report illustrated the point that in the majority of the very small number of motorhome fires that have been recorded, the fires were predominantly associated with vehicles in storage where the initial fire being unobserved had longer to develop to a state of greater intensity before spreading horizontally, generally at high level, to stored vehicles parked very closely alongside.

The greatest concern is of course at nighttime. In daytime the situation not greatly dissimilar to parking places, except in a purpose designed Aire there is greater separation than is enjoyed in car parks. We know any vehicle fire can spread to adjacent vehicles in a car park, but it is normally accepted that the incidence is small and the likelihood of occupants being trapped inside is low and thus the need for greater separation normally deemed unnecessary. There is a marginally greater risk where motorhomes are parked in a car park from gas fridges and cooking (the latter is prohibited in many car parks, but I’m not convinced many respect that).

I agree risk of an explosion cannot be ruled out completely although you have rightly observed gas bottles are surprisingly resistant to doing so. However I am not too certain a meter or two one way or the other would make too much difference in an explosive event. For a fire to reach sufficient intensity to set off a gas cylinder I suspect it is likely to have been going for a lot longer than it takes to evacuate a motorhome and those adjacent. Most fire legislation is anyway concerned primarily with preservation of life as opposed to preservation of property which is more the realm of insurers, and I am not as yet aware of any instances of insurers excluding cover for use of Aires.

Are explosive fires in petrol engined cars more common than for gas cylinders in motorhomes? I don’t know. An interesting question all the same. Nevertheless at present surface car parks are not planned around such a risk here or in Europe.
 
Take a look at our vans.
If a van near bye became engulfed in fire and you were asleep your van could rapidly begin to be involved. In the dark you would have to get out of your bed, raise the bed back to the ceiling. Remove blinds from the windows. Turn the drivers seat forward, before moving the van. And all of the above newly awake in an extremely stressful situation. Also some within vans are not as ambulent.
I don’t think the 6m distance will be enforced, but it will be mandatory possibly preventing the Aire owners from litigation. This is why The forestry made this mandatory for their trial period.
Also there could be insurance issues if these rules laid down are not followed.
There’s also the possibility this could happen during the day when the vans are not occupied.
This is a difficult issue for anyone running an Aire. If they allow vans to park 3 metres apart and people died, or vans were lost they could be held responsible.
Motorised vehicles carry a high fire risk, hence why garages built within dwellings are double lined with plasterboard, and any internal access doors must give one hours fire protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top