1970s bylaw used to ban camping in lake District.

Like it or not, it's going to be a long long time before things settle down again. It might be back to asking farmers for permission to use a field corner, like people used to. I've done it in the past with a tent.

It’s not about liking or disliking.
Its about proportionality and reasonable action for any infringement of vague unused laws from 50 years ago. This to me is a serious breech of people’s rights, combined with punishments fit for the Middle Ages. If you were caught shoplifting I doubt if such a punishment would be fished out. Speeding motorists or those caught on mobile phones receive a fine of £100, yet for parking up here £500 fines are deemed appropriate, shocking and disproportionate.
 
It’s not about liking or disliking.
Its about proportionality and reasonable action for any infringement of vague unused laws from 50 years ago. This to me is a serious breech of people’s rights, combined with punishments fit for the Middle Ages. If you were caught shoplifting I doubt if such a punishment would be fished out. Speeding motorists or those caught on mobile phones receive a fine of £100, yet for parking up here £500 fines are deemed appropriate, shocking and disproportionate.
£500 is the maximum fine. I doubt you would recieve one anywhere near that.
 
Of course the other angle is we've been breaching and ignoring byelaws that are still in operation today. I feel it will all quieten down in a few years, as long as we don't go back to parking in groups, parking within sight of peoples homes and Taking the piss by getting chairs and tables out.
 
The police can easily and quickly distinguish between a “traveller” and a genuine motorhome tourist. They can very easily check the registered address of the vehicle. If parked on the highway, which includes any verges up to and including a fence or boundary line, and there are no local signposted parking restrictions, then the only real reason you can be asked to move on by the police is if you are causing an obstruction.

As for local bylaws the police do have powers to enforce these, but surely only in regard to land off the highway. Can a bylaw apply to national highways?

And what are the highways within a national park considered to be and who are they owned by?
 
Last edited:
The police can easily and quickly distinguish between a “traveller” and a genuine motorhome tourist. They can very easily check the registered address of the vehicle. If parked on the highway, which includes any verges up to and including a fence or boundary line, and there are no local signposted parking restrictions, then the only real reason you can be asked to move on by the police is if you are causing an obstruction.

If you are parked on private land, such as that of a national park, then surely it is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, and the police should not be involved. They would only normally be present if there is a potential for a criminal act such as assault.

Maybe I am wrong of course?
Mmmmm, and why should the police want to distinguish between a "traveller" and a genuine motorhome tourist if they are both parked up in the same layby. The highway boundary can be anywhere between the edge of the tarmac and the adjoining land, it doesn't necessarily include anything beyond the tarmac. Another urban (or rural) myth. The Police aren't precluded from other duties such as assisting the national park wardens; clearly there was a decision to have a blitz and not enough wardens/rangers to cover the ground. Its hardly surprising given what has been happening.
 
If the chap in the video had told the police that he would stay but will not be sleeping, he in fact would watch tv or read, could the police then move him on?

The chap in effect will just be parking on the layby which as far as I know is not limited to daytime use.
 
This has echos to me of the Right to Roam law, except, instead of access to land, we are now facing a modern day argument where we are being specifically prevented from using the public highways and byways that we all pay for as motorised vehicle owners, imho. With emphasis on the word 'public' as we're not even asking for the right of access to private land, merely to be able to use what already belongs to us all.

Here's an extract about the Right to Roam from Wikipedia to give you a sense of what I'm trying to say.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, outside Scotland, access to much uncultivated and unenclosed land was restricted prior the enactment of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Access to land in England and Wales is still more limited than in most of Northern Europe, and some other European countries, while access is very limited in Northern Ireland. Property was formerly protected in England and Wales mostly to preserve the landowner's hunting or fishing rights. The Ramblers' Association, which works to increase the rights of walkers in the United Kingdom, was a driving force behind this legislation.

England and Wales

In England and Wales, after a polarised debate about the merits, rights and benefits of private landowners and public recreation, in 2000 the Government legislated to introduce a limited right to roam, without compensation for landowners. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) was gradually implemented from 2000 onwards to give the general public the conditional right to walk in certain areas of the English and Welsh countryside: principally downland, moorland, heathland and coastal land.[28] Forests and woodlands are excluded, other than publicly owned forests, which have a similar right of access by virtue of a voluntary dedication made by the Forestry Commission. Developed land, gardens and certain other areas are specifically excluded from the right of access. Agricultural land is accessible if it falls within one of the categories described above. People exercising the right of access have certain duties to respect other people's rights to manage the land, and to protect nature.

The new rights were introduced region by region through England and Wales, with completion in 2005. Maps showing accessible areas have been produced. Traditionally the public could walk on established public footpaths and bridleways, on common land and on the foreshore, and land owners could prevent access to other areas (or charge a fee for access).

Angling interests successfully lobbied for the exclusion of rivers in England and Wales from CROW, leaving other river users such as swimmers and canoeists with access restricted to less than 2% of navigable water. The British Canoe Union is running the Rivers Access Campaign, to highlight the level of restrictions the public face in gaining access to inland waterways in England and Wales.

Much of the Dartmoor National Park has been designated as 'Access Land', although it remains privately owned, since the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, with no restrictions on where walkers can roam.[29] Because of the 1985 Act, Dartmoor was largely unaffected by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which established similar rights in other rural parts of the country, but in 2006, this Act opened up much of the remaining restricted land to walkers.

Scotland

In Scotland the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 comprehensively codified into Scots law the ancient tradition of the right to universal access to the land in Scotland. The act specifically establishes a right to be on land for recreational, educational and certain other purposes and a right to cross land. The rights exist only if they are exercised responsibly, as specified in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

Access rights apply to any non-motorised activities, including walking, cycling, horse-riding and wild camping. They also allow access on inland water for canoeing, rowing, sailing and swimming. The rights confirmed in the Scottish legislation are greater than the limited rights of access created in England and Wales by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW).[30]
 
If the chap in the video had told the police that he would stay but will not be sleeping, he in fact would watch tv or read, could the police then move him on?

The chap in effect will just be parking on the layby which as far as I know is not limited to daytime use.
I don't think he was in a highway layby (as in something adopted and maintained as highway by the local council). So probably private land and the bylaw does prevent simple occupation of a vehicle overnight. Doesn't matter if he didn't intend to sleep.
 
The police can easily and quickly distinguish between a “traveller” and a genuine motorhome tourist. They can very easily check the registered address of the vehicle. If parked on the highway, which includes any verges up to and including a fence or boundary line, and there are no local signposted parking restrictions, then the only real reason you can be asked to move on by the police is if you are causing an obstruction.

As for local bylaws the police do have powers to enforce these, but surely only in regard to land off the highway. Can a bylaw apply to national highways?

And what are the highways within a national park considered to be and who are they owned by?
Roads are owned by the local Council. Land at the side of the road will be owned by someone else. National Parks Authority. I believe?
 
That’s not was posted. The post stated stay and receive a £500 fine or leave.
I can only go on what was posted.
Point taken. Larger fines usually have to go through Court. So spot fines were introduced to allow police to dish these out, which is what would probably happen. I think the police officer dealt with the Guy fairly. Mentioning the £500 fine is obviously done to reinforce the deterrent and they know word will get around and hopefully resolve what is becoming a problem. Sadly genuinely responsible people are now caught up in this as well.
 
That’s not was posted. The post stated stay and receive a £500 fine or leave.
I can only go on what was posted.

There's is very often a 'maximim' amount that can be levied...

Reduced by a significant amount if paid promptly for fixed penalty (it's not a fine.... Fines AFAIK can only be issued by a court...
And PCN penalty charge notices, side step the court process)
 
I would like to know where they find the man/woman power to enforce this. Our local Post Office Cashpoint was ram raided in the early hours of the morning . Police took FIVE HOURS to respond.

I don't know where you are based, Gus, but this is the Lake District where it seems they've been having similar problems to other tourist honey spots around the UK - Cornwall and the South West, Wales and Scotland, for example - with people arriving and throughly abusing the location/countryside (but not necessarily in campervans). I imagine they are only responding to requests for help with the problem from the National Park Authority.

Unfortunately it seems they may be taking a more heavy-handed approach than they would have done pre-covid.
 
You think you are hard done by.
When I was helping out on iOverlander, one of my goals was to get rid of the thousands of unauthorised camping spots that people had been adding over the years.
Of particular concern were entries in national parks where pretty much the world over, camping is only allowed in designated areas.

I got an email from Canadian authorities stating



"Hello iOverlander.com,
There is NO FREE CAMPING in Banff National Park. All campers must spend the night in a DESIGNATED campground. People found camping along roadways, in parking lots, in the bush, on the streets in town, or any other area outside a campground, whether or not the area is signed with 'No Camping', are committing an offence and may be charged. This includes an automatic, required court appearance, where a fine of up to 25,000$ may be assessed. Please remove all undesignated camping places from your website for the vicinity of Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada.
Warden, Banff National Park"

And a similar request from the head ranger for the San Francisco area, and several similar pleas from local groups in various places in South America.

There was no point in completely removing them because they would just reappear when the next intrepid overlander discovered their perfect wild camp, so I replaced the descriptions with the official warnings and that seemed to do the trick
 
Roads are owned by the local Council. Land at the side of the road will be owned by someone else. National Parks Authority. I believe?
I understood the parks authority are an umbrella organisation that owns nothing or very little, but can control what the owners are allowed to do ,over and above the powers of the council planners. Basically a quango to control, The government made the South Downs Park and the 'authority just had control ove what was done there, no ownership of anything. Just another control over those that live there.
 
This has really got my dander up. The copper states they have been having problems with yobs in tents making a mess. Oh really! so go and move on some respectable bloke on his own in a tidy little campervan quietly parked up for the night and traumatise a family next door doing the same. ****! I wonder how many groups of morons in tents they did the same to that night. None I suspect.

I know that spot well and all the others along Crummock water to Buttermere. We have had similar issues with morons here since the restrictions were lifted but this is just fcuking ridiculous! Target the morons, not those that are peacefully parking up in a remote spot for the night. Chances are if he had knocked on my door I would have been full of Vino anyway. Is he going to make me drive home then?

Someone on the comments of the youtube video said Lake District national park only owns about 4% of the land which I find very hard to believe but it might be worth looking into. I would love for someone to find a loophole in this. Meanwhile I will visit the lakes for a day as I only live 45 minutes from Ullswater but I wont bother going there in the van spending money if this is their attitude.
 
Bloody hell! Its true. National Park only owns 4 percent of the lake district.

"
Who owns National Parks?
Our model for running a national park is not based on public ownership and people are often surprised to learn the National Park Authority owns less than four per cent of land in the Lake District. The rest is owned by organisations such as the National Trust, United Utilities, Forestry Commission and other private landowners."

.

The copper clearly states that the bylaw comes from the National Parks Authority so the question is, was this guy parked on their land or not? Which bits come under their authority then?

Some investigative work required here I think.
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top