Another one lost

As someone stated about being disabled in the article and been pushed away due to these barriers. I have a blue badge and unable to walk distance, I don't own a car and have found it impossible to park even for the day in a lot of beauty spots. It's discrimination against motorhome users and the disabled...

You would think that after this lockdown that councils would be wanting all of us to go to these places, not make it impossible for us to go. As for using campsites, well that's all well and good, but if you are in a motorhome and use the local campsites, you would still use the same vehicle to visit these places, but due to not being able to park for a day all they achieve is keeping us away from both campsites and beauty spots..

They don't think these things through really..

IDIOTS!!!!
 
I read this a couple of days ago and tried to download it but couldn’t
 
yorkshireCPLE said:
As someone stated about being disabled in the article and been pushed away due to these barriers. I have a blue badge and unable to walk distance, I don't own a car and have found it impossible to park even for the day in a lot of beauty spots.
Click to expand...

Blue badge on double yellow lines is legal, as long as not causing an obstruction. I've parked outside the restricted car parks, even with the current MH, a 7.5 tonne lorry!
 
The biggest problem with campsites is they are in out of the way places. Yes you can get your bike out but then you meet a local driving down a country lane at 50mph. There are some near a beach but two we know of want £40+ a night for the privilege. We have now started taking the car with us. I looked at hiring one when we got there but very expensive when you add on all the insurance unless you want to take the risk with £1000 excess. Taking the car has meant we can stay away from the coast and have easier parking. Yes I know buy a caravan but we could not find one that had two double beds that you didn’t have to makeup at night. We don’t tow the car SWMBO just follows. First bit of the journey is always the longest then we usually only move 20 - 30 miles. This is only the Uk.
 
Last edited:
The usual "Quick Fix"
The usual "excuses"
The usual end result Motorhome will go to other places and so not spend funds locally !
Ignoring the CV-19 situation.
We like France & Germany (and others) because you can park & stay & spend.
We visited Norfolk in 2017. Stayed in camp-sites
BUT could not use car-parks during the day because of height barriers.
So not much to do So go elsewhere
With one such height barrier ..It was not visible or warned of until we were off the road. Thus we had to reverse out onto a mainish road.
Both difficult & dangerous. AND against the Highway Code !!
I wonder should another road user collide with you..Could you BOTH sue the local authority...JUST a silly thought !
 
"Those driving campervans and motorhomes have previously misused the car park to stay for extended lengths of time instead of using the nearby holiday parks."

I think maybe if people DIDN'T stay overnight and for extended periods, taking advantage of parking notices that might be very clear in intent but misworded sufficiently that legally they are not enforceable (e.g. "it says no campervans overnight. I have a 'Motor Caravan' so it doesn't apply to me and I can ignore that"), then councils would not put up height barriers.
Who is surprised this happens when a regular discussion topic on these forums is picking apart the nuances of signs to find legal loopholes so they can be ignored.
One reaps what they sow.
 
jagmanx said:
The usual "Quick Fix"
The usual "excuses"
The usual end result Motorhome will go to other places and so not spend funds locally !
Ignoring the CV-19 situation.
We like France & Germany (and others) because you can park & stay & spend.
We visited Norfolk in 2017. Stayed in camp-sites
BUT could not use car-parks during the day because of height barriers.
So not much to do So go elsewhere
With one such height barrier ..It was not visible or warned of until we were off the road. Thus we had to reverse out onto a mainish road.
Both difficult & dangerous. AND against the Highway Code !!
I wonder should another road user collide with you..Could you BOTH sue the local authority...JUST a silly thought !
Click to expand...
I would have phoned the police and ask them to back you up onto main road.
 
st3v3 said:
Blue badge on double yellow lines is legal, as long as not causing an obstruction. I've parked outside the restricted car parks, even with the current MH, a 7.5 tonne lorry!
Click to expand...
Yes it is legal, but I always think that the motorhome stands out like a saw thumb and so don't really like parking it on double yellows unless I really need to. I think using yellow lines is fine if shopping or popping to collect something, but at the side of a road near a beauty spot or alike I would think it's in the way or at risk of being hit by people pushing through. As we all know, a lot of folk on the roads don't have any common sense or any patience. So if they have closed of carparks to larger motors I just move on.

If they did a height barrier that would open on payment and by entering reg number, now that would be an idea. I'd be happy to pay a small fee to park and enter reg number, If they did it that way it would hopefully deter those that arrive in large groups to live there and leave their mess behind. But genuine campers/motorhomers wouldn't mind paying a few quid to park in these places for a day or two..

Would benefit councils and us.

Just a thought....
 
wildebus said:
"Those driving campervans and motorhomes have previously misused the car park to stay for extended lengths of time instead of using the nearby holiday parks."

I think maybe if people DIDN'T stay overnight and for extended periods, taking advantage of parking notices that might be very clear in intent but misworded sufficiently that legally they are not enforceable (e.g. "it says no campervans overnight. I have a 'Motor Caravan' so it doesn't apply to me and I can ignore that"), then councils would not put up height barriers.
Who is surprised this happens when a regular discussion topic on these forums is picking apart the nuances of signs to find legal loopholes so they can be ignored.
One reaps what they sow.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more... And those ignoring the signs are probably the first to complain and throw their hands up in the air when barriers or legally enforceable signs go up.
 
We have the ammunition to fight council decisions like this one. As a travelling community we have no appetite for a fight – but if we had it, then we have at least one good legal precedent for removal of height barriers.

The latest has recently been published – three months ago. https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/...s-the-right-to-roam-of-romany-and-travellers/
2020-04-30_104909.png

The appeal was against an injuction forbidding our sort of parking, not a height barrier, but the appeal was upheld and the principle of keeping sites obstruction free remains. The council must have reached a considered view that there is no other solution. And I'd ask - a solution to what particular problem? Simple dislike is not a problem worthy of a height barrier.

We have an ingrained prejudice which makes us not want to be associated with Travellers but we have the same rights and, if we had the appetite, there is a useful judgment and compelling argument in the Lord Justice Coulson's pronouncement.
 
wildebus said:
"Those driving campervans and motorhomes have previously misused the car park to stay for extended lengths of time instead of using the nearby holiday parks."

I think maybe if people DIDN'T stay overnight and for extended periods, taking advantage of parking notices that might be very clear in intent but misworded sufficiently that legally they are not enforceable (e.g. "it says no campervans overnight. I have a 'Motor Caravan' so it doesn't apply to me and I can ignore that"), then councils would not put up height barriers.
Who is surprised this happens when a regular discussion topic on these forums is picking apart the nuances of signs to find legal loopholes so they can be ignored.
One reaps what they sow.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more. When people in motorhomes constantly turn beauty spots into aires it’s inevitable.
 
jagmanx said:
The usual "Quick Fix"
The usual "excuses"
The usual end result Motorhome will go to other places and so not spend funds locally !
Ignoring the CV-19 situation.
We like France & Germany (and others) because you can park & stay & spend.
We visited Norfolk in 2017. Stayed in camp-sites
BUT could not use car-parks during the day because of height barriers.
So not much to do So go elsewhere
With one such height barrier ..It was not visible or warned of until we were off the road. Thus we had to reverse out onto a mainish road.
Both difficult & dangerous. AND against the Highway Code !!
I wonder should another road user collide with you..Could you BOTH sue the local authority...JUST a silly thought !
Click to expand...
no not a chance, if it happen, were would you be, who put it up,the h. barrier. a letter asking them to pay up. well they may pay, so start praying. ok.pj. may be?
i hope its not me he said.
 
maureenandtom said:
We have the ammunition to fight council decisions like this one. As a travelling community we have no appetite for a fight – but if we had it, then we have at least one good legal precedent for removal of height barriers.

The latest has recently been published – three months ago. https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/...s-the-right-to-roam-of-romany-and-travellers/
View attachment 80720
The appeal was against an injuction forbidding our sort of parking, not a height barrier, but the appeal was upheld and the principle of keeping sites obstruction free remains. The council must have reached a considered view that there is no other solution. And I'd ask - a solution to what particular problem? Simple dislike is not a problem worthy of a height barrier.

We have an ingrained prejudice which makes us not want to be associated with Travellers but we have the same rights and, if we had the appetite, there is a useful judgment and compelling argument in the Lord Justice Coulson's pronouncement.
Click to expand...

As much as I see what you are saying in relation to this judgement I do have reservations with regards to its use. First and foremost we are not gypsies or part of a travelling community, our needs differ from theirs, and It’s not good PR to be in anyway considered part of what is perceived as a problem. What we need is to be recognised as different and to be treated differently.
I am more in favour of using controls in length of stay, and numbers. And if facilities are provided ie chemical waste, grey water disposal, and fresh water I think it’s only right that we should be willing to contribute fully towards the cost of supplying and maintaining these facilities.
I have personally witnessed what some possibly a minority of travellers can do. East Dunbartonshire council set up an area for travellers for use, only to have it destroyed, leaving the council with a bill running into thousands to clear it up. The site was closed several years ago.
I appreciate that not all in our community are considerate, and a minority behave poorly. But that does not justify some of the treatment that we receive. Sadly we are misunderstood, and taken for travellers at times by some. Until attitudes change then this problem will persist. we should not have to refer to judgements like this for fair and balanced treatments. After all as a group of people most of us are in the winter of our lives, and have put so much into our country. To be treated as a problem is sad. I support fully what Fife council are doing, and hopefully there will be more places set up like Loch Ore in future. We all have to be vigilant, considerate, and careful when wilding, but unfortunately we all won’t be. Every group of individuals has their idiots, and we have a few who spoil things for us.
 
helen262 said:
www.kentonline.co.uk

Beach barrier to stop campers

A barrier has been installed by council officers to stop campervans and motorhomes parking on a beach.
www.kentonline.co.uk www.kentonline.co.uk
Click to expand...

Don‘t know this place but it looks like the usual cop out from a council.
All that will happen now is the “problem” will move on elsewhere.
Clearly this is discrimination. Putting restrictions in regarding length of stay using cctv would have been fairer. IF anyone was abusing this carpark then they should have been dealt with. Some of the wording about safer parking concerns me.
As for using campsites, try booking a campsite at short notice.
Also mr Svenssons comments are totally viable, but no doubt will be ignored.
 
Last edited:
Fisherman said:
As much as I see what you are saying in relation to this judgement I do have reservations with regards to its use. First and foremost we are not gypsies or part of a travelling community, our needs differ from theirs, and It’s not good PR to be in anyway considered part of what is perceived as a problem. What we need is to be recognised as different and to be treated differently.
I am more in favour of using controls in length of stay, and numbers. And if facilities are provided ie chemical waste, grey water disposal, and fresh water I think it’s only right that we should be willing to contribute fully towards the cost of supplying and maintaining these facilities.
I have personally witnessed what some possibly a minority of travellers can do. East Dunbartonshire council set up an area for travellers for use, only to have it destroyed, leaving the council with a bill running into thousands to clear it up. The site was closed several years ago.
I appreciate that not all in our community are considerate, and a minority behave poorly. But that does not justify some of the treatment that we receive. Sadly we are misunderstood, and taken for travellers at times by some. Until attitudes change then this problem will persist. we should not have to refer to judgements like this for fair and balanced treatments. After all as a group of people most of us are in the winter of our lives, and have put so much into our country. To be treated as a problem is sad. I support fully what Fife council are doing, and hopefully there will be more places set up like Loch Ore in future. We all have to be vigilant, considerate, and careful when wilding, but unfortunately we all won’t be. Every group of individuals has their idiots, and we have a few who spoil things for us.
Click to expand...
I came here 10 years ago, and what you have written was pretty much vocalised then. There has been a few gains and a few losses in terms of locations, but essentially very little has changed nor will it
 
channa said:
I came here 10 years ago, and what you have written was pretty much vocalised then. There has been a few gains and a few losses in terms of locations, but essentially very little has changed nor will it
Click to expand...

10 years ago Andrew there were less vans than today.
And with regards to pois in towns and villages I see hardly any gains.
There are certainly less up here, than when I started in 2016.
All Swale are doing is creating problems elsewhere.
Stopping those with vans from parking 24/7 is wrong.
With more effort and use of enforceable controls this could possibly been handled better. But I have never been there and have no local knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top