I am happy to disagree, Neil. If we start with the classic Economics model of just 2 parties/components to avoid the complications of 'all those noughts blurring one's understanding', let's assume that Town A has an Aire and charges £5 per day to stay and use the facilities, the cost recognising that the fees must contribute to the capital cost of the project. The fees contribute £1 to the local economy, and the retail businesses are able to withstand a £1 payment in Business Rates/Taxes from the extra business revenues derived from Motorhome Tourism
Town B sets up the same Aire, but does not charge a nightly fee, because it does not want to limit usage of the facilities by cost conscious Motorhomers [Hawick is a good Scottish example as I have posted about with the immediate post COVID Lockdown 'coincidental Gathering'] that was free but the collected receipts from the 40 M/Homes exceeded £4,000 local business takings]. The local businesses receive a boost from the extra tourism, and their Business Rates can cover the £2 cost of the Aire. Coincidental benefits are a reduction in socially irresponsible Motorhoming e.g. emptying cassettes in public toilets, and it is for the local authority to enforce collection of fees from tent &/or car campers. As I've said, there is no obligation to provide the Aires at local authority level, but their presence will attract business. As far as being singled out is concerned, perhaps fellow M/Homers should complain about us, because their taxes ontribute to the NHS, and we each seem to have acquired a major chunk of the 'free at the point of delivery' care through the hospital system. A socially responsible tax system ensures that the services are present and funded, and the individual taxpayers will pay differing rates and amounts based on the individual's income, irrespective of whether the higher income earners actually consume their 'fair share' of the service provision
Steve