Highly significant? Or not?

[Geoff.W]

Buried away in a unconnected subject and posted by Maureenandtom, I found this link:-

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/977180.council_powerless_to_ban_camper_vans/

It strikes me that if this paragraph:-

The legal position

THE council took over parking restrictions from the police in 2002 as part of the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement arrangements.

They were given powers to enforce a certain number of parking offences such as not displaying a ticket in a pay and display car park, or parking on yellow lines.

However these powers did not include camping, cooking, washing and a variety of other activities.

Therefore while the pay and display parking areas in Labrador and Catalina Drives have a prohibition on these activities, the council is unable to enforce it.

is correct and still applies, that it is highly significant and opens up a vast number of overnight stops that could be used without fear of prosecution.

Is anyone able to confirm or repudiate this or know how to get a definitive answer.

 

[Hazy-thoughts]

Hmm very interesting, I for one would be fascinated to know whether this is right or not. Just think we could all have a meet up there

 

[Pioneer]

Good find Geoff.W, very interesting, love this area and often risked a stopover, but this throws a different light on the subject.
I don't think David Howard is a keen Motorhomer do you? It's these sort of people that we need to get onside before we progress with the councils all over the country, few exceptions already onside, ie Powys.

Happy Camping

 

[Geoff.W]

Hmm very interesting, I for one would be fascinated to know whether this is right or not. Just think we could all have a meet up there

I think that you may have slightly missed the point that I was trying (probably not very well) to make.

If the powers were given (or not given) as part of the "Decriminalised Parking Enforcement arrangements" this was nationally applied, therefore this would apply to all local authorities not just in Bournmouth.

The question then is, are the "restrictions" applied in public carparks, in say the Peak district for instance, actually enforceble, or are they there, as in Bournmouth, just to intimidate.

 

[Solwaybuggier]

But wouldn't this relate only to on-street parking? I'm sure the change was that on-street parking enforcement passed from the police to local councils. (Not sure London wasn't different though.)

Local councils had always enforced their own car parks.

 

[Geoff.W]

Local councils had always enforced their own car parks.

Not so, certainly around here until the change, public carparks were always monitored by traffic wardens (responsible to the police) not council employes.

I also note with intrest the inferance that they are "council" carparks, although this is the way they would like everyone to think, they are in fact "public" carparks in the same way that we have "public" roads. I do infact believe that they are part of the road system, hence why the same rules would apply. A view that would seem to be supported by the Bournmouth article.

 

[flower3bird]

Living not too far from Bournemouth this interests me lots. I always feel that all those empty car parks are a crying shame - after all the Council could be making a little money from charging us a low overnight fee if only they were more open minded

However we sometimes stop over in Sandbanks - yes that place where property is more expensive than almost anywhere else on this planet. We go down the back roads and find one which is wide and tree lined and just park up over night. Makes us giggle as here we camp outside mansions worth millions and it costs us nothing to enjoy the same benefits as the neighbours. Trick is to not park up till just after dark, having spied your chosen spot earlier in daylight. Then to leave again as the postman does his round. It's really quiet round there