New signs put up in Wales regarding motorhomes seen in Barmouth car park and spotted in a layby

[Rolyan57]

I honestly believe that ‘wild camping’ in the U.K. will become a thing of the past in the not too distant future. The reasons are twofold.

1) a lack of knowledge. Whenever an issue such as this is raised, the comments range from “this is definitely unlawful” to “this is definitely lawful”. “The signs have to state this” to “the signs don’t have to say this”. Etc etc. Opinions stated as fact.

2) Lack of action. For whatever reason, we all love a good moan on line, but from personal experience I know that maybe 1 in 100 (1000) want to actually do something. Other than type. There are many reasons for this.

The first problem could be addressed by all the ‘wild camping’ organisations coming together and creating an online resource, plus yearly printed handbook, that summarises the legal position in the U.K. Definitive advice of what Councils can and can’t do, where they can do it, and what the legal requirements are. Fact, not opinions from Fred down the pub. A one stop resource that anyone could check, and quote. One stop, not general advice to ‘check it online, it’s all out there’.

The second problem could be addressed by the first, as if everyone knew the legal position, individuals and groups would be more likely to initiate legal challenges. Although it probably wouldn’t come to that as Councils etc would back down once challenged with legal facts. I’m surprised that wild camping organisations have never challenged these situations with a no win no fee solicitor, but the first thing is getting the facts out there.

I strongly doubt if any of the above will be done. But it’s quite fun to dream, before wild camping becomes a quaint memory, with doddery old fools telling their grandkids that once upon a time people could park up overnight next to a lake.

 

[Robmac]

I honestly believe that ‘wild camping’ in the U.K. will become a thing of the past in the not too distant future. The reasons are twofold.

1) a lack of knowledge. Whenever an issue such as this is raised, the comments range from “this is definitely unlawful” to “this is definitely lawful”. “The signs have to state this” to “the signs don’t have to say this”. Etc etc. Opinions stated as fact.

2) Lack of action. For whatever reason, we all love a good moan on line, but from personal experience I know that maybe 1 in 100 (1000) want to actually do something. Other than type. There are many reasons for this.

The first problem could be addressed by all the ‘wild camping’ organisations coming together and creating an online resource, plus yearly printed handbook, that summarises the legal position in the U.K. Definitive advice of what Councils can and can’t do, where they can do it, and what the legal requirements are. Fact, not opinions from Fred down the pub. A one stop resource that anyone could check, and quote. One stop, not general advice to ‘check it online, it’s all out there’.

The second problem could be addressed by the first, as if everyone knew the legal position, individuals and groups would be more likely to initiate legal challenges. Although it probably wouldn’t come to that as Councils etc would back down once challenged with legal facts. I’m surprised that wild camping organisations have never challenged these situations with a no win no fee solicitor, but the first thing is getting the facts out there.

I strongly doubt if any of the above will be done. But it’s quite fun to dream, before wild camping becomes a quaint memory, with doddery old fools telling their grandkids that once upon a time people could park up overnight next to a lake.

In this case, if you believe that the legality of these signs is in question, you could be right, or it could just be the enforceability.

One thing is highly probable though, if the council is challenged legally they will probably apply the relevant TRO's in the future and new enforceable signs will appear which would be worse.

I do believe though that wildcamping (or easy wildcamping) will become a thing of the past. We are a small island with a large population. Numbers of motorhomers have grown exponentially in recent years. Wildcampers are probably a victim of the success of motorhoming in general.

 

[maureenandtom]

I honestly believe that ‘wild camping’ in the U.K. will become a thing of the past in the not too distant future.

Yes, I think that's probably true. I said as much quite a few years ago – and am still saying it -and was soundly derided for it. I think you'd have derided it – you like to argue. I said the Golden Age was coming to an end.

The first problem could be addressed by all the ‘wild camping’ organisations coming together and creating an online resource, plus yearly printed handbook, that summarises the legal position in the U.K. Definitive advice of what Councils can and can’t do, where they can do it, and what the legal requirements are. Fact, not opinions from Fred down the pub. A one stop resource that anyone could check, and quote. One stop, not general advice to ‘check it online, it’s all out there’.

Fantasy. That won't and can't happen. Campra is the latest effort but the best up to campra was the mcto run by John Thompson. I don't know if mcto has gone completely but it has gone so far as John's campaigning is concerned. Closed due to lack of support. From good souls like you. The information on what councils can and can't do can't be summarised - too much variety. The best base on which to investigate an opinion is expressed by "Individuals may do whatever is not forbidden, governments may do only that which is permitted" (Entick versus Carrington). That good enough for you?

The second problem could be addressed by the first, as if everyone knew the legal position, individuals and groups would be more likely to initiate legal challenges. Although it probably wouldn’t come to that as Councils etc would back down once challenged with legal facts. I’m surprised that wild camping organisations have never challenged these situations with a no win no fee solicitor, but the first thing is getting the facts out there.

Partly true. Councils do back down - sometimes. Neither of my judicial review applications got to court because the council in both cases did back down before the permission stage. One by opening an aire (the object) and the other by not enforcing particular clauses in a byelaw – also the object though getting rid of the byelaw entirely would have been nice.. There is no appetite for confronting councils and there are good arguments for not supporting campra who, in any case, are committed to non-confrontation. As most of us are.

Are you a teacher? "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." (Quotations from somebody famous - but not famous enough for me to remember who) Do you know I think you very probably were a teacher. You're attempting to teach us.

Good post but nothing new - only repeating conversations we've already had and I can't see why you've posted it. You don't seem to want to actually do anything – just denigrate those who do. What have you, a mere keyboard warrior, done to preserve our freedoms? So far as I can see you provide no support whatever to those who do.

 

[maureenandtom]

In this case, if you believe that the legality of these signs is in question, you could be right, or it could just be the enforceability.

One thing is highly probable though, if the council is challenged legally they will probably apply the relevant TRO's in the future and new enforceable signs will appear which would be worse.

I do believe though that wildcamping (or easy wildcamping) will become a thing of the past. We are a small island with a large population. Numbers of motorhomers have grown exponentially in recent years. Wildcampers are probably a victim of the success of motorhoming in general.

Rob, no it's not worse. It's better. You know exactly where you are when councils act legally. If they act outside their powers and no one brings them to task then we no longer have a civilised governement. We have an elected dicatatorship. Worse, because those elected can't supervisa all the time then many dictatorisl decisions are made by officials using (absolutely essential) devolved powers.

I have no problem with properly instituted rules, regulations and laws. I'll obey them and not challenge them. I have great problems with councils jusitifying dictates with lies - as so many of them are. Gwynedd council and it's enormous number of complaints!! Rubbish there were four - art best five.

If and properly debated then I've no problem with their rule. Based on a lie- it deserves contempt.

 

[trevskoda]

I am so lucky to live on a small island where folk mind their own biz, I park where and when I want, folk give me a wave and a smile as they to wish to own a big bus like mine, no councils bother much here as there does not seem to be any big problem, and even if there were folk would not even blink about it as we do what we want, live and let live.
If you fancy a house move well nows your chance as there half what you lot pay over there, then with the savings you could buy that m bike you have always wanted.

 

[Robmac]

Rob, no it's not worse. It's better. You know exactly where you are when councils act legally. If they act outside their powers and noone brings them to task then we no longer have a civilised governement. We have an elected dicatatorship. Worse, because those elected can't supervisa all the time then many dictatorisl decisions are made by officials using (absolutely essential) devolved powers.

I have no problem with properly instituted rules, regulations and laws. I'll obey them and not challenge them. I have great problems with councils jusitifying dictates with lies - as so many of them are. Gwynedd council and it's enormous number of complaints!! Rubbish there were four - art best five.

If and properly debated then I've no problem with their rule. Based on a lie- it deserves contempt.

I know what you are saying, but as more and more enforceable signs appear, the less I care about the ethics and morals of local government.

The more we force their hand, the more restrictions are imposed. At the end of the day we are the losers. My problem is that I am running out of places to vote with my feet from!

 

[maureenandtom]

I know what you are saying, but as more and more enforceable signs appear, the less I care about the ethics and morals of local government.

The more we force their hand, the more restrictions are imposed. At the end of the day we are the losers. My problem is that I am running out of places to vote with my feet from!

That is completely true.

 

[Rolyan57]

I honestly believe that ‘wild camping’ in the U.K. will become a thing of the past in the not too distant future.

Yes, I think that's probably true. I said as much quite a few years ago – and am still saying it -and was soundly derided for it. I think you'd have derided it – you like to argue. I said the Golden Age was coming to an end.

The first problem could be addressed by all the ‘wild camping’ organisations coming together and creating an online resource, plus yearly printed handbook, that summarises the legal position in the U.K. Definitive advice of what Councils can and can’t do, where they can do it, and what the legal requirements are. Fact, not opinions from Fred down the pub. A one stop resource that anyone could check, and quote. One stop, not general advice to ‘check it online, it’s all out there’.

Fantasy. That won't and can't happen. Campra is the latest effort but the best up to campra was the mcto run by John Thompson. I don't know if mcto has gone completely but it has gone so far as John's campaigning is concerned. Closed due to lack of support. From good souls like you. The information on what councils can and can't do can't be summarised - too much variety. The best base on which to investigate an opinion is expressed by "Individuals may do whatever is not forbidden, governments may do only that which is permitted" (Entick versus Carrington). That good enough for you?

View attachment 100764

The second problem could be addressed by the first, as if everyone knew the legal position, individuals and groups would be more likely to initiate legal challenges. Although it probably wouldn’t come to that as Councils etc would back down once challenged with legal facts. I’m surprised that wild camping organisations have never challenged these situations with a no win no fee solicitor, but the first thing is getting the facts out there.

Partly true. Councils do back down - sometimes. Neither of my judicial review applications got to court because the council in both cases did back down before the permission stage. One by opening an aire (the object) and the other by not enforcing particular clauses in a byelaw – also the object though getting rid of the byelaw entirely would have been nice.. There is no appetite for confronting councils and there are good arguments for not supporting campra who, in any case, are committed to non-confrontation. As most of us are.

Are you a teacher? "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." (Quotations from somebody famous - but not famous enough for me to remember who) Do you know I think you very probably were a teacher. You're attempting to teach us.

Good post but nothing new - only repeating conversations we've already had and I can't see why you've posted it. You don't seem to want to actually do anything – just denigrate those who do. What have you, a mere keyboard warrior, done to preserve our freedoms? So far as I can see you provide no support whatever to those who do.

How very sad, that you denigrate one person who’s trying to help.

Regardless of your attempts to make this personal, I repeat my comments. If we had one resource that was factual, it would help enormously. Much more than your dismissive and personal comments on here which are not only unnecessary but also untrue.

 

[Fisherman]

I am a glass half full person.
And I reckon things will have to change, but I am more optimistic than most.
The more of us who buy vans, and the more of us who question the infringement of our civil liberty things just might improve.
For to long we have cowered in the corner accepting the scraps given to us by people who openly despise us. But even on this forum I have noted a change in attitude from many.
And Rob, permanent and even temporary TROs have to be justified, and the process has to involve all concerned parties, hence why many local authorities don’t apply, because they may not be fully justified within the 1984 act.
Up here in Scotland things are changing, and I think generally speaking for the better, but hey ho I may wrong, and not for the first or last time.

 

[Rolyan57]

I am a glass half full person.
And I reckon things will have to change, but I am more optimistic than most.
The more of us who buy vans, and the more of us who question the infringement of our civil liberty things just might improve.
For to long we have cowered in the corner accepting the scraps given to us by people who openly despise us. But even on this forum I have noted a change in attitude from many.
And Rob, permanent and even temporary TROs have to be justified, and the process has to involve all concerned parties, hence why many local authorities don’t apply, because they may not be fully justified within the 1984 act.
Up here in Scotland things are changing, and I think generally speaking for the better, but hey ho I may wrong, and not for the first or last time.

Scotland does indeed seem to displaying a positive change, particularly with Aires. CAMpRA is making a difference, although not everyone supports them. It suits me to be a member but I understand those who don’t want it.

One of the problems is this attitude we often have of “it’s better the devil we know…”. That may stop us challenging unlawful signs and restrictions in the fear that it may force the Council to apply a formal TRO.

 

[Fisherman]

Scotland does indeed seem to displaying a positive change, particularly with Aires. CAMpRA is making a difference, although not everyone supports them. It suits me to be a member but I understand those who don’t want it.

One of the problems is this attitude we often have of “it’s better the devil we know…”. That may stop us challenging unlawful signs and restrictions in the fear that it may force the Council to apply a formal TRO.

Well some parts yes, but others not so.
One problem up here is the successes we have had have led to a sense of entitlement by some. I have witnessed behaviour by some within our community which does us all no favours. On a recent visit to Elie in Fife, I witnessed canopies, barbecues and windbreakers in use, with one idiot informing me that he was there for the week in a public carpark. And when you consider the efforts made by Fife to attempt to accommodate us, that makes what they are doing worse.
Yes the local authorities need to change, and in some cases they need to be better informed, but that equally applies to some within our own community.
I don’t think that wild camping per se will be terminated in the U.K., but I do think that things have to be more formalised nationally by each of our national governments.

 

[Robmac]

I am a glass half full person.
And I reckon things will have to change, but I am more optimistic than most.
The more of us who buy vans, and the more of us who question the infringement of our civil liberty things just might improve.
For to long we have cowered in the corner accepting the scraps given to us by people who openly despise us. But even on this forum I have noted a change in attitude from many.
And Rob, permanent and even temporary TROs have to be justified, and the process has to involve all concerned parties, hence why many local authorities don’t apply, because they may not be fully justified within the 1984 act.
Up here in Scotland things are changing, and I think generally speaking for the better, but hey ho I may wrong, and not for the first or last time.

The problem with that is Bill that the more of us who buy vans, the less wildcamping spots there are to go around.

But Scotland, in my opinion is getting worse for wildcamping. Yes they are creating 'Aires' but to me they are just campsites by another name and not really wildcamping.

 

[Fisherman]

The problem with that is Bill that the more of us who buy vans, the less wildcamping spots there are to go around.

But Scotland, in my opinion is getting worse for wildcamping. Yes they are creating 'Aires' but to me they are just campsites by another name and not really wildcamping.

Rob, there are thousands of places to wc up here, and in locations not listed on here. And I would never attempt to define what wc is. One mans version being different from another’s. Some of the Aires are no more than a parking space offered for a small fee, such as the one shown in Fraserburgh on my post from Cameron McNeish, hardly a campsite, no water, no chemical waste, just a place to park, nothing else.

 

[mistericeman]

The problem with that is Bill that the more of us who buy vans, the less wildcamping spots there are to go around.

But Scotland, in my opinion is getting worse for wildcamping. Yes they are creating 'Aires' but to me they are just campsites by another name and not really wildcamping.

Yup spot on....

I mostly 'Wildcamp' because I don't want to be around other people....
Either on sites OR on Aires/carparks/sides of the road or wherever.
Only the other week we were over on the East Yorkshire coast and turned up at the spot I'd scoped out on Google earth/OS map and someone was already parked up....
No bother left them to their solitude and moved on to another spot...
Chatted with locals and dog walkers and not a single one was bothered about one unit being there...
Some told us about good fishing spots some others passed on info about other local spots...
Sadly I suspect its when spots get turned into impromptu camp sites and people staying for long periods that get folks backs up....
The local petrol station and londis store seemed delighted to take our money on a quiet Sunday afternoon too.

 

[Robmac]

Rob, there are thousands of places to wc up here, and in locations not listed on here. And I would never attempt to define what wc is. One mans version being different from another’s. Some of the Aires are no more than a parking space offered for a small fee, such as the one shown in Fraserburgh on my post from Cameron McNeish, hardly a campsite, no water, no chemical waste, just a place to park.

Most of what you say is true Bill.

For now.

 

[Fisherman]

Most of what you say is true Bill.

For now.

I always try to be true Rob, even when I am wrong

 

[maingate]

How very sad, that you denigrate one person who’s trying to help.

Regardless of your attempts to make this personal, I repeat my comments. If we had one resource that was factual, it would help enormously. Much more than your dismissive and personal comments on here which are not only unnecessary but also untrue.

I agree with Tom. You have plenty to say but no intention of doing anything.

Don't fret, the vast majority of motorhome owners are just as lazy as you.

 

[alcam]

Did you read the last sentence of my post?

"Illegal" is a big bird that is not very well.

Do you really need an explanation!

No even a thicko like me understands your 'joke' . You have referred to it twice as if it was meaningful . Maybe it is , that is why I asked

 

[Robmac]

I agree with Tom. You have plenty to say but no intention of doing anything.

Don't fret, the vast majority of motorhome owners are just as lazy as you.

I must say Jim, Tom does more by way of action than 99% of members on this forum.

 

[Fisherman]

I agree with Tom. You have plenty to say but no intention of doing anything.

Don't fret, the vast majority of motorhome owners are just as lazy as you.

No matter anyones opinion, Tom deserves our respect on here, in comparison to Tom the vast majority of us are lazy. Tom certainly has my full respect, and I rarely if ever disagree with him, if only we had more like him things would be better.