Sometimes we're our own worst enemies!

[maureenandtom]

Once again much debate on a sensitive topic ...

Recently in making arrangements for overnight PARKING of motorhomes at Hayling seafront, Havant Borough Council made it clear to grumpy competition hating local caravan site owners that the site licensing did NOT apply to this situation.

The distinction was made, once again, that PARKING is not CAMPING - provided that you do not set down anything outside your motorhome, leave 4 wheels on the ground, etc. etc.

Havant BC and their legal team seem happy with their analysis of the issue so why can't others?

Now that's really interesting. I hadn't been aware of Havant and I'll put it on my list.

It does raise an even more interesting point.

The situation is almost exactly that in Scarborough. Like Scarborough, Havant want to put overnighting motorhomes in one car park and forbid them in others.

They make an almost identical charge of £10 reduced to £8 out of season.

JohnH, you've "liked" that. I'm now intensely interested in why this finds favour with you but the identical scheme in Scarborough rouses you to anger. I'm not getting at you - I want to know why. The "why" has value to me.

 

[John H]

Like Scarborough, Havant want to put overnighting motorhomes in one car park and forbid them in others.

They make an almost identical charge of £10 reduced to £8 out of season.

JohnH, you've "liked" that. I'm now intensely interested in why this finds favour with you but the identical scheme in Scarborough rouses you to anger. I'm not getting at you - I want to know why. The "why" has value to me.

I "liked" the post about Havant because of the statement that there was a clear distinction between parking and camping and therefore this regulation did not come under the 1960 Act.

It takes a lot to "rouse me to anger" so you will be pleased to know I am very calm today! The situation in Scarborough has never roused me to anger either. I have said several times that any move to making provision for motorhomes is to be welcomed but that some areas are a lot better than others in doing that. I suspect Scarborough Council's motives and I don't think their pricing policy makes any business sense at all, so I won't be staying there - but if others choose to do so, then that is up to them; I won't start telling them they shouldn't (and never have).

PS now that I am aware that Havant is charging a similar ammount, I probably won't be going there either - but I still "like" the message given in the distinction between camping and parking.

 

[Teutone]

It's statements like this that prompted me to start this thread. Once again we have someone who lacks the ability to see things from anyone's point of view but his own!

Imagine that you have a campsite, which is your entire life and in which everything you own is invested. You pay the council tens of thousands of pounds in rates and they they allow motorhomers to park for nothing on a huge car park near to your site. What must be more infuriating is that it's your rates that are paying for that car park and its upkeep. Is it really so hard to understand why a site owner would complain? To me they are businessmen who provide jobs and a service that really does help the local economy, to you they are grumpy site owners who don't like competition. Well, there's competition and there's competition. If you were a plumber and your local council suddenly decided that it would offer free plumbing services to all its residents, how would you feel? If you were unhappy, would you consider yourself a a grumpy competition-hating plumber, or a businessman with a legitimate right to complain?

I can see your point. But in my opinion NOBODY should interfere in competition with restrictions to others.
If you open a sandwich shop, would you expect the council banning the supermarket up the road to sell food?

And the councils do not give away FREE parking. YOU already payed for it with your road tax etc.

I am a small business myself, if I want to win work I have to compete with others. So I have to offer either a better service, cheaper service or something my competition isn't. As easy as that.

And comparing a CAMPsite with PARKING for a night isn't really fair. If I am on a journey to see many places, I would want to park for a night NOT expecting campsite facilities and move on next day. If I want to stay a few days and relax, I would go to a campsite. I think that is the whole point of aires. They don't want to compete with campsites.

 

[maureenandtom]

I "liked" the post about Havant because of the statement that there was a clear distinction between parking and camping and therefore this regulation did not come under the 1960 Act.

It takes a lot to "rouse me to anger" so you will be pleased to know I am very calm today! The situation in Scarborough has never roused me to anger either. I have said several times that any move to making provision for motorhomes is to be welcomed but that some areas are a lot better than others in doing that. I suspect Scarborough Council's motives and I don't think their pricing policy makes any business sense at all, so I won't be staying there - but if others choose to do so, then that is up to them; I won't start telling them they shouldn't (and never have).

PS now that I am aware that Havant is charging a similar ammount, I probably won't be going there either - but I still "like" the message given in the distinction between camping and parking.

Thank you. It was just that you didn't have enough information. I understand. I too like the distinction between camping and parking and I've used the argument now and again. Today is the day, I think, when Scarborough are to review their overnight charge and let's hope their business sense will assert itself.

Thank you also for the acknowledgement that Aires, especially in touristy areas are increasingly being charged for.

We will look back on these golden free days with nostalgia.

 

[John H]

Thank you also for the acknowledgement that Aires, especially in touristy areas are increasingly being charged for.

We will look back on these golden free days with nostalgia.

I don't think anybody disputed that - but for those of us who are in no hurry and want largely to avoid the tourist traps, those "golden free days" are still with us. We will be spending about three weeks going through France in September (it would be more but we have an appointment in Barcelona) and I don't expect to pay for more than one aire on the way (I have one particular one in mind on the Mediterranean coast that we like). Similar story in Spain, where there are an increasing number of aires and all free (although admitedly not on the scale of France).

 

[westbay]

Just read through all this stuff and I have to admit did my usual laugh-out-loud bit at all these so-called wild campers moaning that they can’t park up on the sea front, 10ft from the nearest pub or fish’n’chip shop et al.

Sleeping in busy town car parks or along the promenade IS NOT WILD CAMPING. :hammer:

By all means visit for the day if it really is your scene, then off out to somewhere WILD for the night. I know that in these ever more crowded isles, finding somewhere truly wild is not that easy, but you’d be surprised how easy it is to do demi-wild even close to large towns – a look at the database will show you this.

If we don’t want more stringent nationwide laws cracking down on sleeping in vehicles we need to be a bit more thoughtful before pissing off people living in tourist hotspots.

 

[Northerner]

I can see your point. But in my opinion NOBODY should interfere in competition with restrictions to others.
If you open a sandwich shop, would you expect the council banning the supermarket up the road to sell food?

And the councils do not give away FREE parking. YOU already payed for it with your road tax etc.

I am a small business myself, if I want to win work I have to compete with others. So I have to offer either a better service, cheaper service or something my competition isn't. As easy as that.

And comparing a CAMPsite with PARKING for a night isn't really fair. If I am on a journey to see many places, I would want to park for a night NOT expecting campsite facilities and move on next day. If I want to stay a few days and relax, I would go to a campsite. I think that is the whole point of aires. They don't want to compete with campsites.

So we should all be allowed to park for nothing because we've paid our road tax should we? That's an interesting argument! Perhaps you should try that one on with your local traffic warden! Come on! This argument about we've paid our road tax is ludicrous! It's nothing to do with parking charges and nowhere in the legislation regarding road tax does it say that payment allows you to park just wherever you like for nothing!

And your sandwich shop analogy is pointless. The camp site owners were objecting to free parking for motorhomes. So, let me ask you this, if you opened a sandwich shop and you pay business rates and the council suddenly started giving away free sandwiches from a shop next door, how would you feel?

And as I said, there is competition and competition, so please tell me how a camp site can compete with a free parking facility for motorhomes? I know, it could be really competitive and not charge anyone for using its site! That would make it a really busy site!

Can't you understand why a camp site owner, who pays a fortune in rates, may feel that allowing motorhomes to park next to his site for nothing, is not competition in any real and fair sense of the word? How can he compete with that? And where do we stop? Should caravans be allowed to park on the same car park? Should tent campers be allowed to pitch their tents on the grass verges. After all, they've paid their road tax!

Just for once I wish that some people would try putting themselves in others' shoes and try to understand that they too have rights and they too have to make a living and, most of all, they have the right to protest if they think that something is unfair, without being labelled as grumpy and anti-competition, and there have been far worse epithets than that I can assure you!

 

[al n sal]

Just read through all this stuff and I have to admit did my usual laugh-out-loud bit at all these so-called wild campers moaning that

If we don’t want more stringent nationwide laws cracking down on sleeping in vehicles we need to be a bit more thoughtful before pissing off people living in tourist hotspots.

agree, there a lot of motorhome owners, definitely not all, who stay for days on end in one spot, chairs out, awning rolled out, wheel chocks slipped under, effectively camping on a street. the locals are definitely going to trow up arms.

 

[bopper]

And to think that right from a boy, over 60 years now, I thought the WILD west was Dodge CITY, Tombstone etc;

 

[John H]

So we should all be allowed to park for nothing because we've paid our road tax should we?

Once again, you have missed the point, which is that there is no logical reason why motorhomes shouldn't be allowed to park wherever cars and other road vehicles are allowed to park. As others have said, parking is not camping.

 

[Teutone]

So we should all be allowed to park for nothing because we've paid our road tax should we? That's an interesting argument! Perhaps you should try that one on with your local traffic warden! Come on! This argument about we've paid our road tax is ludicrous! It's nothing to do with parking charges and nowhere in the legislation regarding road tax does it say that payment allows you to park just wherever you like for nothing!

And your sandwich shop analogy is pointless. The camp site owners were objecting to free parking for motorhomes. So, let me ask you this, if you opened a sandwich shop and you pay business rates and the council suddenly started giving away free sandwiches from a shop next door, how would you feel?

And as I said, there is competition and competition, so please tell me how a camp site can compete with a free parking facility for motorhomes? I know, it could be really competitive and not charge anyone for using its site! That would make it a really busy site!

Can't you understand why a camp site owner, who pays a fortune in rates, may feel that allowing motorhomes to park next to his site for nothing, is not competition in any real and fair sense of the word? How can he compete with that? And where do we stop? Should caravans be allowed to park on the same car park? Should tent campers be allowed to pitch their tents on the grass verges. After all, they've paid their road tax!

Just for once I wish that some people would try putting themselves in others' shoes and try to understand that they too have rights and they too have to make a living and, most of all, they have the right to protest if they think that something is unfair, without being labelled as grumpy and anti-competition, and there have been far worse epithets than that I can assure you!

The terms I refer to are PARKING and CAMPING.......

PS, how long do you think it would take to get people complaining to their local council if they would give goods (in this example sandwiches) away for FREE? Who paid for the sandwiches in the first place....

We are comparing apples and oranges.

It's the same thing, all depends on what side you stand. As a business, you want the least competition, as a customer you want the best value for money (didn't say free if you haven't noticed)

I would be more than happy to pay a reasonable parking fee for PARKING, I am also happy to pay on a campsite, CL or whatever facility if want to be there and the value for money if what I think it should be.

No reason to get so wound up.

 

[bopper]

Once again, you have missed the point, which is that there is no logical reason why motorhomes shouldn't be allowed to park wherever cars and other road vehicles are allowed to park. As others have said, parking is not camping.

He always misses the point.... because it's not HIS point.
I will reiterate what I posted earlier:
I have paid my insurance and road tax. I can park my vehicle ANYWHERE where I do NOT cause an obstruction and where I conform to the road traffic act. This means where it is lawful to park a car or van, so can I; and I can sleep in it if I wish because I am not camping, I am parking.

To all the barrack room lawyers on here. I am not, nor ever will listen to you!!!!

 

[Teutone]

agree, there a lot of motorhome owners, definitely not all, who stay for days on end in one spot, chairs out, awning rolled out, wheel chocks slipped under, effectively camping on a street. the locals are definitely going to trow up arms.

and with all due respect, they should be moved on

 

[John H]

and with all due respect, they should be moved on

In France, Spain, Portugal and presumably lots of other countries too they have found the ideal solution - there are few aires where you are allowed unlimited stays and many have 24 or 48 hour limits. The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that in the UK we (or at least the powers-that-be) can't see the obvious: that any vehicles parked in their towns are likely to contain potential customers for that town and, if you make it clear that they should do nothing but park and stay only a short time (but not too short!) then everybody wins. If the French, Spanish, Portuguese and others can see it why are our rule-makers so blinkered. I can see only one explanation and it has nothing to do with competition or business - it is NIMBYism (something the Brits are very good at!).

 

[maureenandtom]

I don't think anybody disputed that - but for those of us who are in no hurry and want largely to avoid the tourist traps, those "golden free days" are still with us. We will be spending about three weeks going through France in September (it would be more but we have an appointment in Barcelona) and I don't expect to pay for more than one aire on the way (I have one particular one in mind on the Mediterranean coast that we like). Similar story in Spain, where there are an increasing number of aires and all free (although admitedly not on the scale of France).

As ever John, you wear your own blinkers. I detect a dismissive, slightly superior tone when you say you want to avoid tourist traps. The tourist traps are tourist traps because that's where tourists want to go. It's these (do you never read and understand?) areas where charges will be made. Scarborough, Blackpool and Havant can charge because people will still go there. Other places will never charge or be able to charge.

 

[John H]

As ever John, you wear your own blinkers. I detect a dismissive, slightly superior tone when you say you want to avoid tourist traps. The tourist traps are tourist traps because that's where tourists want to go. It's these (do you never read and understand?) areas where charges will be made. Scarborough, Blackpool and Havant can charge because people will still go there. Other places will never charge or be able to charge.

Surely we all can only speak from our own perspective, so I'm not clear what you are saying - and I have repeatedly said that I am not criticising others for wanting to park in Scarborough or anywhere else. I made the point about avoiding tourist traps in response to your statement that you doubted whether the majority of French aires were still free. When you later modified that to talking about tourist hot-spots I agreed with you but I was making the simple point that for anyone not bothered about going to such places then the majority are still free. What is the problem?

PS if anybody else thinks I came over as dismissive and superior then I apologise - that was certainly not my intention.

 

[Deleted member 967]

[No message]

 

[maureenandtom]

Surely we all can only speak from our own perspective, so I'm not clear what you are saying - and I have repeatedly said that I am not criticising others for wanting to park in Scarborough or anywhere else. I made the point about avoiding tourist traps in response to your statement that you doubted whether the majority of French aires were still free. When you later modified that to talking about tourist hot-spots I agreed with you but I was making the simple point that for anyone not bothered about going to such places then the majority are still free. What is the problem?

PS if anybody else thinks I came over as dismissive and superior then I apologise - that was certainly not my intention.

Rubbish, John.

My original post:

Charging for Aires. . . .

My preference is for sea, sand and sun. My favoured French spots are coastal and, you know, my impression is that we have to wild camp like we used to do all the time or, increasingly, we have to pay for Aires in touristy attractive spots. Inland spots are possibly, even probably, still free but not so many in places where I want to go.

. . .

 

[Teutone]

The tourist traps are tourist traps because that's where tourists want to go. It's these areas where charges will be made. Scarborough, Blackpool and Havant can charge because people will still go there. Other places will never charge or be able to charge.

fully agree. (have deleted a few bits of the original posting to be clearer)

That's what competition is about. You have something others don't have, the market regulates itself. Nobody should be allowed to interfere with this to shift profits.

Apply some common sense. You wouldn't open an ice cream shop in antarctica. Supply and Demand.

 

[vwalan]

i think in practice the authority would have a hard job taking a super market to court as so long as you moved off .they cant be bothered .each different van makes a new case .they would and do turn a blind eye . they may change views but i doubt it .just ind somewhere stay and move on tomorrow .
as for wild camping .hardly that many really go anywhere wild in this country so anyone condeming folk for staying in a town are just pedantic . some of us do really wild camp .
but i do like parking in towns as well handy for annoying the locals .ha ha .