Wells on Sea...no go area!

[Rolyan57]

That seems to be a reasonable and balanced response, and does help put things into perspective.

I never thought it was discriminatory, which has subsequently been backed up by a solicitor, albeit unofficially. The response does make clear that the height restrictions are only in place for a few days of the year.

I honestly believe that the vast majority of residents will be applauding this balanced, legal and proactive approach to reducing the massive anti social behaviour caused by these travellers.

 

[Fisherman]

That seems to be a reasonable and balanced response, and does help put things into perspective.

I never thought it was discriminatory, which has subsequently been backed up by a solicitor, albeit unofficially. The response does make clear that the height restrictions are only in place for a few days of the year.

I honestly believe that the vast majority of residents will be applauding this balanced, legal and proactive approach to reducing the massive anti social behaviour caused by these travellers.

Travellers are classed as a separate race under the race discrimination act.
And all travellers are not anti social, to make that assumption is discriminatory.

If a group of people from any other race had barriers placed due to their imminent arrival, that would be deemed racial discrimination.

I fail to see how when travellers are a separate race, that to assume that all travellers are anti social would not be deemed discriminatory.

Also what the vast majority of local residents think has no legal bearing whatsoever. But it may prove politically beneficial to a local councillor seeking re-election.

But I wish to thank Tom for all his efforts, no matter the outcome.

 

[Rolyan57]

Yes, I also thank Tom for his efforts.

Just because I agree with targeted action a few days a year based on intelligence, doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the efforts of others.

The opinions of locals should matter to us, although why you think you need to point out that it has no legal bearing is beyond me. No one is suggesting that. But a little empathy goes a long way. Because perceptions are vital and frankly, to outsiders, this discussion would come across as ‘motorhomers’ being extremely selfish and unreasonable.

But each to his own.

 

[Fisherman]

Yes, I also thank Tom for his efforts.

Just because I agree with targeted action a few days a year based on intelligence, doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the efforts of others.

The opinions of locals should matter to us, although why you think you need to point out that it has no legal bearing is beyond me. No one is suggesting that. But a little empathy goes a long way. Because perceptions are vital and frankly, to outsiders, this discussion would come across as ‘motorhomers’ being extremely selfish and unreasonable.

But each to his own.

I never stated that locals opinions don’t matter.
But as your replies were based on legalities backed up by an “unofficial” lawyer I found that comment out of context.
The point remains treating any race as one is discrimination, and acting differently based on their race is discriminatorry.

 

[Rolyan57]

I never stated that locals opinions don’t matter.
But as your replies were based on legalities backed up by an “unofficial”, I found that comment out of context.

I know you didn’t. But you said that what locals think has no legal bearing. I just thought that was a strange point to make as no ever suggested it did. However, it does have a massive impact on how they will react to us.

At the end of the day we will all see this situation differently. I don’t think there’s been discrimination and I fully understand why they want to use barriers on a few occasions a year when police information suggests a possible repeat of previous major issues. If I can support the locals in that by finding alternative parking for those few days, I’m happy to do so.

Others will feel differently and I understand that.

 

[Fisherman]

I know you didn’t. But you said that what locals think has no legal bearing. I just thought that was a strange point to make as no ever suggested it did. However, it does have a massive impact on how they will react to us.

At the end of the day we will all see this situation differently. I don’t think there’s been discrimination and I fully understand why they want to use barriers on a few occasions a year when police information suggests a possible repeat of previous major issues. If I can support the locals in that by finding alternative parking for those few days, I’m happy to do so.

Others will feel differently and I understand that.

Local residents plaudits were mentioned by you initially.
Not by myself.
Their inclusion followed a legal argument put forward by yourself.
I merely pointed out that what they think has no legal bearing.
If I was a decent law abiding traveller reading what has been posted, I would feel discriminated against. I think it’s important that this action is challenged, and not because we were not able to park, thats of little importance in this instance. But because I think it could be discriminatory.

 

[Rolyan57]

Local residents plaudits were mentioned by you initially.
Not by myself.
There inclusion followed a legal argument put forward by yourself.
I merely pointed out that what they think has no legal bearing.
If I was a decent law abiding traveller reading what has been posted, I would feel discriminated against. I think it’s important that this action is challenged, and not because we were not able to park, thats of little importance in this instance. But because I think it could be discriminatory.

We all agree that what the locals think has no legal bearing. That was never in doubt and wasn’t ever put forward as an argument by anyone. So hopefully that’s covered now.

Those who believe that the targeted restriction is discriminatory, on a moral and principled basis, could seek formal legal advice and then mount a challenge in court.

Those who are concerned purely with the effect on our parking can decide whether or not a few days inconvenience is worth it to support a community wanting to avoid a repeat of the major problems they have had in the past, and react accordingly.

 

[maureenandtom]

I had no idea that some could not read pdf files. Nevertheless, it might be useful if I publish my complaint to the council - so here it is attached. I hope that all will download a pdf reader. All my devices, PC, Tablet, Phone have a pdf reader; difficult to see how we can manage without one.

I too, wonder if it's worth making the council adhere to the law 100% when it now claims that it does so 99 point something % of the time. I also wonder that the council now says that the barriers are closed on request by the police rather than with a council decision. Why would the council backpedal on that? Their previous stance was that the council would close the barriers as soon as they became aware of one or two vans containing Travellers. It's there in the emails I;'ve attached in the complaint. If one or two motorhomes turn up then who is to say that they are not Travellers. The council will not close the barriers for genuine users - it has used that divisive term. Travellers, they say, are not genuine users. They only close the barriers when they believe there are one or two vans with Travellers.

On the plus side, Campra has been involved and this little complaint of mine might make the council a little more receptive to Campra. And .... the council has provided two temporary stopping places for Travellers each with ten pitches but which are not usually used. Campra could suggest that they could be used by us. If Campra doesn't, then I might but I think that approach would be better from someone other than me

Their response also tells us why they forbid overnight camping and sleeping in their car parks. It should now be possible to begin a discussion with the council about that. I think this https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1485426/caravan-facilities-warning-tourism-norfolk-council might have been the Campra approach but I don't know if it is. Campa is free to use the council reply to me in any way useful to them.

I'm not sure what to do next. If the decision is taken by the police then the council is not discriminatory - the police are. I'd willinbgly make a bet that if I make the same complaint to the police then the police response will be to deny they ever discriminate and decision of closure is always taken by the council.

 

[trevskoda]

The trouble with councils having legal powers is that travellers know the law better than the Police or the Councils. Travellers know exactly how to go about extending their stay by nine months, all the while producing tens of thousands of pounds of damage. Travellers have plenty of funds to go to court (but none of course for road tax, insurance or yellow diesel or legal tyres). I once fitted an electronic item in a showman's small caravan. I had to run wires from the front to the back, inside the under-bed lockers. EVERY under-bed locker was full of sacks stuffed with cash. Notes I mean, not coins.

Are you sure that was not phils van.

 

[trevskoda]

I had no idea that some could not read pdf files. Nevertheless, it might be useful if I publish my complaint to the council - so here it is attached. I hope that all will download a pdf reader. All my devices, PC, Tablet, Phone have a pdf reader; difficult to see how we can manage without one.

I too, wonder if it's worth making the council adhere to the law 100% when it now claims that it does so 99 point something % of the time. I also wonder that the council now says that the barriers are closed on request by the police rather than with a council decision. Why would the council backpedal on that? Their previous stance was that the council would close the barriers as soon as they became aware of one or two vans containing Travellers. It's there in the emails I;'ve attached in the complaint. If one or two motorhomes turn up then who is to say that they are not Travellers. The council will not close the barriers for genuine users - it has used that divisive term. Travellers, they say, are not genuine users. They only close the barriers when they believe there are one or two vans with Travellers.

On the plus side, Campra has been involved and this little complaint of mine might make the council a little more receptive to Campra. And .... the council has provided two temporary stopping places for Travellers each with ten pitches but which are not usually used. Campra could suggest that they could be used by us. If Campra doesn't, then I might but I think that approach would be better from someone other than me

Their response also tells us why they forbid overnight camping and sleeping in their car parks. It should now be possible to begin a discussion with the council about that. I think this https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1485426/caravan-facilities-warning-tourism-norfolk-council might have been the Campra approach but I don't know if it is. Campa is free to use the council reply to me in any way useful to them.

I'm not sure what to do next. If the decision is taken by the police then the council is not discriminatory - the police are. I'd willinbgly make a bet that if I make the same complaint to the police then the police response will be to deny they ever discriminate and decision of closure is always taken by the council.

ODF is the common reader which works on all platforms.

 

[Val54]

I think we need to take a step back and review the new information that has emerged.
The Council deserve plaudits for having provided 2 traveller transit sites in 2010. They have met their responsibilities to an ethnic minority when many more Councils have failed to do so.
Moving forward to the events of 2017, the failings that led to the problems in the town are squarely with the police. Because of the existence of the transit sites, they had the powers to immediately require that the travellers moved to the those sites. If they refused or was no room, then the police should have escorted them out of the council's area.
What appears to have happened since is that there is better co-ordination between the council and police, the height barriers being one part of the perceived solution. I can accept that that is a legitimate response given the existence of the transit sites and the stated intention that the barriers are only closed when an incursion is imminent, in the Council's view, a handful of days a year. Whether that is the reality is a different issue.
So if for the majority of time, the barriers are open, nobody is being discriminated against, the travellers have designated stopping pitches, the general public can use the car park.
That leaves overnight sleeping etc. Well as the by-law prevents any overnighting, how can we as motorhomers, argue discrimination.
What Tom quite rightly identified as a potential breach by the Council has morphed into a lack of appropriate action by the police in 2017 and potentially mis-management of the height barriers by the Council.

 

[alcam]

The trouble with councils having legal powers is that travellers know the law better than the Police or the Councils. Travellers know exactly how to go about extending their stay by nine months, all the while producing tens of thousands of pounds of damage. Travellers have plenty of funds to go to court (but none of course for road tax, insurance or yellow diesel or legal tyres). I once fitted an electronic item in a showman's small caravan. I had to run wires from the front to the back, inside the under-bed lockers. EVERY under-bed locker was full of sacks stuffed with cash. Notes I mean, not coins.

Always understood showmen didn't get on with travellers ? Think channa posted that

 

[Fisherman]

To my possibly wrong way of thinking there are two issues here.
The first that we as members of the public were denied access to the car park.
The second that preemptive measures were taken against members of the public on the basis of their race.

Heres the definition of racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination is any discrimination against any individual on the basis of their skin color, or racialor ethnic origin. Individuals can discriminate by refusing to do business with, socialize with, or share resources with people of a certain group. Governments can discriminate in a de facto fashion or explicitly in law, for example ...

Now informing people that they must use certain facilities due to their race is no different from telling them where to sit on a train, or that they must use these toilet facilities.

 

[Val54]

Always understood showmen didn't get on with travellers ? Think channa posted that

They don't and a lot of the different traveller groups don't mix either .........

 

[Val54]

To my possibly wrong way of thinking there are two issues here.
The first that we as members of the public were denied access to the car park.
The second that preemptive measures were taken against members of the public on the basis of their race.

Heres the definition of racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination is any discrimination against any individual on the basis of their skin color, or racialor ethnic origin. Individuals can discriminate by refusing to do business with, socialize with, or share resources with people of a certain group. Governments can discriminate in a de facto fashion or explicitly in law, for example ...

Now informing people that they must use certain facilities due to their race is no different from telling them where to sit on a train, or that they must use these toilet facilities.

Whether you agree with it or not, that is the current state of the various bits of legislation.

 

[Harrytherid]

I do not object to no camping signs but no sleeping is another matter. Camping should be done on Camp sites not in car parks but sleeping is another matter. The removal of beach furniture is fine for use on a beach but not on a car park. The dumping of any waste in any receptacle not intended for that purpose is not to be allowed and the occupation of any one space for more than 48 hours ought not to be allowed also. I too do not see how they can enforce a sleeping ban. I have encountered car parks with a 24 hour fee which if paid does not entitle one to sleep in the vehicle. If I wish to have a post lunch nap, I will do so and similarly I will engage in overnight sleeping when legally parked. How can they justify such a ban which I am pretty sure is unenforceable any way. If you get a ticket just dont pay it. Make them take you to court if they so wish, they probably won't. Height barrier are another matter; they ARE discriminatory as I explained in my previous post so complaints ought to be made and I shall a make it my business to do so whenever I am baulked by one. The entry in the council letter The Council has received representations from the owners of such vehicles and the Campaign for Real Aires that overnight parking / sleeping should be permitted on its car parks; however the Council does not believe this is appropriate for a number of reasons. These include the fact that the district has a very large number of authorised camping sites – including over 100 certified locations with just five pitches to large commercial sites with leisure facilities, bars and restaurants – therefore catering for a very diverse range of preferences which the Council believes it is unfair to undermine given the investment made in facilities by these businesses; issues of amenity for local residents adjoining public car parks and the costs involved to Council Tax payers in providing additional facilities for motorhome owners such as the provision of water and waste facilities. irritated me
Many of us just do not want any of these facilities that the big sites offer and charge much for. CLs, even, have become much too dear with unwanted facilities which is partly why we park off grid and have equipped ourselves with the ability to store our waste for protracted periods until we find a suitable place to dispose of them.

 

[Fisherman]

Whether you agree with it or not, that is the current state of the various bits of legislation

Well possibly that legislation is wrong, discriminatory and should be questioned.

 

[Fisherman]

I do not object to no camping signs but no sleeping is another matter. Camping should be done on Camp sites not in car parks but sleeping is another matter. The removal of beach furniture is fine for use on a beach but not on a car park. The dumping of any waste in any receptacle not intended for that purpose is not to be allowed and the occupation of any one space for more than 48 hours ought not to be allowed also. I too do not see how they can enforce a sleeping ban. I have encountered car parks with a 24 hour fee which if paid does not entitle one to sleep in the vehicle. If I wish to have a post lunch nap, I will do so and similarly I will engage in overnight sleeping when legally parked. How can they justify such a ban which I am pretty sure is unenforceable any way. If you get a ticket just dont pay it. Make them take you to court if they so wish, they probably won't. Height barrier are another matter; they ARE discriminatory as I explained in my previous post so complaints ought to be made and I shall a make it my business to do so whenever I am baulked by one. The entry in the council letter The Council has received representations from the owners of such vehicles and the Campaign for Real Aires that overnight parking / sleeping should be permitted on its car parks; however the Council does not believe this is appropriate for a number of reasons. These include the fact that the district has a very large number of authorised camping sites – including over 100 certified locations with just five pitches to large commercial sites with leisure facilities, bars and restaurants – therefore catering for a very diverse range of preferences which the Council believes it is unfair to undermine given the investment made in facilities by these businesses; issues of amenity for local residents adjoining public car parks and the costs involved to Council Tax payers in providing additional facilities for motorhome owners such as the provision of water and waste facilities. irritated me
Many of us just do not want any of these facilities that the big sites offer and charge much for. CLs, even, have become much too dear with unwanted facilities which is partly why we park off grid and have equipped ourselves with the ability to store our waste for protracted periods until we find a suitable place to dispose of them.

Here in Northumberland I have noted all of the carparks I have seen have the same signage. No camping, cooking, or sleeping. You can pay for up to 72 hours but must leave for 6 hours before returning.
Now to me none of this makes any sense.
You could bypass cooking by eating out, bringing cold food, sandwiches etc, and how can they prove you were sleeping.
Not living here I don’t know if these rules are enforced.
But it seems impossible that they are enforceable.

 

[maureenandtom]

Apart from the error in admitting they were discriminating against Travellers, the situation in N Norfolk now mirrors the situation in Fleetwood about four or five years ago. That was documented in one or two threads but this one https://wildcamping.co.uk/threads/fleetwood-marine-hall-car-park.53477/page-2 gives a bit of reasoning.

N Norfolk now says, we don't permit camping or sleeping. And it's in a byelaw. It would be unusual to have a byelaw and an off=street parking order covering the same car park and I can't find the bye-law or the 2012 original order. I can find a number of amendments to the order but not the original order. I'd have to ask for it. A byelaw creates a crime. An off-sreet parking order doesn't. So a different process.

In Fleetwood I just wore them down I think. Finally I asked them to issue me a PCN – I would tell them when I would offend to save them the trouble of looking for me but they didn't take me up on the offer. I sort of lost interest eventualy but emailed them now and again. Once with a photograph of the van time stamped during the offence period. "Will this do as proof to issue a PCN?"

A year or so later they re-opened Marine Hall Car Park with a £5 overnight charge but free through the day. I stayed there a couple of months ago and very nice it is too. The cost of an ice cream cornet for two was £5 so you can stay overnight for the price of an ice cream.

Plenty of people here said they wouldn't be seen dead in Fleetwood. So that is one extra place we can now be seen dead in.

So. Identical reasons for no camping or sleeping and, I think, no offence for a ticket to be issued. There is no PCN code for campng or sleeping. Different if it is a byelaw though.

Whether it's worth carrying on a fight I don't know. Norfolk is a long way from me. Fleetwood is just 25 or 30 miles.

Wyre Council have replied very promptly. The PCN Code they intend to use is PCN Code 95. This is "Parked in a parking place for a purpose other than that designated".

The prohibition on the notice is for camping and sleeping. If we have barbecues out or something of this sort then that's it, you're caught and you're camping. Otherwise I don't see how the Traffic Adjudicator can be persuaded that you're camping instead of parking.

The prohibition on sleeping is the usual thing we've seen often. I don't see how it can ever be proved that you were asleep and councils routinely complain that they have difficulty proving sleeping.

Certainly when North Devon District Council tried it with me they abandoned their PCN at the first informal stage. I wrote of it here http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...ale.html?highlight=A+long+and+mysterious+tale and good things happened in Devon after that.

The notice, like "No Overnighting" has no teeth and is meant to intimidate.

I intend to ask how they intend to monitor whether or not a vehcle's occupants are sleeping.

 

[Val54]

Well possibly that legislation is wrong, discriminatory and should be questioned.

It was certainly challenged by the various groups that represent the travellers, as always, the bottom line is that if adequate provision was made by councils then incursions would reduce and the need for draconian legislation becomes a last resort.