Wells on Sea...no go area!

maureenandtom said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with the area but previous replies from the Town Council highlighted the fact that the majority of car parks are run/owned/managed by the Holkham Estate which leaves us nowhere in terms of pursuing bylaws or Traffic Orders.
 
"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."

Some years ago it has to be admitted I asked my friend who was a traffic cop and a fellow member of the caravan club I belonged to, if we are allowed to stop overnight in a layby. He said there is a difference between parking and 'camping' for want of a better word. If you pull into a layby with a caravan (or presumably in your motorhome) and stop and have a brew, or a meal, or get into bed and go to sleep, that is parking. If you either a) put the legs down on your caravan and/or b) put out table and chairs and have a bbq or outside cooking, that is what is called 'Taking up residence'.
Parking is perfectly OK. Taking up residence is an offence. So in a caravan, just leave it hitched to the tow car, don't put the legs down and you are fine. In a motorhome, just park.
Someone else I knew took to sleeping overnight on a beach in his car. He said, but I don't think it was challenged, that if he was woken up he would just claim that he was a Buddhist and was meditating. I think that's pushing it a bit!
 
gasgas said:
"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."

Some years ago it has to be admitted I asked my friend who was a traffic cop and a fellow member of the caravan club I belonged to, if we are allowed to stop overnight in a layby. He said there is a difference between parking and 'camping' for want of a better word. If you pull into a layby with a caravan (or presumably in your motorhome) and stop and have a brew, or a meal, or get into bed and go to sleep, that is parking. If you either a) put the legs down on your caravan and/or b) put out table and chairs and have a bbq or outside cooking, that is what is called 'Taking up residence'.
Parking is perfectly OK. Taking up residence is an offence. So in a caravan, just leave it hitched to the tow car, don't put the legs down and you are fine. In a motorhome, just park.
Someone else I knew took to sleeping overnight on a beach in his car. He said, but I don't think it was challenged, that if he was woken up he would just claim that he was a Buddhist and was meditating. I think that's pushing it a bit!
Click to expand...

Only problem I can see there is, that if you ask 2 different cops you will get 2 different answers.
 
gasgas said:
"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."

Some years ago it has to be admitted I asked my friend who was a traffic cop and a fellow member of the caravan club I belonged to, if we are allowed to stop overnight in a layby. He said there is a difference between parking and 'camping' for want of a better word. If you pull into a layby with a caravan (or presumably in your motorhome) and stop and have a brew, or a meal, or get into bed and go to sleep, that is parking. If you either a) put the legs down on your caravan and/or b) put out table and chairs and have a bbq or outside cooking, that is what is called 'Taking up residence'.
Parking is perfectly OK. Taking up residence is an offence. So in a caravan, just leave it hitched to the tow car, don't put the legs down and you are fine. In a motorhome, just park.
Someone else I knew took to sleeping overnight on a beach in his car. He said, but I don't think it was challenged, that if he was woken up he would just claim that he was a Buddhist and was meditating. I think that's pushing it a bit!
Click to expand...
We use the term on here wild camping, but strictly speaking you are not camping unless you are in a tent. The first camp sites in this country appeared before the first car was ever driven. So if you are within your vehicle parked up, no matter what you do inside the vehicle it’s not camping. These signs only prove how ignorant many are about what camping actually his.

Here’s the definition from the Cambridge dictionary.

camping
noun [ U ]

UK

/ˈkæm.pɪŋ/ US

/ˈkæm.pɪŋ/

A2
the activity of staying in a tent on holiday:
We used to go camping in Spain when I was a child.
camping equipment
More examples
 
North Norfolk District Council maintains a register of authorised camping sites and they've made it available to me. But not just to me though I had to ask for it, they publish it on the interent too. This might do it lic_register_caravan.pdf (north-norfolk.gov.uk) but I attach a copy anyway.

North Norfolk say they have already rejected proposals from Campra but, without stepping on Campra's toes, I've asked if they would like discussions with me during which we might also be able to come to some agreement to sort out their infringement of the Race Relations Act. Their excuse that barriers are closed only when requested by the Police is unlikely to be supported by the Police but I'll wait to see if they take up my offer = a reply expected in January.

The council does make two sites available for Travellers - opened by the council when required. I don't know what the trigger is for opening them but I'll probably find out. If the council were to keep them open at all times then I'd use them if in suitable places, would others?
 

Attachments

  • lic_register_caravan-3.pdf
    217.7 KB · Views: 353
maureenandtom said:
North Norfolk District Council maintains a register of authorised camping sites and they've made it available to me. But not just to me though I had to ask for it, they publish it on the interent too. This might do it lic_register_caravan.pdf (north-norfolk.gov.uk) but I attach a copy anyway.

North Norfolk say they have already rejected proposals from Campra but, without stepping on Campra's toes, I've asked if they would like discussions with me during which we might also be able to come to some agreement to sort out their infringement of the Race Relations Act. Their excuse that barriers are closed only when requested by the Police is unlikely to be supported by the Police but I'll wait to see if they take up my offer = a reply expected in January.

The council does make two sites available for Travellers - opened by the council when required. I don't know what the trigger is for opening them but I'll probably find out. If the council were to keep them open at all times then I'd use them if in suitable places, would others?
Click to expand...
I doubt they would let "non-travellers" use them. Only an informed guess but I reckon they are only opened as transit sites when either the Police or their Gypsy Liaison Officer knows there is a need. If they were available to "allcomers" they wouldn't count towards the Council's traveller provision.
 
Perhaps it should be referred to as the “alledged” infringement of the race relations act. Especially when put in writing, visible to many, referring to a large public organisation.
 
Val54 said:
I doubt they would let "non-travellers" use them. Only an informed guess but I reckon they are only opened as transit sites when either the Police or their Gypsy Liaison Officer knows there is a need. If they were available to "allcomers" they wouldn't count towards the Council's traveller provision.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, also its important that we are not seen as travellers.
Using facilities meant for the traveling community, would lead to confusion as to our identity, and would generate bad PR.
 
Last edited:
Rolyan57 said:
Perhaps it should be referred to as the “alledged” infringement of the race relations act. Especially when put in writing, visible to many, referring to a large public organisation.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right. Completely unfair to assume the council's guilt and almost in the same breath demand that Travellers must not be assumed guilty unless charged and convicted - though plenty do. I'll modify that in future.
 
Val54 said:
I doubt they would let "non-travellers" use them. Only an informed guess but I reckon they are only opened as transit sites when either the Police or their Gypsy Liaison Officer knows there is a need. If they were available to "allcomers" they wouldn't count towards the Council's traveller provision.
Click to expand...

I think that is probably an accurate guess. I've asked for a discussion with a Manager with Tourism admin in his job description. Up to now my discussions have been with the Chief Executive (this almost never happens - only once before with me) or with his PA. I've no idea if this will come off but I think it might and I thought I might sound out how people might feel about a shared facility if it were offered. Just trying to second guess the Council. At least this council does have a provision for Travellers; my impression is that few do.
 
maureenandtom said:
I think that is probably an accurate guess. I've asked for a discussion with a Manager with Tourism admin in his job description. Up to now my discussions have been with the Chief Executive (this almost never happens - only once before with me) or with his PA. I've no idea if this will come off but I think it might and I thought I might sound out how people might feel about a shared facility if it were offered. Just trying to second guess the Council. At least this council does have a provision for Travellers; my impression is that few do.
Click to expand...
I think there is more provision than we give credit for, but it is mostly permanent, transit sites are rarer as per your impression. It is worth trying to second guess what the Council might say but I think sharing might be a step too far. My take would be that "travellers" would be reluctant to share "their facilities" as they are so hard to come by, and the Council wouldn't instigate "sharing" without consulting the traveller organisations. However the Tourism Manager might be persuaded to investigate whether the Council own other land that could be made available for MH stopovers.
 
I would be astounded if any council proposed sharing, and even more surprised if many from our community would see this as a solution, or would wish to stay in such a site. Travellers needs are different from ours, and other than the fact that we travel from place to place in similar accommodation, we have little in common. They are a race, we are a group of individuals from varying backgrounds, who are generally older.
We don’t really ask for much, we don’t need our children educated, ad hoc medical arrangements, dedicated waste disposal etc, and we don’t normally spend anymore than one or two nights in any one place at a time.
All we need is a place to park, where we feel safe, where we don’t create issues for local communities, and unlike travellers our numbers dwindle in the winter period.
We are simply people with larger vehicles, who wish to park day and night, whereas others normally only wish to park during the day. Others have sought to create differences between us and cars that in reality don’t exist for their own ends.
 
Last edited:
I've now received the attached from the council. The council now says that barriers were erected on advice from the police with the intention that they could be closed (and reopened?) at police request. The council says the subject is now closed; the council has nothing to add.

I knew of Campra's approach to the council and knew of the council's rejection of their approach but I thought it worthwhile to make the attempt again. That subject is now closed too and the council has nothing to add.

So, the situation now is that the exclusion of an ethnic minority from publicly owned car parks – and not accused of any crime – is at the request of the police. Not the council's fault at all.
 

Attachments

  • NNDC Response 19 Jan 22 Redacted and Highlighted PDF.pdf
    274.5 KB · Views: 177
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top