Responsible wild camping

[Guest starspirit]

I've never had a problem Chas, but then I do use my noddle to select where I stay and I exclude dodgy looking areas and towns. It does not take much savvy to work out that town centre car parks are very iffy whereas the edge of towns are generally not near pubs etc. However any car park is always a second choice compared to a nice riverside or seaside hidey hole with, of course, the golden rules of no inconvenience to anyone, no mess, no noise, and no trace of our visit. I'm glad I don't live where you do Chas! Richard

[chas]

Hi starspirit. You dont no where I live thats true and I would hardly be wild camping in my own neck of the woods,would I, its a well known fact that a lot of mindless vandles operate in the so called quiet villages and sea side resorts just the type of places that might lure the unsupecting motorhomer that all is well. if you think using ones noddle to find a quiet car park for a cheap nights kip is not also known by the local tow rags, then all I can say is good luck to you, me , I will pay and use a site or CL, and sleep contented with my family.

[enrico]

So the vandals,towrags or whatever you want to call them have won again.I wonder why I ever paid my taxes,hopefully for freedom and a much better society. HOW WRONG CAN ONE BE. Think I`ll ring Gordon Brown and ask for my money back (!) (!) (!) (!) Come on everyone lets get behind starspirit and let us have the choice of where to go and what to do. Your everloving Enrico :-) :-) :-)

[Dave Newell]

I'm not sure if you still can but about 14 years ago we stopped overnight on a car park in the centre of Newtown, mid Wales. Nice spot by the river and park and an easy walk into town if you wanted. I think we payed about £1.50 for the night and you are restricted to one night with no further overnight stay for seven days. Didn't have a problem with vandals but then our 'van was so rough they probably thought it had already been done (lol) . there was no water or waste point but for a sleepover stop it was fine. Does anyone know if this is still allowed in Newtown? D.

[Bill Ord]

Interesting discusion so far. I'm surprised Derek Uzzell hasn't come back on this one. I believe from previous postings of Derek's that he is a regular ADS user as he has referred previously to arriving late at Aires with full waste and empty fresh tanks. For myself I prefer aires to camp-sites though French municipals are cheap enough. My van is self sufficient or autonomous as the french would say. I see no reason for hook ups for me and rarely use them unless they come as part of the fee as the only thing it saves me is a bit of gas for the fridge and kettle. On the subject of the Caravan Club's CL's I've used a couple and they are aimed at carravanners as you would expect and are commonly equped with hook-ups these days but most of them are on grass without a hard road even and all to easy to sink a heavy loaded mototorhome on a wet day. Each to his own though and I'm supporting the two attempts to get aires off the ground. I don't consider stopping on Aires to be wild camping, it's another type of site that's all. I do my share of wild camping and some of it in Spain and believe me most of the car parks etc. that I leave are cleaner when I leave as most Spaniards seem to have scant regard for there environment and I've lost count of the times I've seen motorhomers picking up litter before settling down for the night. The point that seems to be mostly missed is that a lot of motorhome users and I include myself in this number just want simple overnight parking. If you go to Calshot Spit you will see a great example of the great british double think. You can stay for 23 hour there are toilets and fresh water but the sign sys "No cooking and no sleeping" Why? Still I'm a sound sleeper when I've been windsurfing all day. It's all a part of being BRITISH that's why so many of us go to France I guess. Bill Ord

[Brian Kirby]

So, really, we need to sort out what we want these "aires" for, if we're ever to have any chance of getting them.

There seems to two groups.  One who think they should be remote, rural, hideaways where you can take refuge from the daily hurly burly, and another who think they should be in or near towns so that you can explore, buy food and visit pubs or cafes, but without needing cars, scooters or buses to make all that possible.

Seems to me the first group really just want small rural campsites: however these already exist throughout the UK in the form of CSs and CLs, plus a few other club sites and some small private sites.  The only objection I can detect to using these is a) you have to pay, and b) they provide facilities some - but by no means all - motorhomers don't want.  For a) I can only say tough!  Who do you think owes you the free dinner?  For b) I'd simply say be realistic.  If operators restricted what they provided to just water and drainage they'd exclude anyone who wanted electricity.  Why should operators provide facilities that exclude half their potential market?  I'm sorry, but I think you're dreaming.

For those who'd prefer the more urban (in a general sense) settings, which is really where the aires came in, I think there is an argument that might be made to fly if it could be shown that the cost of provision would be recovered and local traders might benefit.  However, this being the UK, unless those minimal criteria can be met, I can't see any local authority agreeing to them.

If you really can't live with that thought, then I think you should to move to France!  That seems to be the only country in Europe where the concepts of free, and relatively higher (but not, in reality, that much higher) taxation, live (fairly) comfortably side by side. 

The problem for us remains all that expensive land.  The French, bless them, have cheaper land than us.  Therefore, their houses, supermarkets, offices, factories - and campsites/aires, all cost them less in the first place.  That being the case, they can afford to pay their higher taxes, and they still have enough left to enjoy a higher standard of living than us.

There ain't no solution for us, of course, unless anyone can think of an acceptable way of halving the UK population!

Cheers

[david lloyd]

[QUOTE]Brian Kirby - 2006-07-06 4:02 PM

For those who'd prefer the more urban (in a general sense) settings, which is really where the aires came in, I think there is an argument that might be made to fly if it could be shown that the cost of provision would be recovered and local traders might benefit.  However, this being the UK, unless those minimal criteria can be met, I can't see any local authority agreeing to them

Cheers

[/QUOTE] Hi Brian The establishment of an aire with the basic provision of an overnight parking area need not cost much - or anything come to that. The main difficulty in the Guisborough area seems to be getting the parking officer of the local authority to get off her backside and change the (legal) parking order. Presently, the potential site identified is for the parking of coaches only during the summer months and reverts to Pay and Display for cars in winter. The present parking order prohibits overnight sleeping at any time. My proposal, as a minimum, requires the authority to change the parking order to allow the parking of motorhomes in addition to coaches and to also allow sleeping in those vehicles. The authority, if they so wish, can specify in the new order a given time scale (say 24 or 48 hours and/or even no return within seven days) and exclude other vehicles (such as caravans) to protect its' legal position with regard to 'travellers'. It could even keep the Pay and Display status which would also apply to motorhome staying overnight if it so desired. I really don't think this necessitates a considerable capital investment by the authority - unless, of course, it wished to extend the facilities on offer to the provision of fresh/waste water etc. Even this, in this particular situation, can be achieved with minimal capital outlay since the site in question has a recently refurbished toilet block that is not open 24 hours but from which an adequate fresh water source and waste water disposal point could easily be made available. In any case, there is no suitable parking for motorhomes in the town (which is where I started from in my initial contact with the authority) as all the available car parks are lined to accomodate cars and have fixed penalties if a vehicle is over the line or takes up two bays. Currently, you would not be allowed to park in the coach park and would also receive a fixed penalty if you did so. Bearing this in mind, if the authority simply wished to ensure that visitors to the town in any vehicle larger than the average car then it seems it will have to change the present parking order on the coach park and therefore it may as well consider the (minimal) effort involved to be worth extending to overnight parking and derive the potential benefits. Given my experience so far with Redcar and Cleveland Council you are not wrong in intimating there may be resistance to doing anything and I can only reiterate my plea to those who wish to see such facilities emerge in this country to see my thread 'First municipal aire' and make up their own mind on whether or not to e-mail the authority. Regards, david

[Roy]

I fully agree with Starspirit - all we need is somewhere to stop overnight and then continue our tour the next morning. I think there is a difference between 'wild camping' and 'overnighting'. The former indicates to me a form of longer stay, usually without permission. The obvious place to stop overnight seems to me to be on an existing car park with a corner reserved for just 1 or 2 vans overnight with normal payment as appropriate. Generally speaking we can use existing car parks to 'park', sometimes for 24 hours, but we can't sleep in the vehicle. What difference does it make if we are legally parked ( not CAMPING) with the doors all locked whether we sit up all night and read a book or indeed sleep. I realize that present bye laws usually prohibit sleeping overnight and that is what needs changing. We always use CL's where possible but of course the Caravan Club in particular seems to be encouraging owners to change them into mini camp sites with hook-ups, toilets and showers and with the appropriate increase in charges. This means that lots of CL's close down. Why don't we encourage those CL owners who don't want to provide full facilities to become motor caravan CL's with just the basic facilities we need and change the name to 'Aire'. Instead of losing so many motor caravan members, the Caravan Club and the CL owners would benefit. All we want is somewhere LEGAL to stop overnight whilst touring in our motor caravan!! Roy

[Guest starspirit]

The reason the caravan club wants posh cl's is because the 'members' say they want them, that is, the towing members who outnumber us by many to one aparantly say so - although I never saw any proof whilst I was a member (for 20 years or so). As we all know the caravan club has it's own agenda which has nothing at all to do with you and me and truth to tell unless we motor caravanners will conform to their dictates we are not welcome. They are, after all a CARAVAN club. We never have been welcome although most site wardens are considerably more pleasant and helfpful than the retired sergeant major types of the sixties seventies and early eighties. I don't want posh cl's any more than I do electric, but I can see the appeal to a towing family who wants to stay for a week - if only to avoid the club's own ridiculous site fees. So I voted with my feet and left when they imposed electric charges and were they concerned? Not a bit of it, they were not interested enough to even ask me why I left. So I told them anyway - not that I ever got a reply! Remember - the caravan club is NEVER wrong.

[chas]

We must always remember the other major club, The camping and caravanning club, whose hideaway sites are ideal for 1 or 2 nights, and on all the ones I have stayed on not many offered EHU, and the few that did was not compulsary to use it, much like the club sites themselves. chas

[Brian Kirby]

[QUOTE]starspirit - 2006-07-10 11:51 AM The reason the caravan club wants posh cl's is because the 'members' say they want them, that is, the towing members who outnumber us by many to one aparantly say so - although I never saw any proof whilst I was a member (for 20 years or so). As we all know the caravan club has it's own agenda which has nothing at all to do with you and me and truth to tell unless we motor caravanners will conform to their dictates we are not welcome. They are, after all a CARAVAN club. We never have been welcome although most site wardens are considerably more pleasant and helfpful than the retired sergeant major types of the sixties seventies and early eighties. I don't want posh cl's any more than I do electric, but I can see the appeal to a towing family who wants to stay for a week - if only to avoid the club's own ridiculous site fees. So I voted with my feet and left when they imposed electric charges and were they concerned? Not a bit of it, they were not interested enough to even ask me why I left. So I told them anyway - not that I ever got a reply! Remember - the caravan club is NEVER wrong.[/QUOTE]

But, in time, they will have to come round, simply because of the sheer number of people buying, or moving to, motorhomes.  The club has good facilities, and owns some excellent sites.  It's their attitude that needs to shift, and the prospect of all those potential members going elsewhere will eventually bring them round. 

There isn't that much real difference between the needs of motorhomes and caravans, nor, in reality, that much between the needs or attitudes of their owners.  Quite a few people switch from one to other as their needs and preferences change.  There are, and have been, many complaints from caravanners about the club's handling of the electricity issue.  Many caravanners are happy with just a water point and somewhere to empty their waste and resent paying for hook up installations they don't use.  Sound familiar?

Regards

[docted]

Brian The reason for the caravan Club's continued intransigence towards "Aires" and wild camping is purely commercial. They are the largest single supplier of touring pitches in the UK. Why would they then support any other form of enterprise which would interfere with their commercial "raison d'etre". Neither it nor the C&C are proper clubs now they are large commercial enterprises whose main aim is to make money. As such they are never going to offer support to their "members" who do not wish to use their sites. Docted

[Brian Kirby]

[QUOTE]docted - 2006-07-10 2:24 PM Brian The reason for the caravan Club's continued intransigence towards "Aires" and wild camping is purely commercial. They are the largest single supplier of touring pitches in the UK. Why would they then support any other form of enterprise which would interfere with their commercial "raison d'etre". Neither it nor the C&C are proper clubs now they are large commercial enterprises whose main aim is to make money. As such they are never going to offer support to their "members" who do not wish to use their sites. Docted[/QUOTE]

Sorry, docted, I was really responding to starspirits point about the club not wanting motorhoming mebers, not to the question of aires/wild camping.  On that question I agree with you, the clubs won't support either, although I still think that in time their attitude to simple, relatively cheap, motorhome stopover points will change.

However, I still don't think you'll ever get cheap, French style, "aires" in UK.  I just think our land costs are too high for them to be sustainable.  And I don't think you'll ever persuade the providers to omit the electrical hook ups: they'd just loose the trade of those who do want that.  On the other hand, if the hook up is there, you should be able to take it or leave it at your preference.

[Guest starspirit]

Lots of talk of land being too expensive? Not if a person already owns land that is not doing anything? For example - local authorities and hard pressed small rural farmers? Just a thought?