Sign here to Park your MH

[GJH]

Tony Jones - 2007-06-21 4:37 PM

Fat chance is right. Typically woolly "response" arrived by e-m today.

Got mine this afternoon - not surprised at the wool :-)

 

Interesting, perhaps, that the final sentence (referring to height barriers) is "It is possible that councils may be prepared to review their policy on these barriers following representation from local communities."

 

Perhaps if people were to follow the lead of David Lloyd - see thread http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4457&posts=29 - and write to their own local councils asking for facilities to be made available, at least during the daytime if not overnight, then some councils might take notice.

 

Graham

[Champstar]

I too signed the petition and am greatly disappointed by the response of the government. In Scotland we do not seem to have as many restrictions in the tourist areas. What can we do now to ensure that we are not second or even third class citizens of this country. I have not ventured abroad yet in my motorhome, there is still so much to see and do in this wonderful country but if we as a community are not welcome then is their a choice?

[Guest peter]

I think the main problem is that the Council's are wanting to keep the Pikey's out of the car parks. Get rid of the parasites and the problem will disappear. >:-)

[GJH]

peter - 2007-06-22 12:29 AM

 

I think the main problem is that the Council's are wanting to keep the Pikey's out of the car parks. Get rid of the parasites and the problem will disappear. >:-)

Whilst some councils have cited fears of car parks becoming illegal camp sites some have told me that their car parks are designed for cars only in order to make the maximum use of available space and that restrictions are there to prevent the health & safety problems which might arise from large vehicles from using small parking bays and narrow internal roadways. Others have said that they want to prevent large commercial vans, lorries and tractor units (and, in some cases, motorhomes) from parking overnight.

 

Whatever is the case, isn't the way forward to show councils that motorhome users are a responsible section of the community and that provision of a few spaces would not result in any of the problems which councils fear?

 

Graham

[Brian Kirby]

I'm sure David will keep us up to date with developments.  I tried a similar tack with our District Council but after an initial flurry of e-mails the councillors asked the officers what could be done.  (Odd that, I thought the councillors were supposed to make the policy, and the officers to carry it out.  Seems not!) 

The officers merely muttered and shuffled and kicked the issue into the long grass!  I'm now awaiting David's result before resurrecting the issue locally, in the hope that a precedent will break the log jam of indifference.  If we can just win the case in a few councils, I think it will make it much easier to get others to follow. 

However, I do think it might help if others, more generally, began badgering their local councillor on this issue.  There won't be instant results, but it may create the impression that there is a general undercurrent of demand.  Presently, I think the councils are all nervous about being the first to act, presumably because, if you're the pioneer, there is no one else to copy and, if it goes wrong, there is no one else to share the blame!

[GJH]

Brian Kirby - 2007-06-22 10:46 AM(Odd that, I thought the councillors were supposed to make the policy, and the officers to carry it out.  Seems not!) 

The officers merely muttered and shuffled and kicked the issue into the long grass!

They do make policy but they often have to take advice on what is legal etc. I would hope that members would have enough about them to overcome any officers being deliberately obstructive - though I do admit that is a bit cloud cuckoo land thinking with some officers/members :-D

Brian Kirby - 2007-06-22 10:46 AMIf we can just win the case in a few councils, I think it will make it much easier to get others to follow.

However, I do think it might help if others, more generally, began badgering their local councillor on this issue. There won't be instant results, but it may create the impression that there is a general undercurrent of demand. Presently, I think the councils are all nervous about being the first to act, presumably because, if you're the pioneer, there is no one else to copy and, if it goes wrong, there is no one else to share the blame!

I'm sure you are right Brian. In one of my e-mails to RCBC in support of David I quoted Canterbury and Powys as examples as both officers and members often like to have other councils which they can consult.I put a template version of that message on my web site so it is avaliable to anyone who wants to do a bit of councillor-badgering :-)Graham

[crinklystarfish]

I have a couple of observations, the first of which is that it comes as no surprise that self-serving, contemptuous hypocrites in Central Government, should effectively sidestep the matter. They are, after all, only paid very generously to represent the interests of the electorate. They are far too busy ignoring the wishes of the nation on far bigger issues like illegal wars to worry about piffle like this.

 

The second is, perhaps, more controversial.

 

The work done by some individuals with their Local Authorities (LAs) is truly laudable and I have nothing but respect and admiration for people who are willing to try to make a difference.

 

However, I do understand why LAs are very reluctant to accommodate us as a user group. The pleas to councils are undoubtedly based on the assertion that motorhome users are an homogenous bunch. The reality is that we are not. We range on a continuum from the upstanding and virtuous to parasitic thieves. This is a reality that must be borne in mind, and the most likely reason that LAs pay only lip service to requests for parking.

 

They will see straight past the scenario of reasonable people parking for a few hours to contribute to the local economy, and home in on the likelihood of the provision being abused by the anti-social criminal element that also make use of mobile homes.

 

We go into motorhome ownership with our eyes open and should foresee parking problems if we choose to head into the centres of habitation. We do not live in France, our culture and society is very different, as is the land mass to inhabitant ratio. It’s probably wistful and naïve to imagine a replication of their wonderful encouragement of legitimate motorhome use. Civic authorities there clearly do not face the same issues as LAs here.

 

It would be truly marvellous to have the space to park in towns and cities, let alone the utopia of service areas. Think about it from the LAs perspective though, before being too critical. How on earth could they effectively manage such sites without a huge draw on resources? They would be abused. In a former role I have been involved in trying to evict those who stick two fingers up at authority and such is the idiocy of ‘Human’ rights legislation etc. that the anti-social and criminal are disproportionately protected.

 

I admire those who are trying to make the change in this regard but think we need to take a look at ourselves as a group, and the society in which we live, and be realistic with our aspirations. :'(

[GJH]

crinklystarfish - 2007-06-22 2:50 PM

 

However, I do understand why LAs are very reluctant to accommodate us as a user group. The pleas to councils are undoubtedly based on the assertion that motorhome users are an homogenous bunch. The reality is that we are not. We range on a continuum from the upstanding and virtuous to parasitic thieves. This is a reality that must be borne in mind, and the most likely reason that LAs pay only lip service to requests for parking.

 

crinklystarfish - 2007-06-22 2:50 PM

They will see straight past the scenario of reasonable people parking for a few hours to contribute to the local economy, and home in on the likelihood of the provision being abused by the anti-social criminal element that also make use of mobile homes.

I hear what you are saying but, with respect, you could apply the same argument to society as a whole - and find reasons for LAs not funding other projects (youth centres for example).

 

crinklystarfish - 2007-06-22 2:50 PM

It would be truly marvellous to have the space to park in towns and cities, let alone the utopia of service areas. Think about it from the LAs perspective though, before being too critical. How on earth could they effectively manage such sites without a huge draw on resources? They would be abused. In a former role I have been involved in trying to evict those who stick two fingers up at authority and such is the idiocy of ‘Human’ rights legislation etc. that the anti-social and criminal are disproportionately protected.

I've been there too so I know what you mean. I spent nearly 36 years working in local government, latterly with responsibilities around regulatory legislation including the Human Rights Act (as an aside I agree that the HRA is a badly drafted piece of legislation).

 

The last LA I worked for had problems with illegal "travellers" camp sites but I can't recall any that were actually created on any of the easily accessible car parks. I can recall problems with youths on motorbikes and in pimped cars (which wouldn't have been stopped by height barriers) but the council acted positively and put in officers to move them on without reducing access for law-abiding citizens.

 

As regards provision of special facilities for motorhomes it appears that LAs like Canterbury, Powys and St Edmondsbury are able to effectively manage such sites - and if they can do it and demonstrate a positive effect on the local economy then why can't other local authorities do the same?

 

Graham

[crinklystarfish]

Hi Graham,

 

Yes the arguments can be extrapolated to other areas, but it is plain that very often the anti-social and criminal minority ruin these projects too.

 

I feel fairly confident that if such facilities were to become mainstream, then as the undesirables learned of them, they would soon begin to usurp them.

 

I never said that LAs couldn’t follow the lead of others, just that it is perhaps utopian and unrealistic to expect a widespread uptake in local government.

 

Now if the concept of Certified Locations etc. could somehow be brought to Towns and Cites, we might be onto a winner.

 

Steve

 

[GJH]

crinklystarfish - 2007-06-22 4:46 PM

Yes the arguments can be extrapolated to other areas, but it is plain that very often the anti-social and criminal minority ruin these projects too.

 

I feel fairly confident that if such facilities were to become mainstream, then as the undesirables learned of them, they would soon begin to usurp them.

Hello Steve,

 

You may well be right that undesirable elements might try to take advantage. However, as such facilities would be likely to be in town centres, which tend to be more policed than suburbs, I would hope that control shouldn't be too difficult. Simple provision of daytime parking facilities (as a start) rather than overnight camping (which is barred by many councils anyway) should be easier to control.

 

crinklystarfish - 2007-06-22 4:46 PM

I never said that LAs couldn’t follow the lead of others, just that it is perhaps utopian and unrealistic to expect a widespread uptake in local government.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were saying that. Local government is a funny thing though, councils often follow where others lead. Just look at some of the weird departmental names that have sprung up like a rash over the country :-D

 

crinklystarfish - 2007-06-22 4:46 PM

Now if the concept of Certified Locations etc. could somehow be brought to Towns and Cites, we might be onto a winner.

Now there's an idea :-) If we suggested to Tescos and Asda that there might be profit to be made you never know what might happen :-D

 

Graham

[Brian Kirby]

crinklystarfish - 2007-06-22 4:46 PM Hi Graham, Yes the arguments can be extrapolated to other areas, but it is plain that very often the anti-social and criminal minority ruin these projects too. I feel fairly confident that if such facilities were to become mainstream, then as the undesirables learned of them, they would soon begin to usurp them. I never said that LAs couldn’t follow the lead of others, just that it is perhaps utopian and unrealistic to expect a widespread uptake in local government. Now if the concept of Certified Locations etc. could somehow be brought to Towns and Cites, we might be onto a winner. Steve

This is all a bit of a counsel of defeat, Steve!  Of course things get abused and spoiled, but that shouldn't prevent us from providing them.  We can't just give up on life because a few anti-social morons spoil things.

Besides, the degree to which this happens does vary from place to place.  It also depends on the extent to which vandalism is rectified promptly.  Deliberate breakage and "tagging" create an air of dilapidation others merely latch onto.  If the repairs are quickly made, and the "tags" quickly overpainted or removed, the perpetrators do get bored and go away. 

With the number of CCTV cameras around our towns, it is difficult to see why the rate of attrition should be so high for a bit of motorhome parking.  Locally, we have parking wardens continually wandering the streets "supervising" on, and off, street parking.  I can see no reason why they couldn't be equally responsible for ensuring motorhomers have paid their dues, and if necessary clamp those that have not. 

The undesirables have free access to our car parks at any time, yet they prefer to occupy nearby farm land and free parking areas in the countryside.  They aren't that stupid that they set up home on areas they know they can be prosecuted for occupying.  They go for areas where there is no restriction, or only a private landowner to challenge about whether gate was locked shut, or wide open, when they found it.

Chin up.  We'll win in the end!