Calls for action over ‘eyesore’ motorhomes by Broadwater Green

[Pikeman]

Doesn't look nice and to be honest I would want that 'stored' across the road from me for months on end.

But if the vehicle is legal, then your opinion would be irrelevant, would it not. The caravan, which I have never seen, is obviously not legal, as it will not be taxed. Take another look at the google maps view, there are more commercial vehicles parked than there are MH's.

 

[Astro]

But if the vehicle is legal, then your opinion would be irrelevant, would it not. The caravan, which I have never seen, is obviously not legal, as it will not be taxed. Take another look at the google maps view, there are more commercial vehicles parked than there are MH's.

I have seen all the other vehicles parked, you can hardly miss them.
It is just that one that stands out and it is probably that vehicle that is causing the complaints to be aimed at motorhomers in general which I agree is completely unjustified.
And you're right, it probably is legally parked but my opinion is my opinion, whether irrelevant or not. I wouldn't like it parked outside in our street for months on end.
A responsible and considerate owner would put it well out the way some where as it's hardly going to get nicked

 

[redbox]

Must admit having lived not far away and seen these motor homes,I m surprised they ve got away with it so long.
I think if people can't at least keep them clean and looking used,it s not surprising the locals complain.
There is alternative parking (at the moment?)by the sea front,surely alternating a couple of miles away would not be too much?
The problem for us "all" is the spin off reaction of local authorities that "ban" overnighting /parking.
Or as I saw in a car park recently when visiting Portchester castle,you had to park in the correct bay ,no warming of food ,tea making,sleeping or "enjoying yourself"?
On the plus side it was free!

 

[GJH]

Or as I saw in a car park recently when visiting Portchester castle,you had to park in the correct bay ,no warming of food ,tea making,sleeping

Why should there be anything different? We all need to realise that, generally, car parks are provided for parking, not for camping or picnicking. They also, generally have to be designed to cater for the 26 million cars in the UK as well as the relatively few motorhomes.

 

[GJH]

There was a council in the south west a few years ago which had a problem with local residents taking advantage of cheap parking rates to, effectively, store their motorhomes over winter. The knock on effect was that parking for shoppers/commuters/visitors was restricted. The initial reaction of the council was to ban motorhomes but constructive dialogue about genuine parking requirements for day visitors in motorhomes meant that a workable compromise was reached.
If people are prepared to work constructively with councils, rather than just complain about unfairness and hurl insults, we might find similar results elsewhere.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[wizzer59]

I live in Worthing, know Broadwater green very well and pass these vehicles on a regular basis. I have spoken with friends and a colleague who passes this spot twice a day. None of us have ever had cause to believe that anyone is living or even overnighting in these vehicles. If you read the article, it does not state that anyone is living/overnighting in them. They are parked there, presumably because the owners do not have off road parking facility. This stretch of road is a dual carriageway, there are no parking restrictions on this section and if they have adequate road tax and insurance, then what is the issue here? The nearest residents are approximately 50 metres away. Yet the complainants in the article live in Russell Close and Goldsmith Road, both half a mile away and not within view of the vehicles. So on the basis of these local residents resenting the look of these parked MH's whilst on their way to the shops, the council is involved and some of you want to banish them.

Keith

Totally agree with Keith on this, I work in and around Worthing and go down this street at least 2 to 5 times a week and I've never seen anyone staying in the 3 or 4 Motorhomes and RVs parked there, there are far more removal and other commercial vans parked but they are not a problem obviously I reckon this is more of a knockon from Goring gap which is only a few miles away and now has restrictions for motorhomes

 

[Snowbird]

So it seems these motorhomes like the cars and vans that are parked there are actually quite legally parked on the highway. No one is living in them and quite probably they belong to local residents, just like any other vehicle that is taxed and insured they have a right to park in an unrestricted area. Whats the problem ?. If they were hanging out washing on the hedges and lighting BBQs on the footpath I could understand residents complaining, but the complainers dont even live in the street.

 

[wizzer59]

So it seems these motorhomes like the cars and vans that are parked there are actually quite legally parked on the highway. No one is living in them and quite probably they belong to local residents, just like any other vehicle that is taxed and insured they have a right to park in an unrestricted area. Whats the problem ?. If they were hanging out washing on the hedges and lighting BBQs on the footpath I could understand residents complaining, but the complainers dont even live in the street.

Correct the only problem I see and it was the same with Goring gap, is that they are not being moved for months on end, if only they were moved now and again to a different spot it wouldn't be so obvious, most of the other vehicles parked along there get used but are parked back usually in a different spot

 

[GJH]

I'm intrigued that the report claims that the motorhomes are being lived in (and the county council is quoted as having served notices on two of them for doing so) but we have a number of posts saying the vehicles are parked and uninhabited. I wonder if the report contains more "journalistic licence" than fact.

In order to clarify I've just sent the following FoI request to West Sussex CC.

I have been alerted by a thread on a motorhome forum pointing to This Article in the Worthing Herald.

I am particularly interested by the paragraphs "A spokesman for West Sussex County Council said: “It is unlawful to reside on the highway. When it is reported, we will enforce by notice any specific incidents where it can reasonably be proved."" and "He added that the council had recently served notice on two mobile homes at the location and confirmed that, if they failed to comply, the council would obtain a court order for removal."

I have previously been in touch with the Department for Transport and have been informed that they know of no national legislation which either specifically permits or prohibits the use of motorhomes for habitation at the road side.

Could you please, therefore, tell me on which legislation the statement “It is unlawful to reside on the highway" was based and which legislation provides the power to serve notice on mobile homes as mentioned in the second quotation from the article.

I'll post the response when received (the council has up to 20 working days to do so).

 

[GJH]

I have received a reply from West Sussex Council as follows: "The legislation that we use is the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 Section 77 & 78." (see below).
So, I would take it that the advice given to me previously by the DfT stands as councils (in the absence of a specific order) won't bother about the odd motorhome stopping for a few hours over a single night and will only take action if the number of vans/length of stay becomes a nuisance.

77 Power of local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land.

(1)If it appears to a local authority that persons are for the time being residing in a vehicle or vehicles within that authority’s area—
(a)on any land forming part of a highway;
(b)on any other unoccupied land; or
(c)on any occupied land without the consent of the occupier,
the authority may give a direction that those persons and any others with them are to leave the land and remove the vehicle or vehicles and any other property they have with them on the land.

(2)Notice of a direction under subsection (1) must be served on the persons to whom the direction applies, but it shall be sufficient for this purpose for the direction to specify the land and (except where the direction applies to only one person) to be addressed to all occupants of the vehicles on the land, without naming them.

(3)If a person knowing that a direction under subsection (1) above has been given which applies to him—
(a)fails, as soon as practicable, to leave the land or remove from the land any vehicle or other property which is the subject of the direction, or
(b)having removed any such vehicle or property again enters the land with a vehicle within the period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given,
he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4)A direction under subsection (1) operates to require persons who re-enter the land within the said period with vehicles or other property to leave and remove the vehicles or other property as it operates in relation to the persons and vehicles or other property on the land when the direction was given.

(5)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show that his failure to leave or to remove the vehicle or other property as soon as practicable or his re-entry with a vehicle was due to illness, mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency.

(6)In this section—
“land” means land in the open air;
“local authority” means—
(a) in Greater London, a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;
(b) in England outside Greater London, a county council, a district council or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
(c) in Wales, a county council or a county borough council;
“occupier” person entitled to possession of the land by virtue of an estate or interest held by him;
“vehicle” includes—
(a) any vehicle, whether or not it is in a fit state for use on roads, and includes any body, with or without wheels, appearing to have formed part of such a vehicle, and any load carried by, and anything attached to, such a vehicle; and
(b) a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the M1Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960;
and a person may be regarded for the purposes of this section as residing on any land notwithstanding that he has a home elsewhere.

(7)Until 1st April 1996, in this section “local authority” means, in Wales, a county council or a district council.

78 Orders for removal of persons and their vehicles unlawfully on land.
(1)A magistrates’ court may, on a complaint made by a local authority, if satisfied that persons and vehicles in which they are residing are present on land within that authority’s area in contravention of a direction given under section 77, make an order requiring the removal of any vehicle or other property which is so present on the land and any person residing in it.

(2)An order under this section may authorise the local authority to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that the order is complied with and, in particular, may authorise the authority, by its officers and servants—
(a)to enter upon the land specified in the order; and
(b)to take, in relation to any vehicle or property to be removed in pursuance of the order, such steps for securing entry and rendering it suitable for removal as may be so specified.

(3)The local authority shall not enter upon any occupied land unless they have given to the owner and occupier at least 24 hours notice of their intention to do so, or unless after reasonable inquiries they are unable to ascertain their names and addresses.

(4)A person who wilfully obstructs any person in the exercise of any power conferred on him by an order under this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(5)Where a complaint is made under this section, a summons issued by the court requiring the person or persons to whom it is directed to appear before the court to answer to the complaint may be directed—
(a)to the occupant of a particular vehicle on the land in question; or
(b)to all occupants of vehicles on the land in question, without naming him or them.

(6)Section 55(2) of the M1Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (warrant for arrest of defendant failing to appear) does not apply to proceedings on a complaint made under this section.

(7)Section 77(6) of this Act applies also for the interpretation of this section.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Sidney]

...sound of the sign making company in West Sussex rubbing their hands in glee.

 

[PORKSTER]

Only just seen this a workmate lives opposite Broadwater park and knows who owns the RV I will ask him tommorow if the guy lives init. He also knows the guy that lived in the big RV at Goring Gap but hes now on a local site only 1 site in Worthing another one has just shut for good. The road to my work place in Worthing often has regular living vans parked there over night but never for days on end they just come and go. I think people are going to take to van living as house prices rent increase look around cheap sites lots of full timers on them.

Now when I fancy say some of piste camping or a little sleepy spot are we using the term Piss take camping now ?

 

[GJH]

...sound of the sign making company in West Sussex rubbing their hands in glee.

No need the way with the approach the council is taking.
They are obviously targeting people who stay there long term rather than people who are there just for the odd night.

 

[beltsandbraces]

I also pass these vehicles everyday and as for the mention of the doors opening out onto the carriageway if anyone saw the interesting RV parked there, the doors are about 5 feet off the ground and you would need a step ladder to use them.

 

[Emmit]

I have received a reply from West Sussex Council as follows: "The legislation that we use is the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 Section 77 & 78." (see below).
So, I would take it that the advice given to me previously by the DfT stands as councils (in the absence of a specific order) won't bother about the odd motorhome stopping for a few hours over a single night and will only take action if the number of vans/length of stay becomes a nuisance.

Just read this Graham,

Don't know whether the Council have or have not actually got around to using the Act they are suggesting but, from my time being a pedant in uniform, I would suggest that they have no power whilst the motor vehicles are on the road.
The Act says 'Land forming part of a highway.'
The Highway itself is not the 'land'. It is that part of 'The Highway' that is not the part used for the use of motor vehicles.
We were taught that the Highway is not merely the tarmac (or other material) bit. The Highway continues until it meets a boundary. Thats why you can be convicted of driving and committing motoring offences even if you drove on the pavement. The pavement is the Highway.
In this case I would suggest that if the vehicles were parked on the 'green bit' adjoining the road, the Council would have power but not on the road. (Not under this enactment anyway).

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Northernraider]

That's certainly an interesting looking vehicle but doesn't look like it's seen an Mot station in a few years going by the corrosion etc which should mean it's untaxed.... I agree it's an eyesore and wouldn't want it parked opposite my house

With regards to caravans I believe it's actually perfectly legal to park it streetside as long as it's not causing an obstruction, I was a tugger once and as I didn't have a driveway at the time I had asked my neighbours either side and opposite me if they objected to me parking it outside and asked the council what their stance was on it they said as long as it wasn't blocking access etc it was fine

That may have changed