Potential legal prevention of UK "aires" and "pub stopovers"?

GJH said:
That is why I mentioned it - as a "heads up" to anyone interested.
Click to expand...

I did get a reply from the Transport Ministry about parking large vehicles

No reply or even acknowledgement from Bristol City Council about Baltic Wharf

....
 
GJH said:
I see your point but, as the law is framed at the moment, they are not the same because habitation of a caravan (including a motorhome) is controlled differently - whether we like it or not.
It would actually be the landlord in trouble for allowing his land to be used as a caravan site, not you - unless of course he didn't normally allow it and could take advantage of the exemption in Para 2 of the First Schedule :)
Click to expand...

Ahh, so, lorry’s with sleeping compartments in the back... it would apply to them too ? Or if we park in a lay-by for the night would the highways dept get in trouble...?
 
I
Just smiffy said:
So, I go to the pub in my car, have a meal and a drink, come out and I’m really tired and I sleep in the car for the night....

Go to the pub in my Motorhome (because I have no car) have a meal and a drink come out and I’m knackered and Sleep in my Motorhome....

One of these scenarios I’ll be breaking the law when in fact they are the same...(n)

I’m really not having a go but something is not quite right here.... I’m a plain English kind of guy...:)
Click to expand...
Both scenarios are the same. It doesn't matter what sort of vehicle you sleep in.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
GJH said:
The danger is that the wording could encompass anywhere used for camping that doesn't have water and waste supplies. Thus several LA car parks would be (perhaps unwittingly) included and proposals to use other ones would possibly be thrown out because of the expense of provision.
I don't think it would affect rallies/THSs or CLs/CSs as they have adequate water and waste facilities (at least all the ones I have attended do).
Click to expand...

It would depend on the exact wording.

If for example they use "mains sewerage" instead of "adequate sewerage" there's a huge difference. Even if they use "adequate sewerage" there will have to be a specific definition of adequate included.

Also "roads" are mentioned by the minister you quoted in the OP. If they decided to make permanent hard surface roads a requirement how many THSs, CLs, CSs or rallies would comply?

It wouldn't take a lot for this idea to become a lot more sweeping than anyone intends. It probably won't even occur to them how it would affect people like us and even if it did all they'd do is consult the caravan company who naturally would say it's a great idea.

One question I'd like to know the answer to is this:

If what parliament is looking at is a more effective way of dealing with illegal traveller encampments then is using the 1960 Act really the most suitable piece of legislation to use?

My thought is that specific legislation, even if it had to be new, could be more easily defined and therefore easier to enforce. I have a sneaking suspicion that this, if it happened, wouldn't have any affect on traveller sites at all. If any authority decided to try and enforce it they would only bother with the soft targets (us) and still molly coddle the travellers as they do now.
 
Just smiffy said:
Ahh, so, lorry’s with sleeping compartments in the back... it would apply to them too ? Or if we park in a lay-by for the night would the highways dept get in trouble...?
Click to expand...

Lorries are covered by separate and specific legislation.
 
big map said:
How would it affect Rallys (in fields)?
Click to expand...

That would depend how it was worded.

It would be very easy to make them illegal by accident.

I guess the same thing could apply to festival campervan fields which would affect me a lot more.
 
Boringfrog said:
Taken from this site: http://www.motorhomeparking.co.uk/offsite.htm
View attachment 254877
Click to expand...
But that would only apply to anyone being offered or doing the offering surely ? Those doing what they consider is there right wouldn't be affected .:)
If they haven't managed to sort out the waste haulage licence requirements & compliance with the hazardous waste act, since 1990 ,with regard to the usual scum then I won't be worrying about any of it.
Until those who are supposed to be enforcing all this tat actually understand it , then there's no chance of the public doing so.

I wasn't going to bother mentioning it but on 2 occasions in the UK recently, I have been informed that my motorhome "isn't a caravan" .:mad: So while this is going on you are wasting your time.
 
Just smiffy said:
Ahh, so, lorry’s with sleeping compartments in the back... it would apply to them too ? Or if we park in a lay-by for the night would the highways dept get in trouble...?
Click to expand...
As per earlier post, you must have missed some previous ones. Highways (including lay-byes) are subject to separate legislation. Please see this article.
 
gus-lopez said:
But that would only apply to anyone being offered or doing the offering surely ? Those doing what they consider is there right wouldn't be affected .:)
If they haven't managed to sort out the waste haulage licence requirements & compliance with the hazardous waste act, since 1990 ,with regard to the usual scum then I won't be worrying about any of it.
Until those who are supposed to be enforcing all this tat actually understand it , then there's no chance of the public doing so.

I wasn't going to bother mentioning it but on 2 occasions in the UK recently, I have been informed that my motorhome "isn't a caravan" .:mad: So while this is going on you are wasting your time.
Click to expand...
The case of Backer v Secretary of State for the Environment and Wealden District Council (1983) established that a motorhome falls within the definition of a caravan.
 
GJH said:
The danger is that the wording could encompass anywhere used for camping that doesn't have water and waste supplies.
Click to expand...

Then there needs to be a distinction ... for sites where Moho’s turn up and do not require such facilities... i.e have water and storage for “waste”.. e.g grey tank and cassette loo... that being pubs etc...
 
Fletton said:
Then there needs to be a distinction ... for sites where Moho’s turn up and do not require such facilities... i.e have water and storage for “waste”.. e.g grey tank and cassette loo... that being pubs etc...
Click to expand...

If they are targeting travellers then they will be looking to remove that sort of distinction not clarify or expand it.

Those of us who prefer off site camping but aren’t travellers will simply be caught up in it. We won’t be given a second thought.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
NickNic said:
It would depend on the exact wording.

If for example they use "mains sewerage" instead of "adequate sewerage" there's a huge difference. Even if they use "adequate sewerage" there will have to be a specific definition of adequate included.

Also "roads" are mentioned by the minister you quoted in the OP. If they decided to make permanent hard surface roads a requirement how many THSs, CLs, CSs or rallies would comply?

It wouldn't take a lot for this idea to become a lot more sweeping than anyone intends. It probably won't even occur to them how it would affect people like us and even if it did all they'd do is consult the caravan company who naturally would say it's a great idea.

One question I'd like to know the answer to is this:

If what parliament is looking at is a more effective way of dealing with illegal traveller encampments then is using the 1960 Act really the most suitable piece of legislation to use?

My thought is that specific legislation, even if it had to be new, could be more easily defined and therefore easier to enforce. I have a sneaking suspicion that this, if it happened, wouldn't have any affect on traveller sites at all. If any authority decided to try and enforce it they would only bother with the soft targets (us) and still molly coddle the travellers as they do now.
Click to expand...
Yes, the potential problems are in the wording and the fact that it wouldn't take a lot for this idea to become a lot more sweeping than anyone intends - which is my reason for raising it.
I wouldn't be concerned about the definition of what sewerage is adequate because CLs, rallies &c obviously already pass whatever test is currently applied.
Neither would I worry about "roads". Again, rallies, CL &c have roadways which are sometimes grass.
I should think it unlikely that controlling "traveller" encampments will be approached by amendment of the 1960 Act (though its provisions have obviously been referred to). More likely that separate legislation would be more sweeping than anyone intends and would override the 1960 Act.
 
Fletton said:
Then there needs to be a distinction ... for sites where Moho’s turn up and do not require such facilities... i.e have water and storage for “waste”.. e.g grey tank and cassette loo... that being pubs etc...
Click to expand...
NickNic said:
Those of us who prefer off site camping but aren’t travellers will simply be caught up in it. We won’t be given a second thought.
Click to expand...
Which, again, is why I raised the matter - so that, as I said in the OP, "those interested (especially anyone in the South West Bedfordshire constituency) might like to have a word with their MPs to ensure that the legislation is carefully worded".
 
GJH said:
I wouldn't be concerned about the definition of what sewerage is adequate because CLs, rallies &c obviously already pass whatever test is currently applied
Click to expand...

If there actually is a test?

Have you ever heard of one?
 
Am I allowed to camp on my drive?

Not that I could fit our old motorhome on our drive.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
NickNic said:
If there actually is a test?

Have you ever heard of one?
Click to expand...
There are the model standards, which are applied by the exempted organisations to CLs and rallies &c. I wouldn't be pedantic about whether "test" is the correct terminology but it is the measure used in practice.
 
What about basic CLs/CSs.

Just a field with a tap and maybe a septic tank.... No roads, no pitch marking for safe distances, no fire equipment etc.
 
GJH said:
There are the model standards, which are applied by the exempted organisations to CLs and rallies &c. I wouldn't be pedantic about whether "test" is the correct terminology but it is the measure used in practice.
Click to expand...

Please explain......
 
pappajohn said:
What about basic CLs/CSs.

Just a field with a tap and maybe a septic tank.... No roads, no pitch marking for safe distances, no fire equipment etc.
Click to expand...
As said earlier, roads don't have to be tarmac. They aren't at many rallies.
Safe distances do not have to be marked, just applied. It's easy enough.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Join us

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top