UK "Aires" petition

[TonyJones]

I saw this link on a Facebook group this morning:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/join-europe-in-providing-aires-for-uk-motorhome
I've signed it, you might want to do the same. However, I've also pointed out that the Government will probably just say it's a matter for local authorities.
What would really make a difference - and WOULD need national legislation - would be to define motorhomes legally once and for all as simply "vehicles," NOT caravans. That's the big difference between the UK and many other European countries.
Doing that would take us out of the Caravan Sites Act, which is what causes most of the restrictions.

 

[Retread]

What would also help is to stop any organisation being able to discriminate against a vehicle within a particular class, most Camping cars are under 3.5T and fall into the same classification as 4X4's, light vans and domestic cars, it is the anti discrimination legislation that allows French Camping organisations to sue Councils who discriminate against Campers, there is also legislation in place that bans height barriers unless there is an problem; ie low bridge, underground parking; ahead so that the barrier is a warning, not a means of denying access.
Remember the right to park in France is distinct from the right to camp. But with the usual gaullic shrug then what you do inside the camper while parked is your business and nothing to do with anyone else. Just keep the steadies down

 

[TonyJones]

But with the usual gaullic shrug then what you do inside the camper while parked is your business and nothing to do with anyone else. Just keep the steadies down

But of course, Roger, what you're referring to here is signs in the UK saying "no cooking" or "no sleeping in vehicles" - isn't it??

 

[gjh]

Two things struck me when I saw this petition mentioned on Facebook:
1. Who is it supposed to be presented to? It doesn't actually say.
2. What real evidence is there to back up the statement "Aires would add to the economy of local areas, as users would purchase local produce and use amenities etc."? I've been doing some research recently on another forum and it appears that many people spend very little.
If we can go to a council and say "set up an aire and
every van attracted will bring 50 quid a day to your local economy" we might have a chance. On the other hand if all we can say is "each van may only bring a fiver a day into your economy
but if you make space for a couple of dozen the scheme might start to
pay its way" there is less incentive for investment.
Simply making a claim that has nothing to back it has been shown to be ineffective.

 

[gjh]

Absolutely correct, Tony, to say it's a matter for
local authorities.
No change is required to national legislation as local authorities already have the powers, under the 1960 Act, to create "aires".
The hurdle is showing that investing the necessary resources is worthwhile.

 

[JohnThompson]

80% of Motorhomes are licenced for road use at any one time (DfT) vehicle stats. A maximum of 20% are SORNED in December of any year from 2011 to 2013. This drops to 11% in summer. Caravan sites are only open during a season normally Easter to October at the longest. This closed season is imposed on them, by the licence issued by the local authority. Abroad a lot of closed caravan site have Aire facilities open all year. Our local authorities don't want to know this.

 

[JohnThompson]

Motorhomes are strange beasts, not quite fitting into the law as it relates to cars.
Try finding anything to do with motorhomes in the Highway Code and you’ll be disappointed. But they are still road vehicles,

Responsible motor caravanners' will want to obey the law but it is sometimes hard to find out just what those laws are – and you may be surprised to learn that it can often be just as difficult for the enforcement authorities.

Legally, motorhomes do not quite fit into the law on cars, nor those on heavier vehicles, but lie somewhere in between. So what is a ‘Motorhome’? or ‘motor caravan’, or ‘living van’, ‘leisure vehicle’, or ’campervan’ for that matter? There is not even one agreed description in English for it!

They are defined under Directive 2002/24/EC as Special purpose, Motor vehicles with at least four wheels: Category M: used for the carriage of passengers

5. "Special purpose vehicle" means a vehicle of category M, N or O for conveying passengers or goods and for performing a special function for which special body arrangements and/or equipment are necessary.

5.1. "Motor caravan" means a special purpose M category vehicle constructed to include living accommodation which contains at least the following equipment:

- seats and table,

- sleeping accommodation which may be converted from the seats,

- cooking facilities, and

- storage facilities.

This equipment shall be rigidly fixed to the living compartment; however, the table may be designed to be easily removable.

So we have a situation where a Motorhome is a vehicle defined under the 1984/88 Road Traffic Act as a "motor car" if it weighs under 3050kg unladen or a "heavy motor car" of over that weight. However speed limits are defined for vehicle above or below 3500kg laden. Confusing! Speed limits relate to un-laden weight not laden.

There need to be some clarification not only of a motorhomes status as even DfT vehicle stats don't stick with the EU Directive.
When asked about the number of motorhomes registered in the UK I received the following data
Licenced 2014
March
Category 2014 q1
Missing 166,170
M1 10,464
N1 17,515
N2 1,884
Other 37,749
Total 233,782
SORN 37,634
Total 271,416

M! are passenger vehicles N1 and N2 are goods vehicles. Yet "Directive 2002/24/EC" specifies Motorhomes as Special Purpose, Motor vehicles with at least four wheels: Category M: used for the carriage of passengers. So what are "Missing" and "Other". They are obviously taxed, MOTd and Insured to be licenced. I have not used the individual figures for SORN.

Reading the vehicle categories there is no provision for Special Purpose, passenger carrying, goods vehicles.

Caravan sites are not what they were when set up under The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. This Act was amended in 1968 to accommodate units, larger than those that could be legally towed on the road and twin units. Sites have increasing been turned into parks for Static Residential and Holiday Units and increasingly now lodges. Their initial function as places for touring has been lost. However local authorities licence them as caravan sites. Many local authority official do not understand, or refuse to accept, that there is a difference. Some seem to think they are car parks for Motorhomes that you can just drop into or leave as you wish using the dump facilities on site with no need to book. Again this had become apparent from FOI requests.

 

[gjh]

I agree John but what are local authorities to do? They are constrained by what the law insists they do and what the law allows them to do.
It would be great to see the 1960 Act replaced along the lines that Tony and yourself have outlined but, realistically, do any of us think that any government is going to give that parliamentary time any time soon (say within the next 10 or so years)?
Without side tracking onto general politics, local authorities are cash strapped at the moment so the only way in which we can make progress is to persuade them that providing "aires" would add value to their area.
I've suggested previously that people who have used facilities like those provided by Hawick or Canterbury identify a suitable council car park in their own area and then write to the council (Chief Exec and Leader say)
saying something along the lines of:
"As well as being a resident here I own a motorhome and travel throughout the UK. I recently stayed for a night at the special motorhome facility at ?????? and, whilst there, spent £xxx. From my observations it appears that the ABC car park is underused. If you were to introduce a similar motorhome facility to that car park it would attract motorhome owners from other areas to spend similar amounts here. Naturally I should be happy to meet with you to discuss requirements and help in any way I can."
At least then councils would be made aware of a real demand.
Graham

 

[JohnThompson]

Hi Graham

The 1960 has already been superceeded by new regulations controling residential sites. A new bill is in preparation in Wales now to control Static Holiday sites in line with the regulations for residential. With self government for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the act is alrady being fragmented.
Councils need to recognise that things have changed since the 1950 when the 1960 Act was drafted. Other government departments say they used the definition of a caravan as per the 1960 Act but on reading them they have dropped parts that don't suit them, for example HMRC and the position re 5% VAT on Caravans over 28ft, but they say that does not apply to motorhomes over 28ft.
Even sites for touring caravans are being occupied by seasonal pitches reducing pitch availability to the genuine tourer.

Pub stops are operating without licences or exemptions and are being ignored by the authorities. This brings the whole act into disrespect.

The government finds time and money to draft and redraft regulations that suits it, such as the new 2015 TSGRD. The 2013 Circular to Motorway Service Station operators dropping any reference to the privision for service facilities for Motorhomes that were in the 2008 version.
If we don't push for a change nothing will happen.

Tony is there any chance of getting rid of the Word verification on my posts

John

 

[TonyJones]

Done. Sorry John, I hadn't realised you were in the wrong category!
In the long run, I'm sure Graham's suggestion is the only one with a real chance. But that relies on all of us going to our own LAs to lobby for an Aire which we, personally, will by definition never use. Are enough of us willing to put that much effort in, for the benefit of OTHER m'homers - even though we hope they'll be doing it for us?
Personally, I've had in mind for years a spot near me that would be ideal but never "got around to" doing anything about it! And I like to think that I'm reasonably unselfish, and keen to help others (especially other m'homers).
Maybe the real campaign needs to start among ourselves ...
As the late Michael Jackson sang, "I'm starting with the man in the mirror ... ... If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make the change!"

 

[gjh]

I'm right there with you in spirit, John, but I can't see the 1960 Act changing, even with its imperfections. To an extent I am surprised that organised promotion of unlicensed/non-exempted sites has not been clamped down upon but I guess that it is a matter of (lack of) resources in just the same way that some CLs get away with allowing more than 5 vans at a time on site because their certificating organisations do not have the resources to prevent it. The only way I can see that new legislation might come about is if other changes (such as you mention) leave such a stunted rump that it becomes unworkable.
However, even if the legislation regarding touring sites were to be overhauled it is highly unlikely that there would be any duty placed on local authorities to create motorhome stopover facilities. It is far more likely that, as with the 2008 MSA paper, any provision would be that services may be provided (i.e. there is a power available). In practical terms that would not be significantly different from the current situation.
The area in which councils do have an impact in the drafting and redrafting of primary and secondary legislation is through the consultation process, but it is inevitable that they seek powers to more easily deal with nuisance, where that has been identified, as well as to be able to more easily provide services. The more that civil disobedience (such as ignoring prohibition signs) occurs the more likely it is that more easily implemented prohibition powers will be sought.
I agree wholeheartedly that we must continue to push for change - but we waste our time and efforts if we do so in ways which have been proven to fail time and again. We also have to recognise that we are a relatively small community and that awareness of our requirements isn't necessarily as widespread as we would like to believe. I used to be surprised, when discussing facilities with councils, how little knowledge there was of the aires system and the difference between an aire and a caravan site. Nowadays I am much more prepared to include a brief explanation when making an initial approach. We also have to be prepared to answer and overcome opposition based on prejudice against "travellers", "big white vans spoiling the view" and show that it is without foundation (even though that is unfortunately made difficult by some of our fellows).
It isn't easy and it is a slow process but, if the economic viability were so obvious, private companies would be queueing to open urban sites.

 

[gjh]

Tony, to pick up on your point of lobbying LAs.
Yes, I suppose there is a built-in lack of incentive in one's local area (I recall that with Guisborough for instance) but proximity does make face to face negotiation easier. Also, I expect many of us will be unable to see the attraction of our home areas (I can't think of much to attract people to Middlesbrough for example).
However, one thing we probably all have in common is a favoured area of the country for our travels. There is nothing to stop us approaching councils in those areas if we can identify potential sites. I'm currently in contact with four authorities in different areas of the country (none around Tees-side). It's very early days yet but two have shown some interest so fingers crossed.

 

[gouryella101]

Hi,
I am the person who started the Aires de service petition on ipetitions.
Basicly everyone needs to make it clear to there local councils, what the Aires are all about.
I started with my local council East riding of yorkshire 4 weeks ago.
They listened to be honest and directed my opinions to the department that deals with a local park and ride.
At the end of this years season, the park and ride will put my views forward in a meeting.
This has got to be a good start.
The more folk who get to know about this idea the better.
As with a lot of matters, its a lack of knowledge on the subject.
Spread the word and start local.
Rich Davey

 

[TonyJones]

Hi Rich
Thanks for the input, and welcome to the forum. I've upgraded you so you won't be asked to copy the squiggles next time.
So ... general concensus seems to be that a change to national law would make a big difference, so it's good to keep the pressure up for that, BUT it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Meanwhile, it really IS up too all of us, in our own areas. As voters, we can lobby our own local authorities, and as customers we can approach local businesses which have land.
Can we make it happen?

 

[gjh]

Well done Rich. Making a specific argument for a specific site is the way forward.
Graham

 

[gjh]

This is an example of the type of e-mail I've sent off to the Leader and Chief Executive of councils
recently. Others may like to use it as a template with appropriate
amendments.

Dear Councillor ??????? and Chief Executive,

For almost 8 years now I have run a web site, http://www.motorhomeparking.co.uk/,
which seeks to inform people where they may park motorhomes safely and
to direct them away from areas where they might have/cause problems. The
web site is personally funded by myself and receives no sponsorship,
corporate or otherwise.

Over that period I have received assistance in the form of information
from your authority on a number of occasions so I am aware that daytime
motorhome parking is possible at XXXXXXXXXX. It strikes me that there is
an opportunity for your Council to generate extra revenue from under
used resources at XXXXXXXXXX. I note that XXXXXXXXXX does not allow
overnight habitation by motorhome owners and it strikes me that you
might be missing out on a potential money-spinner for the Council and
for local businesses.

My wife and I recently stayed in your council area for some 12
days, staying at temporary rally sites, but earlier this year we stopped
at the motorhome stopover facility at New Dover Road P&R site at
Canterbury for a couple of days, during a trip to the south east of
England from our home in Middlesbrough. During those trips we worked out
that we spent an average of about £50 a day in local shops,
restaurants, pubs &c. I am struck by the historical similarities
between your area and Canterbury and wondered whether any
consideration had been given to extending the facilities for motorhomes
at XXXXXXXXXX to allow overnight stays.

Whilst at Canterbury I took a few photos which I have put together in a small set of web pages at http://www.gjh.me.uk/c_aire/index.htm
to show you what the stopover looks like. As you will see, the
facilities are basic but perfectly adequate for touring motorhomes,
which are self contained in terms of habitation facilities. The
grey/black waste disposal is a simple manhole with a grate covering
through which grey water can be poured directly. There are a couple of
ropes attached to the grate which enables it to be lifted to one side
for the disposal of chemical toilet contents. The water tap is a simple
stand pipe. Whilst we were there, disposal of dry waste was via numerous
general litter bins rather than a dedicated commercial bin. There is
further information on the Canterbury City Council web site at https://www.canterbury.gov.uk/parking-travel-roads/parking/park-and-ride/motorhomes-and-park-ride/.

The photos were taken the day we arrived, there being a couple of
transit vans (which left at the end of the day) as well as motorhomes
because the P&R site is being expanded with extra car parking
spaces. Several more motorhomes came in later and by the evening of the
following day there were 12 motorhomes staying overnight. We left about
8:30am on the Friday but friends who left a couple of hours later said
that 5 more motorhomes came after we had gone. So, the site is certainly
well used. Given the attraction of XXXXXXXXXX for tourists it struck me
that the Council might also be able to take advantage of
attracting similar extra investment for local businesses.

I do hope that you will look favourably on this suggestion, at least to
the extent of giving it some initial feasibility consideration. I
should, of course, be happy to provide any assistance that I can.

Regards,

 

[gjh]

I've put the letter template on my web site at http://www.motorhomeparking.co.uk/nstoplet.htm so anyone can use it.
Graham

 

[Willo8660]

Fascinating reading. I live near Dawlish in South Devon, a small seaside tourist type town. Parking is a constant battle between the traders and the council. For years we have tried to get better all day parking to encourage coaches to stay in the town all day, and thus the traders can enjoy the all day spending power of the tourists. This cuts no ice whatsoever with the council (Teignbridge or Devon CC). It was even suggested that parking places be made available out of the main season, maybe just four coach spaces. No chance.
There are no spaces for motorhomes in the towns main car park. You can park there but you have to pay for two spaces, and like most pay and display you have to guess at how long you are going to park there, and then walk around town constantly looking at your watch.
Dawlish station has a car park. It's run by Network Rail. It's empty every night and it's right in the town next to the sea. It's perfect for an overnight stop apart from not having water or dump facilities. Network rail aren't remotely interested.
Dawlish has a large leisure facility, with a floodlit pitch, swimming pool, and public toilets. Most of the day the car park is empty even though it's only a walk of about half a mile into town. In the evening I doubt if it's used by more than 5% of its capacity. It's perfect for an "aire". Once again the district council aren't remotely interested. They simply fail to see that more tourists in the town=more money, which in turn leads to businesses being sustained and jobs created. Who, when you are out and about, fails to spend any money at all when visiting a town? Answer, no-one.
There are too many beaurcratic twerps running our councils, they are the same short sighted living in the past arses who call for police to be back on the beat all the time.
I will park in towns on any double yellow that is obviously defective ie broken or not continuous or having no "stop bars" because even if the local council warden slaps a ticket, it's completely illegal and will be thrown out at appeal.
Let's all do what the gypos do, and simply park on mass. They seem to get away with it for about 28 days before the authorities kick into gear.
Rant over.

 

[TonyJones]

I wouldn't call that a rant Pete - I've seen far more vitriolic stuff on some other forums! And I agree with you.
After all these years, I still find myself amazed at the small-mindedness of so many English councils, compared with the positive attitude we find throughout the rest of Europe.

 

[gjh]

In the case of Dawlish, only Teignbridge Council would be in a position to create an "aire". As they are not licensing authorities, Devon CC and Network Rail would have to obtain caravan site licences.

Of course, Teignbridge Council did allow overnighting in Teignmouth and Dawlish Warren some 5 years or so ago (so the willingness is there) but then had to suspend the facility when it was found that planning consent for change of use needed to be obtained. They issued a statement at the time:

"The use of this area for overnight stays for motor home users has proven to be particularly popular and the council has decided to apply for the necessary formal consent to move to a permanent arrangement. Regrettably, existing legal exemptions available to the council do not permit the continued use of this land for the overnight stays without the necessary consent and therefore there can be no further overnight stays until further notice. Should we be successful in obtaining consent, our website at www.teignbridge.gov.uk will be updated and use can recommence."

Given that planning consent is relatively easy to obtain if their are no objections, I am guessing that somebody has objected and the council has insufficient resources to make a case for overcoming objections at the moment.

Perhaps there is a case for anyone interested in the creation of "aires" at Dawlish & Teignmouth to contact the council and ask for all the information regarding why the schemes were suspended. That might then provide a basis for those people to help the council in making the case to overcome objections.

Graham

 

[gjh]

After all these years, I still find myself amazed at the small-mindedness of so many English councils, compared with the positive attitude we find throughout the rest of Europe.

Is it really small-mindedness Tony or is it a combination of lack of suitable locations and lack of real demand?

When I have contacted councils in the past, several have told me they don't even have a demand for daytime parking of motorhomes, let alone overnight.

It will soon be 4 months since I posted the details of my letter template (here and elsewhere) and I bet the number of people who have used it can be easily counted on the fingers of one hand.

Graham

 

[Aspenshaw]

Why should local people, struggling to pay for the social services etc to their own, want money spent on Aires or equivalent so that rich people can clog up their roads?

Councils will go with what gives the biggest bang for their bucks. Providing facilities for motorhomers will be a long way down their list of priorities compared to libraries, social services etc. Councillors may be small minded but then so must the people who elected them. Oh, that means I must be small minded because I have not asked my local Council to spend money on Aires when there are several good campsites in my area already generating the pittance motorhomers put into the local economy.

If there is a demand, the service economy will provide. It is already doing so. In Europe, the increased mobility due to the land mass size and the lower density of the population can accommodate Aires etc. We can't even find enough space to build houses.

I don't believe anyone is small minded just because they do not do see what I do.

Sorry Tony. I'm not having a dig at you personally because your heart is always in the right place. It's just that I get irritated by motorhomers who think they have a right to expect to park where they want, when they want without any consideration of others. Hence, Tony, you are excluded from my blast because you are considerate.

 

[gjh]

Absolutely right that councils will go with what gives the biggest bang for their bucks (at least they should, though that is questionable in the case of where we live). That is my whole point about people producing evidence that investing the necessary resources is worthwhile.

It certainly isn't possible everywhere but the bangs can exceed the bucks in others.

Graham

 

[Willo8660]

Thank you Graham.
I will ask them although I have to say, for three years now I've been trying to get a small pontoon installed at Polly steps car park- which would also make an excellentt overnight halt- and despite the council raking in £21000 from leisure boaters, they constantly bleat on that they have no money. But I will pursue them because obtaining planning permission shouldn't be that difficult for the council that actually owns the land.

 

[gjh]

Good luck.
The land ownership won't make any difference - perhaps unfortunately in this case . Councils are bound by the same planning constraints as the rest of us. At least, though, if the basis of the difficulties can be established it will provide a starting point.
Graham