# Rother Council propose fines for overnight sleeping



## Charisma

http://www.rother.gov.uk/article/12952/Views-sought-on-powers-to-tackle-anti-social-behaviour

Wild Camping is now looked on as anti-social behaviour by Rother council with a proposed £100 per night fine for overnight sleeping ANYWHERE on a highway or public open space.

On the ITV Meridian news tonight featuring a couple who were homeless apart from their motorhome. They are not causing any trouble and seem a perfectly nice couple who want to live full time in their motorhome in Bexhill.

https://www.bexhillobserver.net/new...d-bylaws-could-lead-to-homelessness-1-8326372

Any members who live in the Rother Council area may wish to write to complain.


----------



## fatbuddha

bugger!! I live in Rother and that's the 1st time I have seen anything about that consultation paper. If I'd known I could have chipped in, but if you look at the article, the consultation period finished on 12th January so I guess we'll have to see what comes out of it as far as motorhome owners are concerned. 

There's not a huge number of wildcamping spots in Rother - Norman's Bay is the one usually quoted - but I know of a number of other quiet spots where a single m/h would be fine overnighting and they are in out of the way spots. You used to be able to overnight on the road up to Galley Hill in Bexhill but that had a "no overnighting" bylaw slapped on it a few years ago.


----------



## 747

fatbuddha said:


> bugger!! I live in Rother and that's the 1st time I have seen anything about that consultation paper. If I'd known I could have chipped in, but if you look at the article, the consultation period finished on 12th January so I guess we'll have to see what comes out of it as far as motorhome owners are concerned.
> 
> There's not a huge number of wildcamping spots in Rother - Norman's Bay is the one usually quoted - but I know of a number of other quiet spots where a single m/h would be fine overnighting and they are in out of the way spots. You used to be able to overnight on the road up to Galley Hill in Bexhill but that had a "no overnighting" bylaw slapped on it a few years ago.


Simply contact the Council stating that under the Freedom of Information Act you want the details of the alleged complaints and incidents of discharging sewage (when and where). I bet anything you like that they will be unable to supply anything. It is probably someone on the Council or an influential pal of a Councillor who has made an unjustified complaint.


----------



## rayc

fatbuddha said:


> bugger!! I live in Rother and that's the 1st time I have seen anything about that consultation paper. If I'd known I could have chipped in, but if you look at the article, the consultation period finished on 12th January so I guess we'll have to see what comes out of it as far as motorhome owners are concerned.
> 
> There's not a huge number of wildcamping spots in Rother - Norman's Bay is the one usually quoted - but I know of a number of other quiet spots where a single m/h would be fine overnighting and they are in out of the way spots. You used to be able to overnight on the road up to Galley Hill in Bexhill but that had a "no overnighting" bylaw slapped on it a few years ago.


This is what happens with mission creep when powers are given to Councils. When The Protection of Public Places legislation was passed it was to enable the authorities to deal with major problems quickly without waiting for court action. As is the way with these things Councils have used it to create more and more banned activities which in themselves are not against the law.


----------



## HermanHymer

So where do this couple (and the occupants of the other 5 vans) dispose of their waste effluent? They aren't motorhomers in the true sense of the word, simply people of no fixed abode and there CAN BE a world of difference and impact on the neighbourhood. Not criticising them personally as I am not in a position to judge from the facts given.


----------



## nicholsong

Discharging sewage etc. might be anti-social but trying to ban the act of 'sleeping' Oh, Please!

We sleep regularly and do notget complaints from our neighbours>


----------



## barryd

Another NIMBY council by the sound of it.

“The decision to include overnight stays in campervans in the consultation was taken in response to concerns raised by residents about the resultant disturbance and effect on the area, including issues such as discharge of sewage into drains and gullies."

Typical response. I bet there is no evidence. Possibly someone has seen someone discharging grey water down a storm drain and put two and two together to make five or they just dont like seeing motorhomes having a "freebee". 

Either way lets just ban everyone.


----------



## Mrplodd

An interesting proposition, just how do they propose proving "Beyond all reasonable doubt" that anyone is inside sleeping?? 

I suspect they will try the usual trick of erecting signs with no local order to back them up. 

I like the idea of the FOI request for evidence of anti-social behavior from MH'ers.

Andy


----------



## fatbuddha

747 said:


> Simply contact the Council stating that under the Freedom of Information Act you want the details of the alleged complaints and incidents of discharging sewage (when and where). I bet anything you like that they will be unable to supply anything. It is probably someone on the Council or an influential pal of a Councillor who has made an unjustified complaint.


might well do that.


----------



## 747

fatbuddha said:


> might well do that.


I have already done it. :grin2:

The more the merrier. I have also told them that many of the 250,000 registered Leisure vehicles will stay away on principle, thus affecting the Tourist Trade.


----------



## nicholsong

I wonder what the Council's reaction would be if we organised a big group of MHs to arrive at a campsite in the area and queue on the road outside on the basis that is was full and they are just waiting for spaces to come available?

It probably needs a lawyer to look at the primary legislation from Parliament to see whether it authorises Councils to make by-laws defining 'sleeping' as an anti-social activity, when the parking of the vehicle is legal.

Geoff


----------



## nicholsong

Mrplodd said:


> An interesting proposition, just how do they propose proving "Beyond all reasonable doubt" that anyone is inside sleeping??
> 
> I suspect they will try the usual trick of erecting signs with no local order to back them up.
> 
> I like the idea of the FOI request for evidence of anti-social behavior from MH'ers.
> 
> Andy


Andy

The FOI request could include a request for evidence of complaints by people disturbed by 'sleeping':surprise:

Geoff


----------



## 747

If you want to get involved contact them at this email address.

[email protected]


----------



## fatbuddha

747 said:


> If you want to get involved contact them at this email address.
> 
> [email protected]


what role does she have??? EDIT: - just found - Policy Officer


----------



## redkite93

I help out at our local foodbank and over the past year weve had several people resorting to living in their cars or vans. It has amazed and shocked me how the authorities have gone out of their way to move them on. The 3 i worked closely with were 53, 63,67 yrs of age and perfectly decent people who were simply down on their luck. The trouble they encountered on a nightly basis when simply trying to get some kip was frankly inhumane.


----------



## 747

redkite93 said:


> I help out at our local foodbank and over the past year weve had several people resorting to living in their cars or vans. It has amazed and shocked me how the authorities have gone out of their way to move them on. The 3 i worked closely with were 53, 63,67 yrs of age and perfectly decent people who were simply down on their luck. The trouble they encountered on a nightly basis when simply trying to get some kip was frankly inhumane.


The Council in Brighton have also used the new Laws (Public Space Protection Orders) to criminalise homeless people living in vans and cars. It seems they have no other answer to the problem.


----------



## fatbuddha

FOI request sent to Joanne Wright at Rother.


----------



## Mrplodd

Please keep us updated with any reply.

As I said in a previous post it is very difficult to see how any such ban can actually be enforced. Firstly how do you actually prove someone was/is sleeping inside. Remember they must prove the offence “beyond all reasonable doubt’ You don’t have to prove anything. 

My response would be “I was not sleeping in the vehicle, I was staying elsewhere” The “elsewhere” does not have to be explained/proved to anyone. 
Likewise a “motorhome” is not a legal classification of motor vehicle. They are all, by legal definition “motor cars” so how exactly any legislation could be worded (I.e. how will you identify a motorhome when there is no legal definition of such) in order for it to be legally enforced is difficult to see. 

Sabre rattling by someone who clearly doesn’t understand how legislation needs to be carefully and exactly worded to be legally enforceable. You can park a car but you cannot park a motorhome that is, by legal definition, exactly the same thing? Please explain Mr Council official. 

Andy


----------



## rayc

This link is interesting. It is Public Spaces Protection Orders - Guidance for councils.

Page 15 is interesting. 'Suggested questions for overview and scrutiny committees'

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/10.4 - PSPO guidance_03_1.pdf

in my opinion PCPO's are being used a sledgehammers to crack a nut.


----------



## rayc

Mrplodd said:


> Likewise a "motorhome" is not a legal classification of motor vehicle. They are all, by legal definition "motor cars" so how exactly any legislation could be worded (I.e. how will you identify a motorhome when there is no legal definition of such) in order for it to be legally enforced is difficult to see.
> 
> Andy


What restrictions on MH parking does this sign legislate for?


----------



## fatbuddha

rayc said:


> This link is interesting. It is Public Spaces Protection Orders - Guidance for councils.
> 
> Page 15 is interesting. 'Suggested questions for overview and scrutiny committees'
> 
> https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/10.4 - PSPO guidance_03_1.pdf
> 
> in my opinion PCPO's are being used a sledgehammers to crack a nut.


thanks for that link - I've only skim read it but there are some very interesting points in it which could easily be used if RDC try to impose a ban on "overnighting". this was one:

"The Home Office's statutory guidance on the ASB tools and powers under the 2014 Act reiterates that PSPOs *should be used responsibly and proportionately, only in response to issues that cause anti-social behaviour, and only where necessary to protect the public*"

I'm sure the vast majority of motorhomers are responsible, not into anti-social behaviour, and are no threat to the the public.


----------



## 747

fatbuddha said:


> thanks for that link - I've only skim read it but there are some very interesting points in it which could easily be used if RDC try to impose a ban on "overnighting". this was one:
> 
> "The Home Office's statutory guidance on the ASB tools and powers under the 2014 Act reiterates that PSPOs *should be used responsibly and proportionately, only in response to issues that cause anti-social behaviour, and only where necessary to protect the public*"
> 
> I'm sure the vast majority of motorhomers are responsible, not into anti-social behaviour, and are no threat to the the public.


The alleged dumping of sewage would be deemed antisocial behaviour Fats. If it happened at all, it was more likely grey water as was proved to be the case elsewhere. Other Councils have been unable to come up with incidents despite citing them as their reasons for implementing restrictions. They are a bunch of liars basically. :smile2:


----------



## fatbuddha

747 said:


> *The alleged dumping of sewage would be deemed antisocial behaviour *Fats. If it happened at all, it was more likely grey water as was proved to be the case elsewhere. Other Councils have been unable to come up with incidents despite citing them as their reasons for implementing restrictions. They are a bunch of liars basically. :smile2:


no doubt. have you had a reply to your FOI request yet??


----------



## 747

fatbuddha said:


> no doubt. have you had a reply to your FOI request yet??


I got a swift reply from Ms Wright who informed me that she had passed the FOI request to the relevant department and asked if my comments on the consultation could be used in it. These were comments about annoying the 250,000 owners of UK registered Motorhomes and Campervans and t having an effect on their plans. When I got her reply I added other information, all of it said before many times. I told her that in other places, what had been reported as sewage was actually grey water and explained the difference.

This sort of thing has come up a number of times on the wildies and there is a true feisty campaigner over there who can run rings round most Councils. I PMed a link to them for their opinion and cooperation. I will let you know when and if they join the campaign.


----------



## fatbuddha

nothing back from her yet - I shall await feedback.


----------



## rayc

fatbuddha said:


> nothing back from her yet - I shall await feedback.


This is the type of thing you may get back. It is a FOI request to Bournemouth Council on the car / motorbike signs they have erected throughout the Borough.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_signs_2


----------



## 747

The person I mentioned from another forum has now joined in. He has previous experience and has had Council decisions reversed in the past. He has also worked with Councils to find a common ground which resulted in Motorhomes being welcomed and suitable parking arrangements being made.

The biggest worry is the new PSPO legislation and how it is being applied (often illegally) by Councils. I say illegal because they do not follow correct procedures enshrined in the Law.


----------



## fatbuddha

747 said:


> The person I mentioned from another forum has now joined in. He has previous experience and has had Council decisions reversed in the past. *He has also worked with Councils to find a common ground which resulted in Motorhomes being welcomed and suitable parking arrangements being made.*
> 
> The biggest worry is the new PSPO legislation and how it is being applied (often illegally) by Councils. I say illegal because they do not follow correct procedures enshrined in the Law.


nice one!

the bolded comment is key - an enlightened approach is needed by councils and enforcement officers, rather than taking a blanket ban approach. anyway, let's see what comes back from the FOI request and how things move forward. as a Rother resident, I'm happy to become the local liaison if needed.


----------



## nicholsong

747 said:


> *The person I mentioned from another forum has now joined in*. He has previous experience and has had Council decisions reversed in the past. He has also worked with Councils to find a common ground which resulted in Motorhomes being welcomed and suitable parking arrangements being made.
> 
> The biggest worry is the new PSPO legislation and how it is being applied (often illegally) by Councils. I say illegal because they do not follow correct procedures enshrined in the Law.


Andy Strangeways?


----------



## 747

nicholsong said:


> Andy Strangeways?


Certainly not. :surprise:


----------



## Mrplodd

rayc said:


> This is the type of thing you may get back. It is a FOI request to Bournemouth Council on the car / motorbike signs they have erected throughout the Borough.
> 
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_signs_2


Interestingly the Council appear to initially be quoting the Con & Use Regs in respect of the definition of a motor car and then adding their own interpretation of those regs!!

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 defines a motor car as:

In this Act "motor car" means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not being a motorcycle or an invalid carriage, which is constructed itself to carry a load or passengers and of which the weight unladen- 
(a) 
if it is constructed solely for the carriage of passengers and their effects, is adapted to carry not more than 7 passengers exclusive of the driver, and is fitted with tyres of such type as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, does not exceed 3050 kilograms;

And then they add the following.....

"motor car" has the same meaning as in regulation 136(2) of the 1984 Act, (as defined above, my insertion) and for the purposes of enforcement and avoidance of doubt will be classed as a vehicle no larger than a small commercial vehicle with no more than 4 wheels and a length of 6 metres and a height of 2 metres "motorcycle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle (not being an invalid carriage) with fewer than 4 wheels of which the weight un-laden does not exceed 410 kilograms;

So it would appear to me that the council are of the view they can alter or modify primary legislation to suit themselves. They would be on a bit of sticky wicket if anyone decided to challenge them in court.

Andy


----------



## raynipper

Odd the French have a positive attitude to campers and the UK in general a negative attitude. Property prices possibly?

Ray.


----------



## Mrplodd

raynipper said:


> Odd the French have a positive attitude to campers and the UK in general a negative attitude. Property prices possibly?
> 
> Ray.


Nah!!

It's jumped up petty minded councillors who THINK they know best. Do you remember a few years ago I was involved in the setting up of an Aire in Weymouth? All went well UNTIL a couple of (campsite owning) councillors got wind of it and quickly found reasons to stamp on the whole idea.

Andy


----------



## nicholsong

Mrplodd said:


> Nah!!
> 
> It's jumped up petty minded councillors who THINK they know best. Do you remember a few years ago I was involved in the setting up of an Aire in Weymouth? All went well UNTIL a couple of (campsite owning) councillors got wind of it and quickly found reasons to stamp on the whole idea.
> 
> Andy


Andy

Yes I do remember very well and all the work you and the guy at the council put in.

The Councillors, having faile to dirbar themselves from the matter, should have compulsorily been disbarred from having any connection with the project, its officers and voting on it, on the basis of a Conflict of Interest. Why did not the Leader of the Council do that - or was he one of the two?

I wonder how the French deal with a similar situation, although there if the Maire wants to do something it usually happens.

It is not only some countries on the Continent that have a more enlightened view, but in Scotland it is easier for motorhomers , at least for wildcamping if not Aire facilities.

Geoff


----------



## nicholsong

Mrplodd said:


> Please keep us updated with any reply.
> 
> As I said in a previous post it is very difficult to see how any such ban can actually be enforced. Firstly how do you actually prove someone was/is sleeping inside. Remember they must prove the offence "beyond all reasonable doubt' You don't have to prove anything.
> 
> My response would be "I was not sleeping in the vehicle, I was staying elsewhere" The "elsewhere" does not have to be explained/proved to anyone.
> Likewise a "motorhome" is not a legal classification of motor vehicle. *They are all, by legal definition "motor cars" so how exactly any legislation could be worded (I.e. how will you identify a motorhome when there is no legal definition of such) in order for it to be legally enforced is difficult to see.
> *
> Sabre rattling by someone who clearly doesn't understand how legislation needs to be carefully and exactly worded to be legally enforceable. You can park a car but you cannot park a motorhome that is, by legal definition, exactly the same thing? Please explain Mr Council official.
> 
> Andy


Just re-read that post. I agree with your points about evidential proof.and exact legal wording, which some local Council FWits are unable to, or unqualified to' understand - or even when to put it to the Council Legal Dept., although in some cases that might not solve the problem either.

I suppose they could define it as ' Motor Vehicles category M1(Special Purpose) with Body Type Motor Caravan'

But it would be a long sign, might not get budget approval and fall foul of the Simple English brigade.

Bring it on I say.

Geoff


----------



## fatbuddha

I've had a FOI reply from Rother which includes a spreadsheet of complaints made about motorhomes (campervans) since 2012 - frankly, Rother are making a mountain over this issue in trying to introduce a PSPO to control sleeping in one when frankly if they take a more considered approach to overnighters, then it's not a problem

since August 2012, there have been 37 complaints of which 22 were in 2012 (all bar 1 in August, other in September), 11 in 2013 (all in August), none in 2014, 3 in 2015, none in 2016, and 1 in 2017. nearly all of the complaints relate to Bexhill seafront and not one for any other part of the borough.

I am going to try to speak to my local Rother Councillor to discuss this matter - she happens to be on the Tourism sub-committee which I can use as a lever hopefully to get the council to see sense.


----------



## 747

I also received mine and presumably got the same as yourself. This is not what I asked for, I asked for a breakdown of the incidents of alleged anti social behaviour by motorhome owners. I suspect that this is because they have no evidence.

I intend to follow this up until I get an answer one way or the other.


----------



## fatbuddha

within the spreadsheet of complaints there are some comments which could be interpreted as incidents of anti-social behaviour (hanging out washing, taking over flower beds etc) but it's not specifically detailed.

I'll do a follow up e-mail to ask about specific incidents and see what they say


----------



## 747

fatbuddha said:


> within the spreadsheet of complaints there are some comments which could be interpreted as incidents of anti-social behaviour (hanging out washing, taking over flower beds etc) but it's not specifically detailed.
> 
> I'll do a follow up e-mail to ask about specific incidents and see what they say


When these sort of 'incidents' have allegedly happened in other Council areas, it has surfaced that there were no incidents at all. I have no reason to believe that this case is any different. Without the FOI Act, nobody would have been any the wiser. :serious:


----------



## rayc

Poole Council have run into problems with a PSPO that was bought in with the intention of stopping street begging and rough sleeping. There was to be a borough wide ban on sleeping in car parks and many other things. Big outcry in local paper and they have rescinded for now at least. Councils have to be watched as they are using PSPO's for purposes other than what they were intended for. 
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...orough_of_Poole_U_turns_on_rough_sleeper_ban/


----------



## nicholsong

fatbuddha said:


> within the spreadsheet of complaints there are some comments which could be interpreted as incidents of anti-social behaviour (hanging out washing, taking over flower beds etc) but it's not specifically detailed.
> 
> I'll do a follow up e-mail to ask about specific incidents and see what they say


Fats

Do any of the complaints refer to 'Sleeping' as the basis for their complaint?

I personally have never been disturbed by anyone sleeping - snoring maybe, but only in the near vicinity.

Geoff


----------



## maureentom

I post as maureenandtom elsewhere. I used to post here as maureenandtom too - but now I can't log on; so my new identity.

Here is the full list of complaints going back to 2012.

Personally. I think it is wrong to look at the history so far back. My question to the council asked for complaints over the last three years. A reasonable period, I thought, for assessing a current problem.

In 2017 there was one complaint - about an abandoned campervan. Not really a complaint about us - rather a complaint about an abandoned vehicle - which happened to be a campervan. There were no complaints in 2016 and only three in 2015 - and one of those seemed to be an overlap from 2014. So, by my reckoning there have been only two complaints in the last three years - but I'd accept an argument that there were three.

If we accept that we should go as far back at 2012 then, mostly, the complaints are simply about our presence. Very few are about any nuisance we are causing.


----------



## Mrplodd

fatbuddha said:


> I've had a FOI reply from Rother which includes a spreadsheet of complaints made about motorhomes (campervans) since 2012 - frankly, Rother are making a mountain over this issue in trying to introduce a PSPO to control sleeping in one when frankly if they take a more considered approach to overnighters, then it's not a problem
> 
> since August 2012, there have been 37 complaints of which 22 were in 2012 (all bar 1 in August, other in September), 11 in 2013 (all in August), none in 2014, 3 in 2015, none in 2016, and 1 in 2017. nearly all of the complaints relate to Bexhill seafront and not one for any other part of the borough.
> 
> I am going to try to speak to my local Rother Councillor to discuss this matter - she happens to be on the Tourism sub-committee which I can use as a lever hopefully to get the council to see sense.


Councils usually operate on a rolling five year period for complaints, traffic speed/volume data, the number of road crashes etc.

Andy


----------



## Devonboy

Watching this thread with great interest as we have a situation in Exmouth where the council are seeking to ban MH's from parts of the seafront after "years of complaints from residents to ban the camper vans from the seafront and instead allow them to park in council's owned car parks": https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/camper-vans-banned-exmouth-seafront-879672

"Earlier in the year, the Exmouth town council working group, which included Devon County Council and East Devon District Council representation, agreed that a seafront ban was the best way to deal with the increased number of camper vans descending on the golden sands of Exmouth seafront".

The council are also quoted "residents don't want people parking on the seafront for two or three days at a time". Not sure how they know this, I am a resident & have never been asked.

I have sent a FOI request asking for the number & details of the complaints received by East Devon District Council as suggested on this thread & await the response.


----------



## erneboy

I'm following this with interested.

I'm wondering how many people generate the complaints. Are there a few serial complainers? 

I'd imagine the question could be asked making it clear that we were not asking for names.

"37 complaints were made between 2012 and 2017. How many people made these complaints? I'd like to know whether some people are making multiple complaints."


----------



## Charisma

As a follow on from parking in general, we were in Seaford last week. Not visited for some time, but there are now specific "No Motorhome Parking" signs all along the seafront. I emailed Seaford Town Council when I got home and their response was that the signs were actually East Sussex County Council signs and reading between the lines, Seaford were not all that happy about it as it was going to drive visitors away. 

I asked where a Motorhome could park during the day along the seafront and was directed to a small unmade road called Cliff Gardens. While this road is useful to be near the seafront, there is no actual view of the sea as it slopes downhill which also does not make for level parking up. The Esplanade road at this end has a wide area on the field side of the road suitable for larger Motorhomes and does not block anybodies view that I can see, but the restriction here is now less than 5.5m long and less than 2.1m high which just about precludes all camper vans too.

I also emailed ESCC to ask their view on the signs and lack of tourist opportunities for Seaford, but have not had a reply as yet. I have visited Seaford many times over the years and have never had a problem parking along the seafront. It is not a busy resort which is why we like it. To ban Motorhomes completely seems daft to me.


----------



## Devonboy

erneboy said:


> I'm following this with interested.
> 
> I'm wondering how many people generate the complaints. Are there a few serial complainers?
> 
> I'd imagine the question could be asked making it clear that we were not asking for names.
> 
> "37 complaints were made between 2012 and 2017. How many people made these complaints? I'd like to know whether some people are making multiple complaints."


Yes I also thought about this point. We do have one particular voice in the town who takes every opportunity to complain about MH parking so interested to see if the response from the council clarifies this point. If not then a follow up question will be forthcoming.


----------



## maureentom

I've asked a fair number of councils - after some publication of their assertion of many complaints - for details of complaints.

My text is usally something like this: _"I wish to see, in electronic form, details of all complaints, prosecutions and convictions (incuding Fixed Penalty Notices) over the past three years relating to antisocial behaviour or motorhomers at ..........." _Text varying according to what statement I am responding to. Even if there have been complaints there are never any prosecutions or convictions. So there is never any use of existing legislation to control antisocial behaviour.

Almost invariably there are no complaints of any significance. Rother council sent me the whole list of 37 but I only asked for three years. Had the council answered my query as it should have done then there would have been only four complaints. The public antipathy towards motorhomers just does not exist to any significant extent.

Sometimes you do get more information than you asked for with, maybe, a bundle of emails. Sometimes this allows you to find out whcih councillor proposed a ban. Sometimes you find out that a council might have erected probition signs without any authority. One council (North Yorks) admitted, seemingly with some pride, that their signs were erected without authority and justified it by saying that there had been no intention to enforce the signs - so they weren't unlawful. Guessing, I suppose, that any contravention of the unlawful signs would stimulate public opinion against us. Turning us into lawbreakers without being lawbreakers.


----------



## maureentom

I very quickly found my image of that admission


----------



## Mrplodd

As I have said on previous occasions in respect of MH bans. There is no legal definition of a “motot home” they are all actually “motor cars” and you cannot ban some motor cars without the others. 

I would urge everyone who knows of signs “banning” motorhomes to write to the local authority asking for copies of either the Traffic Regulation Order OR The bye-law that gives such signs legal authority as stated in the above post.

Without such documentation the signs have NO legal authority, in fact it COULD be argued that by erecting such signs they are in contravention of advice issued, some years ago, by the DFT that Local Authorities should actually REDUCE the number of road signs.

Andy


----------



## barryd

maureentom said:


> I've asked a fair number of councils - after some publication of their assertion of many complaints - for details of complaints.
> 
> My text is usally something like this: _"I wish to see, in electronic form, details of all complaints, prosecutions and convictions (incuding Fixed Penalty Notices) over the past three years relating to antisocial behaviour or motorhomers at ..........." _Text varying according to what statement I am responding to. Even if there have been complaints there are never any prosecutions or convictions. So there is never any use of existing legislation to control antisocial behaviour.
> 
> Almost invariably there are no complaints of any significance. Rother council sent me the whole list of 37 but I only asked for three years. Had the council answered my query as it should have done then there would have been only four complaints. The public antipathy towards motorhomers just does not exist to any significant extent.
> 
> Sometimes you do get more information than you asked for with, maybe, a bundle of emails. Sometimes this allows you to find out whcih councillor proposed a ban. Sometimes you find out that a council might have erected probition signs without any authority. One council (North Yorks) admitted, seemingly with some pride, that their signs were erected without authority and justified it by saying that there had been no intention to enforce the signs - so they weren't unlawful. Guessing, I suppose, that any contravention of the unlawful signs would stimulate public opinion against us. Turning us into lawbreakers without being lawbreakers.


Good to see you posting on here again. Ive given Ed at Vs a nudge to see if he can sort out your login and membership.


----------



## erneboy

maureentom said:


> I very quickly found my image of that admission


That's very interesting. It sounds like a misuse of power/office to me. Perhaps Geoff will comment on that.


----------



## nicholsong

erneboy said:


> That's very interesting. It sounds like a misuse of power/office to me. Perhaps Geoff will comment on that.


Alan

I am no expert in Local Authority delegated law and do not have the text of the relevant Act to hand, but on the face of it I would think that this seems to be misuse of the powers granted to the Local Council.

I would have thought that the power to erect prohibition notices was to do so in accordence with an appropriate order, and that if no such order were in place then there would be no authority to erect a sign..

If from this and other evidence Local Councils are misusing their delegated powers then maybe we should be requesting the Government to revoke or restrict those powers.

Had I been local to the N. Yorks area and in receipt of that reply, I may have been tempted to look for a hacksaw or angle-grinder:surprise:>

Geoff


----------



## nicholsong

Mrplodd said:


> As I have said on previous occasions in respect of MH bans.* There is no legal definition of a "motot home" they are all actually "motor cars" and you cannot ban some motor cars without the others. *
> 
> I would urge everyone who knows of signs "banning" motorhomes to write to the local authority asking for copies of either the Traffic Regulation Order OR The bye-law that gives such signs legal authority as stated in the above post.
> 
> Without such documentation the signs have NO legal authority, in fact it COULD be argued that by erecting such signs they are in contravention of advice issued, some years ago, by the DFT that Local Authorities should actually REDUCE the number of road signs.
> 
> Andy


Andy

I agree that both 'cars' and 'motorhomes' are both Category M1, within Category M1 there is also M1 Special Category which includes Body Type Motorcaravan.

Whilst I agree that a sign banning 'Motorhomes' is not correct, it would be possible for the TRO and the sign to correctly define the 'Motorhome' as M1 Special Category Body Type 'Motorcaravan' - keep the sign writers in business.

Of course production of one's V5C to a Court might prodce an interesting legal argument, since the description 'M1' does not appear, nor 'Motorcar', only 'Body Type Motorcaravan', at least on mine. I think the design/layout of the V5C has not kept up with EU regulations on vehicles,......... but I believe the sales of quill pens in Swansea is very healthy.:grin2:

Geoff


----------



## yarmouth

Canterbury council have banned motorhomes from parking along the seafront in Whitstable, Tankerton, Herne Bay from 18.30PM till 8 AM. This means that if you are down there for a day out you have to leave early. Any body good with words that can give me a template to put to the council as this seems draconian to me.


----------



## maureentom

Is it Marine Drive and Marine Crescent you're interested in? The first thing is to see if it's legal. 
It probably is but there are inconsistencies in the order. There is, nowhere, so far as I can see, any definition of a motor caravan and the original order does not specify restrictions on motor caravans. 
The restriction is on caravans but the signs (from streetview) don't mention caravans.










I can't reproduce the URLs so you'll need to google the titles of the order and its amendment. There may be more amendments that I haven't found. It's a dire read and there may be much I've missed. Page 19 is the table you want where you will find this:

*THE KENT COUNTY COUCIL (WHITSTABLE)(TRAFFIC REGULATION AND STREET PARKING PLACES (CONSOLIDATION) ORDER 2016*










and Amendment Number 1 where you will see this extract from the table

*THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (WHITSTABLE) (TRAFFIC REGULATION
AND STREET PARKING PLACES) (AMENDMENT NO 1) ORDER 2017*










You can see the inconsistencies?.

No harm in saying in an email to Kent County Council something like:

_"Sir, _

_I've examined the 2016 TRO and amendment number one _(which you will send screenshots of - using those above)_ and I can't find the regulation which authorises the signs_ (which you will attach, or preferably embed a picture of)_. Are you able to tell me, please, what authority you use for erecting signs restricting motor caravans on Marine Parade and Marine Crescent?"_

And the council will probably tell you. You can then pursue it in a way that takes your fancy; Try to get the council to change its mind or raise it with your own ward councillor who will, at least, get answers more quickly than you will.

If I haven't correctly identified the streets you're interested in then you'll have to search the TRO for the ones you do want, Looks like a lovely place to park.

Best of luck.


----------



## maureentom

I've now found the 2017 TRO.

You will need to google: THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL
(WHITSTABLE) (TRAFFIC REGULATION AND STREET PARKING PLACES)
(CONSOLIDATION) ORDER 2017 

for the up to date information. The inconsistencies remain the same - confusion between caravans and motor caravans and inconsistencies of time limits.. The (same) table of restrictions is now on page 20 of the 2017 order.

Tom


----------



## fatbuddha

I have e-mailed my local Rother councillor today asking for a meeting to discuss the proposed PSPO in the district. she is also a spokesperson for Tourism so should take notice!

we shall see what she says


----------



## Mrplodd

maureentom said:


> Is it Marine Drive and Marine Crescent you're interested in? The first thing is to see if it's legal.
> It probably is but there are inconsistencies in the order. There is, nowhere, so far as I can see, any definition of a motor caravan and the original order does not specify restrictions on motor caravans.
> The restriction is on caravans but the signs (from streetview) don't mention caravans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't reproduce the URLs so you'll need to google the titles of the order and its amendment. There may be more amendments that I haven't found. It's a dire read and there may be much I've missed. Page 19 is the table you want where you will find this:
> 
> *THE KENT COUNTY COUCIL (WHITSTABLE)(TRAFFIC REGULATION AND STREET PARKING PLACES (CONSOLIDATION) ORDER 2016*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Amendment Number 1 where you will see this extract from the table
> 
> *THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL (WHITSTABLE) (TRAFFIC REGULATION
> AND STREET PARKING PLACES) (AMENDMENT NO 1) ORDER 2017*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see the inconsistencies?.
> 
> No harm in saying in an email to Kent County Council something like:
> 
> _"Sir, _
> 
> _I've examined the 2016 TRO and amendment number one _(which you will send screenshots of - using those above)_ and I can't find the regulation which authorises the signs_ (which you will attach, or preferably embed a picture of)_. Are you able to tell me, please, what authority you use for erecting signs restricting motor caravans on Marine Parade and Marine Crescent?"_
> 
> And the council will probably tell you. You can then pursue it in a way that takes your fancy; Try to get the council to change its mind or raise it with your own ward councillor who will, at least, get answers more quickly than you will.
> 
> If I haven't correctly identified the streets you're interested in then you'll have to search the TRO for the ones you do want, Looks like a lovely place to park.
> 
> Best of luck.


I would be inclined to also ask them for the exact LEGAL definition they are using for "Motor caravan" AND what statute or regulation they obtained that definition from (should cause a bit of head scratching) There is, to the best of my knowledge not one in existence. The Construction and Use Regulations define what the requirements are for the various classes of vehicle. A "motor caravan" does NOT appear as a specific vehicle class, they are "motor cars"

saying motor caravans are prohibited is no different from trying to ban yellow Ford Fiesta's or red Nissan Juke's, it simply cannot be done because they are all part of the same class.

Councils erect these signs because 99.9% of people DONT know they cannot be enforced, so they achieve the desired effect (unless the driver is a stroppy bugger like me!!)

My local council bans "Vehicles used for sleeping or cooking in" Not yet found a Con & Use Regs definition for one of them either!

The main problem these days are local councillors, they think they are experts in everything and apply huge political pressure to the local council officers. I had a bit of it for a while when I worked in my local county councils highways dept. I took great pleasure in denying some councillors what they wanted me to do because I KNEW the various regulations and was able to prove to them that what they wanted wasn't lawful. Some got REALLY irate, which REALLY bothered me :wink2::wink2:

Andy


----------



## yarmouth

Thanks for the very helpful reply's
, will now get stroppy hat on and contact KCC. As I live in Maidstone might even pop into county hall see if I can get someone to speak to me.


----------



## homenaway

Hi,
Further to the Seafood parking ban I seem to recollect that the owner of a local campsite several years ago used to complain about motorhomes parking and I believe approached owners while they were parked. Seems like they got their way.

Steve


----------



## barryd

They often do. Its well documented in various seaside resorts including Whitby, Scarborough etc up here. I guess the campsite owners are there all the time whereas most of us are just visitors. They often have the ear of the council or are even councillors themselves. Why they think this kind of action will drive people onto their sites is beyond me as often the feeling on the forums is to just boycott the place. I wont suddenly go to a campsite just because they ban motorhomes everywhere, I just wont go there. To be honest apart from a handful of places in the UK the pull of Euroland is just to strong for me anyway.


----------



## maureentom

Mrplodd said:


> *I would be inclined to also ask them for the exact LEGAL definition they are using for "Motor caravan" *AND what statute or regulation they obtained that definition from (should cause a bit of head scratching) There is, to the best of my knowledge not one in existence. The Construction and Use Regulations define what the requirements are for the various classes of vehicle. A "motor caravan" does NOT appear as a specific vehicle class, they are "motor cars"
> 
> saying motor caravans are prohibited is no different from trying to ban yellow Ford Fiesta's or red Nissan Juke's, it simply cannot be done because they are all part of the same class.
> 
> Councils erect these signs because 99.9% of people DONT know they cannot be enforced, so they achieve the desired effect (unless the driver is a stroppy bugger like me!!)
> 
> My local council bans "Vehicles used for sleeping or cooking in" Not yet found a Con & Use Regs definition for one of them either!
> 
> The main problem these days are local councillors, they think they are experts in everything and apply huge political pressure to the local council officers. I had a bit of it for a while when I worked in my local county councils highways dept. I took great pleasure in denying some councillors what they wanted me to do because I KNEW the various regulations and was able to prove to them that what they wanted wasn't lawful. Some got REALLY irate, which REALLY bothered me :wink2::wink2:
> 
> Andy


The Order lists definitions beginning with "24 hour period" and ending with "Zone" and somewhere in the middle of the list it says:

_*"passenger vehicle" * means a motor vehicle (other than a motor cycle or invalid carriage)
constructed solely for the carriage of passengers and their effects and adapted to carry
not more than twelve passengers exclusive of the driver, and not drawing a trailer;

*"*_*Motor Caravan"* is not defined.
_
_So_ motor caravan_ is not what we are for the purposes of the Order. We are *passenger vehicles* and neither the Sign nor the Order prevent us parking there. Unless someone can find something in the Order that I haven't_,

_There's also the question of times. The Order and the Sign give one period of exclusion - the Amendment to the Order amends the Order but the Sign has not been updated.

What we really need is someone who gets a ticket and takes it to appeal using these inconsistencies as a defence. Trash that part of the Order. Or we can do the council's job for it and tell it so it can properly exclude us by simply making more amendments.

I think there are grounds for appealing any PCNs issued a that place. Can anyone see anything different?

Does it make any difference that Canterbury (but not Kent County Council) makes provision elsewhere for overnighting motorhomes? Sort of being fed but biting the hand anyway?


----------



## fatbuddha

I asked Rother Council for specific details relating to any anti-social behaviour in motorhomes regarding the proposed "sleeping in vehicles" PSPO and they sent the attached document which are comments made during the recent consultation period.

as you will read most of the comments a) refer to Bexhill (I know that as I know the area and roads mentioned) and b) are more assumptive than any definite proof of anti-social behaviour. there are a couple of positive comments compared to the vituperative ones from small minded people. wow - emptying rubbish into rubbish bins - where would they rather it left?? imho - many can be taken with a pinch of salt as they come from "curtain twitchers".

BUT it's how RDC councillors will view these comments when they come to discuss the PSPOs that's key which is why I'm trying (still) to fix a meeting with my local RDC councillor to discuss and put a different perspective on matters.

I'd appreciate any input into how I should approach this


----------



## maureentom

I particularly liked the last paragraph and this has been my main interest in talking to councils over the years.










Here is the list of questions I asked with their answers in blue










The answer to number 4 doesn't hold out much hope of any meaningful negotiation. There is a limited scope for action from us with a PSPO; negotiation and consultation can be limited to local people only - though this can be extended to regular or frequent visitors. But ... there is a procedure they have to follow and it might be that the council doesn't follow it properly. I thought I might have them procedurally with the Equality aspect but they think the have that covered. I'm not sure that they have.

Another council - I'll look it up if I have to - Brighton and Hove maybe - who sought advice from the Equalities Commission about a similar restiction and who advised the council not to go ahead with the PSPO. The council ignored the advice.

The last paragaph put his finter on it. Councils should provide places for permitted overnight parking.


----------



## maureentom

Here is the response of the Equalities Commission to Brighton and Hove. It ended at paragraph 26 with a recommendation that the council considered measures which targeted ony antisocial behaviour. In effect, ot me it says target the guilty not the innocent.

The council ignored it.

I know it refers to Travellers - a protected group but there can be much in it of value to us. In fact, at least two police forces, Cumbria and Lincolnshire, officially in their literature view New Travellers (which might be us) as part of the protected group.


----------



## 747

fatbuddha said:


> I asked Rother Council for specific details relating to any anti-social behaviour in motorhomes regarding the proposed "sleeping in vehicles" PSPO and they sent the attached document which are comments made during the recent consultation period.
> 
> as you will read most of the comments a) refer to Bexhill (I know that as I know the area and roads mentioned) and b) are more assumptive than any definite proof of anti-social behaviour. there are a couple of positive comments compared to the vituperative ones from small minded people. wow - emptying rubbish into rubbish bins - where would they rather it left?? imho - many can be taken with a pinch of salt as they come from "curtain twitchers".
> 
> BUT it's how RDC councillors will view these comments when they come to discuss the PSPOs that's key which is why I'm trying (still) to fix a meeting with my local RDC councillor to discuss and put a different perspective on matters.
> 
> I'd appreciate any input into how I should approach this


I asked for further info and got the same pdf as you Fats. Once again the Council intend to use a blanket ban instead of addressing what are possibly a handful of incidents with powers they already have. They seem to take little notice of emails etc., so personal intervention with Councillors is valuable.


----------



## fatbuddha

I have heard back from my local RDC councillor and am meeting her next Tuesday morning at my home - I offered to show her what a modern motorhome is like which might help in the argument and get over that we don't all drive and sleep in skanky bus conversions with a wood burner! 

so - taking all the info I have from RDC are there any suggestions as to how I should approach matters??? one thing I thought about was to show her the increase in m/h ownership in the UK over the last 5/10 years as this may help her see how important we are to the tourism industry - I have some data from the National Caravan Council, but wondered if there are any other sources.


----------



## barryd

The info on the increase in motorhome sales is well documented but in some respects it could be used as ammunition for the "anti" brigade for reasons for restrictions. You just have to look at some of the stuff posted by "some" newbies on Facebook to know that there are some out there that are indeed a menace.

However the "sell" could be the added value motorhomers can bring, especially off season. The perfect example of how to treat motorhomes of course is the French Aire system. I would use that. Maybe cite a couple of examples where its worked in the UK or Northern Ireland. Motorhome sales are increasing but how many of us go and spend our hard earned cash in the Eurozone. My van doesnt stop on the trip to Dover and I spend £4-6K over in Euro land every year. Build it and they will come they say. A council showing a positive and friendly attitude to motorhomers or even providing an Aire will quickly become popular and this will add to the economy. How many council run car parks lay empty on evenings? If she mentions concerns for campsite owners then just say what I Said earlier. These types of motorhomers not only do not need a campsite, they just wont go on one and will just go somewhere else.


----------



## erneboy

It might be worth comparing provision for MHs in Europe with that in the UK. There'd probably be 10 or 20 times more aires along the Mosel Valley than in the whole of the UK for instance. It attracts foreign tourists. CCinfos or one of the other web sites would show the difference. Just the front page shows the difference in numbers: http://www.campingcar-infos.com/Francais/recherche.php though some listed as aires are obviously camp sites since the UK claims 257.

Leaving only the Aires buttons at the top of the page checked shows a more accurate picture. Around 100 in the UK mostly, just parking without services and mostly just parking tolerated rather than intentional provision.

I think that Northern Ireland councils have provided more intentional provision than the councils in the whole of the rest of the UK combined.

To compliment what Barry's said, I think the hardest thing is to get non-motorhomers to understand that most of us don't want camp sites, we'd have caravans if we did. We want to be either somewhere remote or somewhere near pubs, restaurants or special attractions.


----------



## barryd

Good point Alan about CC Infos. Its also a two way street. Ive heard a lot of comments from our European neighbours that are reluctant to come to the UK because it is so motorhome unfriendly.


----------



## nicholsong

fatbuddha said:


> I have heard back from my local RDC councillor and am meeting her next Tuesday morning at my home - I offered to show her what a modern motorhome is like which might help in the argument and get over that we don't all drive and sleep in skanky bus conversions with a wood burner!
> 
> so - taking all the info I have from RDC are there any suggestions as to how I should approach matters??? one thing I thought about was to show her the increase in m/h ownership in the UK over the last 5/10 years as this may help her see how important we are to the tourism industry - I have some data from the National Caravan Council, but wondered if there are any other sources.


Fats

Thanks for the efforts you are making on behalf of the MH fraternity.

I agree with your idea of showing her a MH and explaing how we use them - maybe adding that many carry 2 cassettes so can go a week without a need to empty.

I wonder, however, whether emphasising the growth of the number of MHs might not encourage RDC to make a TRO since they might see it as an escalating problem that needs tackling.

In terms of benefit to the local economy, maybe you could try to suggest the sort of spend that all MHomers make.

It might also be useful, if there are any figures available, about the average nights both UK and Foreign MHs spend on the road and compare that with the number of nights pitches on campsites are available. That might prove that the argument that all MHs should be on campsites is not feasible. At the same time pointing out that not all campsites are open all year and that many MHomers wish to use their vehicles year-round.

You could also go over the legal ground that the Committee will have to carefully consider whether they have any power to properly designate the 'vehicles' or activities they are considering prohibiting and the enforcability of such prohibitions, as an ineffective order and the attendant signage might be a waste of RDC financial and personnel resources.

Just a few thoughts for your 'Think Tank' Fats.

Geoff

[EDIT Barry beat me to it about the possible negative aspect about citing the growth in MHs]


----------



## erneboy

It's my experience that the typical motorhomer who does lengthy trips from home is retired and relatively well off. They have money and spend it.

Geoff, I see what you mean about numbers but councils who try to resist are just doing a Canute act. They can't stop the tide coming in so might as well harvest what it brings with it. They can face reality or try to block it out.


----------



## barryd

I noticed summer before last while up on the Isle of Arran at two of the public toilets they had provided emptying points and an outside tap. Great idea and as its presumably just plumbed into the main sewerage system the toilets on not expensive either. I guess the view there is that motorhomes will come and wild camp whether there are campsites or not so they decided to offer up some facilities FOC. I think I read the other day that one of the Aires at Lytham St Annes has just put something similar in but its a £1 to use it. Cant remember the facts.


----------



## fatbuddha

erneboy said:


> To compliment what Barry's said, *I think the hardest thing is to get non-motorhomers to understand that most of us don't want camp sites*, we'd have caravans if we did. We want to be either somewhere remote or somewhere near pubs, restaurants or special attractions.


that's the nub I think as most non-motorhomers have no idea what a modern motorhome is all about in that it is a self contained travel unit and we don't need "facilities", just somewhere to bed down quietly and peacefully, and mostly just for a night or 2 in many areas of the UK. and bearing in mind that many (most probably) campsites in the UK are closed in winter so we can't use them even if we wanted to. in Rother, there are loads of campsites but beyond one CMC site near Battle, I can't think of one open in winter - but I could be wrong there as I'd be unlikely to use one seeing as I live in the district!

I plan to raise the point about our European friends and their approach to this matter. does anyone have a link to UK councils who do tolerate overnighting?? I believe Blackpool now do and there's another in North Somerset but can't recall where.

I guess fundamentally I don't want a PSPO as it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and in some ways, I don't want motorhomers taking the p1ss and parking up on seafronts for days on end and aggravating the locals. what I'd like to see is RDC take a light touch approach and allow motorhomes to overnight, provided they don't cause aggro - if they do they get moved on; if they don't just leave them be. many aires in Europe allow 48hrs max - maybe 72 - that would be a start for overnighters. and I also want to see some designated areas where motorhomers will be left in peace for a night or 2 - they don't have to be seafront, but could be out of towns and there are loads of places that could be used. and yes - I'd like to see some official aires but let's have small steps first.


----------



## erneboy

Permitted parking overnight would be a first step, even if it was in a car park. There's the problem of not fitting within the lines unless it's a designated space though.


----------



## fatbuddha

I'd be happy if we could get permitted overnight parking just in winter months - maybe Oct to March - as a way forward. at least that would be a step in the right direction


----------



## nicholsong

fatbuddha said:


> I'd be happy if we could get permitted overnight parking just in winter months - maybe Oct to March - as a way forward. at least that would be a step in the right direction


I cannot see that would aswage the complainants, who would still complain.

But then I do not think they should be aswaged.

I am against suggesting restrictions in summer but not winter, as it seems to be largely caving in to a mere handful of complaints spread over a wide area.

Geoff


----------



## barryd

The 48 hour thing is a good idea. In France some aires have this type of restriction, nobody takes any notice of it and its not enforced but its there if needed. I see no reason why councils couldnt do the same thing. Take the pish and stay for a week and treat it like a campsite then you will get fined.


----------



## fatbuddha

nicholsong said:


> I cannot see that would aswage the complainants, who would still complain.
> 
> But then I do not think they should be aswaged.
> 
> I am against suggesting restrictions in summer but not winter, as it seems to be largely caving in to a mere handful of complaints spread over a wide area.
> 
> Geoff


*cough* assuage *cough* >

I won't disagree, but if we only get one concession than it's a step in the right direction


----------



## erneboy

Is there a risk in that I wonder?

If they grant the small thing it can't solve what they see as a problem and later they can say that they were flexible in trying to help yet motorhomers still misbehaved.

If all you ask for is a bit of off season parking they may see granting it as an eazy way out. I think


----------



## nicholsong

fatbuddha said:


> **cough* assuage *cough** >
> 
> 
> 
> 'assuage' - Oh yes, the modern spelling. I must have absorbed too much from my study of Middle English in English Literature. In The 'Shorter Oxford Dictionary, in the quotes of Usage at 4 is ' His swore gan aswage' [Chaucer], but no date ascribed. Of course he and I do carry the same 'Geoffrey' Christian name, so that might account for something - or not.
> 
> But then at Durham University ME was quite modern; my room-mate was studying English and his course included Anglo-Saxon literature and runes, taught by a certain Rosie Cramb, of whom I last heard was still a Prof. at Durham.
Click to expand...


----------



## nicholsong

It could also be suggested to them that if they decide to make an Order, that includes 'Sleeping' they should be required to define the term, and furthermore they should consider whether that activity comes within the scope of the Primary Legislation whch authorises Councils to make TROs, and if they are not sure, to refer it to the Secretary of State for a ruling.

That should keep them busy for a while.


----------



## maureentom

I've tried a few approaches - usually in response to, perhaps, a new TRO or simply a council statement. Sometimes, but not often, I've approached a council completely cold. This one was after a new crackdown by Cornwall council. If it's useful, I can probably unearth a few more I've done similarly. I would take a county or area, search for a similar area in Europe and do a comparison like this.


----------



## jiwawa

That seems like a well-researched piece of work Tom - can I ask what was the outcome?


----------



## maureentom

Yes. It was quite sad really. I had responses from half a dozen councillors all fairly positive. At the same time, John Thompson was also negotiating with the same council. We were in touch but each of us talking to the council separately. Cllr Briscoe was the head of tourism, I think, and he contacted John with an offer of attendance at a tourism policy meeting. John was in Spain, I think, and I was in France and no one else wanted to meet. So ... it fell through. John was leading the motorhome tourist organisation at the time and soon after, that also changed direction. If John reads this he might like to comment and he has more of the same sort of information.

I produced the same sort of thing for a number of areas - usually like an advertising leaflet which I would attach to an email. Quite often there would be seemingly favourable responses but I'm not sure if they had much effect though there was softening in some areas where other approaches were being made by other people. Even when you have a success, the council rarely tells you it was down to you. 

I'll see what others I can look out and, for fun, I'll see if I can do the same sort of thing for the Rother area.

Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## maureentom

Something like this maybe. Cleaned up a bit?

Anyone is welcome to use (or discard) any of this as they wish.


----------



## JanHank

maureentom said:


> Something like this maybe. Cleaned up a bit?
> 
> Anyone is welcome to use (or discard) any of this as they wish.


I have just spotted you Maureentom, I am adding you to the members list
http://forums.motorhomefacts.com/78...-thread-if-you-still-watching-posting-45.html


----------



## maureentom

Mrplodd said:


> Councils usually operate on a rolling five year period for complaints, traffic speed/volume data, the number of road crashes etc.
> 
> Andy


I hadn't known that. Thank you.

So, using that as a basis rather than the usual three years I ask about; in this case there were only eleven complaints in the past five years. Ten if, as I think, we should exclude the one about the abandoned vehicle.

Two a year. In my view this is not enough to reasonably impose a PSPO.

I've cleaned up my comparison a bit and it's now my intention to forward it to every Rother councillor.


----------



## fatbuddha

maureentom said:


> Something like this maybe. Cleaned up a bit?
> 
> Anyone is welcome to use (or discard) any of this as they wish.


Sorry - been off here for a couple of days so only just seen this.

Tom - that's a nice piece of work and one I can use for my meeting with the Councillor. I might do one for a comparison between Rother and the Baie de Somme area due to many similarities (Rye and Baie de Somme have a cooperation on nature reserves). The other issue I need to address is what Hastings Council are doing as the town sits in the middle of Rother but has it's own council with Rother wrapping around it. There really should be a concerted effort to get both councils on the same wavelength.


----------



## jiwawa

maureentom said:


> Something like this maybe. Cleaned up a bit?
> 
> Anyone is welcome to use (or discard) any of this as they wish.


I'm not able to see the attachment Tom - says something like Difficulty loading image.


----------



## nicholsong

fatbuddha said:


> Sorry - been off here for a couple of days so only just seen this.
> 
> Tom - that's a nice piece of work and one I can use for my meeting with the Councillor. I might do one for a comparison between Rother and the Baie de Somme area due to many similarities (Rye and Baie de Somme have a cooperation on nature reserves). The other issue I need to address is what Hastings Council are doing as the town sits in the middle of Rother but has it's own council with Rother wrapping around it. There really should be a concerted effort *to get both councils on the same wavelength.*


Might need to use 'SW' (short wave) - to match their eyesight.:surprise::laugh:


----------



## maureentom

jiwawa said:


> I'm not able to see the attachment Tom - says something like Difficulty loading image.


Ok - I've put a copy in my dropbox

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qud7895i6knugwe/Comparison of Sussex and Calvados.pdf?dl=0

You should be able to download it from there. If this still doesn't work then I can maybe send it as an email attachment.

I've added a bit to it and I'd appreciate any comments (from anybody) if I've maybe made it a bit strong. I'm going to add a bit more yet.


----------



## MeFeinMcCabe

maureentom said:


> Ok - I've put a copy in my dropbox
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qud7895i6knugwe/Comparison of Sussex and Calvados.pdf?dl=0
> 
> You should be able to download it from there. If this still doesn't work then I can maybe send it as an email attachment.
> 
> I've added a bit to it and I'd appreciate any comments (from anybody) if I've maybe made it a bit strong. I'm going to add a bit more yet.


That's a well researched piece you have done there. Fair play to you


----------



## maureentom

Fatbuddah,

Best of luck tomorrow. The number of complaints wants looking at again, I've got the numbers very slightly wrong. I said eleven over five years. Actually that was eleven plus the four for the last three years - making a total of fifteen over five years. I've made the lists a little more understandable - and they're accurate.

But - the total number is misleading. Of the total number of complaints in 2013 - ALL of them took place over a fornight in August on West Parade. There were none for the rest of the year. It's my guess that all these complaints were actually about the same issue - and therefore only one incident complained about. Quite possibly all were from the same individual. Not eleven complaints - One.

If my argument is correct then, in the past five years there have only been five complaints. Or only four if we discount the abandoned vehicle

Less than one a year.

In the last five years:










In the last three years:










If there's anything I can provide before your interview tomorrow - I'll do it if I can.


----------



## fatbuddha

maureentom said:


> Fatbuddah,
> 
> Best of luck tomorrow. The number of complaints wants looking at again, I've got the numbers very slightly wrong. I said eleven over five years. Actually that was eleven plus the four for the last three years - making a total of fifteen over five years. I've made the lists a little more understandable - and they're accurate.
> 
> But - the total number is misleading. Of the total number of complaints in 2013 - ALL of them took place over a fornight in August on West Parade. There were none for the rest of the year. It's my guess that all these complaints were actually about the same issue - and therefore only one incident complained about. *Quite possibly all were from the same individual. Not eleven complaints - One.*
> 
> *If my argument is correct then, in the past five years there have only been five complaints. Or only four if we discount the abandoned vehicle*
> 
> If there's anything I can provide before your interview tomorrow - I'll do it if I can.


that was my analysis as well when I saw the list. I think what's also important and needs to be discussed is the comments on the consultation exercise - I posted a PDF back a page or so - as those are perhaps more illuminating and also concern complaints, but probably not logged to RDC or the police at the time - or could be but there are no dates on it. If you can't find the PDF let me know and I'll repost it. Some of the comments are typically OTT but it seems as if there have been some specific problems around one part of Bexhill - Brockley Drive - but as said, it doesn't give dates and may no longer be relevant. A lot of the comments are typical "anti motorhome" - rubbish, emptying waste, camping behaviour etc - but in a typical UK fashion are a) never backed up with solid evidence, and b) are Daily Mail style i.e. one eyed! Still doesn't warrant a PSPO.

Any info on applications of TSOs may be useful

I'm working on a version of your document comparing Sussex to Calvados but using Rother v Somme as we are opposite each other and have some common interests between Rye and the Baie de Somme. But I'll just do an extract of what you say as a lot of the comments still apply but use maps to show how the 2 districts approach motorhome visitors.

and thanks!


----------



## maureentom

TRO's?

The PSPO is a godsend to local councils. They, to me, represent a way round Bye-laws which have major disadvantages for councils. They're not quite the easy things to institute that we think. They should not be used when there is existing law and they may be drafted by councils but they must be approved by central Government and, in the past, approval has not been given when there is existing legislation.

TROs are not quite so restrictive but they can only be used for a certain number of conditions and are subject to fairly stringent consultation requirements.

So PSPOs allow the councils to do pretty well much what they like.

There's a wealth of information if you google Traffic Regulation Orders but this plain English Parliamentary guide is good start. It goes like this:

_1) The traffic authority for a road outside Greater London may make an order under
this section (referred to in this Act as a "traffic regulation order") in respect of the road]
where it appears to the authority making the order that it is expedient to make it-_

_(a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or
for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or_

_(b) for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or
_

_(c) for facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic
(including pedestrians), or
_

_(d) for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use
by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing
character of the road or adjoining property, or
_

_(e) (without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (d) above) for preserving the
character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on
horseback or on foot, or
_

_(f) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs
or_

If you have difficulty I can put it in my dropbox.

Tom


----------



## fatbuddha

thanks Tom 

my error - TROs is what I meant


----------



## jiwawa

maureentom said:


> Ok - I've put a copy in my dropbox
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qud7895i6knugwe/Comparison of Sussex and Calvados.pdf?dl=0
> 
> You should be able to download it from there. If this still doesn't work then I can maybe send it as an email attachment.
> 
> I've added a bit to it and I'd appreciate any comments (from anybody) if I've maybe made it a bit strong. I'm going to add a bit more yet.


That's looking good Tom.

I've sent a PM with a couple of notes.


----------



## fatbuddha

my meeting with the Rother councillor is this morning at 10am - she's coming to my place as I have offered to show her what a modern motorhome is all about and mine is on the drive. I have a dossier of information (including Tom's document) to help me go through the discussions as to why a PSPO to prevent people "sleeping in vehicles" is not a good idea, but if anyone has any last minute contributions then let me know.

I shall report back after the meeting

EDIT: and doing a final bit of prep, I have just found this gem of info.

On the RDC website it states that RDC is not the highways authority for the district:

"Rother District Council is not the highways authority for the District.

Throughout our area the majority of the roads are the responsibility of the highways authority, East Sussex County Council and you will find helpful information and links on their website."

then a link to East Sussex Highways.

if I go onto that site and drill through What We Do/Knowledge and do a search under "motorhome" I find this little gem:

"Is a caravan allowed to be left on the highway overnight?

*It is not an offence to park and sleep in a motorhome on the highway overnight. * A caravan must be attached to a vehicle that is taxed and insured. The police can issue a Penalty Notice if the vehicle is left unattended and is parked dangerously or causing an obstruction. If the vehicle is left unattended for 13 months, East Sussex County Council can issue a notice to have it removed. If the people using the motorhome are discarding waste onto the highway drains, this is an environmental health issue and the local district or borough council's responsibility."

that seems to be a nub of the argument! RDC can't enforce a sleeping ban on highways in the district as the responsible party for managing highways says it's not an offence. I wonder if those creating the PSPO are aware of this which is why they want to introduce one???


----------



## fatbuddha

had a good open discussion with the Councillor this morning - she's one of they key people on the Tourism side for the council and is quite approachable even if we do come from different political persuasions....>

as for the PSPO, I think that will go ahead (too late to stop now probably) but she is understanding that taking a light touch approach to motorhome visitors is preferable to imposing a blanket ban on "sleeping in vehicles" and it's only the persistent offenders or those causing problems that should be targetted, not the occasional visitor. it looks like the council are going to employ a number of traffic enforcement staff and if appropriate controls can be managed through them (mainly parking issues) we shall see.

on the positive side, she is going to try to persuade the council that motorhomes should be welcomed into the district from a tourist POV and see if she can get some areas set aside (a la aires) in certain underused car parks for motorhomes to overnight, even if they are barrier controlled and carry a small charge - that would be a welcome step forward imho. better something than bugger all.

the usual concerns are over travellers abusing the privilege but by using barriers and charges will help alleviate those. 

time will tell - if anyone wants to contribute more let me know.


----------



## erneboy

Good effort Fats. Thanks.


----------



## Mrplodd

Well done!!

I went down a very similar route a few years ago to get an ”Aire” type facility in Weymouth. All went well UNTILL a number of councillors with an “interest” in tourism got wind of it. They killed off the whole idea VERY quickly. So I wish you the very best of luck and REALLY hope you manage to get it going.

Andy


----------



## barryd

Nice one Fats. I bet you never told her you were a "Fruitcake". I remember Weymouth Andy. A lot of work just to be crushed at the 11th hour by those with a vested interest in halting it all. It would be nice to see someone actually get somewhere with something like this but you can probably count the successes on one hand sadly in the UK.


----------



## fatbuddha

barryd said:


> Nice one Fats. *I bet you never told her you were a "Fruitcake".* I remember Weymouth Andy. A lot of work just to be crushed at the 11th hour by those with a vested interest in halting it all. It would be nice to see someone actually get somewhere with something like this but you can probably count the successes on one hand sadly in the UK.


yeh - I gave her your login details.....:smile2:

let's hope we get somewhere and don't end up with a Weymouth saga. maybe I should check the backgrounds of the RDC council members!


----------



## maureentom

Yes. Well done. This is the bit I very much liked:

_on the positive side, she is going to try to persuade the council that motorhomes should be welcomed into the district from a tourist POV and see i*f she can get some areas set aside (a la aires)* in certain underused car parks for motorhomes to overnight, even if they are barrier controlled and carry a small charge _

I'd like to distribute my, nearly finished, War and Peace, to all councillors. This is as far as I've got and I think it's finished except for a bit of proof reading. Latest attached in case you have comments.

The ideas is to continue with opposition to the PSPO but to amplify the advantages of providing permitted overnighting spaces.

I think you're right about the PSPO. I think the decision has already been made and council discussion in April is just for show. But ... you never know.

Tom


----------



## yarmouth

Maureentom, you said in an earlier post that there was 4 complaints in August. There was a report in Meridian local news last year about a homeless couple living in a motorhome in that area. I wonder if this was the source of the 4 complaints. In the report the council said they were looking to banning sleeping in a moho overnight.


----------



## maureentom

yarmouth said:


> Maureentom, you said in an earlier post that there was 4 complaints in August. There was a report in Meridian local news last year about a homeless couple living in a motorhome in that area. I wonder if this was the source of the 4 complaints. In the report the council said they were looking to banning sleeping in a moho overnight.


Yes. I read that press report. At first I couldn't see how I could use it. Do you think in some way that could be incorporated?

Without looking back on it, I think they were a respectable working couple who, if they could not use their motorhome would also lose their employment. Something like that? I'll go back and read it again.

I have had thoughts that I could modify my paper to make it suitable for publication in the local press - a sort of open letter to councillors - but I worried that it might cause resentment not support. Have you thoughts on this?

Tom


----------



## Mrplodd

maureentom said:


> I have had thoughts that I could modify my paper to make it suitable for publication in the local press - a sort of open letter to councillors - but I worried that it might cause resentment not support. Have you thoughts on this?
> 
> Tom


A very good question!

To my mind the danger is that those IN FAVOUR of the ban (The NIMBY brigade) will make their voices heard and those AGAINST it (a relatively small number of Motorhome owners) will adopt the "I'll do it later" or "Someone else is sure to do it" attitude.

I have seen this locally when I have objected to a number of totally unnecessary lowering of speed limits. The local parish councillors (with no experience, qualification or knowledge of road safety matters) all voted in favour of them whilst I argued (and provided verifiable evidence) that the County Council (my old employer!) were putting forward flawed evidence, against them. I tried very hard to drum up local opposition without success. Many of those people NOW say they wish they had supported my efforts ! But it's too late because the lower limits (rural road, was 60 is now 40) have been instigated and there is zero chance of them EVER being reversed.

So the danger is that by making a stand you attract more support FOR the ban than we (as a community) want.

Tricky isn't it??

Andy


----------



## maureentom

Mrplodd said:


> A very good question!
> 
> To my mind the danger is that those IN FAVOUR of the ban (The NIMBY brigade) will make their voices heard and those AGAINST it (a relatively small number of Motorhome owners) will adopt the "I'll do it later" or "Someone else is sure to do it" attitude.
> 
> I have seen this locally when I have objected to a number of totally unnecessary lowering of speed limits. The local parish councillors (with no experience, qualification or knowledge of road safety matters) all voted in favour of them whilst I argued (and provided verifiable evidence) that the County Council (my old employer!) were putting forward flawed evidence, against them. I tried very hard to drum up local opposition without success. Many of those people NOW say they wish they had supported my efforts ! But it's too late because the lower limits (rural road, was 60 is now 40) have been instigated and there is zero chance of them EVER being reversed.
> 
> *So the danger is that by making a stand you attract more support FOR the ban *than we (as a community) want.
> 
> Tricky isn't it??
> 
> Andy


Yes. That's what I thought. I don't think anyone from our side has yet had anything published as an article in the press though lots have added comments to articles or letters. It's dangerous. And I think that's why nobody has tried it yet. But .... Who dares wins. ?

Yamouth. I've looked back at the press article and at the list of complaints and at the paper fatbuddah gave us but I can't see a verifiable link with the fulltime couple. That doesn't mean there isn't one and if I can make a plausible link and use it ...


----------



## yarmouth

Sorry maureentom, can't help you as I only saw it on the local Meridian News.
My thinking is individuals or small independent groups will not bring change. It need the manufacturers, dealers and all the moho groups to get together and put pressure to bare higher up the food chain than local councils.


----------



## jiwawa

maureentom said:


> I'd like to distribute my, nearly finished, War and Peace, to all councillors. This is as far as I've got and I think it's finished except for a bit of proof reading. Latest attached in case you have comments.
> 
> Tom


Again, for some reason Tom, I'm unable to open your attachment - and I'm on the laptop this time :frown2:

And well done Fats for getting that far!


----------



## maureentom

jiwawa said:


> Again, for some reason Tom, I'm unable to open your attachment - and I'm on the laptop this time :frown2:
> 
> And well done Fats for getting that far!


Well at the least I should be able to fix that. (It's not deliberate)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qud7895i6knugwe/Comparison of Sussex and Calvados.pdf?dl=0

I value your input. Sometimes you're too close to a thing and miss the obvious.


----------



## maureentom

yarmouth said:


> Sorry maureentom, can't help you as I only saw it on the local Meridian News.
> My thinking is individuals or small independent groups will not bring change. It need the manufacturers, dealers and all the moho groups to get together and put pressure to bare higher up the food chain than local councils.


I thought I'd picked up this press report from here - but perhaps not.

https://www.bexhillobserver.net/new...d-bylaws-could-lead-to-homelessness-1-8326372

It's very interesting and maybe could be followed up - but I haven't really put much thought into it. Social consequences and that. PSPOs don't have a requirement for an Equality Impact Assessment.

I don't know of efforts to get manufacturers and dealers interested but I hadn't been involved in that and I think you could be right. It would just need somebody to start it off and who knows where it might lead.

There's a very interesting survey carried out in 2010 about motorhomers. Do you remember it? The author, Raul Lopes, said something similar. I think you'd find it interesting. Comments on it? It's a little dated but not out of date by any means. Raul Lopes has given permission to use it any way we see fit.

Fatbuddah I meant to show you it but ran out of time.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1i1gn1fly...y of Answers to International Survey.pdf?dl=0


----------



## Charisma

Following up from my email to East Sussex County Council re daytime parking on the Esplanade at Seaford, I got this reply today:

Dear Mr Jones

Thank you for your emails of 5 and 13 February about motorhomes parking along Seaford Esplanade. Please accept my apology for the delay in replying.

The signs preventing motorhomes from parking on the Esplanade were installed in August 2016 following concerns raised by the town council and local residents who wanted to ban high-sided vehicles such as motorhomes from the Esplanade. Although there is no specific mention in the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) of motorhomes, the signs reinforce the TRO which prohibits vehicles over 2.8 metres high or over 5.25 metres long. 

Since the signs were installed we have been working with Seaford Town Council to address the issues along the seafront. We carried out informal consultation in December 2017 which proposed the removal of the 12 hour time limit (for all vehicles) and also proposed No Waiting by Motor Caravans in Marine Parade and Esplanade, Seaford (on both sides). This is available at the following link https://consultation.eastsussex.gov.uk/economy-transport-environment/lewes-informal-2017-18/
Following feedback from the informal consultation we are considering changing the proposals so that the controls will only prevent overnight parking by motorhomes. These changes if taken forward will be advertised in a formal consultation, expected to take place in April.

Any objections received will be reported to Planning Committee for their consideration. This is expected around June 2018. Full details of all our consultations and the background behind them can be found at https://consultation.eastsussex.gov.uk/

Thank you again for your email, I hope the information provided above will be of use to you. 


*Lesley Gallie-Gasson*
Parking Review Officer
Parking Team, Communities Economy and Transport


----------



## fatbuddha

> I have had thoughts that I could modify my paper to make it suitable for publication in the local press - a sort of open letter to councillors - but I worried that it might cause resentment not support. Have you thoughts on this?


hi Tom - apologies - been offline for a bit.

in my experience of reading local press reports on Facebook (Bexhill, Rye and Hastings Observer are separate but all have the same production team) they attract the negative more than the positive to any proposed changes (the area is full of bloody NIMBYs who live in the past) so you're likely to get more objection than support to anything you want the local press to print, so I'd caution doing that.

we raised the comment with the Councillor about people living in motorhomes as they have no other means of accomodation, she did agree that there are circumstances where a PSPO is countering a basic human need but didn't really offer any solutions beyond making facilities available to allow people to overnight and avoid any PSPO or TRO. I'll mail that article link from the Bexhill Observer to her as a reminder to not ignore such people. however - why the have to live at Galley Hill and antagonise the locals is a bit odd as they could stay elsewhere in the area to overnight and not cause so much antagonism.



> There's a very interesting survey carried out in 2010 about motorhomers. Do you remember it? The author, Raul Lopes, said something similar. I think you'd find it interesting. Comments on it? It's a little dated but not out of date by any means. Raul Lopes has given permission to use it any way we see fit.


very interesting! I'll send a copy to the councillor as it backs up a lot of our discussions regarding the way motorhomers are treated.


----------



## fatbuddha

Charisma said:


> Following up from my email to East Sussex County Council re daytime parking on the Esplanade at Seaford, I got this reply today:
> 
> Dear Mr Jones
> 
> Thank you for your emails of 5 and 13 February about motorhomes parking along Seaford Esplanade. Please accept my apology for the delay in replying.
> 
> The signs preventing motorhomes from parking on the Esplanade were installed in August 2016 following concerns raised by the town council and local residents who wanted to ban high-sided vehicles such as motorhomes from the Esplanade. Although there is no specific mention in the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) of motorhomes, the signs reinforce the TRO which prohibits vehicles over 2.8 metres high or over 5.25 metres long.
> 
> Since the signs were installed we have been working with Seaford Town Council to address the issues along the seafront. We carried out informal consultation in December 2017 which proposed the removal of the 12 hour time limit (for all vehicles) and also proposed No Waiting by Motor Caravans in Marine Parade and Esplanade, Seaford (on both sides). This is available at the following link https://consultation.eastsussex.gov.uk/economy-transport-environment/lewes-informal-2017-18/
> Following feedback from the informal consultation *we are considering changing the proposals so that the controls will only prevent overnight parking by motorhomes*. These changes if taken forward will be advertised in a formal consultation, expected to take place in April.
> 
> Any objections received will be reported to Planning Committee for their consideration. This is expected around June 2018. Full details of all our consultations and the background behind them can be found at https://consultation.eastsussex.gov.uk/
> 
> Thank you again for your email, I hope the information provided above will be of use to you.
> 
> 
> *Lesley Gallie-Gasson*
> Parking Review Officer
> Parking Team, Communities Economy and Transport


Charisma - have you replied to them asking what plans they have within the Lewes District to accomodate the overnighting needs of motorhomers?? if you're Seaford based it might be worth engaging with your local councillor as I have done in Rother.

it will also be interesting to see that if Lewes do go ahead with the plan outlined, how they will sign the matter as the consultation outline plan - https://consultation.eastsussex.gov...ocuments/Lewes 1718 Informal Drawing Pack.pdf - mentions "motor caravans" and not motorhomes, and as discussed a few pages back, there is no legal definition for "motor caravan" so could be open to challenge.


----------



## fatbuddha

yarmouth said:


> Sorry maureentom, can't help you as I only saw it on the local Meridian News.
> My thinking is individuals or small independent groups will not bring change. It need the manufacturers, dealers and all the moho groups to get together and put pressure to bare higher up the food chain than local councils.


you're probably right but if we have people in each authority area willing to challenge then that is a step forward. one of the problems is that we don't really have a "governing" body for motorhomers interests. the National Caravan Council is probably the closest to what is needed as they do engage with government and local policy issues but don't seem to have any real teeth and the name is too much caravan than motorhome. and others such as the C&MC or C&CC aren't really campaigning bodies.

maybe a National Motorhome Council is needed???


----------



## chasper

"motor caravans" and not motorhomes, i have yet to see a caravan with a motor in it, apart from the motor movers for the movement of the caravan. What is the difference between a motor caravan and a motorhome?


----------



## fatbuddha

chasper said:


> "motor caravans" and not motorhomes, i have yet to see a caravan with a motor in it, apart from the motor movers for the movement of the caravan. *What is the difference between a motor caravan and a motorhome?*


and that is a key question!


----------



## 747

fatbuddha said:


> you're probably right but if we have people in each authority area willing to challenge then that is a step forward. one of the problems is that we don't really have a "governing" body for motorhomers interests. the National Caravan Council is probably the closest to what is needed as they do engage with government and local policy issues but don't seem to have any real teeth and the name is too much caravan than motorhome. and others such as the C&MC or C&CC aren't really campaigning bodies.
> 
> maybe a National Motorhome Council is needed???


There was one until recently. I think it was called the Motorhome Touring Organisation. It was doing very good work contacting Councils all over the UK. A MHF member John Thompson put in lots of time and effort doing this.

It died thanks to apathetic motorhome owners. :frown2:


----------



## nicholsong

747 said:


> There was one until recently. I think it was called the Motorhome Touring Organisation. It was doing very good work contacting Councils all over the UK. A MHF member John Thompson put in lots of time and effort doing this.
> 
> It died thanks to apathetic motorhome owners. :frown2:


Jim

Did it have its own forum? I ask, because without it I think that any MH organisation would wither because the really active and interested members are probably the ones travelling the most, so a forum would be essential for keeping in touch and posting current info on parking/overnighting etc.

Geoff


----------



## fatbuddha

747 said:


> There was one until recently. I think it was called the Motorhome Touring Organisation. It was doing very good work contacting Councils all over the UK. A MHF member John Thompson put in lots of time and effort doing this.
> 
> *It died thanks to apathetic motorhome owners*. :frown2:


not surprised. I'm sometimes amazed how much motorhome owners bleat about councils, lack of aires, quality of dealer support etc etc yet nobody seems to want to get together a mutually beneficial body to tackle these issues.


----------



## barryd

It wouldnt be a difficult job to bang together a forum solely for the purpose of putting together such an action group. There are some very active and useful people on the various forums but they are scattered about a bit and not all members or active members of all the forums. Put them in a "box" centrally somewhere and pool thoughts, activity and campaigns then you have a central action group. You could also choose what you display in the public domain or whats private then as well.


----------



## nicholsong

barryd said:


> It wouldnt be a difficult job to bang together a forum solely for the purpose of putting together such an action group. There are some very active and useful people on the various forums but they are scattered about a bit and not all members or active members of all the forums. Put them in a "box" centrally somewhere and pool thoughts, activity and campaigns then you have a central action group. You could also choose what you display in the public domain or whats private then as well.


That is good Barry.

So we have a germ of an idea.

Maybe this needs some more thought as to construction, such as

How to name it.

Define its purpose, rather than letting it be just a 'Gripe dump'

Who controls it.

That is just for starters, and there may be other ideas about its structure and governance.

Going into more detail, there could be some standards forms on there to be used to 'inform' Councils about the issues concerning their powers, definitions of vehicles, requirement for signage etc. which could be used by participants to address to Councils, in order to facilitate objections with researched information.

This idea may need moving to its own thread and, when a more formulated plan were arrived at, could be disseminated to other MH forums, inviting a wider membership to participate in the new forum.

Those are just my initial thoughts. Any comments please.

Geoff


----------



## fatbuddha

good ideas Barry and Geoff but it does need to be put out there to other fora early so that it gets the broadest cross section of experience to join up to it, and it also needs to be led by people who have had some extensive experience of engaging in, and a better insight to, these matters. it has got to the stage where people are doing these things individually as they have a vested interest (like me and Rother) but the combined brain power could carry more clout.


----------



## Charisma

fatbuddha said:


> Charisma - have you replied to them asking what plans they have within the Lewes District to accomodate the overnighting needs of motorhomers?? if you're Seaford based it might be worth engaging with your local councillor as I have done in Rother.
> 
> it will also be interesting to see that if Lewes do go ahead with the plan outlined, how they will sign the matter as the consultation outline plan - https://consultation.eastsussex.gov...ocuments/Lewes 1718 Informal Drawing Pack.pdf - mentions "motor caravans" and not motorhomes, and as discussed a few pages back, there is no legal definition for "motor caravan" so could be open to challenge.


I am not based in Seaford but was visiting recently and saw the 'No Motorhome Parking' signs all along the esplanade. I contacted the Seaford Town Council who suggested I contact Lewes District Council as it was in their jurisdiction. The reply I got from them is the email I posted yesterday. Seaford Council seem to NOT be in favour of the parking restrictions for Motorhomes which is why I guess there is further consultation to be done.


----------



## 747

nicholsong said:


> Jim
> 
> Did it have its own forum? I ask, because without it I think that any MH organisation would wither because the really active and interested members are probably the ones travelling the most, so a forum would be essential for keeping in touch and posting current info on parking/overnighting etc.
> 
> Geoff


It did have a website that interested parties could post on and it was publicised across various motorhome forums. When donations were asked for to keep the website afloat and pay for literature, motorhomers ran for the Hills.

But now we have you learned and energetic people jumping aboard, so I am hoping for big things and I will even chip in (like I did for the last one) with a few quid. :wink2:


----------



## barryd

747 said:


> It did have a website that interested parties could post on and it was publicised across various motorhome forums. When donations were asked for to keep the website afloat and pay for literature, motorhomers ran for the Hills.
> 
> But now we have you learned and energetic people jumping aboard, so I am hoping for big things and I will even chip in (like I did for the last one) with a few quid. :wink2:


Wasnt that the one run by that "strangeways" bloke though who didnt even have a motorhome? I Think some questioned his methods and motives from memory not just the fact he started pressing for money.


----------



## 747

barryd said:


> Wasnt that the one run by that "strangeways" bloke though who didnt even have a motorhome? I Think some questioned his methods and motives from memory not just the fact he started pressing for money.


No, he had no connection with it.

It was originally started by a new member on OAL (whose name I forget) who was annoyed at UK Motorhome restrictions and the 1960 Caravan Act. The mainstay was John Thompson who contacted Councils but a few other people were involved.


----------



## maureentom

barryd said:


> Wasnt that the one run by that "strangeways" bloke though who didnt even have a motorhome? I Think some questioned his methods and motives from memory not just the fact he started pressing for money.


The tmcto was quite different. I've emailed John Thompson in the hope that he'll read this thread and join in.

I was a solo campaigner. And I carried on for quite a number of years using my own approach. The tmcto - something like the _tourist and motor caravan touring organisation _- was set up and so was the Andy Strangeway organisation. All three of us worked separately - in that there might be three simultaneous approaches to council but we cooperated closely too. We were well aware of what each of us was doing and shared information.

The Andy Strangeway approach was very assertive and this upset a lot of people. It did have its successes but you can't really tell which of us was successful in any individual case. I might be able to give examples. TROs can only be instituted if affected organisations are consulted. I was not one. But John and Andy were. I made an initial approach to North Yorks (they should consult an organisation) and Andy became the official consultant. I then said to N Yorks that there were more and John Thompson became also an official consultant. This carried on to several councils who accepted both John and Andy as consultants. Lincs was one.and there were others. But not me; I was not an organisation.

I supported both organisations in every way I could - and with small cash gifts too.

The tangible effect of the benefits of an organisation. I can think of two instances. Both John and I were in negotiations with Cornwall County Council. But it was John who was asked to attend their tourist policy meeting. John, of course, asked me if I could do it as he couldn't. We had a bye-law for Aberdeen turned down by the Scottish Government. I was told, of course, of the decision by the Govt but when Aberdeen went on to talk about it - the Council approached John. We had the bye-law for North Berwick turned down too. I think that was me but, who knows? Might have been John. Or Andy. The council didn't tell us and nor did the Scottish Government.

Andy S was much more assertive than either of us. He would deliberately flout, say, the Byelaw at Huttoft. Or an off-street parking order - or signs without legal backing. Quite openly. He would say - come and get me. If I'm right I'll win and if wrong, you can punish me. No council ever laid a PCN on him. I still have, I think, the recordings of him on local news television. Who can say which approach had the effect?

I used his methods once or twice. I was talking last year to Wyre Borough Council I told a Parking Manager that his off-street parking order was invalid. He responded that no case had ever gone to the Penalty Appeals Tribunal so he couldn't comment. I said that on a particular Saturday night I'd park overnight in one of his car parks, I told him when and where. _Give me a PCN and we'll take it all the way the the Tribunal._ I didn't get a PCN. Shortly after - I went to France and decided I'd gone as far as I could and I'd let it drop. Wyre have now introduced a one year trial in one of their car parks. Down to me? No idea - the council never told me.

I've enjoyed my campaigning - though I've sometimes had a hard time from those I'd have expected to support me- but I do think an organisation is the way to go. I've got a library of information and John has much more. I'd support and organisation.

I think the organisations failed for the same reason I took a very low profile . Lack of support. Even animosity. It's not often now I talk about what I'm doing.

We need a leader. I'm not one.


----------



## nicholsong

fatbuddha said:


> good ideas Barry and Geoff but it does need to be put out there to other fora early so that it gets the broadest cross section of experience to join up to it, and it also needs to be led by people who have had some extensive experience of engaging in, and a better insight to, these matters. it has got to the stage where people are doing these things individually as they have a vested interest (like me and Rother) but the combined brain power could carry more clout.


Fats

My thoughts were that we should give it a wide publicity on other fora but that we should first establish one place, e.g. its own forum where we could direct people to for their input, and that otherwise it would be spread across too many places and be not joined-up.

Geoff


----------



## IanA

This is more about a group of travellers rather than leisure use of a MH. There are very few details, no reg numbers, some look as if they are follow-up calls by the same person - utter rubbish to use this as the basis for a PSPO.


----------



## 747

IanA said:


> This is more about a group of travellers rather than leisure use of a MH. There are very few details, no reg numbers, some look as if they are follow-up calls by the same person - utter rubbish to use this as the basis for a PSPO.


That is the beauty of PSPO orders, they are quick and easy to set up and can be very unfair ... as has happened elsewhere.


----------



## 747

Here is a copy of the proposed PSPO. We have all heard the accusations of the UK being a Nanny State, this proposal reads more like something from Nazi Germany in the late 1930's. :surprise:

Ve vill make you obey.

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28999&p=0


----------



## Mrplodd

Well they have been VERY cute haven't they???

3. To occupy for the purposes of sleeping or residing in stationary vehicles on the highway during the hours of darkness.

By wording it as they have no particular type or class of vehicle has been defined. However.........

IF I was a local resident I _might_ be inclined to enquire from the relevant person if such a restriction would also apply to a delivery lorry where the driver turned up late at night for an early morning delivery and, because of drivers hours, decided to take his test period in his sleeper cab?? Or, at 04:30 in the summer when it's light that anyone HAD been "residing or sleeping" during the hours of darkness.

Likewise how would they define "residing"? Or for that matter PROVE (beyond all reasonable doubt) that anyone was actually sleeping? These regulations are made on "a wing and a prayer" in the hope that no-one will actually challenge their validity, and, if taken to a court would be very difficult for the Council to prove. Also of course they would need to employ a civil enforcement officer to check on such things at night (anti social hours payments when they are all strapped for cash) Having said that Purbeck District Council do indeed employ a CEO to do eaxactly that, they start at about 04:00durimg the summer season to catch Camper vans etc on the road that leads to Studland Ferry. To be fair I DO feel they are justified in this case as I have (in the past) certainly seen "Crusty" type heaps of s**t parked up for weeks at a time along that road where there are NO facilities for any form of waste.

The term "Sledge hammer to crack a peanut"comes to my mind!!

Andy


----------



## nicholsong

I have briefly trawled the 14 pages.

Has the Order been enacted?

If so, does anyone have a link to the enacted Order?

What is a 'Council Officer? What identification can they be asked to produce? Can a Council Receptionist, out to lunch, report/enforce an Order?

Geoff


----------



## maureentom

747 said:


> Here is a copy of the proposed PSPO. We have all heard the accusations of the UK being a Nanny State, this proposal reads more like something from Nazi Germany in the late 1930's. :surprise:
> 
> Ve vill make you obey.
> 
> http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28999&p=0


Here's the paper considered a couple of days ago.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/122oqg4z0...Public_Spaces_Protection_Order_-_ASB.pdf?dl=0

*Recommendation: It be RESOLVED: That the Executive Director be authorised to
undertake the final consultation with the East Sussex County Council, Police and
Crime Commissioner and Chief Officer of Police and if there are no adverse
comments to proceed to make a Public Spaces Protection Order (Anti-social
Behaviour) in designated areas for three years*.

I don't know if it was passed but I guess i was. So how did they deal with the lack of complaints? They put a question in their questionaire something like - "_Do you think it a nuisance if campervans are allowed to camp on the highway"_ The questionaire is no longer on their website and I didn't keep a copy.

This is how the council dealt with that part of the questionaire.

_Comments received from nonresidents who did camp in
vehicles in Bexhill overnight
and believed they were not
causing a nuisance and
supporting the local economy.
Conversely residents felt very
strongly that it was a nuisance
and unfair to local taxpayers to
use their road as a campsite,
especially those staying long
term.

_I circulated my comments to all members of the council pointing out the lack of complaints; I received only one or two replies and though both were supportive - likely those two were not enough.


----------



## jiwawa

Ah well Tom, you tried.


----------



## maureentom

It might not be over.

But the next bit might take a bit of stamina and, if taken to the ultimate, a little expense. As a group we've always lacked the leadership to take us along this route though sometimes the procedure has been begun with beneficial consequences. Councils do not like having to explain their actions in a court. The procedure begins with a "Letter before Claim" setting out objections. The council must reply - and it must reply truthfully and quickly. If found to have lied then I guess its defence is automatically lost; if it ignores and doesn't answer then any response it makes in court will not have much validity. It's a way of forcing the truth from those governing us.

Here is the statutory guidance to those wishing to impose PSPOs.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qcpjbnk0txht0yu/PSPOs Revised_Statutory_Guidance_V2.1_Final.pdf?dl=0

Page 47 in the above link gives us permission to have the decision looked at through the judicial review procedure.

_*Appeals*: Any challenge to the Public Spaces Protection Order must be made in the High
Court by an interested person within six weeks of it being made. An interested person is
someone who lives in, regularly works in, or visits the restricted area. This means that only
those who are directly affected by the restrictions have the power to challenge. This right to
challenge also exists where an order is varied by a council. *Additionally, as with all orders and
powers, the making of a PSPO can be challenged by judicial review on public law grounds
within three months of the decision or action subject to challenge.*_

What are public law grounds? Does anyone know? Would it be a failure to follow statutory guidelines? Throughout that document the sentiments in this paragraph are repeated (beginning of document after the Contents Page):

_This updated guidance emphasises the importance of ensuring that the powers are used
appropriately to provide a proportionate response to the specific behaviour that is causing harm
or nuisance without impacting adversely on behaviour that is neither unlawful nor anti-social. _

And it becomes clear that the council has not provided a proportionate response to the very few complaints about motorhomes. It has banned parking rather than addressing any behaviour that is causing harm - and there has never been any complaint about any behaviour causing harm.

I got to that guidance through this http://manifestoclub.info/statutory-guidance-on-pspos-a-campaigners-guide/


----------



## maureentom

If anyone is still interested - can anyone who lives near the area covered by the PSPO look for signs on the higway, including (especially) laybys, which advertise the prohibitions on overnght sleeping or residing in vehicles? The PSPO proposals included the follwing paragraph:

*"Proposed Controls to be included in a PSPO to all or certain areas of Rother"

"3.To occupy for the purposes of sleeping or residing in stationary vehicles on the highway during the hours of darkness"
*
Did the council get round to erecting signs to tell us of this prohibition? There must be signs or we are not to know of the prohibition.

Can anyone get me pictures of such signs, please?


----------

