# height barriers uk



## rocky58 (May 11, 2005)

sent this to colwyn c.b. north wales

> Do any of your car parks have height restrictions as I have a small motor home >8ft 6ins high but it fits in a parking bay.

this was their reply

>I'm afraid motor homes are not allowed to park in most of our car parks. However, >the following are available for your use;

>Conwy - Morfa Bach (behind castle)
>Llandudno - Maelgwyn Road (200yds from town centre)
>Rhos on Sea - Colwyn Avenue - Nr village centre

>Most other car park have height barriers on and you would therefore be unable to >access them.

>Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.

Regards

Mark Smith
Rheolwr Parcio/Parking Manager
Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Conwy County Borough Council
E-Bost/E-Mail : [email protected]
Gwê / Web : www.conwy.gov.uk
01492 575492
Lets have database for height barriers in UK


----------



## smifee (May 17, 2005)

let's have a database of roads under 18 feet wide.

no ok let's not. i don't care where the height barriers are. if there is one i just move on and stop somewhere else.


----------



## LadyJ (May 9, 2005)

*Height Barriers*

We have just returned from Rhyl and Kinmel Bay and height barriers have popped up in both places. What is wrong with the councils do they not realise we spend money in their towns if we can find somewhere to park that is.


----------



## 88962 (May 10, 2005)

Hi Rocky


Go to Colwyn Bay and Llandudno regularly and never had any trouble finding parking there, plenty of spaces on the sea front where we can stop and look over the sea. In Old Colwyn we have always managed to park on the roadside. Otherwise park in supermarket car parks. We do not fit in a parking space or under a height barrier but have never had any problems finding a space.


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

smifee said:


> let's have a database of roads under 18 feet wide.
> 
> no ok let's not. i don't care where the height barriers are. if there is one i just move on and stop somewhere else.


Yes keep going and don't stop until across the channel.

peedee


----------



## smifee (May 17, 2005)

hi peedee

you wish i would. i wish i could.


----------



## 93514 (May 1, 2005)

Rocky,

why don't you write back with,

Dear Mr. Smith, 
actually there was something further you could help me with as I have been considering the implications of Article 14 of the Human Rights Act, 1998.

Obviously I should point out that my vehicle is fully road legal and as a UK citizen I am being denied access to a facility which others enjoy. I believe this to be a blatant disregard of my Human Rights.
------------------------------------

Any Human Rights lawyers out there care to take it up for free ?

I wonder would we get the same publicity as a 16 yr old schoolgirl who wasn't allowed to wear her jilbaab :wink: 

Kev


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi all

I have been trying to figure out who their intended targets are with these Height barriers.

They are becoming common all over the country, not just in tourist spots were motorhomes may want to Park (not camp)

Town center car-parks, commercial vehicles would not really want to use, these vehicles are out and about earning money, Travellers dont use busy car parks, very rare that a motorhome would want to use for camping (some of the ones I know of you would not want to camp there anyway) 

In touristy areas its may be campsite pressure(that is the general view)but I cant see that either, any one campsite as got to pay its rates anyway so they dont really hold much sway.

Why are these barriers going up? Is it really obvious and I am totally missing it?

George


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

GeorgeTelford said:


> Why are these barriers going up? Is it really obvious and I am totally missing it?


Maybe some friend of a gouvernment official is making a fortune by manufacturing height barriers??? :?

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## rocky58 (May 11, 2005)

*got this from colwyn cbc*

got this e mail back from colwy bcb

<I'm sorry our facilities do not meet your requirements. Here in Conwy we have had numerous problems with travellers over the past years, as a consequence height barriers were installed in many of our car parks due to their vulnerability and attractiveness to travellers!

As said in my previous e mail, we do allow motorhomes in some of our car parks. These car parks are in each major town, i.e. Llandudno, Conwy, Rhos on Sea. In addition to parking within these car parks, there are also plenty of On Street Parking spaces situated around the towns.

Good luck in your quest in finding a suitable location for your holiday.

Regards

Mark Smith
Rheolwr Parcio/Parking Manager
Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Conwy County Borough Council
E-Bost/E-Mail : [email protected]
Gwê / Web : www.conwy.gov.uk
01492 575492


----------



## 93514 (May 1, 2005)

That just about sums up the modern day approach to a relatively minor problem, ie. abuse of facilities by travellers, lets just stick up a big metal barrier, that'll stop 'em. 

But, hello, Mr. parking manager, what about the rest of us who only wish to park legitimately for a short period of time. 

Bring back Esther Rantzen and her 'jobsworth' feature. 

I'm still convinced that the Human Rights Act is the way to go, but I don't think the British taxpayer would be so keen to fund that one. 

Sometimes being rich, successful and able to enjoy a lazy, carefree lifestyle has it's drawbacks too you know :roll: :!: :!: :!: 

Kev (call me a cynic)


----------



## smifee (May 17, 2005)

it's cheaper for a council to put a height barrier up once than to continually pay the legal costs involved in moving the tresspassers on and the cost of cleaning up after them.

i can't say whether tresspassers have used the car parks mentioned above but in the area that i live height barriers have only been put up after there has been a problem.

i want height barriers put up to keep the tresspassers out of our area and if it means i can't park there i accept that. i also accept it when i travel to other areas.

looking at MH magazines and MH sites a newcomer must think MHers are a bunch of 'i'm being discriminated against' whingers. not something i want to be assosciated with.


----------



## 93514 (May 1, 2005)

So, if you have a complaint to make or a problem exists which you feel should be rectified how do *you* go about it then :?: 

If by making a complaint or seeking to redress a perceived problem does that automatically make everyone a "whinger" :?:

In your area there was a problem created by tresspassers. Presumably therefore that problem manifested itself in the eyes of local residents who took time to complain to the local council. Does that make them whingers.

The main issue is discrimination against an individual or group of individuals who are not intent on doing anything outside legal parameters and are being treated differently or disadvantaged as a result.

Seems fairly clear to me. But then perhaps I'm not so close to the pavement as you are. :wink: :wink:

Kev


----------



## smifee (May 17, 2005)

hi kev

actions have consequences. as a consequence of putting up a height barrier the following groups can't gain access:-

1. tresspassers with high vehicles
2. MHers with high vehicles
3. goods vans & lorries
4. service vehs - eg street cleaning, fire etc
5. anyone else i haven't thought of

the target of the action is 1 but 2 - 5 are also affected. that is not discrimination.

discrimination against MHers would be if access was arranged for 3 - 5 but not 2.

i support the complaints made by the local residents. i don't regard them as whingers because i think their complaints were justified. 

i don't think MHers complaints about height barriers are justified.

if the laws dealing with group tresspass were properly enforced by the police there would be less height barriers.


----------



## 93514 (May 1, 2005)

There are numerous interpretations/definitions of discrimination

Discrimination is the restrictive treatment of a person or group based on prejudiced assumptions of group characteristics, rather than on individual judgment.

ie the characteristic that all high vehicles are driven by travellers therefore just but up a barrier to keep all high vehicles out rather than differentiate between individuals who have high vehicles.

Art 14 of HRA

PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Strangely enough, it may even refer to the travellers as well :roll: 

So if we associate ourselves with specific property ie. m/home or high vehicles should we not have equal enjoyment of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by others :?: 

I agree with you about enforcement powers, *where these exist*. At present there are very few cases where police can move tresspassers away on behalf of local authoritiies/land owners unless there is specific legislation in existence.

Kev


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi 

Is it supposed to be travellors then ? because that doesnt wash really, none of the carparks in our area have been invaded by travellors Yet most are (or already have) installing height barriers.

The "travellers" that apear rounf here use the industrial estates


----------



## 89213 (May 16, 2005)

What do you do? I too find the barriers a pain in the derriere, but am totally in sympathy with the reasons for their being there. Where the problem lies is with the illegals who start the process. They move into one car park, the council evict them after the expense of a court case, and then have to pay out more money to clean up the area before it can be used by others. The illegals then move to the next car park and start again, councils are left with no other option. 
I live in the highlands of Scotland, and there is a council policy of 'non harassment' of travellers, the result of this is that these 'travellers' take up residence in a big layby on the A9 just north of the Kessock bridge, on the south bound side. One mile south of the layby is a council travellers site, with all facilities, including CCTV because the travellers broke into the electricity distribution point and took power off before it got to the meters. You hardly ever see a traveller in the site now, but they have taken to moving onto the council run caravan site at Bight Park in Inverness, a nice park with good facilities, and handy for Inverness town centre, they park their milk churns outside their vans, and tether their lurchers and guard dogs to their vans, so that people are scared to go anywhere near them. This is intimidation, but if the council intimidated them by asking them to move , or pay, or keep their dogs on a shorter leash, then that council would find itself in court. 
Basically the problem is Europe wide, everybody has rights, and nobody has responsibilities. We now 'enjoy' this blame society where you can be sued if you fart. Bring back discipline, personal responsibility, and fit punishment for the crime committed. 
Rant over for now. 
John


----------



## 93514 (May 1, 2005)

Giok said:


> ...... everybody has rights, and nobody has responsibilities. We now 'enjoy' this blame society where you can be sued if you fart. Bring back discipline, personal responsibility, and fit punishment for the crime committed.


My sentiments exactly :!:

Kev


----------



## smifee (May 17, 2005)

hi kev - sorry about the delay in replying. i didn't log on for a few days and i keep getting distracted by other posts whilst looking for this one.

i don't think much of your interpretation of this law. 

burglars are of the opinion that they can take other peoples property. are they protected, under this legislation, from laws that stop them doing this :?: 

is this as relevant an interpretation of 'other opinion' as your interpretation of 'property' :?: 

both are nonsense.

one of the principals of english appeal law is that account has to be taken of what the lawmakers meant the act to achieve. i don't think my example or yours can be classed as aims of the legislation.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Smiffee

Appeal or otherwise the Courts "should" only apply the law as written, the top law lords have stated somewhere, that they cannot be expected to try to guess and/or imagine what the legislaters really "wanted"it to mean, they only apply it (the law) as Written.

George


----------



## smifee (May 17, 2005)

hi george

i should think that those top law lords have been blackballed by the rest of the legal profession. that sort of attitude would mean the barristers couldn't string the case out for an extra half a days fees 8O 

when all the facts are against your client and your attempts to challenge the integrity of the prosecution witnesses have failed lawyers resort to their last desperate hope - 'the law makers meant ????'

the appeal courts are still hearing this argument from barristers & ocasionally agreeing with it.

the problem is you can interpret language in so many ways and they haven't come up with, & lawyers don't want them to, a means of making a law that is not open to 'interpretation'.

2 professions crying out for reform are the law & medicine.

that's why the most common occupation of MPs is the law followed by doctors. they can block any reforms.


----------



## RobMD (May 9, 2005)

We've had problems with "Travellers", (call them what you will) in the past that have left the place a tip, as that was what they were doing- rubbish clearance and dumping it.

The site they used had steel bars across the entrance that were heavily padlocked to prevent vehicles from entering.
It didn't stop them from opening the barriers though. In another case where there was a height barrier, they just removed the cross bar.

Point is, Height Barriers are of no use at all with that sector of the community - they only succeed in keeping law-abiding people out.


----------



## JustRadio (May 21, 2005)

smifee said:


> it's cheaper for a council to put a height barrier up once than to continually pay the legal costs involved in moving the tresspassers on and the cost of cleaning up after them.
> 
> i can't say whether tresspassers have used the car parks mentioned above but in the area that i live height barriers have only been put up after there has been a problem.
> 
> i want height barriers put up to keep the tresspassers out of our area and if it means i can't park there i accept that. i also accept it when i travel to other areas.


I think I generally agree with that, and whilst country park picnic type sites are very vulnerable where height barriers however inconvenient provide a solution, but why height barriers to "pay and display". There's a built in rental element not likely to encourage travellers, (except you and I of course).

At the moment I've a got VW with a pop up roof that goes into multistorey cp's and under barriers, but I'm thinking of swapping it for an elderly Hymer this year to go walkabout.


----------

