Interesting petition
Comments
-
why not set up a petition, worded such....and see?
0 -
Why would I? I'm a caravanner so I've no vested interest in the matter. I'm just trying to work out why Mark Bevan went down that route and why he's getting relatively little support. If I wanted/expected the club to take a leading role I'd go through the AGM, wouldn't you?
0 -
It would have helped his case if he had done a survey and been able to say X out of y motorhomers questioned were in favour while z couldn’t give a monkeys.
0 -
Brue
I did invite the petitioner to come and join this discussion but thus far no joy. It would be interesting to know how MichaelT contacted him.
David
0 -
why not ask Mark, then? he can tell you, I can't.
and no, I wouldn't go to the AGM.....you'd never get me anywhere near anything like that.
I didn't think a petition was too bad an idea, I thought this was what everyone did these days, trendy, aren't they all over social media? (I wouldn't know...)
0 -
I can see the CMC having a brick wall issue stopping them taking up this proposal.
Set aside what is done in France or elsewhere, this is the UK and that IMO presents a fundamental problem here.
Whilst probably not law many LAs, both our clubs and I suspect their insurers, all adopt a 6 metre, flank to flank separation between units, once they are “habited” as opposed to simply parked.
This I suspect leaves them concerned that should there be a fatal “incident” involving fire there would be every chance they would be held as “negligent” in their duty of care in not adopting that minimum separation. Witness the grab to panic on CC sites a few years back [the new criticality of being on peg, and orientation of continental units], when the penny dropped and it was realised awnings fell into the definition of habited spaces and existing pitching had to be better managed.I suspect the CMC remain acutely aware of this and realise these requested car park style sites will not work over here. If not now the likes of supermarkets will also come to realise it is not in their interest to just open up their parking areas to MH sleep overs, without very different and active on site management of them.
1 -
DK When I signed the petition there was an option to receive updates and I go the email yesterday so I presumed it was from that.
Even if it is not successful at least it has started the/another conversation and we can conclude that carvanners don't want the club involved but maybe the 20% of members who own a MH and tour abroad who are used to these type of parking places would like to see similar here.
Unfortunately it is down to LA's to supply parking but it needs someone like the C&MC to champion the cause and engage all LA's through their members body to try and get more provisioning for more MH parking so maybe this petition does have some words that are maybe not right it is a start.
As for the AGM how many members actually attend to actually vote for such???
0 -
Canterbury LA don't seem to have an issue....it's just like most town Aires we've encountered...anywhere.
to have 6m between units would mean leaving two full parking spaces between each van....instantly uneconomical.
as Jay says, the definition of 'camping' may be different here than overseas but in France, vans like this are not camping (chairs tables etc not allowed) they are parking overnight....
perhaps something in the euro rules allows this type of spacing in this type of situation?
i don't know the answer other then the Canterbury aire is a good, simple example of an LA providing an uncomplicated, inexpensive facility, which is heavily used...
0 -
M, pretty much my own view. CC still doesn't 'get' what MHing is about, despite the 'change in focus' and the rebrand...
it still thinks it's caravanning without a car, having little understanding about how many MHers tour, the difference in stopping periods, the type of stopping place needed and which facilities are high (and low) on their priority lists....
they also don't realise that, when touring with everything with you, this is likely to mean that arrival times might be driven by a need to get somewhere, park up, visits and then move on to the next overnighter.
town sites with delayed arrival times might rule out being used if only there for a day or so....much better to get into town early, park up, visit, and away....
yes, I do also stay in one place for a while, but this is often in combination with some shoert stop exploring along the way...
it would be great if CC could do a bit of lobbying (perhaps similar requests to other MH organisations could add weight) though im not sure the CC would actually know what it is that MHers were looking for.
0 -
In Exmouth motorhomers have up to three nights parking at £11 per night. Unfortunately I could see longer stays (we were next door on a rally.) Some were there for the week and generators were in use (left on the road between nose to tail vans.) Whether this scheme and others will work depends on people respecting the schemes and not causing a nuisance to other car park users and local residents.
0 -
Seems like camping here alongside the river,
.0 -
obviously, the 'park' bit includes 'overnight parking'...is this perhaps the way the rules are 'avoided' as its not camping....exactly as they do in France.....?
0 -
I wish I had your optimism.....
have any of them used Aires, or know what a Bourne is?
witness the attempt at rolling out decent MHSP across CC....MH friendly and understanding?.....no, don't thinks so...
i bet they just stay on CC (or CC sponsored) sites, wouldn't you?
0 -
Good point, Brue👍🏻
My feeling is that if the club is so out of touch as not to be meeting the needs of motorhomers, there wouldn’t be nearly so many members with MHs. They’d surely walk/drive away if they weren’t satisfied.
1 -
They are or seem to be rolling out the MHSP's a bit faster than originally planned, after all how soon before a member has an accident on one of the old ones and the C&MC would be responsible as failure to protect guests!!
However they, nor caravanners or I before we got a MH understand the difference in touring in a MH with everything self sufficient and wanting to stop, visit, move on rather than stop then go out for the day and return to the same place. We do not want camping (definition according to dictionary.com:- Camp - a place where an army or other group of persons or an individual is lodged in a tent or tents or other temporary means of shelter) we just want to park either during the day or overnight then move on once we have visited. It may be for 1 day or longer. Over there they often have limits of 48/72 hours. Having somewhere to fill up with water, dump grey and black waste at a cost would also be beneficial but not essential in all places where it is not easy to provide.
Canterbury does very well and the parking spaces are slightly wider than a normal car park but obviously longer, as far as I know they have had no issues with gypsies or other itinerants and must see a value to the local economy and some return on asset to provide this parking. It keeps MH's out of the town centre and attracts visitors, imagine how popular these places could be in York,bristol etc?
0 -
Surely not!😱
0 -
However they, nor caravanners or I before we got a MH understand the difference in touring in a MH with everything self sufficient and wanting to stop, visit, move on rather than stop then go out for the day and return to the same place.
I don't think many people are as unimaginative or as plain thick as you seem to assume.
The simple fact is that CC don't run car parks (no quips about hard standings please), They provide campsites and that is what they do - not car parks
0 -
"However they, nor caravanners or I before we got a MH understand the difference in touring in a MH with everything self sufficient and wanting to stop, visit, move on rather than stop then go out for the day and return to the same place. "
That is obviously what you and BB, amongst others, want, Michael, and that's absolutely fair enough - no one is arguing against some provision being made for that sort of "linear" touring. But the evidence, as far as I can see, from the posts by most motorhomers on here, the many thousands who, apparently happily, use club and other sites for extended stays, and from the fact that, 5 days on the petition has still not even reached the target of 2000 votes, is that there is not a particularly widespread demand for it, certainly not enough for the club to consider "owning or managing" such sites as the petition requires.
0 -
I suspect the CMC knows its customers pretty well. It is investing quite a bit of money on new waste points for motorhomers so that is a good start as is the continuing updating pitches to hardstandings. That is their model and many of us are perfectly happy with that. Those of us who read other forums know perfectly well that many of the motorhomers calling for the creation of Continental type aires are not members and I suspect many of them never would be. Those of us that use CMC sites on a regular basis know that the number of motorhomes using Club sites is increasing and at quieter times of year they are there in almost equal numbers to caravans, not quite the case in peak season.
In the current environment it would be almost impossible for the Club to purchase land in towns and cities to create such aires so to my mind its not just worth the effort. I am all for the Club trying to encourage local authorities to provide some parking places in existing car parks that are large enough to take a motorhome even an overnight provision although that might be a step too far for the Club. Most P&R's have space for a few dedicated motorhome spaces and I think that is where the influence of the Club should be used. This is the problem with the petition it is aiming at the wrong target. Previous petitions on the same subject have also been weak in their presentation.
David
4 -
“However they, nor caravanners or I before we got a MH understand the difference in touring in a MH with everything self sufficient and wanting to stop, visit, move on rather than stop then go out for the day and return to the same place.”
I’m not sure about your assumption there, MT. I’d thought through all that as part of the decision making process when we swapped from cvan to MH. I’m sure other people also have the same thought processes and understand the differences.
0 -
There aren't any rules as such. Each area will form its own policy on overnight parking of motorhomes etc whilst having regard to national and local policy and guidance and case law.
As I've said this isn't my area of expertise and my interpretation of camping may not be the LAs interpretation but I'm sure they'll have it covered. One thing is for certain - dictionaries aren't referred to at all in defining a use of land.
I don't know any of the detail of the legislative environment in relation to camping and Aires over there but I do know that it's different in other countries. We've got four sets of policy and guidance in the UK. That's enough for me to cope with
0 -
Even I as a lowly caravanner understand the difference. Why wouldn't I? It's part of the initial decision making process and the reason why we didn't buy a MH in the first place.
It's all about finding the right organisation to drive things forward. The first priority is surely to clarify what is actually wanted
0 -
To quote the petition, regarding present club sites
"we don't want to be told to park in neat rows in the middle of nowhere"
Isn't that what P&Rs are like, only worse?
The club already provides a lot of city and town sites with safe spacing and reasonably secure environments.
There is so much in the petition that misses the point about sites and the way they are happily used by many.
1 -
"We don't want to be told to park in neat rows.." so just do it without being told.
1
