Caravan fire

[lyledunn]

As a little jolly I have a caravan down on the coast. We have been aware for some time that the local council were requiring the final employment of certain fire safety measures so that the site owner could renew his licence. All caravan owners must remove wooden storage boxes, steps, verandas before the commencement of the season. For many this will be an extremely expensive requirement, self included. Of course the site owner can supply metal storage boxes, steps and a plastic covered wood verandas at "reasonable cost".
I do not dispute the increased fire load that wooden material obviously provides but I would have thought that any legislative demands could be more fairly implemented by not being retrospective.
Strange sometimes when fire safety hits you directly in the pocket that you quickly look for a way to avoid it!

[Midland Retty]

Hi Lyle

This is a problem not only in holiday parks, but also residential caravan and mobile home sites up and down the land!

Lets be honest, Local Authorities are in a catch 22 situation. They dont make the law, they just enforce it.

If they walk away from a site which is not up to the required standard and subseuqently there is a fire the Local Authority will be heavily criticised. Conversely if they choose to take enforcement action they get criticised anyway.

Ive spoken to several EHO's about this problem. They all said the same thing. It would be nice if there was the facility or mechanism in law in which Local Authorities could point out any failings and associated risks to park home residents, and then leave it to the resident's to decide whether to address the failings or live with the risk. In other words " We've pointed out the risks. Its now up to you if you want to do anything about those risks - but if you don't and something goes wrong on your head be it"
 
Alas the law isn't geared that way.

Lyle send me a PM - I have some further information which may be of interest to you on this issue.

[nearlythere]

This is a common problem Lyle, not the fire risk but the jack booted site owners, and I know people with caravans down the coast and to me it is just a means for the site owner to fleece the caravan "owner". If a wooden box at the end of a van or a veranda was such a fire risk why not ban car parking between vans. Cars are a much bigger fire risk than a wooden veranda or a box to keep deck chairs and a parasol in.
Much better in a nice little site on the Donegal coast with a singing pub 100M away.

[kurnal]

Ive spoken to several EHO's about this problem. They all said the same thing. It would be nice if there was the facility or mechanism in law in which Local Authorities could point out any failings and associated risks to park home residents, and then leave it to the resident's to decide whether to address the failings or live with the risk. In other words " We've pointed out the risks. Its now up to you if you want to do anything about those risks - but if you don't and something goes wrong on your head be it"
 
Alas the law isn't geared that way.

Lyle send me a PM - I have some further information which may be of interest to you on this issue.

The trouble with that approach is that its a two way thing. You may accept the risk but your van may be jeopardising the neighbours.
The research that was carried out by the BRE prior to the latest edition of the Model Standards showed that mobile homes are more vulnerable to ignition from outside than conventional buildings and so the spacing was based on this research. People do like to extend into the sterile area and often you get semi dead conifer hedges linking one plot to another.

Worst case I encountered was on a residential site where owners had built on to the side of their mobile homes with extensions, car ports and the like and there was only a spacing of about 600mm between each unit. Difficult to make improvements quickly though where a site manager has been lax for years.

[Midland Retty]

I take your point, and you are technically correct. However I have to say in my experience thats not how it works.

Park home residents tend to stick together and will defend one another, and their right to do what they like in their own homes vigorously. To that end most park home sites have resident committees.

Ive dealt with several park home sites over the years, and the trend is that residents are a very tightly knit group of people with similar values and life styles.

They don't worry about Mrs Bloggs' wooden pagoda and shed within the spacing between park homes being a fire risk. It enhances her well kept garden and makes for pleasant surroundings!

They dont worry about  the risk posed by Mr Smiths row of 2 metre high connifers between his park home and the next. Instead they appreciate it because they enhance privacy between homes, and make the place look nice!  

They acknowledge the risk but do not want institutionalised parks, they wont something homely, with the ability to place sheds, pagoda, connifers, and other features within their gardens etc.

So I think you should be able to give them the facts, tell them about the risk. Then the park residents committee can decide the best course of action. Half the problem however is that lax landlords have allowed development on the site to go unchecked. And it just seems overburdensome to ask a resident to tear down their nice car port or pagoda or whatever that has been there for 20 odd years! It is afterall their home.