# Scarborough parking ban



## Jezport

http://m.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/n...-stop-camping-in-carparks-overnight-1-5195269

We have parked overnight in one of the thousands of empty parking spaces. I guessthe empty shops are a sign of a resort that has too many visitors and doesn't need our money.


----------



## 113016

To cut a long story short, I hope the council read this.
I and many will spend where we are welcome and will not spend where we are not welcome.
Obviously this town is happy to turn business away :!:


----------



## Hymervanman

Never liked Yorkshire anyway.


----------



## Penquin

I have logged on and submitted a comment, i strongly suggest that others do the same and swamp the site with comments about their loss.......

My comments;

_Very disappointing news which means many, many motorhomers will now avoid the Scarborough area. In most European countries motorhomes are welcomed as they bring money and people to areas. Scarborough obviously does not want visitors. Going to a site is not the way many motorhome users want to use their £50k+ vehicle - who wants to be cheek by jowl with others, in muddy fields and with children running around. Shame on the council for this blatant discrimination - in the end it will be Scarborough that suffers._

More comments from other MH users along the same lines may well get back to the Council, a single comment will not, there is stength in numbers and it only takes a few minutes to register on the newspaper site so that anyone can submit a comment.....

Dave


----------



## wakk44

We have also overnighted on marine drive on several occasions,it is an ideal spot for motorhomes and out of the way of residential properties.

Scarborough is a lovely seaside town and we have spent plenty of time there over the years in hotels,guest houses and more recently in the motorhome.

I can't understand why the council want to ban overnight parking particularly out of season when the area is very quiet.I would have thought the extra revenue generated over the winter months would be welcomed by local traders.

It means that we will sadly go elsewhere where motorhomes are made welcome.


----------



## bognormike

absolutely unbelievably shortsighted - I have posted on that comments thread. 

As I've said before I have a client up there who owns Winking Willy's and Bamfords chippies, and visit a couple of times a year. I normally stop on the CCC (scalby manor) site - in season, and have only parked up during the day on Marine Parade. He has said that motorhomes are often parked up there overnight (he drives past on the way to work), and there seems no problem - but it could be somwhat wild with a northerly blowing and the sea is crashing over the wall!


----------



## EJB

I presume that caravans are OK to overnight :roll: 8O


----------



## 747

Penquin said:


> I have logged on and submitted a comment, i strongly suggest that others do the same and swamp the site with comments about their loss.......
> 
> My comments;
> 
> _Very disappointing news which means many, many motorhomers will now avoid the Scarborough area. In most European countries motorhomes are welcomed as they bring money and people to areas. Scarborough obviously does not want visitors. Going to a site is not the way many motorhome users want to use their £50k+ vehicle - who wants to be cheek by jowl with others, in muddy fields and with children running around.* Shame on the council for this blatant discrimination* - in the end it will be Scarborough that suffers._
> 
> More comments from other MH users along the same lines may well get back to the Council, a single comment will not, there is stength in numbers and it only takes a few minutes to register on the newspaper site so that anyone can submit a comment.....
> 
> Dave


You have (perhaps unwittingly  ) hit the nail on the head Dave. Councils have an anti-discrimination policy which they have to produce when asked. This decision will be a breach of their own policy. It's a lawyer we need, not a petition. :lol:


----------



## barryd

Penquin said:


> I have logged on and submitted a comment, i strongly suggest that others do the same and swamp the site with comments about their loss.......
> 
> My comments;
> 
> _Very disappointing news which means many, many motorhomers will now avoid the Scarborough area. In most European countries motorhomes are welcomed as they bring money and people to areas. Scarborough obviously does not want visitors. Going to a site is not the way many motorhome users want to use their £50k+ vehicle - who wants to be cheek by jowl with others, in muddy fields and with children running around. Shame on the council for this blatant discrimination - in the end it will be Scarborough that suffers._
> 
> More comments from other MH users along the same lines may well get back to the Council, a single comment will not, there is stength in numbers and it only takes a few minutes to register on the newspaper site so that anyone can submit a comment.....
> 
> Dave


Done.

This is on the wild camping forum as well and I think someone has emailed the council the details of the Aires (car parks) opening in Devon.

I suspect however that Scarborough Council will be too hard a nut to crack.


----------



## 113016

Registered and just written a book :lol: 
Lets hope they listen :!:

My Book

" I have no personal advantage or disadvantage in whatever this Council decides as I probably will never visit, but do they not realize that Motorhoming is a growing hobby and a high proportion of owners have a larger disposable income than most.
While many Councils are looking at ways to increase income for local businesses, this council seems to want to make it decrease!
Just look at France. Almost every town has what they call a Camping Car Aire, which is a overnight parking area for Motorhomers. They do this to bring income to the local shops and restaurants and it works very well for all involved! Some are FOC, others make a nominal charge!
While many UK Councils are looking at implementing the system, to increase local business, your Scarborough Council is going in the opposite direction and seems intent on decreasing local business income.
Motorhoming is NOT about free loading, but it is about the freedom to move and not to have to book a campsite weeks ahead, We have all the onboard facilities we require and we don't mind paying a nominal amount, but not silly money.
Maybe Scarborough Council should reconsider and offer the facility.
This is from a Motorhomer who will spend where he is welcome, but will not spend where he is not welcome.
Scarborough Council, have a rethink!"

http://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk...-stop-camping-in-carparks-overnight-1-5195269


----------



## Grizzly

I've just been having a quick trawl through the Scarborough borough council minutes on this subject over the years and, looking at dates, it's not a decision that they have come to lightly or quickly. They are local councillors: they do have to reflect on and answer problems produced by their community. It doesn't seem to me however that the subject is completely closed.

I'd guess that the way to go is to work with them to suggest how an area of land set aside as a dedicated "aire" could be managed as well as, eventually, paying for management.

Again, a very quick trawl, none of the local campsites seem to be open in winter so the suggestion that MHers use them as an alternative is not viable !

G


----------



## bognormike

and who is going to enforce this ban? will they pay for a council employee to go round at 3am?


----------



## 113016

I have just managed to copy my letter to the newspaper into my post on page one in this thread.


----------



## erneboy

747 may be on to something but force would be a blunt instrument.

I will continue to write comments on Council and Newspaper web sites but frankly if the UK wants to attempt to ignore or attempt to ban the fastest growing sector in tourism that's up to them. They can't turn the tide.

What amazes me is why there is such a huge difference in the general attitudes in different countries, Alan.


----------



## Grizzly

These are the letters - of objection- that were considered at the last council meeting (16 October 2012):

HERE

The full report, by the Head of Tourism and Culture is here:

HERE

As I say...read carefully first before assuming the door is closed forever.

G


----------



## Jezport

Keep posting. And vote for posts that you like or dislike. Also reply to posts.
We need to be seen and heared.
I do wonder if the restrictions are legally enforceable as they are being imposed without a reasonable purpose I.e. Road safety concerns or congestion etc. Plus they are discriminatory as they are purely aimed at motorhomes not other vehicles like caravans or vans.


----------



## Grizzly

erneboy said:


> What amazes me is why there is such a huge difference in the general attitudes in different countries, Alan.


Alan ! The people who make these decisions have to enforce the laws and rules that are in place at the time. They have to respond to their electors. Different countries; different rules.

As an elector you have as much voice as anyone else and, as motorhomers we ought to have some gravitas when speaking to local authorities. We don't though because we go off at a tangent and run around getting our collective knickers in a twist and then....it all goes quiet again until the next council enforce the current regulations as requested by their electors. There are some notable exceptions to this however and all power to them.

I was taught that there are always two sides to every argument and that you cannot make up your mind until you have considered both of them.

G


----------



## dovtrams

That is sad news. There is a debate going on at present in Scotland over the demise of the 'seaside town'. However, when you try to visit many of them in your MH they do not want you there. I talked to the tourist information people in Arbroath and have said they should make provision for a few motorhomes and perhaps that would give a boost to the local economy. This is a town where the high street is full of empty or charity shops. They are not interested and this goes for many similar towns. Eyemouth however, is an exception they brought a new parking system into the harbour area which makes it very easy to stay there for as long as you like.

I think there is a lot of ignorance about people who own MHs. You are driving something that cost upwards of £50 and you get told that you are not wanted in a shabby run down seaside town.

Dave


----------



## erneboy

I have no difficulty understanding both sides of the argument G.

What I have difficulty understanding is how it happens that the French and Germans, to take the best examples, considered "the problem" and decided that they could find ways to exploit the opportunities it brought, while in the UK, after consideration, the answer is most often to institute bans, Alan.


----------



## ceejayt

I have left the following comment and the more of us that can make the time to do the better....

Very poor decision - the correct thing to do as has been done by councils such as Alnwick is to create some specific motorhome overnight parking spots. That way you limit the numbers and control the parking AND you get people in the town with significant spending power. The council needs to think again


----------



## hblewett

So shortsighted.

I too have written an essay for them:

As a motorhomer, I am disappointed to see this information on a number of motorhome forums. Like many others, I spend months on the continent, where motorhomers are welcome. I have never been to Scarborough and no doubt never will, now know I'm not welcome. I will, on the other hand, be going to North Devon, where I know that a more enlightened policy prevails and motorhomers are welcome to overnight in otherwise empty car parks for a modest fee. If the council thinks that motorhomers will come and stop in campsites instead, they are mistaken - a ferry crossing to France can be had for the cost of 3 nights in a British campsite, which is why so many of us spend our money abroad instead. I had thought that I would 'do Europe in my 60s, then do Britain in my 70s. I now know that it is so easy to motorhome abroad with the freedom we enjoy that I see no reason not to continue doing so for many years to come. I do not know if the place where motorhomers have parked in the past is 'unsuitable' - if it is, then fine stop them parking there during the day, but why not provide somewhere else for motorhomers? One of your residents suggests using teh underused Park & Ride - perhaps you should look at how successful Canterbury's arrangements for motorhomers are at their P & R; we have stopped there on several occasions, and usually take the bus into town and spend money while we are there.


----------



## Penquin

Grizzly said:


> These are the letters - of objection- that were considered at the last council meeting (16 October 2012):
> 
> HERE
> 
> The full report, by the Head of Tourism and Culture is here:
> 
> HERE
> 
> As I say...read carefully first before assuming the door is closed forever.
> 
> G


The objections are clear, but they have been sidelined and a policy has been effected......

it comes into operation on 1st January so the placement of signs BEFORE that is a breach in it's own right.

The Council have obviously made their decision and will not change it "there is no evidence of loss of revenue" - they have no evidence but by people avoiding Scarborugh and the envrions they soon would, but would not attribute it to MH users going elsewhere.

They have NO intention of providing Aire type accommodation as they think it is camping - there are clear guidelines about that and overnoght is not the same as camping (the French have the same laws).

We are on a hiding to nothing as they are wearing blinkers and will not react to any comments - the only way is to hit them in the tourist budget by NOT GOING there.........

Forget Scarborough - there are many better places and Yorkshire is looking very motorhome UNfriendly - so go elsewhere. That way they might realise that trade has fallen and why........

Dave


----------



## nicholsong

I note that the sign in the photograph reads 'Motor Caravans"

It would be interesting to know what the local bye-law wording is. Anyone got a copy? And under what enabling legislation are they allowed to select one 'body type' for exclusion? It is just possible that the bye-law is Ultra Vires.

Motor Caravan is a body type on the V5C, which would not be available to a parking attendant and the police seem not to be interested in enforcing parking restrictions, so would it not be a reason to cancel a ticket that the V5C was not inspected to establish that the vehicle was a Motor Caravan? Non-Uk vehicles would not have that wording anyway.

And as another poster wrote are the council going to employ somebody on 'night shift'.

Maybe it is a PR exercise to appease the 'Nimbies' who have complained.

Geoff


----------



## Jezport

Scarborough should be twinned with Gunkanjima if the council continues the way its going. Go on Google Gunkanjima!


----------



## 113016

To be quite honest, I can't be bothered to fight it, I have much better things to do and nicer places to visit, where I am welcome to spend my money.
Who needs the UK :?: not me :!:


----------



## Jezport

nicholsong said:


> I note that the sign in the photograph reads 'Motor Caravans"
> 
> It would be interesting to know what the local bye-law wording is. Anyone got a copy? And under what enabling legislation are they allowed to select one 'body type' for exclusion? It is just possible that the bye-law is Ultra Vires.
> 
> Motor Caravan is a body type on the V5C, which would not be available to a parking attendant and the police seem not to be interested in enforcing parking restrictions, so would it not be a reason to cancel a ticket that the V5C was not inspected to establish that the vehicle was a Motor Caravan? Non-Uk vehicles would not have that wording anyway.
> 
> And as another poster wrote are the council going to employ somebody on 'night shift'.
> 
> Maybe it is a PR exercise to appease the 'Nimbies' who have complained.
> 
> Geoff


I will post an except of this on the press website


----------



## Jezport

Keep posting. And vote for posts that you like or dislike. Also reply to posts.
We need to be seen and heared.
I do wonder if the restrictions are legally enforceable as they are being imposed without a reasonable purpose I.e. Road safety concerns or congestion etc. Plus they are discriminatory as they are purely aimed at motorhomes not other vehicles like caravans or vans.


----------



## bognormike

I note Grizzly's comments and the link to SBC minutes, but it seems to me that they have made up their minds full stop. Their argument being that allowing motorhomes to overnight would be "camping" and therefore need a change of use etc etc. We've seen this elsewhere (and my esteemed local council say the same), and there must be differing interpretations of the law because several local councils have specifically allowed overnight parking in their car parks - eg Canterbury, North Devon, even South Oxfordshire at Abingdon. So either those councils have considered that it isn't breaking the law, or they are ignoring the law! 
In my opinion it is pressure form site owners that is drving this - they see it as lost revenue for them, and their arguments hold more force than a few whinging freeloading motorhomers :x .
We were cheering down this way when Havant BC introduced overnight parking on Beachlands car park, even providing toilet dump facilities, but after a few months of this the local campsites complained and the price was raised to a prohibitory £20 a night. I'm willing to bet that none of the people that stayed at Beachlands even considered staying at any of the sites - even if they were open!


----------



## pippin

I read through the letters of objection received by the council.

A lot of them did our cause no good at all.

Rants are not the way forward.

Facts are.


----------



## rayrecrok

Hi.

I have spent many a happy night sleeping along with Sandra on impromptu nights on North Parade Scarborough when we felt the need for some sea air.. In our Triumph Spitfire parked up for the night.. I can't believe we fit in it never mind sleep in it, oh to be young again :roll: ..

Councils at any seaside resort, well not even seaside resorts are made up of complete div's, full of idiot individuals full of their own self importance using elf an safety baloney to steer their own agendas, just like any committee in anything from our local Church committee, Samaritans are particularly bad, Diving clubs are even worse.. The more "Official" they presume to be, the more they get up their own bum hole and the worse they become..

Example.. 
Presumably we all live on this island of ours and were born and bred in it, and our fathers and forefathers fought to give us freedom of speech, and to be free men that's why they went to war in their millions and died in their millions.. And one of the rights us as folk who live on this island would be to take from the sea enough to feed yourself and your family on a personal level, not take more just enough if you have the time and skill to catch anything.. Not unreasonable I presume you agree.

Scarborough's Council ruling..

As a diver you can only take one lobster when diving. Seems reasonable keep up the stocks of lobsters.. Except that isn't one lobster per diver for his own consumption, it is one lobster per boat no matter how many divers there are on the boat..
Now why did Scarborough Council come to this decision, the Lobster boat men who catch them by the thousands of tons during the year through Bridlington Harbour put pressure on the Council to stop divers decimating their lobster stocks.. "Their" lobster stocks..
Now Scarborough Council who made this Bye Law can't stop you taking lobsters and crabs, you can fill your boat with them if you want as long as they are in size, but they can stop you landing them as they own the slips and land you have to use. 

So everything your father fought for, all the freedoms they have granted you through history righting unjust decisions made by corrupt entities are being eroded by some tin pot arseholes in suits who know what is best for us unwashed uneducated populous..

It's the little things that drip feed bureaucracy when idiots take over the asylum, and ruin how folks like to live their lives, every motor home in the country wants to go to each resort in turn and block the places solid and shut them down until we decide it is enough.

It is more than just us as motor homers not being allowed to park up for the night, It is everything how bureaucracy lumbers on its like a cancer that just feeds itself, there is always something and it invariably is always something negative that takes away from the individual and is no good even for the majority.. I can live without going to Scarborough, there sea view is exactly the one I see when I look out of my window as I type this..

I can't wont accept some some plonker in a suit taking away what my father and yours did for us, we would be less of a man not to do exactly the same as our fathers did for us, for our children.

ray.


----------



## rosalan

I go where I feel welcome and safe.
We use BritStops and Motorhome Stopovers, staying 'free' where we feel welcome.
Whenever we can we go to France and Spain where we enjoy a much more rewarding welcome.

Scarborough has been dying for years, partly through cheaper overseas travel, partly through economic pressures and partly through British weather. If the inhabitants would care to compare their town with Margate or Blackpool where the tourist industry no longer fills their coffers as they did twenty or more years ago, they may come to realise that their negative attitude to would be visitors will not help their cause by one iota.

Goodbye Scarborough!!!


----------



## 747

dovtrams said:


> That is sad news. There is a debate going on at present in Scotland over the demise of the 'seaside town'. However, when you try to visit many of them in your MH they do not want you there. I talked to the tourist information people in Arbroath and have said they should make provision for a few motorhomes and perhaps that would give a boost to the local economy. This is a town where the high street is full of empty or charity shops. They are not interested and this goes for many similar towns. Eyemouth however, is an exception they brought a new parking system into the harbour area which makes it very easy to stay there for as long as you like.
> 
> I think there is a lot of ignorance about people who own MHs. You are driving something that cost upwards of £50 and you get told that you are not wanted in a shabby run down seaside town.
> 
> Dave


This is good news about Eyemouth as we have not overnighted there for a couple of years because they DID change the Harbour parking to prevent overnighting.

We had a couple of nights at Port Errol (Cruden Bay) in Aberdeenshire in October. I was told that it had been fairly busy with vans overnighting and paying their £5 for the privilege. The money goes to fund Harbour improvements and is a win win situation for all concerned. It has even produced a small Cafe on the harbour. A new business venture assisted by motorhomerws. 

I myself have been in talks with Elie Harbour Trust in Scotland. My points were raised at their last monthly meeting but thrown out on a majority decision. I did however get a supportive email from one of the committee who said that he and a few others will keep pressing for this.

Back to Scarborough. There has been many discussions on websites about this place. The main problem has been the amount of vans and the actions of a small handful of badly behaved van owners. Personally, I have never overnighted in the Town as I deem it unsuitable for myself, the wife and the dogs. We have stayed at Scalby Mills but only out of season. I cannot see the attraction at the height of Summer.

It should also be pointed out that Scarborough have made a couple of car parks available for overnighting ...... at £10 per night. 8O If you add on the daytime charge as well (I don't know how much) then a small campsite is probably cheaper. Talking of campsites, one of the local Councillors has direct family who own at least one Scarborough campsite.


----------



## ardgour

I have happy memories of Scarborough from childhood holidays. We now live less than an hours drive away but sadly the place is now a bit of a dump.
These councillors are living in their own little bubble and not taking a cold hard look at their dying seaside resort, not a place I want to visit any more.

Chris


----------



## nicholsong

rayrecrok said:


> Hi.
> 
> I have spent many a happy night sleeping along with Sandra on impromptu nights on North Parade Scarborough when we felt the need for some sea air.. In our Triumph Spitfire parked up for the night.. I can't believe we fit in it never mind sleep in it, oh to be young again :roll: ..
> 
> Councils at any seaside resort, well not even seaside resorts are made up of complete div's, full of idiot individuals full of their own self importance using elf an safety baloney to steer their own agendas, just like any committee in anything from our local Church committee, Samaritans are particularly bad, Diving clubs are even worse.. The more "Official" they presume to be, the more they get up their own bum hole and the worse they become..
> 
> Example..
> Presumably we all live on this island of ours and were born and bred in it, and our fathers and forefathers fought to give us freedom of speech, and to be free men that's why they went to war in their millions and died in their millions.. And one of the rights us as folk who live on this island would be to take from the sea enough to feed yourself and your family on a personal level, not take more just enough if you have the time and skill to catch anything.. Not unreasonable I presume you agree.
> 
> Scarborough's Council ruling..
> 
> As a diver you can only take one lobster when diving. Seems reasonable keep up the stocks of lobsters.. Except that isn't one lobster per diver for his own consumption, it is one lobster per boat no matter how many divers there are on the boat..
> Now why did Scarborough Council come to this decision, the Lobster boat men who catch them by the thousands of tons during the year through Bridlington Harbour put pressure on the Council to stop divers decimating their lobster stocks.. "Their" lobster stocks..
> Now Scarborough Council who made this Bye Law can't stop you taking lobsters and crabs, you can fill your boat with them if you want as long as they are in size, but they can stop you landing them as they own the slips and land you have to use.
> 
> So everything your father fought for, all the freedoms they have granted you through history righting unjust decisions made by corrupt entities are being eroded by some tin pot arseholes in suits who know what is best for us unwashed uneducated populous..
> 
> It's the little things that drip feed bureaucracy when idiots take over the asylum, and ruin how folks like to live their lives, every motor home in the country wants to go to each resort in turn and block the places solid and shut them down until we decide it is enough.
> 
> It is more than just us as motor homers not being allowed to park up for the night, It is everything how bureaucracy lumbers on its like a cancer that just feeds itself, there is always something and it invariably is always something negative that takes away from the individual and is no good even for the majority.. I can live without going to Scarborough, there sea view is exactly the one I see when I look out of my window as I type this..
> 
> I can't wont accept some some plonker in a suit taking away what my father and yours did for us, we would be less of a man not to do exactly the same as our fathers did for us, for our children.
> 
> ray.


Ray

'Beware the enemy within!'

Geoff


----------



## rogerblack

Hi, 747

Interested to hear about your talks with Elie Harbour Trust - I assume you are looking at the possibility of overnight motorhome parking on the pay and display car park by the harbour/sailing club? I can imagine objections from the residents of the flats in the recently converted harbour warehouse buildings as well as from the good burghers (or mainly holiday home owners!) resident on The Terrace as they would be highly visible from there. What about the (free!) car park off Admiralty Lane though, round on the East side of Elie Ness? (On the way to Lady Jane Anstruther's Tower). That is more pleasant and secluded. I don't know who owns it, also whether the yellow "NO OVERNIGHT CAMPING OR CARAVANS" sign has any legal validity, as those in laybys throughout Scotland have been deemed invalid.

There's also the car park by the old swimming pool overlooking Pittenweem that would be ideal for overnighting if it were permitted.


----------



## rogerblack

rayrecrok said:


> Hi.
> 
> I have spent many a happy night sleeping along with Sandra on impromptu nights on North Parade Scarborough when we felt the need for some sea air.. In our Triumph Spitfire parked up for the night.. I can't believe we fit in it never mind sleep in it, oh to be young again :roll: ..
> 
> Councils at any seaside resort, well not even seaside resorts are made up of complete div's, full of idiot individuals full of their own self importance using elf an safety baloney to steer their own agendas, just like any committee in anything from our local Church committee, Samaritans are particularly bad, Diving clubs are even worse.. The more "Official" they presume to be, the more they get up their own bum hole and the worse they become..
> 
> Example..
> Presumably we all live on this island of ours and were born and bred in it, and our fathers and forefathers fought to give us freedom of speech, and to be free men that's why they went to war in their millions and died in their millions.. And one of the rights us as folk who live on this island would be to take from the sea enough to feed yourself and your family on a personal level, not take more just enough if you have the time and skill to catch anything.. Not unreasonable I presume you agree.
> 
> Scarborough's Council ruling..
> 
> As a diver you can only take one lobster when diving. Seems reasonable keep up the stocks of lobsters.. Except that isn't one lobster per diver for his own consumption, it is one lobster per boat no matter how many divers there are on the boat..
> Now why did Scarborough Council come to this decision, the Lobster boat men who catch them by the thousands of tons during the year through Bridlington Harbour put pressure on the Council to stop divers decimating their lobster stocks.. "Their" lobster stocks..
> Now Scarborough Council who made this Bye Law can't stop you taking lobsters and crabs, you can fill your boat with them if you want as long as they are in size, but they can stop you landing them as they own the slips and land you have to use.
> 
> So everything your father fought for, all the freedoms they have granted you through history righting unjust decisions made by corrupt entities are being eroded by some tin pot arseholes in suits who know what is best for us unwashed uneducated populous..
> 
> It's the little things that drip feed bureaucracy when idiots take over the asylum, and ruin how folks like to live their lives, every motor home in the country wants to go to each resort in turn and block the places solid and shut them down until we decide it is enough.
> 
> It is more than just us as motor homers not being allowed to park up for the night, It is everything how bureaucracy lumbers on its like a cancer that just feeds itself, there is always something and it invariably is always something negative that takes away from the individual and is no good even for the majority.. I can live without going to Scarborough, there sea view is exactly the one I see when I look out of my window as I type this..
> 
> I can't wont accept some some plonker in a suit taking away what my father and yours did for us, we would be less of a man not to do exactly the same as our fathers did for us, for our children.
> 
> ray.


Ray

I've Liked your post, not because I like the things you've highlighted since they actually make me feel angry, but because I like the fact that you have aired them and that someone else feels so closely to how I do. I wish we could get rid of the current system of politics at all levels, from Parish/community councils to the EU, which has been allowed insidiously to subvert every area of our daily lives. We need to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch, there MUST be a better way.

Roll on the revolution!!

Sorry for the partly {offtopic} rant but I do feel better for it


----------



## geordie01

Went to Scarborough last year spent some dosh
wont go back this year so will spend the dosh else where
no problem


----------



## pippin

Let's all sing together:

"We're not going to Scarborough unfair"


----------



## 100127

Lets not go here.


----------



## dovtrams

We had a couple of nights at Port Errol (Cruden Bay) in Aberdeenshire in October. I was told that it had been fairly busy with vans overnighting and paying their £5 for the privilege. The money goes to fund Harbour improvements and is a win win situation for all concerned. It has even produced a small Cafe on the harbour. A new business venture assisted by motorhomerws.  

I myself have been in talks with Elie Harbour Trust in Scotland. My points were raised at their last monthly meeting but thrown out on a majority decision. I did however get a supportive email from one of the committee who said that he and a few others will keep pressing for this.

I must try Port Errol next year, it sounds just the business. As for Elie, another short sighted decision. We go there for a days out during the winter when we have stopped using the MH overnight. Always have lunch in the pub at the harbour cost about £30. It is usually full, the two days we have been there this winter, nearly empty. You would think businesses like that would welcome a change in policy.

Dave


----------



## 113016

Considering all of the Motorhome forums have been talking about this, there are not many postings on the News site.
Either M/H owners couldn't care less or couldn't be bothered  
You need to show your voice if you expect anything to be done  
Or even if you don't expect, but live in hope!


----------



## nicholsong

Grath

I tried to register but the system would not let me. 'Penquin' reported the same problem, so this may account for lack of posts there.

Geoff


----------



## Jezport

Please keep trying to register. Even if you had no intention of visiting we need to make sure that the council and other councils see that we are not going to just put up with being singled out as unwanted visitors.


----------



## ceejayt

nicholsong said:


> Grath
> 
> I tried to register but the system would not let me. 'Penquin' reported the same problem, so this may account for lack of posts there.
> 
> Geoff


Registering is a bit of a pain but it does work, took me three goes - shame.


----------



## 113016

nicholsong said:


> Grath
> 
> I tried to register but the system would not let me. 'Penquin' reported the same problem, so this may account for lack of posts there.
> 
> Geoff


Thanks, Maybe they don't like the answers they have been receiving


----------



## bognormike

I had a problem re-signing in this morning - it wasn't quoting my full e-mail address - once I put the correct one in it went through. Have posted in response to this by "Ro"

"The Scalby Mills car park will change to an overnight parking place for motorhomes, which people will have to pay for. This is located near the Sea Life Centre; it has plenty of room, unused at night, pub nearby, petrol station nearby, a Tesco down the road and even has a nice view of the sea. (Obviously the website hasn't been updated yet to reflect it, I'm guessing it will after the New Year). Look I'll be nice and provide a link also: http://bit.ly/11Po0a7

Scarborough isn't banning Motorhomes; they are providing a specific spot, so the Council know where they will be. Knowing where they will be, they can provide the facilities needed, instead of seconded guessing where they could be.

Like I said in a previous comment, I have no personal problems with motorhomes. I disagree with what is happening, but I and many others don't want the extra income that comes in being lost. So in turn I'm helping people with what to do. It just seems with helping some owners they take it as a personal vendetta. *shrug*"

looks a promising compromise, but why wasn't this reported at the same time as the ban on street overnighting? If true, it would tie up with the arrangements in many French towns where motorhome parking is restriced to the "official" aires. :?:


----------



## bognormike

if you look on the googlemaps link provided there, a Hymer MH is parked up in the sealife centre car park!


----------



## Jean-Luc

No particular to Scarborough, but I don't think a motorhome Parked could be described as Camping

It would also be interesting to call on Councils to account for what Mischief is caused by the presence of motorhomes which requires regulations to ban them from an area.
I believe that in law a person cannot by banned from carrying out an activity which does not cause a 'mischief' to persons, the environment or property.
Will we see yellow cars banned from parking on Thursdays next 8O

Here in the South of Ireland we are currently engaged, with some success, in efforts to deal with similar 'Scarboroughesque' attitudes by some local councils.


----------



## bognormike

update on the scarborough news link

http://m.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/n...-stop-camping-in-carparks-overnight-1-5195269


----------



## H1-GBV

Scarborough was a favourite place as boy, youth and middle-aged father. I was also pleased to visit it as a mature motorhomer.

However, I was concerned when paying for my ticket on Marine Drive to see that parking is restricted to vehicles under 30cwt (I think - 2010). My van is over this limit, as I imagine were the vast majority of the other "friends" enjoying the sea views, on an otherwise almost deserted sea-front.

So this thread IMO reduces to "are we prepared to ignore parking restrictions" if it happens to suit us? I don't know why there is a weight limit on that section: we have similar restrictions here but I've never seen them enforced and I cannot imagine why they exist. However, when is a "strange" town, I prefer to obey the rules. (I was unhappy at Scarborough, BUT I wilfully parked there.)

I would not want to overnight on Marine Drive. I would be very happy to do so at the SeaLife Centre: reasonable views, reasonably quiet, reasonably sheltered. However, it would be best if it had some facilities and was reasonably priced.

As has been said, if places make me feel unwelcome, I'll think twice about visiting them. There are some great places along that coast but few compare with what Marine Drive offers in terms of convenience and outlook. However, if you don't know Scarborough, there is/was fee (disc-controlled) parking on the Esplanade above South Bay and if you go further south, it is/was unrestriced, with glorious views.


----------



## pippin

_ there is/was *fee* (disc-controlled)_

Is that FEE or F*R*EE?


----------



## 747

H1-GBV said:


> I would not want to overnight on Marine Drive. I would be very happy to do so at the SeaLife Centre: reasonable views, reasonably quiet, reasonably sheltered. However, it would be best if it had some facilities and was reasonably priced.


There are several 'extras' at the Sea Life Centre.

There is the smell from the Sewage Treatment Plant on the landward side.

There is the early hours racetrack event. Usually comprised of young men going as fast as they can, as noisily as they can.


----------



## stevethebeekeeper

Grath said:


> Considering all of the Motorhome forums have been talking about this, there are not many postings on the News site.
> Either M/H owners couldn't care less or couldn't be bothered
> You need to show your voice if you expect anything to be done
> Or even if you don't expect, but live in hope!


I doubt they would take much notice of the news site comments. So I just found the email address of the mayor and sent her an email direct.

[email protected]


----------



## H1-GBV

pippin said:


> _ there is/was *fee* (disc-controlled)_
> 
> Is that FEE or F*R*EE?


FREE!!!!!!!

(A pleasant surprise - be there early to get the best spots - you know what those free-loading motorhomers are like :lol: )

PS My first "stop" there was at approx 4pm on a sunny July day - I got in only about 4 car lengths from the steps down onto Valley Bridge. I forgot to mention that there is a considerable climb up from the beach [possibly through the Italian Gardens] or you can take the cliff lifts (at a price). Hence my preference for Marine Drive - it's flat and on a bus route.

Gordon


----------



## H1-GBV

747 said:


> There are several 'extras' at the Sea Life Centre.
> 
> There is the smell from the Sewage Treatment Plant on the landward side.
> 
> There is the early hours racetrack event. Usually comprised of young men going as fast as they can, as noisily as they can.


Sadly (or otherwise) I've never overnighted there. 

It just seemed a good spot when I've parked for a stroll along the beach-front and through the Manor Gardens. Perhaps the suggestion of allowing overnighting might include a degree of control over the boy racers?

I have stayed at CCC site and was not particularly impressed: we were next to the road (so noisy), the pitches seemed crowded and not very level, the facilities seemed heavily used and the price was quite high. There again, what should we "expect" from a popular family seaside site? (A tarmac-ed race track with an interesting odour might be an improvement? Especially if "the price is right".)


----------



## Imbiber

> There is the early hours racetrack event. Usually comprised of young men going as fast as they can, as noisily as they can.


We visit Scarborough on a regular basis and always elect to stay at Scalby Mills and not once have we encountered the racetrack event?

Furthermore, when I was last in contact directly with Scarborough Council re-parking charges for our van, I was informed that we could use the coach bays for parking and pay the 24 hr rate which is roughly £5.50.

These tickets are transferable across all the borough council's coach parks for the duration of the ticket purchased.

Consequently, we often stay the night at Scalby Mills buy a ticket at the machine circa 9:00am, move the van up into town to the large coach park there and walk through town down onto the front.

We have then moved on to the coach park at the top of Whitby Abbey,for a wonder around Whitby in the afternoon, before returning post 6pm to Scalby for another hassle free night; all using the one ticket purchased at Scalby....and not once have we had an issue regards this.

Speaking to a few of the locals about the Motorhome parking issue on the front and the majority do not appear to have a problem with the Marine Drive parking; its the selfish sods who park their Motorhome for several days in the disabled bays just up from the Italian ASK right on the harbour front, which irks the locals.

To be fair I have every sympathy with then in these cases!


----------



## 747

We have stayed in the Sea Life Centre and I ended up phoning the Police regarding the boy racers. They arrived about 2 am and continued their antics for about an hour. A Police van arrived about 4 am. :roll: 

If anyone has problems, it is no use ringing the Cops (the lady who answered my call is based in Ripon I believe and had no knowledge of Scarborough). I have a number that a Council employee gave me, which is local and supposed to be efficient at getting Police to the scene.

Don't get me wrong, I would stay there again ..... but not over a weekend. 

Imbiber, you might have been lucky. This happened 2 years ago and the same Council employee said that they had just stopped the boy racers at their usual racetrack and they must be seeking new venues. Possibly my call to the Police might have given the authorities a heads up and nipped it in the bud.


----------



## peedee

Visited Scarborough once, wasn't that impressed. As far as I am concerned the councils action is even more of a reason not to return. On the other hand if it results in the setting up of well signed official all night and day time parking spots for motorhomes there might be some incentive to return when in the area?

peedee


----------



## Jezport

If you look at the votes on the posts it is clear that there are more objectors to the ban than people who agree with it.


----------



## 113016

Jezport said:


> If you look at the votes on the posts it is clear that there are more objectors to the ban than people who agree with it.


I have not seen much support (objections) from other forums


----------



## Grizzly

Jezport said:


> If you look at the votes on the posts it is clear that there are more objectors to the ban than people who agree with it.


Surely that reflects the fact that the information has been well-circulated among motorhome owners, who will be much more likely to object.

I doubt whether the population of Scarborough and area as a whole have any idea that this is even being debated, so they are unlikely to write in to support it.

G


----------



## BrianJP

I live not too far from both Scarborough and Whitby and whenever I have driven into them in my MH have found it difficult to find anywhere convenient to park it.
So now when I take my MH out for a "local run" I dont even consider these towns but places that I know are more receptive.
Therefore it is difficult to understand the decision taken by this council to actively discourage Motorhomes from their towns during a recession when they rely so heavily on tourism for their income.
I suspect they have been ill informed and not taken all relevant facts into account.
I notice that Scarborough is twinned with Harz inGermany where the Aire culture is similar to that of France.It is therefore a shame that the Councillors of Scarborough didn't consult their counterparts in Harz as to the benefits that providing motorhome parking can bring.Perhaps they will when they go there on their next Jolly.
If I were a Scarborough resident I would be asking them that question


----------



## Grizzly

BrianJP said:


> I suspect they have been ill informed and not taken all relevant facts into account.
> I


The matter was first raised in a council meeting on 20th October 2009:

_To consider a report by the Head of Technical Services (Reference 09/621 attached).
Minutes:
The Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Technical Services (Reference 09/621). Councillor Backhouse stated that this report was to address the issue of motorhomes parking overnight and having free use of facilities. The Head of Technical Services, John Riby stated that there were both on street and off street car parking regulations to deal with this but neither were completely helpful. A final option would be to not proceed and the matter be referred back to the car parking working group and that the issue be taken to the Department for Transport. This meant finding other authorities that were in a similar situation who could also lobby the Department for Transport alongside Scarborough Borough Council. Councillor Fox stated that there was then a fourth resolution to refer this to the parking group who would take this up with the Department for Transport.* Councillor Backhouse stated that the Council was not against motorhomes but were trying to manage these.*
RESOLVED that:
(i) the report be received;
(ii) the objections received be noted; and
(iii) Members refer the issue back to the Parking working group and ask that they liaise with the Department for Transport to determine whether any alternatives to the proposals in the report may be possible
Reasons:
To recognise the concerns of the objectors and to improve management of Off Street parking places. _

If you have time and really want to know the background, then it would be worth reading the Head of Technical Services report, which is pretty comprehensive and can be found here ( it's a .pdf document):

Report 2009

G


----------



## BrianJP

Grizzly said:


> BrianJP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect they have been ill informed and not taken all relevant facts into account.
> I
> 
> 
> 
> The matter was first raised in a council meeting on 20th October 2009:
> 
> _To consider a report by the Head of Technical Services (Reference 09/621 attached).
> Minutes:
> The Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Technical Services (Reference 09/621). Councillor Backhouse stated that this report was to address the issue of motorhomes parking overnight and having free use of facilities. The Head of Technical Services, John Riby stated that there were both on street and off street car parking regulations to deal with this but neither were completely helpful. A final option would be to not proceed and the matter be referred back to the car parking working group and that the issue be taken to the Department for Transport. This meant finding other authorities that were in a similar situation who could also lobby the Department for Transport alongside Scarborough Borough Council. Councillor Fox stated that there was then a fourth resolution to refer this to the parking group who would take this up with the Department for Transport.* Councillor Backhouse stated that the Council was not against motorhomes but were trying to manage these.*
> RESOLVED that:
> (i) the report be received;
> (ii) the objections received be noted; and
> (iii) Members refer the issue back to the Parking working group and ask that they liaise with the Department for Transport to determine whether any alternatives to the proposals in the report may be possible
> Reasons:
> To recognise the concerns of the objectors and to improve management of Off Street parking places. _
> 
> If you have time and really want to know the background, then it would be worth reading the Head of Technical Services report, which is pretty comprehensive and can be found here ( it's a .pdf document):
> 
> Report 2009
> 
> G
Click to expand...

Ok so if they were well informed why would they want to take a decision that could deter thousands of potential visitors to Scarborough? After all it has already probably disuaded a large number the members of MHF who have read this subject from visiting Scarborough.


----------



## Grizzly

BrianJP said:


> Ok so if they were well informed why would they want to take a decision that could deter thousands of potential visitors to Scarborough? After all it has already probably disuaded a large number the members of MHF who have read this subject from visiting Scarborough.


Don't shoot the messenger Brian ! You can read it as well as I can.

How many motorhomers from the district- or anywhere else- wrote in 2009 to suggest sensible compromises ?

How many here- or on other sites- have written to the councillors- not via the website which I suspect they don't see- to suggest sensible compromises ?

These are ordinary people who stood for office and were elected to run the affairs of their borough. After that election it is surely up to the electorate to check up on them- via council minutes if necessary - and put opinions to them. They don't make it up; they consider the views of their electorate. At the time of all the debates ( 2009 to 2012) it seems that all the pro-aire parties were keeping quiet so the objectors got their way.

That's democracy folks !

G


----------



## 747

The mention of Councillor Backhouse (of the Backhouse campsite owning family) only brings self interest and suspicion to the fore.  

How do you know that other forums have not been active on this issue?

The wildcamping forum have badgered the Council and at least one member has been in intimate discussion with Scarborough Council members to explain the basic needs of motorhomes and the way we use them. The Council members largely ignored everything suggested by these motorhomers. I should point out that these same motorhomers have been successful in changing opinions of Council members in other parts of the country.

A number of motorhomers have made improvements that MHF members have probably used. A lot goes on in the background and I have also had some success for fellow motorhomers. I do not get into any arguments on this subject any more. These threads always degenerate into a slanging match without ever reaching any consensus.

One thing is certain, there will never be any advancement made by members of this forum as nobody bothers their a**e to go out and do something positive.


----------



## Foghorn-Leghorn

Caravanners outnumber Motorhome's 4/1 so I doubt the council will be to worried a minority number of Motorhome owners who feel aggrieved just because they cannot park overnight for free .
After all the caravan sites around Scarborough are always busy in peak season so they will generate more income with site fees along with the money the caravanners will spend in the local shops


----------



## 747

Foghorn-Leghorn said:


> Caravanners outnumber Motorhome's 4/1 so I doubt the council will be to worried a minority number of Motorhome owners who feel aggrieved just because they cannot park overnight for free .
> After all the caravan sites around Scarborough are always busy in peak season so they will generate more income with site fees along with the money the caravanners will spend in the local shops


Nobody wants to park for Free!

Do keep up at the back. :roll:


----------



## BrianJP

Grizzly said:


> BrianJP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so if they were well informed why would they want to take a decision that could deter thousands of potential visitors to Scarborough? After all it has already probably disuaded a large number the members of MHF who have read this subject from visiting Scarborough.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger Brian ! You can read it as well as I can.
> 
> How many motorhomers from the district- or anywhere else- wrote in 2009 to suggest sensible compromises ?
> 
> How many here- or on other sites- have written to the councillors- not via the website which I suspect they don't see- to suggest sensible compromises ?
> 
> These are ordinary people who stood for office and were elected to run the affairs of their borough. After that election it is surely up to the electorate to check up on them- via council minutes if necessary - and put opinions to them. They don't make it up; they consider the views of their electorate. At the time of all the debates ( 2009 to 2012) it seems that all the pro-aire parties were keeping quiet so the objectors got their way.
> 
> That's democracy folks !
> 
> G
Click to expand...

Grizzly I was not having a go at you .You are of course correct with your observations on council members and their procedures.
However I suspect that the problem here is that why would many people complain to Scarborough council about their attitude to Motorhomers as those that have found nowhere to stop are visiting from outside the area /county even country.
Perhaps here on MHF we could all set the ball rolling by asking our own councils especially those in tourist areas to provide facilities (aires) for motorhomes. 
Maybe someone on here could draft a format that could be sent to councils across the country by members.
Perhaps the moderators could have section to monitor any responses etc from councils.
It could be that MHF could actually make a real difference to motorhoming in this country.
In the UK I live in Swaledale which is a tourist hotspot and am already composing a communication to my local council regarding this issue.
I don't know how it all started in France but it ended up with an act of parliament there allowing towns etc to set up aires ( I have a copy of this in my Rapido).


----------



## nicholsong

Grizzly said:


> BrianJP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect they have been ill informed and not taken all relevant facts into account.
> I
> 
> 
> 
> The matter was first raised in a council meeting on 20th October 2009:
> 
> _To consider a report by the Head of Technical Services (Reference 09/621 attached).
> Minutes:
> The Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Technical Services (Reference 09/621). Councillor Backhouse stated that this report was to address the issue of motorhomes parking overnight and having free use of facilities. The Head of Technical Services, John Riby stated that there were both on street and off street car parking regulations to deal with this but neither were completely helpful. A final option would be to not proceed and the matter be referred back to the car parking working group and that the issue be taken to the Department for Transport. This meant finding other authorities that were in a similar situation who could also lobby the Department for Transport alongside Scarborough Borough Council. Councillor Fox stated that there was then a fourth resolution to refer this to the parking group who would take this up with the Department for Transport.* Councillor Backhouse stated that the Council was not against motorhomes but were trying to manage these.*
> RESOLVED that:
> (i) the report be received;
> (ii) the objections received be noted; and
> (iii) Members refer the issue back to the Parking working group and ask that they liaise with the Department for Transport to determine whether any alternatives to the proposals in the report may be possible
> Reasons:
> To recognise the concerns of the objectors and to improve management of Off Street parking places. _
> 
> If you have time and really want to know the background, then it would be worth reading the Head of Technical Services report, which is pretty comprehensive and can be found here ( it's a .pdf document):
> 
> Report 2009
> 
> G
Click to expand...

Grizzly

I did read the report you cited and it said, inter alia, that there were no signs permitted that could exclude only 'Motor Homes' [sic]

So what happened after that? Are the signs illegal? They do say Motor Caravans and not Motor Homes.

Has anyone challenged the legality of either the Bye-laws or the signs?

Next is slightly tongue-in-cheek, but would CC Members like to organise a Rally for caravans on the affected roads?

Geoff


----------



## Grizzly

747 said:


> One thing is certain, there will never be any advancement made by members of this forum as nobody bothers their a**e to go out and do something positive.


I'm not entirely sure that you're right there; there was a post made not very long ago, by a (Devon ?) member who was about to make a presentation to his local council on the subject and was asking for advice. We've got an overnighting place here and I've asked if I can speak to the newly constituted committee who are trying to get tourists into town. There's still quite a lot that could be done here to attract MHers- we work flat out to give boat owners free mooring !

I suspect there are lots more who are working quietly in their community to change things- including BrianJP.

Quite honestly Geoff, I don't think there is a lot of mileage to be had by legal challenges over wording of signs etc. It's too expensive and I don't think is winnable.

The way forward surely has to be to get all councils to see that _ the vast majority _ of motorhomers want nothing more than a clean and tidy place to park and go on to sleep. To that end we have to police parking ourselves and avoid the situation that was presented to Scarborough BC ( ie MHers with all their camping gear set up in the car park).

Brian: you're absolutely right and, as a well-respected MH forum, we ought, IMHO, be doing more to sway the relevant authorities and present a case for facilities being made available. Good on you for writing to Swaledale. I like the ideas you've put forward too.

We've had this discussion so many times and we go round and round !

G


----------



## erneboy

We are a lethargic lot.

Please never mind arguing about whether this was a good idea or not and just concentrate on the fact that it only got 627 signatures: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/27376

Alan.


----------



## Grizzly

erneboy said:


> We are a lethargic lot.
> 
> Please never mind arguing about whether this was a good idea or not and just concentrate on the fact that it only got 627 signatures: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/27376
> 
> Alan.


I think most people realised that the government have nothing to do with providing motorhome overnight parking and the onus is on local authorities anyway. A badly- worded petition will get the support only of those who don't know the facts- 627 people apparently.

G


----------



## erneboy

I was aware of you view G.

Allowing that most of us are so stupid that we might think that the Government could have some effect on this, perhaps by means of approaching the Minister for Tourism and asking him to use his influence on local councils, it surprises me that so few people signed the petition.

Maybe there are only 627 motorhomers in the UK as stupid as me and who think that the Government is actually in a position to bring influence to bear. Either the majority are so very clever that they don't think it worth trying or we are actually a lethargic lot, Alan.


----------



## barryd

There are indeed several members across the forums who have worked hard in their own way to persuade councils and other land governing bodies to provide parking for motorhomes.

However I think to stand a batting chance of achieving more it would require an action / steering group would it not? Maybe a selection of a few dedicated members across the three big MH Forums.

It's one thing us all having a rant and a moan and doing some council bashing on the internet but chances are the right people will never read it or care anyway.

Count me out by the way!


----------



## rayrecrok

Hi.

The one thing I never do in the van is stay in an East Coast town resort overnight, I will visit during the day then move off somewhere else quieter.. There are loads of stopping places up and down where you are not interfering with or upsetting anybody even a campsite if you are so minded, there are more of them than you can shake a stick at on the East Coast..

So Scarborough or any other seaside holiday resort will not let anybody stay overnight, woopy doo am I bovered, does this face look bovered..







. :roll:

ray.


----------



## Grizzly

erneboy said:


> Allowing that most of us are so stupid that we might think that the Government could have some effect on this, perhaps by means of approaching the Minister for Tourism and asking him to use his influence on local councils, it surprises me that so few people signed the petition.


But surely, this sort of devolved government is what - many- have fought to bring into being over the years; local decisions based on what a community feel is right rather than nationally imposed decisions from the top.

Isn't the way forward to lobby local government- who do have the ability to change things- rather than the Minister of Transport ( to whom the petition was addressed) who does not ?

Surely a more useful alternative, for those who feel that national government can intervene, would be to enlist the support of a local MP; make an appointment to see them perhaps and talk to them.

G


----------



## Foghorn-Leghorn

747 said:


> Foghorn-Leghorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Caravanners outnumber Motorhome's 4/1 so I doubt the council will be to worried a minority number of Motorhome owners who feel aggrieved just because they cannot park overnight for free .
> After all the caravan sites around Scarborough are always busy in peak season so they will generate more income with site fees along with the money the caravanners will spend in the local shops
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants to park for Free!
> 
> Do keep up at the back. :roll:
Click to expand...

Quote "Nobody wants to park for free"
Err !!! yes they do , there are quite a few in the Motorhome Fraternity who think that they should be able to park overnight anywhere they like F.O.C . 
The very thought of spending money on site fee's make them break out in a cold sweat


----------



## 747

Foghorn-Leghorn said:


> 747 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foghorn-Leghorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Caravanners outnumber Motorhome's 4/1 so I doubt the council will be to worried a minority number of Motorhome owners who feel aggrieved just because they cannot park overnight for free .
> After all the caravan sites around Scarborough are always busy in peak season so they will generate more income with site fees along with the money the caravanners will spend in the local shops
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants to park for Free!
> 
> Do keep up at the back. :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote "Nobody wants to park for free"
> Err !!! yes they do , there are quite a few in the Motorhome Fraternity who think that they should be able to park overnight F.O.C .
> The very thought of spending money on site fee's make them break out in a cold sweat
Click to expand...

Of course there are people like that and that gives me great pleasure to see them forced into handing over their hard earned if they want to overnight.

The sort of people who are MHF members are not freeloaders, neither are the contributors on other motorhome forums. There is a whole sub-culture who DO want it all for nowt and these are generally the ones who cause all the upset.

It makes me a bit uneasy about being too open on any forum is the hundreds of unseen eyes who pick up information from the likes of us. They are 100% selfish and I begrudge them anything.


----------



## barryd

Calm down my little gnome! You'll have one of your funny turns and we will have to send the van round again!


----------



## pippin

There's nowt wrong with free nor is there anything wrong with shelling out to park overnight.

What I do object to is not having the choice and being forced out of town to a campsite that:

1] Has facilities that I don't need but charges me for them anyway.

2] Is inevitably too far away to walk safely back after a meal in a local pub or restaurant or even carry the shopping.

That is where France (& other €U countries) get it right.

As others have said, we need to bring these facts sensibly and dispassionately to those who can make decisions.


----------



## erneboy

I am not suggesting that anything could or should be imposed on anybody G.

I am saying that it is a tourism matter and that there is a Minister for Tourism. I make the assumption that the Minister for Tourism does get involved in matters concerning Tourism, even if it's only in a steering or general policy making capacity. From that I conclude that The Minister could bring influence to bear if he wanted to. Thus, in my view, the petition is not entirely futile, Alan.


----------



## Grizzly

erneboy said:


> I am not suggesting that anything could or should be imposed on anybody G.
> 
> I am saying that it is a tourism matter and that there is a Minister for Tourism. I make the assumption that the Minister for Tourism does get involved in matters concerning Tourism, even if it's only in a steering or general policy making capacity. From that I conclude that The Minister could bring influence to bear if he wanted to. Thus, in my view, the petition is not entirely futile, Alan.


I'm sure you're right Alan, but why then address the petition to the Transport Minister ?

Looking at the history of these petitions I suspect that they are a way to get people off the backs of over-burdened (?!) permanent government staff. It's easier to direct disgruntled people to a website petition rather than have to deal with lots of them all writing in - and then expecting a personal reply. If the petition gets a specified number of backers then - possibly- it will be put forward for further consideration. This will take forever and not get very far I suspect. I'd like to know how many of this type of petition request has been voted into law.

G


----------



## erneboy

I agree addressing it to the Transport Minister was not a clever move G, and I must admit I hadn't noticed that. But as that Minister may have some influence on parking policy, why not?

I also agree that these petitions are deigned to fob people off and that even if the target number of signatures is achieved there is still very little chance of any issue raised in this way getting an airing in Parliament. 

I made it quite clear in my first post about the petition that the point I was making was that, no matter what it's shortcomings, it only received a few hundred votes. You seem to believe that is because of it's shortcomings and I believe it is because we are, in general, an apathetic lot.

Good on the few who keep bashing away. I do that too, Alan.


----------



## Grizzly

erneboy said:


> I agree addressing it to the Transport Minister was not a clever move G, and I must admit I hadn't noticed that. But as that Minister may have some influence on parking policy, why not?
> 
> I also agree that these petitions are deigned to fob people off and that even if the target number of signatures is achieved there is still very little chance of any issue raised in this way getting an airing in Parliament.
> 
> I made it quite clear in my first post about the petition that the point I was making was that, no matter what it's shortcomings, it only received a few hundred votes. You seem to believe that is because of it's shortcomings and I believe it is because we are, in general, an apathetic lot.
> 
> Good on the few who keep bashing away. I do that too, Alan.


 I've just looked the figures up Alan.

Up to 17th August 2012 ( ie one year after their introduction):

36,000 e-petitions were submitted.
10 reached the necessary 100,000 vote threshold
8 were debated up to that date and one was to be debated after the summer recess.
No mention of how many voted into law but it has to be less than 10 !

When you look at the range of subjects that have been submitted then, bluntly, our own request for aires, comes well down the list of priorities.

It does make me cross, however, to see boats moored for free on the river here and, a mere 50m away, motorhomers being asked to pay £7.50. I'd like to put it to the council that they allow free overnighting between -say- 5pm and 9am- but am worried that they might then start faffing around and revise the whole area.

G


----------



## erneboy

I find nothing odd about that G. 

We both know that e-petitions are a joke. A bromide brought in to fool people into thinking they had a direct line to Government. Still, there is no harm in trying.

I would not waste my time composing one but if one is there then why not sign it. It may not do any good but it won't do much harm either.

Perhaps we should have a petition to have e-petitions scrapped because they are a joke? Alan.


----------



## teemyob

How sad,

Recently stayed at Ambleside in the lakes where overnight parking for motorhomes is £10 a night.

We spent (partly Christmas shopping)

£30 in the Cinema
£30 in the pub
£12 in the Chocolate shop
£40 in the Off Licence 
£25 in the local Co-Op
£20 on the lake Cruise
£15 in the tea Shop
£10 in the hardware store
£90 in the Clothing Stores
£40 in the Shoe store.

Now that is a fare bit of trade for the local shops.

But these kind of places are rare in the UK.

Which is why we shop at Tesco Locally and Use their deals for Eurotunnel. Where we escape to Europe where In France as an example, motorhomes are welcomed in most places from the Rugged coastline, inland lakes, villages and even free on the beach road right up to croisette in Cannes on the mediterranean coast. Easy route back via Zeebrugge to Hull.

Scarborough's loss.

We don't all always want campsites.


----------



## rosalan

I fear that there is a mind shift required before we have much of a chance getting legislation to encourage Aires in the UK.
France, being warmer, had been 'invaded' for many years with Italian, Dutch and German motorhomes, we were a bit late joining this game. They parked along seafronts, churchyards and up every quiet lane they could find in large numbers.... they were a problem. The incentive to organise, legalise, call it what you may, with the added bonus or bribe that local businesses could prosper, backed I believe with a tax incentive, meant that developing Aires across France was a win, win situation.
Although we have many thousands of motorhomes on our roads, they do not cause enough of a problem for the government to be interested.
It does intrigue me that Waterways are considered to be a leisure/tourist media, suitable for incentives and development and we are not.
Alan


----------



## 113016

I know it sounds defeatist, but the UK is a bit of a lost cause and it will take years and years if ever for good size an aire system to be in place. We are far more densely populated than countries such as France.
Like many here, I can't be bothered as most of my touring is on mainland Europe mainly due to the better weather.
Another factor is the Yob element. When we park on a European aire, we have very few concerns, but when wilding here in the UK, we always have to consider is it safe?, not just for us, but for our pride and joy!
Yes, I will put my name to the odd petition, but that's all!
Another factor is, we don't all sing from the same hymn sheet and don't have the individual clout! We are also a minority that few outsiders know or care much about.


----------



## barryd

rosalan said:


> I fear that there is a mind shift required before we have much of a chance getting legislation to encourage Aires in the UK.
> France, being warmer, had been 'invaded' for many years with Italian, Dutch and German motorhomes, we were a bit late joining this game. They parked along seafronts, churchyards and up every quiet lane they could find in large numbers.... they were a problem. The incentive to organise, legalise, call it what you may, with the added bonus or bribe that local businesses could prosper, backed I believe with a tax incentive, meant that developing Aires across France was a win, win situation.
> Although we have many thousands of motorhomes on our roads, they do not cause enough of a problem for the government to be interested.
> It does intrigue me that Waterways are considered to be a leisure/tourist media, suitable for incentives and development and we are not.
> Alan


A very good post. Makes a lot of sense. It also makes me wonder what I have always thought is that peoples perceptions of motorhomers in the UK is just collectively associated with camping. I.e People who cant afford proper holidays. Whereas if you own a boat your rockerfella and will have lots of money to spend. Ive owned both now and when I had a boat, everyone in the pub thought I must be a millionaire and were interested. When I sold it and bought a motorhome the difference in opinion and what people thought was immense. I couldn't care less but maybe this is part of it.

In France or indeed much of mainland Europe if you have a Camping Car it appears to be a thing of status.


----------



## Grizzly

rosalan said:


> It does intrigue me that Waterways are considered to be a leisure/tourist media, suitable for incentives and development and we are not.
> Alan


Good post, thanks.

I do wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that vast numbers of interested volunteers did, and still do, turn out regularly to restore and maintain large chunks of the inland waterways. Left to themselves the government was prepared to let them silt up and disappear.

A lesson perhaps ?

G


----------



## nicholsong

Foghorn-Leghorn said:


> 747 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foghorn-Leghorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Caravanners outnumber Motorhome's 4/1 so I doubt the council will be to worried a minority number of Motorhome owners who feel aggrieved just because they cannot park overnight for free .
> After all the caravan sites around Scarborough are always busy in peak season so they will generate more income with site fees along with the money the caravanners will spend in the local shops
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants to park for Free!
> 
> Do keep up at the back. :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote "Nobody wants to park for free"
> Err !!! yes they do , there are quite a few in the Motorhome Fraternity who think that they should be able to park overnight anywhere they like F.O.C .
> The very thought of spending money on site fee's make them break out in a cold sweat
Click to expand...

I am a bit late in this reply, but I still wish to respond to the 'wants to park for free' remark.

I have used campsites and pay what they ask, but use little of their so called 'facilities' e.g. showers - I have my own as at home, and do not go to the 'public baths' at home.

However, when I find a charming view, e.g. on a hillside in Derbyshire/Yorkshire with a little spot to pull over, nowhere near habitation, I expect to stay there for free - whether it be for 3 hours in the afternoon or overnight.

Even if I were willing to pay, which I am not because it would be against British freedoms, to whom, where and when? and would all the cars stopping there do the same?

Geoff


----------



## Grizzly

nicholsong said:


> However, when I find a charming view, e.g. on a hillside in Derbyshire/Yorkshire with a little spot to pull over, nowhere near habitation, I expect to stay there for free - whether it be for 3 hours in the afternoon or overnight.
> 
> Even if I were willing to pay, which I am not because it would be against British freedoms, to whom, where and when? and would all the cars stopping there do the same?
> 
> Geoff


This is fair enough but, back to the OP, Scarborough were reacting to complaints about campers putting out chairs , tables etc in what were either public car parks or public places where the unspoilt view was spoilt. We've all know that there are some who don't hesitate to empty their loo, messily, in public loos, open their waste tank on the car park and leave litter. It might well be that that was among the accusations as well.

In general, overnight somewhere quiet and well out of the way and you will not be bothered but, set up camp in a public car park or on a well-used beauty spot or be joined by several others and you will be moved on.

It has taken Scarborough 3 years to get around to doing it !

G


----------



## wakk44

barryd said:


> ....................
> In France or indeed much of mainland Europe if you have a Camping Car it appears to be a thing of status.


Yes that does appear to be the case on the continent,I'm not sure about the perception of motorhomes in the UK though.

Quite a few people I have met whilst out and about have said that they would love the nomadic lifestyle a motorhome provides but for one reason or another were unable to do it.

Perhaps the people that influence the planning councillors are a tad jealous ?

Whatever the reasons are for obstructing free motorhome parking one thing is for sure-a lot of tourist areas are missing out as motorhoming is a fast growing sector of the leisure industry.


----------



## 113016

Grizzly said:


> nicholsong said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, when I find a charming view, e.g. on a hillside in Derbyshire/Yorkshire with a little spot to pull over, nowhere near habitation, I expect to stay there for free - whether it be for 3 hours in the afternoon or overnight.
> 
> Even if I were willing to pay, which I am not because it would be against British freedoms, to whom, where and when? and would all the cars stopping there do the same?
> 
> Geoff
> 
> 
> 
> This is fair enough but, back to the OP, Scarborough were reacting to complaints about campers putting out chairs , tables etc in what were either public car parks or public places where the unspoilt view was spoilt. We've all know that there are some who don't hesitate to empty their loo, messily, in public loos, open their waste tank on the car park and leave litter. It might well be that that was among the accusations as well.
> 
> In general, overnight somewhere quiet and well out of the way and you will not be bothered but, set up camp in a public car park or on a well-used beauty spot or be joined by several others and you will be moved on.
> 
> It has taken Scarborough 3 years to get around to doing it !
> 
> G
Click to expand...

It's the same in all walks of life, the bad, always spoil it for the good.
Just like on here we talk about the odd bad M/H, but we rarely talk about the good qualities, do we :?: 
I use public toilets for our cassette, but I never leave it dirty, and never just dump it anywhere  
This responsible (although others may disagree) behaviour never gets reported, but the one person who makes a mess or empties it on a beach will, and leaves us all with a bad name


----------



## nicholsong

A few good points coming out.

Rosalan said 

'Waterways are considered to be a leisure/tourist media, suitable for incentives and development and we are not.' 

This obviously applies to inland waterways, where the provision is for capital projects. Also few 'objectors' since most canalside properties are owned by BW and rented to their staff.

Enabling the BW to provide transport facilities(more dredging) and parking has attracted more 'trade'

MHs have roads and plenty of parking facilities (campsites, some free parking and wild camping) So no infrastructure required.

It then comes down to a discussion about what MHs are NOT allowed to do.

Ignoring a debate whether the planning/parking laws should be national or local, which is a lost cause, it appears that we are left with a fight at local level.

Unfortunately most MH owners do not tour in the area where they can vote so have no clout.

If the French argument of commercial benefit were to prevail it might have to be through the local trading associations, not the council.

But who could co-ordinate that nationally? Certainly not the Clubs because they want site occupancy.

Perhaps we could drive up to Town Halls, park outside, get a ticket and appeal on the basis that there was nowhere to park? :wink: 

Geoff


----------



## Grizzly

nicholsong said:


> Perhaps we could drive up to Town Halls, park outside, get a ticket and appeal on the basis that there was nowhere to park? :wink:
> 
> Geoff


But, a reasonable counter to that Geoff is that there * is * somewhere to park. It's rare not to be able to park- for a day- and explore some town or city. What there is not is the right to overnight- ie camp- there. Those outside motorhoming would say, if they thought about it at all, that there are sufficient campsites, CLs CSs, pubs who allow overnighting etc etc and so provision of a facility in their town is not necessary.

Something I've said before: those who don't own a motorhome don't even give a thought to those who do. And why would they indeed ?

G


----------



## nicholsong

Grizzly

My 1243pm post was only addressing the remark that some MHs 'want to park for free' and there is an element in this thread, which although was started about Scarborough, which seems to relate to 'Freeloading, including some comments in the 'Post'

Re your statement 'What there is not is the right to overnight- ie camp- there.' The law in England is that, in general, one is free to do what one wants unless it is prohibited by law. 

Therefore we do not need a 'Right' to overnight - it is there unless prohibited.

I agree that setting up tables and chairs and barbecues and staying for days might be considered anti-social. However permitting parking for cars, vans, caravans but restricting parking of Motor Caravans whose occupants are self-contained within the vehicle is discriminating, unless backed by statute Law, and therefore illegal.

I see a tendency amongst local authority personnel, elected, appointed or employed to believe that they have the authority to act as if they were under a jurisdiction similar to the Code Civile (forbidden unless authorised) rather than the Common Law of England. 

Geoff


----------



## rayc

Grath said:


> Grizzly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nicholsong said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, when I find a charming view, e.g. on a hillside in Derbyshire/Yorkshire with a little spot to pull over, nowhere near habitation, I expect to stay there for free - whether it be for 3 hours in the afternoon or overnight.
> 
> Even if I were willing to pay, which I am not because it would be against British freedoms, to whom, where and when? and would all the cars stopping there do the same?
> 
> Geoff
> 
> 
> 
> This is fair enough but, back to the OP, Scarborough were reacting to complaints about campers putting out chairs , tables etc in what were either public car parks or public places where the unspoilt view was spoilt. We've all know that there are some who don't hesitate to empty their loo, messily, in public loos, open their waste tank on the car park and leave litter. It might well be that that was among the accusations as well.
> 
> In general, overnight somewhere quiet and well out of the way and you will not be bothered but, set up camp in a public car park or on a well-used beauty spot or be joined by several others and you will be moved on.
> 
> It has taken Scarborough 3 years to get around to doing it !
> 
> G
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the same in all walks of life, the bad, always spoil it for the good.
> Just like on here we talk about the odd bad M/H, but we rarely talk about the good qualities, do we :?:
> I use public toilets for our cassette, but I never leave it dirty, and never just dump it anywhere
> This responsible (although others may disagree) behaviour never gets reported, but the one person who makes a mess or empties it on a beach will, and leaves us all with a bad name
Click to expand...

As toilets are mentioned it is noteworthy that many councils are closing public toilets due to antisocial behavior and vandalism. Once again it is the majority that are inconvenienced by the few, its happening in many walks of life besides motor homing.


----------



## rayrecrok

rayc said:


> Grath said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grizzly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nicholsong said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, when I find a charming view, e.g. on a hillside in Derbyshire/Yorkshire with a little spot to pull over, nowhere near habitation, I expect to stay there for free - whether it be for 3 hours in the afternoon or overnight.
> 
> Even if I were willing to pay, which I am not because it would be against British freedoms, to whom, where and when? and would all the cars stopping there do the same?
> 
> Geoff
> 
> 
> 
> This is fair enough but, back to the OP, Scarborough were reacting to complaints about campers putting out chairs , tables etc in what were either public car parks or public places where the unspoilt view was spoilt. We've all know that there are some who don't hesitate to empty their loo, messily, in public loos, open their waste tank on the car park and leave litter. It might well be that that was among the accusations as well.
> 
> In general, overnight somewhere quiet and well out of the way and you will not be bothered but, set up camp in a public car park or on a well-used beauty spot or be joined by several others and you will be moved on.
> 
> It has taken Scarborough 3 years to get around to doing it !
> 
> G
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the same in all walks of life, the bad, always spoil it for the good.
> Just like on here we talk about the odd bad M/H, but we rarely talk about the good qualities, do we :?:
> I use public toilets for our cassette, but I never leave it dirty, and never just dump it anywhere
> This responsible (although others may disagree) behaviour never gets reported, but the one person who makes a mess or empties it on a beach will, and leaves us all with a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As toilets are mentioned it is noteworthy that many councils are closing public toilets due to antisocial behavior and vandalism. Once again it is the majority that are inconvenienced by the few, its happening in many walks of life besides motor homing.
Click to expand...

Hi.

It could be said that's why we take along our own bog as Public Toilets are closed everywhere.

ray.


----------



## 113016

I think I will start to carry a small spade :lol: 
But where should I dig :?: on the beach  :lol: :lol: :lol: 
And how deep :roll:


----------



## erneboy

Public toilets are being closed........................ people are being inconvenienced. I like it, Alan.


----------



## Grizzly

nicholsong said:


> Grizzly
> Re your statement 'What there is not is the right to overnight- ie camp- there.' The law in England is that, in general, one is free to do what one wants unless it is prohibited by law.
> 
> Therefore we do not need a 'Right' to overnight - it is there unless prohibited.
> Geoff


My fault Geoff: badly phrased. I meant that there are _already_ signs and indications, in some form, in most car parks, that overnighting is not allowed ie it is already prohibited. This is was reply to a previous poster.

G


----------



## Jezport

Anyone interested in the campaign against the Scarborough ban should look here
http://northyorkshireovernightparking.wordpress.com/no-camping-or-sleeping-in-vehicles/
There is a meeting this weekend


----------



## barryd

Jezport said:


> Anyone interested in the campaign against the Scarborough ban should look here
> http://northyorkshireovernightparking.wordpress.com/no-camping-or-sleeping-in-vehicles/
> There is a meeting this weekend


The bloke who wrote that spat his dummy out on the wild camping forum when his motives were questioned. I think he started asking for funding. He doesnt own a motorhome and carries out his "direct actions" of parking overnight in a car. Hmm.


----------



## drcotts

I went into the Tourist Information office and asked
"is there somewhere where i can park my Motorhome"

The tort reply so that all in the office could hear was

"no there is NOT we dont want motorhomes in scarborough"

Never been since


----------



## Jezport

barryd said:


> Jezport said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone interested in the campaign against the Scarborough ban should look here
> http://northyorkshireovernightparking.wordpress.com/no-camping-or-sleeping-in-vehicles/
> There is a meeting this weekend
> 
> 
> 
> The bloke who wrote that spat his dummy out on the wild camping forum when his motives were questioned. I think he started asking for funding. He doesnt own a motorhome and carries out his "direct actions" of parking overnight in a car. Hmm.
Click to expand...

To be honest, l got greif on that forum when I did a write up on my exhaust, and again when I posted about plastRx plastic polish. I no longer bother posting about anything I buy or use because there are a number of people on that forum that make it an unpleasant experience being there. I have and still will post about stuff I use and experience on other forums.

I have spoken to Andy in person and he doesn't have a motorhome but does a lot of outdoor stuff like camping etc and he is prepared to do something about a number of things he feels strongly about one being parking bans. He seems to put a lot of time in to it and having a donate button on his website could be viewed by the sceptics as a reason for him doing what he does. I personally try to see the best in people and see that he has never said that he will stop his campaign if he doesnt get cash. I cant see that any money that he does receive will even cover his expenses let alone earn him a profit.

There are few enough people in this country who are prepared to stand up for motorhomers rights without persecuting a person who is doing something about it.

I rest my case m'Lud


----------



## Jezport

drcotts said:


> I went into the Tourist Information office and asked
> "is there somewhere where i can park my Motorhome"
> 
> The tort reply so that all in the office could hear was
> 
> "no there is NOT we dont want motorhomes in scarborough"
> 
> Never been since


I will not go there in season, the place is full of scum and the streets are filthy. Out of season it is quite different. Besides it is our right to be allowed to park. Also, why should small traders suffer the loss of trade due to a councils decisions.


----------



## 747

A number of motorhomers have disagreed with Andy and it is a matter of opinion whether he is doing good or bad. It is probably a mix of both. He has had some success in getting illegal Council signage removed. All that will happen there is that Councils will just do the same again but legally and that is the end of overnight parking for ever. His only clear cut victory appears to have been in East Lothian where overnighting was stopped. When EL applied to the Scottish Parliament to stop overnighting by Law, the Government department threw the request out.

He also was intending to sort out Mull, when there was no issue in the first place and it could have had bad consequences.

If he was more selective and less maverick, he would get my full support.


----------



## barryd

It was the Mull campaign or suggested campaign that raised my eyebrows.

I reserved judgement untlil then and he seemed to object to some pretty understandable questions if you ask me. I think one person was rude and suggested he was doing it for money. 

I just dont get it though. Why is he devoting all his time campaigning against overnight parking bans for motorhomes when he isnt a motorhomer. Doesnt make sense.


----------



## GordonBennet

Perhaps he sleeps in his car from time to time and has been confronted by the same old, small-minded officialdom..? Same principle if not quite as comfy as a MH. Good on him, I say. :salute:


----------



## teamsaga

HI
The last time I drove up the east Yorkshire coast from Scarborough to Whitby, every car park that I went in had signs saying no vehicles over 1500 kgs. This rules out all motorhomes and lots of cars. 
I understand Scarborough control all parking in this area.


----------



## cabby

well if one cannot park there I shall go elsewhere. It has nothing worth visiting for anyway, has it, entrenched in their ideas and have the nerve to criticise Maggie Thatcher, she obviously did not finish the job properly.

cabby


----------



## BrianJP

Just a thought but I wonder if all the site owners in the Scarborough area are aware of how unwelcoming and anti motorhome their council is

.Perhaps we should all join the council at their own game and inform them that we have no intention of visiting and staying in their area and spending our money there while they adopt such an anti motorhome stance.
They should be ashamed of themselves when compared with the enlightened councils in Dorset.


----------



## 747

BrianJP said:


> Just a thought but I wonder if all the site owners in the Scarborough area are aware of how unwelcoming and anti motorhome their council is
> 
> .Perhaps we should all join the council at their own game and inform them that we have no intention of visiting and staying in their area and spending our money there while they adopt such an anti motorhome stance.
> They should be ashamed of themselves when compared with the enlightened councils in Dorset.


One of the Councillors owns the largest campsite in Scarborough.


----------



## BrianJP

747 said:


> BrianJP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a thought but I wonder if all the site owners in the Scarborough area are aware of how unwelcoming and anti motorhome their council is
> 
> .Perhaps we should all join the council at their own game and inform them that we have no intention of visiting and staying in their area and spending our money there while they adopt such an anti motorhome stance.
> They should be ashamed of themselves when compared with the enlightened councils in Dorset.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the Councillors owns the largest campsite in Scarborough.
Click to expand...

Do the local elections take place there next month? Any members there that vote against him and make it known why?


----------



## Bobmarley3

747


> One of the Councillors owns the largest campsite in Scarborough.


Which councillor is that?

BrianJP - no, the Borough Council elections are 2015
MrsBob


----------



## wakk44

A shame as we used to enjoy visiting Scarborough and Whitby.In a way I can understand the local council not wanting motorhomes clogging up the streets during peak season when it is jam packed with tourists but surely the local traders would be eager to attract visitors during off peak times.

A lot of coastal resorts,particularly on the east coast are like ghost towns over the winter,surely local traders would welcome motorhomers during this time.


----------



## 747

We are not dealing with reality here, we are dealing with Councillors with vested interests who all pee in the same pot. This subject has been aired many times on forums and even in the local newspaper.

There have been tales of motorhomers behaving badly which may be true but is probably exaggerated by key members of the community. There are places to park in Scarborough, details can be found on their website. The same Council are responsible for Whitby. They have been talking about introducing a permit system for on street parking for residents of Whitby. They cannot seem to grasp the notion that tourism involves the mass influx of motor cars on their streets and car parks. You could not make it up. :roll: 

So, with research, you can still park in a fading seaside town full of benefit claimants and less tourists every year. To see the future, call in to Bridlington which is in an even more advanced state of dilapidation.


----------



## BrianJP

Bobmarley3 said:


> 7local
> 
> 
> 
> One of the Councillors owns the largest campsite in Scarborough.
> 
> 
> 
> Which councillor is thatBrianJP - no, the Borough Council elections are 2015
> MrsBob
Click to expand...

That's a pity you could have made a point. 
Where I am in the Dales national park elections are next month.
I asked one of our new local prospective councillors what his views on setting up motorhome parking (aire style) were and he said it wasn't something he had thought about.As I said to him, he ought to think about it if he wanted my vote.
This is in a tourist hot spot that relies largely on visitors for income and will be flooded with visitors for the Tour de France in july.


----------



## barryd

Oi! Gnome! Don't be picking on Bridlington!

I just spent Christmas and New Year there (well 7 miles up the road at Flamborough Head).

I have been to Brid loads and I have been to St Tropez a few times. Not much to chose between the two except Brid is a lot cheaper.

Both have a harbour with boats in although to be fair most if the ones in Brid don't have Helicopters on the back or Victoria Beckham sun bathing on the roof.

Both have nice beaches as there is even a nudest beach at Brid!

The eateries in St Tropez might just have the edge over the cuddly cod chip shop but your quid will go further in Brid.

And you can get a speedboat right in Brid for £3. £2 at the end of season! What's not to like?


----------



## 747

Don't forget the Charity Shops Barry, the biggest selection in Europe I think. :lol:


----------



## Jezport

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

If we dont protest against the council banning parking we will end up with nowhere to park.


----------



## Annsman

I've just followed the link to the local paper and read the comments on there. There is some references to overnighting being allowed on the car park near the sea life centre, and the council considering putting in facilities for vans using it. Can anyone clarify this?


----------



## 747

Annsman said:


> I've just followed the link to the local paper and read the comments on there. There is some references to overnighting being allowed on the car park near the sea life centre, and the council considering putting in facilities for vans using it. Can anyone clarify this?


This car park was never on the list of banned ones according to the Council website. I am not even sure that it is a Council one.

I do know that fairly recently the sea Life management were happy to have motorhomes overnight because of vandalism and break ins to their property. We have stayed there out of season (would never go near Scarborough in Summer) a few times. If you do not get disturbed by boy racers or youths playing football at 3 am then it is a good enough spot. I cannot speak for the place at other times of the year. There is a good pub next to the car park which does nice meals and serves a good pint.


----------



## Jezport

Annsman said:


> I've just followed the link to the local paper and read the comments on there. There is some references to overnighting being allowed on the car park near the sea life centre, and the council considering putting in facilities for vans using it. Can anyone clarify this?


This was in the original plans, however the council decided it couldn't grant it self planning permission for change of use.


----------



## Jezport

Im here in Scarborough. The council has put new warning letters of their application of a temporary traffic order for 2014. We are parked in a group of around 7 vans. We will see if the wardens are out tonight. The cheif executive of SBC has been notified and invited to join us so we will see what happens


----------



## 747

Where are you parked Jezport?


----------



## Jezport

Royal Albert Drive


----------



## Stanner

Jezport said:


> This was in the original plans, however the council decided it couldn't grant it self planning permission for change of use.


That is utter nonsense - the Council's own Planning Committee is the only body that can grant a Council planning permission within it's own area.

The only exception would be if one Department of the Council applied to the Planning Department for Planning permission and was refused consent.

Then if the applicant Department decided to appeal the decision of the Planning Committee the Secretary of State could overturn the Planning Committee's decision and grant planning permission.

PS How do the Council think that every other Council that HAS provided such facilities managed to do it?


----------



## Bobmarley3

Stanner - I suspect you don't realise just how far up its own a**e some of SBC has got.

They really can meet themselves coming back :roll:


----------



## Stanner

Bobmarley3 said:


> Stanner - I suspect you don't realise just how far up its own a**e some of SBC has got.
> 
> They really can meet themselves coming back :roll:


Ohh around here we have plenty like that and I've met plenty of them.

However using a nonsensical argument like "we can't give ourselves planning permission" when they are the ONLY people who can, really is taking stupidity to the nth degree.

Around here it is the opposite problem - it's a hard job stopping them giving themselves planning permission and all their blue rinsed mates as well.


----------



## Bobmarley3

> using a nonsensical argument like "we can't give ourselves planning permission" when they are the ONLY people who can, really is taking stupidity to the nth degree.


Believe it - that's SBC for you 8O 8O


----------



## Jezport

We have woken to find we have not been ticketed even though the chief executive of SBC was warned we would be here


----------



## Jezport

So we went out to try and get tickets and didn't get one. 
If any members have received a ticket for parking overnight in Scarborough please let Andy know.


----------

