# NYCC are readvertising their ban on overnight Motorhome Parking



## Deleted member 967 (Feb 7, 2015)

Proposed Prohibition of Overnight Parking for Motor Caravans (Re-advertisement) - Various Roads in Scarborough/Cayton/Filey/Sandsend/Whitby

Copies of the relevant documents can be viewed on the County Council’s website (Resident - North Yorkshire County Council) under “Transport and Streets - Parking” and “Consultations”.

Please note that any objections or representations should be sent in writing to “Area 3 Whitby Highways Office, Whitby Highways Depot, Discovery Way, Whitby, North Yorkshire YO22 4PZ” or by e-mail to area3.whitby@northyorks.gov.uk and be *received by 6 March 2015*.


----------



## Jimhunterj4 (Feb 7, 2015)

Wonder how this is going to affect us now John, keep up the good work


----------



## whitevanwoman (Feb 7, 2015)

I'm curious as to whether live-in vans, ie, vans used for the purpose of sleeping and eating,  and insured as modified vans and not registered as motor caravans, will be affected. 

Does this apply to any class of vehicle or simply to motor caravans?

If it applies to motor caravans only, it could deter self builders from reregistering a van as a motor caravan. 

If it applies to all class of vehicles, how will it be policed / monitored or will arrangements be made to simply block access during certain hours?

A right can of worms. 

It seems crazy that councils are wasting resources on this fairly minor issue, resources  which could be far better spent in the provision of social care, child protection, keeping coucik tax bills down etc. 

BTW, these are rhetorical questions, as who knows, I doubt the council in question has even considered such issues.


----------



## Talbot (Feb 7, 2015)

Is it legal to discriminate?


----------



## QFour (Feb 7, 2015)

*Sent an Email*

Dear Sir / Madam

Perhaps you should follow the lead of other towns like Canterbury and all the small towns and villages in France and encorage Motorhomes rather than banning them from parking. Do you not realise how much Motorhomes spend when they visit. They don't want to be stuck out of town on a £30 a night site.

Stop them parking and the local businesses will suffer.

Kind Regards Ian


----------



## Talbot (Feb 7, 2015)

Maybe they should look at this. 

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...t/32742-motor-home-aires-set-come-dorset.html

There should always be consultation (with all parties concerned) with such sensitive issues and often a compromise can be found or negotiated.


----------



## eddyt (Feb 7, 2015)

User1 said:


> Dear Sir / Madam
> 
> Perhaps you should follow the lead of other towns like Canterbury and all the small towns and villages in France and encorage Motorhomes rather than banning them from parking. Do you not realise how much Motorhomes spend when they visit. They don't want to be stuck out of town on a £30 a night site.
> 
> ...



i was wilding at alnmouth in northumberland in the car park on the beach
in the morning the attendant came for the 3 pound charge and said you should not stay overnight
i said the camper vans bring trade to the village why chase it away.She said they are not bothered about the
extra trade as they are busy enough without it so i have not been back just take my money elsewhere


----------



## nick23 (Feb 7, 2015)

whitevanwoman said:


> I'm curious as to whether live-in vans, ie, vans used for the purpose of sleeping and eating,  and insured as modified vans and not registered as motor caravans, will be affected.
> 
> Does this apply to any class of vehicle or simply to motor caravans?
> 
> ...



“Motor Caravan” has the meaning assigned to it by Directive 2007/46/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council dated 5 September 2007 and reproduced below:-
“A vehicle of category M with living accommodation space which contains the following
equipment as a minimum:
(a) seats and table;
(b) sleeping accommodation which may be converted from the seats;
(c) cooking facilities;
 (d) storage facilities.
This equipment shall be rigidly fixed to the living compartment.
However, the table may be designed to be easily removable.”


----------



## Firefox (Feb 7, 2015)

I would urge people to take 10 minutes to send an objection in writing. 

The more objections they get, the more difficult it makes their process. 

If everyone here sends an objection they will get thousands. It may derail the process. This is where you have a real chance to stop their illegal activity. Far far more chance than those online petitions for aires etc. They often try to steamroller these bylaws through on the basis "there were very few objections". If they get 100's and 1000's of objections they will have to re-look at it.

One can protest all one likes on a forum - they don't care about that. Look at the thousands of words and hours of time people spend on making posts here.

Invest 10 minutes on 50 words where it *will *count.


----------



## whitevanwoman (Feb 7, 2015)

nick23 said:


> null



Fully aware of what constitutes a motor caravan and that my van cannot be registered as a motor caravan because it lacks the elements listed.

The question was, however, whether the same will apply to live in modified vans which are used as campervans bit not registered as motor caravans. Such vans are perfectly legal so long as their insurer covers them for the various activities in the van eg sleeping, cooking etc.

It does indeed seem to discriminate against the motorcaravanner and not against other vehicles which may be that for the same purpose.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 8, 2015)

I am pretty sure the wording will apply to modified vans too  Any vehicle used for sleeping in will usually come under the legislation. When Cornwall council tried a similar exercise they worded it so motorcaravans or any vehicle used for overnight living was covered. Just from memory, but they even quoted the example of an estate car with an airbed in the back as falling foul of the bylaws.

Someone on Scarborough council has links with a person who owns an expensive campsite. Usual motives govern - local authority corruption and self interest. Illegal discrimination against people with vans, and less well off people follows.

Edit: I think they have it covered as I checked the full draft document:

http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/media/...der-2015/pdf/Scarborough_Draft_Order_2015.pdf

“Parking Place" means an area on a highway described or designated as a parking place in The Schedule to this Order.

8 No person shall use any part of a parking place or any vehicle parked in a parking place (a) for sleeping or camping or cooking; or(b) for the purpose of servicing or washing any vehicle or part thereof other than is reasonably necessary to enable that vehicle to depart from the parking place.


----------



## Winker (Feb 8, 2015)

If it's illegal then it will be easy to stop surely?


----------



## nick23 (Feb 8, 2015)

whitevanwoman said:


> Fully aware of what constitutes a motor caravan and that my van cannot be registered as a motor caravan because it lacks the elements listed.
> 
> The question was, however, whether the same will apply to live in modified vans which are used as campervans bit not registered as motor caravans. Such vans are perfectly legal so long as their insurer covers them for the various activities in the van eg sleeping, cooking etc.
> 
> It does indeed seem to discriminate against the motorcaravanner and not against other vehicles which may be that for the same purpose.



This legislation is proposed to apply to Motor Caravans (only) as defined by the list I quoted. So if it has a sleeping and cooking and a table then as far as they are concerned it's a Motor Caravan. I was not trying to tell you what a registered Motorcaravan is, but quoting directly their definition as defined here
http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/media/...der-2015/pdf/Scarborough_Draft_Order_2015.pdf so it will apply to modified vans (or indeed any campervan). :idea-007::yeahthat:


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Feb 8, 2015)

whitevanwoman said:


> I'm curious as to whether live-in vans, ie, vans used for the purpose of sleeping and eating,  and insured as modified vans and not registered as motor caravans, will be affected.
> 
> Does this apply to any class of vehicle or simply to motor caravans?
> 
> ...



They have been very specific in defining M1 (Motor Caravan).  This was because Motorhome users kept writing to them insisting that Motor Caravans were M1.  It shows the quality of the officers drafting these regulations.

Quote from DfT “There are a number of vehicles that are not registered as M1(Special Purpose) Motor Caravans, that meet the same specification, but are registered under different categories due to emissions and other reasons”.

DfT statistics (end September 2015) for Motor Caravan categorise them into "Missing"  M1, N2, N3 and "other".   Of the 256,000 vehicles registered as Motor Caravans only 12,000 M1 as counted.

Mike Dark, Vehicles Database Manager  at DfT wrote in response to my query

I understand your confusion about the category types. The category type was only collected from 2001 onwards and hence older vehicles and imported vehicles have the category missing. The category listed is that which was recorded when the vehicle was type approved at the point of first registration. There are a small number of vehicles that have a category type that is not M1, N1 or N2 –  these are quite possibly errors. I have listed these as ‘others’.


Once a vehicle is categorised at initial registration it retains that category for its lifetime.  So if an N goods vehicle is converted to a Motor Caravan, it becomes a Category N, Motor Caravan.  Used imports are not categorised nor were vehicles before these statistics began, so there are 221,000 "Missing" Motor Caravans and 150 "Other" Motor Caravans. where DVLA errors have occurred.   20,000 N1 Motor Caravans and 2,600 N2 Motor Caravans.  (Figures rounded)

This would be something that would have to be battled out in court if a PNC was challenged.  NYCC would have to prove the vehicle was an *M1* Motor Caravan.

I would not use this argument in a reply to the consultation as it would give them the chance to close a potential loophole.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Feb 8, 2015)

nick23 said:


> This legislation is proposed to apply to Motor Caravans (only) as defined by the list I quoted. So if it has a sleeping and cooking and a table then as far as they are concerned it's a Motor Caravan. I was not trying to tell you what a registered Motorcaravan is, but quoting directly their definition as defined here
> http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/media/...der-2015/pdf/Scarborough_Draft_Order_2015.pdf so it will apply to modified vans (or indeed any campervan). :idea-007::yeahthat:



Hi Nick as I said in a previous post they have been very specific in specifying M1 Motor Caravans, not just Motor Caravans.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Feb 8, 2015)

Firefox said:


> I am pretty sure the wording will apply to modified vans too  Any vehicle used for sleeping in will usually come under the legislation. When Cornwall council tried a similar exercise they worded it so motorcaravans or any vehicle used for overnight living was covered. Just from memory, but they even quoted the example of an estate car with an airbed in the back as falling foul of the bylaws.
> 
> Someone on Scarborough council has links with a person who owns an expensive campsite. Usual motives govern - local authority corruption and self interest. Illegal discrimination against people with vans, and less well off people follows.
> 
> ...



You are correct that the ban on sleeping, camping or cooking still applies.  However if I had a campervan as my sole means of transport and I decided that I wished to stay in that area for the night and use a Hotel or B&B I would still fall foul of this proposed TRO as it is not the fact that the vehicle is occupied or not but that it is equipped as a camper van that makes it against the regulation to park between 23:00 and 06:00.

As for the argument that it will prevent space blocking.  There is nothing to stop a user staying to 22:59 and driving off and returning at 06:01.  They however are still forbidden to sleep or cook during the time they are parked.   Will this also be applied to drivers of other vehicles? or simply Motor Caravans.  Time to use cameras as evidence of discrimination!


----------



## whitevanwoman (Feb 8, 2015)

John Thompson said:


> They have been very specific in defining M1 (Motor Caravan).  This was because Motorhome users kept writing to them insisting that Motor Caravans were M1.  It shows the quality of the officers drafting these regulations.
> 
> Quote from DfT “There are a number of vehicles that are not registered as M1(Special Purpose) Motor Caravans, that meet the same specification, but are registered under different categories due to emissions and other reasons”.
> 
> ...



Thanks for clarifying what I suspected, that this is potentially discrimination against a certain group of motorists, purely because of the class of vehicle and not because of the actual activity which they (and other vehicles) may be engaged in (sleeping, eating etc). So in effect, unless they (NYCC) specify a prohibited activity and extend the prohibition to all classes of vehicle, this means that lorries, vans and cars (ie vehicles who can not use local campsites) may park overnight and engage in sleeping and eating in their vehicles, but not a motorcaravan. I wonder what the position is to trailers and caravans. 

Another thought occurs to me - if it is possible to reregister a self build from a van to a motorcaravan by meeting the conditions required, is it possible to reregister a motorcaravan as a van by removing one of those conditions so that it no longer meets the criteria, ie removing cooking equipment and replacing it with a camping stove which is not secured to the vehicle?

Hopefully NYCC won't have the gumption to check this website and this thread so the loophole will remain.

Edit - crossed with above post which answers my question ... so in effect they plan to ban one single class of vehicle together with certain activities which apply to all classes of vehicles, ie eating, sleeping, washing, servicing and overnight parking.

So my next question is: why bother banning class M1 motorcaravans, if they are banning the activities? - surely by not allowing these certain activities regardless of class of vehicle, there is no need to specifically ban motorcaravans.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 8, 2015)

I think you are right, it is poorly put together legislation just like last time when the excuse was about deposition of waste and highway cleaning.

My guess is first, they try to discriminate against motorcaravans which they can do as those are more easily defined and perhaps covers 90% of their target. Then they add other clauses in an attempt to cover loopholes such as "cooking or sleeping in any vehicle".

Other local authorities in seaside towns are not introducing this discrimination in this draconian way. Why should Scarborough be any different? There are other forces at work. Pure and simple it is campsite owners with influence on the council trying to to drive this through out of self interest


----------



## Debs (Feb 8, 2015)

If Joe Bloggs or his missus can park their Range Rover, or Reliant Robin, or whatever vehicle, anywhere public, as long as they are not causing an obstruction, then for them that have the power to say that I can't park because I might sleep in it, is to me, Blatent discrimination and misuse of their powers! I pay my road tax, my vehicle has an MOT certificate, and I am insured. So with me it's business as usual, well it will be when the weather gets a tad warmer so that I can get on with my conversion.:camper:


----------



## Winker (Feb 8, 2015)

whitevanwoman said:


> Thanks for clarifying what I suspected, that this is potentially discrimination against a certain group of motorists, purely because of the class of vehicle and not because of the actual activity which they (and other vehicles) may be engaged in (sleeping, eating etc). So in effect, unless they (NYCC) specify a prohibited activity and extend the prohibition to all classes of vehicle, this means that lorries, vans and cars (ie vehicles who can not use local campsites) may park overnight and engage in sleeping and eating in their vehicles, but not a motorcaravan. I wonder what the position is to trailers and caravans.
> 
> Another thought occurs to me - if it is possible to reregister a self build from a van to a motorcaravan by meeting the conditions required, is it possible to reregister a motorcaravan as a van by removing one of those conditions so that it no longer meets the criteria, ie removing cooking equipment and replacing it with a camping stove which is not secured to the vehicle?
> 
> ...




Height barriers don't care if you have a fitted bed or not.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Feb 8, 2015)

Debs said:


> If Joe Bloggs or his missus can park their Range Rover, or Reliant Robin, or whatever vehicle, anywhere public, as long as they are not causing an obstruction, then for them that have the power to say that I can't park because I might sleep in it, is to me, Blatent discrimination and misuse of their powers! I pay my road tax, my vehicle has an MOT certificate, and I am insured. So with me it's business as usual, well it will be when the weather gets a tad warmer so that I can get on with my conversion.:camper:



Remember this ban only applies 23:00 to 06:00.   If the vehicle is not occupied there are grounds for thinking this is discriminatory.   The ban on cooking and sleeping applies at any time in any vehicle.


----------



## whitevanwoman (Feb 8, 2015)

Debs said:


> If Joe Bloggs or his missus can park their Range Rover, or Reliant Robin, or whatever vehicle, anywhere public, as long as they are not causing an obstruction, then for them that have the power to say that I can't park because I might sleep in it, is to me, Blatent discrimination and misuse of their powers! I pay my road tax, my vehicle has an MOT certificate, and I am insured. So with me it's business as usual, well it will be when the weather gets a tad warmer so that I can get on with my conversion.:camper:



Give me a shout if you want someone to hold the nail whilst you hit it.... :hammer:

It's can be hard work doing a conversion single handed and an extra pair of hands can make all the difference, I'd be happy to help. I'm in Penrith at some point most weeks and it's just another 25 mins up the road from there for me :drive:


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Feb 8, 2015)

whitevanwoman said:


> So my next question is: why bother banning class M1 motorcaravans, if they are banning the activities? - surely by not allowing these certain activities regardless of class of vehicle, there is no need to specifically ban motorcaravans.



Precisely there is no need to ban motor caravans.  However. It is easier to pick out a Motor Caravan than to patrol looking for people sleeping in other vehicles. Also how do they prove you were sleeping, you were awake when you answered them (if you did).  If you didn't answer how do they prove you were in there?


----------



## Debs (Feb 8, 2015)

whitevanwoman said:


> Give me a shout if you want someone to hold the nail whilst you hit it.... :hammer:
> 
> It's can be hard work doing a conversion single handed and an extra pair of hands can make all the difference, I'd be happy to help. I'm in Penrith at some point most weeks and it's just another 25 mins up the road from there for me :drive:



Waiting for a bit warmer weather, I'm not very good at doing cold! :baby:


----------



## pheasantplucker (Feb 8, 2015)

Talbot said:


> Is it legal to discriminate?



If not, then we could all discriminate against Scarborough and Whitby.


----------



## jann (Feb 8, 2015)

There is a form on the council web site. I have just filled it in. There is space to make comments


----------



## RichardHelen262 (Feb 8, 2015)

eddyt said:


> i was wilding at alnmouth in northumberland in the car park on the beach
> in the morning the attendant came for the 3 pound charge and said you should not stay overnight
> i said the camper vans bring trade to the village why chase it away.She said they are not bothered about the
> extra trade as they are busy enough without it so i have not been back just take my money elsewhere



I would have asked her when she had been appointed as the official spokes person for all the traders of Alnmouth ?
i wonder what the local traders think about the parking attendant telling people that they don't need extra trade


----------



## AdriaTwin (Feb 8, 2015)

*Respond*

We have responded to NYCC by completing the questionnaire and commenting on the proposed prohibition, and urge everyone else to do same and remind them that we will spend our money elsewhere if this is passed.


----------



## eddyt (Feb 8, 2015)

helen262 said:


> I would have asked her when she had been appointed as the official spokes person for all the traders of Alnmouth ?
> i wonder what the local traders think about the parking attendant telling people that they don't need extra trade



i might go back and ask the pub landlords if they have to mutch business


----------



## marchhare (Feb 8, 2015)

*nycc and anyone else*

Did my bit yesterday bout 6pm. We're getting really fed up womderin and lookin over our shoulders, would a petition to Dave ( p.m ) or maybe 38 degrees would sort this in the UK
We did the tour de France last year, eventually stayed in Leyburn...it was like being in a communist country, no parking on the mountains or you'll be towed away!.....it was just a chance to make a fast buck...topical of this country....won't be doing it here again!!

Maybe we could get the manufacturing side o f the industry on our side to act as a mouthpieces, or lobby that lot in Westminster?  Why shouldn't the government support the industry and us as is the norm in France?
We have deffinatly got a. case here, all we need is a figerhead/ spokesman!!!!! 

Maybe someone from 3ms or even motorhome clubs getting together??
Rant over.          Regards to everyone Pam& col Marchhare


----------



## wildcampnewbie (Feb 8, 2015)

I did over a week wild-camping around that area last November (lovely and peaceful ). I completed their questionnaire. I politely stated that it is a great shame I'm not welcome so I'll just spend my money elsewhere.

TBH though, if they do pass these silly laws they have to enforce them, arrive late leave early still works for me. As for cooking or sleeping during the day well, catch me if you  can lol


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Feb 9, 2015)

marchhare said:


> Did my bit yesterday bout 6pm. We're getting really fed up womderin and lookin over our shoulders, would a petition to Dave ( p.m ) or maybe 38 degrees would sort this in the UK
> We did the tour de France last year, eventually stayed in Leyburn...it was like being in a communist country, no parking on the mountains or you'll be towed away!.....it was just a chance to make a fast buck...topical of this country....won't be doing it here again!!
> 
> Maybe we could get the manufacturing side o f the industry on our side to act as a mouthpieces, or lobby that lot in Westminster?  Why shouldn't the government support the industry and us as is the norm in France?
> ...



There have been many petitions to government on these issues.  Every one receives the same reply.  It is nothing to do with central government you need to take this up with the local authority (or words to that effect). 

In France it was a joint body of clubs (Comité de liaison du camping-car) and the manufactures/dealers (Syndicat des constructeurs) that got the Aires system established.
It was for this reason we set up *The Motorhome Tourism Organisation *to be a body to represent Motorhome users.  We have also requested the trade to back us and* Travelworld Motorhomes *(The importer for Hymer Group) and *Danbury Motor Caravans *have backed us.  UK Motorhomes.net has also backed us and was active from the start.   We would welcome backing from all of the other forums and other dealers/manufacturers.   We do not charge but do have a donation system for anyone who wishes to back us financially.   

The MCC has been approached in the past and the Group in NI actually supported the Motorhome Association over there to successfully obtain Aires.  However this co-operation has now broken down and Motorhoming Ireland has taken over the reigns.   The Motorhome Association website was allowed to drop and Motorhome Tourism has acguired it.  The mainland MCC seems only interested in Rallies, THC and a small CL network.   The bigger clubs are financial driven and do not want competition by way of Aires.  The  National Caravan Council (NCC) represents the trade, but when approached simply replied that we could join at a very high fee every year but otherwise offered no support.

MMM have been approached as has Practical Motorhome with no response.

The Motorhome Tourism Organisation has contacted every local authority under Freedom of Information legislation and obtained replies to a questionnaire about provision for motorhome parking.  From this we have established contacts and are in discussions with some authorities.   We have also responded to consultations regarding TROs and Bylaws.

We have been making some progress, however the stronger the body of support and the more hands to assist in the work would be welcome.


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Feb 9, 2015)

There is a major error in the documentation for Cayton, Filey, Sandsend and Whitby. You have to read it carefully to spot it.


----------



## Deleted member 919 (Feb 9, 2015)

would be interested to know how many members do send an objection in ( i have even though the areas are not really places i visit) .


----------



## Obanboy666 (Feb 9, 2015)

rebbyvid said:


> would be interested to know how many members do send an objection in ( i have even though the areas are not really places i visit) .



Did send an objection this morning but sad to say imho it's already done and dusted and will happen.
I will just head up to Scotland as usual, less hassle better scenery etc, etc.


----------



## Louey (Feb 9, 2015)

*Objection submitted*

I've been on and made my objections and offered up some constructed feedback on how to improve facilities or matter with in the current setup. I suggested enforcing a limit on the number of nights people can stop - I can see this being the main issue as some folk do "set up camp" in some of the places and I also offered the idea of Aires to them.

Here is the link if you haven't submitted your comments yet Motor caravan consultation - North Yorkshire County Council 

:goodluck:


----------



## 2cv (Feb 9, 2015)

Thanks to the OP for the hard work on these issues. I've sent my views via the link. Probably have no effect on these people, but you can only try.


----------



## Sky (Feb 9, 2015)

I completed it too, but I must admit to thinking it a total waste of time.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 9, 2015)

Here is the direct link to the page on NYCC website:

www.northyorks.gov.uk/motorhomeconsultation

There is a form, or you can email them on area3.whitby@northyorks.gov.uk


----------



## Croftland1 (Feb 9, 2015)

*Filed my objection*

Here's my email, sent today:

Dear Sirs,

I wish to voice my objection to your proposed parking discrimination against a particular vehicle class.
In addition to offering self-contained facilities, motor caravans are transport vehicles and are taxed to use the UK road network accordingly. I believe that they should therefore be afforded the same rights and privileges as all other taxed transport vehicles, subject to relevant weight and width restriction criteria where necessary.
I find it very disappointing that your organisation seeks to banish motor caravans from places of interest, rather than embracing this valuable source of tourism income for the local businesses. I would urge you to take a look at the established Aire de Camping Car model in France as an example of how this income stream can be channelled to your businesses, rather than forced out into more welcoming areas elsewhere. 

Yours faithfully,
Mr J Cooper


----------



## Firefox (Feb 9, 2015)

Very good email Mr Cooper!


----------



## Daveandjacqui (Feb 9, 2015)

Sent my objection in yesterday


----------



## Firefox (Feb 9, 2015)

Spread this to any friends and forums you know!!

I've already done FMUK, Motorcaravanner's Club, and WildMotorhomers (FB).

Has John put it on Out and About Live? And what about Motorhomefun/facts. I don't have accounts there, but I know some people do


----------



## Fazerloz (Feb 9, 2015)

Job done.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 9, 2015)

There are other places to go (at the moment). But if we let Scarborough get away with this, other councils could get ideas. It could be the thin end of the wedge.

The number of objections does count. When they tried to close the byways to traffic and motorhomes at Stonehenge, they got 350 objections which forced Wiltshire County Council to go to public enquiry. 350 is a lot of objections. At the public enquiry, we won. The inspector ruled the ban was not needed. Motorhomers 1 Town Hall 0

We can get 1000's of objections from motorhomers if we get our act together!


----------



## The laird (Feb 9, 2015)

*Objection form*

Just completed the form and submitted it


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Feb 10, 2015)

Firefox said:


> Spread this to any friends and forums you know!!
> 
> I've already done FMUK, Motorcaravanner's Club, and WildMotorhomers (FB).
> 
> Has John put it on Out and About Live? And what about Motorhomefun/facts. I don't have accounts there, but I know some people do



The last time this went to consultation it was halted because AndyS threatened NYCC with legal Action because it had not been printed in a Motorhome Magazine.  The council had now included MMM in the list of places where the advert was to be placed.   There should be an advertisement in MMM now.

The email I received was sent to various Councilors,  AndyS, Tom Peil and myself at TMCTO.

I have posted in MHFun but not MHFacts as I no longer have access.  I didn't renew membership when it was taken over by a non motorhome website collector only interested in selling potential advertising numbers.


----------



## jagmanx (Feb 10, 2015)

*Useful to know*



Firefox said:


> There are other places to go (at the moment). But if we let Scarborough get away with this, other councils could get ideas. It could be the thin end of the wedge.
> 
> The number of objections does count. When they tried to close the byways to traffic and motorhomes at Stonehenge, they got 350 objections which forced Wiltshire County Council to go to public enquiry. 350 is a lot of objections. At the public enquiry, we won. The inspector ruled the ban was not needed. Motorhomers 1 Town Hall 0
> 
> We can get 1000's of objections from motorhomers if we get our act together!



That 350 objections is sufficient to cause a council or whoever to rethink.
350 should be easily achieved from here..
PROVIDED we dont just leave it to others !!!


----------



## jagmanx (Feb 10, 2015)

*Objection sent*

Thanks for all the info


----------



## antiquesam (Feb 10, 2015)

Done my bit, but have to confess that I have no intention of visiting a town that does not want me.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 10, 2015)

Me too, but it is the thin end of the wedge. Like resident's parking, it could spread like a cancer, if we don't challenge the legality and discrimination aspects now.


----------



## alun145 (Feb 10, 2015)

*NY Motorhome overnight ban*



Firefox said:


> Me too, but it is the thin end of the wedge. Like resident's parking, it could spread like a cancer, if we don't challenge the legality and discrimination aspects now.



Very easy for other councils to follow

Have sent reply to link that was provided earlier  and completed council form.
Agree with earlier comment about limiting number of nights stayed... Also emphasized commercial benefits to towns  if allowed out of season ...


----------



## Talbot (Feb 10, 2015)

Firefox said:


> Here is the direct link to the page on NYCC website:
> 
> www.northyorks.gov.uk/motorhomeconsultation
> 
> There is a form, or you can email them on area3.whitby@northyorks.gov.uk



Thanks for the link Firefox. Done my bit. Keep this going the more responses from the motorhome community the greater the chance of stopping this or getting them to rethink their strategy. It only takes 2 or 3 minutes to send a response. Let's at least create a thorn in their side!!


----------



## thairover (Feb 10, 2015)

My objection went in yesterday covering the parking issue ........
Also added that 4 of us travel to the east coast for sea/beach fishing in my MH average loss of revenue to local trade circa £280 per weekend.
Tackle/bait shop £160, food/beer outlets £120, mailed the link to two of the tackle shops we use, knew nothing about it, but will send in an objection, one in Whitby the other in Scarborough.


----------



## Talbot (Feb 10, 2015)

thairover said:


> My objection went in yesterday covering the parking issue ........
> Also added that 4 of us travel to the east coast for sea/beach fishing in my MH average loss of revenue to local trade circa £280 per weekend.
> Tackle/bait shop £160, food/beer outlets £120, mailed the link to two of the tackle shops we use, knew nothing about it, but will send in an objection, one in Whitby the other in Scarborough.



Now that's thinking outside the box!! Nice one


----------



## izwozral (Feb 10, 2015)

Sent & thank you John for all your efforts.


----------



## beserk (Feb 10, 2015)

Sent my objection in stating that there may be a human rights issue here.


----------



## Andys (Feb 10, 2015)

Sent my objection


----------



## Laurieash (Feb 11, 2015)

*night fishing*

Could we all say we are night fishing on the coast?


----------



## Laurieash (Feb 11, 2015)

*pay to park*

I am sure tha we all would pay to park at the same rates that it would cost to park juring the day say :£4 per night so they are getting double for the same parking space that would be normally empty.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 11, 2015)

They make a big noise in their document about amenity and turn over of parking spaces.

All it would take is a simple TRO for all vehicles, max stay 24 hours and no return within 24 hours. Spanish rules of nothing outside vehicles and no rubbish to apply. That way everyone could park overnight in a non discriminatory fashion, not damage the amenity, and it would prevent people taking the P and staying all week giving the turnover of spaces they desire.

But no, they insist on blanket discriminatory bans of motorhomes. Does anyone think this is strange and they may have other motives than those they state?


----------



## jeanette (Feb 11, 2015)

Sent mine in:ditto:


----------



## alcam (Feb 11, 2015)

Just sent mine , including the following comments 

Many councils in England are now looking at this matter [not a problem] from a different perspective . Campervans , Motorhomes often travel off season and bring a not inconsiderable amount of spending power with them . Providing facilities and spaces for these vehicles brings a source of income to small towns you would not normally get .  It works very well in other countries . By all means have a code of conduct but you should be thinking out the box and encouraging our business . Why not liaise with all the relevant motorhome organisations ? I'm pretty certain some have been in touch with you .
 I'm not saying the Black Horse or the Station in Whitby would go out of business without my contribution but as an ex-publican I always welcomed extra trade , especially at quiet times


----------



## Deleted member 967 (Feb 13, 2015)

I have just had another email today from NYCC regarding the consultation.  It has the documents attached but now states:

 Good afternoon

Please see attached consultation documents concerning proposals upon which you have expressed a previous interest, for your information. The contents of the letter should be self-explanatory.

*Please be aware that the consultation period has been extended and comments will be accepted up until the 19th March 2015.*

Kind regards

Emily Murphy
Project Engineer
Area 3 Whitby Office
North Yorkshire County Council
Whitby Highways Depot
Discovery Way
Whitby
YO22 4PZ
08458727374

NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF OVERNIGHT PARKING FOR MOTOR CARAVANS
BETWEEN 11.00 PM AND 7.00 AM –
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR MAKING PERMANENT TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER​Introduction
There are a number of attractive sea-front streets within the sea side towns in Scarborough Borough, which in recent years, with the increase in the interest in motor-caravanning, have seen a proliferation in the amount of motor caravans parking and being occupied for a number of nights on the highway. It is considered that the volume of motor caravans seeking access to these streets for this purpose detracts from the amenities of the streets for their residents and other highway users. It is reported that heavily affected sea-side streets often experience one motor caravan being replaced by another.. The County Council is proposing to introduce the proposed Traffic Regulation Order to permanently preserve and address the consequent loss of amenities and to supercede the existing temporary overnight parking restrictions for motor caravans on the roads affected, with the addition of a section of road in Sandsend, which has not been previously covered by a temporary order.
Legal Powers
The County Council are seeking to make the Order pursuant to Section 1(1)(f) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which allows a traffic authority to make a Traffic Regulation Order where it appears expedient to make it “for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs”.
Section 122 of the 1984 Act also confers a duty on local authorities to exercise the functions contained on them by the Act so as to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway, having regard to (inter alia) the effect on the amenities of any locality affected and, specifically, the importance of regulating and restricting the use of roads by heavy commercial vehicles, so as to preserve or improve the amenities of the areas through which the roads run.
Loss of Amenities
The order refers to motor caravans and no other vehicle type as the above losses of amenity are most associated with this category of vehicle and whilst it is appreciated that overnight camping may be undertaken in another category of vehicle, the combination of the amenity issues detailed below are significantly likely to be associated with motor-caravans and therefore it is considered that the overnight prohibition of this category of vehicle will improve the amenity of the affected streets.
The specific amenities that the Council considers are impacted upon by the overnight camping of motor caravans are the change in character of a street (from a public highway for all to enjoy, to a camping site), loss of view/sea view for other highway users and particularly for neighbouring properties, noise, litter, extraneous light, and the depositing of waste into highway gullies.
The amenities of the area at the various locations will be improved by the proposed Order because during the evenings and into the night it is felt that residents and business owners should reasonably expect some respite from the parking of motor caravans, for sometimes long durations, in these popular affected sea side streets. Residents should have the reasonable right to enjoy the aspect of their properties and the amenities of the area without large vehicles inhabiting the street adjacent to and in close proximity to their homes, (which in the locations includes, as an amenity, a sea-side aspect).
The amenities are further detracted from through over-night parking of such vehicles due to the impact upon some public services (including road sweeping and waste emptying that overnight camping brings
with it). Further to this, by restricting access at night it ensures that there is a turnover in the spaces taken by such vehicles and ensures they do not park, for sometimes more than a week, outside individual properties. There are many other locations in Scarborough Borough where motor caravans may continue to park unrestricted on the publicly maintainable highway.
The proposed prohibition would cover locations which, prior to the introduction of the temporary orders referred to above, tended to attract motor caravans plus a further section of road in Sandsend that has not been previously covered by a temporary order, yet reportedly experiences similar problems with amenities being affected by motor-caravans. Overnight occupancy of motor caravans on the highway fundamentally alters the nature of the highway in these locations, with negative consequences.
The overnight occupancy of motor caravans means that the individuals residing in the vehicle are temporarily dwelling in the location, and in close proximity to the curtilage of properties that adjoin the highway. This can impact upon the rights of the permanent residents to enjoyment of their property, and their privacy.
The overnight occupancy of motor caravans generates noise, sometimes within close proximity to residential properties which can be anti-social for permanent residents.
The overnight occupancy of motor vehicles on the highway, in locations which do not include appropriate facilities for camping, can lead to inappropriate use of highway gullies and drains for the depositing of waste. The effective “camping” on the highway also generates larger volumes of refuse, beyond the normal amounts of litter generated by those visiting the location for a short-stay. This refuse can be deposited in public litter bins, a purpose for which they are not designed, and a seasonal high volume of waste has historically been experienced in the various locations, which can cause spillages onto the highway and may necessitate the Borough Council increasing its cleansing schedule, to allow the for the bins to be used by day trippers as intended.
Overnight occupancy of motor caravans can increase the level of lighting on the highway during the hours of darkness. This is undesirable because it can be distracting for highway users and anti-social in locations which are in close proximity to nearby residential properties.
It is acknowledged that a 24 hour prohibition of motor caravans would be needed to ensure the amenities referred to above remain completely unaffected, however the Authority does not wish to completely remove the opportunity for those with motor-caravans to access these locations.
Conclusion
The 1984 Act makes it clear that the “amenities” to be preserved or improved are those of the area through which the road(s) run(s) and the County Council acknowledges that there is a balance to be struck between the interests of any class of road users, the interests of other classes of road users and the interests of streetward residents. Not all amenities of the area would be preserved, as one of the amenities is the 24 hour use of the affected streets by motor caravans, which would be prevented by the Order. The County Council also acknowledges that the current temporary overnight parking restrictions were introduced for environmental reasons to aid in the prevention of occupants of motor caravans depositing waste onto the highway and that there are other legal remedies available to tackle this specific issue, but that there are nonetheless additional factors (specified above) which all combine to affect the amenities of the area affected. As stated above, there are many other locations in Scarborough Borough where motor caravans may continue to park unrestricted on the publicly maintainable highway and the Council do not consider it necessary to provide additional dedicated parking places for motor caravans. It is the amenities of the area which on balance are required to be considered as preserved or improved and the County Council takes the view that the proposed Order would be expedient in achieving the purpose of ”preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs” in line with the provisions of the 1984 Act.

I will now have to check to see if any of the original documents has changed.


----------



## Talbot (Feb 14, 2015)

Quote from the proposed TRO:

'The specific amenities that the Council considers are impacted upon by the overnight camping of motor caravans are the change in character of a street (from a public highway for all to enjoy, to a camping site), loss of view/sea view for other highway users and particularly for neighbouring properties, noise, litter, extraneous light, and the depositing of waste into highway gullies.'

Who makes this s**t up? Is it this Emily Murphy the Project Engineer from NYCC?

Has someone wronged her in another life. I want to know who's depositing rubbish in the gullies, most campers I've ever met go out of their way to clean up the rubbish which is nearly always left from inconsiderate day trippers in cars. Who sleeps with the blinds open? The noise? well maybe that's snoring or people talking in their sleep, but I shouldn't think it as noise pollution.

There's no discussion at all about the continuous mess left by day trippers, or the pollution caused by all the cars passing through. This is a clear breach of human rights and motorhomers are being wrongly accused and singled out. Is this a case of xenophobia?

If you haven't already done so, send in your comments and disapproval online. Here is the direct link to the page on NYCC website:

www.northyorks.gov.uk/motorhomeconsultation


----------



## Firefox (Feb 14, 2015)

They increased the deadline to 19th March which shows they are getting submerged with objections. Keep them coming!


----------



## flying kipper (Feb 14, 2015)

*ban on overnight parking*



Firefox said:


> They make a big noise in their document about amenity and turn over of parking spaces.
> 
> All it would take is a simple TRO for all vehicles, max stay 24 hours and no return within 24 hours. Spanish rules of nothing outside vehicles and no rubbish to apply. That way everyone could park overnight in a non discriminatory fashion, not damage the amenity, and it would prevent people taking the P and staying all week giving the turnover of spaces they desire.
> 
> But no, they insist on blanket discriminatory bans of motorhomes. Does anyone think this is strange and they may have other motives than those they state?



I have just sent my protest inn.telling the council of lost revenue to shops pubs and restaurants I wonder if they have all been informed? We will just spend our money where we are welcome but not£30 a night camp sites


----------



## Val54 (Feb 14, 2015)

Objection submitted.
Dave


----------



## mariesnowgoose (Feb 15, 2015)

Done


----------



## witzend (Feb 15, 2015)

*Boycott Yorkshire*

Just stay away their loss not ours


----------



## mariesnowgoose (Feb 15, 2015)

witzend said:


> Just stay away their loss not ours



Fully intend to, but making a complaint won't harm, as they will set a bad precedent for other councils if they get away implementing this


----------



## Sky (Feb 15, 2015)

mariesnowgoose said:


> Fully intend to, but making a complaint won't harm, as they will set a bad precedent for other councils if they get away implementing this



I agree.  I have no intention of ever going there either, but it's important that they are stopped. This is clearly a case of discrimination and they must not get away with it. 

As has been said before; councils should be looking at ways of encouraging visitors and their money for the benefit of the local community, not the opposite. 

Clearly, there are people that take advantage, but I believe they are in the minority. Because of this, steps need to be taken to limit the length of time a single van can stay. 

As is always the case, this will have come about because it's going to line someone's pocket or benefit them in some other way. There may be a minority NIMBY influence, but I doubt it.


----------



## Talbot (Feb 15, 2015)

witzend said:


> Just stay away their loss not ours



I agree but you’ve missed the point. This could quickly escalate to other counties. Better to file a response against discrimination than do nothing.
If you haven't already done so, send in your comments and disapproval online. Here is the direct link to the page on NYCC website:

Motor caravan consultation - North Yorkshire County Council


----------



## jagmanx (Feb 15, 2015)

*Thin end of the wedge*



Talbot said:


> I agree but you’ve missed the point. This could quickly escalate to other counties. Better to file a response against discrimination than do nothing.
> If you haven't already done so, send in your comments and disapproval online. Here is the direct link to the page on NYCC website:
> 
> Motor caravan consultation - North Yorkshire County Council



It is all about perception rather than facts
If other LAs perceive they can do this they will !
so
1  we need to stop them.
2 more importantly we need to get LA's and other to realise/perceive we bring benefits.

I agree with the sentiment "no welcome no cash" but it does not help us !


----------



## LozSiBen (Feb 16, 2015)

Just submitted my form.

How can they discriminate when vehicles are fully road legal ?  ......Totally unjust. :hammer:


----------



## Talbot (Feb 16, 2015)

LozSiBen said:


> Just submitted my form.
> 
> How can they discriminate when vehicles are fully road legal ?  ......Totally unjust. :hammer:



In full agreement with you.

Keep these submissions going. The more the better. Click below for NYCC website:

Motor caravan consultation - North Yorkshire County Council


----------



## Mikechappers (Feb 16, 2015)

All done, its very unlikely I will ever visit the area, but if it helps to stop the rot spreading to different parts of the country then
I am all for it.


----------



## Talbot (Jun 7, 2015)

Just wondering if anyone knows the outcome of this NYCC overnight parking ban enquiry? I've not seen anything on this lately but I might have missed it.


----------



## Tezza (Jun 7, 2015)

Talbot said:


> Maybe they should look at this.
> 
> http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...t/32742-motor-home-aires-set-come-dorset.html
> 
> There should always be consultation (with all parties concerned) with such sensitive issues and often a compromise can be found or negotiated.


Maybe they shouldn't look at that....as I stated in the thread " don't hold your breath " and 2 years later they have done nothing and from what I hear are going to do nothing.  Not really a good example to hold up.


----------

