Scarborough traders complain

John H said:
I have to disagree with this. Most aires in France are free but those that charge, charge a reasonable price (less than 5 euros on average). For less than the price that Scarborough are charging you can get full facilities, including hook-up. In fact there are still many aires in France that provide free hook-up. It is not hypocritical to ask for a fair price - and if you can get a lot more for less on a CL (and you can) then Scarborough are not charging a fair price.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you there.

Scarborough have got the price wrong.

Going to do something about it?
 
maureenandtom said:
Yes. And that's a legitimate protest. I support you. Withdraw our custom. I support those who do that.

If we don't like it, don't use it until they put their tail between their legs and give us a free welcome on our own terms. We're the customers after all.

Just out of interest though. Do you ever pay for Aires in France? Bit hypocritical if you do.

I've just come back from France this weekend and I've been used to free Aires near Roscoff for pretty well 20 years. For those who use the same ferry - the Aire at the port (St Barbe?) is closed and the service point demolished. The other Aire at Roscoff (Laber ?) is still not blocked off but the service point has been demolished and the sign saying that it is an Aire has disappeared though vans are still using it. The car park at the ferry port itself is no longer signed as long term for caravans etc and I think is now just used by ferry passengers either waiting for or landing from a ferry. The previously free Aire at St Pol de Leon is now 5 Euros for 24 hours or 3 Euros for 12 hours. The private Aire at Santec is free for one night and chargeable (not sure but I think 5 Euros) per night after that.

The Aire at Leclerc in St Pol is still being used by campervans for services and parking is free but few seem to use it overnight.

Scarborough have got the price wrong. Blackpool got the price wrong too and I've just seen a thread here showing that their Aire hasn't yet solved their problems.

This is what Councillor Chance wrote to me:

I for my part want this to work, but I also want to stop 24 hour, and indeed, longer stay parking on our seafronts and prime parking places, which is what is happening at present.


I have no problem with motor homes parking on the seafront between 8 am and 11 pm and the action taken by the Council will continue to permit this.


I do, however, have an issue with overnight and longer stay parking on our seafronts and prime parking places. I recently spent a week checking this West Cliff in Whitby and regularly found in excess of 30 Motor homes parked there at 07:00 am in the morning, the vast majority with curtains drawn and the occupants still sleeping. A number of these vehicles stayed in the same position for periods well in excess of 24 hours, indeed in a number of cases for up to a week without moving a wheel.
Click to expand...

No I don't go to France, and have no intentions of doing so, my sister has a villa there, been a few times but i don't like that wrong side o road thingy, its bad enough driving on right side o road ne mind t'other :dance:
 
A number of these vehicles stayed in the same position for periods well in excess of 24 hours, indeed in a number of cases for up to a week without moving a wheel.
Click to expand...

These Motorhomers are the problem, If you want to stay in one place any length of time then you should use a site or rent a holiday cottage.
 
These holiday cottages are the problem. They stay there 24/7 for decades with no intention of moving anywhere!
 
groyne said:
These Motorhomers are the problem, If you want to stay in one place any length of time then you should use a site or rent a holiday cottage.
Click to expand...

I agree with that! For me, the whole point of motorhomes is the one night & move on style of travel. So all they need to do is forbid stopping more than one night!

I really don't get the issue with overnighting - everyone is in bed, so who is inconvenienced? The only inconvenience is during the day time when tripper cars can't come in & spend - yet no-one is complaining about that!!! How daft is that?

They really haven't thought thro their problem, yet think they can apply a "solution"! Bonkers innit?

If it's long term parking that's the issue, the standard solution (in all town centres) is parking meters. Make sure there is a regular turnover of vehicles & occupants to maximise throughput & revenues. So, charge 50p/hour in daytime, which is not unaffordable & have 10pm - 8pm free. Or even charge 50p/hr 24/7 - that's 6 quid for all day or all night & 12 quid for 24 hours. It's simple, it applies to everyone & it encourages people to not overstay their welcome as well as generating some income (less the cost of policing it).
 
If they only charged for the actual time that you were asleep, some members on the "Who's Awake?" thread would only pay a few pence per night, and Oldish Hippy could stay most nights for free!! :)

I'm not going, cos Scarb'ros not fair,
Parsley sage rosemary and thyme,
Remember me to those who live there,
They once loved this money of mine....
 
Scabbyborough Council probably spent a lot of time and effort into a rethink of the motorhoming 'problem'. Lets face it, a few motorhomers took the wotsit and overstayed their welcome, made a mess and did the rest of us a disservice.

Even with the assistance offered by Tom and Gerry, oops, I mean Maureen and Tom, they have still come up with a package that is not very appealing to the average motorhomer. They probably gave no weight to the situation from the m/homers perspective and consequently got it wrong.

They are the lawmakers (byelaws that is) and could have set it up almost anyway they wanted. I believe that they have lost a great opportunity to appease everyone and still attract us to their fair city (well, you know what I mean).

I might still do a one nighter in the area (out of season) but as for Scarborough itself, definitely not.
 
Benefits on sea is an hour up the road for me so we go maybe 3 or 4 weekends a year :sleep-040: the way we do it these plans will make no difference apart from the friday night :cheers: the landlord of the lord nelson will loose out on the sale of 6/8 pints of nigerian larger and 3 or 4 halfs of fosters,other than that it will be the same,i just hope they do enforce :hammer: the no over nighting to get rid of the spoilers that have appeared there this last 2 to 3 years :scared:
The mention of the cut off road in cayton bay was a suprize that will upset the big rv's
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have e-mailed Scarborough Council with my comments telling them that I shall take my money elsewhere in future.
I suggest we all do the same.
 
Thank you Bopper, that or a letter is the only sensible action we can take at this stage. A Boycott will the natural consequence of them ignoring us. However, we are only a very small percentage of all motorhomers. Hirers will just never know what hit them.
 
Scarborough gets hundreds of thousands of visitors every year so I'm sure that the council will be absolutely crapping itself worrying about forty or fifty motorhomers boycotting the place! Perhaps their logic is that people who are too tight to use sites will also be too tight to use restaurants and, whilst that's not true in all cases, who can blame them when they see us eating our meals in our 'vans?

As usual a few spoil it for the rest of us and it can't be helped by members here who bleat about campsite owners on the council, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and even if there was a site owner on the council, he would have to recuse himself in such debates. Traders will obviously think that people who arrive in cars are the better ones to have on the car parks, as they will spend money in restaurants, whereas those with all the facilities on board are less likely to do so.

Before we all start bleating about actions such as this, perhaps we should start asking ourselves what has moved the council to act in the first place?
 
I see your point, Northerner, but how do we, a small group of people influence the behaviour of "dodgy" MH users? We promote good behaviour on this site & even publish a list of "Do's & Don'ts", but there is no way we can reach the selfish minority or change their behaviour.

I was brought up as a Scout to "leave nothing behind but your thanks" but I live in a country lane where I am constanly picking up litter thrown out of passing cars, so many people today are just utterly thoughtless about the consequences of their actions.

BTW, would you approach a litterer or long-term stayer to point out the error of their ways? I am in my 60's recovering from an Achilles Tendon rupture, so couldn't even run away if they turned aggressive, which is sadly so often a response by people caught out doing something they know is wrong.

If Scarborough made their Aire free it would cost them very little (probably save them more from the cost of not policing it!), encourage visitors & not harm anyone. What's wrong with that solution?
 
Northerner said:
Scarborough gets hundreds of thousands of visitors every year so I'm sure that the council will be absolutely crapping itself worrying about forty or fifty motorhomers boycotting the place! Perhaps their logic is that people who are too tight to use sites will also be too tight to use restaurants and, whilst that's not true in all cases, who can blame them when they see us eating our meals in our 'vans?

As usual a few spoil it for the rest of us and it can't be helped by members here who bleat about campsite owners on the council, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and even if there was a site owner on the council, he would have to recuse himself in such debates. Traders will obviously think that people who arrive in cars are the better ones to have on the car parks, as they will spend money in restaurants, whereas those with all the facilities on board are less likely to do so.

Before we all start bleating about actions such as this, perhaps we should start asking ourselves what has moved the council to act in the first place?
Click to expand...

Notherner's right. There is, however, at least one interested member and he has declared his interest and if he was influential, he was influential behind the scenes. If he was. He would have been the cabinet member responsible for this but his duties have been taken over by another councillor. Councillor Penny somebody or other.

And we know what has moved the council. It is well documented. It began with the title of this thread - "Scarborough Traders Complain" and it was followed up by a largish number of letters - on more than one occasion - from residents in Scarborough. The council are responding to public opinion in the town. Those who think it is inadvisable to stir up the council would be best asking local residents to cease doing so. All this is well documented here but, unfortunately, spread over several different threads.

We are lucky that they are taking the continental approach. Yes, they have got the price wrong. They, I guess, are concentrating on control and enforcement; the stick rather than the carrot of providing services to attract us. We should not be castigating them; we should be encouraging them to continue to get things right.

All this whinging isn't very productive. Yes, we want Aires. No we don't want Aires. Yes, we do if they're free. Not very productive.

In my opinion, they are moving the right way but they have the pricing wrong. Off the top of my head, I don't want to go looking up things we should know, Blackpool have got the price wrong and local press is still getting complaints - it was in a thread here; Swanage (? something about £20?), Dawlish Warren began well but they got frightened by the numbers and withdrew the facility? All moving the right way but getting something so simple so wrong. The price.

Sometimes I think we just like whingeing.
 
Smaug said:
I see your point, Northerner, but how do we, a small group of people influence the behaviour of "dodgy" MH users? We promote good behaviour on this site & even publish a list of "Do's & Don'ts", but there is no way we can reach the selfish minority or change their behaviour.
. . .

If Scarborough made their Aire free it would cost them very little (probably save them more from the cost of not policing it!), encourage visitors & not harm anyone. What's wrong with that solution?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Maybe you could put that question and suggestion to one of the members responsible. My suggestion is that you ignore the council officers since they're now out of the recommendations game and into implementation. My suggestion would be to ask the Chairman of the Traffic Group - Councillor Tim Lawn. Cllr.Tim.Lawn@scarborough.gov.uk

I shouldn't think he'd respond to any abusive emails but, you never know, he might respond to suggestions put in a friendly, constuctive manner. He has said he welcomes input and wants the scheme to be a success. I think he's probably sincere.
 
any email sent with an abusive and language tone to a .gov.uk address will be filltered out by council
SPAM FILTERS.

I have a .gov.uk address :)
 
scenictraveller said:
any email sent with an abusive and language tone to a .gov.uk address will be filltered out by council
SPAM FILTERS.

I have a .gov.uk address :)
Click to expand...

Quite.

Perhaps the spam filter might not filter out terms such as Benefits on Sea, Scabbyborough and the like. I didn't really mean that anyone here would use violent threats or swearing. Just that a recommendation for "I'll treat you with respect and you treat me with respect" tone to any emails we might send.

On reflection. The decision on pricing is now in the hands of the Cabinet Member; perhaps any emails should now go to her.
 
Doh, I just sent my reasoned suggestion (including probable income estimate & cost of policing) to the e-mail address you gave earlier! Kindly post the new address & I will forward her a copy too. Below is the text of what I sent FYI, I trust you will agree it is not abusive.

Dear Tim.

I am a motorhome owner & heard about your issues on an internet Forum (Wild Camping). I understand that rows of vans parked in prime spots for days on end are not an attractive proposition, however I would like to remind you that these people need to eat, buy food & fuel etc. Motorhomes are not cheap to buy, rent or run, so mostly the people in them will be relatively prosperous. They are attracted to your town like any other visitor by your many attractions & will want to sample them, we do not live soley on tins so they will be using local shops, pubs, restaurants, leisure attractions & garages.

As with all car parking problems, I believe you need to maximise throughput & limit long stay, low spend visitors in favour of people who stop a short time & enjoy local shopping. Perhaps something along the lines of parking meters could be used, 50p/hr with a max of 12 hours would allow people to stay either a day or a night, but not both.

Your Motorhome dedicated car parks along the lines of the French Aires are an excellent idea, but you need to attract visitors, not repel them. £10/night is higher than is normally charged for a small Certified site with water, toilet disposal & possibly an electric hook-up. So why would anyone prefer a carpark with absolutely no facilities? I wouldn't pay to go there. But I might use it if it was free. The benefits to you of making it free are that you will get more viisitors to spend their money & you will significantly reduce the costs of policing it. Your proposed £10 cahrge will generate very little income as few vans will pay that for a stay in a car park AND you will need to pay someone to police it.

Probable income - say 2 vans a night for 50 nights a year (about £1000)

Probable cost of policing 6 months salary at min wage (ignoring the staff overheads!) = £6000

You will need 6 vans a night for 100 nights just to cover the basic salary cost, surely even you can see that that is hopelessly optimistic at such a high price.

Good luck with your experiment, however it turns out, Steve Kean, Motorhome (& boat) owner.
Click to expand...
 
First paragraph you shot yourself in the foot......lines of motorhomes are not attractive...and nothing in your letter would persuade me to reconsider the situation..

As a resident of Scarborough filey to be precise when I can be bothered
Channa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top