Scarborugh Sea Front

[Greytop]

The answer is ...

Just to merely carry on parking there and see what happens.
My feeling is that although bye laws will be made, they won't in practice ever be enforced.
How can they be, this is certainly not a police matter (and anyway the police won't come out after dark in Scarborough anyway) so how can it ever be enforced??

 

[Amethyst]

Amethyst,
Please be careful with such accusations, because as far as I am aware this is not true.
Such wild accusations do not improve our case at all.
No insults intened to you.. Lol.

No insult taken Greytop....but unless something has changed recently the said family own Jacobs Mount Caravan and Camping Park.

Which incidentally is closed November to March.

The other park I referred to is The Haven Caravan Park in Burniston of which the deputy mayor is also the manager.

Rob

 

[Amethyst]

Just to merely carry on parking there and see what happens.
My feeling is that although bye laws will be made, they won't in practice ever be enforced.
How can they be, this is certainly not a police matter (and anyway the police won't come out after dark in Scarborough anyway) so how can it ever be enforced??

I will if you go first!!!!

What about all the swarms of "Civil Enforcement Officers" that hound the town all day long?

Rob

 

[maureenandtom]

Didn't one of our members here get a ticket timed at about seven in the morning? The offence was something like "using a parking space for other than it's designated purpose"?

I got a ticket a few years ago timed at just after midnight (not at Scarborough).

 

[barryd]

I agree with you.

We all know what we mean by "Aires". There's no point in labouring fine points of meaning. Scarborough didn't mean that only motorhomes would be able to park in the parking spaces they designated. They were to have been on three car parks available to all motor users - not just us. Because of whatever democratic pressure they were under they wanted to exclude motorhomes from sensitive areas. As a group we don't like that.

But you're trying to confuse the rest needed during a journey and the use we'd make of an Aire. Scarborough wasn't so far away from France in its intentions.

What Scarborough said that were trying to do is pretty well what one of my favourite towns in France did. Like Scarborough they were getting fed up with motorhomes parking on the sea-front. I'm talking about Capbreton in the early 90s. So they provided parking places, with facilities, just out of town - not far out, maybe a 20 mins walk and I'd guess many of us are familiar with it. At the same time they, at first, banned overnight parking on the sea-front but I think motorhome parking is now banned at any time on the sea-front though I'm not sure about that - street view shows the front being dug up. I was around when all this was going on and I'm sure others were too and can modify my memory if needed. All those years ago, at first, the Aire was free. The free Aire didn't last forever and charging began within a year or two. At first in the touristy months and when it got to six Euros (or whatever it was at the time in French Francs) I stopped going there - or at least stopped going there to stay over. Perhaps somebody who stayed there recently will know what the present charge is. I'd bet it's not far short of the tenner Scarborough wanted to charge. I transferred my loyalties to Bayonne where they started charging in July and August and Tarnos just over the river where, the last time I was there a year ago they were putting in barriers and excluding motorhomes. Street view and google maps show the Aire I used in Bayonne is now full of cars and the Aire facilities seem to have disappeared. I hope street view is wrong or out of date because I want to go there again next Spring.

What Scarborough tried to do was pretty reasonable and I'm sure I could find many more examples like Capbreton which pretty well mirror exactly the situation in Scarborough.

I'm not talking down France. I've made many friends and I have my favourite places to go again and again. There are places I so love that I'm seriously considering having a static van on a site in France to go to when, perhaps, campervanning gets a bit beyond me - perish the thought.

Just for you info I was at Capbreton a couple of weeks ago. Didnt stop, just went for a look on the bike. The Aires pretty naff, just a big car park and pricey for what to me was a tired coastal town. Prices were low season €7.50, mid, €10 and July / August €12. I dont know what it is with motorhomes obsession with the coast but all the Aires down that side of France charge yet go a few miles in land where there is much more to see and (for me) its more interesting and they are pretty much all free. The last three aires we have been on over the last week have been in Cherente and have had free parking, services and EHU! I guess its a case of what they can get away with on the coast. The Aire at Capbreton was busy although I never figured out why. Clearly most of the people there were jusdt sitting by their vans in a car park, miles from the town with no view. Doubt any of them moved all day but the thing is they wanted to be there and were prepared to pay. So maybe its horses for courses / supply and demand.

If Scarborough is popular (and like Capbreton I really cant see the appeal) then if they provide Aires at £10 a go either people will go or they wont. Its up to them what they do. Personally I would rather go somewhere where we are welcome. I wouldnt want to flout a no overnighting sign either, especially one thats legal. Even if you do "get away with it". To me I wouldnt enjoy parking where Im not really wanted. Vote with your feet I reckon. Id rather stay somewhere like Gente outside Cognac where I am right now. Everyone says hello, nobody thinks we are freeloaders, nobody stares at you (an English trait for some reason) and at each village I spent a few quid.

There are much nicer towns and villages in the UK where I know I will be welcome than Scarborough. Ill just go there.

 

[maureenandtom]

Yeah, thanks Barryd. It's just as I thought. Similar sort of town, similar sort of price.

 

[kimbowbill]

It might be as well to remind ourselves of the facts. Uncomfortable facts sometimes. I'd recommend this
http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...326-sometimes-were-our-own-worst-enemies.html
as a good read about how not to do things.




You might be right in your first paragraph above. In my view you're probably right. The bit in bold I tend to agree with you - something went wrong, I guess, and this became an excuse. What I accept and many do not is that our vitriol went a bit deep. But this last bit - "I don't want a council to 'provide' me with anything." No, except that you're a pretty good at complimenting the French councils on their provision of Aires - you do it all the time - comparing Britain badly with them. Yet Scarborough was about to provide three. Not all in the town of Scarborough but within their control. Three.




Oh yes, they were. We know very well what we mean by Aires and it shouldn't be neccessary to spell it out all the time. Dedicated parking spaces for motorhomes, then. I'll accept that as an Aire. And the proposed charge was to have been £10 - no need to talk it up to £15. £10 was bad enough. If the proposed scheme over 12 months was to be a success then the provision of other facilities were to have been considered then.

A result! But not for some of us.

The proper question to ask is "Where do we go from here?" Well, personally, I'm going nowhere from here. I've done my bit - as did you - although I didn't complain when Scarborough did as I - and you - suggested.

What I would do if I was still motivated, which I'm not? Well, in the first place, I'd not have rejected their Aires, I'd have tried to get them to tone the charge down. However, it's no different to the charge being levied by other councils and, increasingly, it's not so far from the charges being made in attractive, touristy, coastal regions by that paragon of Aires - France so it might have been difficult to get them to see sense on that.

But now. Then I think I'd be approaching the council to see what can be done about this planning permission. Planning permissin withheld? Then there's an appeal process - maybe. Or, being ex-service, I'd maybe ask if the three originally designated car parks would still be available on the basis of Nelson's blind eye.

But, I'm doing nothing. Too many whingers to take you to task for not meeting their needs exactly.

Read this thread again - it's illuminating.

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...326-sometimes-were-our-own-worst-enemies.html

Why are you being so aggressive towards me? you are inferring that all members including me sent vile emails to the council, i only asked a question, do you really honestly, truly believe that the council take any notice of us? lol, even if they did provide Aires, i still wouldn't go, the resies hate us, end of, and that aint gunna change any time soon

 

[maureenandtom]

Why are you being so aggressive towards me? you are inferring that all members including me sent vile emails to the council, i only asked a question, do you really honestly, truly believe that the council take any notice of us? lol, even if they did provide Aires, i still wouldn't go, the resies hate us, end of, and that aint gunna change any time soon

Then I'm sorry. I did not mean to be aggressive towards you as an individual and it's our misfortune (yours and mine) that we are a both bit more transparent than others like. You wrote to the council and responded to letters in the local press. So did I and, in truth, so did others and I didn't always pick on them when they changed their minds. I should have done. Sorry. And I think I did compliment you on your letter to the press. You're at liberty to change your mind and I'm interested enough to question why. Your answer has value to me.

So I'm not being aggressive if I give you my views on the points you raise, ok? I do think the council listen to us and I think the initial approval of their Aires demonstrates this. There is a general consensus among many of us here (not me in this case) that the council is very sensitive to us - as an example, try saying here you will ignore some of a council's "No Overnight Parking" notices. There'll be plenty of bleating that councils, sensitive to their rights and powers, will introduce height barriers just because we ignore a legally unforcible notice. Look at the reception I've sometimes had and look at the reception Islandman had recently. We think they're sensitive enough then, yes? I think they will listen.

I do agree that some of the residents hate us but plenty do not. There's often support for us in the local press and there's some support from Scarborough residents on the site here too. I had a small experience just lately and the inititial, very low level, irritation disappeared when I said that I was very proud of our van, would they (a couple) like to have a look inside? We had a very pleasant chat and I don't think they'll be so irritated in future.

I do believe that some of the hatred, and maybe a lot of it, is down the to the council. Say, for example, there is a street sign saying, let's say, "No Parking" outside your house. It was put there by the council in response to your complaints of people parking there. But people, like me maybe, continue to park there and I never get a ticket. What do you say then? Who's at fault? The council who say, "Well, we have no right to enforce it?" Or me, for ignoring it? Many will say it's me. I say it's the council for not doing things properly. Unenforceble notices are a fraud on all of us.

I think it's important for councils to do things properly; this sometimes means that my own narrow interests suffer for the benefit of the many. If we allow councils to erect signs willy-nilly then we have no way of knowing that your sign above was erected to stop you complaining or that your right to have no parking outside your house supercedes others' privilege to park on the side of the road (no arguments please about there being no rights). If we allow them to erect unenforceble signs to solve your complaint then what is to stop them taking the right erect other notices for less noble reasons? To help themselves or to help their business mates or for any reason which is not in our interests but in their's?

Will it make amends if I buy you a beer if we should meet?

 

[maureenandtom]

The simple answer is that they want to ban overnight parking in certain areas in response to complants from residents. If you're asking why the trial scheme for three Aires bit the dust then this might help.

Without looking it all up again - so there might be details I mis-remember. Initially, there were to be places provided on three car parks. The scheme was to have been a trial for one year after which time it would be looked at again and maybe discontinued or maybe upgraded to provide the facilities we would like to see - water, waste disposal; more like Aires we're used to seeing elsewhere. But not at first; at first it was just to have been parking free from official disapproval.

The decision, by committee, went to the (modern and I think undemocratic) cabinet member responsible for such matters. She (it had been a "he" who would have had a conflict of interest) thought there might be problems with planning permission and passed it back to the committee for further investigation. I have no idea what form their discussion then took but I know what the result was. The following is part of an email sent to me afterwards.

"...we were advised that to allow overnight camping would require a change of use planning application and that current planning policy would not support the application, therefore members have decided not to continue with this option. . ."

I didn't ask for the minutes, though I've been told here I can do, and I didn't argue about the term "camping". Fact is, I gave up and didn't argue at all. It also became clear that a large-ish number of members here didn't want an Aire anyway.

The above is my memory of the facts. What follows is my opinion. It's my opinion that members want the scheme because they see it in the best interests of local residents. It has been blocked by employees (undemocratically) by raising the red herring of planning permission. The result has been that members have put it into the "too difficult to do" box.

Democratically elected members have been effectively overruled by undemocratic employees.

But that's opinion. A firmly held opinion!

 

[maureenandtom]

There's a mass of newspaper reports and letters to the press. I've just googled the subject and, truly, there's a fair bit. There's a lot on our site here too, giving references to press articles and letters.

I can't remember what initially sparked my interest, I think it may have been the one "Scarborough Traders Complain" and I just couldn't believe that traders wanted to turn away business or it may well have been

Can

because of my detestation of misleading signs. Even publicly the council spokesman couldn't admit that the council were in the wrong - just that nobody could decide who should enforce the signs - police or council. I mean, ... these people!

Take your pick. It's a subject guaranteed to raise emotions here

 

[Rubbertramp]

Didn't one of our members here get a ticket timed at about seven in the morning? The offence was something like "using a parking space for other than it's designated purpose"?

I got a ticket a few years ago timed at just after midnight (not at Scarborough).

Yes it was me but in Newquay and the offence was "Parked in a parking place not designated for that type of vehicle"

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/wild-camping-motorhome-chat/24127-sign-survey.html

The ticket is being appealed so I'll let you know what the outcome is.

 

[John H]

Capbreton.......... Perhaps somebody who stayed there recently will know what the present charge is. I'd bet it's not far short of the tenner Scarborough wanted to charge.

When I was in Capbreton last year, they were charging 10 euros (ie about £8) for 24 hours and that included fresh water supply, waste dump and electric hook-up (as well as a fabulous beach). To stay 24 hours in one of the car parks that Scarborough originally were going to set aside for us would have cost £13.80 from memory (my van would fill two spaces and I would still have no guarantee that I would be able to open the doors) - for nothing but a piece of tarmac in a non-seafront location . So hardly comparable.

I take issue with your premise that Scarborough councillors were originally intending to do something to benefit us. All along it was my belief that they were setting something up to fail so that they could respond to future complaints from us that there was no demand when they tried it.

While I'm here, I also take issue with your constant insistance that councils are acting undemocratically by delegating decisions to individual council members or to officers. You may not agree with it but it is allowable and done by democratic vote of the whole council. I don't like it either but it is legal and it is democratic.

 

[John H]

Most definitely, YES, because if, as you say, the rest of the electorate disagrees with it then they can vote these councillors out of office next time. The reality is, however, that more often than not, the electorate WILL agree (or at best not care) with decisions to ban motorhomes. You will find that whatever else they may or may not do, Councillors are very aware of what will gain or lose them votes!

 

[maureenandtom]

Most definitely, YES, because if, as you say, the rest of the electorate disagrees with it then they can vote these councillors out of office next time. The reality is, however, that more often than not, the electorate WILL agree (or at best not care) with decisions to ban motorhomes. You will find that whatever else they may or may not do, Councillors are very aware of what will gain or lose them votes!

Ah, my stalker.

From experience of being a councillor on a total of5 different councils over the years I can assure you that it is the employees who run the council. :rulez:. This is also the same in Central Government.
There were a lot of truths in that old programme Yes Miister.

You "liked" this. You changed your mind. Why?

Want me to look up posts when you've said similar things.

In any case:

...

The above is my memory of the facts. What follows is my opinion. It's my opinion that members want the scheme because they see it in the best interests of local residents. It has been blocked by employees (undemocratically) by raising the red herring of planning permission. The result has been that members have put it into the "too difficult to do" box.

Democratically elected members have been effectively overruled by undemocratic employees.

But that's opinion. A firmly held opinion!

You have a problem with my opinions? I can't ever be accused of mixing up opinions and facts. Although there are some who can.

 

[John H]

Ah, my stalker.





You "liked" this. You changed your mind. Why?

Want me to look up posts when you've said similar things.

In any case:




You have a problem with my opinions? I can't ever be accused of mixing up opinions and facts. Although there are some who can.

No, I haven't changed my mind - you can look up as many references as you like. The truth is that some councillors and some councils aren't very good and allow officers to walk all over them. You can be sure, however, that those officers have made sure that the process is usually beyond reproach (although, of course, some don't and that's when you get scandals about council corruption). In the case of Scarborough, there is no evidence of such corruption - unless you can produce some - so, I repeat, you do your argument no good at all by pretending it is all undemocratic or illegal when what you actually mean is that you disagree with it. You can have whatever opinions you choose but to act like a young child and shout that "its all unfair" when you lose is not a good way forward. Take it from someone who is frequently in the minority!

 

[John H]

Ah, but one mans "right thing" is another man's appalling decision. That's democracy, I'm afraid

 

[maureenandtom]

When I was in Capbreton last year, they were charging 10 euros (ie about £8) for 24 hours and that included fresh water supply, waste dump and electric hook-up (as well as a fabulous beach). To stay 24 hours in one of the car parks that Scarborough originally were going to set aside for us would have cost £13.80 from memory (my van would fill two spaces and I would still have no guarantee that I would be able to open the doors) - for nothing but a piece of tarmac in a non-seafront location . So hardly comparable.

I take issue with your premise that Scarborough councillors were originally intending to do something to benefit us. All along it was my belief that they were setting something up to fail so that they could respond to future complaints from us that there was no demand when they tried it.

While I'm here, I also take issue with your constant insistance that councils are acting undemocratically by delegating decisions to individual council members or to officers. You may not agree with it but it is allowable and done by democratic vote of the whole council. I don't like it either but it is legal and it is democratic.

Thank you. Capbreton was one of my favourite places and I still enjoy a visit passng through. But, yes, they are comparable though that's for people to form their own opionions after visiting. In my view, they are comparable in that they both had the same problem and reacted in similar way and even charged the same amount. Or would have done, ok? I know it never got off the ground. Don't forget that the Scarborough trial was to be just that - a trial - and facilities may well have followed. Or it may have been cancelled. I like to think that it would have been a sucess but, unfortunately, it looks as though we'll not find that out any time soon.

I don't think I said that Scarborough councils were originally intending to do something to benefit us; I think I said they were doing it to benefit residents. You do make me look up things when you misquote me. I wish you'd stop. And if they were setting up something to fail then, obviously, you'll know more about devious politicians than me.

T...
The above is my memory of the facts. What follows is my opinion. It's my opinion that members want the scheme because they see it in the best interests of local residents. It has been blocked by employees (undemocratically) by raising the red herring of planning permission. The result has been that members have put it into the "too difficult to do" box.

Democratically elected members have been effectively overruled by undemocratic employees.

But that's opinion. A firmly held opinion!

I've addressed your last paragraph elsewhere.

I do wish you would stop misquoting me.

 

[John H]

Thank you. Capbreton was one of my favourite places and I still enjoy a visit passng through. But, yes, they are comparable though that's for people to form their own opionions after visiting. In my view, they are comparable in that they both had the same problem and reacted in similar way and even charged the same amount. Or would have done, ok? I know it never got off the ground. Don't forget that the Scarborough trial was to be just that - a trial - and facilities may well have followed. Or it may have been cancelled. I like to think that it would have been a sucess but, unfortunately, it looks as though we'll not find that out any time soon.

I don't think I said that Scarborough councils were originally intending to do something to benefit us; I think I said they were doing it to benefit residents. You do make me look up things when you misquote me. I wish you'd stop. And if they were setting up something to fail then, obviously, you'll know more about devious politicians than me.




I've addressed your last paragraph elsewhere.

I do wish you would stop misquoting me.

I find it interesting that you think £13.80 for a piece of town centre tarmac is comparable with £8 for a large space with fresh water, waste disposal, electric hook-up and a superb beach-front location.

You don't think that Scarborough council was originally intending to do something to benefit us?? I refer (among many other of your posts) to post no 39 on the "Whitby Again TRO" thread on the Wildcamping and Motorhome Chat forum, in which you stated that you could cry because Scarborough tried to do something for us and members of this forum were not happy with it. You even went so far as to suggest that if councillors had read this forum you were not surprised that they changed their minds. I do not misquote people. I sometimes remind people of things they have said in the past that may not suit their arguments now.

Oh and you are right that I know about devious politicians, having associated with a good many of them over the years, which is why I can smell something that doesn't ring true - and Scarborough's scheme just didn't seem to ring true.

 

[John H]

Your views on teaching are very interesting. In my view, a techer's job is not to tell people what they should believe but to give them the means to question and evaluate. My point was precisely what you are now saying - that nothing in life is that simple - or indeed to be seen in black and white terms. Some people, however, think that if they disagree with a decision then it is the decision that is wrong. I think it was Churchill who said that Democracy was not a good way to run things but it was better than all the alternatives! How much wider a meaning can you come up with than accepting that the majority win - whether you agree with them or not?

 

[maureenandtom]

I find it interesting that you think £13.80 for a piece of town centre tarmac is comparable with £8 for a large space with fresh water, waste disposal, electric hook-up and a superb beach-front location.

. . .

Still misquoting me, John. Time to stop that.

..
In my view, they are comparable in that they both had the same problem and reacted in similar way and even charged the same amount. Or would have done, ok? I know it never got off the ground. . . .