NO MORE OVERNIGHT STAYS IN SCARBOROUGH

[Rolyan57]

I think councils would be better to go with limited numbers in designated bays only that are spaced out to prevent congregating and limited length of stays eg 48hrs max no return within 48hrs

I agree, but I suspect the council have looked at the cost of introducing, monitoring and enforcing that (high), and weighed it against the financial benefit (low).

 

[Rolyan57]

They always try to show a photo that is not the norm, throw in something about complaints, our poor behaviour, and we don’t support the local economy enough.
You know the same type of things that could be applied elsewhere.
Theres a photo taken in Pitlochry just before new year showing a carpark full of motorhomes. I have spent the night alone there, on the other occasion there was two other vans.

I have been once to Scarborough, once was enough, we were relieved to escape without being dive bombed by seagulls, whose mess was everywhere. Not my cup of tea, but that’s not the point.

As you say they could have charged us to stay, and also limit numbers and duration.

The trouble is, motorhomers have proven ourselves spectacularly unwilling to follow rules on numbers, duration etc. Think of Skipton, where dozens of vans break the rules on maximum numbers, despite the signage and bays being clear and having it in writing from the council.

So councils know there is a cost in setting, monitoring and enforcing numbers, and they also believe that the cost benefits won’t outweigh those costs. So it’s a fairly simple decision.

By the way, as Skipton falls under NYCC, who have been involved in the Scarborough ban, I could see them doing the same in Skipton.

 

[Fisherman]

I agree, but I suspect the council have looked at the cost of introducing, monitoring and enforcing that (high), and weighed it against the financial benefit (low).

Are councils not supposed to provide facilities for our recreation, ie library’s, sports centres, cycle tracks, playing fields, children’s play areas, swimming pools, public parks, CAR PARKS, etc etc. do any of these provide financial benefits for the council, are any of them run for profit. Or are we alone viewed as cash cows, only to be catered for if they can make a profit from us.

 

[Rolyan57]

Are councils not supposed to provide facilities for our recreation, ie library’s, sports centres, cycle tracks, playing fields, children’s play areas, swimming pools, public parks, CAR PARKS, etc etc. do any of these provide financial benefits for the council, are any of them run for profit. Or are we alone viewed as cash cows, only to be catered for if they can make a profit from us.

I suspect they don’t have complaints from locals, and the emergency services, about these provisions. Whereas they do with motorhome stopovers.

Those complaints and behaviours could be managed by controlling numbers and behaviour, but there’s a significant cost to that.

 

[Fisherman]

The trouble is, motorhomers have proven ourselves spectacularly unwilling to follow rules on numbers, duration etc. Think of Skipton, where dozens of vans break the rules on maximum numbers, despite the signage and bays being clear and having it in writing from the council.

So councils know there is a cost in setting, monitoring and enforcing numbers, and they also believe that the cost benefits won’t outweigh those costs. So it’s a fairly simple decision.

By the way, as Skipton falls under NYCC, who have been involved in the Scarborough ban, I could see them doing the same in Skipton.

Sorry missed that one.
Ok let’s look at skipton, because we have some Skiptons up here, they’re everywhere.
Now that Scarborough have decided to ban us, guess what happens to all of the Skiptons nationwide, they now have to carry a greater burden. Also they will now have to monitor motorhomes and enforce their overnight ban.

Over the years I have taken a great interest in what’s been going on up here in Fife, and have been in communication with the fine man Robbie Blythe who runs the carparks within Fife. Now they have had similar issues as Skipton, but over the years Robbie has managed to extend greatly the amount of places we can park for a small fee.
But look across the Firth of Forth and what do you see, East Lothian, a Motorhome Desert run by councillors who go to great expense to deny us access not only to their carparks , but also remote areas where no one lives, particularly by the shoreline. So let’s look at this situation.

If the amount of places available to us are heavily controlled to the point that it’s difficult to find somewhere to park up, it’s patently obvious that the few places left will be oversubscribed. What Scarborough have done is making matters worse elsewhere.

As for your other points regarding costs, I covered that already.

 

[Fisherman]

I suspect they don’t have complaints from locals, and the emergency services, about these provisions. Whereas they do with motorhome stopovers.

Those complaints and behaviours could be managed by controlling numbers and behaviour, but there’s a significant cost to that.

Last time I was in Scarborough it was awash with traffic wardens.
I am sure they could hand out penalty charges to offenders, whether in cars or motorhomes. These areas are normally covered with cctv, making monitoring more effective.
Sorry, but for me this whole situation were we have to be judged by our value to local economies, which applies to no one else is wrong.
And we really have to stop feeling that we need to justify ourselves by comparing ourselves with others, who use these same facilities provided by us all freely and unhindered.

 

[Fazerloz]

It all boils down to NIMBY and the British attitude of hating the thought that someone may just be getting something for nothing, whether they are or aren't doesn't matter. It's just the thought they might be they can't stand and they will lie through their teeth to get their way.

 

[Fisherman]

It all boils down to NIMBY and the British attitude of hating the thought that someone may just be getting something for nothing, whether they are or aren't doesn't matter. It's just the thought they might be they can't stand and they will lie through their teeth to get their way.

Oh stop it, your just trying to cheer me up

 

[barryd]

It all boils down to NIMBY and the British attitude of hating the thought that someone may just be getting something for nothing, whether they are or aren't doesn't matter. It's just the thought they might be they can't stand and they will lie through their teeth to get their way.

That's the difference between the UK and France. Motorhomes generally have value and respect there, they don't here probably for the reasons you state and others.

 

[yorkslass]

Have read through the thread, and most of the comments are about daytime parking.
The ban is about staying overnight.....very few cars want to park then. I have never understood council reasoning.

 

[Rolyan57]

Sorry missed that one.
Ok let’s look at skipton, because we have some Skiptons up here, they’re everywhere.
Now that Scarborough have decided to ban us, guess what happens to all of the Skiptons nationwide, they now have to carry a greater burden. Also they will now have to monitor motorhomes and enforce their overnight ban.

Over the years I have taken a great interest in what’s been going on up here in Fife, and have been in communication with the fine man Robbie Blythe who runs the carparks within Fife. Now they have had similar issues as Skipton, but over the years Robbie has managed to extend greatly the amount of places we can park for a small fee.
But look across the Firth of Forth and what do you see, East Lothian, a Motorhome Desert run by councillors who go to great expense to deny us access not only to their carparks , but also remote areas where no one lives, particularly by the shoreline. So let’s look at this situation.

If the amount of places available to us are heavily controlled to the point that it’s difficult to find somewhere to park up, it’s patently obvious that the few places left will be oversubscribed. What Scarborough have done is making matters worse elsewhere.

As for your other points regarding costs, I covered that already.

You did cover the costs. I was giving my opinion as to why they don’t control numbers.

Put simply, it costs a lot to monitor us as we dont do it ourselves, which outweighs the income.

From their point of view its a perfectly sensible decision.

1) there are complaints and anti social behaviour.
2) we could deal with it but the costs would far outweigh the benefits.

A ban becomes inevitable; then when it happens at say Skipton in North Yorkshire, all the dozens that have deliberately ignored the rules will be running around moaning and taking it personally.

 

[Rolyan57]

Have read through the thread, and most of the comments are about daytime parking.
The ban is about staying overnight.....very few cars want to park then. I have never understood council reasoning.

I understand it and partly agree with it.

According to reports, there have been complaints from locals, anti social behaviour and concerns from the emergency services.

The council doesn’t want that to continue. So they have two options.

They can introduce restrictions, monitor them and penalise those who ignore them. But their is a high cost to that which outweighs the small income we bring.

Or they can ban us which addresses the complaints, the anti social behaviour and the emergency services concerns. No cost.

Are you seriously saying that you can’t understand their reasoning? Not agree with it, I appreciate you won’t, but do you genuinely not understand how they’ve arrived at that decision?

 

[mistericeman]

Have read through the thread, and most of the comments are about daytime parking.
The ban is about staying overnight.....very few cars want to park then. I have never understood council reasoning.

Likelyhood is a proportion of campervans/motorhomes etc won't be very good at shifting in the mornings thus causing issues with the actual purpose of the carpark being there ...

Sadly there will always be those that cause issues ...and the councils won't want to deal with enforcing them with patrols etc ...
Hence the ease with which barriers go up ...

To be honest we are as a group ...victims of both the popularity AND the actions,of a small number that have acted in a entitled and ignorant manner ....
I wouldn't want to park cheek by jowl with the numbers that are attracted to some of the popular honey pots any more than I would want to park cheek by jowl on a site ....
Yes I love parking alone and miles away from anyone and anything ...BUT I can see how some folks take the mick with their actions ...

To be honest I feel like 'Wild camping' is becoming untenable in the UK ...
And as time goes on I'm questioning my subscription here as its becoming more 'why aren't I allowed to park here for free/it's not fair ' rather than how it was when I first joined .

 

[Fazerloz]

I understand it and partly agree with it.

According to reports, there have been complaints from locals, anti social behaviour and concerns from the emergency services.

The council doesn’t want that to continue. So they have two options.

They can introduce restrictions, monitor them and penalise those who ignore them. But their is a high cost to that which outweighs the small income we bring.

Or they can ban us which addresses the complaints, the anti social behaviour and the emergency services concerns. No cost.

Are you seriously saying that you can’t understand their reasoning? Not agree with it, I appreciate you won’t, but do you genuinely not understand how they’ve arrived at that decision?

Where does the high cost of monitoring come from. Parking wardens are going past all through the day monitoring parking now and able to issue tickets at any time for infringements. Periodic spot checks at night would not cost much and once word got around that tickets were issued out of normal hours then the spot checks could be reduced greatly.

 

[Rolyan57]

Where does the high cost of monitoring come from. Parking wardens are going past all through the day monitoring parking now and able to issue tickets at any time for infringements. Periodic spot checks at night would not cost much and once word got around that tickets were issued out of normal hours then the spot checks could be reduced greatly.

It would have to be regular and sustained checks through the night, otherwise people would abuse it. Don’t pretend otherwise.

There is a cost to that, and added to the cost of setting it up and the cost of enforcement, it makes it not worth it. Simple maths really.