NO MORE OVERNIGHT STAYS IN SCARBOROUGH

[Fazerloz]

IF its so workable ...

Why aren't every council through the UK choosing to profit from an easy revenue stream ...
?

Because it is not the easy option and requires a little effort.

 

[Fisherman]

Because it is not the easy option and requires a little effort.

Exactly, some councils up here have done some fabulous work.
But none simply allowed uncontrolled access as Scarborough did.
Whilst two in particular have taken the Scarborough route.
When it comes to costs East Lothian have spent a fortune keeping us out.
They could have instead spent less and earned some revenue for themselves and local businesses by allowing limited access.
At least Scarborough allows daytime parking, they don’t in East Lothian.
What all of this comes down to is our culture more than anything else.
The sums of money involved here are tiny, it’s the attitude of some that are wrong.
We have all paid more than enough in taxes to finance any costs if applicable.

 

[mistericeman]

Because it is not the easy option and requires a little effort.

Or it's simply not worth the effort to them.

 

[Fisherman]

Or it's simply not worth the effort to them.

And what does that tell you then.

That councils should only do what they can be bothered doing.
That’s worth the effort to them, and not the people they are supposed to be serving.
Thankfully not all councils think likewise.

 

[mistericeman]

And what does that tell you then.

It tells me that they don't want to spend a chunk of money putting infrastructure in and policing it for the little return they would achieve from it ...
Far easier to just ban it and stick a barrier up .
Tells me that they don't want to put impromptu campsites in place especially in unsuitable places (like the marine drive for example)
For every motorhomer/vanlifer that thinks a empty car park makes a great stop ...
There will be plenty of locals that think it's a blot on the landscape .

Let's be honest we're not talking about 1 or two units parked discretely out of the way of folks and habitation ...
Were talking about what looks like a linear campsite as folks just WON'T behave discretely .
And if it's anymore than £5 there will be a raft of folks saying it's too expensive and it's their RIGHT to park overnight wherever they like .

 

[Rolyan57]

Wasting your time Faz.

But ta for trying.

No, he’s not wasting his time, he’s just accepting that people have different opinions. You should try it

 

[Rolyan57]

It tells me that they don't want to spend a chunk of money putting infrastructure in and policing it for the little return they would achieve from it ...
Far easier to just ban it and stick a barrier up .
Tells me that they don't want to put impromptu campsites in place especially in unsuitable places (like the marine drive for example)
For every motorhomer/vanlifer that thinks a empty car park makes a great stop ...
There will be plenty of locals that think it's a blot on the landscape .

Let's be honest we're not talking about 1 or two units parked discretely out of the way of folks and habitation ...
Were talking about what looks like a linear campsite as folks just WON'T behave discretely .
And if it's anymore than £5 there will be a raft of folks saying it's too expensive and it's their RIGHT to park overnight wherever they like .

Exactly. Some of the responses on here show just why we’re all regarded as so entitled.

 

[Fisherman]

Exactly. Some of the responses on here show just why we’re all regarded as so entitled.

Is that you accepting people have different views then, or simply insulting people who you don’t agree with.

 

[Rolyan57]

I am pretending nothing and think it would be easily workable if there is the will to make it work You are just making assumptions and stating them as facts unless that is you have access to a breakdown of the costs.
The trouble with simple maths is it is often wrong.

I never said it wasn’t easily workable. I said it would be expensive to introduce, maintain and monitor (with patrols overnight). They’ve looked at the cost of that and decided it’s not worth it for the small percentage income we’ll bring.

They’ve had complaints from locals, anti social behaviour and concerns by the emergency services. They have to do something so they’ve chosen the cost effective option, as no one owes us anything.

 

[Rolyan57]

Is that you accepting people have different views then, or simply insulting people who you don’t agree with.

I fully accept people have different opinions and I’m happy to accept that and debate it. That’s the bit you should try, rather than the rather silly “you’re wasting your time” .

If you don’t think there’s evidence of entitled beliefs in here then fair enough. I think there is, but I’ve not aimed it at any individual. Only wear the cap if it fits, otherwise it’s not aimed at you.

Hope that helps.

 

[Fisherman]

I fully accept people have different opinions and I’m happy to accept that and debate it. That’s the but you should try, rather than the rather silly “you’re wasting your time” .

If you don’t think there’s evidence of entitled beliefs in here then fair enough. I think there is, but I’ve not aimed it at any individual. Only wear the cap if it fits, otherwise it’s not aimed at you.

Hope that helps.

 

[Fisherman]

it’s not fair, they are picking on us” . This idea that we can’t understand why it happens is laughable and shows why some call us entitled.

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

Exactly. Some of the responses on here show just why we’re all regarded as so entitled.

You call this debating do you, I call it something else.

Wheras mistericeman has put forward his pov in a fair and reasonable manner you have not. You yet again have resorted to personal insults. Suggesting that people are pretending because they have a different pov is not debate, telling us our views are laughable is not debate, and telling us we have a sense of entitlement is not debate either. But you keep telling yourself that you accept people have different views, if that’s what you want to believe.

Hence why I said Fazerloz is wasting his time.

 

[Rolyan57]

it’s not fair, they are picking on us” . This idea that we can’t understand why it happens is laughable and shows why some call us entitled.

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

Exactly. Some of the responses on here show just why we’re all regarded as so entitled.

You call this debating do you, I call it something else.

Wheras mistericeman has put forward his pov in a fair and reasonable manner you have not. You yet again have resorted to personal insults. Suggesting that people are pretending because they have a different pov is not debate, telling us our views are laughable is not debate, and telling us we have a sense of entitlement is not debate either. But you keep telling yourself that you accept people have different views, if that’s what you want to believe.

Hence why I said Fazerloz is wasting his time.

There are no personal insults aimed at any one individual.

I’ve put my point of view across in a fair and reasonable manner. The council have had complaints, there’s been anti social behaviour and the emergency services have concerns. I said that there are two options. Pay for the introduction and monitoring of restricted stays, or ban it. They’ve chosen the first on reasons of cost.

All very calm and balanced. I’ve also mentioned there are some on here that demonstrate entitled behaviour. That’s my opinion which I’m entitled to.

 

[Fisherman]

There are no personal insults aimed at any one individual.

I’ve put my point of view across in a fair and reasonable manner. The council have had complaints, there’s been anti social behaviour and the emergency services have concerns. I said that there are two options. Pay for the introduction and monitoring of restricted stays, or ban it. They’ve chosen the first on reasons of cost.

All very calm and balanced. I’ve also mentioned there are some on here that demonstrate entitled behaviour. That’s my opinion which I’m entitled to.

So because it’s not directed at an individual, it’s ok then.
It’s ok to insult a group, so long as you don’t name them personally.
Really.

I don’t find your views laughable.
I just don’t agree with them.
And telling people they have a sense of entitlement is not making good debate.
And that’s me being polite.

As for not getting personal look at post 86, it’s directed at yours truly.
And you told Fazerloz not to pretend otherwise.
IE don’t you dare disagree with me.

 

[Rolyan57]

So because it’s not directed at an individual, it’s ok then.
It’s ok to insult a group, so long as you don’t name them personally.
Really.

I don’t find your views laughable.
I just don’t agree with them.
And telling people they have a sense of entitlement is not making good debate.
And that’s me being polite.

As for not getting personal look at post 86, it’s directed at yours truly.

86 really wasn’t insulting, a light hearted comment, similar to what you did when you told a poster not to waste his time debating with me. You can’t have it both ways.

Yes, it’s fine to say some on here demonstrate entitled behaviour. I didn’t insult a group. As I say if the cap doesn’t fit it’s not aimed at you and there’s no need to feel affronted.

 

[Fisherman]

It tells me that they don't want to spend a chunk of money putting infrastructure in and policing it for the little return they would achieve from it ...
Far easier to just ban it and stick a barrier up .
Tells me that they don't want to put impromptu campsites in place especially in unsuitable places (like the marine drive for example)
For every motorhomer/vanlifer that thinks a empty car park makes a great stop ...
There will be plenty of locals that think it's a blot on the landscape .

Let's be honest we're not talking about 1 or two units parked discretely out of the way of folks and habitation ...
Were talking about what looks like a linear campsite as folks just WON'T behave discretely .
And if it's anymore than £5 there will be a raft of folks saying it's too expensive and it's their RIGHT to park overnight wherever they like .

Ok you and I don’t agree here.

The difference between us is I think councils are there to serve the public, that’s why we elect them to do so, and why we pay our taxes.

Now opening up the floodgates in Scarborough with no proper limits, was bound to cause issues and end in tears. Up here we have councils who have acted responsibly in an attempt to serve us as members of the public. But they have not simply said come here and park for the night. They have put in place measures to control what we do, and in the whole whilst things are not perfect they have worked.

Most have applied overnight charges normally £10 enforcement is put in place as it is for other vehicles, and in some cases larger bays are provided for us.
I have been in contact on a regular basis with Fife Coastal Trust, who quite frankly have been a stalwart on our behalf. Many local businesses in Fife have benefited from us, and in some cases they have been consulted for their opinions.

Councils provide facilities for all different kinds of people, with differing needs.
I can inform you that Fife Coastal Trust have spent a six figure sum but hope to recoup their expenditure in three to four years, and that’s without any regard to the benefits to local businesses.

Highland council have taken a pragmatic approach to this issue, setting up Aires, elsan points, and even in two locations showers. They have dealt with this issue, and are dealing with this issue, and the demands placed upon them greatly outweigh any demands that would have been placed on Scarborough.

So in my honest opinion what this all comes down to is attitude, and a willingness or not to provide us with what we need. And what we need is not unlimited unconditional access to what is a very busy English coastal resort, what we need are the appropriate measures to offset what has sadly become the norm, and to provide as much harmony as possible for ALL who wish to visit your childhood location, and a place that means much to you. Not everyone else apart from us.

 

[mistericeman]

Ok you and I don’t agree here.

The difference between us is I think councils are there to serve the public, that’s why we elect them to do so, and why we pay our taxes.

Now opening up the floodgates in Scarborough with no proper limits, was bound to cause issues and end in tears. Up here we have councils who have acted responsibly in an attempt to serve us as members of the public. But they have not simply said come here and park for the night. They have put in place measures to control what we do, and in the whole whilst things are not perfect they have worked.

Most have applied overnight charges normally £10 enforcement is put in place as it is for other vehicles, and in some cases larger bays are provided for us.
I have been in contact on a regular basis with Fife Coastal Trust, who quite frankly have been a stalwart on our behalf. Many local businesses in Fife have benefited from us, and in some cases they have been consulted for their opinions.

Councils provide facilities for all different kinds of people, with differing needs.
I can inform you that Fife Coastal Trust have spent a six figure sum but hope to recoup their expenditure in three to four years, and that’s without any regard to the benefits to local businesses.

Highland council have taken a pragmatic approach to this issue, setting up Aires, elsan points, and even in two locations showers. The have dealt with this issue, and are dealing with this issue, and the demands placed upon them greatly outweigh any demands that would have been placed on Scarborough.

So in my honest opinion what this all comes down to is attitude, and a willingness or not to provide us with what we need. And what we need is not unlimited unconditional access to what is a very busy English coastal resort, what we need are the appropriate measures to offset what has become the norm, and to provide as much harmony as possible for ALL who wish to visit your childhood location, and a place that means much to you. Not everyone else apart from us.

I'd agree with the council is (or SHOULD) be there to serve it's constituents and tax payers ...

Issue for me is IF I lived in Scarborough ...would I want MY taxes spent on providing facilities for visiting motorhomes, that even as a motorhome owner I can see that they possibly don't spend a great deal locally .
I can also see that a great line of them around the marine drive is detrimental to the locality .
And beleive me I've driven past both in the motorhome and car and it looks like something from the NEC when the motorhome show is on ...
Some with BBQs going and even the odd fire pit ablaze,awnings out and chairs etc deployed .
Perhaps IF folks could be trusted to just park AND do so in small numbers we wouldn't face barrages of complaints ...sadly 'some' folks cannot manage to act in a civilised manner .

Whichever way you look at it a small number of folks has now been swelled by the promotion of "wild camping" in the media and on the Internet ...to the point of us being viewed as a epidemic in certain honeypot areas ....
And councils don't want to OR can't afford to deal with that in a manner that suits us ...
However they will deal with it in a cost effective way to their complaining constuents by just putting barriers up etc.

It's a shame BUT when you get actions like at one of my fave low key spots at the back of RAF valley on Anglesey that was enjoyed by locals and visitors for years ...

The armed RAF guards from Valley used to drive around the perimeter every now and again
and we're always happy and often would chat and share a brew and a biscuit ...

Until one weekend some entitled mouth breathing knob parked accross the emergency access gate to the airfield and refused to move even when asked nicely ...

So now there's a huge steel gate accross the access to the whole area stopping even the locals driving down to the area to walk their dogs .
And to be honest I can't blame them .

 

[barryd]

I'd agree with the council is (or SHOULD) be there to serve it's constituents and tax payers ...

Issue for me is IF I lived in Scarborough ...would I want MY taxes spent on providing facilities for visiting motorhomes, that even as a motorhome owner I can see that they possibly don't spend a great deal locally .
I can also see that a great line of them around the marine drive is detrimental to the locality .
And beleive me I've driven past both in the motorhome and car and it looks like something from the NEC when the motorhome show is on ...
Some with BBQs going and even the odd fire pit ablaze,awnings out and chairs etc deployed .
Perhaps IF folks could be trusted to just park AND do so in small numbers we wouldn't face barrages of complaints ...sadly 'some' folks cannot manage to act in a civilised manner .

Whichever way you look at it a small number of folks has now been swelled by the promotion of "wild camping" in the media and on the Internet ...to the point of us being viewed as a epidemic in certain honeypot areas ....
And councils don't want to OR can't afford to deal with that in a manner that suits us ...
However they will deal with it in a cost effective way to their complaining constuents by just putting barriers up etc.

It's a shame BUT when you get actions like at one of my fave low key spots at the back of RAF valley on Anglesey that was enjoyed by locals and visitors for years ...

The armed RAF guards from Valley used to drive around the perimeter every now and again
and we're always happy and often would chat and share a brew and a biscuit ...

Until one weekend some entitled mouth breathing knob parked accross the emergency access gate to the airfield and refused to move even when asked nicely ...

So now there's a huge steel gate accross the access to the whole area stopping even the locals driving down to the area to walk their dogs .
And to be honest I can't blame them .

Pretty much sums it up I'm afraid. The more I read the more I'm convinced I'm right about the straw man situation Scarborough council created. Hung by our own petard.

It's a win win for the council as the free for all parking will indeed have been unpopular with locals just like it is on the now over subscribed nc500. So the council have won. They haven't had to spend anything and their voters will see them as taking action they approve of by sweeping away the mile long row if white boxes spoiling their sea front.

 

[Fazerloz]

I never said it wasn’t easily workable. I said it would be expensive to introduce, maintain and monitor (with patrols overnight). They’ve looked at the cost of that and decided it’s not worth it for the small percentage income we’ll bring.

They’ve had complaints from locals, anti social behaviour and concerns by the emergency services. They have to do something so they’ve chosen the cost effective option, as no one owes us anything.

Usually when these accusations and claims have been made in the past by councils when a freedom of information request for a list of complaints has been made there are usually none or only 1 or 2 and councils are simply lying about the number of complaints. It has been discussed many times in the past here.

Again you state "They’ve looked at the cost of that and decided it’s not worth it for the small percentage income we’ll bring" as fact, Just because you state something as fact doesn't make it so, when it is just an assumption. Your post #61 in reply to my suggestion says "I agree, but I suspect the council have looked at the cost of introducing"
In reality it would seem you simply do not know.

I'd agree with the council is (or SHOULD) be there to serve it's constituents and tax payers ...

Issue for me is IF I lived in Scarborough ...would I want MY taxes spent on providing facilities for visiting motorhomes, that even as a motorhome owner I can see that they possibly don't spend a great deal locally .
I can also see that a great line of them around the marine drive is detrimental to the locality .
And beleive me I've driven past both in the motorhome and car and it looks like something from the NEC when the motorhome show is on ...
Some with BBQs going and even the odd fire pit ablaze,awnings out and chairs etc deployed .
Perhaps IF folks could be trusted to just park AND do so in small numbers we wouldn't face barrages of complaints ...sadly 'some' folks cannot manage to act in a civilised manner .

My post #42 would address most of that.

 

[Robmac]

Usually when these accusations and claims have been made in the past by councils when a freedom of information request for a list of complaints has been made there are usually none or only 1 or 2 and councils are simply lying about the number of complaints. It has been discussed many times in the past here.

Again you state "They’ve looked at the cost of that and decided it’s not worth it for the small percentage income we’ll bring" as fact, Just because you state something as fact doesn't make it so, when it is just an assumption. Your post #61 in reply to my suggestion says "I agree, but I suspect the council have looked at the cost of introducing"
In reality it would seem you simply do not know.

My post #42 would address most of that.

Oi, enough with the facts already Chris!