NO MORE OVERNIGHT STAYS IN SCARBOROUGH

[yorkslass]

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?

Correct.
Re, complaints by locals....the area used for overnighting can't be seen by residents, so the complaints, if there are any, are from people with too much time on their hands.

Re antisocial behavior...mainly from mcdonalds users...again you need to be there to witness it.

Re concerns from emergency services.....the road in question doesn't have any pinch points to cause access problems.

I dare bet that if a FOI was requested, the council would struggle to backup their statements.

 

[Fisherman]

Correct.
Re, complaints by locals....the area used for overnighting can't be seen by residents, so the complaints, if there are any, are from people with too much time on their hands.

Re antisocial behavior...mainly from mcdonalds users...again you need to be there to witness it.

Re concerns from emergency services.....the road in question doesn't have any pinch points to cause access problems.

I dare bet that if a FOI was requested, the council would struggle to backup their statements.

I just checked the current population of Scarborough its 61,908.
I just wonder how many complaints they received.
Let's be generous and say 50 complaints.
If correct that means that 61,858 were not bothered.

If you take 61,908 people, and perfectly behaved motorhome owners, you will still get complaints.
Its a fact that some out there simply don't like us, or confuse us with travellers.

As for anti social behaviour, I reckon without overnight parking, the incidence of anti social behaviour will remain almost the same.

As for motorhomes being crammed together, if we applied the 6M rule to carparks, then we would be taking up even more space in Scarborough and elsewhere. Even keeping 3M apart would double how much space we would require. It's simply not feasible to apply these rules in such situations.
If we did their would be a public outcry, dammed if we do, and dammed if we don't.

 

[Rolyan57]

Correct.
Re, complaints by locals....the area used for overnighting can't be seen by residents, so the complaints, if there are any, are from people with too much time on their hands.

Re antisocial behavior...mainly from mcdonalds users...again you need to be there to witness it.

Re concerns from emergency services.....the road in question doesn't have any pinch points to cause access problems.

I dare bet that if a FOI was requested, the council would struggle to backup their statements.

Re complaints by locals, you don’t have to overlook it to feel it’s not appropriate for your area. Plus you can witness the anti social behaviour and not like it.

Re the anti social behaviour. I and others have witnessed the barbeque, the fire pits, the awnings and the furniture. From motorhomers.

Re the emergency services, the Fire Brigade has expressed concern about the fire risk of so many being crammed in together, so close.

I’m sure the council could easily justify their stance, even if some motorhomers don’t like it.

 

[barryd]

I just checked the current population of Scarborough its 61,908.
I just wonder how many complaints they received.
Let's be generous and say 50 complaints.
If correct that means that 61,858 were not bothered.

If you take 61,908 people, and perfectly behaved motorhome owners, you will still get complaints.
Its a fact that some out there simply don't like us, or confuse us with travellers.

As for anti social behaviour, I reckon without overnight parking, the incidence of anti social behaviour will remain almost the same.

Just because tens of thousands haven't complained to the council Bill doesn't mean they won't have been bothered. It was indeed an eyesore at times and you can see some of the vans from properties I think and of course they are very visible from the front. I don't live in Barnard Castle or Richmond but they are my nearest towns and I wouldn't be happy if each time I drove into either there were a hundred motorhomes parked cheek by jowl all along the front or market place. Would I complain? Probably not but I would be happy for the council to move them on.

 

[Fisherman]

Just because tens of thousands haven't complained to the council Bill doesn't mean they won't have been bothered. It was indeed an eyesore at times and you can see some of the vans from properties I think and of course they are very visible from the front. I don't live in Barnard Castle or Richmond but they are my nearest towns and I wouldn't be happy if each time I drove into either there were a hundred motorhomes parked cheek by jowl all along the front or market place. Would I complain? Probably not but I would be happy for the council to move them on.

Barry they had options they could have used, but decided to open the floodgates instead.
I know you were joking earlier on with your remark about it being deliberate just to make a point.
But you may well have been correct.
Under the current arrangements set out by the council there are no limits to numbers or duration of stay, so these vans were abiding by the rules in terms of numbers and duration. What was wrong was how it was set up as a free for all.
Those vans had as much right to park there as a car had.
And this was always going to end this way.

Also Barry you are fully aware of the fb group the land weeps, you know fine well how we are perceived by some. You have been on their fb site. All it takes are a few complaints. Also are we the only people the council have had complaints about, I very much doubt it. I also note comments about table and chairs barbecues etc. as much as I don’t condone this type of behaviour, I have many times witnessed car owners doing likewise.

 

[barryd]

Barry they had options they could have used, but decided to open the floodgates instead.
I know you were joking earlier on with your remark about it being deliberate just to make a point.
But you may well have been correct.
Under the current arrangements set out by the council there are no limits to numbers or duration of stay, so these vans were abiding by the rules in terms of numbers and duration. What was wrong was how it was set up as a free for all.
Those vans had as much right to park there as a car had.
And this was always going to end this way.

Also Barry you are fully aware of the fb group the land weeps, you know fine well how we are perceived by some. You have been on their fb site. All it takes are a few complaints. Also are we the only people the council have had complaints about, I very much doubt it. I also note comments about table and chairs barbecues etc. as much as I don’t condone this type of behaviour, I have many times witnessed car owners doing likewise.

I wasn't joking Bill. I think they deliberately set us up for a fall and we did an excellent job of doing their dirty work for them.

Same up on the NC500 except thats an entirely different ball game over a huge area.

 

[Fisherman]

I wasn't joking Bill. I think they deliberately set us up for a fall and we did an excellent job of doing their dirty work for them.

Same up on the NC500 except thats an entirely different ball game over a huge area.

A bit of an oxymoron there surely Barry.
It was set up to fail, and it did.
As I said those parking in numbers broke no rules.
Either did those who spent a week or more there.
Human nature dictated this would happen.
Other councils up here have done this successfully, because they wanted it to succeed.

 

[JQB]

Sam old same old, and it’s becoming so boring to read.
So they have issues with poorly behaved motorhomes, who feel they have to justify themselves in how much they contribute to the local economy. Meanwhile Scarborough is awash with cars as far as the eye can see, and of course they are all well behaved never causing any issues, and contribute massively to the local economy.
And none of these car drivers ever start fires for a wee Barbie, do they now.

So they reckon they have to take “measures” because they have been inundated with complaints about us, here we go again. They could have limited the amount of these anti social poorly behaved motorhome owners, who can’t behave properly, and do little for the local economy. But what do they do, they completely ban us from parking overnight.

Possibly we should all start to complain about car owners who leave all their rubbish, or dog walkers who leave their dogs mess. Would this lead to a car ban, and a ban on folk walking their dogs, of course not, and neither should it.

100% correct on all points. I don't know what can be done to make these council people understand that we are not all antisocial morons, but you are up against the established propaganda spouted by
interested parties for years now, repeat falsehoods often enough and they become hard facts. As has been said before, councils have many business people on them, including vociferous b&b hotel & campsite owners. They spot you having a brew in the van and you therefore "don't contribute to the local
economy"

 

[JQB]

Sorry guys but whether any of us like it or would go there is not what really matters.
Obviously many do like it.

What matters is yet again we are treated like something wiped of the soles of my shoes, by people who obviously simply despise us.
They carry out their surveys to see if we help the local economy, and on that basis only they determine whether or not we should be allowed there. Have they carried out similar surveys for others who visit Scarborough, and if they don’t meet their criteria, would they ban them. And our country is awash with Scarborough’s, filled with petty ill informed people.

Rant over

Ah yes! If car drivers bring sandwiches and flasks of tea they should be banned!

 

[JQB]

The average time for a car to park when visiting places is four hours (source RAC). If people are visiting places like this, it would be unusual to be a single in a car. So if a car parks for four hours with just two in the car, they move on to make way for another car with two or more. They stay for four hours and another car can use that space. Then of course, there is the evening and nighttime economy. If a motorhome, even with four in it (I don't think I have ever seen that!) parks for 24 hours, they are going to spend far less than those in cars!

We are not the saviour of any town or business. As a proportion of spend, I would guess we are almost invisible to the spend of "normal" holiday makers. The sooner we as a group realise that no one owes us free or very cheap holidays, the more likely it is we would be welcomed!

Many pubs welcome vans to stay overnight,i suppose it's because we never spend any money?

 

[barryd]

Many pubs welcome vans to stay overnight,i suppose it's because we never spend any money?

I think they expect you to though which is why they do it. Presumably if you stay in a pub car park you want to use the pub. It wouldn't surprise me to learn though that some people turn up and don't.

 

[JQB]

Not at all. But why should we be allowed to park up and block (yes we do!) seafronts, sometimes for days on end and effectively push others out? The problem is that "we" only want to go to places that are either beautiful or have some other draw. With more places starting to provide Aire types of places, that is what we should be pushing for, not blocking sea front areas. But of course, there is another problem. "Us" motorhomers, who are spending in all of these places are now starting to complain that there is a charge to stop over and not at all like French Aires. Well, this is not France! If people are not prepared to pay a small fee to park up, they are not going to be spending much in the local area.

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?

Anti social behaviour? I know, it's all those pissed up drugged up pensioners in motorhomes guv! Do me a favour.

 

[JQB]

I think they expect you to though which is why they do it. Presumably if you stay in a pub car park you want to use the pub. It wouldn't surprise me to learn though that some people turn up and don't.

Looking on the bright side....

 

[JQB]

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.

Try to keep the toys IN the pram children!

 

[Fisherman]

Try to keep the toys IN the pram children!

My chainsaw is to large for a pram

 

[Fisherman]

I think they expect you to though which is why they do it. Presumably if you stay in a pub car park you want to use the pub. It wouldn't surprise me to learn though that some people turn up and don't.

Not if their names Robmac

 

[JQB]

Helmsley was a crying shame. I remember being surprised in the first place that they did it and impressed considering how popular and how busy it gets. We ruined that for ourselves (present company accepted). We are only as good as our lowest common denominator sadly.

It's not just here of course. I've seen it happen in France on Aires. The Aire is full but they will still come and cram in rather than just accept it's full and move on. Same applies to wild spots. Most of us on here I would like to think would move along if a spot was over subscribed but many actually see it as a good thing and will cram in.

I've all but given up in the UK and just use CL sites apart from some select places in Scotland and the lakes.

Never give up never give in. We just stayed one night in a nice quiet rd by a hedge between us and houses and nxt to a park. Thankyou Wisbeck, and for the fish 'n chips too, very nice.
There is always somewhere if we look hard enough.

 

[barryd]

Never give up never give in. We just stayed one night in a nice quiet rd by a hedge between us and houses and nxt to a park. Thankyou Wisbeck, and for the fish 'n chips too, very nice.
There is always somewhere if we look hard enough.

It's not just that. It just doesn't suit our style of motorhoming anymore. We don't use the van during the day as we use the bike and we tend to stay for long periods rather than move on each day. CL life suits us better in England for that really. Personally I would love to see more Aires set up like the one I found in Cornwall the other day and I would prefer the laws to be much more relaxed so they are dead easy to set up and take more than five vans. I recognise though that this does not suit everyone. If you don't have other transport you need somewhere to park closer to the action.

 

[Nabsim]

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

That word really winds me up these days. How is it being entitled to expect to be treated the same if I go to the coast in my car or in my van?

There is a massive increase in people in vans in this country, an awful lot living in them because if they didn’t they would be in shop doorways or tents in parks. It isn’t just people with a bit of cash holidaying, I know a lot who couldn’t afford to pay £10 per night to stay anywhere more than once or twice a month.

Government and councils are not fulfilling their responsibilities they are just moving folk along, at some point something will break.

 

[JQB]

Correct.
Re, complaints by locals....the area used for overnighting can't be seen by residents, so the complaints, if there are any, are from people with too much time on their hands.

Re antisocial behavior...mainly from mcdonalds users...again you need to be there to witness it.

Re concerns from emergency services.....the road in question doesn't have any pinch points to cause access problems.

I dare bet that if a FOI was requested, the council would struggle to backup their statements.

Clear concise thinking