Whitby again tro

frontslide said:
Have we ascertained whether we can overnight on station car park in Robin Hoods Bay?
Click to expand...

I have just stayed 2 nights with no bother, there are no signs at all saying no overnight, as yet anyway, this may change under the new proposals but as at the 6 & 7th Sept i was ok and were 3 other vans, i paid £5 to park overnight
 
maureenandtom said:
I could cry.

There are a number of threads about Scarborough. People's interest began when there were a few complaints in the local press about Campervans camping where they will. The council began to do something about it and a few motorhomers (me among them) put our point of view to the council.

If you read the threads, you'll cry too. Search for "Scarborough" and then take your pick, in fact read as many as you can, and http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...-chat/13727-scarborough-traders-complain.html is a good enough place to start.

The council committee concerned (called the Traffic Review Group), with the help of one or two motorhomers, eventually came up with the idea of providing dedicated parking spaces in three car parks. They wanted to charge £10 for the parking with no other services to be provided for a trial period of one year.

An Aire, yes? Three of them. But, do you think this makes people happy? No, it doesn't. http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...6-sometimes-were-our-own-worst-enemies-2.html might give a hint of why it doesn't. But any of the threads might give you a little more insight.

It didn't makes all of us happy because . . .

Some of us hate Scarborough (Benefits on Sea, Scabbyborough, Scarbados, etc), or we don't like the proposed charge, or the council are ripping us off, or the locals don't like us or . . .whatever . . .

The upshot was that the proposals were held, by a separate part of the council, to be not in accordance with planning policy for the borough. But if they'd read some of the comments on here about their proposed Aires then I'm not surprised they withdrew them, planning policy or not.

I'm sure this makes some of us here very happy.

It could make me cry.[/QUOTE

The problem is, we create the problem.


It isn't hard with a bit of research to ascertain the legality of a tro,, however some people seem bent on proving a point which whilst maybe proven induces proper tro,s which inievitably brings restrictions .

Sometimes it is better to keep quiet and not alert the radar.

In the instance of Scarborough and Whitby we can expect official regulation and the restrictions accordingly

The mentalty of aire type stopovers is flawed in the respect that the attitudes of councils see it as managing a problem and certainly not in the spirit the French see things in incremental income for a given area.

That bit is important.

France is pretty relaxed about camping per se and few restictions seem to apply , it is seen as part of ones liberty.

This country doesn't and never will for a long time like any movement or behaviour which can't be controlled
Channa
Click to expand...
 
channa said:
[Q

The problem is, we create the problem.


It isn't hard with a bit of research to ascertain the legality of a tro,, however some people seem bent on proving a point which whilst maybe proven induces proper tro,s which inievitably brings restrictions .

Sometimes it is better to keep quiet and not alert the radar.

In the instance of Scarborough and Whitby we can expect official regulation and the restrictions accordingly

The mentalty of aire type stopovers is flawed in the respect that the attitudes of councils see it as managing a problem and certainly not in the spirit the French see things in incremental income for a given area.

That bit is important.

France is pretty relaxed about camping per se and few restictions seem to apply , it is seen as part of ones liberty.

This country doesn't and never will for a long time like any movement or behaviour which can't be controlled
Channa
Click to expand...


I don't agree. Oh, I do agree with most of what you say but not about keeping quiet. I will admit, though. that you may be right, that there's a time for keeping quiet - but you're not right about Scarborough. There the situation wasn't brought about by motorhomers not keeping quiet; not alerting the radar; it was brought about by Scarborough residents and, allegedly, Scarborough businesses, complaining. Things were happening anyway with or without any input from motorhomers.

The on street parking restrictions are the responsibility of North Yorks District Council and the on street restrictions there are being brought in by them. So far as I know, no motorhomer approached North Yorks Council. It was in response to NYDC's decisions that Scarborough Borough Council (responsible for off street parking, ie car parks) brought in the proposed trial of Aires but, I hope, also in response to my, and others, suggestions for the provision of an Aire type facility.

And ... the council agreed and voted for a one year trial of three Aires (let's call them Aires for want of saying "dedicated motorhome parking places" all the time).

It was no input from motorhomers that destroyed the trial. The council has been quoted here that their proposals for an Aire were overruled by planning policy.

But there you are mariesnowgoose, Channa isn't alone in thinking we should just keep quiet: " If anybody thinks it's worthwhile the local council should be approached, their fears/objections either allayed or squashed, and they should be challenged along the lines of Bigteepee's campaign."

I'd love to see somebody doing just that. It won't be me. Or, if it is, I won't be telling any motorhomers about it. How about you doing it? I can provide you with names and email addresses of the people to talk to. There's plenty of talkers here - not many doers. You could be a doer.


mariesnowgoose said:
Providing a car park for campers (an "aire" with/without facilities?) would certainly suit wild campers and solve some of their other parking problems.

Whitby, if memory serves me right, is a very busy little town with lots of tourists and I'm assuming (there I go with that dangerous word again) that parking is often at a premium.
Motorhomes and campers are easy targets in this situation. It very much depends on your local councillors. Therein lies the massive flaw as you have to bang your head on a brick wall for a very long time if you want any changes made. Depends how many "little hitlers" are serving on the council.

Maybe they voted against a car park facility for campers because of a fear they may be descended upon by gypsies? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "rumours" in Northumberland about parking restrictions for overnight camping there seem to suggest this as an "argument". Whether it is actually true or not I couldn't say as I'm not in possession of the facts.

They voted for it. Overruled by planners.

The council have obviously at least considered the possibility of providing parking facilities for motorhomes if the comments on this thread are correct, so someone somewhere has started to think about this and proposed it. Maybe whoever suggested it just needs some extra help and backing from motorhomers so they can go back to the drawing board and propose it again with the proper facts and arguments in place?

Details of those responsible have been published in these threads. Or I can give you their names and email addresses

They've taken the easy option of TROs (does this stand for Traffic Regulation Order? - I hate bloody acronyms!) instead of going down the route of finding a proper solution to campervan parking.
You need to find out why this didn't happen. Was it monetary? Fear of gypsies? Down to some ignorant/prejudiced councillors? Other practical problems? Who were the objectors and what were their reasons? What do the local businesses in Whitby think about campervans and do they understand their input to the local economy?


They say it was planners. But if they read our threads then we won't have endeared ourselves to them.

If I lived in or near Whitby or was a regular visitor, I would consider having a go at getting to the bottom of this and seeing if the situation could be turned around in a positive way.

If anybody thinks it's worthwhile the local council should be approached, their fears/objections either allayed or squashed, and they should be challenged along the lines of Bigteepee's campaign.

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...aires-urgent-help-needed-meeting-council.html
Click to expand...
 
I have emailed 2 of the councillors. One replied sympathetically, but with no answers. The other one didn't reply at all!
 
maureenandtom said:
I don't agree. Oh, I do agree with most of what you say but not about keeping quiet. I will admit, though. that you may be right, that there's a time for keeping quiet - but you're not right about Scarborough. There the situation wasn't brought about by motorhomers not keeping quiet; not alerting the radar; it was brought about by Scarborough residents and, allegedly, Scarborough businesses, complaining. Things were happening anyway with or without any input from motorhomers.

The on street parking restrictions are the responsibility of North Yorks District Council and the on street restrictions there are being brought in by them. So far as I know, no motorhomer approached North Yorks Council. It was in response to NYDC's decisions that Scarborough Borough Council (responsible for off street parking, ie car parks) brought in the proposed trial of Aires but, I hope, also in response to my, and others, suggestions for the provision of an Aire type facility.

And ... the council agreed and voted for a one year trial of three Aires (let's call them Aires for want of saying "dedicated motorhome parkidewng places" all the time).

It was no input from motorhomers that destroyed the trial. The council has been quoted here that their proposals for an Aire were overruled by planning policy.

But there you are mariesnowgoose, Channa isn't alone in thinking we should just keep quiet: " If anybody thinks it's worthwhile the local council should be approached, their fears/objections either allayed or squashed, and they should be challenged along the lines of Bigteepee's campaign."

I'd love to see somebody doing just that. It won't be me. Or, if it is, I won't be telling any motorhomers about it. How about you doing it? I can provide you with names and email addresses of the people to talk to. There's plenty of talkers here - not many doers. You could be a doer.
Click to expand...

Firstly, my address is Scarborough, and latterly filey, and yes I do take an interest in local politics.

I am and continue to be disappointed with the attitude of the council whilst having empathy for those residents who are subjected to inappropriate behaviour of motorhomers. Whitby really shouldn't come as a surprise.

I. Echo my original point in that the councils see a solution to a situation it seems beyond their grasp to encourage tourism to an area heavily dependant upon tourism furthermore with a short season and a climate not exactly mirroring the south of France.

Tourist prevention officers it seems

I know umpteen places to stop a night in this area , however irresponsible behaviour has raised the sheckles.

The proposed trial of Aires , would induce a lot of tros in lots of locations narrowing down something called choice
The same choice that we choose motorhomes to enjoy our recreation

Antagonising doesn't help.

Having recently wilded in Scotland not forgetting I full time so wilding is close to my heart, how long will it be before the hiighland council introduce trod that are enforceable? Why? Because someone had to spout that the nop signs were unenfoceable with no legal standing.

To be frank and contoversial if people are that reliant on being spoonfed info they should join the big clubs
I know because I have taken the time and trouble to work out the ' threatening' signs with no substance, why on earth would I be motivated to point out to authority their errors?

The whole aire thing here is flawed in the context that local authorities see a perceived problem and solution.

There is a total lack of understanding indeed an inability to consider any benefits......I assure you totally different to France
Channa
 
It is almost enough to send me back to boating, where you can wildcamp pretty much where you please!
 
I have been an active "do-er" in the past and my time is too precious to get involved in the antics in and around Scarborough and Whitby. What I was trying to say is that if someone feels so strongly about it there are rational and logical ways of trying to change things if they have the energy and nouse to do so.

It's fine to have a whinge (us Brits are good at it) but doing something to make a difference is a different kettle of fish, and not many people are prepared to go down that route.

I like to keep my head down when wildcamping, like many on here. The further away from other people the happier I am. Social "meets" are in a different category, and I enjoy those too for different reasons. If Scarborough or Whitby are no-go areas I shall just pass them by. The more popular any activity becomes the more followers and detractors/objectors you will get accordingly.

Catch 22.
 
Last edited:
kimbowbill said:
No, that's a no go as well, doesn't anyone read my posts, i have said i had no trouble parking in the station car park, jeez, i don't know why i bother sometimes

posted here but no body seems to read it

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...obin-hoods-bay.html?highlight=robin+hoods+bay

i won't bother anymore, i will find things out and keep them to myself, pfft
Click to expand...

Nope folk are too busy ruffling their feathers to read properly.

I full time as you know, for four years now and have had no problems, however it seems the weekend warriors I.e the greys of wherever are hell bent on challenging councils etc ....when keeping gob shut and a bit of knowledge is a. Better option.

Mine is a way of life not recreation and yes it piths me off
Channa
 
channa said:
Nope folk are too busy ruffling their feathers to read properly.

I full time as you know, for four years now and have had no problems, however it seems the weekend warriors I.e the greys of wherever are hell bent on challenging councils etc ....when keeping gob shut and a bit of knowledge is a. Better option.

Mine is a way of life not recreation and yes it piths me off

Channa
Click to expand...

I don't really understand this argument. Not having a go, I really am just seeking clarification. As I understand it, it is getting harder and harder to take a MH to Scarborough or Whitby. In which case is it not a good idea to challenge this. Personally I would not go to either if you paid me, but I would join in on a challenge to this policy (and have) as it seems to be becoming more and more widespread and therefore will affect places I would visit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top