Prohibition of Motor Caravans in Scarborough area.

[GJH]

We used to surf there many moons ago, even then it was a pain for parking, now we prefer Whitby or Robin Hoods bay " less chavy"

Oliver's Mount is worth a second visit,

Andy

Whitby and Robin Hoods Bay are both part of Scarborough Borough (as is Filey) so covered by the proposed orders.

 

[GJH]

Just an excerpt from a useful post by @markh on a Spanish Police Facebook page:


The motorhomes have legal right to park in any place that other vehicles may, they can not be discriminated because of the type of vehicle that they are. Townhalls do not have any powers to ban motorhomes from parking in any place if the parking is allowed for vehicles.

Perhaps the next Funster who comments on the NYCC consultation might include that bit of Spanish legalise.

Why Rob? We don't expect this country to adopt the rest of the Spanish legal code do we?

 

[John & Joan]

According to the NMO web page "Membership of the NMO is free to everyone who supports the aims of the NMO. Everyone who supports the aims of the NMO are free to call themselves a member of the NMO." which really means that it is just a title dreamed up to try to pretend that it is something more substantial than it really is. If we know that then no doubt NYCC does as well and the pretence is likely to do more harm than good.

As regards the MTO, this discussion prompted me to have a look for the first time in ages. You appear to be the only one of the 800 putting in any effort John.

Membership does not require a fee to be paid. "Membership is belonging to a club : or belonging to an informal group". NMO is a group that wishes to be fee free and have an informal membership structure. That does not make the group a non entity.

The TMCTO website is only part of our group. Active discussion takes place on The Motor Home Tourism Facebook Group page rather than on the website. So yes it looks at the moment like I am the most active poster on the website. Keith has power restrictions over the winter. We keep a group of activists who are working in the background up to date with messages and discussions by email . Others post on the Facebook Group rather than clogging up the website. The main webpage is more of a reference tool for anyone to refer to.

This is deviating from the main point of the post. The overnight NYCC Motorhome Parking Ban consultation.

 

[gus-lopez]

Just an excerpt from a useful post by @markh on a Spanish Police Facebook page:


The motorhomes have legal right to park in any place that other vehicles may, they can not be discriminated because of the type of vehicle that they are. Townhalls do not have any powers to ban motorhomes from parking in any place if the parking is allowed for vehicles.

Perhaps the next Funster who comments on the NYCC consultation might include that bit of Spanish legalise.

You have to remember that it took years to get that sorted out. It wasn't ratified until 2014. Until then it was a war with councils erecting illegal "motorhome towaway"zone signs & the Spanish M/homers fighting back with signs for your vans explaining the illegality of the signs & that they did not exist under the driving codes.
Most of it was down to the hotels/camp site owners not wanting any competition & calling in favours from Mayors & officials who are likely to be family anyway.
Added to that was the same police enforcing regulations that didn't exist!!! then in the towns where the hoteliers/campsite owners ,etc; had got the mayor to erect said illegal signs they were being enforced by the "policía Local",a cross between traffic wardens, lollipop ladies & the mayor's tea-boys. Who actually work for the mayor & take instructions from him. What the law says doesn't come into it.
Now we have some common -sense although I carry copies because you'll still come across those who will attempt to bamboozle anyone who doesn't know it has been changed & that includes most policía local/mayors/etc.

 

[jezport]

Without having read any part of the thread but responding purely to the post title as one of many threads regarding Scarborough, I wonder why anyone wants to go there anyway? A horrible money grubbing environment charging the earth just for a pee Oh Please!
A retail community of tat shops selling the same crap, is there really anything there worth a second visit? IMHO

We used to enjoy parking below the cliffs at the front and waking up to the beautiful sunrise over the sea. There is also a really nice ice cream shop and good fish and chips and pubs, but if the council spent the money they have wasted on motorhome ban signs and bureaucracy they could have paid for better litter collection and a street washing machine ( the nain areas are paved with gull shite and bins over flow. If more people were attracted there then the council would attract more and better retailers.
So in many ways you are right, but for me I would visit if I could park on the sea front over night, I dont mind paying and I don't mind moving in the morning. At St Annes we see the sun set over the sea instead of rising, we pay for the privilege and the council keeps the town clean.

I wonder how much Scarborough Council has spent (wasted) on this silly scheme, its signs, legal fees, staff bills etc?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Bailey58]

No we don't @GJH but it may add a little to the argument. I don't plan to go to Scarborough ever again but there are those that do.

 

[GJH]

We used to enjoy parking below the cliffs at the front and waking up to the beautiful sunrise over the sea. There is also a really nice ice cream shop and good fish and chips and pubs, but if the council spent the money they have wasted on motorhome ban signs and bureaucracy they could have paid for better litter collection and a street washing machine ( the nain areas are paved with gull shite and bins over flow. If more people were attracted there then the council would attract more and better retailers.
So in many ways you are right, but for me I would visit if I could park on the sea front over night, I dont mind paying and I don't mind moving in the morning. At St Annes we see the sun set over the sea instead of rising, we pay for the privilege and the council keeps the town clean.

I wonder how much Scarborough Council has spent (wasted) on this silly scheme, its signs, legal fees, staff bills etc?

Litter and street cleaning are the responsibility of the borough council. The current consultation is county council. Saving on one would not affect the other.

As has been covered many times, the St Annes facility was able to be provided because Fylde Council did not have the legal barrier which prevents Scarborough Council from providing a similar one.

 

[GJH]

This is deviating from the main point of the post. The overnight NYCC Motorhome Parking Ban consultation.

Maybe, John, but councillors and officers will be well aware that the status claims of NMO are over blown and that will be detrimental to the argument rather than favourable to it.

 

[Bailey58]

And another thing @GJH, that lot over there, particularly the French, seem to adopt whatever EU laws suit them, we should be doing the same.

 

[GJH]

And another thing @GJH, that lot over there, particularly the French, seem to adopt whatever EU laws suit them, we should be doing the same.

We could have if we some people hadn't elected the Bliar

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jezport]

It is mentioned earlier in the spanish police facebook post about it not being legal to discriminate against one type o

As has been covered many times, the St Annes facility was able to be provided because Fylde Council did not have the legal barrier which prevents Scarborough Council from providing a similar one.

As far as I interpreted it there were no legal barriers, I may be wrong Graham but I'm not a lawyer and don't want to get into an argument over it.

Scarborough council claimed because they had refused planning permission for caravan sites before they could not authorize permission for motorhome parking as it would look like it was one rule for them and another for the previous planning requests. Which is total Bull. Planning regulations have changed right across the country over recent years. Every application is different and you cant just blanket ban all similar schemes just because of refusals for past applications.

Ten years ago I wasn't allowed to have a large garage on my land. I have recently built one with full planning permission. The planning guidelines were changed, and I say guidelines because different planning authorities still interpret the same guidelines differently.

Its an excuse, and is probably being used for the same reason that this proposed motorhome ban is being made. Its all well and good if a councillor who has financial interest in local caravan sites abstains from being involved with such schemes, but if they have been friends and workmates with other councillors for years are all the other councillors truly impartial and suitable to judge such schemes?

It would be nice to see common sense and unbiased reasoning being used by the council. And lets face it if they do so they could attract extra visitors as proved in St Annes. I and most motorhomers don't find parking outside houses or businesses where their presence would be detrimental acceptable, but Scarborough is very lucky to have loads of places ideal for motorhome parking. If they charged £5 per night to park overnight the scheme could earn valuable income for the area.

All they have to do is reprogram the pay and display machines in the sealife centre or the north shore seafront to take overnight parking and put signs up. They didnt need planning permission to put hundreds of no motor caravan signs up and as the vans are only parking not camping (putting tables and chairs and awnings out) the car park has not changed use. Flyde council saw it this way and even altered parking space lining to take bigger vans, but what they didnt do was make any spaces purely for motorhome use thus negating the need for any change of use bureaucracy.

 

[2657]

It is mentioned earlier in the spanish police facebook post about it not being legal to discriminate against one type o


Flyde council saw it this way and even altered parking space lining to take bigger vans, but what they didnt do was make any spaces purely for motorhome use thus negating the need for any change of use bureaucracy.

It takes a Lancastrian to see common sense
Is overnight street parking of motorhomes permitted in Lytham St. Annes.

 

[GJH]

It is mentioned earlier in the spanish police facebook post about it not being legal to discriminate against one type

But that only applies in Spain, Jez, not universally.

The Scarborough problem is nothing to do with planning guidelines being changed but the fact that because of the long standing policy, which has not changed, several private applications have been rejected. If Scarborough Council had given itself permission after rejecting private applications (especially as the policy would stay the same for future private applications) it would have been laying itself open to legal action being taken against it.

That would have meant a significant waste of council taxpayers' money. We might not be bothered about that but I bet Pappajohn would

 

[jezport]

It takes a Lancastrian to see common sense
Is overnight street parking of motorhomes permitted in Lytham St. Annes.

It is and was a problem but the council made a nice car park available for motorhomes and are looking at extending the scheme to cover another car park

 

[jezport]

But that only applies in Spain, Jez, not universally.

The Scarborough problem is nothing to do with planning guidelines being changed but the fact that because of the long standing policy, which has not changed, several private applications have been rejected. If Scarborough Council had given itself permission after rejecting private applications (especially as the policy would stay the same for future private applications) it would have been laying itself open to legal action being taken against it.

That would have meant a significant waste of council taxpayers' money. We might not be bothered about that but I bet Pappajohn would

Policy can be changed if required. It doesn't need to though. Parking a motorhome overnight without putting camping equipment out is simply parking which car parks are built for and already have planning permission.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

It takes a Lancastrian to see common sense
Is overnight street parking of motorhomes permitted in Lytham St. Annes.

One of the reasons for allowing overnighting at St Annes was to clear the way for on-street restrictions. As is stated in the Fylde report

Motorhome users had been petitioning the Council for many years to provide space on its car parks to enable overnight stays. In addition there has been an issue on residential roads in certain parts of the Borough, often by the sea and in particular by Fairhaven Lake, where motorhomes frequently park overnight to the dissatisfaction of local residents. Lancashire County Council had previously advised that no change would be made to on-street parking orders unless alternative provision was provided.

I don't know whether any restrictions have been brought in yet but if and when they are then they will be similar to those which are the subject of the NYCC consultation - i.e. only certain streets.

 

[GJH]

Policy can be changed if required. It doesn't need to though. Parking a motorhome overnight without putting camping equipment out is simply parking which car parks are built for and already have planning permission.

No it isn't Jez, not in this country. It may be the case in Spain and other European countries but that does not mean that it is the same here.

S1(4) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 defines a “caravan site” as “land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed”. Therefore, as soon as anyone brings a caravan (including a motorhome/motor caravan/camper van) onto a piece of land for the purpose of human habitation (rather than simply parking or storage) the land becomes a caravan site. It doesn't matter what the usual use of the land is (e.g. drive/garden, pub car park, farmyard, field). Neither does it matter what description (e.g. stopover, nightstop) is applied to the land; by virtue of S1(4) of the Act it is a caravan site as far as the law is concerned.

The vast majority of car parks have planning permission only for parking, not for use as a caravan site.

 

[GJH]

Going back to the point of the thread.

The consultation gives people a chance to make a case as to why not bringing in restrictions is in the overall public interest.
Claims of economic benefit which are unsubstantiated by facts will not do that because those who want restrictions will simply claim that spending is trivial.
Objections which are based on flawed understanding of the legal position will not do it either.

 

[pappajohn]

Think I'll buy a caravan....the proposed ban only applies to Motorhomes.

 

[pappajohn]

I wonder how much Scarborough Council has spent (wasted) on this silly scheme, its signs, legal fees, staff bills etc?

Probably as much as they did on new laptops for all town hall staff a few years ago....and by their own admission a large amount have 'disappeared' since.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jezport]

Think I'll buy a caravan....the proposed ban only applies to Motorhomes.

The thing is many motorhomes are not registered as a catagory M on the logbook they couldn't legally stop you parking if it's not on the logbook.

 

[jezport]

No it isn't Jez, not in this country. It may be the case in Spain and other European countries but that does not mean that it is the same here.

S1(4) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 defines a “caravan site” as “land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed”. Therefore, as soon as anyone brings a caravan (including a motorhome/motor caravan/camper van) onto a piece of land for the purpose of human habitation (rather than simply parking or storage) the land becomes a caravan site. It doesn't matter what the usual use of the land is (e.g. drive/garden, pub car park, farmyard, field). Neither does it matter what description (e.g. stopover, nightstop) is applied to the land; by virtue of S1(4) of the Act it is a caravan site as far as the law is concerned.

The vast majority of car parks have planning permission only for parking, not for use as a caravan site.

So Scarborough Council have got it wrong if they ban parking. We are camping and they don't mention it.

 

[Rapido925M]

What is the situation if you tow a caravan with a campervan and sleep in the caravan?

The documentation says to me that the campervan must be removed overnight: perhaps parked up on an "allowable" road and collected again the next morning. Or could one claim that the campervan was a car and allowed to park? - Gordon

 

[GJH]

The thing is many motorhomes are not registered as a catagory M on the logbook they couldn't legally stop you parking if it's not on the logbook.

The logbook doesn't matter. If the vehicle conforms to Directive 2007/46/EC it will be covered.

So Scarborough Council have got it wrong if they ban parking. We are camping and they don't mention it.

We all know that a motorhome being used for camping is also parked.

Why keep clutching at straws instead of providing valid reasons against the restrictions?

 

[jezport]

I've provided valid reasons and am now taking a lighter hearted pi$$ take view.

If you leave your table at home your van is no longer classed as a motorhome.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[wasp]

I filled it in and await a response, not, it doesn`t matter what anybody says or writes they have obviously made up their minds and they are just going through the motions.

 

[drivewaynewcastle]

I don't think banning motor caravans in scarborough is the solution but I just hope that these caravans would be responsible enough with their activities to avoid dangers, especially to those people who aren't even involve. Cheers