SCARBOROUGH - No longer welcome :-(

[Allanm]

Is that Broadstairs Allan?

No, it's Tankerton, just outside Whitstable. On a positive note though, we do have 2 "aires" in Canterbury, so it's not all bad.
The No Motorcaravan signs are along Marine Parade. You can still park on all the side roads though, as many do, and there are a few car parks close to the sea front that have no restrictions on height or class of vehicle.
We still get loads of motorhomes parking on the front, mainly on the dead end part, most of which are kite surfers or sail boarders. Great fun to watch.
Allan

 

[stevensson10]

Anyone interested in seeing how the campaign to object to the parking ban should look here Broken Link Removed

don't comply with any of these illegal signs they cant enforce something that's not legall steve

 

[GJH]

don't comply with any of these illegal signs they cant enforce something that's not legall steve

The thing is, Steve, that the current signs do have legal standing. They are backed by the temporary order discussed above.

 

[GJH]

No, it's Tankerton, just outside Whitstable. On a positive note though, we do have 2 "aires" in Canterbury, so it's not all bad.
The No Motorcaravan signs are along Marine Parade. You can still park on all the side roads though, as many do, and there are a few car parks close to the sea front that have no restrictions on height or class of vehicle.
We still get loads of motorhomes parking on the front, mainly on the dead end part, most of which are kite surfers or sail boarders. Great fun to watch.
Allan

Thanks Allan. I didn't realise Canterbury City Council covered so extensive an area and I'd missed the on-street restriction because it applies to all caravans not just motor caravans.

 

[dave newell]

Maybe its just me but I really don't see the problem with Scarborough not allowing overnight stays either on the seafront or in car parks. A quick look via Google suggests there are about a dozen or more campsites within a few miles so why not use those, they have all the facilities you could need between them.

D.

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

 

[jezport]

In mid season you can't get on a nearby site and out of season they are are closed.

In Scarborough the seafront is at the bottom of a cliff so the views of any premises are not blocked, the roads are wide and the parking of vans overnight does not inconvenience or obstruct anything. The area is deserted at night, so what harm is overnight parking doing.

 

[jezport]

The temporary traffic order ran out on the 22nd of January.

 

[Ber090]

Maybe its just me but I really don't see the problem with Scarborough not allowing overnight stays either on the seafront or in car parks. A quick look via Google suggests there are about a dozen or more campsites within a few miles so why not use those, they have all the facilities you could need between them.

D.

No sites this time of year unless you want to risk muddy grass on cl!
Cheers
Bernie

 

[dave newell]

No sites this time of year unless you want to risk muddy grass on cl!
Cheers
Bernie

Not a problem for me as I don't want to visit Scarborough at this time of year.

As for not being able to get on a site in high season all I can say is Really?? Somebody manages to otherwise they wouldn't be full! Last time we were up that way in high season (admittedly more than ten years ago so things may have changed) we had no problem getting a pitch and that was first week of August.

D.

 

[GJH]

The temporary traffic order ran out on the 22nd of January.

Thanks. I've sent an e-mail to my contact at NYCC to ascertain the current position.

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

 

[GJH]

In mid season you can't get on a nearby site and out of season they are are closed.

In Scarborough the seafront is at the bottom of a cliff so the views of any premises are not blocked, the roads are wide and the parking of vans overnight does not inconvenience or obstruct anything. The area is deserted at night, so [HI]what harm is overnight parking doing[/HI].

Obviously the council has a view. Have you asked them for details?

In any case, it is not a matter of "what harm". As mentioned last night it is a matter of justifying discrimination in favour of motorhomes. Have you provided the council with any real evidence why it might be in the public interest?

 

[jezport]

Obviously the council has a view. Have you asked them for details?

In any case, it is not a matter of "what harm". As mentioned last night it is a matter of justifying discrimination in favour of motorhomes. Have you provided the council with any real evidence why it might be in the public interest?

The council replied by saying they had received reports of waste being dumped as their reason for the ban, nothing else. When asked for proof of the complaints they could not supply any and said that it was anecdotal.

 

[GJH]

The council replied by saying they had received reports of waste being dumped as their reason for the ban, nothing else. When asked for proof of the complaints they could not supply any and said that it was anecdotal.

Fair enough, they've given a reason. That deals with "Have you asked them for details?"

Now, what about the evidence that allowing on-street camping might be in the public interest? Where is that? Because, as sure as eggs is eggs unless such evidence is produced it will be difficult to prevent the temporary order being replaced with a permanent one.

Any will be rather hollow then won't it?

 

[jezport]

We spend money on food beer and other things my kids spend at the amusements etc. Is this not good for the area.

BTW all CCC sites in the area are closed out of season and there are no locol seafront sites showing on google.
We took our kids there many times and enjoyed watching the sunrise at around 5am. What harm are we doing and why should we be prevented from doing it, does it harm or inconveniences anyone? I think not.

 

[GJH]

We spend money on food beer and other things my kids spend at the amusements etc. Is this not good for the area.

BTW all CCC sites in the area are closed out of season and there are no locol seafront sites showing on google.
We took our kids there many times and enjoyed watching the sunrise at around 5am. What harm are we doing and why should we be prevented from doing it, does it harm or inconveniences anyone? I think not.

This is just going round in circles.

Simply saying "we spend money" is no less anecdotal than allegations of waste disposal and can easily be countered by an argument that others are put off from visiting and spending money by the presence of motorhomes camping on street.

If NYCC is to be convinced that a permanent order is not in the public interest then they must be shown clear evidence that such is the case.

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

 

[jezport]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--*
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--*
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

If we remain silent we will end up with nowhere to stop.

 

[GJH]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--*
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--*
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

[HI]If we remain silent we will end up with nowhere to stop.[/HI]

Dear me. Please read posts before commenting.

It isn't a matter of remaining silent, it is a matter of speaking out in a constructive manner rather than simply complaining and saying "I want" all the time.

It is fine to point out that signs such as the ones in Highland had no basis but nobody will ever overturn a properly made legal order just by whinging and claiming, without foundation, that it is invalid. The only way to change minds is to produce evidence to show that it is of benefit to do so.

 

[jezport]

I think Andy is trying to be constructive, if you can help or offer him any advicethen please contact him I'm sure he would welcome any help

 

[Techno]

Just go to Europe Scarborough is shite anyway

 

[1_man_and_his_dob(lo)]

I love Scarborough! Spent many hols there when a child. Lots of lovely history stuff there, including first Grand Hotel in Europe, first English seaside resort (17th century), the home of my ancestors. Come from a long line of Scarborough pub keepers! Plus wonderful Alan Aykbourn plays at the Theatre.

I had a lovely couple of days visiting Scarborough last September, while attending their annual jazz festival. First time I've been there. Stayed at the C&CC site and walked along the coastal path into town. Nothing happened to make me not want to visit again. Did I miss something?

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

 

[Viennese]

Yes Neil! Luckily you missed all these miserable b***ers who complain about it all the time. Why don't we have a go at Torquay or Brighton for a change? ...Weston Super Mare, now there's a dump!

We also stayed at the C&CC site 2 years ago and walked into town - nice evening sun, a drink at the Scalby Mills pub on the way and dinner at the Royal Hotel, with taxi back. Lovely evening! :thumb:

Catherine

 

[GJH]

I think Andy is trying to be constructive, if you can help or offer him any advicethen please contact him I'm sure he would welcome any help

We'll have to agree to differ then because my impression is that he is going about it the wrong way.

Mounting stunts like staying in a car (not motorhome) where motorhomes are restricted (between Christmas and New Year when enforcement officers were on holiday) is simply daft. Making claims that signs are illegal when they are backed by a properly made order is a waste of time. Not providing any evidence that a change of policy would be economically advantageous implies (at the very least) that he has no such evidence.

I did comment a few weeks ago when he posted on the wild camping forum. Several other people commented in similar vein. In general the comments were not what he wanted to hear. Result, he threw his dummy out of the pram, insisted that the whole thread was removed and went elsewhere. So much for welcoming advice.

 

[jezport]

We are here in Scarborough. There are about 7 vans parked up on the front and we will see if the parking wardens hassle us at 11.00
The council have put notifications of the new temporary traffic order for 2014 on lamp posts around the area

 

[GJH]

We are here in Scarborough. There are about 7 vans parked up on the front and we will see if the parking wardens hassle us at 11.00
The council have put notifications of the new temporary traffic order for 2014 on lamp posts around the area

So the council can ticket the vans and make some money or just ignore the stunt for what it is - something aimed at provoking confrontation.

Is the stunt going to make them change the order? Highly unlikely. Either way they don't lose and can issue tickets in future whenever they like.

 

[jezport]

We have woken to find we have not been ticketed even though the chief executive of SBC was warned we would be here

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

 

[GJH]

We have woken to find we have not been ticketed even though the chief executive of [HI]HSBC[/HI] was warned we would be here

What's a bank got to do with it?

 

[jezport]

SBC bloody phone changed it

 

[jezport]

BTW the parking of motorhomes and any other types of vehicle is free between 7.00am and 11.00pm out of season. It is between 11.00pm and 7.00am that we are banned from parking.

The sealife centre carpark still has no overnight parking ban signs. Don't know if the council are deliberatly but unofficially leaving it that way for motorhomes, because if you contact them their reply is that overnight sleeping in their carparks is not permitted.

 

[stevensson10]

scarborough

We have woken to find we have not been ticketed even though the chief executive of SBC was warned we would be here

good but I believe its only because its quiet and they've relaxed the so called.if it had been in the height of season it would have been a different story.but im confused whats a bank manager got to do with it. good on you for trying anyway regards steve:thumb:

 

[GJH]

[HI]The temporary traffic order ran out on the 22nd of January.[/HI]

[HI]The council replied by saying they had received reports of waste being dumped as their reason for the ban, nothing else. When asked for proof of the complaints they could not supply any and said that it was anecdotal. [/HI]

We are here in Scarborough. There are about 7 vans parked up on the front and we will see if the parking wardens hassle us at 11.00
[HI]The council have put notifications of the new temporary traffic order for 2014 on lamp posts around the area[/HI]

SBC bloody phone changed it

All the highlighted posts refer to on-street orders made by North Yorkshire County Council so that prompts a similar question - what relevance has notifying the chief executive of Scarborough Borough Council to the matter?

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