PDA

View Full Version : Scarborough Closing (maybe)



Chrissy
23-06-2009, 07:38
Hi EV1 just wanted to bring this one out in case members have not seen it. It is being supported by several other members who have sent objection emails - you don't have to use their car parks to make an objection???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrissy View Post
Hi, went to Scalby Mills overnight on Saturday and new notice has been posted saying under the road traffic act off-street parking blah blah that they are applying to change the parking criteria and that overnight a maximum of 4hrs will be allowed with a 2hr break in between - this will also apply to approx 7 other car parks including Marine Drive.

Please see this link to the appropriate report.

Report: http://democracy.scarborough.gov.uk/....aspx?ID=11238

I have emailed Mr Bedford the author and Cllr Backhouse the report holder and will let you know the outcome.

I have challenged them that most MH owners who visit the area and use the overnight parking facility do so for this reason and not necessarily to visit the area in particular and that an appropriate overnight parking fee would bring them in revenue and indeed not lose them the "birds in the hand" that they already have.

This is just my opinion and I don't propose to speak for anyone else but I would rather pay the 24hr charge of 5/6 than lose the facility all together.

I got their email addresses from the Council website so they are for anyone's use and I include them here should anyone else wish to try to get this proposal changed.

bruce.bedford@scarborough.gov.uk
cllr.andrew.backhouse@northyorks.gov.uk

Whoops, forgot to mention, this doesn't take effect fully until after mid July - I think it's the early 20th something. So not panic just yet

Thanks
Chrissy
This is the reply I have received

Sent: Monday, 22 June, 2009 16:21:59
Subject: Re: USE OF CAR PARKS AND ON-STREET PARKING BAYS BY MOTOR CARAVANS

Dear Christine
Thank you for your comments on the proposed order. I can assure you that the points you make were in Members minds when originally considering the options open to them. As this is a statutory process, objections submitted must be taken into account by the Council before confirming or rejecting the proposal.

Your e-mail will be taken as an objection and will be formally submitted to Members in due course, when they consider whether to continue with the proposal.

yours sincerely,

Bruce Bedford
Technical Services Manager
Scarborough Borough Council
Town Hall
Scarborough YO11 2HG
tel: 01723 232452
fax: 01723 503826
email: bruce.bedford@scarborough.gov.uk
web: Scarborough Borough Council Homepage - Whitby | Scarborough | Filey

if anyone else would like to make an objection then probably the more they have the more they will consider not going ahead with the proposal. I will send a copy of my original email if anyone wants it by Private Message, on request.

Cheers
Chrissy
__________________
Love n Life - both easy if U work hard at them

wilthebeast
23-06-2009, 19:00
Hi Chrissy,
Thanks for your post, being regular visitors to scarborough it would be tragic if this happens, so following your lead we have also sent an e-mail to BRUCE BEDFORD, as yet no responce but will let you know !
Got to say that all our friends on this site should do the same and oppose this proposal , THANKS AGAIN CHRISSY.

Chrissy
26-06-2009, 17:28
This is bumped mainly for Baconsdozen and robjmckinney

robert b
26-06-2009, 18:37
ive not had any reply yet from mr bedford

channa
26-06-2009, 18:44
I dont know if it will have any more impact, but I too will e-mail with a Scarborough address. I am registered on the electoral register there.

TBH the council attitude doesnt surprise me .....recession credit crunch etc ....and they think up of a way to hinder tourism and local business :mad:

Channa

robert b
28-06-2009, 13:02
went to scarborough sat and today realy bad sea mist all day and night but quite a lot of motor homes on front. i left pier at 0130 this morning and saw three parked on front just up from l boat station. so i think people are making the most of it

robert b
03-08-2009, 08:38
saw seven vans parked up at pumping station on friday night at 2am and two on front it looks like ban not working as yet,:)

Old_Arthur
03-08-2009, 09:06
we spent saturday parked on life boat car park then stayed the night on marine drive no probs :cool:

Chrissy
03-08-2009, 09:22
Hi

I posted a reply to Allan's post about 15mins ago but it hasn't appeared yet :eek: It's happended before to me though :confused:

Chrissy

robert b
03-08-2009, 13:31
hi chrissy ive sometimes had to post it twice

Chrissy
03-08-2009, 17:40
hi chrissy ive sometimes had to post it twice

Hi Allan, thanks for that, I actually stayed at Scalby the weekend before last and the sign had gone - just the cable tidy left on the post.

The council have not come back to me with any decision yet and they must do this as they have accepted my objection as being an official objection and accordingly they must let me know the outcome.

I will post when I have more info.

It would be a shame if this council do not want our custom, parking fees, shopping money, fuel purchases, activity costs etc.

Chrissy

wilthebeast
03-08-2009, 18:22
Hi Chrissy
Did send e mail objecting to the proposed parking changes. Spent last Friday and Saturday night on Scarborough Front - good news, no change so far. Paid our 6 per 24 hours and as usual, left no mess, rubbish or waste!
Noticed the boy racers still speed along the front as usual, and as usual no officials looking for them! Do you think there should maybe be some speed camera's there?? We don't do more than 15/20 on those cobbles in case we break a glass!!
I do think some council's/authorities priorities are somewhat misdirected don't you?

Baggins
03-08-2009, 18:26
Just fired off a short mail to Mr Bedford & Councillor pointing out the advantages of ANY sort of tourist income in these difficult times.

These councils just don't get it do they! Why can't they see the advantage of visitors staying on in their towns overnight when the council spend untold thousands in publicity trying to entice people to come at all. Accepted that the hotels/campsites do not benefit but pubs, restaurants and other service providers most certainly do.

I understand Teignmouth/Dawlish council (Teignbridge) have had many letters of support for their initiatve in providing space.

Motorhames/Campervans that are totally self sufficient should not be forced to use camp-sites and pay for services we do not require.

BW

robert b
03-08-2009, 19:06
hi crissy . i havnt had any reply either to my e mail i dot think they are to botherd about a couple of protesting emails. as we have been informed that one of them owns two campsites in scarborough

derekfaeberwick
03-08-2009, 20:56
Just fired off a short mail to Mr Bedford & Councillor pointing out the advantages of ANY sort of tourist income in these difficult times.

Motorhames/Campervans that are totally self sufficient should not be forced to use camp-sites and pay for services we do not require.

BW

Careful, it's our self sufficiency that worries them methinks.

LozSiBen
03-08-2009, 21:45
Hi

We stay on marine drive quite often, the last time was last Sunday night....never had a problem yet...other than the bloody seagulls tap dancing on the roof at 5.30 am :eek::eek:

Simon

lenny
03-08-2009, 22:01
Hi

We stay on marine drive quite often, the last time was last Sunday night....never had a problem yet...other than the bloody seagulls tap dancing on the roof at 5.30 am :eek::eek:

Simon

Good on ya lozi, the seagulls carry on is usually the result of some mischievous person chucking food on your roof during your stay:mad:;)

channa
03-08-2009, 22:24
Good on ya lozi, the seagulls carry on is usually the result of some mischievous person chucking food on your roof during your stay:mad:;)

More than likely, or a seagull joke ??..you can hear the little devils laughing on the cliffs!!! and one or two leave calling cards.

On a more serious note I agree with others, it seems that most councillors are so pre occupied with their own agendas that the people they serve and have been elected by are typically overlooked until election time.

No regard or scant regard at best is afforded to local businesses dependant upon visitors to provide an income, Tourist prevention officers.

Zoom forward a few years, Most of us know how different life can be in France and most of Europe and when we go there and leave home all alone we are welcomed.

I will bet my last pound some bloody council somewhere will spend taxpayers money to do a fact finding mission abroad on how to attract tourism.!!

It would be a joke but jokes are funny

Incompetent in respect of Scarborough is being kind

Channa

Baggins
03-08-2009, 23:29
Reply here from Cllr Backhouse - Not so sure of his unbiasedness though!


Dear Mr W
Thankyou for your e-mail, and the comments that it contains. May I make
it very clear that I have no personal gripe with the many hundreds of
responsible motorhome owners. It is, as usual, the few that spoil it for
the majority.
As a bit of background info my family have been involved with owning
caravan parks in the borough of Scarborough since 1971, and I am well
aware of the actions of the responsible owners. I am also well aware of
the services, and utility provision, that motorhomes require therefore I
cannot agree with your statement that says that "motor homes, being
entirely self contained, require no services that caravan sites supply".
Can you please tell me where motorhomes discharge their effluent, if not
at a waste disposal point contained within a caravan park, and where do
said motorhomes refill their water tanks?
Whilst as an authority we do not wish to discourage motorhomes it is the
comments received from members of the public and business world that we
are trying to address. They have raised comments about the choice of
area, i.e. Marine Drive, Sanside, The Esplanade, etc.
As you will be aware these areas enjoy our most pleasurable vistas, to
be enjoyed by everyone, visitor and resident alike, and yet they get
"hi-jacked" by dozens of motorhomes blocking the views for others. They
stay for days on end, effluent buckets visible to one and all, and
undertake activities more suitable to a properly licenced caravan park.
That aside, can I give you assurances that all comments received
regarding the proposed traffic regulation orders, will be taken into
consideration before any actions are agreed. At the time of reply we (
SBC) have decided to defer any decision on the above until our winter
period when we will have time to consult with a wide range of our
hospitality providers. We have already had suggestions of setting aside
specific areas for motorhomes, and this is just one amongst many
suggestions that we will be considering.
Can I make it clear, at this juncture, that if an area is agreed by
members, it WILL NOT BE THE AREAS OUTLINED ABOVE, for the reasons
stated.
I would also comment that our council does not assume that motorhome
users are poor, but clearly recognises that they are taking advantage of
the convenience of their choice of transport. There is a world of
difference between people who choose to sleep in vans, and the older VW
type motorhomes, and those who, for example, drive Hymers. Mercedes etc.
As an authority we welcome our many varied visitors and will continue to
try and provide accomodation, and hospitality, to fit all.
Thank you for your interest in the matter of overnight motorhome
parking, I am sure you will follow our determination of such proposals
with interest.
Kind regards
Cllr Andrew Backhouse

Baggins
03-08-2009, 23:55
I thought I should acknowledge his prompt reply as follows:

Thank you Councillor for your prompt and detailed reply.

I couldn't agree more with your comments about vans parked in front of businesses and homes spoiling the view for others and about waste buckets or any other camping equipment outside the van.

You will know that European regulations regarding Aires make quite clear that NOTHING must be outside the van.
My point about the self-containment of motorhomes was in the light of the Aire system. Your point about discharging waste and taking on water is part of the Aire system - quite often with nominal charges.

My plea is for regulated overnight parking in specified areas for limited time - 48 hours I think is reasonable.

Many thanks again for your time

WPW

2009/8/3 Cllr.Andrew Backhouse

Chrissy
04-08-2009, 08:32
Thanks to all who have an interest in this and especially to those who have sent an email to the council in support of our lifestyle choice.

I did suggest in my original email to them (available by PM if wanted) that a way round this would be to provide an area for us (at last resort if they decided to go ahead with the parking restrictions) so that we would not lose out completely.

At least we have now gained another few months and although they may be a little ruffled it looks like they are taking our objections seriously.

Thanks again
Chrissy

PaulC
04-08-2009, 09:24
.
As a bit of background info my family have been involved with owning
caravan parks in the borough of Scarborough since 1971, regards
Cllr Andrew Backhouse[/B]

Figures! But what do you expect? A clash of interests perhaps?

Old_Arthur
12-08-2010, 16:52
just recieved this email from scarboro council

PART II AREA COMMITTEE DECISION
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF TECHNICAL SERVICES (REFERENCE 10/433)
on
PROPOSED TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS,
SCARBOROUGH
DECISION
RESOLVED that:-
(i) the report be received;
(ii) the Traffic Regulation Orders be determined as follows:-
i) Weaponness Valley Road west side
A revocation of a 75m length of existing prohibition of waiting at all hours, on
all days, from a point 15m south of its junction with Valley Road for a distance
of 75m in a southerly direction.
The introduction of a 45m length of prohibition of waiting between 9:00 am
5:00 pm, on all days, from a point 15m south of its junction with Valley Road
for a distance of 45m in a southerly direction.
ii) Roseville Avenue, East Side
Provide a disabled badge holders bay, maximum of 3 hours stay, Monday to
Saturday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, from a point 7m north of its junction with Dean
Road for 18m in a northerly direction.
iii) Holbeck Hill Turning Cirlce and cul-de-sac
Introduce a prohibition of waiting, 8:00 am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday
around the east side of the turning circle and both sides of the cul-de-sac,
covering the frontages of nos. 72 to 84
iv) Holbeck Hill, West side
Revoke a 25m length of existing SCHOOL KEEP CLEAR marking opposite 64
and 66 Holbeck Hill, replace it with 25m of at any time prohibition of waiting.
v) Greenfield Road, south side
The recommendation to revoke the existing parking bays covering the
frontages of nos. 2 to 14 and replace with a prohibition of waiting, at any time,
be refused.
vi) Beaconsfield Street
Revoke the existing prohibition of waiting, at any time order which covers the
first 8m length of Beaconsfield Street, both sides of the road, from its junction
with Beaconsfield Street Back road.
Introduce a prohibition of waiting, at any time order to cover the radius of
Beaconsfield Street around no. 28 Beaconsfield Street, both sides of the road.
vii) Vernon Road western side, taxi rant
Replace existing taxi rank with disabled parking bay.
viii) Peasholm Gap, taxi rank
Increase the length of the existing taxi rank from two to four spaces.
ix) St. Nicholas Cliff, west side, new taxi rank
Provide rank for four taxis as close to Falconers Road junction was possible
allowing for safe turning movements.
x) That no further action is taken at the present time to implement TROs
concerning a proposed limit to periods of stay after 6:00pm to a maximum of
four hours for vehicles without appropriate exemption on the following streets
and off-street car parks:
Esplanade
Marine Drive and Royal Albert Drive
Queens Parade and Albert road
Seacliff car parks
West Pier car park
Quay Street car park
Northstead car park
Burnsiton Road car park
Sea Life Centre car park
xi) That no further action is taken at the present time to implement the advertised
TRO proposing a prohibition of loading on Aberdeen Walk south west side,
all hours, all days, from its junction with Albemarle Crescent for a distance of
15m in a north westerly direction.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. To address the varying road safety issues that have arisen at these locations
and to ensure the safe and effective management of traffic.
2. In the case of Greenfield Road, The Committee commented that, when
suitable funding was available, that they would like to see the feasibility and
cost of an alternative traffic scheme to be explored.
ANY RELEVANT INTERESTS DECLARED BY CABINET MEMBER AND ANY
DISPENSATIONS GRANTED
None
DATE OF DECISION:
Thursday, 22 July 2010
REFERRAL TO OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES:
Monday 9 August 2010
IMPLEMENTATION DATE (if no call-in)
Friday 13 August 2010
Signed Signed
Chairman Central Urban
Area Committee
Head of Technical Services
Date of signature
9 August 2010
Date of signature
9 August 2010


CLICK HERE TO REMOVE THESE ADVERTS