North Yorkshire Council
Environment Executive Members
27 March 2026
Results of the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO)
prohibiting overnight motor caravan parking on various streets, including at Sandsend, Scarborough and Cayton Bay and the proposals for a permanent Traffic Regulation Order
Report of the Assistant Director - Highways and Infrastructure
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To report to the Corporate Director Environment and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation the outcome from the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) to prohibit the overnight parking of motor caravans between the hours of 11pm and 7am at two locations on the East Coast of North Yorkshire.
1.2 To gain approval for the making of a Permanent Traffic Regulation Order replicating the restrictions of the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order in parts of North Bay, Scarborough and on parts of the A174 between Whitby and Sandsend.
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 Following the introduction of the ETRO in November 2024 to prohibit the overnight parking of motor caravans on North Bay in Scarborough and on the A174 immediately south of Sandsend village, North Yorkshire Council has been undertaking a consultation on the impacts of the prohibitions and needs to determine the way forward in advance of the ETRO expiring in May 2026.
2.2 It must be noted that the original ETRO included a third site at Cayton Bay south of Scarborough. Unfortunately, due to episodes of vandalism to the signing, we were unable to obtain an appropriate period with the regulation in place to have a meaningful trial of the prohibition here.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 There have been previous measures introduced to deal with local residents’ loss of amenity in response to this issue.
3.2 On 28 June 2012, an 18-month Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) was introduced which prohibited the overnight parking of motor caravans, 11pm to 7am, all year round on various seafront streets. On its expiration, a further TTRO was made on 13 January 2014 which expired on 22 July 2015.
3.3 A proposal for a Permanent Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to replace the Temporary Order was consulted upon in May-August 2014 and in early 2015.
3.4 The report to Business and Environmental Services Executive Members of 31 July 2015 documents the reasons for the temporary prohibition, and the resultant decision was not to continue with restrictions on those streets with no directly adjacent dwellings (Appendix A) The differing degrees of ‘loss of amenity’ suffered by road users and residents was a key factor considered when making this decision. The Permanent TRO was made on 17 August 2015.Table 1 summarises the situation.
3.5 The ETRO came into force on 25 November 2024 at North Bay, Scarborough and on the A174 near Sandsend north of Whitby. The reasons for the ETRO were listed in the original Report as:
· For avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising.
· For preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs.
Plans showing the 2 locations (Appendix B).
3.6 The reasons behind introducing the ETRO were laid out in Section 4 of the Report to the Executive Members 09 August 2024, and these are repeated below for ease of reference.
· In 2020, during the Covid pandemic, the incidence of complaints about vehicles parking for long durations including overnight, whether on roads or verges, and about activities associated with these vehicles reached an unprecedented level and complaints continued to be made to various council departments and to the police.
· A series of parking beat surveys were carried out over the Early May Bank Holiday weekend on 04, 05 and 06 May 2024. The locations were surveyed twice a day on all three days, once in the morning between 7am and 10am and again in the afternoon between 1pm and 3pm. If vehicles were observed on two consecutive days, an assumption has been made that they stayed one night; if observed over three consecutive days then an assumption has been made that they stayed two nights. The types of vehicles were recorded, as well as the number of marked pay & display bays larger vehicles were occupying.
· The parking beat survey findings showed that across all three locations, 210 vehicles were assumed to have stayed overnight, whether for one night or two.
· 76 (36%) of the overnighting vehicles were easily identifiable as motor caravans. 78 (37%) appeared to be small campervans and a further 29 (14%) appeared to be vans.
· Motor caravans are as welcome at seafront parking locations as any other vehicle in the daytime. But extended stays, which usually include overnight parking, restrict the ability of other visitors to find suitable parking when visiting the area for recreation.
· Where there are large number of motor caravans, the character of the streets can change to resemble a camp site, families/friends in different motor caravans were observed to have parked adjacent one another and were using the highway as a socialising space, sitting using portable chairs and tables, either next to vans or on the opposite footway. This interferes with the right of other highway users to enjoy the use of the highway.
· The local neighbourhood policing team had received many complaints concerning people camping in tents on the grassed areas adjacent to the parking on Royal Albert Drive. The complaints have centred around anti-social behaviour, having campfires and barbeques, leaving litter, and defecating on the grass. It appears that some of the camping may have related to those staying overnight in the motor caravans.
3.7 In considering the introduction of the ETRO other options were considered and ruled out due to the following reasons:
3.8 Mark individual parking bays at Sandsend. There have been calls for individual bay markings to be marked at Sandsend, so that longer vehicles have to buy more than one ticket in the daytime, as is the case at Royal Albert Drive.
3.9 It is not commonplace for individual bay markings to be marked for on-street parking bays, the exceptions are Royal Albert Drive/Marine Drive in Scarborough. Marine Drive is not part of the publicly maintained highway and is regulated as an off-street car park, necessitating individual bay markings. It is likely that bays were marked out on Royal Albert Drive (publicly maintained highway) because it is immediately adjacent the marked bays on Marine Drive.
3.10 Marking individual bays at Sandsend would generally limit the numbers of vehicles able to park, as generally more vehicles can fit along a length of continuous bay than if the bay was broken up into shorter, individual bays.
3.11 Charge for overnight parking. This has been considered as an option, but it is not currently proposed to introduce overnight charging for motor caravans at these locations. The charging for overnight parking would not bring the improvement to the amenity of the areas that are being sought as it is the presence of motor caravans effectively using the highway for camping that is adversely impacting the amenity of the areas.
3.12 There are many licensed campsites available in the local Scarborough and Sandsend areas and the highway authority does not wish to compete with or inadvertently harm these local businesses.
3.13 The Fire Authority has raised fire safety issues concerning the close proximity of the motor caravans when parked next to each other. Licensed campsites require six metres between parked motor caravans and overnight provision for motor caravans on the highway could only be made if parking in the three bays either side of a motor caravan were prohibited. It is not possible with current resources to regulate or enforce this.
3.14 Even if the loss of amenity issues could be overcome, there would need to be a review of parking policy before setting any fee. A comprehensive council-wide review of on-street and off-street parking is planned but the outcome of this review is some time away. Given the ongoing issues being experienced at the time, it was necessary to take action rather than await the outcome of the county wide review.
3.15 Allow some overnight parking of motor caravans on the highway or elsewhere off the highway. It is not currently proposed to cater for overnight parking of motor caravans on the highway as to do so would exacerbate the existing concerns around loss of amenity and fire risk. At this point in time, it is not considered a viable alternative option.
3.16 That said as part of the Council wide parking review Tourism and Leisure Services will be involved to consider options for the overnight parking of motor caravans. There is no timetable for the conclusion of this review and a decision on making the permanent TRO needs to be considered imminently.
3.17 The consultation was predominantly online with written submissions also being collated by the local Highways Office in Whitby.
4.0 CURRENT SITUATION
4.1 At the time of writing this report there had been over 3,000 responses to the consultation and these have been analysed with reference to the reasons stated above in section 3.6.
4.2 The current ETRO will expire on the 25 May 2026. Before then the Local Traffic Authority will need to determine what to replace the ETRO with, if anything.
4.3 With over 3,000 responses to the consultation attached (Appendix A), there are many subject matters covered which are outside the scope of the ETRO and the decision whether it should be made permanent. Plus, there are options that North Yorkshire Council as the Local Highway Authority has already discounted as explained in section 3 above. North Yorkshire Council is planning a wide-ranging review of parking in Scarborough across the rest of this year as part of the Local Area Action Plan (LAAP) approach contained in the Council’s recently adopted Parking Principles document. With this also being rolled out to Whitby and Filey. The LAAP will give further consideration to the issues raised by the contributors to the consultation.
4.4 However, it is clear that there was an overwhelming response to the consultation objecting to the ETRO as shown below in Figure1.
Figure 1 – Respondent stance across all locations
4.5 As mentioned above we were unable to commence the ETRO in Cayton Bay due to persistent external factors, but it is seen above that over 2,500 people objected to it.
4.6 It may also be interesting to note that over 2/3rds of the respondents declared that they were motorhome owners, and of these 90% of them objected, or strongly objected, to the ETRO. A lot of the comments alongside these objections made reference to wanting to return to the locations to continue parking overnight.
4.7 A significant number of respondents also mentioned alterations to the arrangements to make it more manageable, acceptable or income generating. These included marking out larger bays in North Bay, Scarborough, charging for overnight parking, providing more facilities. In effect changing the parking areas to more formal camping areas for the motorhome users. These are things we have already discounted as detailed earlier in this report.
4.8 The main reason behind the ETRO was to improve the amenity of the areas through which the roads run and reduce the likelihood of danger rather than for long-term motorhome camping along with all the ancillary activities of motor caravan users in and around their motor caravan.
4.9 An analysis of the comments made showed:
·
For
responses generally objecting to the ETRO
i. 2049 make reference to motorhome users supporting local businesses and the economy,
ii. 1149 suggest implementing a small fee (typically £5 to £15 per night) with a number mentioning CAMpRA,
iii. 937 respondents do not believe that motorhomes are unsightly or cause an increase in litter, and
iv. 497 make reference to health, wellbeing, community or family.
· For responses generally supporting the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order:
i. 307 make reference to supporting the local economy,
ii. 201 suggest implementing some kind of fee to park motorhomes overnight, often as a means to reduce the number of motorhomes parking during the night,
iii. 196 reference litter, mess or motorhomes being unsightly and
iv. 52 responses make reference to health, wellbeing, community or family.
· For responses neutral to the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order or have their stance left blank:
i. 97 make reference to supporting local businesses and the economy,
ii. 65 reference implementing a fee to park motorhomes overnight,
iii. 41 reference litter or mess and
iv. 19 make reference to health, wellbeing, community or family
4.10 During the summer of 2025 our Civil Enforcement Officers visited North Bay 16 times and on five occasions found no motorhomes parking during the restricted times. However, on 11 occasions, the Civil Enforcement Officers found several parked Motorhomes during the period of the prohibition. A total of 25 PCNs were issued. At Sandsend, the Civil Enforcement Officers patrolled a total of 130 times and issued 30 PCNs. Given the number of vehicles seen parked at these locations during 2025 and the number of PCNs issued, this shows the prohibition is, in the main, being observed.
4.11 In order to obtain a snapshot of how the prohibition was working, and to gauge the level of motor caravan parking in the immediate area around the sites of the prohibitions, our consultant was engaged to undertake a survey in the early hours of the 16 August 2025. The results are shown on the table below.
4.12 Whilst it must be noted that no attempts were made to determine whether the motor caravans, camper vans or vans were occupied, it can be seen from the table there is a degree of motor caravan, camper van and van parking away from the prohibited areas and this will be explored further in the upcoming parking reviews.
5.0 LOCAL MEMBER ENGAGEMENT
5.1 A report seeking the views of the Scarborough and Whitby Area Constituency Committee was tabled at their meeting held on the 02 March 2026.
5.2 In the main Members were very supportive of the ETRO and wished to see the permanent Traffic Regulation Order made. Only one member was against the making of the permanent order as they believed the ETRO had displaced significant numbers of motor caravans into the residential areas in the South Cliff area of Scarborough.
5.3 The Member for the Weaponness and Ramshill division went on to say that if the permanent order was made, he would ask that the Corporate Director instruct consultations to commence immediately around the introduction of a similar ban on a number of roads in his division. He added that some of his constituents had, in his view, had to endure the presence of motor caravans and the associated anti-social behaviour for too long and it was not appropriate for the residents to wait until any results from the upcoming Local Area Action Plan materialised on site as he thought this could easily be 12 months away.
5.4 The Member for the Northstead division also echoed similar thoughts on two streets in his division.
5.5 Members also expressed the view that the Authority should look at providing facilities for motor caravans and thought locations such as the Park and Ride sites in Scarborough should be explored as locations where motor caravans could be accommodated in the future. With one Member saying that he did not want Scarborough to be known as “Anti-motor caravans” These options can be explored in the Local Area Action Plans.
6.0 OFFICER COMMENTS
6.1 Whilst it is clear that there is significant objection to the making of a Permanent Traffic Regulation Order that mirrors the ETRO at the two locations listed earlier, the vast majority of the objections are seeking to reinstate the overnight parking of motor caravans which will impact on the amenity of the area in a way that the ETRO was looking to remove. Officers feel, and Members at the Scarborough and Whitby Area Committee on the 02 March 2026 agreed, that the ETRO has had the desired effect to return the areas concerned to car parks and not locations that start to resemble camp sites with some motor caravans staying for extended periods of time.
6.2 Officers also recognise that other areas in Scarborough, Whitby and Sandsend have seen an increase in motor caravan overnight parking and some objectors state that this is because of the restrictions of the ETROs. Whilst this report cannot offer any immediate solutions to these other locations because there have been no formal consultations on any proposals for restrictions here, it might be prudent to look at starting the consultations on introducing some Traffic Regulation Orders similar to the ETRO at some key residential hot spots in Scarborough, as requested by the Member for the Weaponness and Ramshill division. The subject of motor caravan parking generally will be reviewed in the upcoming Local Area Action Plans for Scarborough, Filey and Whitby, but it is not thought that any meaningful restrictions will be in place this calendar year.
6.3 The view from the Members of the Scarborough and Whitby Area Committee on the 02 March 2026 that North Yorkshire Council should provide dedicated facilities for motor caravans needs to be explored further in the Local Area Action Plans, possibly alongside colleagues from Tourism and Communities. Officers at the meeting reminded Members that, currently, the Authority is not looking to be in competition with local registered camping sites and that there were a large number of privately owned sites in the vicinity to cater for those who wished to stay in the area overnight.
7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 Should the recommendation to make a Permanent Traffic Regulation Order be approved then there will be need for some overnight enforcement of the Order. However, looking at the enforcement carried out during 2025 and the effectiveness of the ETRO, this will not be considered impactful on the Parking Service team when compared to all their other duties. Any Fixed Penalty Notices issued will generate income to help offset the cost of any enforcement action.
7.2 Should the recommendation to make a Permanent Traffic Regulation Order be approved then there will be no requirement to alter the existing signage in the area. Should the recommendation not be approved, then the existing signage would have to be taken down at a cost of around £3,000. This would be met by the Highway Operations local team’s Signs and Lines budget.
7.3 If the Corporate Director, in consultation with the Executive Member was to instruct the local Highway Operational team to start consultations on similar restrictions in other defined locations in Scarborough, then this can be funded from the capital Signs and Lines budget, and staffing costs met from the general establishment.
8.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 The maintenance of highways, promotion of road safety and the management of traffic are statutory duties for the Council.
8.2 The Council has a statutory duty to communicate and consult specific customers for highway improvement schemes where the Council intends to implement Traffic Regulation Orders (restricting access, waiting or parking) under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984)
8.3 The Council is seeking to make a Traffic Regulation Order pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the RTRA 1984. Section 1 allows a traffic authority to make a Traffic Regulation Order where it appears expedient to make it and the Council seeks to make the order for these reasons:
(a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or
(b) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs
8.4 Section 2(1) of the RTRA 1984 enables a Traffic Regulation Order to make any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road, or of any part of the width of a road, by vehicular traffic, or by vehicular traffic of any class specified in the Order:
(a) subject to such exceptions as may be so specified or determined, either at all times or at times, on days or during periods so specified.
8.5 Section 122 of the RTRA 1984 confers a duty upon local authorities to exercise the functions contained therein to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway, having regard to (inter alia) the effect on the amenities of any locality affected.
8.6 The Council has carefully considered the balance required to be struck by Section 122 of the RTRA 1984 and is of the view that a traffic regulation order would be an appropriate measure to seek a balance between the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities and the effect on the amenities of the locality affected.This is based upon the view that there are adequate facilities for motor caravan parking off-highway in the areas around Scarborough and Whitby, and that overnight motor caravan parking brings with it a number of issues that degrade the amenity of the area.
8.7 There is other legislation that can be used to address some of the amenity issues that are experienced, which are as follows.
8.8 The Environmental Protection Act 1990, Section 88 allows the Council to issue fixed penalty notices for leaving litter. In addition, under Section 88A the keeper of a vehicle may be required to pay a fixed penalty where there is reason to believe that a littering offence has been committed in respect of the vehicle.
8.9 The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; Section 77 allows the Council to direct unauthorised campers to leave any land forming part of a highway.
8.10 The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Section 59 allows the Council to invoke a public spaces protection order which prohibits specified things being done in the restricted area and requires specified things to be done by persons carrying on specified activities in that area or does both of those things for a period of up to three years.
8.11 Officers consider that the non-highways legislation cannot adequately address the interconnecting and cumulative nature of the issues experienced due to the duration of stay of motor caravans and their proliferation in particular locations and because, except for the public spaces’ protection order, it is only designed to address some of the specific issues.
8.12 Whilst a public spaces protection order may have a similar effect, it would require renewal after three years, therefore in the longer term it would not be as suitable as a traffic regulation order as the problem has previously proven to be a continuing permanent issue which would recur without further regulation. If such an order were to be directed against overnight camping on the highway, it may prove difficult to enforce, given the difficulty in ascertaining whether a vehicle parked overnight on the highway was in fact being camped in overnight.
9.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
9.1 In making a decision the Council needs to consider its public sector equality duty as set out in the Equalities Act 2010 namely having due regard to eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation; advancing equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those that do not ; fostering good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those that do not. Consideration has been given to the potential for any equality impacts arising from the recommendation.
9.2 Particular regard has been had to the protected characteristic of age in the screening, and it is the view of officers that the recommendation, given that parking between the hours of 7am and 11pm is unaffected, there is not a significant adverse impact on any people who have the protected characteristics identified in the Equalities Act 2010. A copy of the Equalities Impact Assessment screening form is attached (Appendix C).
10.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
10.1 Consideration has been given to the potential for any climate change impacts arising from the recommendation and a Climate Change Impact Assessment screening form has been completed and is included. It is the view of officers that this recommendation does not have a significant adverse impact on any climate change factors (Appendix D).
11.0 RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
11.1 Comment from North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue indicates that whilst the motor caravans parking on seaside streets are not on an authorised campsite, the standards for authorised and informal campsites are that vehicles must park 6 metres apart, whether parked side by side or end to end, with no other vehicles or awnings within the six-metre space, as this prevents the spread of fire.
11.2 Model Standards for touring sites, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960 Section 5 are shown (Appendix E).
11.3 The Fire Authority has received a number of complaints and attended incidents on the Marine Drive / Royal Albert Drive and has concerns with regard to fire spread. Most vehicles will have Liquified Petroleum Gas on board. At night, the occupants of motor caravans are at more risk as they are likely to be sleeping, but the risk is present at all times.
11.4 North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue’s website www.northyorksfire.gov.uk gives the following fire safety advice: ‘Always ensure caravans and tents are at least six metres apart and away from parked cars, to reduce the risk of fire spreading.’
11.5 The Caravan and Motorhome Club website www.caravanclub.co.uk gives similar fire safety advice: ‘To prevent the spread of fire on site caravans should be placed with at least six metres between caravan walls and at least three metres clear between associated equipment (e.g. car, awning) and the adjacent caravan. On Caravan and Motorhome Club sites, pitches are always spaced out according to fire regulations for caravan sites but on Certificated Locations and rally fields, it is often up to you to ensure you are properly spaced.
12.0 PUBLIC INQUIRY CONSIDERATIONS
12.1 Regulation 9 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 outlines the circumstances in which the Council would be required to hold a Public Inquiry. The proposed Permanent Traffic Regulation Order does not include permanent restrictions on loading and unloading, or other elements which would make it a requirement to hold a public inquiry before a decision is taken as to whether to make the ETRO a permanent order. The mandatory requirements for a public inquiry under Regulation 9 are therefore not met.
12.2 That said, there is still a discretion under Regulation 9 to hold a public inquiry regardless of the mandatory triggers not being met. However, the Council does not consider that one is necessary in this case to understand the basis of objections to the order or that it would provide any significant benefit to the order making process, while serving to add further delay to the already considerable length of the process.
13.0 CONCLUSIONS
13.1 It is clear that the ETRO has succeeded in achieving the requirements stated in the Order and contained in section 3.6. Whilst it is noted that the consultation has given rise to a large number of objections to the ETRO, the vast majority of objections did not relate to the reasons behind the ETRO. However, so far as not related thereto, the objections and the comments made therein will be considered in the forthcoming Local Area Action Plan in Scarborough and Whitby in the near future.
13.2 However, it is felt that there are a few key residential locations in Scarborough where motor caravans, claimed to have been displaced by the ETRO, are causing problems and issues for the local residents. It may be considered appropriate to commence consultations on the introduction of some Traffic Regulation Orders in those locations in advance of any more general restrictions on motor caravan parking that may come out of the Local Area Action Plans.
14.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
14.1 As detailed in sections 3 and 8 and having given consideration to the S122 duty it is considered appropriate and proportionate to implement a Permanent Traffic Regulation Order with the same restrictions as the ETRO in parts of North Bay Scarborough and on parts of the A174 between Whitby and Sandsend is the preferred way to continue protecting the amenity of these areas and mitigate any fire risk going forward.
14.2 The commencement of the consultation process to consider the introduction of further Traffic Regulation Orders in key residential areas in Scarborough to deal with the problems caused by motor caravans displaced by the ETRO.
|
15.0 |
RECOMMENDATIONS |
|
15.1 |
It is recommended to the Corporate Director - Environment, in consultation with the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation that:
i. the results of the consultation are considered;
ii. the introduction of a Permanent Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit the waiting of motor caravans between the hours of 11pm to 7am at the locations shown on the plans contained in (Appendix B) is approved;
iii. the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) be authorised to seal the relevant Traffic Regulation Order by the Corporate Director – Environment and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation considering the objections received and that where possible the objectors are notified within 14 days of the order being made; and
iv. the Corporate Director - Environment ask that consultations on the introduction of Traffic Regulation Orders, similar in nature to the ETRO at key residential locations in Scarborough are commenced. These locations will be based on existing survey data and discussions with the local Members. |
|
|
|
APPENDICES:
Appendix A – Consultation emails and responses
Appendix B – Location plans for the ETROs
Appendix C – Equalities screening form
Appendix D – Climate Change Impact Assessment
Appendix E – Model Standards for touring sites, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
Report to the Executive Members 09 August 2024
Report to the Scarborough and Whitby ACC 2 March 2026
Barrie Mason
Assistant Director – Highways and Infrastructure
County Hall
Northallerton
27 March 2026
Report Author and Presenter – Richard Marr, Area Manager, Highways Areas 4 and 5