Over night stopover in Ipswitch (1 Viewer)

S

Shubberdog

Deleted User
I found the following on another site:- :Smile:

Ipswich - Use it or lose it!
We enquired about motohome parking in Ipswich and had this reply from the Borough Council:
IBC is currently running a six month experiment (March - August) to allow motorhomes to park overnight in Ipswich on our Old Cattlemarket car park. The experiment has been live for some time now, however, we do not yet appear to have had a single motorhome customer thus far (we have not advertised widely because our agreement to run the experiment was made in response to another request from an organisation representing motorhome interests who said they would advertise to their members).

As such, it is difficult to know the long term future of this offer. I have spoken with our Parking Services team and have agreed that we should continue with the experiment for a longer period of time in order to see how things go. I am perfectly happy for you to also advertise availability and would make the following observations/requirements:-

1. The cost is currently £6 allowing overnight parking from 1800hrs to 0800hrs the following morning. Offer only available Mon-Fri eves. Car park must be cleared by 0800hrs when normal P&D/season ticket parking takes place. Motorhomes still parked past this time limit may be subject to a PCN. Parking not allowed Sat/Sun nights as car park used for other purposes.

2. I would suggest that you print the following telephone number (01473 432426) adjacent to your published information so that any intending customer can speak with our Parking Services team to make sure the offer is still available prior to arrival.

Please be advised that the Council reserves the right to withdraw this experiment at any future point in time.
 
Jul 29, 2007
6,526
39,280
Ipswich
Funster No
32
MH
RV and PVC
Exp
30 years
Hi its on the motorhome parking site with some pictures I supplied, as your reply from the council says, its only overnight and not weekends, so a bit of a half hearted response.

Olley
 

scotjimland

LIFE MEMBER
Jul 25, 2007
2,084
9,008
Suffolk Coastal District, UK
Funster No
15
MH
Timberland
As such, it is difficult to know the long term future of this offer. I have spoken with our Parking Services team and have agreed that we should continue with the experiment for a longer period of time in order to see how things go..

sounds like sour grapes to me, what extras did they provided for MH ? None !
So why threaten to remove the offer .. whether it's used or not is totally irrelevant.. it's costing nothing, someone has egg on thier face and a jobsworth 'I told you so' is rubbing it in .. this guy should get a job with the CC.. or maybe he already has :RollEyes:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

GJH

LIFE MEMBER
Aug 20, 2007
29,450
38,828
Acklam, Teesside, originally Glossop
Funster No
127
MH
None, now sold
Exp
2006 to 2022
sounds like sour grapes to me, what extras did they provided for MH ? None !
So why threaten to remove the offer .. whether it's used or not is totally irrelevant.. it's costing nothing, someone has egg on thier face and a jobsworth 'I told you so' is rubbing it in .. this guy should get a job with the CC.. or maybe he already has :RollEyes:

I think that's a little bit over the top, Jim.

Ipswich council could have turned round and delivered a flat "no" when asked to remove the No Camping restriction but they didn't. There is, as we found with Guisborough, work involved in relaxing the conditions in TROs and, like any other work, it doesn't come free.

What Ipswich have provided may not be much but at least it is something - and a lot more than most other councils provide - so shouldn't we be applauding that and encouraging use rather than criticising?

Graham
 

scotjimland

LIFE MEMBER
Jul 25, 2007
2,084
9,008
Suffolk Coastal District, UK
Funster No
15
MH
Timberland
What Ipswich have provided may not be much but at least it is something - and a lot more than most other councils provide - so shouldn't we be applauding that and encouraging use rather than criticising?

Graham

Hi Graham .. I don't think it was over the top ..

My point was, it was purely a paper exercise, cost them nought but because it hasn't been used (yet) they are considering rescinding it ?

If there was an ongoing cost I would understand.. but there isn't, so I can't see the logic, can you ?

Jim
 

GJH

LIFE MEMBER
Aug 20, 2007
29,450
38,828
Acklam, Teesside, originally Glossop
Funster No
127
MH
None, now sold
Exp
2006 to 2022
Not sure it did cost them nought Jim. Sometimes costs aren't obvious.

There would be a cost associated with the time taken to discuss the matter with the person who contacted the council in the first place and the subsequent internal discussions - OK, that might be termed "opportunity cost" but cost nevertheless.

There would be a cost associated with any variation of the TRO - as there was for Redcar & Cleveland Council with Guisborough. As the original scheme is a time limited experiment then there may be a cost associated with extending the variation rather than letting it die at the end of the period (which isn't quite the same as rescinding it).

I don't know if they have changed the signs - they said "No Camping" when Olley took the photos - but if they have then there would be a cost associated with that.

I think it's more important than the cost issue that the council was prepared to listen to a constructive approach and do something positive rather than just say no.

Agree to differ time again? :Smile:

Graham

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

scotjimland

LIFE MEMBER
Jul 25, 2007
2,084
9,008
Suffolk Coastal District, UK
Funster No
15
MH
Timberland
Not sure it did cost them nought Jim. Sometimes costs aren't obvious.

There would be a cost associated with the time taken to discuss the matter with the person who contacted the council in the first place and the subsequent internal discussions - OK, that might be termed "opportunity cost" but cost nevertheless.

There would be a cost associated with any variation of the TRO - as there was for Redcar & Cleveland Council with Guisborough. As the original scheme is a time limited experiment then there may be a cost associated with extending the variation rather than letting it die at the end of the period (which isn't quite the same as rescinding it).

I don't know if they have changed the signs - they said "No Camping" when Olley took the photos - but if they have then there would be a cost associated with that.

I think it's more important than the cost issue that the council was prepared to listen to a constructive approach and do something positive rather than just say no.

Agree to differ time again? :Smile:

Graham

Fraid so .. :roflmto:

There is no 'on going' cost, the committee tea party has been paid for, the signs put up but now they are disappointed the Pay and Display machine isn't bulging with MHers hard earned.. so the dummy is being thrown out of the pram..

agree to disagree .. :thumb:

jim
 
Jul 29, 2007
6,526
39,280
Ipswich
Funster No
32
MH
RV and PVC
Exp
30 years
Hi I applaud IBC's attempt to provide parking, but am not surprised its a failure, overnight parking is mainly of use if you are going somewhere like a ferry port, Ipswich is not really on any route to anywhere, so why stay overnight?

A much better idea IMHO would have been to use the TESCO park & ride, theirs toilets, water and dump already there, issue 24 hour tickets at £10 a time which include the buses, so people can come into Ipswich and spend some money in the local shops.

Olley
 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Funsters who are viewing this thread

Back
Top