Mildenhall site not opening 2017
Comments
-
It is interesting that my last post was removed when all that I said was that although some members prefer the more regimented 'vans in rows type of site with all facilities, there are also many like us who liked the more informal atmosphere of Mildenhall. The Club should be all inclusive, offering a range of sites to appeal to its members - we don't ask for the larger sites to be closed! It is worrying that the Club appears to be closing a disproportionate number of the non-facility sites.
2 -
Thank You Dianne T for the Club's response .
May I be permitted to add to this, My personal thanks go to the Volunteers, should they read this. I've only had good relations with them over the time I have used the Site.
I must say that we none of us thought that the pleasant little Fair Organ Recital we had just before I left would turn out to be a FAREWELL RECITAL !
Brian A B M
2 -
After contacting the club again for a 'real' reason not to open the site, I got this reply from the south eastern regional manager:
Thank you for contacting us regarding the closure of the Mildenhall site.
An email did go out on Tuesday last week explaining our decision to everyone who had bookings at the site, and a message was also put onto the Mildenhall page of our website. As stated in that previous communication, I am truly sorry that we have had to disappoint members at this late stage. We have been working hard over the winter period to determine the viability of continuing to open the site, and have only just had the final pieces of information in to steer our decision, hence the late notice. The decision is based on many factors including all those you have mentioned, but especially the amount of investment that we need to put into the site to bring it up to reasonable standards, particularly in view of the lack of security of tenure at the site.
We have spent a lot of time making sure that this is the right decision for this site, and it’s not a decision that we’ve taken lightly. Unfortunately, it is therefore not possible for us to open the site this year, as it should only take a few months for the necessary arrangements to be completed.
As you also mention, we have only a small number of sites in this area of the country – particularly around Essex, and we are working hard to address this going forward whilst ensuring that we make the best investments for our members. We are always happy to hear suggestions for potential sites to look at and, as you know this area of the country well, I would welcome any ideas you may have about this.
Yours sincerely,
Amanda Dunk
South Eastern Regional Manager
Caravan and Motorhome Club
This has still not answered the real reason, I await a reply to my response to the above email, as Mildenhall airbase is due to close and most base personell rent homes off base, then when they go home, there will be alot of empty houses, so can't imagine that the forestry commission will be able to sell the land for a developer, as there will be no call for these houses by then !
0 -
Just a thought GarryP,
Could it be that the C&MC has an eye or six on buying/leasing the Air-base as a new East Anglian Site perhaps
?Just think of the Hardstandings available, the room for "Newbies" to have Manoeuvering lessons, a nice big Play Pen, ditto dog walk .,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, and oodles of "Amenities Blocks" to be cleaned etc etc etc.
Guess I'd better go and rethink this
Brian
0 -
They could also make it the centre for the the yearly National Bash, sorry Rally, inviting a different centre each year to run it there. Sure to save loads of money that way.
0 -
Why do you need to know more? What is it about the current explanation that is not understood? The site is run down and needs money spending on it. The landlord won't give a long enough lease to make the expenditure worthwhile. The Club could leave it as it is but how well used was the site? I take it not well enough to justify keeping it open, so close it. Thats it, end of story, no further expanation needed.
peedee
0 -
Do you know this site well Peedee? Can you tell folks just what is wrong with the site at the present other than it being one that you personally would not wish to use? What part of the site is run down Peedee?
Does not not reach club 'standards' because it has no hard standing or perhaps because it is non facility?
No! I don't know either. As those that have used it seemed happy with it judging by the site reports over last year I suspect that the members wonder as do I. Obviously not something that holds any concern for you.
3 -
Whilst it would be interesting to have more exact details I do have some sympathy with Peedee's pragmatic comments. The decision has been made, a general explanation given and it seems that it won't be reversed so whilst we can question all we like the site will remain closed and lost to the network. Sometimes I get the impression that some people don't trust what the Club is saying.
As to the site conditions as I mentioned up thread it is extremely rustic and unlike any other Club site I have stayed on. The nearest would have been the old Sandringham site before it was redeveloped. We last stayed there in 2008 and conditions weren't great then so if conditions have worsened since then I could understand why the Club is saying that money has to be invested in bringing it up to an acceptable standard. For those that have not stayed at the site, have a look at the pictures in this site review Whilst some might say that looks quite natural many others would be put off.
David
2 -
Whilst it would be interesting to have more exact details I do have some sympathy with Peedee's pragmatic comments. The decision has been made, a general explanation given and it seems that it won't be reversed so whilst we can question all we like the site will remain closed and lost to the network. Sometimes I get the impression that some people don't trust what the Club is saying.
Peedee said that he could not understand what more folk wanted to know. I merely explained.
Sometimes I get the impression that some people don't trust what the Club is saying.
Whereas some have the impression that the club is being economical as to telling what is wrong with the site and wonder what the clubs philosophy is regarding non-facility sites.- Not that I expect that we shall get to know the reasons that the club consider the site to be 'below standard' whatever that might mean.
For those that have not stayed at the site, have a look at the pictures in this site review Whilst some might say that looks quite natural many others would be put off.
Pics look OK to me David and reviews for last year are good and that is the limit of my knowledge and is likely to remain so I expect
2 -
It would not be a site we would stay on, as there are no facilities. However, some are clearly disappointed that it is closing and would welcome a clear cut reason. That given is worthy of a politician.
The decision is based on many factors including all those you have mentioned, but especially the amount of investment that we need to put into the site to bring it up to reasonable standards, particularly in view of the lack of security of tenure at the site.
Is it top secret what investment would be required. Why not just say x pounds would have to be spent on x. This cannot be justified given the low returns this site generates. The current answer just glosses over the matter, as folk are having a difficult time understanding what significant amount of investment could be required on a non facility, volunteer run site.
3 -
I wondered what sort of investment would be required to do what work?
The site is run by volunteers and has no facilities so I'm curious what the investment is for. One assumes that the tools for grass cutting etc exist and might require servicing or replacing. Bookings were taken for this year, indeed volunteers knew the dates for preparing the site so it seems a rather late decision on the face of it. I don't doubt the lease will be up soon, but that shouldn't be news either. There is a desperate shortage of CMC sites in this area it's not like there is much other investment in the area. Indeed land prices must be taken into account with regards the latter. One assumes that there will be some financial costs involved with returning the site early, which, depending the investment required could offset the actual outlay for revenue.
I am under no illusion that once the decision has been approved it will be overturned but a decent explanation justifying closure would have been nice. After all we can all understand basic economics. That is investment X estimated income Y thus loss for Z number of remaining years or something similar.
Sadly after the fiasco of the Web upgrade and subsequent knock on effect to CL's followed by the rebranding exercise and costs incurred the trust I had in the club we joined, for the slightly cheaper rate on use of club sites, has been severely tested. Even emailing gets a stock response that doesn't address the issue suggesting it hasn't been read correctly, nothing to do with this thread in my case, and when you persist in trying to get a sensible reply from the right department you are deafened by the silence.
Rant over.7 -
The CDP at Mildenhall was in a little shed at the end of a footpath and not easily accessible for the less able. That is something I consider needed replacing. Everything else seemed fine though.
0 -
Thank you for saying so. I expected someone to pop up and say it was changed last year which would have blown that theory out of the water.
0 -
The shed had been removed and the standard facility was in place, and I assume you were on the main section backing onto the wardens area, however a bit further along between the 'spinnies' there is a standard more accessible CDP point (with a lid to keep forest leaves etc out), and next to that a standard service point, all the service points to my mind need no attention, agreed the gravel hardstandings were a bit uneven, but this is a rural forest site and as some say not regimental.
I appreciate that Peedee is fully entitled to his views, but clearly this is not a site suited to him, but it is for a lot of our local members who use it, and I don't know if we will ever get the full facts, but if we all sit back and say nothing when they keep closing off our type of sites, with no real facts only 'politician' answers then we won't influence them and then can't complain.
I am speaking & compaining on behalf of some of my friends who I introduced to the club and we all enjoy (enjoyed) Mildenhall, I have even seen Grenville tucked up the corner, so it can't be all bad.
Perhaps it is time for to lodge a "Freedom of Information" request ?
6 -
, I have even seen Grenville tucked up the corner, so it can't be all bad.
He has also stayed on the Wenlock site, and look what's happened to that. Perhaps he just goes to visit to spy out sites that can be closed down? Has he been seen at Baltic Wharfe or Bromyard Downs I wonder.
0 -
"The shed had been removed and the standard facility was in place"
Told you. That theory's out of the window then.
0 -
As I understand the situation:
1) There was not a material shortage of Volunteer Wardens - the coordinator role would have been easier with a few more volunteers available but it always proved possible to cover the open season;
2) The site was on an annually renewable lease agreement and the lease was annually put out to tender - presumably the highest bid winning the auction, hence Club comment on a lack of security of tenure;
3) The site's sewerage system needed upgrading at significant cost and the EHU distribution system was due for remedial work, again very costly.
So, a great deal of necessary financial commitment without any assurance that the site would continue to be available to the Club beyond any given 12 month lease period.
The above is my understanding of the demise of the Mildenhall Club Site. It's a shame but one can see the rationale.
1 -
Mick2, I am not sure where your details on the situation comes from and some of what you say might well be true, however I very much doubt that all the drains are beyond repair at one time, and if it was, why was this not picked up at the end of the last season, and a decision made then ? and I believe the lease had been done for the last 30 odd years on an annual basis, and still it kept going, and there is no other use for that land at present.
My main complaints are the way the situation was handled with members allowed to book for peak periods and then told to late to be able to book in at other nearest sites, and to advertise this site in articles in the latest magazine etc.
I will be attending the Anglia region question time this weekend so will be asking the questions, and guess where the nearest site to the meeting is taking place ? about 5 miles from Mildenhall, so quess where members would have stayed if they were travelling any distance ?
All the money wasted on this totally unnecessary rebranding would have covered any works to keep our local site open.
7 -
If reasons such as this were laid out I agree this discussion wouldn't be necessary and run to all these posts. I'm sure it will all have been read by HO but no comment has been made and the thread hasnt been closed.
GarryP I'd like to thank you for saying you'll be at the regional meeting and asking questions. It seems things are coming out now so you can put specifics. Please keep us posted.
0 -
If what Mick2 has said above is correct and I have no reason to question the detail it does explain why the Club has decided not to reopen Mildenhall. I think it is a red herring to try and link the cost of rebranding and keeping a site open as they are two totally different decisions. I suppose what this whole episode exposes is the lack of understanding within the Club to have proper, grown up, detailed explanations given to members. After all we are members and that is the least we should expect. There seems to be an inherent problem with communication between the different departments within the Club not just about Club sites. Look how long it took for us to get a proper explanation on why irons were removed from laundry rooms. Perhaps when Garry goes to his meeting he could raise the issue of being frank with members?
David
4
