Network Shrinkage
Comments
-
By becoming a full blown site will still remove another members only CL from those available to us. Things change over the years. The five van rule was established 60 years ago (I believe) when caravans were not very common at all. It just needs the will of those involved to make changes happen.
1 -
I’m not against having the regulations changed but risking everything by breaching the current regs really isn’t the way to do it.
Campaign, by all means, but do it in the correct manner.
Frankly, any CL that regularly flouts his exemption licence wouldn’t get my business anyway.
3 -
The other Club is losing them too - a CS on a farm down here in Cornwall which won awards when a member of the C&CC has expanded to become a fully fledged campsite open to all. They now have 5 hard standing pitches plus 30 on grass spread over 5 acres, so are not cramming them in, plus caravan storage behind the farm - all legal and properly licensed and fully equipped - and it still scores 10 out of 10 on UKCS reviews. It's an obvious progression for farmers who want to diversify.
1 -
It’s the obvious and sensible thing to do, Euro, when circumstances permit and the site owner is to be congratulated for doing things in the correct manner and providing more pitches.
A CL/CS is not lost to members when this happens but is still there to be enjoyed by all.
0 -
Hi Sell
I do know this site as we used to visit when it first opened. Haven't been in a while so obviously some changes. May give it another try.
0 -
Tinwheel - That's why we think the CC should be making enquiries etc of the right people to see if a change is possible without any risk. As we know the Govment want to free up planning so this could be the right time before we loose even more sites. Likewise the local authorities have no wish to get involved in policing the 5 rule so whats the risk/problem
1 -
Thanks for that, SELL. Looks like the type of site we might use if we can't get onto College Farm, CL..
0 -
I have a feeling that we may have stayed there when a CL. If the same one the site used to be "run" in the name of 2 people and there used to be a small road separating two fields both allowing 5 units on each. If the same one then it was fine as we used it twice. Not that many in Brigg.
Have to check my records when back home.
0 -
Of course it would be nice if someone who looks after these affairs at EG could come on here and explain whether or not the club are actually bothered about losing CLs or are lobbying through channels to allow the expansion of those that can accommodate it, maybe based on a larger footprint per unit than that found on club sites. But of course they're not likely to mingle with us great unwashed.
3 -
We love College Farm - that's our weekend retreat
2 -
Ta, Sell. Think the village was Barnetby-le-Wold but having had a look in the sites directory can only see 1 site listed. I'm sure that there used to be 2 sites in the same family name. You could see the occasional flight coming into "Hull" airport from the site and as the site was higher than the landing area the planes used to appear below you (unless of course they were taking off).
Looks like another CL gone then.
1 -
Thanks, SELL. I'll have a look at their FB page.
0 -
Do members who continually advocate allowing more units on CL'c really understand the complexity of the issue. CL owners are allowed the extraordinarily unusual advantage of setting up a site without the need for planning approval due to the fact that the site is small and unobtrusive. If they wish to extend the site they are completely within their rights to apply for planning approval for a larger site.
Many local councils and individuals hate the unusual advantages afforded to CL's due to the fact that planning approval is not required and the most likely outcome of a protracted discussion on the number of units on a CL would be the end of the concession.
I have used CL's for 40 years now and in all that time sites have closed and new ones opened due to different circumstances, and most of the ones I use are happy with their lot. To a certain extent members are their own enemies in as much as they are demanding too much from CL's like internet booking, demanding full site facilities and perfectly manicured grass etc, and then they wonder why CL's are pricing themselves out of the market.3 -
That post is absolutely spot on. Well said.
0 -
Even the Vulcan bomber became outdated in the end and CLs will too. Life moves on and progress keeps happening.
0 -
Vulcan
I think if the Club were maintaining the number of CL's, even at the current level, with new ones coming on stream matching those that left the network I suspect most people would be reasonably happy. However it is the concern that there seems to be constant shrinkage of the network that has set people thinking how that might be put right. I think all this discussion is suggesting that all elements of CL's should be looked at. Increasing the number of units is just one element of that discussion. I am of the view that everything is up for discussion even if the conclusions are to maintain the status quo. There may be local authorities that don't like the current system but I imagine it would be up to Central Government to make the change and councils locally would have to accept that decision. Increasing the number of units on a CL to 6, 8 or ten from the current 5 would in reality have no impact at all on any of the locals.
David
1 -
Doing nothing will just see the hemoraging continue. Ok for oldies like me but the future certainly looks bleak. Those with rose tinted glasses need a dose of reality. What the answer is I don't know but surely the club should be looking at this and as David says everything should be up for discussion starting with input from existing Cls
1 -
CL’s and similar sites are covered by Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Amending this act Is unlikely to be a high priority, for the current Government imho. In my opinion the club could support CL’s more effectively by pulling there fingers out and actually putting relevant information on the website in a reasonable length of time. I have heard of a new CL relatively local to me has had almost no visits but it has been waiting 6 months for information and pictures to be uploaded.
Secondly the club could also spread the message that most modern LVs have all the necessary facilties built in, this would reduce the overheads for potential and existing CL owners.
1 -
Boff, have you suggested to the CL owner, close to you, to post on here and on the CC's FB page and advertise this way?
0 -
If we turned away from every problem because the issue was complex we would still be living in 1918 not 2018.
Where does the notion that many local councils and individuals hate the unusual advantages afforded to CLs come from? I'm curious where this list is.
If most of the CLs are happy with their lot why has it been that on the last 5 CLs that I have visited there have been more than 5 outfits. Is it because they are not happy with their lot and by allowing one more unit their income increased from £60 to £72 per night?
1 -
No doubt you told the club which sites were in breach of their exemption certificates, John, in an effort to protect the club from the possibility of losing its right to grant exemption. No?
1 -
Some here cant acknowledge that many Cls now exceed their numbers. In the real world who can blame them, and provided it did not seriously effect my stay there is no way I would report them. Its a cash business. They know Local Auth etc turn a blind eye. How often does a club person visit- probably never. Ok lets leave things as they are and keep on loosing the Cl network.
0 -
It isn't a case of not acknowledging it happens but a case of seeing the bigger picture and the knock on effect on us all if exemption regulations continue to be breached. Common sense, really.
1
