Network Shrinkage
Comments
-
Its UNITS that count. THe regulators seem to be happy with 15 for the other club. Do they see a difference between vans and tents? The panning authorities dont so I doubt if Natural England would. Without asking we will never know.
0 -
David - I'd agree. I feel that the Club is extremely well-placed to make a positive representation to Natural England to review this rule. However, it needs to get some allies on-side beforehand.
We have a number of things in our favour, so the timing might be right to start this initiative;
- Generally, the planning laws in the country are being relaxed
- There are a number of Government-backed initiatives and grants to promoted farm diversification - particularly those relating to Tourism that should work in our favour. These are being taken up by farms wanting to add Glamping, and successful applicants can get up to a 40% grant. It just needs some joined-up thinking between Govt. Depts..
- The tourism trends are towards 'Staycation' so Visit Britian could also be a political Ally.
- The Club has excellent research that demonstrates the ££ spent by visitors in the rural economy.
In conclusion, a carefully strategised, evidence-based approach that brings together a number of parties around the table, might persuade Natural England to revise the policy.
It needs effort, careful lobbying and money spent on it with some professionals, but IMHO it could be done. I think the CAMC should lead this effort.
6 -
CG totally agree word for word. Ì've kept out of this post because I've made comments in the past about doubling the 5 van limit if size permits. This would go some way to halting the loss of cl's which go independent.
All the things you mention add weight to the debate plus the rise in van and mh sales is a positive factor.
C&CC are allowed 15 units so that could be argued also.
CMC seem to be very aware of the loss off cl's but do nothing to stem the tide. Recruitment is less than closures so what does that tell you about the future and that is to the detriment of members
4 -
Hi All,
The exempted status privilege that has been granted to the Club by Natural England, which enables us to operate CLs, comes from the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. That privilege applies not only to our CL operation, but also to all of our temporary sites and the more than 2,500 rallies that our Centres organise across the Country every year. The fact that the Act has survived intact for 58 years is a credit to all of the Exempted Organisations, who approach their activities in such a responsible manner through their codes of conduct and the behaviour of their members.
We need to be very careful that any argument for an increase in the number of pitches on a CL is not just viewed as a back door way of getting around the site licensing regime, which is a compliance requirement for the operators of commercial sites. Indeed, many of our members enjoy staying on CLs because they offer a more intimate experience and they would not necessarily wish to see them increasing in size.
The Club’s focus is on doing all that we can to grow the number of CLs, not the size of individual CLs, so that we have a balanced coverage across the country for all our members to enjoy.
Thanks
Maddie
2 -
Maddie
I am sure that none of us on here want either to put the Exempted Status at risk or try and encourage CL owners to convert to commercial campsites by stealth. But we seem to be faced with a situation where the number of new CL's is being overtaken by the number of CL's being closed for various reasons. If that is a continuing trend one could imagine that the number of CL's in five years time being down to around 2000 and falling. It would seem that with the demands for EHU and hardstandings to make CL's more appealing to "modern" users the cost of running a CL comes into greater focus and it is these changes that have sparked the debate on whether the 5 unit model is sustainable.
I was interested in Cholsey Grange comment:-
There are a number of Government-backed initiatives and grants to promoted farm diversification - particularly those relating to Tourism that should work in our favour. These are being taken up by farms wanting to add Glamping, and successful applicants can get up to a 40% grant. It just needs some joined-up thinking between Govt. Depts..
I imagine this involves the provision of (semi permanent) Pod type accomodation so it would be interested to know whether there were limits imposed on the number of units that could be installed without planning permission being required. Perhaps in the mind of the general public a Pod is more acceptable than a towed caravan, who knows?
At the end of the day we raise these questions and comments only in the interest of preserving the sustainability of the CL Network and as members we live in hope that the Club share that desire by exploring all options?
David
2 -
The Club’s focus is on doing all that we can to grow the number of CLs, not the size of individual CLs, so that we have a balanced coverage across the country for all our members to enjoy.
I'm sorry, Maddie, but Plan A isn't working very well so the people whose responsibilities include CLs need to look at Plan B, after all wasn't our very own GC who announced only 1 year ago that we would be ready for the future members, whatever they looked like. That sounded like they were investigating all options but apparently that isn't so.
Thank you for at least coming on here and offering a position, especially when many other departments,such as IT, refuse to become engaged in a conversation with CT members.
3 -
Well said Maddie. There are a vociferous minority of members hell bent on making CL,s larger and completely ignoring the fact that the very reason many members like CL,s is their small numbers and exclusivity.
These members are quite at liberty to use a club/commercial site with more units if they so wish but why do they want to force everyone else to because that is exactly what will happen if CL's are allowed more units.
I often wonder why some people are members of the club when they don't agree with anything the club stands for and these are the same people putting the exemption system at risk by condoning overbooking of CL,s etc.0 -
I do not think the minority or others on here are at all "hell bent" making cls bigger for any thing else but to try a way of making it more finacialy viable for those owners who that struggle with trying to keep their fees down,with ever increasing overheads,maybe yours is a "popular" well used cl in an area which is popular ,but without thinking of all those who may only get used during short periods and a small increase in allowed pitches, could help keep the network from shrinking further,
What ideas have you to increase the cl network,? or even more important stop the shrinkage
2 -
IMHO there is no way the club will successfully 'grow the number of CLs' whilst members expect any new sites to charge so little for what they offer.
Having run a successful CL for a few years now I would say to anyone thinking of opening one without ehu and only charging between £5 and £8 per night (as suggested on here) not to bother. Why should anyone expect someone to go to so much effort for such little reward?
As Cholsey Grange has said "Until members realise these facts - and stop expecting a farmer to be happy with £5/night - the decline in the network will continue as CL owners retire and the new generation seek a better return on their assets."
It isn't just a case of open up a field, stick a cesspit in the corner and a water tap. You have to keep the grass mown, take phone calls, answer emails, empty the bins, pull out those who get stuck, collect the pitch fees, insure for public liability, pay to test the electrics (if present), get a website and manage it (yes, that is a requirement these days if you want people to visit), defrost frozen taps....the list goes on and on. Why the heck would I do all that for less than £10 per night?
Now I hear you say 5 x £10 is £50 per night....sorry, if you have no ehu you probably won't be all that busy and rarely get a full house.
The fact that you can, with modern technology, be self sufficient without ehu is irrelevant...it's not what the vast majority of members want to do (at least for now). We've just invested nearly £3000 in fully serviced bollards and already, since 1st January, I've picked up at least 16 new visitors (65 nights) who would otherwise have not come because they want fully serviced pitches and it's still only the beginning of February.
We have members in the owners group who can count the number of nights they've been fully booked last year on one hand and they're not charging the earth either.
Times are changing and CLs have to change with the times if they want to still be here in a few years and that means putting in far more effort than in years gone by. Members are demanding online booking....it costs!
To complain about the decline in numbers of CLs and then slate new ones who come on board because they want to charge a realistic rate is unfair and contradicatory.
Until those who want 'all for nothing' accept that it's not going to happen the decline WILL continue.
Nicola
www.skybarnfarm.co.uk
Telephone: 01522 681218
Email: enquiries@skybarnfarm.co.uk
Site 965, page 402 of the 2017/2018 Sites Directory
Read our many wonderful reviews!13 -
Just for the record, Vulcan, please note that if at all practicable I would like to see a continuation of the 5 van rule but time and time again we hear from CL owners who state the economies just do not add up and more and more either close up, change their way of attracting customers by adding pods or lodges or expand the number of units and carry on being a small caravan site.
So what do we do? Just sit back and allow the number of CLs to carry on diminishing or look at viable alternatives? I want to be able to carry on visiting CLs for quite some time but in the last couple of years have seen myself visiting more and more small commercial sites, quite a few of them being former CLs.
Just this last fortnight I have stayed on 3 CLs, prices ranging from £11 per night to £17. I was happy to pay them all as they were in the right position but the dearer one had Service Pitches. The cheaper one admitted that he will have to increase his price as he can't sustain it at the current level yet his CL could quite easily cope with 8 units without spoiling the effect of space that CL visitors require.
Not every CL would be suited to expanding from 5 (indeed we stayed at one last year that restricted themselves to just 4 units) so any change wouldn't result in a worse environment if handled by insisting on a certain amount of space between units, and not using the club yardstick either.
Doing nothing will result in fewer CLs, that much is evident. Not a delightful prospect for me.
6 -
Nicola - you make a very good point. I think it's unreasonable to expect CLs to be "cheap" simply because they are CLs. I do believe that most members, like us, choose CLs because they are smaller, less crowded options than main club or commercial sites. Prices are clearly dependent on what facilities are offered but also on the nearby alternatives.
For example, last year we paid £20 a night for a CL near Clitheroe. Some would say that's too expensive for a CL. But for our £20 we had a HS serviced pitch, awning and the dogs included and wifi. The site had a very good shower and toilet. So, basically, the same facilities as many club sitesites, but shared between just 4 units while we were there. Oh, and glorious open views across the valley to Pendle Hill. Why would we want to pay £35 a night at the large commercial site just down the road but surrounded by trees, or £24 a night for the C&CC site down in the town itself? If CLs like this are to survive, folk must be prepared to pay the going rate.
3 -
Vulcan
In 1986 there were around 5000 cl's now there are around half that. What of the future.
Members are not condoning overbooking we are just looking at trying to find a way of boosting the levels back to where they were years ago. If new cl's can't be found, which is looking extremely likely, then doubling the pitches available will at least go some way to solving the issue. Done properly with the correct legislation will not put the cl system at risk.
We are in a situation, in certain areas, where there is no space for members to book cl's, in busier times.
Doubling pitches from 5 to 10 is still small
4 -
Not only do some members condone overlooking but some local councils do by virtue of the fact that they grant planning permission to sites that have broken the exemption certificate rules in order to make a case for more caravans, they should not be granted permission for this reason alone.
0 -
As a member who does not generally use CLs closures will affect the likes of me in as much as any dis[;aced outfits have to go elsewhere and reduce availability for all.
The main reason that I don't use CLs is that I don't trouble to seek out ones that I might use.
I would happily use a CL such as the one below and pay the asking price.
Nicola
www.skybarnfarm.co.uk
Telephone: 01522 681218
Email: enquiries@skybarnfarm.co.uk
Site 965, page 402 of the 2017/2018 Sites Directory0 -
There appears to be some discrepancy in what members consider acceptable for CL's. Some CL's are very roomy, others very compact and might be unable to accommodate more. Should any proposal for varying the figure be related to size?
Remain at 5?
Increase to 8?
Increase to 10-12, subject to space being >1 acre?
Until we really know what we want, it is difficult to formulate a lobbying policy.
0 -
We use CLs and small private sites on a regular basis. Many small private sites we use had previously been either a CL or a CS, but have just gone through the motions of gaining planning consent to expand the site. Some small private sites just went straight down the planning consent, rather than latch onto either Club. All are a legal way of providing pitches. These sites are still there, just in a different incarnation. One or two may have found the visits from site inspectors less than helpful, I can certainly vouch for conversations with a couple of CL owners who have thought this way, and have been happy to go down the private route. We have found lots of lovely private sites not allied to the Clubs, and if the day comes where the CL network doesn't suit us anymore, then we shall make a decision whether or not to renew membership. We are a long way from that point at the moment though.
It all depends on what the aims and objectives of the owners are in terms of setting up and running a CL. This isn't something visitors can influence, we are just there to use and enjoy whatever provision is made for us at whatever cost. At some point the objectives will or will not be met.
3 -
My opinion is that increasing the number of CLs will do nothing to help stop the decline of existing CLs which I suspect, in the vast majority of cases is because it just isn't a worthwhile proposition anymore especially if members are demanding more facilities but are not being prepared to pay for them. In fact, I would suggest that an increased number available to members could actually hasten the demise of those that are already struggling. We must look after those CLs that we already have and not just replace them with new ones as that is how I see the future.
2 -
CY, I've always advocated that if the number has to be increased to preserve the CL network then it be done on space per unit so that ones own space from current levels is not reduced, with a new maximum number, say 10 but negotiable.
4 -
Wonder how many of them have actually closed instead of having left the CC to join the C&CC or to become an independent/commercial site? Very sad news though!!
0 -
Yes very sad for those of us that mainly use CLs
It's difficult to see what we as members can do about it without knowing the reasons.
0 -
I tried to work that out on the last lot of announcements but unless they have a website its difficult to tell. They also seem to remove the CL's from the Club website before they make the announcement so difficult to check back unless as an individual member you used the CL in the past. Perhaps we could encourage the Club to say if a CL site is still available but not in the Club system, assuming the actual owners tell them?
David
1 -
Maybe the club would not want us to know, especially if the CL is still open or had its licence withdrawn due to some infringement.
0
