What constitutes an awning?
Comments
-
Steady BB, you’ll ruffle the feathers of the ‘rules is rules’ proponents😱. Ask yourself-does logic really have a place on CT?🤔
0 -
I agree, thats why I always book an Awning pitch even though I might or might not put out my wind out canopy.
I was once told by a Warden (at Meathop Fell) to wind my canopy in, on a non awning pitch, because a new arrival ,on the next door Awning pitch ,had a large full awning to put up. Never again. I used to stick to non Awning pitches before that, to allow Caravanners with awnings to have them. Not any more.
A canopy with front AND side panels IS an Awning, but with just a side wind break OR front privacy panel its still a canopy, BUT i dont like ambiguity, So Awning pitch it is.
0 -
As one faces the pitch, the car and, by logical deduction, a MH canopy should be on the left. On a non-awning pitch it therefore follows that a MH would need to always go nose in if wishing to deploy a canopy. On an awning pitch, there is theoretically more space enabling a MH to deploy a canopy either side. Will this cause the "facing doors" brigade to have an attack of the vapours?
0 -
All we are trying to do is answer that question posed in the OP, that being 'What constitutes an awning?" It should be all about clarity not semantics. After all, this is a question which comes up time and time again on CT and is never really resolved in my opinion. Similar discussions, I guess, must also be had by staff on site on a regular basis with probably as little end satisfaction and clarity as we witness here.
How about new definitions primarily driven by the firebreak restrictions.
- A two unit pitch would accommodate the motorised vehicle and one other item i.e. Car and caravan or motorhome and awning .
- On the three unit pitch this would allow car, caravan and awning or car, motorhome and awning.
In both instances, as now, 'minor' pieces of kit i.e. Pup Tent or windbreaks etc could be included only when on pitch and confined within firebreaks.
A work in progress? Definitely, just a starting thought, probably in need of refinement but some clarity may be starting to emerge in my opinion, I'm sure more work is needed, maybe better names and other suggestions could be helpful but end result may be much clearer as is evidently much needed.
0 -
The application of your logic depends very much where the peg is positioned, CY. As you know, all units can pitch either nose in or rear in.
4 -
Careful on this one m, the minute you look at making one pitch officially larger than another, you are entering the pitch pricing scenario, and we all know how that will end up! CintheF used to sell pitches based on size. Not sure if C&CC do.
Edit: this gives you some of options, check out some of the eye watering prices!
https://www.campingintheforest.co.uk/campsite-facilities/pitch-types
0 -
CintheF have a similar arrangement to the C&CC in that very large camping units have to book two pitches etc. Both do discounts and C&CC members get a 15% discount with CintheF. You can still get a cheaper pitch by booking non EHU. The pitch costs vary with what you choose, unlike the CAMC who charge the same for awning, non awning or grass.
With CAMC I tend to choose awning pitches as these are the same price as non awning and on most sites they will be more spacious. We use our Thule roll out for rain, not just sun.
1 -
I'm not changing my awning from nearside to offside for anybody
Which side is your habitation door cy?....
2 -
Ours would go over the roof..... But only give a half metre cover on the other side
Edit.... and the legs would be sticking up in the air
1 -
It would stop you opening the Heki so that’s no good.
2 -
Now what type of pitch would this outfit be permitted on and what reasoning would prevent it going on the other? Could it go on either? Logical reasoning would be helpful in answering the OPs question!
0 -
perhaps you're right, Rocky.....
0 -
obviously, those of us who have anticipated this situation and bought continental vans, can reverse in (and extend canopy) with impunity...
1 -
I digress.....is that photo taken at Thorpe Hall Site Micky? Inside walled garden?
0 -
Or is it the old C&CC site at Clumber?
0 -
Like so many aspects related to the photo I don't know, didn't take it, just came across it on the Internet and it made me think about issues associated with the OP.
However, I put it down to Clumber having stayed there severa times before its closure and it looks familiar.
0 -
But it's no longer than many caravans or motorhomes. The point I'm making is that only ' the computer says no' reasoning is applied here no logic and no firebreaks broken. Thing is, if we tip up at site and choose our own pitch, and such a unit does fit no problem on a pitch then why not? The driving issue is firebreaks not construction material or positioning of that material isn't it and such a unit would fit on the vast majority of all pitches.
But if you are saying we are to be ruled by just words with no reasoning then that's okay I guess as long as we all understand this but this is rather a jobsworthian answer to many I guess. However, it's good to discuss such anomalies and misunderstandings because these are always behind thread like this which raise their heads time and time again.
0 -
That why when on a non awning pitch ,it is down to the size of the pitch,the layout of the site, as to whether the site staff can use their discretion and give the concession of how and when a rollout canopy is used,to maintain the full 3mtrs fire break when not in attendance or at night
1 -
Yep, totally agreed, some would argue discretion should not be applied at all though in any rule. After all, if said canopy fits, even with sides, no firebreaks broken, should discretion be applied then? If not, why bother? Personally I'm all for sensible reasoned discretion backed up by 'proper' facts.
In fact this thread is all about 'understandings' and interpretation/discretion as are many reoccurring topics on CT. Such things fuel disharmony and misunderstandings unfortunately for a few!
1 -
Definitely not Clumber, the C&CC site had gone long before 2015, unless of course that date is misleading in some way. But it does look very like Clumber, I admit. Incidentally, if you walk around the old walled garden there, you can still find some old defunct electric points, and the water taps, which do still work. 🤔😀
0 -
Not so sure, it certainly looks like Clumber and with that being the only unit visible on site it may have been there for a specific reason after closure. Could the occupants have been involved in reinstating the walled garden and were able to use the facilities left behind? I know volunteers were involved. Just a possibility, other explanations may exist!
0 -
Trying to find a bit more out. We know Head Gardener at Clumber very well (he once owned our dog!). I know part of the garden was used by CCC, think it was the Southern end. But it’s somewhere we visit regularly, and given how mature that Walled garden is, all areas of it with big plants, 2015 is just not long enough. But agree it does look like Clumber. I thought NT took it back in around 2006, because there was a big thing in some of local papers, and more tellingly for us, the signs for CCC site disappeared years ago, leaving only CC ones. I could be wrong, just can’t find any definite information.
Found a photo of Thorpe Hall Site at Rudston, hard to tell really.
1 -
I've a conventional UK door so I'm odd man out on the continent.
0 -
There are reviews for old site on UKcampsites, nothing after 2005, mentions NT taking it back.
0
