Nunnykirk club site
Comments
-
thanks Ro, I'm sure your post has added a view as to the future of this site and the use of seasonal pitches there.
1 -
Can't speak for Nunnykirk, CS, but the other non-fac sites I have used were regularly empty / full depending on local events.
All bar my favourite which I have seldom seen less than 3 / 4 full !
Which one is that did you ask ? -- you must be jesting -- I ain't telling
0 -
Thank you Ro for a repsonse. I hope this is not the thin end of wedge and there are more non facility sites on the edge of extinction? I hope before the Club gives up the lease of such sites they at least look at operating them in a different way, e.g. part time manning with barrier controlled entry and card payment.
peedee
4 -
But the club cannot keep running sites that run at a significant loss, it is obvious that this site has declining occupancy for whatever reasons, if no one wants to go there why should it be kept open?
Perhaps non facility sites are just not attractive to the vast majority of club members in today's market?
0 -
But the club cannot keep running sites that run at a significant loss
No they cannot that I will agree on but you can at least look at ways to reduce losses as well as improving occupancy before first closing them. Not everyone wants full facility sites all of the time at £30 per night.
peedee
5 -
Not everyone wants full facility sites all of the time at £30 per night.
Indeed, but it would appear that far more people wanting those sort of sites than non facility sites? And that is the main point surely?
If the full fat sites are making more money and /or getting better occupancy than non facility sites which way should the club go?
How could you improve occupancy on these non facility sites? Put in facilities?
0 -
"they (should) at least look at operating them in a different way, e.g. part time manning with barrier controlled entry and card payment."
other small, no facs sites can be run with the minimum of cost, no manning required at all...
a machine to pay (card or cash) and get a barrier card, a barrier operated by said card and a water/waste Bourne included on barrier card.
its not difficult and its done all over Europe.....we're still part of it, for now, aren't we?
this one happens to be in a town that's a World Heritage Site.
...and a price comparison in a tourist hot spot....
Price: 11 € per night including parking, water and emptying.
Payment by credit card or cash at the terminal.
1 -
If people are put off by the non facilities (And personally I think that is it) would more people go if the price was reduced?
0 -
Ah but on a basic site with no, or only part time wardens who would people complain to about people walking across pitches, loud children, dogs, bbq smoke etc. On the other hand It would be easy to enforce the arrival time as the machine would have no discretion to allow people on before the decreed time!
0 -
Thanks Rowena, I hope a strategy can be found that suits all and maybe encourage a few more visitors to this area. I've never stayed on the site but it's somewhere we like to visit, hope others will consider discovering this interesting part of the UK in the future too.
0 -
Well increasing it certainly won't produce the desired effect. I also think you need to change your thinking. A survey of members showed 22 percent of members join mainly to use CLs. I cannot imagine a 5th of the membership who appreciate CLs have reason to seek out full fat sites and avoid the Clubs' non facility sites.
peedee
2 -
you mean the ones who are still going to these non facilities sites? If they are declining in number will it matter? Or they can still go to CL's but then of course they would still have to be members?
I realise you may like these type of sites (do you go to many, you were at a full fat sites recently?) but perhaps the vast majority do not? IMHO non facility site, at a club level, will soon be a thing of the past? Are there any non club(s) sites that do the non facility type of site?
0 -
but they are avoiding them both, they are joining to use CL's and not to use non facility sites, as well as other types. Thank you for making my point.
These CL'ers (just made a word up) are just using CLs?
Anyway the simple fact is numbers for Nunnykirk are declining year on year, and so no reason to keep it open.
0 -
But the club cannot keep running sites that run at a significant loss
just re-read Ro's post, no mention of 'significant loss'...
covering costs, financially challenging site to run, 20 year lease to consider extra investment......
but 'significant loss'.....no...just something 'someone' made up.
the losses may be there, but may be small...the post didn't give figures.
occupancy may not be rising (may even be flat for all we know) and, yes, the club has to cover its operating costs....but these can be reduced substantially in small, low turnover sites by using automation.
small, no facs sites that are struggling could well become the low cost (to run and to use) automated sites (aires?) of the future.
much better to cut costs by modernising and continue to provide a service if it can turn even a small profit.
3 -
Perhaps the people that use CLs are not aware of sites like Nunnykirk & assume it's the same as the majority of full fat, gravel strewn club sites. 🤔 I've only used Nunnykirk a few times myself but if there were more sites like it I'd use them rather than club sites like I recently used for one night enroute to a CL.
3 -
There is not much evidence to support the idea of keeping it open I would suggest. Falling occupancy, hand to hand lease arrangements, no facilities and in the middle of nowhere! It would seem this sort of site has a pretty limited appeal to the majority of Club members? What we don't know is whether the owners have something else in mind for the land the site is on or whether they might like to operate it themselves perhaps by converting to static/lodge complex which seems popular these days? It could just be that the land owner does not want to tie themselves to a new long term arrangement. The Club know how much it costs to upgrade a site and what the likely pay back would be. Even some fairly modest improvements like a few hardstanding and maybe a small number of serviced pitches might make the site appealing to a greater number of members but without a longer lease even that is pointless. My concern is that sites like Nunnykirk are only the tip of the iceberg and there could be many more sites where the same lease conditions apply which prevents essential work being carried out because of the likelihood that the Club won't have the opportunity to recover the investment.
David
0 -
Is occupancy declining? That's not what Ro said. She said cost were rising but occupancy was not, so it may just be static. As has already been observed, cranking up the price up by 20% sure won't help. Is this indicative of Grimstead Towers strategy of expanding a homogenous product to the detriment of places such as Nunnykirk with a "you'll have what we give you and pay handsomely for the privilege" attitude?
5 -
I don't want hard standings which is why I'd choose sites like Nunnykirk & I would suggest that goes for other users of Nunnykirk too. There are plenty of other club sites with wall to wall gravel without bu66ering up Nunnykirk & the like.
3 -
I can't think of one club site that I've been to that has wall to wall gravel. The roads are usually tarmac and there are grass strips between pitches.
I think wall to wall grass is far worse
0 -
Last time I was at Nunnykirk was, I think, in 2005. Looking at the site pictures, it has received quite a bit of investment since. Certainly looks a lot tidier and I don't recall the tarmac driveways.
While I can appreciate the Club not wanting to put in permanent structures when sites are on short term leases, I would have thought some things could be done and recovered, perhaps in part, for use elsewhere?
peedee
0 -
Marazion and Stover prices vary by season while Cadeside remains constant 🤷🏻♂️
1 -
Notgrove site (Bourton on the water now) actually is owned by the club and at times is very popular and has its season extended in the last couple of years, the additional hardstands were put in in about 2001, as it was dificult to use the area of the old railway cutting and storage due to it being very wet and muddy when opening , as for upgrading with a toilet block there is no mains drainage and not possible to installation or any chance of increasing the water supply which comes via the farm and is also shared with the two houses in the lane (old station aproach road which is also cc property over which the house owners only have access to their properties, the costs would far outweigh any chance of recovering
And members tend to use cc non facility sites as they appreciate cc staff being arround most of the time,
1 -
It doesn't say in Rowena's response that occupancy is declining, it says costs are rising but it sounds like occupancy is static and the site has been operating on a yearly rolling lease. Similar to the precarious Baltic Wharf which has high occupancy and hard standings. There are a lot of diffculties involved with short term leases on a high or low earning basis, this is the main challenge for the club. Unstable leases are not the best situation for any leaseholder.
1
