CL inspections
Comments
-
Looks like the easiest option for them is to get local auth grant to extend. Probably no more than the fee and agreed without planning meeting as a "devolved responsibility" to the planning officer. Gets rid of the complaints and gives them more flexibility.
0 -
You may have achieved one fewer CL on the list. Was that your intention?
0 -
I can’t answer for GT but I refer you to my first post on page 1.
2 -
If that's the outcome, so be it ! I, as a member am aware of the rules regarding numbers. Site owners certainly should be too.
By attemptig to accommodate more than the allowed 5 vans may be acceptable to some, but by having excess numbers, they are putting members, their CL Certificate and our exemption at risk.
5 -
Yes well put.
0 -
I’d rather CL’s like this weren’t on the system then we wouldn’t be having these issues and everyone would know where they were.
0 -
So what are you moaning about on here then if you’re prepared to break the rules yourself?! Is it because some people were bending the rules more than you would like? Unbelievable.
0 -
Sorry red face, not paying attention. I thought you were the OP. I’m the one with a red face…
0 -
If CLs "disappear" from the system and continue to operate as a campsite and I want to go that area and stay on it then it wouldn't bother me that it was no longer a CL. In fact we stay on a couple of "ex" CLs on a regular basis.
Depends on the reason for them leaving of course.
1 -
The problem is that when they leave the system and continue to operate it is much harder to find them. I appreciate that there are numerous other websites where they are listed but all being together in both the club's web site and in the Site Directory make finding ones in area of interest and researching what they are like.
0 -
The problem is that when they leave the system and continue to operate it is much harder to find them. I appreciate that there are numerous other websites where they are listed but all being together in both the club's web site and in the Site Directory make finding ones in area of interest and researching what they are like.
0 -
I still have contact details from Ex CLs we have used years ago Nellie. Pre internet, I had a little black book of our favourite sites (not all Club).
It is irritating when there are more than 5 vans on what should be a CL area. But by the same token, Members should recognise that there are CLs out there that have planning permission for a few more pitches elsewhere, even a separate CL/CS, or even a commercial Site alongside the CL. Not all Members recognise this. I have no doubts one or two have pushed the boundaries this year, but we haven’t stayed on one that has so far this last 18 months.
0 -
I’d rather they stuck to the rules and didn’t put the club's exempting right in jeopardy!
If I were GT, I’d gladly wear your nasty label of "snitch" in this instance.
2 -
I'll add a plus one.
Additionally I've never used one but I do apricate there are many fans of them and it would be a shame if one site ruined it for all.
0 -
David, it is our business. Each and every member of this club has a right to expect CL owners to abide by the rules of the scheme they signed up to voluntarily.
I make no excuse for taking that view in the interests of not wanting to jeopardise the exemption system for others. Greed only comes into it when a person thinks solely of themselves and doesn't care about others or the future. It would be sad if people in future were deprived of the same pleasure you experienced in enjoying time on CLs with their children.
4 -
AnotherDaivid. Your comments like "snitch" are from the dark ages of holding society back, based on fear. If something is wrong then people have a right to discuss it and take action. It has aready been mentioned that there could be an explanation or reason but in this case there is isn't one. Self inflated importance takes many forms....but not in the case of the OP.
4 -
I have never been on a CL with more than 5 caravans David.
A slight exception which does not count is when arriving at a site to find it closed due to very heavy rain the warden phoned a local CL owner who kindly took 3 caravans to stay in his stable yard overnight. This was not his CL site however and he refused payment
1 -
CAMC responded to this thread above.
If their are breaches in the rules, as already said, it puts the whole system in jeopardy.
I see this year that "pop up" sites etc have added to the mix but whether this will continue will be interesting. However 5 van sites are a special bonus for many club members. I hope we don't lose them and find ourselves on bigger and bigger "small" sites!
1 -
The " Exemption" is well past its sell by date. No one really monitors usage and its only a few diehards that want to keep the status quo. After this years experience many more competitive "small" sites will appear without the restrictions imposed by the club and more will gravitate that way. A sure way to decimate the Cl system. Here we have organisations advising farmers on diversity into tourism and grants available for such a venture supported by the planning laws.
0 -
Past its sell by date or not, Fish, until the system is changed legally, it is what it is and is what the club has to work with. Whether it should be changed, is a whole different issue.
1 -
The issue I raised earlier is being looked into by the club.
The subject of 5+ vans I have experienced on several of the sites we have stayed at this year. This has not been a concern to me as some sites appear to be running two businesses, in one case spilt by a large hedge, and it would appear that some leeway is being given/taken whether official or not. If the services can cope and you can continue to enjoy the larger pitches and quieter atmosphere they offer then I'm happy.
Colin
0
