Dornafield Touring Park
Comments
-
+1
0 -
How are other organisations, presumably CAMC, having their customers inconvenienced? The suggestion of a visiting "splash & dash" creating a queue is spurious. If the same MH was at the MHSP at the same time, having stayed on the site, there would still be a queue inconveniencing the one waiting behind. If the service is being paid for, he would be as entitled to use it as would the overnighter or are you suggesting that people who stay overnight are, by virtue of their money, more entitled?
1 -
They have stayed overnight CY. Not sure by virtue of there money comes into it, they have paid the going rate. As such it is not unreasonable that they should not expect to queue behind someone who has not stayed on site, for which the facilities are in almost all cases positioned. I suggest you find an overnight stopping place that includes fill / dump, then you wouldn’t have a problem. Or you could stay on the CAMC site for a night.
2 -
Perhaps the Club fear loss of revenue by opening up their MSP's to casual use? If the service was widely available would it not just encourage more motorhomers to seek out overnight parking, legal or not when they might have otherwise spent nights on Club sites?
David
0 -
More likely complaints from those trying to leave, caravaners included, when they meet splash and dash MH’s on narrow approaches. I know those probably wouldn’t be included in the scheme. However, folk get confused by the one o’clock rule, how can they be expected to know where and when they can splash and dash.😉
3 -
Not spurious at all CY, I've seen two Mhs queuing, but at least they are both staying on site. I don't mind if someone is in front of me filling their aquaroll or in the showers, we're all on site, all paying the same amount, first come first served, but adding some more passing through is just going to inconvenience those staying on site in addition to driving through the site in the first place, adding extra unnecessary traffic..
Those staying on site paying perhaps 10 times the splash and dash rate might feel more entitled, I think that's fair personally.
You say you won't use club sites, even if the EHU is taken off, so you won't be contributing to their upkeep to the same extent as someone who is paying to stay, yet you expect to use a not small part of the site and possibly cause problems to those paying full price? Is that fair? Does your membership fee alone justify that in your mind? I wonder how much the membership fee gets allocated to sites compared to funds from site fees?
But CY the thing I have slight trouble understanding is why you keep posting (daily) about wanting this service on a club site. Why does it have to be a club site for you? Even to the extent of looking at google street view to find possible places like you did at Seacroft, are they that good that you have to have a club site?
Why not use the CCC as there must be a CCC site on your route or near to a club site? or Or a basic CL low price?
1 -
If you have used FM ,a busy weekend site, and seen the queue to use the( at this time) poor West side motor caravan service point on a summer Sunday (less families use West side)the most we have seen was seven in the queue as the one at the front trays to get in position to empty ,
0 -
CY wrote:
"The suggestion of a visiting "splash & dash" creating a queue is spurious."
I accept that a queue may be formed behind a MH that has stayed on site - indeed in a recent post on another thread I made mention of the fact that I never use MSPs for the very reason that I am too impatient to wait in a queue - there always seems to be one at the time when one might want to use it, namely on arrival or departure. I find it much easier, and more convenient, to use my Wastemaster or a serviced pitch. That way I am in control.
But I think you have intentionally misinterpreted SteveL's point (the post to which you were responding).
If you widen the customer base (whether they pay or not), it is inevitable that the probability of a queue, and/or a longer queue, is greater. That, surely, is irrefutable. It is plain that that is what SteveL meant and he is absolutely right.
Moreover I agree with SteveL's original point. Anywhere that offers overnight camping should be required to offer basic facilities. It seems surprising to me that it is not already the case - most things of that kind are a matter of regulation.
3 -
I don’t know how the other club organise their £7 dump service. I do know it allows a certain time on site and the use of other facilities. Presumably as most are closed in the morning, this limits it to afternoons. As you can’t really leave a MH blocking the service bay while you make use of other facilities, presumably it would be parked on a pitch allocated by the manager. That’s fine on C&CC sites as you are not free to choose from any available as on this clubs sites. Transfer the same scheme to the CAMC and MH’s having their 2 hours or so facility use would be blocking pitches that those arriving on site might wish to use.
OK you might say scrub that idea, just go for splash and dash. Well I seriously doubt that many would want to pay £7 for just that service and for any less it wouldn’t be worth the administration.
0 -
For us its about location. Eg Louth cattle market - bang in the middle of Louth. I think they do charge, and intend to provide facilities, but currently dont. Places in Skipton also. Or the Canterbury Aire - facilities, at the P & R. Charges are carparking charges which cover your bus into Canterbury. Much more convenient than a campsite.
2 -
JVB
Been to FM many times but its been years since we used the East side. The MSP on the West side is awful due mainly to its position right at the end of the pull in by the toilet block. It must cause congestion when the site is busy, especially on Sunday Morning as people start to leave after the weekend. I see there is a MSP point on the East side but I don't know if that is an open grill type?
David
0 -
The trouble is that assumes the situation viz a viz the numbers wanting such a service remains static. But there is the likelihood that providing such facilities will encourage more to seek non campsite places to park for the night. That in turn would reduce the numbers staying on campsites, perhaps not, initially, by any great numbers but it could become a growing trend? If that was the case site revenue could be lost. I am not suggesting by enough to put campsites out of business but it could impact annual income. So how much would the expected cost be on a Club site to provide that service? People keep mentioning the £7 charged by the C&CC. If the CMC was a reluctant convert to providing such a service I would reckon it would be at least £10 if not more. They currently charge non members an extra £13 a night to use Club sites so it wouldn't surprise me if they headed that way for use of the "splash and dash" facility. That would bring on a totally new argument about the Club charging too much
David
1 -
the design of their sites isnt conducive to extra vehicles on site, all adding to the one way stream. Their MHSP aren't in out of the way places, most being on the main A1 of each site which interferes with other club traffic at the best of times.
I'm not at all sure this is the case at all or certainly on the sites I've been to and I've never been held up anywhere by a MH using them.
Again as you say you have only used two campsites this year so your experience of the is limited to those but on the club sites I've used and I can think of five straight away they are not on the main A1 of each site and does not interfere with traffic at any good or bad times.
There are queues but this holds no one up except the MH's themselves queuing. They are on double laned parts of the roads where easily two MHs can easily wait allowing other traffic to pass the pass. However the space is limited and adding additional MH may cause real problems.
I think the club's stance as you put it, which it states clearly, is not down to the design or places of these points but rather the more important safety aspects the possible congestion and the view it takes on 'wild camping'.
0 -
serious lack of understanding of MH usage in this thread, I'm afraid.
Not only in this thread but around the country. CAMpRA is doing a great job of educating organsiations and councils and trials are proving sucessful. Too sucessful in at least one case that I am aware of.
JVB it is not about cheap or free, it is about not paying for facilities you do not need. Actually. it is big mistake not to make a charge for an Aire. The result is they attract to many users, some of which are the least desirable and it results in complaints of one reason or another. In the extreme the facility can end up being closed.
peedee
1 -
We spent a week at Dornafield in September 2021. Our pitch was in the upper level of Blackrock Copse and was of a good size and well maintained. Pitches up there are down cul de sacs so difficult to turn round if not going onto a specific pitch (an advantage of allocated pitch). The lower area, which we walked around, was very busy. Too much for our taste. The facilities blocks were modern and well maintained. The site had a storage area and the wardens pulled out and sited the caravans as far as I recall. We have a 2 berth caravan and had no problem accessing and exiting the site (no worse than some of the other sites we’ve been on, and similar to where we store our caravan). There were larger outfits on site too. My mobile phone reception was non existent (O2). Not sure about the others. It’s only a short drive to Totnes. We enjoyed our stay there.
0
