Fullly serviced pitches
Due to mobility issues we would prefer sites that have pitches with water and waste water connections in addition to EHU. We are aware that some sites with fully serviced pitches do exist, but when looking at the filters there is no option to filter out those that do not have fully serviced pitches. Is there way that you can search for these fully serviced pitches that I may have missed? Thanks.
Comments
-
There’s a sticky thread of SPs in this section and a similar one in the CL section. They may help.
0 -
Thanks I saw that thread. However a bit of a slog to find one in an area that you may be interested in. I was hoping that it was something that could be done using filters on the CAMC. A lot easier to do on some other commercial campsites where you can select an area to show only sites with fully serviced pitches. Guess we will be using the commercial websites if CAMC do not have something as simple as this for their search engine.
I have a link to a map that shows all the CLs with water and waste water connections to each pitch and it is so simple to use.
0 -
The ability to choose service pitches has been on the wish list for many years. So far the club has studiously ignored this request.
if you use the UK campsite website you can filter on service pitches, however double check with the site itself as some don't include water in their definition of serviced.
0 -
The ability to choose service pitches has been on the wish list for many years. So far the club has studiously ignored this request
Sorry I don't follow this at all. Who has been requesting it? Choosing and booking a SP has been possible for many years now.
0 -
The full list is here as well.
0 -
I think that the request that the club has "studiously ignored" is for a filter on the listings, as there are for other facilities, that shows which sites have serviced pitches.
2 -
You are correct that the choosing and booking of a SP has always been possible however as per my heading and my first post the thread is about "fully" serviced or "super" pitches and not ordinary serviced pitches.
There is no filter and there should be no reason that club members should be doing work for the CAMC IT department by composing lists for other members to enjoy or for CAMC to go to other caravan forums to find out the necessary information. Thanks go to Simon for pointing it out!
0 -
You are correct that the choosing and booking of a SP has always been possible however as per my heading and my first post the thread is about "fully" serviced or "super" pitches and not ordinary serviced pitches.
As far as I am aware there is only one CAMC site with super pitches and that is Chatsworth. There are quite a few sites now with ordinary serviced pitches of just water and grey waste and the number is increasing all the time.
Whilst I agree that a filter would be valuable, that is only if it was accurate. The CC are very poor on accuracy of information they put into the web site and personally I would not trust it, even if it existed. If you are looking at a specific area it does not actually take that long to go into individual sites and check, availability can also be examined at the same time. As they are very popular this is often limited even well in advance.1 -
I agree they aren't very accurate, mistakes pointed out regularly...however, why should members put up with sloppy data management, surely this is the bread and butter behind all the software searches.
the results members get when interrogating the sites database not only depends on how good the searches are, but the quality of the data behind them.
"Garbage in, garbage out" comes to mind....takes me back.
1 -
I also agree, we shouldn’t have to put up with sloppy data management. Even more so when it’s pointed out, as I have done on a few occasions, it should be corrected in a timely manner, rather than just ignored. At one time Cirencester was even flagged as good for beach holidays, as there is an artificial paid beach on a lake about 6 miles away.😂 However, unfortunately it’s been a fact of CC life for as long as we have been members. In this country we tend to plan the route of a tour, places to visit etc and then look to book sites along that route. Personally I would never bother with filters, just look at the sites in suitable locations to see if they meet our requirements.
3 -
We have now found commercial sites with fully serviced pitches in the areas we wish to visit thanks to UK Campsite website which was a whole lot easier to use when doing searches. Thanks everyone for your input and glad it was not just me overlooking something.
1 -
Ah Ok thanks
2 -
"Yes that is what I meant. Apologies for the sloppy wording!"
Simon, no need to apologise at all.
your second para clearly stated you were referencing other websites/apps that provided filtering on certain pitch attributes, one of which is 'serviced pitch' which the CAMC search filter doesn't provide and has 'studiously ignored'.
your original post also immediately followed Surfer's who was clearly referencing search filtering.
Certainly, no need to apologise at all👍
Moderator comment: slightly edited.
1 -
Just to add the commercial site with the fully serviced pitch is just outside Poole and comes highly recommended. Cost per night is £36. New Forest centenary site is £48 a night for a fully serviced pitch! A massive difference especially if staying for a week.
1 -
If it's the one I'm thinking of (wins top award every year) is just £32 for a fully serviced pitch in early spring or for eight weeks at end of Autumn.
Deluxe Fully Serviced Hardstanding Pitch
Inclusive of: Two adults. Free Wi-Fi.
Electric and TV hook-up.
Individual water tap and drain.
Picnic bench and lighting.1 -
Hope it's not Lytchett Manor, S, which although very highly rated, was one of the few sites we stayed at that we wouldn't return to, albeit it was 10 or more years ago now and I guess they've made a lot of improvements since. Seem to remember the weather was a bit grim that weekend too. Not within walking distance to Poole either which put us off a bit.
The nearest site we did find and like was Wareham Forest, although, of course, not really Poole.
Although we don't tour in the van any more it'll be interesting to know what you think of it (if it is, indeed, that one). Hope it works out well for you.
PS - to be fair, we didn't think much of the NF centenary site either, again, no safe walking directly from the site.
1 -
And the prices in peak?
The name would be helpful too?
0 -
Indeed it is and if it's as good as a club site then it's a good choice Surfer.
Name the site and it might help others?
0 -
Poole/Bournemouth aren't particularly blessed with campsites, even CLs within walking distance.
SLM is an easy, pleasant, safe cycle round Hole Bay/Upton Lake with Upton Park really handy.
we used to stay on the touring pitches at Rockley Park when they were open, even easier access, but they've been given over to statics now.
THS and CL sites around Parley or even east nr Highcliffe, great for Christchurch.
we used the NF centenary site once, never again...as you say, safe walking and cycling south and east isn't its forte...the A35 is a right pain.
IMHO, far nicer to be in new Milton, Highcliffe, Lymington etc on a CL or THS but these won't be for Club aficionados .
For Wareham, the THS site right in the town (East Walls) couldn't be handier....
2 -
It is the same site. We have stayed there previously before Covid and it was great. No issue getting into town although we did not use it there is a bus stop right outside the entrance.
We like the Poole area and were not impressed with New Forest the last time we visited as struggled to peg down the awning as the hard standing seem to be part concrete.
0 -
"Rockley Park" - that takes me back (did it used to be called Rockley Sands?) In July 1966 we were there on a family holiday and I was allowed to go unaccompanied up to the TV room to watch a certain football match (you know the one I mean!) along with a load of big blokes who kept getting in the way.
Sorry, going off thread a bit, but nice to reminisce!
1 -
It's a good deal for two during those times but the same in peak is £48.50 per night (£53.20 on the club site) and children's 2 - 14 are £6, then they are classed as adults at £10.50. On club sites children are children till they are 18, so a family of four would be pushing them price up by another £12 at least to max of £22. While on NF the price would be £62.80 for the same family.
An awning is a extra £4.50 per night so add that on too. And dogs are charged for too, by arrangement, and an extra vehicle is £5.50 per night.
Add all those on for a family of four with awning it soon mounts up above the club site? A family of four, one under and over 14 plus awning comes in at £69.50, plus dogs or plus extra vehicle.
Also a £50 non refundable deposit and full balance 28 days before arrival.
So yes a good deal if you want or can go out of season in 'saver' as you quoted but so so good in low and/or high season?
0 -
...but we don't have a dog or have an awning or go with children or go in peak...
if you need these 'extras' then then some sites will charge for them.
for us, it's a better site, in a better place at a better price👍👍👍...and the wifi is free.
1 -
Well I wonder why you posted before worrying about how much a family of four would pay in peak for a week on a plum site?
yes I agree and as I've always said pick what suits one's circumstances and preferences. Then it's win win.
0 -
In fact in my post it was a win, win, win, win👍👍👍👍
0 -
Going a bit OT here and, since I don't think Surfer travels with children or dogs, I hope he enjoys his stay there.
But, YT, in fairness, if you're going to quote peak prices at the club's "plum" sites, which you frequently do, in a negative way, it's a bit inconsistent to then quote low season prices in praising this site. Not sure what the nearest club site (Hunter's Moon) charges in low season but I'm guessing there won't be an awful lot of difference between the two for most folk.
5 -
I don't know why he would have worried but he did post about the cost of a two week holiday for a family of four on a club site at peak on a plum site being uncomfortably close to £1000. I was puzzled at the time as to why he costed it up so accurately?
As to your last paragraph I don't know where you're coming from with that at all as I didn't mention that in any way?
Off topic now but I think we all agree on choosing a site to suit all one's preferences as I first posted to the prices given above by BB:
'So yes a good deal if you want or can go out of season in 'saver' as quoted but so so good in low and/or high season?'
Just to add I would give a site a miss if it had to pay a £50 non refundable deposit and payment 28 days in advance. Imagine if you booked that and then couldn't go? Also if they cancel all you'll get in a credit note and choice of different dates. I'll stick with the club's T&C.
0
