Campsites closing at the end of the 2024 season
Comments
-
I agree mickysf - that it would be such a shame if we lost NYM - but - as I reported upthread, when we were there last month, it was barely half full for the week we were there. Compare that with two years previously when, at exactly the same time of year, it was almost full to capacity.
One thing I have noticed is that when we first started going there, the pitch price was well below the average pitch price we paid for all sites during a particular year, whereas now, NYM has become about the average -- and that compares with sites, particularly CLs and CS's that have either fully serviced pitches - or the ability to improvise in that direction.
Although it might not influence us in deciding whether or not to stay there, it might influence others perhaps being perceived as not offering the value for money that it once did. This can only be as a result of a decision by the Club and it seems to me that they have priced themselves out of that particular sector of the market, deliberately or otherwise.
2 -
In the summer months when the sun is shining and the ground is hard, we tend to use camping club temporary holiday sites. They only provide water and waste but at around £10 to £15 per night are all we need and we find them preferable to any club sites. We don't use bigger sites except during early and late season.
2 -
I am sure that if you have a caravan then NYM, and you don't mind using your own facilities, is a good possibility for a stay but if you have a motorhome (now 50% of the membership apparently) it's too far out in the sticks even despite its good value, how can people complain about £25 a night? Sandford House Farm the other side of Whitby would be my choice for that area. Good bus service at the end of the site road. You can walk down to the beach, and on into Whitby, (the walk back might be difficult for some as its steep?) The site has good quality facilities. That is what NYM is up against. We would not avoid a site because it didn't have a facility block as we always used our own facilities but it seems, increasingly, that more members are requiring showers and toilets.
David
0 -
All sorts of members go to remote, no facilities sites and say how much they enjoy it - - for short spells. Whether they would go and live there for months as wardens on a site without modern facilities is another matter.
But if the Club is finding it difficult to staff these sites then a family could offer to take over, on a lease or a franchise, and see if they can make a profitable living. But I doubt if they will.0 -
Given that some sites lose money they are still used by the membership and as such are useful. Cross substitution is not such a bad thing. After all it is a Club. We could gradually lose site after site if it is based on profit only .The non facility sites are close to CL prices and useful for members that balk at the site prices
3 -
I've posted somewhere upthread that yes the club will is/should use profits from very well used sites for others, however as I said there must come a point when that's just not viable anymore and the club loses money overall. These sites were underperforming for a number of years.
0 -
I've just seen a comment on a Facebook group about Englethwaite Hall, saying "shame it's closing". It wasn't on Rowena's original post, so I hope it's just speculation and not true.
It's "no facility" but very well used, being about 6 miles from the M6.
0 -
There's been no announcement Goldie so I would think it is fake.
0 -
I’d hesitate to call it a divide, it’s just a choice, but yes, I think more and more Members simply want to roll up, pitch up, plug everything in, and have next to nothing to do in terms of daily chores. Given that the Club’s largest demographic is at the older end of the touring scale, then ditching the proper “camping sites”, and embracing the more “semi residential” set up (a mobile living unit that you simply move from place to place and plug in) does make this easier, and it’s where the money is. Nothing wrong with it, it’s an option. Some will love it, others will walk away.
1 -
The Club has duties and responsibilities to the staff they employ . But expecting staff to live and work on a no facilities site without access even to a flush toilet and decent washing facilities is not something that happens on other campsites in the western world. It might even be against the law. If the Club cannot provide properly for its employed staff then those no facility sites should close.
0 -
I think you will find the staff have facilities.
3 -
No facilities sites, have been going for decades, they would have been shut long before now if anything was against the law I would imagine.
From various talks with wardens moving to one they liked the no facility sites as less cleaning to do each day, not sure if that is reflected in their pay.
0 -
We had friends who worked as Staff at Marazion for a number of years. They initially started as visitors, would stay three weeks, have a couple of nights on a nearby CL, then back for another three weeks, and repeat. They decided to apply for part time Warden duties, and they ended up being able to stay the season. They had a lovely time, got access to all the behind the scenes facilities, lots of training.
It was a retired lifestyle choice for them, they got to live six months in a fantastic location, Club benefited from their knowledge and capabilities to supplement full time staff. I know they arrived early season, stayed on to wind the site down. It always sounded a good arrangement from both parties point of view.
Other than the fact that there possibly isn’t much progression for Ass Manager, to Site Manager, I think it would still possibly appeal to many who might have finished their initial careers early, and looking for a filler until pension payout. Lots of folks 40+, coming out of different occupations will have the right skills, abilities, attitudes to cope with the on-site issues, and the more difficult customers. Even the no facility sites had/ have washing machines and a staff loo, so not exactly medieval, and certainly not a reason for closing them.
1 -
No facility sites have a fully fitted bathroom and washing facilities for site staff and usually have their own bollard with at least two hookups in their compound.
Shame to see sites closing and possibly more next year.
Not used any club sites this year as we did self catering in a cottage instead and no plans for next year either.
1 -
The club does have to break even to stay in business and if sites are running at a large loss the club have to look at if they are needed. If members do not support the site then it has to take the vies that the members do not want them in large enough numbers.
We were at Nunnykirk last year and that was certainly very low on occupation with many pitches not even in use due to this. It is a nice site but the occupancy level was so low I can understand the decision. We would prefer it to Cayton Bay but that s just us and may be we are just a small minority and have to accept it.
I cannot say we have used the others so cannot comment there.
This has been a very poor year for weather though and with higher prices this must have affected bookings as we have just booked two sites one of which we would never have got in this late so I suspect the income is well down and some hard decisions will have to be made.
1 -
I see no reason why the MORE popular sites shouldn't subsidise the LESS popular sites. I am sat in the van on the Dockray Meadow site in the last week of its 60 year life looking at a beautiful view with horses grazing and listening to the sound of a babbling brook. Heaven. Can we not have sites that cater for ALL tastes, not just the majority? We will soon end up with nothing but sites that are big, fully facilitated and very expensive.
Dockray Meadow (and many others) will be sadly missed by more than just "the majority".
6 -
I have used all of those at sometime and if my memory serves me correctly I would not consider them at all close i.e. within walking distance of attractions or on a regular bus route. Marazion is about the best of the bunch but still a 30 minute walk to the nearest pub and village store.
peedee
1 -
I think the club does subsidise the less popular but there comes a point where it could be doing that for sites that are virtually empty, week on week, year by year, and that is just financial nonsense.
That is these sites to be closed just do not attract club members and one cannot argue with that, and I suppose it could be said that sites with better facilities, hardstanding and service pitches... do attract members. It appears this is what the current membership wants?
I posted upthread that River Breamish was such a grass and low facility site that always had pitches variable but since it's refurbishment it's was difficult to get a pitch over the summer above a couple of days days.
1 -
A small campsite in a convenient location with part time non resident staff and full facilities can be viable
But a small campsite in an isolated location with full time resident staff and no facilities is a different kettle of fish.
I have toured in many countries and never found anywhere except within this Club which attempted that second model.
2 -
Many 'mainstream' full facility sites are in that position as well but they’re not subject to closure due to low occupancy. We surely can’t expect every site to have shops, pubs, buses on the doorstep and getting away from it all is part of the attraction.
Everyone who uses sites with a caravan/MH has motorised transport and in your case two vehicles, PD, so I cannot see the need to be pitched in the thick of things. Enjoy the peace and quiet and drive to the attractions.👍🏻
0 -
I am sure many members might agree with you but up to what point? If a site breaks even one year and maybe a small loss the next and this pattern is quite regular I suspect the club would be inclined to suffer small losses but if those losses were more regular and quite large that is a different ball game because those regular losses might prevent upgrading other sites where the Club know they will get a return on investment?
David
2 -
Many 'mainstream' full facility sites are in that position as well but they’re not subject to closure due to low occupancy.
Under the current Club's apparent policy of an individual site must pay its way, such sites may well close in the future.
Enjoy the peace and quiet and drive to the attractions.
and enjoy the stress of driving and looking and paying for parking. If members wanted the peace an quiet of a remote site why are they not using them? I don't beleive it is because of lack of toilet factilities.
peedee
1 -
“Apparent policy” - you’re making assumptions, PD, and have no grounds for saying full facility sites may well close.
If you find driving stressful, it may be time to consider quitting this hobby. 🙁
1 -
Under the current Club's apparent policy of an individual site must pay its way, such sites may well close in the future.
Have you got this from just looking at the four site closing, or from somewhere else? I would suggest that four very underperforming sites, year on year, which even posters on have confirmed, isn't really a sound basis for your statement?
I would would think that a few club sites don't pay their own way but the more sensible approach is to look at what the subsidy is from more popular sites and have a cut off.
There cannot be a sound financial reason for subsiding virtually empty or very low occupancy sites and/or when their subsidy is costing the club too much?
0 -
There cannot be a sound financial reason for subsiding virtually empty or very low occupancy sites and/or when their subsidy is costing the club too much?
To be sure there will be other factors at play than simply losses, I hope! What can be done to make a site more attractive? Can costs be cut? Is it owned or leased? I cannot see the Club closing a site which is owned, if at all, without considering more than just losses.
peedee
0 -
Hello everyone, I hope this message finds you well. As your community manager, I would like to take a moment to remind everyone of the importance of adhering to our community guidelines. These guidelines are designed to ensure our space remains respectful, inclusive, and productive for all members.
It is crucial that we all make an effort to follow these rules, as they help maintain the quality and integrity of our discussions. When guidelines are not adhered to, we may have to close discussions to prevent any disruption to our community's positive environment.
On that note, I want to inform you that we will be closing the current discussion thread that I started in July. It has been active for quite some time, and we've had the opportunity to hear a wide range of perspectives. We deeply appreciate and value the feedback and insights shared by each of you.
Rest assured, all constructive feedback and thoughts from our community will be carefully reviewed and sent to the relevant team. Your voice is important to us, and we are committed to ensuring it is heard.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Let's continue to strive for a community where everyone feels heard and respected.
5
