Smaller Site Closures
I have been a member since 1982. Although due to club computer changes our membership records are incorrect and show 1999, but thats another issue.
I'n Not happy ! At the continual closure of the small "Club Sites"
the latest being Bromyard Downs, a great little site.
Previously in the past we lost Marazion, Pimpsaint (Wales), Doldowlod, and others.
These closures are all covered by the standard excuse Not enough members are using them ??
personally I have found these sites in the past to be very busy, and a struggle to get a pitch.
ls the closure reason more a case of they have no toilet and shower blocks and smaller pitches that cant take the increasing number of large vans ? So no big profits to be made?
After all this is a "Club"
Moderator Comment - Moved from Story Section
Comments
-
You may be interested in discussions on the forum about site closures.
CAMC is not alone as C&CC are also closing sites.
Incidentally, it is nothing to do with "big profits". Sites have to be economically viable, yes, but there are no shareholders looking for profits and any operating surplus is ploughed back into upgrading and acquiring sites.
0 -
CAMC is not a 'club', it is a business and therefore has to make business decisions.
Think an premier league football 'Club' or the Royal Automobile 'Club'.
The only difference is that the profits are ploughed back into the business and not given to shareholders.
0 -
Which is to the benefit of all members.
1 -
So for all these years I believed that the Club was just that and existed for the benefit of its members. Obviously that is now not the case on many levels eg winter closures , variable pricing and much more. So now we are told it is a commercial business so former members should now follow commercial practice and shop around.
2 -
I've never believed that "belonging" to a club meant I had to be 100% loyal to them. Some people do but it is misplaced.
Independent site last week, CS site this week, CAMC site next month. Keep an open mind, oh and keep a lookout for "member" benefits. We've had our membership fee back this last year with savings so not all bad feelings.
I quite like the club but am open to other choices.
2 -
I’m not quite sure what your point is. Surely you want CAMC to be financially viable? Viable is, of course, vastly different to big businesses making multi millions in order to pay shareholders.
Former members? What's to stop current members shopping around as WN described? I’m a former member but act no differently now to numerous other folk.
1 -
I live in an inland agricultural area, well away from the coast. Within ten miles of the house there are 20 small caravan sites listed on UKCampsite. Doesn’t seem like a shortage to me.
0 -
Surely the Club have a responsibility to members to make sure it remains viable? Some of the site closures were not of the Club's making with lease owners taking back the sites. Others have closed because not enough people used them. I think the club have said that they have something like 50 sites open all year so still plenty of choice? We are all free to "shop around" as you call it. The Club offers much better T&C's than most commercial sites like low booking deposits and payment on arrival. Not come across many commercials sites that are as generous?
David
1 -
To answer your last point first, fully agree, I've always said that if one can find better VFM, better quality elsewhere then leave the club sites well alone.
Of course there are the booking T&Cs to take into account too which are to member's benefit, there have been a number of posts where non club sites have been used and lost a lot of money lost due to far harsher T&Cs.
Winter closures? I've been a member for over 25 years now and there are far many more sites open now over the winter than way back then.
Variable pricing? That's actually to my benefit in some cases, I've noticed that club sites I've booked well in advance have saved me money rather booking them later, but I still book at short notice too. But again there are other sites out there.
1 -
Club AGM Q&A:
Why has the Club significantly reduced site open all year without consulting widely with members?
Question by Edward May
Response
The Club reviews site season dates and opening periods every year in line with historic demand and predicted occupancy. Some sites also open and close at different times because of redevelopment works. This is overseen by the Site and Accommodation Users Committee, who are all Club members. As in most years there have been some changes, but 51 sites remain open all year. This year Steamer Quay, Cirencester Park, Hawes and the newly acquired Lickpenny Matlock will be open all year for the first time.
1 -
At the end of the day the club has to remain viable to continue to operate. Sometimes they will find that sites are simply not possible to run at a profit, although I do accept that those with a minor loss might be retained as a member benefit. The club has to draw a line somewhere with these borderline sites and hopefully this has been done correctly. It does not benefit us if we are paying seriously more than we should to keep one site open to benefit those on another.
Unfortunately we have not seen the figures so we do find ourselves guessing but hopefully the decisions were correct. The only one we have used recently was certainly badly short of customers and frankly could only be running at a loss. Looking at the condition of it, I think it was n borrowed time even then.
1 -
Talking to a fellow caravanner today who had stayed at the upgraded Penrhos site, on Anglesey, and the site manager/warden had told them that both the Cae Mawr on Anglesey and the Borrowdale Manesty site in The Lakes were earmarked for closure in the next year. Yet more non-existent facility sites going, as well as others full facility sites no longer open over the Xmas period or open all year round such as Troutbeck and Coniston Park Coppice.
0 -
It occurred to me, reading the latest C&mC response, that closing some of these sites might have been the wrong approach. Adding further facilities on what after all are smaller sites might have increase occupancy but at what cost and because of their small size this would unlikely to pay the dividends the Club wants. Another approach on some of the better located ones might have been to waive the non member surcharge! That could have potentially increased "wheelfall" and possibly resulted in some visitors joining the Club. The Club would have had nothing to lose by trying this and the sites would have stood a better chance of being retained for use by all.
peedee
2 -
Do you not think such moves were considered, PD? I’d be surprised if they weren't.
0 -
@peedee what latest response are you referring to?
0 -
CAMC club sites are silly money! £30 to £80 pn🫤 very lush I have to say, and if they weren’t above £25 pn I would use them all the time. Just maybe lower the standard,, it is camping after all” cut a load of dead wood out in the office perhaps! Scale down site staff! Clearing leaves on site is a bit time wasting. Watched 5 staff at Sandringham doing it one day 🫤 never mind the contractors they get in🤦♂️ you all have posh vans and motor homes use them.
0 -
Not sure what posh vans have to do with leaf clearing🤔. That’s a task which needs to be carried out for H&S reasons.
Dead wood? You know that for a fact do you @Topgun ?1 -
That’s pure speculation, PD.
Obviously members aren’t going to be told every nitty gritty detail of the decision making process.1 -
I don't think the C&mC is noted for its out of the box thinking @Tinwheeler.
peedee
1 -
@peedee yes I posted that myself, but I asked as I can't see any logical link from that response to your post saying:
It occurred to me, reading the latest C&mC response, that closing some of these sites might have been the wrong approach. Adding further facilities on what after all are smaller sites might have increase occupancy but at what cost and because of their small size this would unlikely to pay the dividends the Club wants.
As the response never mentioned adding any facilites only that, basically, there were too few people staying on it to keep it open past the first week in September. I also asked as it's not closing but shortening it's opening times.
I don't think it would benefit at all from this waiver of the member's price. And why should members subsidize non members? Ridiculous premium? Hardly true of course, There must be other sites to choose from even if it was?
That could have potentially increased "wheelfall" and possibly resulted in some visitors joining the Club
Sorry I don't see that, not charge a membership fee and it will get people to join the club?
Personally I see the same old pattern, grass, no facilities, some pitches without EHU and hence less use, just like all other sites like this. I would suspect it's only the location that is keeping it supplied with people wanting to use it and anywhere else and it would close.
0 -
I don't think the C&mC is noted for its out of the box thinking
@peedee any evidence for that PD? I mean a surplus of £4m (which I know to you is keeping it's head above water) while the other club according to your post is losing money appears to indicate otherwise?
0 -
I don't think it would benefit at all from this waiver of the member's price. And why should members subsidize non members? Ridiculous premium? Hardly true of course, There must be other sites to choose from even if it was?
@Cornersteady I can’t agree with you on this, in the case of Altnaharra. Given its location and the lack of alternatives in the area, and those there are having no facilities, I think it would be worth a trial. I would propose only waiving it for drive ins (no pre booking allowed) for the less popular non EHU pitches. These are priced at £17.50 to £19.30 (2 adults) depending on time of year. Clearly you would have to be very desperate to pay another £15 on top, therefore it could well attract some takers.I think they need to try something which could improve take up, as I fear we could loose this gem of a site. The only reason I can see for closing at the beginning of September ( a very popular month) is if the site is running at a loss anyway, even with full EHU pitches every night. Filling the non EHU pitches, which had very low occupation on our 3 visits could perhaps make it break even.
1 -
@SteveL that's fine we don't have to agree and I've always welcomed debate.
Hopefully shortening the season will mean it does become cost effective and won't need to close?
Unfortunately, our Altnaharra site continues to face challenges in achieving financial viability, primarily due to its limited number of pitches and the overall low member usage, even during periods that seem busy like September. To sustain the site's presence on our network and contribute to its viability, we have made necessary adjustments to the season length and operating model for 2026 in order to reduce the cost base.If the non EHU pitches are mostly empty then a trial might be worth it but I have my doubts that it would attract many, if any, personally I think if one doesn't need EHU in the first place why use any site at all?
Again it's another indicator to me that if people want a site they want EHU, and probably facilities too, and that probably applies more at this site than most.
0 -
If the non EHU pitches are mostly empty then a trial might be worth it but I have my doubts that it would attract many, if any, personally I think if one doesn't need EHU in the first place why use any site at all?
@Cornersteady Well you do get fly fishing rights if you stay. Plus of course there are dump / water facilities, nearbye alternatives are just parking places.
3 -
We can finally get back out for a holiday, after nearly two years of having nothing but the odd night. Only a week, but we have grabbed it gleefully. Won’t be in our MH though. We got an email from a cottage owner, somewhere we have stayed before, right on Hadrian’s Wall. Everything included, wifi, heating, garden, parking, very nice pub/eatery 400 metres away, walks/cycling direct from cottage, more EH/NT/ private attractions than we can visit in a week within 10 miles, train station to either coast within two miles. The whole place for just £240. That’s just over £34 per night for everything. No matter how much we love using our MH, there’s no denying that you either pay a lot of money to camp somewhere like a Club Site (not that there is a Club Site close to Hadrian’s Wall), or you have to do a lot more work finding a pitch up that’s safe and legal.
There’s simply no denying that the Club’s network is shrinking, both in terms of number of sites, and in terms of just how long a season is being offered. The overheads of running places, and maintaining a huge off sites administration/ management team is taking its toll in terms of customer choice. Almost a vicious circle, cut the locations, condense the season, and the prices have to go up to keep the whole shebang rolling, and even folks like us, tourers for over 40 years, are finding better value elsewhere. Club Sites are nice, but even at the prices charged, you still have either that Winter walk to the loo blocks in the cold and wet, or the manual labour of doing the housekeeping chores.1 -
If the non EHU pitches are mostly empty then a trial might be worth it but I have my doubts that it would attract many.
@SteveL As far as I am aware, unlike the C&CC. the C&mC have never tried introducing a discount from the list price for non electric grass pitches. When discounted, (40 percent off the pitch fee) the ones I have used on C&CC sites have always been full at weekends and well used on other days. The prediction by the trade is that more and more vans will be produced with lithium iron batteries an solar panels for good off grid capability. If true that may well impact van owner's selection in the future.
@Takethedogalong Both Clubs didn't do particularly well in 2024, both lost money operating sites, the C&mC nearly £5M. However unlike the C&CC, the C&mC made an overall profit due to income from other sources e.g. membership fees
peedee
2 -
Can you show where from the financial statement there was a loss of £5m from operating sites?
Also I cannot understand how it can make a loss of £5m as you state yet make a surplus (which you did not state) of £4m+ from membership fees and other sources? Doesn't the CCC have these too?
To me that means it made £9m to go from a loss of £5m to a profit of £4m? Or is that too simple a way of looking at things? I mean not bad for a company that you think is not noted for out of the box thinking?
This is of course now a discount for non use of EHU.
0
