Rosedale Abbey site closed
Apologies if I'm a bit dim and missed this - but having done a search on here, there seems to be no mention of it. Just come across a post on the CAMC Chat Group on FB to say that Rosedale has closed - and this is confirmed by an announcement on the main site page.
I have to say that I am one of those guilty of its demise since we haven't been there since we got the 8' wide van because of the approach road (and that's just me, being ultra-cautious!) - but last time we stayed there, we thought it was a fabulous site with lovely Wardens. We like non-facility sites because they tend to be quieter and more relaxed - more like a big CL.
My biggest fear is that NYM, near Whitby, might also be under threat. It's a site we use regularly, but last year, when we were there, it was barely half full - unlike the previous year, at the same time when it was packed.
Whilst it doesn't bother us too much, I do think the Club needs to have a re-think about it's pricing structure in respect of, particularly, non-facility sites.
Comments
-
Richard
I saw this posted on Facebook and wondered whether it was a new announcement. If you check Site Closures (link below) on the Club website it is there but its not easy to tell whether its an additional closure by the way they have listed it, although it is at the top of the listing.
I suspect the Club is between a rock and hard place with these sites. All the evidence suggests that the sites that are really successful are those with the most modern facilities and are easily accessible. The non facility sites are already good value but clearly this does not persuade a large enough proportion of members to use them. Before dropping the price the Club would have to be sure that it would increase occupancy. If lower prices did not do that they are in even deeper trouble? Given the rise of motorhome ownership you would think that such sites would be popular with that segment of the membership but I suspect the problem there is that most of the sites are remote which does not suit a lot of motorhomers. Maybe its a temporary blip but I wonder if our hobby is in something of a decline? Caravan sales are now about the same as motorhomes and at a much lower level that at historic numbers. I suspect we will see more site closures if they prove unable to break even?
David
0 -
@richardandros thats bad news. It was a lovely location, and the Club had spent money on it in the last few years putting in hardstandings. It was never the easiest site to get to for novice or nervous owners, but worth it when you did arrive. It’s a few years since we stayed, possibly just before COVID, but it was full, and this was pre hardstandings going in. Like you, I fear for the NYM site.
I know it’s in response to economics, but a great deal of choice is being removed from the Club touring circuit. If you don’t want big (100 pitch plus) sites, serviced pitches, toilet blocks, and the prices that underpin them, then it is rapidly becoming look elsewhere, keep to CLs as far as being a Club Member is concerned, or go on the rally side.
Don’t think it will be the last to go this year🙁
1 -
@DavidKlyne its a newish decision I think. It wasn’t on that original closure list, the last review is from July, and it’s showing opening dates of mid April to end of September 2025. 🤷♀️
1 -
At the end of the day the club cannot be run at a loss. if sites do not pay their way the club has to look at their future. If the losses are small then there is a possible argument to keep them and see if they can be turned round. Any site with larger losses has to be looked at seriously and if the losses are unsustainable they may have to go.
The club operate in a hard commercial world and have to make hard choices sometimes.
1 -
I know similar small sites overseas which have kept going by reducing staff costs to a local part time visiting warden for a just couple of hours a day. But if the Club is tied to its present staffing model of resident wardens on site and on hand for safety and security 24/24 then the wage bill will be increasingly unsustainable on a small site.
0 -
Although some of us liked those smaller non-fac sites, they seem not to be what the majority want. Therefore, as per WW’s post, they have to go.
1 -
It does seem to be simple economics, tied into a very changing touring ownership. There are possibly fewer folks considering an outfit as a “budget” option, happily willing and able to make do and get by on simple sites. Now it’s about rolling up in an expensive, often power hungry model, hooking up to services so that any chores are removed, using site ablution facilities (which need to be a lot more swish than basic utility) having a means of getting about from the site easily. Club is looking at this changing membership and responding accordingly.
1 -
@Takethedogalong The trouble for those of us that have been partaking in the hobby for more years than we care to remember is that we remember the basic days. Anyone deciding to buy a caravan now, even secondhand, will encounter a whole range of vans with relative high tech features and will assume that to be caravanning? Now, once in the hobby they could well seek out the less featured sites but I suspect they will visit somewhere like a recently refurbished Club site, or in fact many of the better commercial sites, and think that is the standard? I wonder if its a "toilet" thing? By reading some posts, especially on Social Media the thought of using a caravan toilet for number 2's sends some people into a tizzy!!!
David
0 -
@DavidKlyne - David, your last sentence above made me chuckle - I think you're probably right! Wherever we are - no matter what facilities are on offer, we remained "self-contained". On the other hand, I do like to be plumbed in to the water and drainage as it makes life so much easier for us 'oldies'. Problem is - in my opinion - is that the Club seem to assume that one is exclusive of the other. I wonder what would happen if they provided serviced pitches on non-facility sites?? With a bit of 'jiggery pokery' - also known as my 4-way tap splitter (and the consent of the owners), I can usually achieve this on most of the CLs / CS's we stay at.
What really hit me was that last year, when we were at the NYM site, it was virtually empty - whilst at the same time of year, the year before, it was rammed. Pricing has to have had something to do with it and I think that, there - there is a message for the Club because it will be a sad day for all of us, new and old, if all that is on offer are the usual, 120 pitch hardstanding 'car parks'.
2 -
Richard
Hebden Bridge has a few serviced pitches and I think Stanford had some before it was closed (outside the control of the Club). Some of the no facility sites had some good locations, the Worthing site for example, bus stop a short walk from the entrance and a supermarket in walking distance. The Club did have plans to create a site similar to Steamer Quay but in the end the local authority wanted to build houses on it. For us, in a motorhome NYM would probably not suited as it was a bit out of the way and when we stayed at Whitby we used Sandfield House Farm just as you go out of Whitby going north. Bus stop at the end of the drive, you can walk to the beach, bit more difficult getting back! So I think no facility sites can probably survive if they are convenient for, I expect, motorhomers? A sad fact but if half the membership vote with their feet on these types of site you can see that it could spell trouble for the future?
David
0 -
Unfortunately, I can see why usage of Rosedale dropped. So many caravans and motorhomes are so big nowadays, that for many, the only sensible route in and out of Rosedale was the same road. And you might consider that many of the popular / best walks start from on top of the moors, not in the valley bottom. The other roads are narrow and have steep sections. Just in the car, the roads can be "fun", let alone towing even a small van, or anything much more than a small VeeDub. Ayton site isn't really that far away, with plenty of non club sites along the Scarborough - Helmsley road.
0 -
I too read the FB post about Rosedale Abbey,and not really surprised now after the first tranch of non facility site closures,as DK mentions the amount of people that constantly mention toilet facilities as a reason not to visit these sites is amazing.
I notice too, the Club's direction on this, when it states "Preferences of our Members" and "Interested of wider Members, somehow with all the fully service pitches,water and drainage laid on,16 amp electric with wifi,even though they still want amazing toilet blocks,I appear now to be in the minority,in the Club's future direction.
0 -
@Fozzie I can only assume that the Club have a mass of statistics on the relative use of sites on which they base their decisions. Given the number of such sites that have closed in the last couple of years I imagine they were all worse than just borderline?
David
0 -
I can understand folk preferring sites with toilet facilities, we certainly do. However, since switching to a Motorhome it’s more about location. The only CAMC non facs site we have used in the UK is Altnaharra, as it was where we wanted to be, others failed on that count. Last years tour in France used 11 Aires without toilet blocks out of 24 locations, simply because they were where we wanted to be. If there had been suitable full facs sites in the required locations we would probably have used them.
0 -
I think the last two posts give a good indication of why some sites are closing. Motorhome users haven’t got the convenience of a car to get out and about, so are wary of being out on a limb at times, plus many folks simply don’t use their onboard toilet facilities. This isn’t anything new in truth, we have known folks for decades who don’t use their caravan bathrooms, and how nice the loos/showers are on a site is a very big factor for a lot of people.
Very sad for the likes of us, who have stayed on a lot of the very nice, simple locations down the decades, but businesses have to go with what the majority of customers want and will pay.
0 -
I do agree with you on this. We did start out forty years ago with four of us in a10ft Piper. That was fully equipped with a foot pump and a single small tube for lighting (powered by the car battery) and a gas lamp. Not sure the modern day campers could manage, but it was fairly standard as a basic caravan in its day, but it did in fact mean we needed a toilet block as we had no room on board for a toilet, although some people had a toilet tent.
Our next caravan was pure luxury as it had a fridge, an electric pump and electric lighting and room for a Porta Potti. At that point we were near self sufficient and could live without the toilet block, although needed a kettle for hot water.
Now we have a toilet, heating, fridge, running hot and cold water and double glazing like most and just regard it as the norm. We use the on board toilet and are happy on sites without one. I have no problem emptying the thing, but I do accept as a butchers son, I am less squeamish than most.
People do want the sites to be more luxurious and provided they are willing to pay the price, then that is what we are going to get. Our home has followed the same route so I think it is just the way life in general has gone.
0 -
We use SPs almost exclusively and we have no qualms about using our on board toilet but up to a point. If it's dry outside then we'll use the site facilities. During the night or if it's too cold outside then we won't. This is just to do with keeping the toilet emptying to a minimum which I see as a chore.
However we don't use our shower and much prefer the roomier shower area and 'unlimited' hot water with no worries about it running cold.
Clearly in my view those non facilities sites that just do not attract enough members to make them viable should close.
0 -
@Wildwood - agree with all of that. I started off in a two-man tent and cooked all our meals on my much-loved Optimus paraffin stove (which I still have!) - great fun, whatever the weather - but at 20 something - you can cope with all of that. First van - early 80's was a Swift Pirouette - very basic by today's standards - but it did have a fridge😀.
My point - using NYM as an example - is why did occupancy drop so dramatically between 2023 and 24? Yes, the weather may have played a small part but my suspicion is that, in increasing prices - albeit by a comparatively small amount, the Club crossed the line with regard what was considered a fair price for a non-fac site and what was not. We have been going there every year for the last 10 years and I have never seen it so empty as it was last year, at that time of year.
2 -
I agree with you about NYM R&R. We were surprised how quiet it was in late March last year. But it was wet on the ground. I think folks just want the ease of rolling up, connecting up and then forgetting about as many chores as they can nowadays. Nothing wrong with this, except having lots of services costs money in terms of infrastructure, so that means the prices go up, regardless of whether or not you want to use them or not. I can recall back in the 1980/90’s, when electric hook ups came in, and the prices went up. But at least for a while back then you could choose either with or without. Certainly the case on Marazion Site, and a few others. Nowadays, owning an outfit is more like having a mobile cottage, with everything but the services included, so you simply roll in, plug in and get on with it. No effort at all.
0 -
I don’t see why. Although some people like to use their MHs like caravans, others of us are perfectly happy to start the engine and drive to the shops/beauty spot/next site. The 'get up and go' aspect of MHs is their big benefit.
1 -
Well two points, there are more MH owning members than caravan ones and the number is still growing, and as on the sites I go to there are more MHs on site than caravans, and as this has been going on for some years I cannot see the porblems?
0 -
@Frank128 I tend to agree because that is exactly how we decided on what sites to use. When we had a caravan and were working, going away to a remote site for a weekend was not an issue as it was unlikely we would leave the site, we just wanted to chill out. When we retired and got out first motorhome we were away to explore rather than R&R as in the past. There are loads of Club sites out there where you can get on a bus or walk into a town/village but sadly not many of them of the no facility variety. Our hobby is clearly changing but perhaps its not quite clear, at moment, how it will change?
David
0 -
but only on the occasions you’ve stayed at a site.
0 -
Yes could be but not my observation, for example Troutbeck Head is not near any transport or bus stop yet has on the times I've been there (which is a lot and over all times of year) has a lot of MHs on site and usually more than caravans.
But that's not the point you were making @Frank128. You posted:
The rise in motorhome owners and their lack of transport when on site will cause a lot of problems for a lot of sites.
So unless this post is separate from the one you made above (if so apologies) what problems are you thinking of for those sites?
0 -
The Club has a lot of members who have swopped from a caravan to a MH, and are happy to set up on a Club site as they used to, providing that there is good public transport, or plenty to do close by. Not all of the time, but some of the time. Occasionally we do the same, but we also use our small MH to go out each day as well, as we like to properly tour around an area, hopping from site to site.
0 -
I am not sure that the numbers of motorhomes do exceed caravans. I did try checking this on trips late last year and found in each case the number of caravans was a little higher although far closed than I think it once was. There seems to have been a good number of motorhome programmes on Tv of late and no caravan ones which may be a factor. You also seem to et contestants on quiz shows saying they want to buy a motorhome regularly although the winnings are usually nowhere near what is required.
I rather think there is a current perception that motor homes are better when in fact the choice is far less clear. I have noted a few people having tried motor homes moving to caravans because they realise they fit their life better although it is difficult to know how many.
Before you jump you do have to look at both options and only go for one when you have fully considered the pros and cons of both.
1 -
definitely swings and roundabouts in terms of outfit choice. We prefer a caravan for some places, MH for others. I suspect quite a few folks might swop from a caravan to a MH thinking that the lifting chores might be easier (they are in general), but you do have to consider other compromises, one of which being willing to use it daily while away, or rely more on other forms of getting around. I think this could be a factor in why some of the no facility sites are closing as well, most tended to be that bit more isolated, so the uptake of MHs isn’t suiting those who like to pitch up for a few days and explore by other means. How you like to camp is a factor as well, carrying lots of extras for on site, means that it all has to be packed away before you can move on, so that’s another compromise. Club buying sites like the one near Matlock isn’t going to really assist with this aspect, as it’s a long walk into Matlock with a very big hill to get back up, but there might be a bus stop within a mile. But at least the site has a loo block, which will be important to many.
0 -
@Wildwood I think to a large extent it depends on the location and also time of year. Baltic Wharf in March and October last year was mainly Motorhomes and the sites we used in the north of Scotland in May and June were similarly Motorhome dominant. I suspect that in July and August the ratio might have been somewhat different. Our July and August visits are restricted to a few days away with the granddaughter and Hawes and Bridlington were probably caravan dominant, although I didn’t bother to count them.
0
