What a pity!
Comments
-
I think it perfectly understandable that people who tour abroad and use aires might like the same thing here in the UK. The problem is who should set these things up. Now the one mentioned by TDA is an example of how it could be done. A smallish investment by a local community (Parish Councils might be an idea) and any proceeds go to support other local leisure facilities. What I have not yet seen is a business case for either Club to do the same.
David
2 -
Surely the business case is much the same as for a certificated location, indeed many of the Aires appearing in the UK are being set up under the exempted scheme and following trials set up by councils, e.g. Fleetwood, South Hams, both have been deemed a success. CAMpRA have also carried out surveys and publish their findings on their Web site. In the right location, if you have the land, I very much doubt there isn't a business case.
peedee
1 -
I used to think it would be nice if the Clubs provided Aire type provision. But then I realised that what Club Members now want is far removed from what likely Aire users will require. I was thinking originally from a Member point of view, but today’s Club Members are very different (in terms of what they want) to the Club Members when we first joined. So I can see that there isn’t really a business niche for the Club. Hence it’s better for the likes of us, (short stays, cheap, minimum facilities required) to look elsewhere.
We will try Aires overseas at some point. Carefully selected ones, that meet our personal criteria. Not having used one overseas, I have no idea how safe, vulnerable, vandalised, misused they are overseas, but it is a factor in the UK. I think some possible providers here would worry about their investment being vandalised, misused, damaged, so along with a cultural shift in touring mindset, it is an aspect that some LA’s, parish councils, etc…. need to consider. I am sure the Club and CL owners could provide evidence of mindless vandalism from some that resent touring folks in their area.
1 -
We have only used them in France @Takethedogalong and so far have had no cause for concern over safety at any of them, even in the middle of towns. There are normally at least a handful of vans, you are very rarely on your own. As to vandalism, although I am sure it happens, we have not come across it and we have stayed at a lot of Aires. Unfortunately as at CAMC sites not everyone leaves the facilities (particularly the CDP) as they would wish to find it. However, most of the paid ones seem to have reasonable cleaning regimes. The free ones less so and we have rejected a few as the facilities have been horrible.
1 -
In over 30 plus years, I have experienced more vandalism on sites than on Aires, admittedly in the UK I have used very few of the latter,simply because not that many exist. You also read very few reports of any problems on legal places to stop over. Most reports refer to autoroute Aires especially those on non toll sections or laybys and the like.
peedee
0 -
Peedee
I could be wrong but is there a business case for most CL's? Could someone with a CL rely on it for there sole income? I perfectly understand that it would provide extra income to an existing business or someone wanting a little extra income. If we use the CL as a basis for starting a motorhome aire, what would you charge, £10 a night? If it was full every day of the year that would only bring in £18200 a year, not even the NMW. I have always thought that the CMC could encourage more CL's within walking distance of places as they could also act as an aire? Local Authorities car parks could section a small part off as an aire. The Council could probably recoup any modest investment quite quickly. Perhaps the likes of CAMpRA are the people to promote this rather than the Clubs?
David
0 -
Aires, I’m sure, are neither part of the vision for the C@MC and never has been. CLs provide the nearest thing or possible the ‘Pub’ carpark options out there like Britstops. We have stopped on these and English Vineyard/Farm shop sites and really enjoyed them. Councils with their park and ride facilities could step up to the mark in my opinion. Whitby P&R is a prime example for possibilities, Closed as a P&R for large parts of the year but open during all year to contractors and workers at the local mine. Why not allow overnight MHs? The council, in their wisdom, recently stopped such possibilities at Sandsend and that was really popular all year round. Thinking OStB is clearly needed but not for the C@MC it seems.
0 -
@Takethedogalong Having used aires, stellplätze, sostas, areas autocaravanas all over Europe, I can honestly say that I have never stayed anywhere where I felt unsafe or vulnerable. If you don’t feel comfortable stopping (very rarely), you just move on to the next.
The wide choice of locations, be it in transit, visiting a town centre, on the banks of a canal or river, by the coast or just in the middle of nowhere, is what makes them so attractive to me.
There are literally thousands of aires and you are missing a trick if you haven't stayed on one.
A good starting point is to stay on one run by the Camping-Car Park organisation. Have a look at this one
or maybe this one
Happy travels !
2 -
I guess it is down to landowners as to how a business case matches their expectations. Given the cost of sites and what I know some are charging already, I would expect rates to be in excess of £10 even without electricity. Location and demand will also be a factor to be taken into account. Bourton on the Water charges £15 per night in their major car park and there is no electric or services.. As far as I know it is well used, certainly when I have visted its been full in the day time. Northumberland council charge £12 per night for the Aires they have established. Again they are well used and again no electric or services. Hawick is free, no electric but they do provide services. I personally think they should be making a charge to discourage undesirables and long stayers.
peedee
0 -
"I guess it is down to landowners as to how a business case matches their expectations"
Exactly, PD, and I reckon the clubs have applied that criteria as well.
3 -
It won’t surprise you that I disagree, PD. I don’t mean to be unpleasant here but what aspects of CAMC do you find favourable? I ask because you seem so negative yet remain a member. It puzzles me.🤷🏻♂️
1 -
Thanks for the reply. I still don’t really get it as the nightly price is the nightly price no matter how long you stay.🤔
1 -
@peedee so you're saying there isn't any stop go for MHs there? I mean there's no minimum stay is there unlike the CCC at some sites? What's to stop a MH staying there for a one night for a stop and go?
It's been stated that those glamping cabins on any site have not taken the space of touring pitches.
but for short stay touring motorhomes i.e. 24 to 48 hours they are overpriced
Really can't get that at all, is there a cheaper nightly price for longer stays? Is that what you're saying? There are slight variations on a small number of sought after sites between weekdays and weekends and some BHs but it's not that great, and for the vast majority of sites there is no difference at all?
You may not like the glamping cabins but they are very popular and bring in extra income. As they do not take the place of touring pitches it's a win win for me.
1 -
Thanks for the reply. I still don’t really get it as the nightly price is the nightly price no matter how long you stay.🤔
Put another way, I am happy to pay a higher price for the comfort of a long stay when I might use all facilities. For short stays I just want to park up before moving on.
peedee
1 -
Sorry, PD, but your logic leaves me cold. With regard to your OP, you’re effectively looking for long stay people on club sites to subsidise your shorter stays.
1 -
Isn’t the price per night exactly the same for those that stay one night as it is for those staying multiple nights? I cannot see for the life of me why those of us staying one night only are being unfairly charged. I must be missing something, can someone please help me with my misunderstanding. I would currently argue that the club are actually beneficial in their charging policy to those of us staying just that one night, is this not true?
3 -
Given that anyone staying one night costs the club almost exactly the same as someone staying several nights I can see no reason for the cost to differ. If anything longer stays need less administration, so they should be cheaper, but as it is almost all done by computers now perhaps not.
1 -
Perhaps what posters have in mind is the system we have come across elsewhere. When you just need a quick stopover you pay less for fewer services.
Some sites have an area apart from the main campsite, which is in effect an Aire, and you pay less to stay there. Other sites might offer a reduced rate if you arrive after, and depart before, specified times.
Pitches may be smaller; ehu may not be included (or extra); perhaps there will not be access to the site facilities. It varies. But these quick stops are ideal when in transit.
I am not prepared to pay around £40 for a night stop, so I look for places other than Club sites.
And I agree with the OP and others earlier in the thread. I feel it is a pity that the Club has not embraced this aspect of motorhoming. When the name changed I had high hopes. But nothing changed: only the name.
2 -
"I feel it is a pity that the Club has not embraced this aspect of motorhoming."
Even though that could be to the detriment of non-motorhoming members? I think that’s rather unfair.
0 -
I feel it is a pity that the Club has not embraced this aspect of motorhoming. When the name changed I had high hopes. But nothing changed: only the name.
I'm not sure why you think it should embrace this aspect when there are clear indications that its MH owning members do not want it as shown perhaps by that they do not use lower price, basic sites and they have to close or be I assume be a drain on club resources, also, and you may not know being a non member there are now greater number of MH owners than caravans.
But as @peedee has posted in post 40 there already are a good number of aire type providers so why does the club have to provide them as well? Why not just use them, why a club site? But until (and I think as others do it won't happen) the only way to go is to use other providers?
Would you join if this service was provided?
1 -
@mickysf I agree completely with your last sentence, with Motorhomers often arriving late in the afternoon or in the early evening, and then leaving promptly in the morning, whereas caravans tend to arrive closer to 1:00, so those in the caravan will probably be using more electric. The only way to ensure that the costs are more equal is to have metered EHU.
1 -
-
@Not_going_gentle I have stayed on campsites in Europe which have an area outside the campsite to be used as an aire. I don't quite know the status or set-up as we were on the actual campsite. Another site in Normandy had a motorhome area where you had to arrive after 4.00pm and depart earlier in the morning compared to units on the main campsite. All this at a reduced rate.
There are a couple of things that would make it difficult for the Club to follow suit. One is spacing, I don't think the Club would compromise on spacing which means it would be at odds with most aires. As others have said I think they would find it difficult to justify a much reduced nightly fee. They might be OK with a 10/20% reduction for a restricted stay but I don't think that would really meet the demands of those wanting such a provision. A 20% reduction would still mean price of £25 to £30, probably more in the peak season, which I suspect is more than most of those calling for this sort of provision would be willing to pay?
David
1 -
Well I just fondly imagined that as the Club decided to call itself the Caravan and Motorhome Club it might just introduce some aspects of motorhoming which some of us experience elsewhere. And clearly some motorhoming members would like something a little different - as expressed on this thread. Not sure that all motorhome members don't want an Aire type provision.
But it's never going to happen. So be it. I've been a member since 1986 actually but now that we motorhome instead of caravanning we find ourselves using Club sites less and less. Hardly ever.
1 -
Ah, well. You’ve obviously found something else to suit and in view of the number of MHs I hear of using full fat club sites the aire wanting members posting here seem to be in a very small minority. If that’s the case, I can’t see CAMC providing cheap stops when they can sell full price pitches - it doesn’t seem to be the way to go in running the club.
2 -
Sorry I didn't realise you were a member as it doesn't show as such, just forum participant why not ask Ro to see the way to go to getting it changed?
0 -
As I’ve often said, location is everything. We choose sites according to where we want to be, isn’t that what touring is all about? The pitch itself generally only offers us a place to rest our van and heads. However, the choice of site itself can provide those additional facilities we may need along the way such as grey and black waste disposal and access to potable water etc.. Occasionally we also need laundry facilities. So we choose sites based on our perceived needs at any point during the planned trip. Having the likes of Britstops, commercial sites, club sites, CLs/CSs etc. all available to us then broadens the choice. As stated earlier though, location is the main driver and if a club site fit the bill then we tend to gravitate towards them as they invariably provide all the criteria required for a successful and enjoyable stay. Our club also offers that important ability to stay just that one night, even in peak times, something other providers frequently do not. Afterall, we join our club as it is a network of sites, not just one site, often spending several consecutive nights on club sites, just not the same site.
I would however be interested in metered electricity if that would reduce our costs. We will have to see have that pans out.0 -
You may not like the glamping cabins but they are very popular and bring in extra income. As they do not take the place of touring pitches it's a win win for me.
I still think the Club could have done a lot better to have used the space at Moreton to provide a motorhome Aire. The ten pods take up far more space than a greater number of motorhome parking spaces would even at 6m spacing and the pods would have certainly cost more to provide. I don't think they are that well used either. When I was last there only two were in use while the camping pitches were pretty much all in use. I cannot help but think the Club is going in the wrong direction. Motorhome ownership is booming and I don't believe the Club is making the most of it.
The face of touring has changed and this is very noticeable on the Continent with the advent of sites like I highlighted in my OP, the arrival of companies like Camping Car Park and the rapid growth in official motorhome stop over sites in Spain. I can only see a decline in the use of expensive sites in the UK.
ppeedee
1
