CLOSED - Club sites and full-time working users
Am I the only one who has noticed that in recent years, more and more Club sites are being used by workers as temporary accommodation rather than as recreational sites? This seems to becoming a real problem on some sites and yet, other than the 21 day
rule, the Club do not seem to be doing anything to stop it.
“The Club was founded in 1907 as The Caravan Club of Great Britain and Ireland.
Its aim was to "... bring together those interested in van life as a pastime...to improve and supply suitable vans and other appliances...to develop the pastime by collecting, publishing and supplying to members, books and periodicals and lists
of camp sites etc...”
Because of its recreational nature the Club has enjoyed special privileges and exemption from Planning Controls since new laws were introduced in 1959 to control people living in caravans,
In recent weeks we have seen discussions on this Forum with people defending their right to live full-time in their caravans and use Club sites. One member has openly stated on several occasions that they move around a small selection of sites in their
area spending 21 days on each and working from site. On our travels throughout the UK we have spoken to many caravanners when we have been on site who have admitted to doing the same. Perhaps most notably in the south-east of England where property prices
are highest.
Will the Club please respond to this issue? I think it is of major concern to Members that sites are being used in this way. Firstly, because it means those members who rely on sites for the original intended purpose of recreation are being denied the
opportunities to book. Secondly, just as the law changed in 1959 to control residential caravan use, such use as I have described could well result in a further change to Planning Laws which will affect all Club Members and their ability to enjoy their pastime.
Comments
-
Whilst clearly Club sites are designed for leisure purposes I do wonder how many people use them for the purposes described. I am sure we have all been on sites near to large towns where there is clearly an element of workers using the site. I assume those
workers add to the revenue of those sites which might not be automatically replaced if an ban was out in place?David
0 -
Yes, OGand S, I;ve noticed it too. We once stayed at the C&CC site at Milton Keynes on the way back home from an afternoon crossing back from France; about 2 years ago now. There were quite a lot of caravans on site, but no cars to be seen. Then at around
6pm they all came in, one after the other, all obviously workers coming back. Next morning it was a mass exodus before 8am.It felt rather strange, like a ghost village; the site didn't feel like a holiday site. We were only there overnight, but I wouldn't like to spend more than that there. Also, when OH went to use a shower in the block, one of them apparently was in a dreadful
state, with trodden-in mud and water, and just left like that. At the time there was 1 tent there, and another caravan with a couple, who were on holiday, but the rest weren't tourists.0 -
I would guess there is pressure on accommodation for some and having a van helps this. Some work from a site during the week and then return home. However I can see the pressure on accommodation building up especially in the southeast and siting a van could
be cheaper than renting etc. I presume their might be a few who let their properties (rents are very high in the southeast) and use sites as their living quarters. As David said workers add to site revenues,especially in winter but I imagine this situation
would need to be montitored carefully?0 -
A sticky one. If someone goes out to work, I'm not to sure if that breaches any rule. If someone works from their van, ie using it as a place of work or business, then thats different and blows apart any planning for recreational purposes. There is one site
that I stay sometimes where windfarm workers stay. Its really quiet day and night, and enables the site owner to stay in business. It also brings life to an otherwise dead pub. I dont think any law has been brocken, what they do when they go out in the morning
and then come back home for tea is their business. So many companies in the UK now have mobility clauses in the contracts, and many dont pay expenses for working away from home. Its the employment conditions that are the issue.0 -
I'm with you OP, if it is against a Member it is becoming a Witch hunt, I've seen the abuse in other threads. Bullying/stalking is not acceptable. Maybe the 'entertainment Members' fit an ideal that the potential bullies find acceptable
0 -
Oh dear, the criticism forum again.
We have had criticism of other people's driving, their children, their bikes, their dogs and their toilet habits. Now we have criticism of other people for going out to work. Live and let live.
0 -
I agree with HD; plus on occasion when our holiday dates don't sync, one of us may be in "working from home mode" via our mifi in the motorhome....
0 -
Please do not think this is a criticism of any one or any group of members. It is not. It is a huge matter of principle in Planning Law.
I repeat. The Club gains special status because it is for leisure purposes only. Commercial sites are different and have to go through the full planning process and if having people stay there year round is part of their consent then there is no problem. They pay thousands of pounds in planning fees to have their applications processed. The Club does not.
I am talking about the Club which was created for recreational purposes only and which as a result is able to put sites in areas that it probably wouldn't on a commercial basis.
I suppose in some ways it is symptomatic of a society that just wants to 'do its own thing' regardless of how it affects the majority in the long term. Then, it is usually those same people who whinge when things go wrong.....
I don’t want to see the Club lose its exemption and as a result have to pass high costs on through membership fees and site fees to everyone which is probably what will happen if such abuse continues.0 -
What on earth is the problem? If a member pays their subs they are just as entitled as any other member to stay on site and do whatever they wish during their stay. Seems to me far too many folk on here are too concerned with what others get up to. Anyway, it's all speculation isn't it? Unless you're on site for 21 nights yourself how can you know how long others are staying for, let alone what they're doing during their stay?
0 -
Please do not think this is a criticism of any one or any group of members. It is not. It is a huge matter of principle in Planning Law.
I repeat. The Club gains special status because it is for leisure purposes only. Commercial sites are different and have to go through the full planning process and if having people stay there year round is part of their consent then there
is no problem. They pay thousands of pounds in planning fees to have their applications processed. The Club does not.
I am talking about the Club which was created for recreational purposes only and which as a result is able to put sites in areas that it probably wouldn't on a commercial basis.
I suppose in some ways it is symptomatic of a society that just wants to 'do its own thing' regardless of how it affects the majority in the long term. Then, it is usually those same people who whinge when things go wrong.....
I don’t want to see the Club lose its exemption and as a result have to pass high costs on through membership fees and site fees to everyone which is probably what will happen if such abuse continues.You are muddling up CLs with Club sites
Planning permission is required for Club sites. There is no difference in planning law between a club and a non club site as planning is only interested in land use issues
0 -
I don't see it as a problem as long as they move sites after 21 days as per the rules.
Long term caravanners seem to be more of a problem on some commercial sites, there is one not far from us where I know some people live in their vans all year round, and go to work each day.
0 -
OG, I understand what you are trying to say and I think some of the comments from others were valid, certainly not a witch hunt and on my part I hope, well intended. I'm now opting out of this thread as I'm saddened to see the discussion stifled by any misplaced
accusations.0 -
Please do not think this is a criticism of any one or any group of members. It is not. It is a huge matter of principle in Planning Law.
I repeat. The Club gains special status because it is for leisure purposes only. Commercial sites are different and have to go through the full planning process and if having people stay there year round is part of their consent then there
is no problem. They pay thousands of pounds in planning fees to have their applications processed. The Club does not.
I am talking about the Club which was created for recreational purposes only and which as a result is able to put sites in areas that it probably wouldn't on a commercial basis.
I suppose in some ways it is symptomatic of a society that just wants to 'do its own thing' regardless of how it affects the majority in the long term. Then, it is usually those same people who whinge when things go wrong.....
I don’t want to see the Club lose its exemption and as a result have to pass high costs on through membership fees and site fees to everyone which is probably what will happen if such abuse continues.You are muddling up CLs with Club sites
Planning permission is required for Club sites. There is no difference in planning law between a club and a non club site as planning is only interested in land use issues
..No, I'm not JayEss. CLs are different again and they gain Exemption Certificates from the Club if they meet Club criteria without having to seek planning consent. That is why a maximum of 5 vans are permitted on CLS. It is a condition of exemption.
Club sites gain special treatment within the planning process because they are for recreational purposes only. This is why it is an issue.0 -
When I used to work, I worked hard each day, then left work behind and went home.
Once I got home, I regarded the time as mine - my "leisure time" if you like.
Does it matter whether home is a house, flat or even a caravan? It's still someone's leisure time, so I can't see why they cannot eat and sleep on a CC site in these circumstances.
From what you have posted OG&S, it would only seem to be different, and therefore potentially an issue for the club, if the person was living on site semi-permanently and using their van as a place of work?
Cheers
Bugs
0 -
As long as people are not working whilst on the site I don’t see the problem. When on site they are in the own leisure time and using the site for recreational purposes. What people do when not on site (provided its legal) is no one else’s business.
0 -
[quote] ..No, I'm not JayEss. CLs are different again and they gain Exemption Certificates from the Club if they meet Club criteria without having to seek planning consent. That is why a maximum of 5 vans are permitted on CLS. It is a condition of exemption.
Club sites gain special treatment within the planning process because they are for recreational purposes only. This is why it is an issue. [/quote]No they don't. They are no different in land use terms from a commercial site. They fall within the same use class and they are treated exactly the same way
0 -
There appear to be some really grey areas here. OG makes some good points but so does Bugs (about leisure time being leisure time when you are not working etc). I wonder how many people on site have opened an email, or even worse, replied to an email
while on site, where the email is to do with their work/ employment? I'm probably as guilty as anyone. If my Vicar sends me an email asking me if I can play for a funeral the week after my holiday, and I reply to it, then perhaps I am guilty?David
0 -
I could be wrong but I am guessing the challenge relates to diluting the holiday feeling / spirit of a site if the majority of residents are in full time work mode.
When on holiday people tend to be more relaxed, have more time to pass the time of day, etc and typically be in a better frame of mind.
Some may say they're enjoying a lifestyle and not a holiday but I guess when most are in the trenches of work mode their smile and manner may not always be so wide and good....
0 -
Ok although employed I work from home and travel daily to visit clients across the North West & North East. When I have finished my day on the road (in my Vauxhall Insignia - not commercial vehicle) I have to go online and do my paperwork etc. I quiet regulalry
tie in outings with the caravan based on when I'm working in a certain area. I will leave the site at around 8am (in the main I will leave the car in the car park not on the pitch) in the morning and return later in the day. Any one staying on site will assume
I have been working as I return to the caravan in a suit! I will then settle down in the van or awning to do my paperwork before relaxing and enjoying my caravan for its primary use my leisure. I dont see this as affecting anyone on site - most of whom go
off site for the day if holidaying - and adds income to the CC coffers during usually quiet mid week.I can therefore enjoy my hobby whilst working and cause no adverse effects on any other CC member. I probably spend 10 -15 nights a year working on this basis.
Riggers
0 -
Will the Club please respond to this issue? I think it is of major concern to Members that sites are being used in this way.
I'm surprised with your experience of CT that you have chosen to ask a question of CC on the forum, OGS. You know as well as I do that it's unlikely CC will respond and the best way to get an answer is to make direct contact. Despite your claim to
the contrary, I'm afraid your OP resonates of having a go at a particular member.For the record, it is not of any concern to me that a handful of people maybe using CC sites in the manner you describe. It is only your opinion that it is a major concern and it is not an opinion I share.
0 -
As the OP stated, I think the club needs to make their official views known. This issue was raised back in 20011/12 when the Olympic village was being built and a lot of CC, C&CC and commercial sites in the London area being full most of the time due to construction workers. This then leaves reduced places for holidaymakers.
I don't see any problem in using a 'van' for a mix of leisure/working activities, or short stay in between work. Just check the insurance small print.?
0 -
As the OP stated, I think the club needs to make their official views known. This issue was raised back in 20011/12 when the Olympic village was being built and a lot of CC, C&CC and commercial sites in the London area being full most of the time due to construction workers. This then leaves reduced places for holidaymakers.
As a member I'm entitled to book an avaliable pitch and use the caravan to stay in. In no way do I regard the occasions when I work while using the van to be detrimental to other members. I pay the same pitch fees and generate income for the CC on sites that are never full midweek. In late afternoon /evenings I add to the "life" of the site by talking with members etc. During the day my wife will be in and around the van enjoying her leisure time
This may be an issue in some limited areas but I doubt as whole across the UK this is a real problem. The CC needs mid week income and it would be hard to prove that on most sites the few workers based have a detrimental effect on the atmosphere.
Riggers
0 -
I don't share to OP's view either and certainly agree with Jayess with respect to planning permission. I have never come across a site so full of workers that it is problem. Even if the Club didn't like the practice and wanted to stop it, I bet it would be hard to enforce even on member only sites.
peedee
0
