CLs with Glamping

Is it just pods you object to Vulcan? There are lots of CL's that have small commercial sites adjacent, fenced off from 5 van area. Some have a CS or another CL area as well, all with seperate amenities. Some commercial sites set aside an area purely for CC members, again fenced off with own amenities. They are not unusual, that is the point I am trying to make. I do agree that if anything other than just 5 vans are on the site, it would make good sense for owners to let members know, as a few want exclusive use and may get upset if things aren't as expected. But most holiday accommodation "extras" enhance CLs and allow none touring family and friends to be together. 

For the sake of clarity, please read my previous post again-

For what it's worth I have been using CL's for approx 40 years. If you had read my posts properly you would see that I have no problem with CL owners having other business interests,quite the contrary, however I do not think they should be on the same site as a CL.Look at it logically,what is the point of legislating to only allow 5 caravans on a CL if you then allow a glamping pod etc on it, it makes a mockery of the regulations.

How many CLs have you used Vulcan, just out of interest? 

After 30 years of using them, the length and breadth of the U.K, we have come across all sorts of combinations, where the owners have a small five van site, but then may offer visitors the option of holiday cottage, bed and breakfast, a pod, a yurt, a glamping
tent, a gypsy caravan, a shepherds hut, a vintage glamping van, a small commercial site, a rally field or any combination of the above. All with the appropriate planning permission in place. Some even offer stabling for horses! Most of these places are extremely
well run and welcoming sites, looking to make a decent go of running a business either as a sole venture, or supplementing farming with a bit of diversification. A quick look at either the owners website, or reviews elsewhere will tell you whatever is on site.
Then you can decide if this is not a place you want to visit. So long as there are only five caravans or MH on the CL area, then what they are doing is perfectly within planning regulations.  

..But that is the problem, pods, yurts etc. ON THE CL site . We recently called in past a CL we used to use when it first opened and there are now more , chalets, pods, etc than there are caravan pitches. It is no longer a CL but a holiday park operating
under the guise of a CC CL. Kellysmum

One nights income from a Shepherds Hut equals 5 vans onsite, perhaps something like a Hut makes the CL more viable to run and would ensure that more CL's keep open for your enjoyment.

 

I am not disputing that but it should not be on the CL.When I enter a CL I expect to be one of  maximum of five because that is what I have paid for and those are the regulations.The CL owners have agreed to the regulations in order to avoid having planning consent then abuse the priviledge to the detriment of members.

Perhaps we could have a comment from a CL owner with one of these statics or shepherds huts regarding what they've been told or believe that the regulations allow. Or even better it would be good to hear from HO what the definite position is, and then either backup or refute what you believe the regulations to say, Vulcan.

I have just got a reply fron the CC and I think it backs up my point-

Thank you for your email dated 19^th November and I quite agree that the regulation requirements are clear and we really strive to uphold these rules and maintain the standards of the CLs on the network, therefore it is very disappointing to hear that you view it as becoming a farce.

When a site is set up the rules are very clearly discussed with the new owners as well as the necessity of their acting within the spirit of the 1960 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, therefore it is shocking to be told either by our CL Advisors or by members when things go wrong.

Thank you for including a link relating to the site Greenacre, Cockermouth from the independent website UK Campsite, showing a glamping pod on their CL, this is clearly a breach of Certificate.  In the first instance I have ask our CL Advisor for the area to investigate and see if there is any way of bringing the site back within regulation before any action is taken.  If we are able to save the site we will also insist that any external advertising is amended to ensure that the CL does not falsely advertise anything other than being a CL.

 

Wot if the CL owner decides to throw the towel in due to your complaint? 

It would be very sad to see the closure of any CL however I would be interested to know where you would draw the line, next year two pods on the CL, another one the following year etc. As I said before the CL owner used the Caravan Club exemption certificate complete
with its rules to circumnavigate the planning system and that means providing CC members with what they have paid for, a site exclusive to five CC members.

 

 

Wot if the CL owner decides to throw the towel in due to your complaint? 

It would be very sad to see the closure of any CL however I would be interested to know where you would draw the line, next year two pods on the CL, another one the following year etc. As I said before the CL owner used the Caravan Club exemption certificate complete with its rules to circumnavigate the planning system and that means providing CC members with what they have paid for, a site exclusive to five CC members.

Do you know for a fact the CL owner circumvented the regulations pertinent to a CL, or is it conjecture on your part?

My take is quite simple, or pragmatic, a CL providing facilities for 5 units is to be supported. I don't really care if there are pods, cottages, hotels or blocks of flats at the same locale. To have provided those other facilities would have met the requisite roolz and to be blunt is none of my business nor yours 

You have a choice to support the CL or not, not a difficult decision. 

What I actually said was "the CL owner used the Caravan Club exemption certificate complete with its rules to circumnavigate the planning system" and then ignored the rules they had agreed to.Fact. I too don't really care if there are pods, cottages, (although unlike you I would draw the line at hotels and  blocks of flats) at the same locale as long as they are not on the CL. You too have the choice of using a commercial site etc if you cannot accept the rules and want to be on a site with more than five units, , not a difficult decision. 

 

 

 

Interestingly, we are currently looking at properties where we could incorporate a CL/CS/5 van site with other holiday and liesure facilities as a long term venture. The overriding negative that comes up is if a 'jobsworth' visitor arrives, despite knowing what is on site beforehand, then makes a complaint. CL owners are not going to make a living from CL provision on it's own and probably as caravanners themselves want to 'give back' to other caravanners would not be prepared to take the chance. Sometimes you have to be careful  what you wish for 

You have obviously not read all my posts on this subject otherwise you would see that i have repeated several times that I do not have a problem with other holiday and liesure facilities on the same property, quite the contrary.All I can say is that if you think a customer  who books a CL knowing the rules and regulations and arrives to find it has been mis advertised is "a  jobsworth", you should not be running a business of any kind.

KeefySher, I previously posted on this thread about a CL close to me that wanted to add 2 shepherds huts to the CL site, the planning decision and the view of the CC.

 When a CL is established it is made quite clear the boundries of the CL and the rules that apply to the granting of the certificate. It is not difficult to run a CL by sticking to the rules. Of course it’s not going to huge money spinner for the work that has to be put in, and running another business beside it would be a bonus. So if you are looking for a property to run a CL alongside another venture make sure you buy sufficient land and just keep the two ventures separate and everyone is happy.  

Your example was to remove 2 caravan 'pitches' , reducing the CL to 3, replace with Shepherds huts with planning permission and run under the CL certificate if my interpretation is correct. Rightly it was rejected.

As you rightly mention keeping seperation is crucial and communicating that would be a key part of establishing a CL in order to not fall foul of misunderstanding on the part of users 

Was your CL near Wimbourne, in a copse behind a bungalow?

It is interesting to note that i am receiving a lot of promotional detail from Glamping pod manufacturers, so they must be getting lists of CL Owners from somewhere. Just means more waste for the bin !!.

David    www.perthshirecl.co.uk