Loosing More CLs, why?
Prior to the new year there were 3 months when the number of new CL's exceeded the number that had closed, however the reverse is the case in the January magazine with 4 new sites but the closure of 12. Could this be because of the lack of support from HO for CL's that is now becoming apparent from the way that the new web site is treating them?
Comments
-
Well, you know what I think of the new website, particularly when it comes to how CL owners have been treated but I do think it's a bit early to assume your hypothesis.
Presumably the closures would have been notified to the CC quite a number of weeks or even months ago (especially when you consider how slow some of the CC depts are) and then you would have to have print runs etc so I assume most of these closures were advised to the CC before the launch of this abomination.
However, it will be interesting to hear from any current CL owner as to whether their current treatment will have a bearing on their continuing with the CC.
3 -
WN, I was not inferring that the new web site was responsible for the CL's closing, just lack of HO support. However it will be interesting to hear what CL owners think of the way the site is treating them.
0 -
It seems to me that the Club, through the Magazine have been investing quite a lot of print inches to promote CL's with interviews of the owners and their customers and some nice pictures. Perhaps there are more at this time of year because it's around now that those CL's decide that they will close at season end. Given that a CL is only ever going to be a second line income, at least whilst the limit is 5 vans the owners no doubt have a difficult decision on whether it is worth while carrying on. In a short number of years we seem to have gone from basic CL's to fully featured CL's and perhaps its the basic ones which are no longer being supported by the membership. Age of owner might also be a contributory factor?
David
4 -
I think a couple of things.
- At 5 vans only as DK says it's not going to make much money especially if it's a basic site charging a few pounds a night with all the extra work (bookings, grass cutting, security, access roads etc) and costs (water, sewage, lawnmower purchase and running, time).
- From comments on here no one wants to pay anything to stay so if the owners actually charge what it costs to run plus a small profit margin everyone seems to be up in arms.
- The way people live nowadays having a tap in a muddy field is no longer deemed to be acceptable for a holiday. We are all used to mod cons and travelling abroad and to nice hotels etc. so we demand more from a site (please don't turn this into on board facilities) so we like a hard standing maybe a toilet or shower electric etc.
7 -
There has been a steady decline i the number of CLs for some considerable time.
3 -
As a regular listener to 'Farming today' on Radio 4 for very many years I have noticed recently that some farmers and landowners seem to be reasonably comfortable with the current grants, subsidies and payments they receive from the E.U.
Maybe they feel they no longer need the toil and inconvenience of running a CL for such a minimal income. That may change after Brexit of course.
1 -
I think DK & MT have it right. The 5 van max is so inhibiting on income, but any pressure to change the anomaly that permits even that modest number I am worried endangers it altogether.
Then there is the younger want all singing all dancing facilities and there will always be those looking to pay as little as possible, not pay what is reasonable.
We see it everywhere this aversion to caravanning with a tap and CDP, even in the most beautiful of locations, and despite buying vans now with all we need already provided; strange but it affects rallies etc.
I suspect it is simply a generational thing, now disappearing with us.
2 -
I don't think this applies just to caravanning. The younger generation just don't do "discomfort". It all has to be wall to wall pampering as evidenced by all inclusive mega luxury breaks in Dubai, Maldives etc. Even yachting gone the same way. Despite significant improvements in the standard of accommodation in yachts, it has to be full facilities in a marina rather than dropping the hook in a quiet anchorage.
2 -
I'm not sure I agree with the comments about the younger generation, there's always been a variety of choices available. Two out of our three grown up children go camping at some point in the year, often with other families and friends. But they don't have the time to do this a lot and they don't have the money for super luxury holidays either so they suss out simple accommodation and bargain places elsewhere.
Our oldest daughter and family only have one holiday a year, usually an all inclusive break somewhere warm.
This is all a million miles away from van ownership and holidays on CLs but if you've got a van CLs provide such a good variety of holiday spots. Much of it relies on promotion and word of mouth.
Does one picture on this CC advert page promote CLs enough? I don't think so.
2 -
What is NEVER reported by the listing in the CC magazine is what has happened to the CL. Perhaps the Club just does not know, or does but wants to suppress the information.
Some reasons for "closure" could be, inter alia:- removed by CC for some compliance misdemeanour; given up the struggle; change of ownership; ground needed for a different project; change to licensed site (>5 'vans); illness of operators; no-one went there anyway.
Please add to the list of possibilities!
1 -
Oddly enough, thinking of facilities while on a 'package' holiday we now go for a 4 or 5* hotel, usually on an all inclusive package with all the bells and whistles - unless I find a last minute bargain then anythings up for grabs! However, in the caravan in the UK we much prefer a quiet CL with just a tap and waste disposal - don't want toilet/shower block and certainly no swimming pool/bar/restaurant facilities of a larger site. Agree with DK, the Club does now have a section in the mag but perhaps more could be done to halt the decline.
2 -
Probably a good many of the above mentioned hypotheses have an element of the truth in them.
Personally, and as a consistent user of CL/CS type sites for the last 30 plus years, I would like to see an alternative provider available for potential small site owners to enter the market. Having spoken to a few CL owners and small site owners down the years, obtaining planning permission is the main hoop that has to be negotiated, and most choose to go via CC or C&CC, or try and go it alone of they have an open minded LA. In the past, pre website days, most folks seem to have been happy in partnership with CC/CCC, but nowadays, I suspect that savvy owners who are more media minded could do a better job, without the restrictions on pitch numbers and the annual visit from the inspector. Farmers, in our opinion are brilliant at this, they have to make use of websites to comply with record keeping, etc.. so perhaps the NFU would be a good partner for potential owners to approach, I don't know?
I do however think that the help for CL owners and for members like us who stay as members because of the CLs, have been badly let down by this website upgrade. It hasn't improved searching for CLs in any way at all, and coupled with the bi annual handbook, leaves you stabbing in the dark if you want to try new CLs. We have gone back to keeping a note book handy for CLs we use, noting why they were good and as easy access to direct websites, email addresses and telephone numbers. Far les frustrating than negotiating your way on here!
6 -
...and to cap it all, a double post
0 -
There used to be a reason quoted as to why CLs were no longer listed, this included bereavements, owners selling up and contravention of Club rules. Done away with quite a few years ago, no idea why. It was useful, as we kept details of sites we used, and you knew not to contact if it was because of a bereavement etc.... Likewise, we know of sites that Club no longer listed, but are still there, perhaps under a different umbrella, and if we liked them, we can still use them.
It would be interesting to get an answer from HQ as to why such details were changed?
3 -
Yeah, don't you just love it BB! If you use an iPad like I do, the website and access is total pants! Hence why I have been a lot less active, no doubt a good thing according to some. I actually managed to remove the content of the duplicate post myself, no moderator was required! So unpredictable, you wonder what is going to happen next!
Glad to hear you have at last got away abroad.
0 -
It would be useful to know if the Club monitor usage. Perhaps one of the owners who contribute here could let us know if the Club ask for occupancy figures. Even with 5 pitches a popular CL, even at £12 a night would generate quite a bit of income if it had high occupancy, not enough to live on perhaps but as a second stream of income it would be quite useful. In all the time I have been caravanning/motorhoming I have only used about 3 CL's. Now I have motorhome which is quite large I would only use a CL if it had hardstandings and the access was suitable. I did try and book a couple of CL's that met those conditions but they were both full!!! The minimum facility CL's are likely to be less used unless their location is such that it would make people want to go.
David
0 -
The biggest problem is the 5 van restriction. It can not be viable to upgrade a site to say Hard standing and EHU with that restriction. IMHO most of us need those facilities as standard particularly those than van year round. The Gvmt has made planning easier and I know that it is no longer difficult to get a modest increase in capacity. Actually allowing over capacity can help as you can show that the site has regularly had say 8/10 vans at times with no objections or problems. Cant understand why say the CC is so reluctant to at least explore the possibility with the relevant authorities. Nothing ventured nothing gained and the continued reduction in Cs
0 -
Personally I like CLs because they are small, I don't think it's the need for larger capacity that is closing them, there must be various reasons. But CLs haven't had a good start with the new web site which is very disappointing. I would prefer an automatic search that brought up both CC sites and CLs together in a chosen area.
5 -
It's a real shame we are losing CL'S, a few that we have stayed on in the past have now closed, and it would be interesting to know why.
I have been trying to find a few for our holidays this year, and am also finding the new website hard work. 😬
1 -
We are all used to mod cons and travelling abroad and to nice hotels etc.
Why must many people think that what they do is done by one and all? It really gets my goat that some people think that they can speak for evrybody!!!! I can't remember when the last time was that we, as a couple, stayed at a hotel or travelled abroad. Certainly it's not been for 15 yrs at least. Why can't you accept that some people only need a flattish pitch, water and, for us anyway, EHU? We do like H/S during the winter months but have no problem using grass pitches at other times.
5 -
It seems to me that the Club, through the Magazine have been investing quite a lot of print inches to promote CL's with interviews of the owners and their customers and some nice pictures.
David, I know that they do mention a few (3) each month, but with the new issue they are no longer listing the facilities available on those CLs as they used to do. It would be good if the HO/ magazine gave the reason why sites have closed, as they used to do, but perhaps if the sites have gone commercial they would not want to mention that!!
3 -
The only time I've talked to an owner who has left the CL and packed up for good the reason given by him was that the income was't worth the hassle of the mowing, regs, being around for bookings etc. He only earned about £2,000/£2,500 profit each year and felt he could earn more doing something else, so basically it was an economic decision.
0 -
I don't believe it's a generational thing - I think you'll find that a lot more of the older generation don't like roughing it either - they have usually paid a lot for their outfit, take a lot of care and pride in it and prefer hardstandings and electric, cut grass, showers and toilets and although they have their own facilities on board, prefer to use on site facilities as that is what they have done over the years prior to getting more modern vans. My caravanning parents wouldn't dream of using the on board facilities if a wash room is available as they are used to tramping across site of a morning to use them. The younger generation wouldn't be seen dead in their onesies and pj's popping across to the toilet block especially if they have their own!
1 -
We use CLs on a regular basis, mostly those others would consider on the basic side, a nice bit of grass, water tap, somewhere to empty waste and a hook up. I would say location is the prime consideration in terms of attracting business. In fact, our favourite Cornish CL, quite basic had to be booked at least a year in advance. They never advertised, didn't need to, no website, but just provided a warm welcome, kept the site tidy. Being farmers, they are practical people, able and willing to do their own work on the land, carry out repairs, with a network of reliable contacts for checking and certificating things such as electrics. No restrictions on who can or can't stay, children welcome, pets welcome, no long list of rules and regulations just common sense approach, no restrictions on arrival times, if a pitch is available you drive straight on. A location second to none. Pitches full at least April through to October, but still quite busy all year around.
Nowadays, CLs are being set up sometimes as the sole or at least primary income source, and based on five pitches, providing lots of extras, putting in certain restrictions, perhaps taking a gambol on the location, some are bound to fail. The economics will just not add up, the best hope is to build a reputation via the Club, so that word gets out, then hope to extend via planning permission. We know of two lovely smallish private sites that have successfully done this.
2 -
"I don't believe it's a generational thing - I think you'll find that a lot more of the older generation don't like roughing it either -"
I am quite sure a lot of the older generation don’t like roughing it, they possibly never have and as ageing are unlikely now to take it up. They may well also comprise the bulk of those using the all singing sites.I said nothing contrary to that.
However, as a user of almost exclusively rudimentary 5 van sites and basic field rallies, those with just a tap and loo dump in terms of facilities, we very rarely find more than the occasional camper of a younger generation.
Other users going onto the basic sites we have not visited, might be seeing predominantly younger campers, though it seems odd we don’t.
Should it be as we observe that basic 5 van sites are being used by predominately older campers then these sites will fade with the natural decline of that clientèle.0 -
As posted above, I suspect the primary reason for decline is economic. The solution is for the legislation to be amended to allow say 8 vans per CL which would make it more viable. There does, however, seem to be considerable resistance to pursuing this course.
3 -
Interesting, the interpretation of roughing it. To many people it seems you need a toilet facility on site to avoid roughing it, to me the height of luxury is using my en suite bathroom and roughing it is turning out to the toilet block.
I only want the usual basics plus electricity but I am not expecting it to be cheap as I am prepared to pay more for the exclusiveness of a five van site. Does that make me a snob?
6
