What changes would you make ?
Comments
-
I think the matter of the number of units on a CL/CS could be investigated. I somehow doubt that the facility would be withdrawn just because someone asked the question? What would actually be useful to know is what are the Club's thoughts on this subject. They must be in contact with the relevant Government Department. When the current rules were formulated caravanning as a hobby was quite small scale compared to what it is now and motorhomes were very much a small minority. If CL's are to remain viable, especially with the demand for electrics and hardstandings a figure of around 10 units would make running a CL a far more attractive proposition. It's possible that a grand alliance of the Clubs and organisation who can certificate plus the NFU could form a strong lobby group if there was the will to do so.
David
5 -
Personally I've always liked the idea of the five van sites (with other club adding to the list.) I remember the days when touring caravans littered some of our coast lines, often in very beautiful areas, especially in the south west and there was no control over them at all. Static vans still do cover the coast in some areas and I would be sad to see the rules relaxed.
0 -
That sort of thing might work 'over there' but it's simply not British to have people who know what they are doing
1 -
0
-
Brue
I do respect your view and its probably one held by a lot of members. The issue is will CL's survive if the number of units remain capped at 5? Perhaps in my post above I should have said up to 10 units. Clearly there will be some CL's where more units can't comfortably be accommodated. I suppose we will see over the next couple of years whether the situation gets better/remains the same/ gets worse. If it's the latter it might be too late to effect a turn round which would be a shame.
David
0 -
Wonder if we'll ever get a response from HO on this issue. Perhaps someone who's on the FB link could ask if the CC is in anyway interacting with others to raise these thoughts.
0 -
I'm a user of CL's and rarely of club sites, and would have no problem with some being allowed to increase their number as long as there is the room and any facilities are not overloaded by that increased number.
Unfortunately some of the more desirable CL sites would see an increase in number and more viable profit, but the less desirable would disappear off the map forever whereas they would have been second/third choice. So there would still be a reduction in CL sites but capacity would increase.
0 -
There are some lovely small private sites out there, doing just what some are suggesting they do, increasing pitches where space is available. You don't have to be a Club member to use them either. One or two have retained a dedicated CL area, just so Club members can feel special if they want to! We were given the option of Club area or private area on a rather nice one on East Coast. Each area had a small toilet block and showers, but shared the views, the dog walks, the information point, the fire equipment, the sale of eggs, the drive ways onto the site. We opted for better views from private pitch!
0 -
You and me both, TTDA, but some Club members still can't break out of it's either Club site or CL , and don't look further.
0 -
I'm quite willing to talk about the private sites I have used, and those that offered a better view than its adjacent hedge enclosed CL. But I must have wrongly thought we were talking of the 'Club' and thoughts on 'Club' changes.
One such is 'Cross farm' near Burton on Trent where we had the choice of the CL field or the view over the valley on the main site, same price with shared facilities, we chose the view.
1 -
Yes, I suppose thread is really about Club Sites. Places we choose, and times we go, Club Sites tick all the boxes fine 99% of our visits. We adapt to suit!
2 -
I would only want two things:
1, arrival times to be between 0900 - 1200 where access road permit it, as i'm sure the original 1200 rule is to allow grass cutting, which decreases as more hardstandings are added.
2, Ban tents & Pods. The other club is for tent campers & pods go against the touring spirit of the club. As ex tent campers ourselves, we have suffered the loud noise late at night from fellow campers, who seem to have no idea how sound travels - same goes of course for awning parties
0 -
Hi
No.1: We try and do that where and when possible, if we can accommodate you early we will, if the pitch you choose hasn't been maintained, I'm sure you'll live with it for that early start?
2. : Can't comment on first sentence really but all I'd say is I'm sure you'll get used to it, everyone starts camping somewhere.
0 -
Unfortunately, accepting tents and non-members is not always directly the decision of the Club. It is sometimes a requirement of the lease of the land and local authority requirements.
On the other hand 'pods' are a new venture, but I guess in some cases appropriate permission has to be sought in order to site them. I think whether the Club desires to increase the number of pods could very well depend on the long term overall trend in the 'sale' of ordinary touring pitches (whether the Club are filling pitches etc), and the expreience of whether pods are found to be an attractive proposition economically (I.e. if people are renting them). This could very well vary from site to site. No doubt time will tell.
David
0 -
The Club has always allowed tents on quite a few sites. I know because I have used a tent on quite a few! And never had a single problem with noise either! Most tent areas are well away from touring pitches.
0 -
Sorry, I hope I didn't give the wrong impression about my use of the word 'unfortunately'. I wasn't saying that it was unfortunate that tents were allowed, but that it was unfortunate that it was not totally a decision that the Club can make.
One good thing about allowing tents is that, generally speaking, tents are used by a younger clientele. By allowing tents, it helps to bring together tenters and caravanners - a wider age range - and I wouldn't mind betting that many caravanners were originally tenters - so perhaps a way of catching members earlier. One disadvange is that perhaps we would have to rebrand/ change the name of the Club again!!
David
0
