Interesting Petition Part 2
Comments
-
Well spotted Nellle, I was in a hurry to go out and realised what I had done to late to correct. No matter it is still not an insignificant number of leisure vehihicles to ignoore. I bet the Club would'nt mind recruiting them all. CS didn.t spot it, just came up with some totally irrelevant comment of cars on the road.
peedee
0 -
Thank you to MichaelT for starting this thread and to Rowena for posting the CAMC response.
It is heartening to see that the CAMC was willing to examine the merits of the petition and to provide a considered, and constructive, response.
I don't think anyone would realistically expect change in the short term but to have it recognised that the idea might have its place in the future is far more positive than knee jerk rejection.
3 -
Nellie, replying purely out of courtesy...certainly not out of interest.
my full post on page 6 (and JVBs subsequent post which quoted it in full) are Deleted User as I used the word 'rubbish' in the first para, which now seems to be a banned word
you also quoted the post, but selectivly used the second part of the post.....which appears to have been allowed.....but makes no sense on its own.
the first part, which contained said 'word' explained the reason for the second part....
this reason (the caravan MOT subject) has been mentioned many times in the thread but, as expected, has been dismissed.....by caravanners...
had you read the full post you would have understood, but you chose only to quote the line to make your point.....wrongly.
had you quoted the whole post, like JVB, which contained the 'word', then the full quoted post would have been removed.
oddly, JVBs reply has been allowed to stand, but has no meaning as it replies to 'blank' post....
if you're going to be selective when quoting posts, you need to ensure you've read, understood and remembered the whole post.
if you had, there would have no need for this inquest and your mate could have save himself a few of his '+1's.
my last word on this.
1 -
I gave it 10/10 for diplomacy, One. 🙂
3 -
+1
as someone who had to 'brush off' many ill founded suggestions in the past it was a work of art
1 -
Why? We don’t have leprosy and we’re not second class members.
Or did you mean in addition to being allowed to use normal pitches?
2 -
well good news GTP, they already have them on every single site in the network. They are called pitches and (unlike the CCC) you can book a single night on CAMC sites and use them as a stop over.
Always happy to help
PS why can't caravaners use stop overs? I have.
0 -
The Club is not going to shoot itself in the foot. It could dip its toe in the water by opening one or two motorhome Aires in popular tourist areas without any effect on any of its nearby sites which will still be in demand by caravan and motorhome owners wanting longer stays. I think land could be leased. However, I don't even see this happening and as I said in the first thread on the subject the best that can be hoped for is to make existing sites more attractive to short stay motorhome owners.
peedee
0 -
More attractive how? flower beds around the pitch? Your own personal warden?
You get a pitch, you put your LV on it and stay for one night, or whatever counts as a short stay in your book, what more do you want? You can leave at whatever time you like.
Once again this divisive idea that MH need something more than a caravan would need for a one night stay.
2 -
nicely updated
0 -
I would be happy to use Aires but with a caravan it's unlikely I'll be able to. I'm not changing to a MH though
I mentioned on the last thread the likely revenue per annum per car parking space. Car parks in popular areas are likely to generate higher revenue than the standard all day parking charges. The pricing structure is designed to achieve more than one all day charge each day. In fact many 'desirable' car parks may have a maximum stay of two or four hours, potentially allowing for multiple maximum charges on the same space. Any reduction in spaces on high income car parks would be resisted unless the income could be replaced somehow.
There may be scope in some car parks to create suitable spaces in unused areas but in many there won't. The most likely 'targets' for Aires will be park and rides but they don't always have evening bus services.
1 -
So you mean attractive financially? So you are saying you want all the plus points of using a club site, but want it a reduced rate just because you are using it for a shorter period of time?
Well I have arrived on a club site after 6pm and left before 12 and I certainly wouldn't expect a reduction in the fees. You seem to expect it just because you have a motorhome?
The club prices are quite clear (you even get them when you book) if you or one do not like them then find somewhere cheaper?
1 -
+1
I think it means I want more cheap/free stays for less money?
0 -
my last word was to Nellie on explaining what he couldn't understand.
I've describe several times how I manage my stop overs (over here), but it doesn't stop me supporting any attempt to raise awareness of the lack of 'aire' type provision in this country.
ive also said the petition was probably sent to the wrong organisation, but again, it's at least got the club admitting there is room for improvement in this area and things could be done. I also agree that LAs are probably the way to go.
the thread was raised in this section, has been allowed to run in this section yet you think that comparing the provision abroad has no relevance?
I realise that you don't want to stay on an aire, that's your choice and that of many folk who just use sites.....they want more than Aires can provide.
this is the difference between what (little) is required for a safe, cheap, stopping place and a full fat camp site, hence why charging rates are different for these two things.
i realise it doesn't appeal to you, but some folk are more than happy with just a parking space.
while the petition isnt the best, please respect Graham's awareness OP and the desire of some to make use of an 'Aires type' provision.
Moderator Edit:
Last sentence Deleted User to follow on from Rowena's request to keep the thread polite and friendly.
0 -
The CAMC is hardly going to announce a definite policy in a reply on a thread such as this is it?
The fact remains, though, that the response does indicate that the petition has been given consideration.
I like to think that the people we members elect to run the CAMC on our behalf are receptive to recognising when a changing world demands forward thinking, rather than dismissing an idea out of hand just because it does not fit with what has worked in the past.
2 -
Graham
I thought the reply from the Club was quite telling. They articulated the reasons why it would be difficult for them to introduce such facilities on their sites and any forward investment must take account of facilities for all members and all outfits which is fair enough. However the fact they did not dismiss or discourage the introduction of such facilities requested in the petition I think indicates a greater realisation that one size does not fit all so to speak.
David
2 -
and you have therefore voted in the elections I take it?
I never have actually voted for anyone in the club, perhaps that is to my shame, but I vote with my wheels and I like what I get.
You are asking the club to do something based on a very low response rate, why should it?
1 -
Not sure I agree with this bit of the statement:-
However, the establishment of these would have a cost, and there would be planning approval challenges and UK safety requirements (minimum fire safety separation distances for instance) to overcome.
Why should they need to be overcome, are they not there for a reason. Why should an Aire where the MH's are being used just as on a campsite have a reduced spacing requirement.
They might be established in car parks, but they are being used as a camp site. Realistic fire prevention spacing would of couse have cost implications.
1 -
As has been done is some places in Scotland (such as Hawick). That was originally a short term trial but has been so successful that it has become permanent. The existing private site a few miles from the town does not appear to have been affected and still remains busy.
The problem with "pub stopovers" is that many are skirting around the law by allowing camping - it's not their core business so the landlord may not even be aware of the Act.
There are many opportunities for businesses to operate within the law to enhance their core business and it is the people who want to see overnight stops in such places as P&R or (dare I say) out of town supermarkets to ask the people who can put this in place to do so.
0 -
Once again this divisive idea that MH need something more than a caravan would need for a one night stay.
Exactly the opposite corners, MH in general need less than a caravan.
To give an example the other weekend we went off to Norfolk, stayed a couple of nights at a free stopover (yes there are some out there but we are happy to pay as well) next to a broad and came home. We did not need to fill with water - took it with us, we did not need to empty the grey water - bought it home, we did not need to empty the WC cassette - bought it home. We did not need EHU, we have refillable gas & SP with 2 leisure batteries (I know caravans can also have these, but in general they do not except of course Merve!!), So we do not always want and do not need a full blown site with EHU, toilets, showers, water, waste etc. just somewhere safe to park.
Whilst away we bought items in local shops, ate out and had a few beers (could not have done if driving) so the local economy benefited, and that is the indirect boost to the economy by having such provision.
Yes we do at some point need to fill with water, empty grey and black waste etc. but not all the time and when we do we can book into a site (C&MC, CL, C&CC, Private) or an Aire with services and are happy to pay for it. So this is what the ask is, not more than a caravanner but less and not paid for by anyone in particular to advantage or disadvantage any group or section of the community or this club.
3 -
how many Aires have you stayed on?
were they barrier controlled, fee collected or free?
did they have EHU or not?
were they in cities, or towns, or villages.
how did you like them?
0 -
The one time we took our motor caravan over there the "aires" were not what we would have stopped at(,before that it was with our caravan) so over there was a destination holiday,but over here, which is what this thread is about,there is not the space or need,as posted by the majority and also by the tiny response it seems to the one sided petition
0 -
Out of interest, what is the difference between the bit of land you stopped on and a minimal facility CL?......other than the fact that you payed nothing?
You don't describe this bit of "free" land but I doubt that there is a network of places across the UK willing to provide "free" land, even with zero facilities on them.....unless you are describing a Britstop or France Passion type affair where there is a hope/expectation that you will spend some money with the landowner....?
As has been said several times now, a car park owner (LA's..?) is the most likely organisation to provide what you want, with something to gain from it ( a dribble of overnight revenue), much more than that and it simply becomes a campsite by another name...?
Edit, BB our posts have crossed. ...I didn't think it was well explained, I'm left wondering who provided some free land and what their motivation was...?
2 -
Tinny it was actually a car park advertised as a pub car park but owned by the local parish council. There are public toilets there but we did not use them, apart from that nothing, no tap, EHU etc. so that's the difference.
The parish council obviously want to attract people to visit the area/village and the local pubs, shops etc. benefit from the visitors and that as mentioned before is a non tangible benefit, some people will spend nothing, others tens or hundreds of pounds (think shopping in Canterbury/York, eating out, paying for entrance fees etc) so I guess you take an average and you can justify without it costing anything, or having to make a profit on the provision.
0
