Interesting Petition Part 2
Comments
-
+1 too
0 -
Sorry, I may be being a bit dense, but I thought we'd pretty much all agreed, even the keenest advocate of "linear touring" using Aires, that it was a nonsense expecting the club to "own or manage" such sites and that it would be more productive to ask the club to lobby, or support the lobbying, of local councils or others (supermarkets have been mentioned) to provide them. Where is the "business sense" in expecting the club to undo the recent changes and investment on its sites to encourage motorhomers to be able to use them more easily? Or to provide a cheap(er) alternative to the many hundreds of CLs desperate for support? I just don't understand why anyone would expect the club to do this, particularly given the relatively small support for it on the petition itself and amongst MHers on this forum.
5 -
I think it should be made clear that MHP and Mark Bevan are two separate individuals.
Other than that I think the debate and discussion about the petition has been interesting. I would tend to agree with the club response, particularly the fact that there are already the beginnings of alternative overnight parking for motorhomes but that safety factors are not being observed by some providers. I take this to assume that to comply with standards adopted by the club and other organisations some sort of conformity will need to be eventually considered if proposals like this are to go ahead generally. At the moment it's being done on an ad hoc basis but it probably will develop further as demands rise. As said by myself and many others the club doesn't need to be petitioned but other possible providers could be approached with properly planned proposals not just a demand.
2 -
We had a look around a brand new visitor centre called The Sill, which is owned, managed and administered by Northumbria National Parks. Had a very interesting discussion with a member of staff about overnight stays for MHs. The NP Authority is acutely aware that the provision for touring visitors in the Hadrian's Wall area is very poor. The Sill is actually a revamp of the Youth Hostel known as Once Brewed, and now has a brand new YH as part of the Centre. The big car park has huge parking bays, and I suggested it would make a great overnight park up for touring outfits. Staff member agreed, but said something in the insurance policy meant that touring outfits could be parked, but not inhabited! But she suggested that a direct email to the NP Authority wouldn't harm, and suggestions would be considered. It's a fabulous half way stop off for seeing this World Heritage Site. Direct contact with the land owners and administrators is a positive move. We intend emailing with the suggestion, and hope that other visitors might do the same. It's not free to park by the way, but it's had significant investment, and is a great location.
0 -
the club is very good (?) at providing club sites and very financially successful at doing this, to my thinking more of the same is probably better
Many a good business has come to an end because they did not change to move with the times.
peedee
1 -
As I've posted on a number of occasions, there would have to be a business justification.
It could well be that stopovers could be priced more cheaply because the cost of provision were cheaper. Isn't that the case with the rural sites without toilet blocks at the moment?
1 -
And the petitioner, if it isn't MHP under a pseudonym, has not contributed at all, but must be aware of the debate.
I made it clear on the original thread that I am not Mark Bevan (I don't even know him) and that the only reason I posted is that I thought it might promote constructive discussion.
Why he has not entered into this debate is a question only he can answer. We know from the OP of this thread that the CAMC executive is in touch with him so perhaps that is the conduit if anyone wishes to pursue it.
0 -
Are you now backing away from the petition which was for "alternative provision for motorhomes" ? I hope so.
If this Club promoted that idea it would be as nasty and divisive as separate sites solely for caravans, with motorhomes banned from entry.
4 -
I would find it difficult to back away from a position I have never taken
My position has been explained in previous posts.As for the allegation that the petition wants "alternative provision for motorhomes", I don't know where that came from. The word "alternative" doesn't appear in the petition wording at all. The petition foresees change in the leisure vehicle market placing more emphasis on sites similar to continental aires rather than full service sites.
Whatever way the leisure vehicle market changes, the CAMC must respond to that change to continue to prosper.
0 -
Talking about a "business justification", if I remember correctly, on the original thread Michael T shared an email from Mark Bevan which said amongst other things, words to the effect of "business plan? I've no idea". I haven't time to go back and find that quote, but if that's correct it says a lot about the chances of the petition succeeding!
1 -
Not much has been said about spacing. I have no idea where the 6m rule comes from. Is it actually a mandatory regulation or just a recommendation. It seems a bit daft to allow the 6m space to be filled by an awning or car so why cannot motor homes stop overnight with a 3m spacing? Is spacing really a major issue?
peedee
0 -
The whole nub of the issue is, ISTM, that many MHomers are unable to find a satisfactory "turn up on spec one night stop" type of facility and, as far as CAMC is concerned, are faced with, for the majority of sites, a requirement to book in advance. Mostly club sites are not sufficiently close together to enable any "on spec" arrival to just pop along to the next one.
The provision of a 'non-bookable turn up no frills pitch' would impact on the Club's current pitch capacity and is likely to be as popular as a bacon butty at a bar mitzvah. The only viable method without the acquisition of additional land would be to convert the "late arrival area" to such a facility. This would mean that those delayed would have their own problems or the Club could be more flexible on allowing units on site after 8pm.
1 -
The 6 metre flank to flank spacing has origins in the regulations of some LAs. Not seen any national regulation to that effect. IMO an overwhelming concern would be that should a fatal accident occur, not requiring it could well be found to be negligence in not exercising a duty of care. That "others" do it would, again IMO, not be a sure-fire get off the hook defence argument.
Current interpretation seem to be that does not allow that space to be filled by an awning as that could be an inhabited area.
Cars are allowed, but again then the car needs to be 3 metres from the neighbours units flank.
0 -
well yes if you want to remain alive if there is a fire in the unit next to you?
The 6m rule comes from the various fire services recommendations and LA regulations (if you want to run a site) and guidelines. I have found them in the past and can do so again if you wish but they are there.
And yes the rule is 6m between adjacent walls of a MH or caravans and 3m between outfits. An outfit being car, caravan/MH/ awning.
I assume the fire services have done their homework on the 3m spacing being 'survivable' if a fire occurs.
0 -
There have been a lot of comments bout rubbish etc., here is a sign for a MH parking spot, seems the council have thought it out, take your rubbish home!!!
0 -
The spacing rule is a fire services regulation connected to planning requirements, without the requirement in place site operations can't go ahead.
My own observations at Exmouth were overnight vans parked very closely nose to tail and generators were in use. Was this safe? I don't know. But it might be part of the future process in ensuring safety for users and passers by. Are van users covered by their insurance if spacing isn't observed, that's another question I would ask.
0 -
I believe the club (and the other one) allows 3m between any part of your outfit, it was in the club magazine a while ago, so car to awning 3m and both awning to awning 3m is acceptable.
post edit: from the fire safety page on this website:
Pitch spacing
To prevent the spread of fire on site caravans should be placed with at least six metres between caravan walls and at least three metres clear between associated equipment (eg. car, awning) and the adjacent caravan0 -
indeed they have thought it out, and what happens if people decide not to?
2 -
Good point, It certainly doesn't apply to our Sainbury's car park so I assume it only applies to sites? So it's Car parked at your own risk situation?
0 -
You are correct, Corners. LAs vary in their rules/recommendations and That is why on some commercial sites, even today, we find spacing to be much less than the club norm. Particularly noticeable in Scotland and the islands I’ve found, although not solely a north of the Border issue. That’s why I chuckle when some people say club sites are tightly packed - they should see some of the rest.
0 -
I guess same as littering the streets you fine them. Of course like club sites the majority of users will adhere to the rules like speeding, arriving after 12/1, leaving before 12, no dogs barking, well behave children, but there will always be a tiny minority that flout the rules and ruin it for the rest.
2 -
yes very true.
0 -
interesting post there, I found the signatures 'results' by map very interesting.
Why didn't anyone in Brent Central or Kensington sign?
0
