Membership safety or greed ?
Comments
-
Probably because we all know it complies with the regs, Corners. It just isn’t as spacious as some folk would like.
2 -
I doubt that there is not sufficient clearance between outfits but the situation where cars are parked across the front of the pitch is indicative of the site being cramped. The last time that I was on the site I moved my car so that an outfit was able to access the opposite pitch. The OP suggests that the 6m clearance is the maximum rather than minimum and on some parts of the site it does feel that way
0 -
Yep that’s the one I was thinking about. I found it on Google Earth, although the hospital takes up much of the footprint now, you can still see what was a small site. I knew I had seen a CCC sign, but it does go back a few years.
For what it’s worth, one of the reasons we dislike some of the Club’s sites is because of the spacing. Outfits are just so huge nowadays, and the Club have inserted a few more pitches on some, so to us they are uncomfortable. I won’t comment on the safety, which is level of risk v likelihood based anyway.
We are currently on one of the nicest Club Sites we have ever used. Pitches are not in rows, but scattered in little copses, full of wildlife and flowers.
0 -
Been there once about 4 years back, would not go again as it is cramped.
Having to park the car across the front of the van just does not work for us as the van is long and there is too little space left to do so. It only works on a pitch where the tail of the van can overhang the rear of the pitch.
We had rung and requested to be close to the disabled facilities, but had to change our arrival day and did not realise that if you do that then your request is apparently Deleted User.
The site was very busy, warden suggested pitch 59 as being suitable, it looks big on the plan but is an odd shape. The only way to get both van and car on the pitch was to park the van parallel to the hedge and have the car beside it, meaning we could not even roll out our Fiamma.
It also put the side of our van considerably less than 6 m from the rear of the van on the pitch behind. I know vans can be corner to corner only 3m apart when rows are back to back, no idea what the rule is when we have our side facing the rear of the other van.
When you book, you give the length of your van, but unless a site has some short pitches, this does not seem to be looked at.
At Cirencester, all the larger awning pitches were taken when we arrived and we had to use one of the ones where you have to park across the front of the van, or do without an awning. Or we could have gone on grass.
The only way to fit in the space was to have the wheels of the van almost right back on the HS, fortunately there was a wide grass strip behind the pitch. OH returned to reception to say that we would have to do this, the warden was puzzled and seemed surprised when she said the HS was too short otherwise!
0 -
I don't think there is any H&S issues regarding pitch spacing at Moreton in Marsh. The problem is that because the general delineation of the pitches they seem closer together than what we are usually used to on most Club sites. There are very few pitches on the site that can accept a caravan/car/awning side by side. As Kj has pointed out this usually requires the towcar to be parked across the pitch or on the grass between pitches. Parking across the pitch can cause inconvenience to other members because it limits the room to manoeuvre on to a pitch if you have a larger outfit be it caravan or motorhome. Parking cars on the grass in wet weather just churns up the grass. Most modern sites have a clear demarcation between hardstanding and grass. At this site the edges are quite blurred on many pitches so grass and stone merge together to form a muddy stripe. Had I pitched exactly to the peg on the pitch (89) we left on Monday of this week the side of my motorhome would have been right up against the hedge! The same would have been the case for a caravan and as we both need to access our service hatches on the offside we would have needed to have pitched at least two feet away from the peg. On walking around the site there are a few opportunities to extend the width of hardstanding on a handful of pitches but really the site needs a proper redesign to bring it up to standard, in my view.
David
0 -
agree with above, it seems only the location is drawing the crowds in.
0 -
It is the original part of the site that is "cramped" in places ( much smaller LVs then), the newer area and toilet block are fine ,so turn left after booking in ,and as posted the newer part of the site is where the latest type of MC service point is being installed ,may give a clue to future plans to upgrade the old area,
The last time we were there we were on a pitch in the old area behind the toilet block and there was ample room on the pitch, it is away from the A44 in that area so quite quiet
0 -
JVB66
I am not sure I agree with you. I accept that some of the pitches you mention are larger than other parts of the site but they nearly all smaller that the best the Club has to offer. The picture below is taken from near the toilet block you mention and all the pitch pegs are in the corner of the pitch which indicates that you can't get car/caravan/awning side by side which to me is the real measure of whether the pitches are the correct size.
David
0 -
I agree with DK. We've only been to M-in-M twice & turned left twice. The first time the car was parked across the end of the caravan & awning, the 2nd time though we were on one of the few grass pitches by the toilet block where it looked like a pitch peg was missing so had a bit more room than the suite plan suggested.
0 -
Same for us when we last visited, which I posted about up thread, it was the new area. Car couldn't go across the front without being partially on road so had to go on the awning side. This meant we could only just deploy our small roll out. There would have been no chance with a proper awning.
0 -
well that is not that radical an idea? The Whitley bay site is like that?
0 -
Ah yes, the Caravan and Motorhome Club.....just at seperate locations
...or even the Caravan Club and....the rest?
inclusivity, anyone?
0 -
indeed +1
0 -
Thank you for sharing your comments and feedback on Moreton-In-Marsh Club Site. The site is currently undergoing a range of improvements; road repairs are being undertaken shortly and improvements to service points, a new dog wash / bike wash and chemical empty point is being installed currently. We haven’t added pitches to take away from the pitch sizes and these conform to Health and Safety regulations when pitched as per our guidelines for the site. We regularly top up chipping to maintain the quality of pitches and apologise to anyone if there have been issues with these during recent visits. For the most part, we receive warm reviews about the site, staff, and member experiences and do hope anyone booking for the coming season will fully enjoy their experience and benefit from the enhancements.
One of the key driving forces behind our Experience Freedom product and Glamping pods at Moreton-In-Marsh was to enable members’ family and friends without an outfit of their own to accompany them during their trips and holidays. The sites selected for these developments have been carefully considered with members in mind and feedback has been great, members love being able to share the enjoyment of touring with their family and friends. Of course these are also popular with those that need or would like to experience a different way of staying with us and introducing new guests to our sites.
I hope this helps address your concerns and thank you for your feedback.
0 -
I hope this helps address your concerns and thank you for your feedback.
Not really Rowena. Whilst I am sure they comply with H&S regulations. Many are at the bare minimum. IMO it is not fair to continue marketing the smaller pitches as awning, as they are not capable of accommodating such in a sensible and safe manner. They should be marketed as non or porch awning pitches, so that folk know what they are getting. Personally I feel the club are relying on the excellent location / popularity of the site to get away with standards that would not be acceptable elsewhere.
3 -
We were there in February for 5 nights, we went purely for the location as our first trip of the year. The site was OK, and we were on the western end, but even then I thought the hard-standing looked rather below the normal standard, a bit sparse on gravel and rather muddy in some places. Perhaps the wardens hadn't got round to freshening them up after the winter, perhaps recent heavy rain had caused it, but certainly below the likes of White Water Park as I think DK said earlier.
0 -
Totally agree, the idea that the car can sit across the front of the pitch to allow an awning to be used just does not work for anything other than a small van. And cars parked in this manner make access to opposite pitches very awkward.
All these pitches, on the whole network, need to be altered to take the car/van/awning layout, or sold as non awning pitches. Where lengthening the pitch would be possible, that could also offer a solution, but it is not ideal.
0 -
Last time we were in the Cotswolds, we used Burford, so much more spacious!
When we arrived, the warden asked if we had been before, OH said we had visited the area but used Moreton. The warden said, they had been wardens at Moreton in the past, but that their pitches at Burford were so much better. We could only agree.
0 -
Rowena
It's good to hear about the improvements to the site and I think they were starting the day we left the site according to the notices dotted around the site. However the basic problem remains which is the pitches do not meet the standards of the majority of Club sites. I am sure your reply has been framed from information originating from the Sites Department. It is therefore disappointing that there seems no acceptance or acknowledgement that the pitches at Moreton in Marsh are not up to the usual Club standards. Those that suggest that most pitches should be designated non awning pitches I think have a point. I can see that the Sites Department would be concerned that a negative view of this site might well put people off using it but imagine if someone who has never visited before but had used the likes of Poolsbrook or White Water how disappointed they would feel on arrival here. Also at £24 a night at the end of March it is hardly a cheap site.
David
2 -
Alan, yet again you (and others it seems) completely missed the point..
i didn't 'wish' for anything in my post...it was just highlighting JVB's ridiculous 'imagined utopia'....
apparently it's OK for him to 'joke' about seperation (yet preach inclusivity at every opportunity) yet when I pull him up over it, it's me that gets the predictable knee jerk....
for once, why not have a go at JVB for such a ridiculous notion....
as was said upthread....a step too far no doubt....
0 -
I think Easy very much hit the point. 👍🏻
3
