I'm Puzzled
My guess is that the only people to anwser this puzzle will be someone at HQ. We all know that CLs are for a maximum of five caravans / MHs but equally we all know that this number is sometimes, if not frequently, abused by some CL owners. Whilst there is always the excuse that there are 6, 7, 8 EHUs "because we need to rest the grass on some of the pitches" how does that excuse work when all the pitches are hard standings? That's the puzzle.
I'm assuming that CLs are inspected on a regular basis by club staff be this every year or two or even longer, (perhaps I'm wrong in this assumption), but surely they can count. The other assumption that must be made is that the club are actually condoning this increased use. These are the points that only the club management can answer.
Personally, an increase to six or maybe seven outfits, providing there is adequate space, is acceptable to me although I know some will shoot me down. I'd sooner a CL owner do this rather than increase site fees due to ever increasing costs, not least of which electricity, which must otherwise surely be making the viability of a CL in question. We cannot afford to keep losing them from the network.Taking an average of £15 per night, the difference between having 5 outfits or six outfits could prevent an increase increase in the cost per pitch of £2.50 per night.
Whilst commenting on space, we were on a CL described as being 1 acre. Although this CL had 7 hard-standing pitches it wasn't crowded BUT the actual pitching area was, in my estimation, only about half that. The rest of it was just a grass field. Being adjacent to a grass farm field separated only by a wire fence it didn't make the CL seem any bigger. We have also been to a CL which was effectively a smallish clearing in a small wood but the area was given as the whole, not just the pitching area. This can be a bit misleading.
Comments
-
1. Use Google Earth before going to see how pitches are laid out. I think it is a bit naive to think that the owner will use the whole of the area to space out H/Ss as this will increase his costs. As long as there is sufficient space between outfits for some form of privacy I don't mind.
2. Maybe the CL owner was giving members a choice of pitch and the cost of installing an extra pitch or two when making the pitches hardstanding was minimal.
1 -
My guess is that the only people to anwser this puzzle will be someone at HQ. We all know that CLs are for a maximum of five caravans / MHs but equally we all know that this number is sometimes, if not frequently, abused by some CL owners. Whilst there is always the excuse that there are 6, 7, 8 EHUs "because we need to rest the grass on some of the pitches" how does that excuse work when all the pitches are hard standings? That's the puzzle.
Some pretty broad assumptions in your first paragraph. Not been to a CL where the 5 unit has been abused as you know we all know???
Been on a CL where there are a mix of hardstanding and grass areas with 2 bollards, 1 with 4 sockets, 1 with 3 that match the size of the CL to give guests the choice of making full use of the space available, but not more than 5 units pitched. Have left our caravan on site unpitched with the full knowledge of the owner and other guests. That flexibility makes it a great CL. Conversely another CL owner allows early arrivals/late departures to use the adjacent farmyard to 'park' your caravan to enhance your time in the area.
Know of a CL that has 6 pitches all hardstanding with individual EHU. 3 per side in an old orchard to give guests the option of pitching.under tress or in the open. Only 5 units pitched at a time.
We are thankful CL owners provide their facilities for members. Doubtful they are going to make a profit for a long time on just CL pitches. Or perhaps they look at the bigger picture beyond a cost/benefit commercial sum and realise the societal benefits they provide. There is more to life than money
2 -
I seem to recall an occasion when there were 6 vans on site, but only for a day or two (crossover). Personally, I have no issue with it. As long as there is space and the ambiance isn’t disturbed, I’m all for owners trying to make their CL viable. And yes, I know it’s against the rules.
Parliament is an ass 😀
0 -
I don’t see there is any puzzle, JM20. 7 pitches (say) on a 5 van site and the owner says 2 are to provide choice. Who's to say otherwise, unless more than 5 vans are on site?
I can't see there’s anything for the club to answer but, as ever, if you think the law is being flouted, contact head office direct.
1 -
CLs vary hugely in all aspects John, and you either go with these variations or you don’t. A lot of CLs we use have more than five ehu hook ups, more than five pitches, either grass or hardstanding. Very rarely do we come across one with more than five units on, but what is nice is being able to have quite a large choice of pitches.
Agree with WN, it’s good to have a bit of choice, and unless it’s being abused, it doesn’t bother us one bit. Heaven forbid that CLs should become Club Site clones.😱
1 -
Just to clarify, on the last two CLs we visited that were all hardstandings, one had 6 and was fully occupied for the week and the other had 7 and was fully occupied for 4 days. These weren't crossovers.
I think I'm right in saying that there are several if not many Acts of Parliament / laws that are still on the Statute Book but are no longer relevant in today's society, eg prams should be pushed on the roadway, not on the pavement. Any infringements are therefore ignored by the authorities. Is this a case with CLs as there are now far more caravans / MHs on the road than there were even 10 years ago? This was possibly the time when CLs, although many quite basic in nature, were at their highest number. If 'staycations' are becoming more popular, (which must be better for the UK coffers), anything to help with the accommodation requirements must be welcomed by those that govern us. Are they doing this by turning a blind eye to any small 'infringements', ie an extra outfit or two.
0 -
John, do you honestly think that anyone at HO are going to admit that any of their employees, or volunteers, are turning a blind eye to the sort of infringements of the law that you have highlighted in your post?
2 -
Whatever, John, but CL owners who breach the rules are putting the club’s ability to issue exemption certificates to CLs at risk.
It’s not a local authority issue, as the exemption arrangement is designed to bypass LAs, but Natural England empower the club to issue certificates and to ensure the sites comply with the law. Therefore, you need to report concerns to the club as we have previously been asked to do.
1 -
What tends to happen is that some successful CLs, those that offer a lot of facilities sometimes realise that they might be better going alone away from Club and apply for more pitches via the Planning route. Lots are successful, we use at least three on a regular basis. They get increased revenue, those Club members who used the CL in the past make a choice whether or not they like this arrangement, and no rules are broken. Some CLs store caravans, some let you stay later upon request. It might be all too easy to make assumptions and think in some instances there are more than five units on a five van site.
If you are worried you have a couple of choices, either report the CL to HQ, through the proper channels, or decide it’s not for you, and don’t use it again. You could of course have a chat with CL owner and find out if there are any mitigating circumstances of any kind. We have stayed on a CL in someone’s huge garden, and it will have looked like six vans on. The extra van was family visiting, ehu from garage and no money charged. It does happen, best not to jump to conclusions.
0 -
I wonder why you chose to publicise potential law breaking and blind eye turning when you support such actions, John. I’d have thought you'd want to hush it up.
1 -
Not sure if one of the CLs you mention having an extra unit on site is the one you recently reviewed, but if it is, then you need to be aware it actually offers a caravan for hire as holiday accommodation. Could this be the extra unit? Five tourers and one holiday let.
2 -
Hi JohnM20
Thank you for your post, when setting up CL sites we do not encourage more than 5 hard standing pitches, however, as mentioned by some members, some CL sites have the space to offer pitching options. Whilst we are responsible for certificating a site, there must be no more than 5 vans on the site at any one time, whatever the layout.
Our CL sites are visited by a CL Adviser every year but with a small team of volunteers it is hard for us to police the 5 van rule without the help of our Members. The CL owners are aware of the 5 van rule and that we do not under any circumstances condone exceeding the number and would ask our Members to report this to HO for investigation. Exceeding the 5 van limit can be a serious health and safety risk, as well as a breach of the exemption that allows us to certificate these sites each year.
The exempted status privilege which is regulated by Natural England, which enables us to operate CLs, comes from the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. That privilege applies not only to our CL operation, but also to all of our temporary sites and the more than 2,500 rallies that our Centres organise across the Country every year. The fact that the Act has survived intact for 59 years is a credit to all of the Exempted Organisations, who approach their activities in such a responsible manner through their codes of conduct and the behaviour of their members.
We need to be very careful that any argument for an increase in the number of pitches on a CL is not just viewed as a back door way of getting around the site licensing regime, which is a compliance requirement for the operators of commercial sites. Indeed, many of our members enjoy staying on CLs because they offer a more intimate experience and they would not necessarily wish to see them increasing in size.
The Club’s focus is on doing all that we can to grow the number of CLs, not the size of individual CLs, so that we have a balanced coverage across the country for all our members to enjoy.
Thanks
Maddie
8 -
“The Club’s focus is on doing all that we can to grow the number of CLs, not the size of individual CLs, so that we have a balanced coverage across the country for all our members to enjoy.”
Maddie It appears that the club are not successful in growing the number of cl’s. There are more closures than new cl’s almost every month so how can you use the words “balanced coverage” as the way things are going there will always be an imbalance.
The relevant law for the purpose of exemption is now nearly 60 years old. How many caravans were around then and more so how many members. I have made the following statement before on this forum. “In 1986 when I joined the club there were 5000 + cl’s there are now only half that.” So by upping the limit to 10 vans (if space allows) it will bring back the number of pitches to that of 33 years ago. This would be two fold. It would benefit both members and cl owners. It may stop the loss of cl's who have plenty of land to accommodate more vans. This would not be seen as “a back door way of getting around the site licensing rules” if it was done in the correct manner by the club. Outdated laws can be changed with diplomacy especially if they are of benefit. If you don't ask you don't get or perhaps, as discussed in other posts, you don't want.
Today 2500 cl’s or 12,500 pitches. At the present rate of losses how many in another 33 years. None. Food for thought.
2 -
I don’t think it’s for the club to push for a change in the exemption regs, Harry. If you want a change then perhaps lobbying your MP is the way forward.
Obviously, CL owners are completely free to redeem their exemption and seek permission by the usual planning methods to operate a larger site if that’s what they wish.
1 -
A CL we go to has what looks like 7 hard standings however two of these are usually occupied by the owners caravan whilst their daughter stores theirs on the other. These two pitches are slightly apart from the others and closer together but I can see how some may jump to conclusions. Mind you this 'jumping' seems to be quite a regular habit for a few.
0 -
Rather than 10 vans how about a minimum of area (SQ Metres) per pitch up to 10 vans as a lot of CL's do not have space for 5 vans comfortably let alone 10. I can imagine if some CL's were suddenly allowed to double their income they would do so without looking at the space available?
1 -
There you go, MT, another idea to put to your MP.
Only the Govt can change the existing rules.
0 -
One large organisation (The Club) against one individual (a minnow) I can't see how the minnow has any power.
Surely the club can put a case for a change stating good reason.
Out of interest it would be good to know who applied for the rights in the first place. It must have been the club who proposed the idea for the members.
If the club wants to maintain or even grow the cl system as Maddie says then they are going to have to do something more than advertise in country magazines.
0 -
The club is empowered to issue exemption certificates to 5 van sites. To be seen to lobby for changes in the law would not enhance its reputation and might well result in jeopardising its present position as it could be seen as touting for business and be dodgy ground. The large commercial organisations would very probably fight an extension of the current exemption arrangements tooth and nail. They want the business and don’t want to see clubs and small sites eating into that business share. The sensible way would seem to appreciate what we have and don't rock the boat.
Many organisations have the right to issue exemption certificates. It is not a CAMC thing. Whether this club applied to the predecessor of Natural England for empowerment rights will likely be lost in the mists of time but I’m certain it will not have been this club that invented the exemption concept.
Maddie has explained matters far better than I.
Incidentally, I have read of concern that the number of C&CC CS's is diminishing so it is not only a CAMC trend. If there really is a need for more exempt pitches, it seems strange that the number of sites is shrinking.
1 -
Be careful what you wish for, the five van exemption certificate is unique in allowing a small site to be established without planning permission and believe me there are many people that would jump at the chance of an excuse to rescind the act.
2 -
"The sensible way would seem to appreciate what we have and don't rock the boat."
It's not a question of rocking the boat. It's about keeping and growing what we have to be able to appreciate it.
Things with the cl system appear to be on a slippery slope and if the system gets to the bottom of that slope then they will be no boat to rock.
0 -
Harry, Vulcan has summed it up well.
Still, it’s not me you need to convince - it’s the club.
0 -
As I have mentioned in another thread;
1) When discussing the 5 van rule in depth with the Director General he categorically said that it would not be reviewed 'whilst he ws DG'. So it's not going to change.
2) As Harry B correctly points out, the number of CLs continues to diminish despite the current efforts of the Club to recruit more. I'm told the number of applications is at an 'all time high' but it's a long way from an application to a CL opening for business. What is causing these applicants to drop out?? The CL team has done a good job in revamping their materials and application process, but clearly (based on current figures) this hasn't been enough to stem the tide. Perhaps the coming months will tell a different story?
3) BREXIT and the reduction in grants and subsidies for farmers should mean that an increasing number of landowners are looking to supplement their incomes. However, despite advice from many quarters, the Club has not yet promoted the CL network in the farming press, via the NFU or attended any relevant events (eg. Farm Business Innovation Show).
4) Perhaps the reduction in CLs is of benefit to the Club? It means the remaining CLs (like mine) have less direct competitors and members may choose Club Sites.
My personal goal is to spread the word about the benefits of running a CL to landowners. I have discussed this at talks I have given to the CLA, The Glamping Show and the Institute of Agricultural Secretaries.
Run well, a CL in the right location, can be a viable proposition offering a reasonable ROI and an alternative to the much more labour-intensive Glamping alternative which is heavily promoted.
I also help to support fellow CL owners with marketing advice, sharing best-practice and help (alongside a number of others) to administer a self-support group of CL owners. I do this as a volunteer.
Unfortunately CL owners cannot provide feedback directly to the Club via Club Council as they are ineligible to be members of Council, despite being members of the club. This, to me at least, seems perverse.
3 -
I am intrigued as to why the DG seems so vehemently against even talking about the idea of increasing the number of pitches on a CL. Surely we live in an adult society where nothing should be off the agenda? The Club doesn't have the power to change the law but surely it is free to talk about it? People will talk about all sorts of reasons why things can't change but unless we talk about it, nothing will change. Perhaps when we are down to 500 CL's people will start taking notice!
David
0 -
Isn't there a fear that to press for change to the act of 1960 will result in a backlash and the possibble loss of the concession altogether. Less of a risk might be to turn a blind eye, as now, to those owners who accept more than 5 outfits.
peedee
0 -
Cholsey Grange, with reference to your third point.
Farmers here in Cornwall who are diversifying are certainly setting up campsites, but they not tying themselves to the narrow restrictions of the the CL system - which insists that they can only accept visitors who are in the correct Club, and cannot admit visitors who are in the wrong Club, or those in in no Club at all, or all those visitors here who have come from overseas for whom Club membership is completely unknown. Equally the CL system forbids them to accept any visitors with tents - and that's another restriction which isn't attractive to them.
The outcome is that farmers here get planning permission and open campsites with a much more broad based clientele than the restrictive CL system allows.
1
