Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960
Although the CAMC may have 'gold plated' some aspects of the 1960 Act, the 5-van part of it is a key aspect that cannot be changed without reviewing the whole Act.
That simply isn't going to happen - it is too big a piece of legislation, with too many interested parties, including Club-owned sites, CLs, ralliers, and more significantly, the trade organisations of static caravan sites, such as the British Holiday & Home Parks Association.
Clubs such as the CAMC and C&CC have too much to lose if a review of the Act goes in the wrong direction.
The other factor if trying to change the Act is that the government has different priorities at present, so anyone trying to change the 1960 Act would just be wasting their time.
The 5-van limit was a concession to landowners to avoid the need for small sites to go through the full process of Planning Permission. Landowners (and Club members) should see this as a benefit, rather than an imposition.
If CL Owners want more than 5 vans on their land, they then need to go via the Planning Permission process and be licenced by their local council. This is costly and the site owner would also be responsible for their own advertising. The CAMC website and Sites Directory are easier and cheaper ways for landowners to promote small caravan sites.
'No Tents' is a CAMC rule, rather than the law, but if CL owners want to stay with the CAMC, they need to play by Club rules.
- The C&CC and Freedom Camping Club allow tents under the 1960 Act, but those are much smaller organisations, with fewer members as potential guests. The CAMC is the 'brand leader'.
- The C&CC charges landowners £165 + VAT every 2 years to operate CSs (equivalent to CLs). It does not allow CS Owners to advertise their CSs outside the main C&CC website and C&CC Sites Handbook, i.e. no personal websites, and no FaceBook pages to promote the CS. (The CAMC simply asks that new CL Owners pay the same membership fee as other Club members.)
If CL Owners break the law, by over-booking, allowing tents or having non-recreational guests (e.g. workers or residents), they are putting the interests of Club members and the businesses of other CL Owners at risk in 2 ways:
- The CAMC could lose its status of being allowed to issue operating Certificates to CLs.
- If a neighbouring CL is struggling with lack of bookings, a CL Owner that overbooks is potentially damaging their neighbour’s income stream.
By recommending neighbouring CLs, it helps a CL Owner’s local economy; the neighbour might return the favour; and our experience is that the people we turned-away will probably pop-in to see what they've missed, and often book us for their next holiday.
Ian Kelly
01691 622951
Holiday@BirchHill.co.uk
Birch Hill, The Cross, Ellesmere, Shropshire, SY12 0LP
www.BirchHill.co.uk
Birch Hill Farm – relax at our award-winning hideaway in the beautiful lake-lands of Shropshire - exclusively for members of the Caravan and Motorhome Club
Comments
-
Great post, Ian. You’ve stated, very articulately, points I’ve been trying to get across for some time.
I'm frequently surprised at the number of site reviews that casually mention there were 5/6/7 other units on site along with the reviewer. I feel the inspection, reporting and policing process must be sadly lacking in some respects.
7 -
Does it matter really? As long as there is room and adequate facilities as advertised we have stayed on a few CLs where there were additional vans and all was well.
I was told by a CL owner that the 6th pitch was for a relief 'warden' when they were away on holiday.
We all have a living to make and as the saying goes 'make hay while the sun shines'
2 -
Whether you think it matters or not, the law is what it is. Does it matter if someone nicks a Jag or shoplifts or embezzles funds?
Break the law and penalties will be imposed and, in the case of 5van certification, we could all be losers.
4 -
It’s an act of Parliament, not a CAMC rule.
3 -
The point is nothing to do with the cc or ccc ltd companies or any other organisation that is allowed to take advantage of the legislation that for it to be varied will need an ammendment to the act of parliament,
Good job you had some one sitting in front of you to advise you of the legislation and laws in your past "post"
1 -
It matters. When I use a CL, just the same as any site, I endeavour to stick to terms and conditions (my side of the bargain) and I expect the site owner to stick to theirs (their side of the bargain) .......... whoever they might be.
6 -
😱☹️
0 -
Totally agree with the views expressed by the OP - but isn't this a duplication of the thread "Crowded Out". I am waiting for a response from CL Maddie as to what this Club's stance is on two CLs being run side by side and owned by different members of the same family which seems to happen in certain areas - despite this Club telling a CS owner/ friend (who was thinking of switching allegiance) that it isn't allowed.
0 -
I was once of that mind T, until I actually came across a site where I was squeezed between 2 units-after asking why I was told-‘they are here for 2weeks, you are just 1night’. Truthfully I was too👍🏻 It was a mid drive sleep. It was still annoying, the noise from the 2 units(family) stopped me from the very sleep I needed☹️.
Edit-there were 7 LV’s squeezed in.
2 -
The C&CC charges landowners £165 + VAT every 2 years to operate CSs (equivalent to CLs). It does not allow CS Owners to advertise their CSs outside the main C&CC website and C&CC Sites Handbook, i.e. no personal websites, and no FaceBook pages to promote the CS. (The CAMC simply asks that new CL Owners pay the same membership fee as other Club members.)
If you don't want there top advertising package the C&CC club is totally free and all the local sites to me have their own websites. They don't even expect you to be a member, so actually cheaper than the C&MHC and you can have 10 tents.
0 -
Check the C&CC website and you’ll see that membership is a requirement. However, it seems acceptable to hand out membership application forms to non-members, as your sister does.
I’m pretty sure the Act also stipulates end users must be members of the exempting organisation.
1 -
So you accept it is an Act of Parliament.
The Act covers exemption for 5 vans. CAMC cannot alter that.
The only difference I’m aware of is CAMC not allowing tents to be part of the 5 units.
4 -
different issuers of exemption certificates can set their own rules...
Practical Motorhome (along with the Motor Caravanners Club) manages Nightstops, which include CL/CS type locations along with pubs, farms etc. some of which are free of charge.
whilst their 'version' of the rules states there can only be a maximium of 5 MHs (no caravans) you do not need to be a member of any organisation to use these.
each issuer has its own flavour of the Act, so it's apparent that the Act does not stipulate if you should be a member, nor that any site be limited to specifically MH, caravan, tents etc..
like CCC, PC and other exemptors, CC can set its own rules on CLs, but this is not a one size fits all arrangement.
without reading the Act, im sure there are many fixed rules that all exemptors must adhere to but there is obviously scope for different groups to do some things differently.
0 -
That’s all fine and dandy BB but we are talking club CL’s and the club rules by which they issue their certificates guided by the Act. So the point still remains that the 5 van rule is the standard and more than that is breaking the certification. Some members may wish more, some owners may break the rule but the fact remains CLs are for 5 vans.
As a cl user I’m happy with the 5 van rule
5 -
just responding to other points upthread.
i agree CLs have their own rules, but the point is these aren't set in stone as other exemptors have different 'rules', so there is some degree of flexibility within the act.
CCC allows 5 caravans/MH PLUS upto 10 tents which would mean possibly 15 habitable units on one CS.
im not necessarily suggesting change, I like the 5 van CLs, merely that other organisations have applied for (and are using) different parameters within the same Act.
the CC version is the definite one currently for CLs, but there is certainly scope for change.
1 -
I think the crux of that, BB, is that you haven’t read the Act. I have but admit my memory is a bit hazy. Ian, though, will be on the ball as he can’t afford not to be.
4 -
The C&CC charges landowners £165 + VAT every 2 years to operate CSs (equivalent to CLs). It does not allow CS Owners to advertise their CSs outside the main C&CC website and C&CC Sites Handbook, i.e. no personal websites, and no FaceBook pages to promote the CS. (The CAMC simply asks that new CL Owners pay the same membership fee as other Club members.)
If this is so then many break their T&C's as many have their own websites, does that also include UK Campsite type websites.
We all know that CS's are more relaxed about the law, 5 caravan/motorhomes and upto 10 tents usually means 5 tents and 10 vans. Perhaps this is why CL owners think it ok to put in more vans, levelling the field (no pun intended)
0 -
It does not matter what any owner "thinks"the legislation is there and although these days it seems more often, some think that they are "above"laws and legislation, knowing that it is unlikely that any one will check what they are doing, and as it seems by posts/reviews most members it seems are starting to question the occupancy levels of Cl/Cs sites, more will be useing the report button to try to bring it back to legal levels before (not likely soon)an example will be made of one of the exempted organisations,
It will only need one of the very vocal and getting more power full "Green"type organisations to get involved , to start the ball rolling
0 -
PitchUp.com has an informative page on line setting out details about getting planning permission to set up a fully fledged campsite with more than five Caravan pitches - either from scratch or from a CL/CS base.
Sure there are fees to be paid, but farmers with land available can work out how few extra overnight stays are needed to cover the cost of those fees. Certainly here in Cornwall, where peak season numbers are crucial to any holiday business, farmers are going down that road - and the more the Clubs enforce the existing rules (to protect their own interests) the more will take that step.
0 -
Last Friday I drove past a local CL which looked ‘full’. On the way back I slowed and counted 6 units.
Having seen recent comments re number of units I asked my self what would I do if I arrived at a CL that already had 5 units in situ.
I cannot say that I would drive on, depending on the circumstances, and as it was impossible for me to know the reasons why there were 6 units what should you do??
My guess is that many, myself included, would probably view it as something we cannot sort and unless totally unacceptable stay, at least till an alternative can be found.
0 -
I believe the local authority can apply to have the certificate withdrawn and compel the site owner to apply for planning permission/force closure if it believes the rules are not being applied or in the event of complaints which are upheld.
I suppose if C&MC wanted to it could apply for a camping exemption (it current does not hold this while the C&CC does) to allow CL owners with room to have tents. That would be one way of possibly growing membership and allowing CL owners to expand????
peedee
0
