Changes to Archaic Rules
It is difficult to see any positives to the Virus but.... Could now, with the Government looking to support all industries, be the time to seek changes to the archaic rules governing Tourism. We have the CL network restricted to 5 units. The CC & C have 15 units ( 5 vans & 10 tents)> When this legislation was enacted some 50 years ago no one envisaged the huge tent structures seen today. Increasing the CL limit to say 10 would make the capital outlay required today, ie hard standings,EHU, perhaps a toilet block feasible. At the same time it would retain and increase the CL network instead of seeing the gradual decline as sites become independent
Similarly we have time restrictions on the larger site openings. ie Brecon Beacons not open in winter.Again this is a Nat Park archaic legislation completely out of touch with tourism needs. With its location and hard standings could be an ideal winter site.There may well be other anomalies that could be sorted..
It is possible these ideas could be incorporated or piggy backed on other legislation changes,
Should the club be looking at this at this time with the chance or opportunity to lobby or to see an enhancement in our chances to improve and extend our hobby
Comments
-
Although I understand your point, Fish, I think it will he a long time before the Govt will be in a position to look at this, if they do at all, as there will be far more pressing matters to be addressed in the coming months/years.
Another school of thought is that it's best to let sleeping dogs lie rather than risk losing the whole exemption system by raising issues and seeking amendment.
5 -
Should the club be looking at this at this time with the chance or opportunity to lobby or to see an enhancement in our chances to improve and extend our hobby
At this time, in my opinion, No, there are far more urgent considerations.
Once normality has resumed, Yes.
0 -
The needs of tourism do not always sit comfortably with the environmental needs of some areas. I would support tighter (not draconian) restrictions on tourism to protect the environment.
Agree that it is always worth sorting out anomalies but as Tinwheeler says, there are more pressing matters.
0 -
Whilst I have sympathy with your views, like others I don't think it would be well received at this moment in time. Having said that who knows how the world will change after the current situation hopefully returns to normal? The five van limit I think is restricting in the sense that it probably restricts investment and also discourages the setting up of new CL's. However all this legislation was set up in very different times and as pointed out could open Pandora's Box if interfered with! One would imagine any changes could well come under the planning authorities and if we know anything from the last 60 years is that conditions have become more prescriptive so the relative ease with which someone can now set up a CL could become more difficult. I appreciate it is a very difficult one as common sense would suggest that increasing the number of units would be an advantage for all the reasons mentioned.
As to Brecon that must either be a lease condition or a planning condition. Probably easier to change if the latter. Perhaps you might need to contact the Club direct on that one?
David
0 -
Didnt think things would happen immediately.The club itself could take a long time coming up with ideas,formulating them,lobbying,testing the waters,but at least would be in a position to say piggy back any legislation that may come forward,.As for sleeping dogs lie,has anyone made any moves for change? Its a case of it will die if there are no changes/ evolution. Now may well be that opportunity as the Economy looks to relax rules so that we get going once this disease is over with. Just my thoughts and knowledge of local authorities National Parks. and the Welsh Assembly.
0 -
However all this legislation was set up in very different times and as pointed out could open Pandora's Box if interfered with!
From memory, when Pandora closed the box the one thing left trapped inside was hope. Might as well release that
2 -
Surely the attraction of CL's is that they are restricted to 5 'vans. Thats our view and any increase would spoil them.
4 -
It is a valid view but with CL numbers seemingly to be constantly dropping I would have thought anything that can help the survival of CL's would be welcome? I somehow doubt it will happen and the probable consequence will be a continued reduction in CL's but those that survive will likely gradually upgrade to be mini campsites, in the sense of facilities within the five van system, with prices to match?
David
0 -
I’m with you Fish, it’s a great idea. It would help CL’s get money in more substantial amounts. I’m willing(& have) paid £20 p/nt for tent camping. I’m happy to share the space with more units too. This shouldn’t be about the minimal to suit a few it should be about pleasing the many, that includes the ones who take the financial gamble, allow more units(+ tents) & make it viable more for the owner.
2 -
But surely those cl owners that want larger sites and have the space to do it already have that option?
1.They can choose the Caravan and Camping club if they want to allow tents.
2. They can set up an "adjacent" commercial site (eg Lundholme Farm and Riverside).
3. They can leave the Caravan Club and set up independently (eg Low Hedgeley Farm or Westfield Paddock).
The CL (5 van) appeal has more than a limited or minimal appeal, despite what you personally feel and I for one would be sorry to see the system change.
5 -
There will be a push to regenerate the economy after the virus.Likewise I am sure many vaners will look to extend the season through Autumn and Winter.There may well be an opportunity to join in the relaxation of rules/planning issues to 1) increase the 5 limit and 2) extend the season like say Brecon Beacons.No one is saying it should be a blanket increase but could depend on site size and/or location.If the club wants to be ready for any opportunity the research needs to be done now as it will be too late when the legislation is hurried through. The alternative is the continued decline in CL 's and the main sites losing out to those who have longer opening. I am sure that many of the closed Cls have merely used the planning laws (and it is increasingly simple to get the increase,particularly when you show overcrowding with no adverse reaction from neighbours, or Highway Department) to increase and justify their improvements.Whatever they are lost to the club network
0 -
Equally those that don’t want to move with the times & actually help the CL owners could do the same👍🏻.
PS-it was Fish’s suggestion re Govt archaic rules.
0 -
I could be wrong on this but is there not an initiative to encourage farmers to provide Pod type accommodation on their farms? If that is the case it could prove a lot more attractive than providing a CL. The investment is much higher but so are the returns.
David
2 -
I am well aware that the original post was by Fisherman. I quoted your post mainly because I disagreed with what you said about "the minimal to suit a few" sentence.
I am also sure that CL owners have a choice about whether or not to become part of and renew their inclusion in the Certified network as it currently stands. If it doesn't suit them other options are available. Just like my membership of the club is my choice, their decision to remain a club cl is theirs.
I don't want to labour the point but I use CL sites almost exclusively and many of them do have other options for increasing revenue (such as an adjacent commercial site, or pods or cottages).
1 -
Thanks👍🏻, I had an eye on the potential for expansion of the network for those who’d like to view it as an income source😊. I too don’t use the main sites at all but do like a choice, the fact that many are closing is no good to you or I.
0 -
I was just thinking that surely it should be what's best for CL owners that takes priority rather than the wishes of individuals in order to see the network expand.
0 -
I'm not so sure that this sort of thing shouldn't be looked at when this virus is finished with us.
Every Govt. dept will be tasked with coming up with initiatives to get the economy moving and businesses, both big and small, earning some money. A lot of CLs are run as a secondary income for farms, nurseries, fisheries etc. etc. and they will be desparate to maximise income and if this means that they want to expand their CL but can't then many of them will consider leaving and setting up as independents. Now, as an avid user of CLs, I will not want to see the network reduced even further. I will use some of these sites that become independent but sometimes they slip through the net.
I also value their size and don't want to necessarily see more units on sites that can't comfortably accommodate them. But, Fish, does have a point as TW alluded to. Namely what's best for the owner?
If some sort of compromise could be reached, maybe based on a minimum space per unit, then I could see some,xI repeat some, CLs being able to expand to a few more units. A typical CL has 5 units on an area most often between Half and Three Quarters of an acre. So each unit has an area allocation of about 0.1 - 0.15 of an acre. I have stayed on sites of 2 acres or more. If these sites could increase to allow say 8 units maximum with minimum spacing between each unit then what would be wrong with that? Or we could just lose the CL.
This isn't a wish on my behalf, merely a thought to allow discussion rather than bickering.
It's a good question that Fish asks. Let's face it anything is better than counting deaths and tragedies at the moment.
0 -
Nice thought, WN, but I doubt that the Leisure Industry as a whole [with the possible exception of the caravan manufacturers] will even register on the Govenment's screen.
Based on the latest [lack of] economic activity, reported yesterday, the UK & US economies are heading for unemployment rates in the 20% to over 30% range, figures that will dwarf the Great Depression and the 2008 Financial Crash. The World Bank is working on the basis of a Global Recession/Depression, purely because worldwide economic activity has all but stopped.
When the pandemic is brought under control, Governments will be kickstarting national economies with massive amounts of Quantitative Easing and other Financial Stimuli [US is already revisiting last week's $2 trillion Stimulus Package because it's nowhere near enough, after US ended a 9 years 5 months unbroken run of employment expansion with a 701,000 unemployment increase yesterday]; the EU will do likewise, after each Member State that has suffered most deaths reported equivalent dying economic output that had not been seen in living memory]. EU is talking of a Marshall Aid Plan Mark II that will involve heaven knows how many billions of € of stimulus.
UK will have to do similar, but on a smaller scale as a standalone State, so boosting CL numbers just lacks the scale that will be needed for economic recovery.
Steve
1 -
Every small business counts, in fact most big businesses spring from small ones. I like CLs because they are small and I hope to see them open again as soon as it's safe to do so. If the owners have plans to expand I'm sure they'll find a way to do this when the travel restrictions are lifted, but it won't be something that all CL owners will want to do and it won't attract the users who enjoy a quieter 5 van site. Lets hope the potential users aren't too depleted by this awful virus.
0 -
I'm under no illusions about how small income from CLs registers in the grand scheme of things but the question was asked and I do not see any impediment to the relevant Government department including Camping and Caravanning in their remit for enticing tourism.
We have seen some small businesses that would have had to lay staff off suddenly find a new way of keeping going by providing safety equipment for the health workers. Red tape has been side tracked to enable these companies to adapt. Plenty of red tape and regulations are going to be looked at when things resume and tourism, a big income raiser, should leave no stone unturned. Sorry about the last bit sounding like a politician but in my defence I didn't mention "going forward" at all.
0 -
Brue & WN,
Here is a link to an updated article for tomorrow's Observer. Sunak'svirus bailout 'not enough' as the flood keeps coming. P&O Ferries losing £250,000 per day etc etc.
I won't hold my breath until CL expansion plans finance appears on the list. There will be a lot more businesses and sectors of the UK economy with more pressing needs and with a more immediate prospect of contributing to a reversal of the building depression.
Steve
0 -
Of course it will not be primary/stand alone legislation but part of a wider change. Thats why its important to be ready ( if that is what the club requires) to be able to piggy back quickly as these things are rushed through, post virus. Things/trade/working practices will be different as every effort is made to repair the economy.
0 -
Why is there so much content removed on this thread? I don't log into site that often, but when I do and am interested in members comments, only to find them removed.
Moderator Comment - Content is only removed when it doesn't adhere to the forum T&C's. I can assure you that you have missed nothing of consequence in those posts which have been removed.
0
