Aires in the UK
Comments
-
It is the fact that they are of a predictable standard, a standard that suits me, that gives them an added appeal to me.
We visit 20+ sites when touring each year. (we also have a 15 night December break). In the last 15 years there are very few sites that we have visited more than twice. Less than ten sites in that time. We don't tend to visit favourite sites as such.
Last year we visited 21 sites whilst touring. 8 were new to us. If there is a CMC site in a suitable location then we will look no further as we know that they will suit us. If there is not then more research is often required.
Every year there are one or two sites that we would not revisit because they did not really suit us for various reasons. In those 15 years there is only one CMC site that we will not revisit and that is purely because, with only one working eye, I find the exit problematical even solo. That is Cherry Hinton.
0 -
There are some travelling people who are not generally liked by most. I dont know whether they are really as undesirable and even aggresive as they look, dont know whether they live that way because they just like it, dont know whether we should be more compasionate about them. Some of them look more or less dodgy than others, but because we never have anything to do with these people we do not understand them. We do not particularly want them as neighbours at home or on a camp site. How do you stop these people from moving into airs and takingover and taking root? We have seen it happen in France and here in the UK.
1 -
Every year there are one or two sites that we would not revisit because they did not really suit us for various reasons. In those 15 years there is only one CMC site that we will not revisit and that is purely because, with only one working eye, I find the exit problematical even solo. That is Cherry Hinton.
We wont be going back to CH again. Never really liked it. Now we are members of the C&CC their site looks a lot nicer, so will give that a go.
0 -
We have visited twice that I can recall (although me and my late wife had use it previously) and had a good pitch on both occasions although I know others have found differently.
Before joining C&CC there were three sites that I thought might make it worthwhile without looking further.One of those was that site that you refer to although we have not been that way since.
0 -
I agree but if you are just night stopping does it really matter and I see creating spaces at the back of car parks as a way of testing the waters for the site owners.
Bourton on Water has 10 spaces and last time I was there they were full. How many stayed at £8 overnight I have no idea. Coaches also use the car park. Charges are not cheap for day time use and I would have thought with the revenue they get and the clients, a dump point could be justified and a bonus. Next time I am there I will have a better look around especially with respect to day time charges.
peedee
0 -
Ah but some of us have very comfortable easy to use motorhomes and do not need full fat sites and would be quite happy with UK Aires or other forms of low facility stop overs. My first choice Club sites are always the none facilitiy sites and economy pitches if I know they are any good. Nothing to do with costs, its just as I state above, I do not need facilities but often have to pay for them because of lack of choice.
peedee
2 -
Not sure what would happen overseas, suspect a more robust approach than in UK.
We have been on a Club Site invaded by Travellers, it wasn’t nice. Threatening behaviour, theft of items, intimidation. Official police response was one PC, who was memorable for telling all in office that he couldn’t wake the said families as they might have children. Useless. Meanwhile Club response was very good, elderly chap who had been manhandled and threatened was carefully looked after and re assured, Area Manager arrived quickly and staff got on with organising refunds and finding pitches not far away for those leaving. I have never seen a Club Site evacuated as fast.
Personally, this is one of reasons why I don’t think Aires will work in some areas. To open to abuse, vandalism, misuse. Anything other than payment by card doesn’t have a hope, and card slots will possibly be glued up! Once a location is known, it will be targeted. We have even experienced intimidation in Clumber Park at dusk (not on site, we were just parked up prior to heading off home).
0 -
In the current business climate there are many businesses closing all or some branches, and many of these have large car parks. We are being told that retail will shrink as customers buy "on-line", and also that the days of widespread motor car usage are ending. So there is little prospect of all of those car-parks being needed in the future.
Every one of these unneeded parking areas belongs to some business or other, with many of them having been rented by the businesses that have failed from landlord companies that own multiple sites. I think these are the organisations to approach, as they have no prospect of re-letting much of their portfolio and still incur ongoing costs. Some steady income from use by motor caravans could be attractive - in fact no need to exclude trailer caravans as with so much space available "drive through" pitches could be created to enhance overnight stops.
The problems that could prevent these landlord companies will include whether the business case would show sufficient income to pay for the investment in water supply and drainage alterations, and ongoing maintainance.
A big consideration would also be whether caravanners would be willing to use a basic site which was in effect a partitioned off part of a much larger parking area where dereliction and fly-tipping was likely on the other part, or even colonisation by another type of caravan user. Especially so if these locations were away from the main part of town and the scenery was crumbling or demolished big sheds.
So what might be attractive to both parties could be aiming the campaining/lobbying/etc at owners of locations where the retail premises were likely to remain partly occupied. Should a demand arise to reuse some of the vacant premises it would be simple and cheap to discontinue the caravan usage. That point could be instumental in getting agreement from the local planning authority to allow a departure from their master plan for land use.
0 -
Ah but we have also had what you describe? and for "touring" abroad are ideal, but as more people it seems in this country are doing "wild camping?" then in such a small country, it is no wonder more areas are putting in place more restictions to dissuade that type of use,
And as posted before although the growth in the motor caravan and camper market is growing, when useing sites it is very noticeable MCs seem to be used as caravans and never move through their stay and they are like hens teeth on sites when there is not PT or easy walks to civilization
Which as we have reverIt ted to a caravan with our "go almost anywhere" vehicle /come add storage alongside
0 -
That is where in this country our "softly softly approach " is proving to be unenforceable as the minority are always playing on, and has been hilighted so often
In the UK it is down to landowners /leasers to pick up the bill for most of those who cause any sort of problems ,which aires?would be very open to
Club sites are not immune to that sort of problem
1 -
JV, you are only looking at things from your own point of view, at this moment in time. A caravan, on a Club Site, now suits what you need/ want, and at a price you are happy to pay. I would add that this scenario, slightly amended to include a large MH for ease of set up, but still parked up on a Club Site, is quite common, and clearly suits many who are happy with this arrangement. Not a problem, it’s individual choice.
Likewise, there are others, with vans, with MHs, that tour entirely differently. Again, individual choice. But plenty, if not more folks choose the path that doesn’t entirely revolve around Club Sites. 😉
2 -
I do not need facilities but often have to pay for them because of lack of choice.
why? unless of course you have to use club sites or use them more than you're letting on, plenty of CL's would suit better.
1 -
This is car park at Mevagissay. Short video, it shows a couple of MHs parked up at the end. Not sure on overnight charges.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U41mBTTf3I8
This is Helmsley. As far as I know, free overnight, but charges apply in day.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=07r_11MWHwE
2 -
Yes, the privately owned Willows car park at Mevagissey allows MHs to overnight in certain bays. SB will no doubt know the charge 👍
1 -
How can you know how many choose the path that doesn't revolve around club sites when, by your own admission, you use club sites all the time with one exception per year? That's hardly representative of a balanced view.
1 -
So you're suggesting only a minority use club sites. That proves TDA's point 👍
1 -
When we used Aires in France last September. Only two were for just a night and then move on. The others we used to specifically visit the place they were situated, on 3 of them we stopped the permitted two nights. If they were similar to over there I would envisage using them in the same manner. Hopefully the number of nights would be similarly pegged to stop them getting clogged with folk wanting longer stays.
0 -
but as more people it seems in this country are doing "wild camping?" then in such a small country, it is no wonder more areas are putting in place more restictions to dissuade that type of use,
This is a very good point made by JVB, and unfortunately it is becoming more of a problem, and those that are doing it are getting the MH fraternity a bad name.
We had 10 turn up the day before lock down, 2 or 3 claimed to be NHS workers, they werent but still had the audacity to walk around wearing NHS name tags round their necks.
So as not to run the risk of fouling the nature reserve, or the sea, the council gave them a key to 1 disabled toilet on the proviso they cleaned it, within 2 days of use it was blocked and i guess they did not pay for Dyno Rod to sort it out .
What was more of an issue was that a site no more than 5 miles away was willing to take them, but of course that meant paying, which they definitly did not want to do. Thankfully they have left now and the council have already taken steps to make sure they dont get caught with their pants down again.
also 3 of the Mh's had no tax but as they were not on the public road the police claimed they were powerless to intervene, even though the tax had expired before they arrived
1 -
Anything other than payment by card doesn’t have a hope, and card slots will possibly be glued up! Once a location is known, it will be targeted
Did not think about that. Perhaps why the ones we used in France seemed to favour contactless. They aren't immune to travellers. Saw several laybyes taken over. Although generally they were well away from civilisation and seemed fairly tidy. Meant we had to find somewhere else for lunch though.😀
0 -
Trouble is CS unless I new the site or the weather, and putting our MH on grass was going to be OK, I would not want to book unless it had 5 hard standings. So many say part HS or just have a couple. PD has a heavy MH, perhaps he feels the same.
1 -
Cherry Hinton is due for an upgrade which seems to have been delayed. One of the planned improvements is the entrance apparently. The road outside the site is narrow in my view but its not far from the main road. The C&CC site is more open and is very nice but in my view Cherry Hinton is more convenient for transport into Cambridge. So as this is an "Aires" debate you could argue sites like Cherry Hinton provide a similar opportunity to having an aire. The same applies to the likes of York, Bristol, Crystal Palace and Abbey Wood.
For comparison:-
http://www.davidklyne.co.uk/cherry_hinton_cmc_site.html V
http://www.davidklyne.co.uk/cambridge_ccc_site.html
David
1 -
The Yorkshire one looked quite nice, even just for a visit during the day. Might have difficulty putting Elmsley in the sat nav
David
0
