Bridport Bingham Grange
Comments
-
I suspect the Club were interested in the site as a new to them campsite and the conditions of the existing facilities are of secondary interest particularly as what seems to be the norm these days is to build new anyway. I don't know what the Club policy is regarding restaurants. I have been to Hillhead and Seacroft which both have restaurants and I imagine the building existed at the point of takeover? Not been to Knaresborough which also has a restaurant so I am not sure how that came about. Bingham Grange is a bit remote so it would be ideal as a restaurant location but if the Club have to spend lots of additional money on recreating it I suppose it might not happen?
David
0 -
-
Oh yes, the C&CC for one. A couple of the responses on here demonstrate the persistence of a "them and us" within CAMC notwithstanding the name change.
0 -
A big list so far ? and most already know the ccc for a fee will allow LVs to used their sites for what some want and to use their showers and laundry as part of the fee
But then things seem to have changed a lot since had our two motor caravans. it now seems to be a definite "them and us attitude" very much noticable, with what some motor caravan owners think they are entitled to above other LV owners
3 -
Just out of interest, CY, before you changed to a MH a couple of years back did you consider yourself "one of us" or "one of them"?
And now do you consider yourself "one of them" or "one of us"?
I ask simply because I don't remember you campaigning so vociferously when you were, presumably, "one of us"!
6 -
They are. They've made their decision and given reasons for not being followers.
0 -
They seem to lead in many ways, but if going down the route of spending large amounts of other type of LVer members money, to set up a dump and fill at site entrances as Cyber now suggests earlier in this thread, rather than use club sites? with very little return even if there was a charge?
If not having a special site entrance facility most sites have security barriers to restrict entrance to booked arrivals known to the site staff,
By having the "requested.:?facility". Gives the other type of "touring community " who now it seems are using more motor caravans to "travel" in would give another means of accessing their "next stop"
0 -
The original refurbishment was delayed so I would expect this is now very overdue and the site may indeed not be available for onward bookings. Living fairly locally to the site it's always busy when we drive past so at least the club has had some revenue from it this year after all the Covid problems.
0 -
+1, what is the problem with using & paying for an official site once every 3/4 days, at least that way something is being put in the kitty. It can’t be all take out🤷🏻♂️
2 -
Just received from the club:
Good afternoon Paul,
Thank you for your email.
Our site at Bridport Bingham Grange will be closing on 1st November for scheduled redevelopment.
We put a "stop" on the sale of the pitches so that we save members from having to cancel bookings.
Apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.
0 -
I see myself merely as a member. However, with the benefit of having been on both sides, I can now see that MH requirements do differ slightly from those of a caravanner and I am at a loss to see why there is such entrenched opposition to what, in the great scheme of things, are relatively minor changes. Ultimately the more nomadic motorhomers will end up voting with their wheels in the absence of provision of such services, I suspect. At the risk of committing the greatest heresy in mentioning dogs, it would, no doubt, be considered anathema for no dog walk to be provided, notwithstanding not all members need one. Therefore the argument that "it doesn't benefit all members" is spurious.
0 -
No, it is not spurious and I can tell you’re not a dog owner. Not all sites have dog walks so your "considered anathema" phrase is already out of the window. The dog walks that do exist are generally on ground fit for nothing else.
I'm very much in favour of equity and, as long as caravanners and MH-ers pay the same fees, I believe neither should have special provisions. I see MHSPs as being a way of preventing MHs clogging up the ordinary service points but, other than that, they are unnecessary.
Yes, you are a member but I’m sure I read somewhere that you were considering debunking🤷🏻♂️
0 -
Our MH requirements do differ slightly from when we had a caravan. Particularly at the two ends of the year, I don’t want to be on grass. Where as with a caravan we would have risked it. Not really a problem, as in the absence of surface type booking, it’s either a service pitch or the C&CC benefit as I can book a HS EHU pitch with them.
Personally CY I don’t think the Nomadic motor-homers are using the sites at the moment, so I don’t see the CC loosing much business by them voting with their wheels.
3 -
"At the risk of committing the greatest heresy in mentioning dogs, it would, no doubt, be considered anathema for no dog walk to be provided, notwithstanding not all members need one. Therefore the argument that "it doesn't benefit all members" is spurious."
No heresy at all, CY, but totally incorrect. Unless things have changed considerably over the past couple of years there are a number of club sites without dedicated dog walks. Well, I suppose the wooded strips nearCheddar, Broadway and Putts Corner (to name but 3) are labelled "dog walks" but just happen to be there, no actual work involved in preparing them. I believe there are others where dogs must be walked off site too.
0 -
Caravaners and MHers are treated exactly the same CY.
I can now see that MH requirements do differ slightly from those of a caravanner
Not on a site, both are provided for exactly the same. Of course the MH differences you are referring is to do with wild camping and not using sites at all.
0
