Seabreeze CL. Appledore
Well had a lovely week here at this superb site in Appledore. The owners are lovely.
Sadly this is yet another site that will soon be leaving the CL network as the have a planning application in to increase it to up to 10 caravans, and some tents!
Makes you think that the 5 caravan limit needs raising!
Wont stop us coming here as it is superb!
Comments
-
Agree with raising the limit.
I've said it before, the cl system is less than half the number it was when I joined. The numbers are getting less and the users are getting more making it more difficult to get a site. If the limit was raised to a maximum of ten them the site pitch numbers would be back to where they were around 1986.
1 -
The site owners have applied for planning permission to increase the number of pitches from 5 to 20. No decision has been made but if granted that will make it easier for tourists to get a pitch, and may go some way to meeting the present need in Appledore where campervans and motorhomes have increased so markedly in numbers and have been parking wherever they can.
0 -
NIce site, one we used a few years ago. A short walk to a lovely seaside village.
Although a very large field the owner only allowed units to pitch at either end (leaving the centre section free) so as not to annoy the neighbours. That will obviously have to change.
0 -
Contact you MP, Harry, and get the ball rolling.
0 -
Surely those bigger organisations should be exploring the situation, With staycom, need to restart the economy etc etc no better time surely for this club and others to start discussions. If left the hemorrhaging will continue as owners go the easy planning route.
0 -
I am sure many current campsites have started out as CL's. If a CL owner is interested in becoming a more mainstream campsite I am not sure an increase in pitches from five to ten would necessarily mean that these CL's would remain as such because the owner would probably have a larger ambition than ten pitches?
The current legislation on CL's dates back to the sixties? The often put forward objection to trying to change the system is that it would not be as simple as just increasing the number of units. As I understand it the current situation basically bypasses the planning system by vesting the authority to run such sites in organisations like the CMC and the C&CC. From what I have read on this forum from members of Club staff is that they would be concerned that any changes might mean that certificating of CL's could be taken out of their hands so the consensus seems to be to leave well alone. Personally I think unlikely that a 5 pitch CL is likely to be much of a business on its own, especially a well equipped CL, so having a higher number could see an increase in CL's overall but it appears to be a gamble that the Clubs don't want to indulge in?
David
0 -
Whilst I agree that there is a case for increasing the occupancy, in order to retain the character of CL's, I feel that an increase to 8 pitches would be more in keeping with the concept. Sufficient, hopefully, to improve the viability of them. More than that and you are beginning to head into the "small commercial site" territory.
2 -
You are right David. The clubs don’t want change.
Between the two clubs there are 3500 CL and CS sites, and visiting them is limited to members of those two clubs. That means big money for the clubs from from membership fees. So course those two clubs want to retain control.
The last thing the clubs want is for control of small campsites to pass to locally elected councils. But that’s the way small campsites are licensed in other countries - and would be much more democratic than having two clubs (which are actually businesses) making the decisions .
1 -
Interesting last paragraph, you really don't like CLs do you? Now you're using democracy to have CLs removed?
But lets look at some facts. Only a third of people, sometimes as low as a quarter, actually vote in council elections. Then of that third or quarter that is split between various political parties and/or people standing so is the person elected really representing the views of the area? And how many of those are interested in camp sites?
So how is that much more democratic than people actually choosing in their hundreds of thousands and actually paying to join the two clubs and then using the CL/CS they provide?
And what decisions are the clubs actually making? yes you can have a CL, or no you can't is my understanding, is there anything else you can add as you appear to know more? What control do they have? CLs are independent of the club as I see it, they can set their own prices? Their own rules and procedures for booking? Also people apply to become CLs of their own accord, no one is forced, to become a small five site. after that is they wish to go bigger they can through the usual channels.
As I have said many times, you don't use them, plenty more sites out there for you to use, why so bothered?
2 -
CL's are fine as they are. Cs's too. If you let the interfering councils get their mitts on them, they will simply be commercial sites.
3 -
and (a serious question) can councils veto any proposals by the clubs or is it just a consultation?
0 -
There's a site I've stayed on a couple of times near Chelmsford. A similar 'jumbo' CL but with 14 HS and about another 6 grass ones. Capacity is obviously decided at a local level rather than any specific legislation.
0 -
Don’t forget to add these small private sites to the list please👍 Always useful for others 😁
1 -
Sorry for the delayed response Corners but I have only just spotted your querie. As far as I know it is just a courtesy but I guess if there were strong enough objections the Clubs would take this into account. e.g. the C&MC wanted to establish a temporary site for the London Olympics, cannot remember where but there were strong objections from local residents and the idea was scrapped. While not a CL, temporary sites come under the same 1960 act.
peedee
0 -
Mill House CV Park, Chelmsford CM3 4BG 01245 464060
0 -
Thanks PD
0
