We need more basic facility sites
With the mention of the closure of High Onn and given that the club seem fully intent on pressing forward with the expansion to full facility sites by upgrading with serviced pitches, and different forms of self catering in glamping, yurts, pods and even airstream caravans etc it seems that those members who are on a more limited budget or even those who just prefer basics, are getting left behind. You might say we can use the cl system and that’s exactly what is happening. This is showing there is a demand by the number of fully booked cl’s. So why can’t the club come down to the more basic forms of caravanning and find and expand this type of site within the network. There are big gaps in the geographical area of the UK that could be opened up by developing this type of site. No doubt there would be an initial outlay but nowhere near the scale of that of a large scale flagship type site. The basic sites in the network now are priced at £17 (£18 from next year) and this comes in on a par with basic cl’s. There are thousands of members who would jump at the chance of this type of site being run under the club banner. The following counties are lacking in club sites, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, amongst others, would benefit from this type of site
This is how caravan sites started off please don’t allow them to die.
Moderator comment: Locked pending review
Comments
-
Well said!👍
0 -
The answer is simple. Revenue! The business (club) needs huge amounts of funds to invest in MORE expensive high revenue pitches and Cabins etc. There seems to be no ethos other than "Loads a Money".
2 -
How do you know that there are 'thousands of members' who would jump at this type of site?
It could be that there are 'thousands of members' who have indicated that there should be more fully serviced pitches and the club is aiming to fulfill this request.
Have you considered sites other than those operated by the club? They might more fully provide for what you are looking for.
3 -
I know I've posted this before but in the first weekend in March there were more outfits on service pitches than standard pitches, 40 v 35, again the same pattern repeated in mid June with SP fully occupied with under ten standard pitches empty. The same pattern in other sites that have SP. When the club puts in SP, glamping cabins, guess what they well used what does that tell the club?
Which pitches go first on sites with a choice as at present? HS or grass?
High Onn is closing as it's underused we're told, if you want a pitch at short notice then try on basic sites, again what does that tell the club?
Limited budget? As I've said before the club is sadly not a charity, it's fact of life.
2 -
Harry, I asked the question about basic no facility Sites at the AGM last year. The Club’s answer was use CLs.
They don’t care about anyone looking to tour on a reasonable budget, the money is made on the all singing, all dancing sites, so that’s where things are heading. Folks are happy to pay whatever the Club deems the going rate for these type of Sites, so nothing will change.
6 -
Given that nearly all club sites have lots of availability, only six show full for this weekend, and cl's appear to be full (I've just booked a 3 week holiday on cl's and couldn't get on one where I wanted to go) there seems to be more demand for this type of site and that must have something to do with cost of club sites if some of the comments on prices are anything to go by. Basic facility sites will probably always have a future and land for these much surely be easier to find.
9 -
Would you expect all club sites to be full for this coming weekend? The weekend before the schools go back, and CLs' appear to be full? What all 2000 of them, how many did you check?
More demand? There are only five pitches on a CL I believe so easier to fill I would say for one thing. Are those comments on prices on here really representative of the whole membership?
I'm not sure what you mean by land being easier to come by? How cheaper?
Why is the number of CLs reducing?
0 -
That has been said so many times down the every year I've been on CT, it was said at the start of this season with the price increases yet on the sites I've been on it's been busier than ever. But as I always say perhaps next year it will be the case.
1 -
Over the years I have used some of the non facility sites and they suit me perfectly well and it would be nice to have more but unlikely I suspect. Earlier this year we stayed at Cadeside, nice little site but I do wonder if it would be there without the large storage compound? A couple of years ago we stayed at Hebden Bridge which is the only no facility site, that I know of, with serviced pitches. Last year we stayed at Northbrook Farm at Worthing and the Club is going to lose half the site to housing but hope to redevelop as a no facility site with some serviced pitches. The stumbling block seems to be that the Club want a bigger storage section but the local Council are not keen so unless they can persuade the Council that could be lost as well?
I think those that want cheaper sites do overlook the fact that there are plenty of people willing to pay for expensive sites. From a purely business point of view such sites make a better investment. I am not even sure that there are many no facility sites out there that could be purchased? I can't remember that last "green field" site that the Club built. In the last 10 years we seem to acquire ready made sites and redevelop them which is costly and the return on investment is only realised if they are full fat sites? I can perfectly see that the Club could argue that if you want less expensive sites then CL's are your choice but mainstream sites will remain at the higher end. We are and have been in a period of double whammy what with COVID and now a financial crisis both of which shake people out of the hobby. We have the prospect of no new ICE cars being sold in a little of eight years time, although hybrids will continue a little longer. So the Club have to second guess where the best investment has to go in order for the Club to survive and I expect they have reached the conclusion it won't be in no facility sites?
David
3 -
That may be the case on the sites you visit but we use all sorts of sites and the more basic sites eg grass can be just as popular. I'm wondering if it's an unpopular location that eventually closes sites? Although I think many love some of the smaller sites. I tend to agree with TDA'S comments, sadly.
4 -
I agree, the 'Club' brand is being taken higher up market, with each redevelopment adding more of what TDA alludes to...
that's all well and good, for those who wish to be taken along with this vision and can afford to make that journey.
however, whilst the Club isn't a charity (as we are so often reminded) it has a large element of the membership that are touring on fixed (perhaps dwindling) incomes. Prices edging towards £50 a night (there never seems to be a low season, these days) are a long way beyond the means of many who still wish to tour.
I would also recommended CLs to those who feel Club prices are now getting out of reach, however many member are used to a 'club formula' and may be a bit apprehensive as to what they might get at a CL...
Without basic (no facs) type sites on offer the club loyalty will be stretched, pay up or try something different...or tour less or even give up...all a bit sad.
there are sites out there, lovely ones, that still offer wonderful value. The site we are on now is a 'proper' campsite with facs, incl EHU and is £21 a night. Only about 25 vans. A delight.
I would also suggest to those finding Club sites beyond their reach that they try Temporary Holiday Sites (THS) with the C&CC. these offer a more basic approach, no facs, no EHU camping but are often sited close to towns (no driving) and are usually around £10-£12 a night.
there are cheaper options out there but it looks like they won't be on offer from the club as they look to drive the brand further upmarket.
3 -
Just not true, I think your view is based on the fact that you use club sites only in term time. If like myself and others you would have noticed that they are all used by young families as well. In fact in summer it's mainly young families.
Actually glamping cabins are mainly used by young families, very rarely by the elderly.
0 -
I am the only caravan on the only row of about 10 standard grass pitches, the rest are motorhomes of various sizes. There are loads of empty gravel pitches around ..... I've not counted. Having said that, caravans here are somewhat out numbered by MHs
How does that fit into your stats? 🙄
1 -
It does seem contrary to logic that as on-board facilites in caravans have increased over the decades there has been an increase in the provision of similar facilities on sites (though we are yet to be offered proper baths).
Incidentally, with apparently so many people using site-provided accomodation rather than owning an outfit, surely there should be a category provided on CT for them to show below their forum name. Perhaps Novanner? Suggestions please folk.
3 -
however, whilst the Club isn't a charity (as we are so often reminded) it has a large element of the membership that are touring on fixed (perhaps dwindling) incomes. Prices edging towards £50 a night (there never seems to be a low season, these days) are a long way beyond the means of many who still wish to tour.
A large element? It may look that way but if one uses club sites during school holidays one could say the opposite is true. Also edging towards £50 a night? That is just nonsense BB.
The only sites near that mark are those like Seacroft and Hillhead in peak. My spend on a SP (with the extra £5 per night, this year has been about £35 to £40 in June and July. I'm not sure you can call that edging in any sense of the word?
As you keeping there are any sites out there which are cheaper, oh and of course many that are more expensive, your favourite site Concierge Camping states their prices start from £45 and they're charging £55 to £65 for September, for an emperor pitch this Thursday it's £95. Makes the club seem very reasonable. As I was saying there are sites which are cheaper yet club sites continue to be well used in my experience.
0 -
Incidentally, with apparently so many people using site-provided accomodation rather than owning an outfit, surely there should be a category provided on CT for them to show below their forum name. Perhaps Novanner? Suggestions please folk.
The obvious one, Glamper?
peedee
0 -
We used Black Knowl fairly recently, it's £43.20 a night at the moment. All those serviced pitches you say are the most popular choice are £48.10 - I'd say that was edging towards £50 a night....however, you probably won't agree, and that fine.
perhaps the sites you visit, up north perhaps, are a little cheaper? Down south, they ain't.
you seem to have an obsession with me and Concierge Camping. I went once, I think, to try it out. It was a good while back as it was £42 a night which we thought was expensive at the time but wanted to try it.
Our verdict was that it was a lovely site with fantastic facilities which really were a mile away from most other uk sites....but nice though it was, we felt it was too expensive to return to.
Unlike some users, we visit many different types of site at all points on the price spectrum and, IMHO, have a pretty good idea of what's out there.
1 -
It's not of question of agreeing or not it's what the facts and figures actually show BB.
You're using Black Knowl peak prices at the moment with a SP to justify your assertion that all club sites are edging towards £50 and you implied this was the case all the time and never a low season, after all you did post:
Prices edging towards £50 a night (there never seems to be a low season,
This is clearly not true even at Black Knowl if one looks at the prices.
Yes is that at the moment in peak for a service pitch is it £48.10, but firstly the number of service pitches are relativity few on this site 19 out of 121 so really I can't understand how you use a service pitch to say that is the price for that site or how it can ever be the most popular choice? But again popular is subjective lets stick to facts.
So the price now is as you say but go off peak in September the prices for the same SP goes down to £43.80 then £38.70 then even further in October down to £36.60, so much for there never seems to be a low season as clearly there is!
And those prices include the extra £5 for a SP remember so take off those and we have roughly have £38.80 and £35.70 for September and £31.60 for October before the half term prices.
Also you appear to have missed off the part where you could stay at Black Knowl on a non EHU non awning pitch (perfect for your MH and more basic sites that you're after) and this brings the cost down to £34.60 now to a low of £18.20 in low.
Down south, again if you look at plenty of sites there are no differences in prices btw.
I just recall you saying after a few visits to CC you stated it was the gold standard, well worth the extra cost due to the extra high standards and what club sites should be like.
Like I said it's not about agreeing or not, just what the actual prices show.
1 -
God news, I just picked that up from what posters have written on here. Hope the trend is increasing.
0 -
sorry Good news
I really do mean it btw, all for choice.
0 -
Goodness me, it concerns me that you think £31.60 for a pitch in October is a reasonable price 😲
At the rate site prices are going up we will be giving up our outfit and doing something else.
We had hoped that we could still tour home and away, for another 10 years if we remain in good health. At these prices I very much doubt it.
Its alright for those who are still earning to be 'happy' to pay whatever is asked but they don't make up the majority of members ( I believe) with all the other more important things in our lives rising in price something will have to go it would seem.
Shame as we've had an outfit since our early 20s. Bought because it was an affordable way to holiday with 2 small children and flexible to fit in with OHs job.
CS, you mentioned you saw a lot of SP being used, could it be that folk book them to guarantee a H/S.
Until the new booking system is introduced, where I believe we will get the option of pitch type, it could be a person's way of securing a H/S. Time will tell if that is the case. 5 -
Let’s face it, you can’t even get a meal out for 2 for £30-ish these days. Times sure have changed.
1 -
Although the prices show non EHU option...there's one pitch which is out of action!
And if you don't think £43.80 is edging towards £50 then we'll have to differ. Of course, for you it would be £48.10 as you have to have a SP...now that really is close to £50 or do you wish to debate that, too?
like I said, it's not about agreeing or not, just about what the prices show😉
also, as TG mentions, i certainly don't think £31.60 in October (not even half term) is anything other than 'on the high side'.
...and I'm afraid your 'recollection' is failing you....we've certainly not had 'a few visits' to Concierge Camping...just the once, I think. Yes, compared to Club 'facilities' it has 'gold standard' loos, washrooms and showers, but I still think it's too highly priced to revisit.
perhaps you'd kindly put that little mistake to bed...thanks.👍
1 -
Well actually TG I never said anything was reasonable did I?
But I am touched that you are concerned about what I think is reasonable but there's no need at all I assure you.
I'm not sure, though not concerned about you, that these people who are happy to pay the prices are not the majority of members. They are certainly happy to pay those prices if using sites I would say and sites in my experience this year, and in the view of the wardens I've spoken to, have never been busier. Perhaps next year might be different?
No those sites where I use SP are all HS.
0 -
BB I'm not debating anything but just giving the prices and facts, you're the one who says all sites being edging toward £50 and no off peak not me, the truth is just using the price now to justify that is just plain wrong and incorrect. The prices are as I've given. As to CC well we'll agree to disagree as it can never be proved either way can it?
Now I'll stick to facts before being carried off topic.
0
