What Would a UK Club Type Aire Look Like
With all the recent discussion on CT around the different needs of Motorhome touring opposed to touring with a Caravan and the shift in club member ownership towards motorhomes let’s try looking forward for once and discuss what a UK Club type aire would look like.
My thoughts are that the club would have 3 options in providing a club type Aire.
1. Build a new dedicated site. Basic needs would be a booking system, which is already in place, payment made in full before arrival, small change to the booking system required, ANPR, trials already in place. The site wouldn’t need a facilities block, just a chemical waste point to be provided, EHU if required would be by metering, trials already in place and fresh water could also be available by metering. I would limit the size of the site to 10 units and have a maximum stay of 2 nights. The biggest issues the club would face in providing this would be finding the right location at the right price and obtaining planning permission.
2. Convert an existing site. Convert all or part of an existing site owned by the club. Same requirements as in option 1. Planning permission could be an issue.
3. CL Network. Partner with the existing CL network owners to provide an aire type site, again with the same requirements as option1.
I think that either options 2 or 3 should be trialed first before committing major expenditure to option 1. Again just my thoughts, neither right or wrong.
What would your club type aire look like and how would you implement it.
Comments
-
It would be great if the club were to intoduce aires, but I think it highly unlikely given their record of just paying lip service to the needs of MHers.
They could do worse than follow the model of Camping Car-Park which is an off the peg solution which is very popular "over there". Existing club sites that are closed in the winter could possibly be used all year round (subject to planning, lease conditions etc).
My requirements for an aire would be :
- An online booking and payment system via an App
- Automatic entry & exit system via APPR or an electronic card/QR code
- No site staff, but maintenace carried out regularly by contractors
- Max 25 pitches on all weather surface. 5 metre spacing between pitches.
- Max stay 5 days, no minimum, including a short service stop facility
- No facilities block, timed water supply.
- A driveover waste disposal point that is actually designed for larger vehicles
- Optional metered EHU
A nice idea - we can all dream !
3 -
+1, One
GE, It's been discussed before several times with the conclusion that it simply isn’t feasible for CAMC to do. Apart from anything else, it goes against the ethos of CAMC being all inclusive as caravanners/tenters/trailer tenters would be excluded.
3 -
Another thought. Is there a real need for CAMC to provide aire type car parks? From what I read, club sites seem to be attracting at least as many motorhomers as caravanners. Would CAMC really want to have those MHs park off the main sites at a reduced fee? I suspect it’s not in the best interest of the club or its non-MH members but something best left to another organisation which is a thought we’ve expressed here before.
7 -
I am looking forward, GE, but see nothing there.
As I recall, CAMC said nothing on the matter.
0 -
I think that an aire type site would attract new members into the club, those who don't want full facility sites or just want an overnight stop off. The club does need to be looking into the future needs of new and existing members for the club to remain relevant.
2 -
That lets me out then 😄
0 -
Perhaps the owners of C L sites could be invited to join a centrally marketed “superior” (for Motorhomes) network. Bookings and payment taken centrally, with sites offering Aire type facilities ( good hard standings, metered water and electricity if showers are available then an additional charge. Club take an admin and marketing fee and ensure a high standard is maintained.
Some Aires may be suitable for caravans but would this matter?1 -
But TW the membership of the Club is changing, over 50 percent are now motorhome owners, By not doing anything the Club risks others making the provision (some have already done so notably in Scotland) and if not losing members at the very least a declining occupancy because motorhome/campervan owners will use these facilities as a mix with Club sites as some owners do already.
As to the best way forward for the Club, they should be looking at option one in partnership with landowners especially at or near toursit attractions. I think this is the way forward for any organisation or future organisation considering making aire provisions. The Club is cash rich and I am sure many landowners (councils?) would welcome an injection of capital in return for a portion of the income.
peedee
2 -
Aires in France are funded by the local authority to attract tourism. This won’t happen in the UK! So if motorhomers are looking for cheap overnight stopovers with basic facilities - forget it - it’s not going to happen! Better to utilise the existing network of CL s as above
4 -
There is this idea that the club is not somehow meeting the needs of motorhomers, or indeed never met them. Yet the statistics show otherwise.
Apart from the highest ever membership to date it was stated by the club that current MH ownership has risen from 50% to around over 70%. People visiting club sites note this change, MH most of the time outnumber caravans, and often outnumber them on service pitches. I've noticed 80% many a time. It has looked to the future otherwise MH owning membership and use of club sites would not be so high. There are already plenty of new members.
The club offers one style of MH touring and I believe there are plenty of other types. Surely there are places that offer what the OP wants? If there is such a demand why aren't there other providers offering them?
Apart from all that, the biggest question is money. Where will the money come from to build these new sites? The money to buy the land? If these aires are going to be close to cities and towns then the cost is even more? I'm not against MH in any way and have often said so but why should my money, which I pay to use club sites, be used to pay for something that I cannot use? Would the OP be happy to pay for caravan only sites?
What is wrong with using CLs btw for this purpose? I thought the idea of MH is that they can easily get to anywhere?
1 -
Agree peedee - this is why it would need to be centrally monitored to ensure access etc is suitable - although remote Aires are popular in France for short stays. A superior scheme could be cost neutral to the club and may encourage more land owners into a well run scheme.
0 -
What is it exactly that motorhomers want that a site doesn’t provide? I can only think the reason hinges around the reluctance to spend their cash 🤷🏻♂️
3 -
But TW the membership of the Club is changing, over 50 percent are now motorhome owners,
Exactly PD it has risen from 50% to over 70% in a few short years, highest membership ever (480,000 household was it?) and these new members with the MHs keep re-joining. Doesn't that show that the club is offering exactly what these type of MH owners are wanting? How does that equate to losing members? If anything it appears to be gaining them I would say. You have posted yourself to say MH now outnumber caravans on sites, I and others have seen it too.
Let others make the provision, but are there these new provisions proving successful? You mention Scotland but any major ones southwards? The club will offer one type, let others off something else. The club has a membership fee and that means all members should have access to the pitches on club sites
The is now cash rich? Many a time you've poste that club finances are in trouble, occupancy and income down (as you posted very recently) and now it is cash rich? Even if it is why should that richness be spent only on one section of the membership?
I've just looked at few tourist attractions and there are numerous CLs very close, what makes you think they are not?
2 -
Don’t need? So what? There are always things on sites that individuals don’t need. I never needed kiddies' play areas and rarely used dish washing facilities or the laundry room. You either buy the whole package or nothing at all.
2 -
Then please explain why, if MHs do not need all that a club site offers then why are there so many MH owning members (going up) and why do so many MH owners use club sites? Why so many MHs use SP at an extra £5 per night?
Surely if they wanted less they would go somewhere where (according to you) the prices are cheaper and they won't be paying the higher prices for things they donot need. And never mind joining in the first place, and of course re-joining
what motorhome owners...
I think you may have missed a 'some' there. Now some MH owners may not want certain things but that is not all owners. You appear to be suggesting that all of them?
But let market forces dictate that, if motorhome owners don't need all that then surely they will go elsewhere?
1 -
Exactly PD it has risen from 50% to over 70% in a few short years, highest membership ever (480,000 household was it?)
Where can I find such figures Corners?
The is now cash rich? Many a time you've poste that club finances are in trouble, occupancy and income down (as you posted very recently) and now it is cash rich?
There is a diference between cash reserves (£30 million plus last time I checked) available for investment and what is actually happening on sites in the last year.
peedee
0 -
It was given in one of the AGM or club magazines. I think you posted it actually but could be wrong.
Then if the club is cash rich as you call it and you claim club occupancy and therefore income is down (and you must admit the data is unknown of course) then I would say it's a good idea to keep that just in case it is needed to keep things going? Isn't that more prudent than spending it on something that may not work or something that there is no demand for? It also might affect income for CLs which you often champion.
What the club offers now is bringing new (MH owning) members and income from both caravans and MH owners.
And if some of that cash richness is for investment I would hope it is invested in things that all members can use, and indeed in things where there is a proven demand for, like SP or more sites and HS pitches, but again for all users.
2 -
It was given in one of the AGM or club magazines. I think you posted it actually but could be wrong.
Can you actually reference any of these because I think you are wrong? I just don't know where you get your information from.
As to what the Club does with its reserves, holds them just in case or spend some for better returns is entirely down to where it sees itself heading and the risks it wants to take.
peedee
0 -
If we have to keep looking back, when the club changed it's name to include motorhomes, and the upset some members felt, who would have predicted then that motorhome ownership by members today would be greater than caravans. The club has to be looking 5, 10 years into the future and what the membership will look like and the sites and services they will want. I'm afraid that in today's modern world if you don't change and adapt you are moving backwards compared to your competition. If that happens I fear the club would find it very hard to survive and I personally want the club to continue and be successful long after I stop touring.
1 -
If I'm wrong then prove it PD? Equally I can't find your quoted £30m anywhere, but only £48m cash? I distinctly remember those figures, either AGM (380,000) and an increase either stated in the magazine or by a serving warden who used to post, and the club itself talks about a Representing over one million members, which even I question but in a sense it's not that important. MH on club sites, and more of them, indicate that MH owners want to use club sites. You yourself post that MH ownership within the club has gone. I recall 70%. It is not losing members as you suggestes?
I'm confused now PD, is this cash rich you talk about about either reserves, or for investment? Yoyu talk about both?
And yes it is up to the club yet you have and posted to say it should:
The Club is cash rich and I am sure many landowners (councils?) would welcome an injection of capital in return for a portion of the income.
So why do many MH use club sites if as you suggest MH owners need less?
0 -
Yet MH membership continues to increase and more MH on the sites we have at present as they are. I can't see anything to suggest that the MH membership of the club want aire type sites? Are they popular outside the club? Is there a growing demand nationally?
All I'm reading is that because of greater MH ownership within the club and greater numbers on sites (a success story surly) we should change the way the club operates? We should spend reserves/investments to provide something we don't know will generate income and the expense of something that does?
I just cannot see the logic in that, even if I owned a MH.
0 -
To quote you above Corners;
Exactly PD it has risen from 50% to over 70% in a few short years, highest membership ever (480,000 household was it?)
Now you say it is 380,000, which I will not dispute but where do you get 70 percent from, certainly was not from me?
Anyway this post is about looking forward not about stats. so enough from me other than to finish with saying the Club has the money, it is just about the question of what it does with it. Currently there is little sign of doing anything other than spending it on existing sites. At least we will eventually see all of them with electricity meters and ANPR.
peedee
0 -
Did you notice the question mark after 480,000 PD? I was not certain hence why it was there. But the club does appear to state it has 1 million members or 500,000 member households which is near my figure. The 70% came from either a magazine article or on here from JK I recall or someone else. Either way just looking at MH on club sites will tell you it's on the increase.
Equally where does your £30m (without a question mark I notice) come from when it's really £48, works both ways PD.
The club does have the money but I recall (?) that the last club site from scratch was £21m, and yes the club through us should decide what to do with it, but again you were the one suggesting to spend it not anyone else.
ANPR, certainly, but metering? I'm not so sure, the trial isn't over and if enough people don't like it, ie go to those sites, then who knows. Also what was the cost to install meters all over the network, quite a few million I recall (?)
But again you say MH owners need less, yet why do so many of them go to club sites?
Oh and PD you posted on a club thread earlier this year (do you want details?) where it was given out on at an official club meeting that it was now 65% MH ownswership.
Now from 50% to 65%, which is a 30% increase in a couple of years must in my view show that the club is attracting and catering for certain MH owners in the manner I described.
1 -
Looking at site reviews, PD, I see many people saying how many sites are in need of a refurb and maintenance. Those folk can’t all be wrong so it doesn’t make sense for CAMC to spend their money on glorified car parks just for MHs, does it?
2 -
And many from MH owners too.
1 -
There is no need for the Club to re invent the wheel. The model already exists for them to copy or partner with. Jim E has described it earlier in this thread.
1
