Campsites closing at the end of the 2024 season
In recent years the Club has acquired some fantastic new campsites for members including Dornafield in Devon, Carnon Downs in Cornwall, Bridport in Dorset and Cayton on the Yorkshire coast. Collectively these campsites provide over 160,000 additional pitch nights per year for members. This year the Club is also busy improving Edinburgh, Godrevy in Cornwall, Tredegar House near Newport, Blackpool South, Steamer Quay in Devon and Old Hartley in Tyne & Wear, with new hardstanding pitches, additional serviced and premium pitches, new playgrounds, multi-use games areas, shower blocks, inclusive bathrooms and road resurfacing.
Sadly, a handful of our Club campsites have underperformed for a number of years, with the amount of members staying at these campsites reducing annually. Operating these campsites has become unsustainable and puts more pressure on other Club campsites to return a positive revenue contribution back to the Club to enable investment in the existing campsite network and the purchase of additional campsites to enhance the network.
As such, we have taken the difficult decision to close Bromyard Downs, Broomfield Farm, Dockray Meadow, Gwern-y-Bwlch and Nunnykirk Club Campsites at the end of the 2024 season. Combined, these campsites provide around 250 pitches to members, which is less than 1% of our UK Club campsite network pitch availability.
While closing campsites will be disappointing for some members, our UK Club campsite network provides approximately 180,000 more available pitch nights than in 2018 across fantastic locations that are popular with the wider membership.
Thank you to those of you who have supported these campsites over the years. We hope you will enjoy exploring our UK campsite network and finding a new favourite location and Club campsite.
Comments
-
So are Nunnykirk and Bromyard. So sad. Give me Nunnykirk over Cayton Bay anyday.
19 -
As sad as this announcement is the Club will have the figures to support the argument for closure? Keeping sites open that can't pay their way will only increase costs elsewhere if the view is that some sites should be subsidised? Maybe Cayton is not everyone's idea of heaven but it is more inline with what the majority of the membership wants.
David
0 -
Did you use of the those sites PD, or any similar sites?
That's the issue isn't it? Perhaps not you personally, but the fact that they were simply not attracting enough club members.
Even if un-manned they will cost money to run, installation of barriers and ANPR will cost money, insurance, maintenance costs, lighting... If not enough people want to use these non facility sites then it will still make a loss?
After all why should them being un-manned make them more attractive?
1 -
You never know PD, Marazion has re opened, and is offering pitches at £22 per night with hook up, so someone might take on these closed sites. Club’s overheads are huge, but something smaller might just work. Nunnykirk and Bromyard could work ok unstaffed, with a bit of investment put in.
5 -
This is the main point from Ro's post:
with the amount of members staying at these campsites reducing annually
If numbers remained stable then that's one thing, however there was clearly a downward trend, club members do not want to stay at such sites, and more and more are not wanting to stay at such sites each year.
Reasons? Could be location, but I view it as being down to no facilities, lack of HS and people just wanting more from their stay.
However plenty of CLs that people can use, or does it have to be club site?
2 -
I think Ro sums up the Club's future direction the Club is going with the following statement,
with new hardstanding pitches, additional serviced and premium pitches, new playgrounds, multi-use games areas, shower blocks, inclusive bathrooms and road resurfacing
all the future closing sites are minimum facilities with lower site fees to suit.The biggest disappointment for me is the Broomfield Farm site,this has been (to me) well occupied when visited in the past.
Plenty of members require full fat sites,and that is their choice,but it would nice to have our minimum facilities sites left for those who do not require them.
PS Any idea why is my font so small!!
13 -
Nunnykirk has been under the threat of closure for about 4years or more now as it not owned by the club and is prone to flooding at certain times of the year such a shame and the other sites all non facility sites as well possibly staff shortages as well. It seems the club want bigger and more facilities and alternative accommodations on sites rather than smaller sites.
We possibly will not be staying any club sites in the future and look to stay at different regions around us here in the Lot.
5 -
Last time I was at Bromyard (3 years ago) it was well patronised. It is a bit remote and length of outfit can be a problem there. With the increase in motorhomes these limitations may well be contributing to falling occupancy of such remote sites. One cannot help wondering if larger remote sites will eventually suffer the same fate?
Corners I think I have used all the non facility sites over the years, many no longer part of the network.
peedee
0 -
Marazion was full when we were there, but that was a couple of years ago, just post covid. Like you OP, I am sceptical. It’s easier to dump such sites and concentrate on raking in the big nightly fees.
I agree with your comments as well Fozzie. Club are happy to let others provide more basic camping, as the core membership needs more in terms of facility provision and has the disposable income to pay what is asked.
3 -
It's a good stop-over site on the way to or from Scotland, similar to Cadeside at Wellington if heading to Devon / Cornwall.
In many ways, CLs seem to be attracting more people. We've not used a main site for a couple of years and only using one this year for a couple of days purely because of it's proximity to where I have to be.
Having said that, I have been surprised this year that none of the CLs that we've been to have been full for the whole week that we were there. Most of these I'd class as excellent but only half having toilet / shower facilities. The owner of one excellent site, 10 miles from the east coast, was telling me that bookings were very slow, even with very reasonable nightly fees.
Looking at other on-line groups it appears to me that there is possibly a change in the demographic of 'new' caravanners who seem to want everything plus more from a site. Is this a legacy of covid and the staycation boom in caravan / motorhome buying by people with possibly different ideas and requirements?
I'm another poster whose typing is showing very small as I type. It corrects itself when posted but why is it suddenly doing this. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
0 -
It does it to us all, John. You must have missed the discussions about the changes which are supposed to enhance the appearance for everyone.
0 -
It would be nice to think that the savings the Club makes by not supporting these so called unsustainable sites will be reflected in the remaining site fees?
peedee
0 -
I think over the years sums it up PD. I too over the years have used grass, then mainly HS and now all SP.
As you were aware I was asking if you've used these basic sites recently? Your were sad that these sites have to be closed but I was just wondering if you had used them in the last few years? I can't recall your exact tour details from when you posted but I recall (without looking) that it was a few club sites (especially Melrose) and others, but I thought the majority were with EHU and facilities?
Everyone (not specially you) bemoans the passing of what is perceived as a golden age, steam engines... and now these basic sites yet at the same time as being sad they don't use them and use things that make their stay easier like Sp, HS, facilities.
I don't think any site will close if it keep makings profit or near enough, no matter how remote. It's not the remoteness but lack of facilities that makes people use them less in my view.
I think basic sites will go, and personally, I think that's better for the majority of the membership who are using these less and less.
1 -
Well no one knows but maybe thee offers are being made on the money saved?
It's nice to think that, but I don't think so, if anything the money will be used for keeping the club in better health and/or refurbishments - which most want as read in the site reviews.
0 -
Club and Pee up in a Brewery springs to mind🤣 I see the geographically challenged are offering Moorhampton as an alternative to Nunnykirk. A mere six hours drive away.
(See PD’s link above)Dockray Meadows is closure to suggested alternatives though…..Malvern Hills, a mere four hours away🤣🤣
2 -
They have to increase Membership, and/or make sure that existing Members stay more nights, otherwise all the discounts are doing are rewarding existing Members, which won’t increase income. Hence the DG’s plea around asking folks to consider Club Sites first.
It’s the Marks and Spencer marketing conundrum, a company can only trade on its reputation for so long, and while ever it has a growing market share. If the product isn’t appealing to enough buyers, then over time it will lose custom as buyers find alternatives they like more, and find better value elsewhere. Hence stores/sites close, and there’s a retrenchment.2 -
Nunnykirk was a lovely site we’ve been going there for over 30 years except during Covid. It was so beautiful and peaceful. There are a lot of seasonal pitches there. We made friends with some of the owners who virtually lived there in the summer just going home for a couple of days a month to check the house. So sad but I guess the Club is now more commercially orientated and wants to charge big bucks for loads of facilities. I have no idea where this will end up. Thank god for CLs. RIP these sites.
5 -
Numbers reducing annually, excuse me but this is the general trend me thinks. Not just sites with “no facilities” ( whatever that means), when we started at Nunnykirk they had no hook ups, still no hard standings and toilets etc. only just got a mobile signal but they used to have visits from a mikman and a butcher! I note the clubs continually punching discounts of various types is this because overall bookings are down? I wonder why?
0 -
We love Broomfield farm
It is the sort of site that we use , small friendly.
Do not want club house swimming pools etc
This year we are a seasonal, the aged we are we don’t want to tour anymore .
So like a lot of the friends on site have said time to give up
A very sad day .
3 -
Agreed sadly. It was a beautiful peaceful site. Our 2 boys loved the freedom and safety playing there. Not like on the new full facility sites. No ball games etc (I can understand) but soon there’ll be no alternatives. Next sites like Englethwaite hall will be at risk or upgraded to full facilities and full prices. At least we still have CLs. Dockray meadow is another one, in the Lake District but the Western quiet side. With modern vans so well kitted out why do members demand Full Facilties? I know it’s their choice. The club is ploughing loads on money into “upgrading” facilities but what does the likes on Nunnykirk need? Just a warden, bins emptying and grass cutting. Surely that’s not that expensive?
8 -
They're not trashing it - they are closing it because YOU the club membership are not using it!
3 -
Hardly any sites have 'clubhouse and swimming pool', the club are just closing sites that sadly members are not choosing to use! Members want toilets and showers, in generl, as a minimum!
2 -
Not from my experience, I would say it's not a general trend. There are club sites that are difficult to book even now. There are six sites I monitor and I can't get more than a few days on any of them till mid September.
It has been discussed that these offers are to get more people onto club sites, especially the latest one.
But these sites are just not making enough money to justify keeping them open, why is that? yet other sites keep filling up.
0 -
+1
0
