Crowded out
170 replies
Oneputt replied on 03/09/2019 08:16
Posted on 03/09/2019 08:16
I don’t understand what the problem is. If an owner wants more vans on site, dump the clubs and their rules and apply for their own planning consent to go commercial. If they want to remain within the respective clubs then respect the terms of the agreements with the respective club. Site owners know what the rules are before they sign up and actually have the maximum number permitted on the written certificate which should be displayed.
3 people like this
young thomas replied on 03/09/2019 08:20
Posted on 03/09/2019 08:20
I can only relate what we saw/experienced...
we used to go to a site in Bibury (greenacres?) which had a similar set up....large farm with a CL and 'another small site' (I assumed a CL?) next door....obviously owned by the same 'family' but perhaps by seperate partners/members?
perhaps these dual efforts are one CL/CS and one licensed small site?
all I saw was one 'site' that only had five vans and on the other side of the hedge (where we stayed) another 'site' which had five on it at the beginning of our stay but both 'sites' gradually reduced in numbers.
there were no more than five on either side at any time....and no tents, which I think are also allowed on CS sites.
re the particular issue with increasing capacity...the CCC stipulates five vans PLUS upto 10 tents (I think)....I can understand why the owner can't 'trade' some tent spaces for van spaces as five is the maximum irrespective of how many tents spaces are available.
this seems to be a different 'issue' to two seperate CL/CS operating on the same patch of land, divided by a hedge and owned by different partners.
peedee replied on 03/09/2019 08:25
Posted on 03/09/2019 08:25
I have stayed on CL sites which have their commercial field adjacent.
I agree with oneputt, if CLs want to expand they should apply for a commercial licence.
Regarding electricity consumption and costs of metering, I am sure the CL Owners Group can shed light on this and advise owners on these matters.
peedee
Oneputt replied on 03/09/2019 08:31
Posted on 03/09/2019 08:20 by young thomasI can only relate what we saw/experienced...
we used to go to a site in Bibury (greenacres?) which had a similar set up....large farm with a CL and 'another small site' (I assumed a CL?) next door....obviously owned by the same 'family' but perhaps by seperate partners/members?
perhaps these dual efforts are one CL/CS and one licensed small site?
all I saw was one 'site' that only had five vans and on the other side of the hedge (where we stayed) another 'site' which had five on it at the beginning of our stay but both 'sites' gradually reduced in numbers.
there were no more than five on either side at any time....and no tents, which I think are also allowed on CS sites.
re the particular issue with increasing capacity...the CCC stipulates five vans PLUS upto 10 tents (I think)....I can understand why the owner can't 'trade' some tent spaces for van spaces as five is the maximum irrespective of how many tents spaces are available.
this seems to be a different 'issue' to two seperate CL/CS operating on the same patch of land, divided by a hedge and owned by different partners.
young thomas replied on 03/09/2019 08:44
DaveCyn replied on 03/09/2019 09:42
Posted on 02/09/2019 22:26 by TinwheelerNeither club charges for electricity, that’s the point. C&CC charge for use of the EHU bollard while this club has an all inclusive price.
JillwithaJay replied on 03/09/2019 10:01
Tinwheeler replied on 03/09/2019 10:32
Posted on 03/09/2019 09:42 by DaveCynSo if they are not charging for electricity how do they explain the difference in price between a standard pitch and an economy pitch which can be as much as £8 a night dearer?
richardandros replied on 03/09/2019 12:44
Posted on 03/09/2019 08:16 by OneputtI don’t understand what the problem is. If an owner wants more vans on site, dump the clubs and their rules and apply for their own planning consent to go commercial. If they want to remain within the respective clubs then respect the terms of the agreements with the respective club. Site owners know what the rules are before they sign up and actually have the maximum number permitted on the written certificate which should be displayed.
Posted on 03/09/2019 12:44
Oneputt - I don't know if your comment was directed at the example I gave, but the owner in question is an absolute stickler for the rules (be it C&CC or CAMC) and therefore isn't complaining and definitely wouldn't bend the rules. Yes, he could go down the commercial route but he recognises the advantages of being with either Club and wishes to stay with one or the other.
What is baffling me is why has he been told - by both Clubs - that two CL/CS's are not allowed together - whether 'owned' by different members of the family or not - when I have stayed on one such 'double' CL not more than 10 miles away?
I wonder if Maddie could clarify exactly what this Club's stance on this is?
twocals
Caravanner