Loosing More CLs, why?

What is NEVER reported by the listing in the CC magazine is what has happened to the CL. Perhaps the Club just does not know, or does but wants to suppress the information.

Some reasons for "closure" could be, inter alia:- removed by CC for some compliance misdemeanour; given up the struggle; change of ownership; ground needed for a different project; change to licensed site (>5 'vans); illness of operators; no-one went there anyway.

Please add to the list of possibilities!

Oddly enough, thinking of facilities while on a 'package' holiday we now go for a 4 or 5* hotel, usually on an all inclusive package with all the bells and whistles - unless I find a last minute bargain then anythings up for grabs! However, in the caravan in the UK we much prefer a quiet CL with just a tap and waste disposal - don't want toilet/shower block and certainly no swimming pool/bar/restaurant facilities of a larger site. Agree with DK, the Club does now have a section in the mag but perhaps more could be done to halt the decline. 

One thing that is very noticeable about CLs after several years of web site promotion is that many still don't have a site photograph to attract users.

Probably a good many of the above mentioned hypotheses have an element of the truth in them.

Personally, and as a consistent user of CL/CS type sites for the last 30 plus years, I would like to see an alternative provider available for potential small site owners to enter the market. Having spoken to a few CL owners and small site owners down the years, obtaining planning permission is the main hoop that has to be negotiated, and most choose to go via CC or C&CC, or try and go it alone of they have an open minded LA. In the past, pre website days, most folks seem to have been happy in partnership with CC/CCC, but nowadays, I suspect that savvy owners who are more media minded could do a better job, without the restrictions on pitch numbers and the annual visit from the inspector. Farmers, in our opinion are brilliant at this, they have to make use of websites to comply with record keeping, etc.. so perhaps the NFU would be a good partner for potential owners to approach, I don't know?

I do however think that the help for CL owners and for members like us who stay as members because of the CLs, have been badly let down by this website upgrade. It hasn't improved searching for CLs in any way at all, and coupled with the bi annual handbook, leaves you stabbing in the dark if you want to try new CLs. We have gone back to keeping a note book handy for CLs we use, noting why they were good and as easy access to direct websites, email addresses and telephone numbers. Far les frustrating than negotiating your way on here!

...and to cap it all, a double post

There used to be a reason quoted as to why CLs were no longer listed, this included bereavements, owners selling up and contravention of Club rules. Done away with quite a few years ago, no idea why. It was useful, as we kept details of sites we used, and you knew not to contact if it was because of a bereavement etc.... Likewise, we know of sites that Club no longer listed, but are still there, perhaps under a different umbrella, and if we liked them, we can still use them. 

It would be interesting to get an answer from HQ as to why such details were changed?

Yeah, don't you just love it BB! If you use an iPad like I do, the website and access is total pants! Hence why I have been a lot less active, no doubt a good thing according to some. I actually managed to remove the content of the duplicate post myself, no moderator was required! So unpredictable, you wonder what is going to happen next!

Glad to hear you have at last got away abroad.

It would be useful to know if the Club monitor usage. Perhaps one of the owners who contribute here could let us know if the Club ask for occupancy figures. Even with 5 pitches a popular CL, even at £12 a night would generate quite a bit of income if it had high occupancy, not enough to live on perhaps but as a second stream of income it would be quite useful. In all the time I have been caravanning/motorhoming I have only used about 3 CL's. Now I have motorhome which is quite large I would only use a CL if it had hardstandings and the access was suitable. I did try and book a couple of CL's   that met those conditions but they were both full!!! The minimum facility CL's are likely to be less used unless their location is such that it would make people want to go. 

David

The biggest  problem is the 5 van restriction. It can not be viable to upgrade a site to say Hard standing and EHU with that restriction. IMHO most of us need those facilities as standard particularly those than van year round. The Gvmt has made planning easier and I know  that it is no longer difficult to get a modest increase in capacity. Actually allowing over capacity can help as you can show that the site has regularly had say  8/10 vans at times with no objections  or problems. Cant understand why say the CC is so reluctant to at least explore the possibility with the relevant authorities. Nothing ventured nothing gained and the continued reduction in Cs