Loosing More CLs, why?

Interesting, the interpretation of roughing it. To many people it seems you need a toilet facility on site to avoid roughing it, to me the height of luxury is using my en suite bathroom and roughing it is turning out to the toilet block.

I only want the usual basics plus electricity but I am not expecting it to be cheap as I am prepared to pay more for the exclusiveness of a five van site. Does that make me a snob?

The resistance could well be based on concerns I hold.

That is our exemption certificate to have 5 van sites is precisely that, an exemption to have these 5 van campsites without the need for Local Authority planning consent. To get 6, 7, 8 or whatever vans there would have to be a change in the law.

That will require parliament to debate this real anomaly in the law. I would suggest it will not be well received now that for some reason groups like our clubs have a concession not to need planning approval, where for everything I can think of, many having less impact on the local community, all have to get approval. By far the easier and equitable decision I feel will be lets scrub it and have a fair level playing field, and require all camping to need planning permission. Not only will 5 van sites be at risk so will the other provisions allowing up to 5 night rallies. 

Those owners wanting more than 5 vans now can apply for local Authority planning permission and unless there is sound reason why they should not be granted it the law requires they are granted it. The issue is that this costs money, brings the hassle of doing so and allows those who feel adversely affected by the site to have a voice. Here I believe the club could act as a true club and take on the hassle and probably the cost to help owners get that permission to grow in pitch numbers, developing the skills to take these applications through with the benefits of a professional approach. 

This can be done without rocking the boat and risking placing our exemption certification anomaly at risk by having parliament revisit it.

I'm guessing that the number of people that van over winter probably drops by half (only a guess so don't ask for backup)  so there is no or little revenue generated during the period Nov to March. 

Not to me, it makes you realistic. If CL's are being run as part of the revenue stream of the farm, they need to make a decent return on their investment.

Whilst I think increasing the number of units to 8/10 would make CL's more viable financially I do take on board completely Ocsid's point about increasing scrutiny in terms of planning which may well be counter productive. It would only work if Government could be persuaded to adjust the regulations and the rules remain the same as they are now. I suspect it would not only involve the two clubs but also the NFU as I expect the later have a bit more clout?

David

"I'm guessing that the number of people that van over winter probably drops by half (only a guess so don't ask for backup) so there is no or little revenue generated during the period Nov to March."

Our usage during this period is 25% of that for the April to October period. On top of that average electric cost for the winter months is £3.25 per night compared to £1.50 for April to October.....and you have to deal with frozen pipes!

From a revenue point of view not really worth staying open during this period but we do have our regulars during the winter and it is nice to see them.

Alan

www.greenacrescl.co.uk (now with online booking)

Could it be , that's it's purely a lack of support from from ALL CC members that the numbers of cl's are less than in previous years .

Once again speculation dictates that it's all to do with the CC ! come on now , get real there must be several reasons that cl numbers decline & rise through out a season .

We all  have our favourite sites /cl's  & continue to use these at the expense of all the rest .😉 people are probably too set in their choice of sites used .

Caravanning has changed drastically in the time we have been touring, and to a greater extent, the get out there and get on with it spirit of adventure has aged with the membership, and Caravanning is now a comfortable, warm, easy alternative to what it used to be, hence why many members are able to cope with touring as they get increasingly older and dare I say more infirm. No problem with that, progress is good. But it leaves the more basic sites vulnerable, as members either need or choose to have more facilities. A lot of younger caravanners wouldn't dream of joining a Club, not their scene unless they have been brought up within it. Hence my suggestion for an alternative umbrella agency, perhaps capable of fighting for slightly larger sites, say 10/12 pitches, that might just deliver a better return for new owners. Leave CLs as they are, within CC, as clearly 5 van maximum sites are popular for that very reason. Just me pondering aloud, but food for thought.

I dont understand the reluctance to at least explore the possibility of increased size with the relevant authorities. The details on size, access etc could be thrashed out later. We know the Government is keen to relax planning rules and surely a system that is 50+ years old could do with a revisit.

We aren't reluctant for it to happen, but the small five van CL sites are absolute gems, especially if you get one to yourself! So let another agency offer an alternative, slightly bigger sites, not tied into all other services offered by Clubs, that you have to pay membership for, regardless of whether or not you use them! It really is a golden opportunity for a group of like minded entrepreneurs to investigate, lobby parliament. An arm of the NFU could do it easily, (and there are enough MP members also in NFU to make it work!) They already promote the Farmstay Scheme on behalf of members.