Network Shrinkage

Its UNITs that count. Local Auth and probably Natural England would not see a difference. Certainly the planning authorities dOnt. What is the real problem here. IMHO its the club that has no real interest in the Cl network.

Its UNITS that count. THe regulators seem to be happy with 15 for the other club. Do they see a difference between vans and tents? The panning authorities dont so I doubt if Natural England would. Without asking we will never know.

David - I'd agree.  I feel that the Club is extremely well-placed to make a positive representation to Natural England to review this rule.  However, it needs to get some allies on-side beforehand.

We have a number of things in our favour, so the timing might be right to start this initiative;

 - Generally, the planning laws in the country are being relaxed

 - There are a number of Government-backed initiatives and grants to promoted farm diversification - particularly those relating to Tourism that should work in our favour.   These are being taken up by farms wanting to add Glamping, and successful applicants can get up to a 40% grant. It just needs some joined-up thinking between Govt. Depts..

- The tourism trends are towards 'Staycation' so Visit Britian could also be a political Ally.

 - The Club has excellent research that demonstrates the ££ spent by visitors in the rural economy.

In conclusion, a carefully strategised, evidence-based approach that brings together a number of parties around the table, might persuade Natural England to revise the policy. 

It needs effort, careful lobbying and money spent on it with some professionals, but IMHO it could be done.   I think the CAMC should lead this effort.

CG totally agree word for word. Ì've kept out of this post because I've made comments in the past about doubling the 5 van limit if size permits. This would go some way to halting the loss of cl's which go independent.

All the things you mention add weight to the debate plus the rise in van and mh sales is a positive factor.

C&CC are allowed 15 units so that could be argued also.

CMC seem to be very aware of the loss off cl's but do nothing to stem the tide. Recruitment is less than closures so what does that tell you about the future and that is to the detriment of members

Good post from CG cl and as they say it needs more than just the cc to push for a change

Hi All,

The exempted status privilege that has been granted to the Club by Natural England, which enables us to operate CLs, comes from the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.  That privilege applies not only to our CL operation, but also to all of our temporary sites and the more than 2,500 rallies that our Centres organise across the Country every year.  The fact that the Act has survived intact for 58 years is a credit to all of the Exempted Organisations, who approach their activities in such a responsible manner through their codes of conduct and the behaviour of their members.

We need to be very careful that any argument for an increase in the number of pitches on a CL is not just viewed as a back door way of getting around the site licensing regime, which is a compliance requirement for the operators of commercial sites.  Indeed, many of our members enjoy staying on CLs because they offer a more intimate experience and they would not necessarily wish to see them increasing in size. 

 The Club’s focus is on doing all that we can to grow the number of CLs, not the size of individual CLs,  so that we have a balanced coverage across the country for all our members to enjoy.

Thanks

Maddie

Maddie

I am sure that none of us on here want either to put the Exempted Status at risk or try and encourage CL owners to convert to commercial campsites by stealth. But we seem to be faced with a situation where the number of new CL's is being overtaken by the number of CL's being closed for various reasons. If that is a continuing trend one could imagine that the number of CL's in five years time being down to around 2000 and falling. It would seem that with the demands for EHU and hardstandings to make CL's more appealing to "modern" users the cost of running a CL comes into greater focus and it is these changes that have sparked the debate on whether the 5 unit model is sustainable. 

I was interested in Cholsey Grange comment:- 

There are a number of Government-backed initiatives and grants to promoted farm diversification - particularly those relating to Tourism that should work in our favour. These are being taken up by farms wanting to add Glamping, and successful applicants can get up to a 40% grant. It just needs some joined-up thinking between Govt. Depts..

I imagine this involves the provision of (semi permanent) Pod type accomodation so it would be interested to know whether there were limits imposed on the number of units that could be installed without planning permission being required.  Perhaps in the mind of the general public a Pod is more acceptable than a towed caravan, who knows?

At the end of the day we raise these questions and comments only in the interest of preserving the sustainability of the CL Network and as members we live in hope that the Club share that desire by exploring all options?

David

Ostriches and head in sand comes to mind. Never mind I will have given up before the numbers get too low to accommodate my needs. Nough said by me on the subject.

 The Club’s focus is on doing all that we can to grow the number of CLs, not the size of individual CLs,  so that we have a balanced coverage across the country for all our members to enjoy.

I'm sorry, Maddie, but Plan A isn't working very well so the people whose responsibilities include CLs need to look at Plan B, after all wasn't our very own GC who announced only 1 year ago that we would be ready for the future members, whatever they looked like. That sounded like they were investigating all options but apparently that isn't so.

Thank you for at least coming on here and offering a position, especially when many other departments,such as IT, refuse to become engaged in a conversation with CT members.

Well said Maddie. There are a vociferous minority of members hell bent on making CL,s larger and completely ignoring the fact that the very reason many members like CL,s is their small numbers and exclusivity.
These members are quite at liberty to use a club/commercial site with more units if they so wish but why do they want to force everyone else to because that is exactly what will happen if CL's are allowed more units.
I often wonder why some people are members of the club when they don't agree with anything the club stands for and these are the same people putting the exemption system at risk by condoning overbooking of CL,s etc.