Another Site Lost - Northbrook Farm

The Government have been advocating building more and more properties for many years, but of course, there is not enough land on which to build properties so land is at a premium, which I would think must come into the decisions as to whether leases are renewed at sites in certain areas.

Agree, we couldn’t extend our stay at Marazion last time we were there.

To put it into context, these little no facility sites, such as Bromyard, Much Wenlock, Notgrove, Nunnykirk were around £14 for a family per night not that long ago, very comparable with a lot of CLs at the time. There aren’t many left now, and whilst the price had gone up, and not much in the way of refurbishment carried out (if any), they always seemed popular when we used them. Brilliant for a short stopover in the MH, we used them a lot as part of our tour mix of Sites. When I queried their demise, I was told “use CLs”. 

You may be right TW, as when I stayed at North Yorkshire Moors Site (which has no toilet  block), last year, the Warden mentioned that they don't have that many children staying there.  It is a really lovely site, although the weather was sunny when I was there and of course, most places are very nice, when the weather is good. Personally, even though I am a single tourer, I do prefer to have a site with toilets/showers and washing up facilites but I do realise that some people have the opposite view and understandably, may not want to pay for facilities which they are not going to use.

Have used quite a few of the "non facs" sites in the past and, whilst not quite the bargain they once were, they're much better value than full fat sites which I now tend to avoid.

Digressing slightly, whilst I subscribe to the "labourer is worthy of his hire", some of the new CLs seem to want top dollar for not a lot. Are they being encouraged to chase CAMC site prices?

I have known lots of couples who have set up and developed successful, profitable campsites - in this country as well as overseas.

They didn’t do it on leased land subject to the whim of a landlord.

They didn’t do it by employing salaried wardens to do the work for them.

They didn’t do it by setting up no facility sites at low level prices.

They didn’t do it at ill thought out, unappealing locations.

They could easily explain basic business management to some who post their wish lists on this forum.  And they could easily point out why some Club sites are closing.

Is Northbrook closing for want of customers? Presumably not, judging by the OP. The case of High Onn might be different. In my view, the very narrow lanes were a problem there and is why I never returned.  

Like High Onn, I've only been to Northbrook once, but I loved it. My review of it was glowing, although acknowledging that it was in need of a bit of TLC (lacking, I knew, due to it being life-limited). 

Moreover when I went it was very busy, but admittedly it was a spring bank holiday weekend with lots of sun.  

It's such a shame to be losing it, but maybe, if demand is a factor, it might be argued that I am, in small part, to blame. But there are only a handful of sites I have been to more than once as I like to ring the changes. 

For "value", in DK's comment, I read inexpensive or, as you suggest, good value. Valuable has a quite different meaning. Some like Northbrook not only because it is good value, but because it is a very attractive site, in a great location, good for public transport and very near a big Tesco. Hence, for many, it is valued! If the site is worth a lot of money, which presumably it is, because it can be used for housing, then it is also valuable!

Comment removed by poster.

They were of great "value" to many including ourselves, as you can see from some of the posts on here and by your own experience at sites such as Ilfracombe and St. Agnes, as you yourself has said in previous posts, JK.  Because of their disappearance, and the relative high jump in the site fees of the others we are taking our custom elsewhere, using the other club's sites as well as small commercial sites and CLs as usual. I am sure that is the case for many others too.

I take it from your lack of a response to my idea of which sites are in line for closure soon that I am correcting my thinking.

I appreciate the few posters on here refer to sites being busy during their stay or couldn't extend bookings etc etc and that was the case on most sites in the staycation years. I'm referring to more recent times. Yes there are still times when sites seem busy but the occupancy figures give the true picture hence my post earlier.

Nth, I've no idea about the sites you mentioned earlier but even if I did I'm no official voice am I. My "lack of response" may have something to do with I'm working against the weather to get the site prepared for opening, probably another 12 hour day today

JK

Is there an increasing demand for the "full fat" sites rather than the basic ones? Plus, if as one is led to believe, the increasing requirement for fully serviced pitches, although why one needs both that and a facilities block is a bit of a mystery to me. Or maybe it is just land values.