How many is too many on a CL?

Moonstone, not sure if you are aware, but Oak Tree Farm seems to have a popular camping and glamping business operating alongside the CL as well? Nice website. If it only offers 6amps, I wonder if it is a really old CL, that just hasn't upgraded as most folks cope? Looks very nice, quite a lot of facilities as well, reviews are good. 

Yes, I agree with TTDA,  Oak Tree Farm looks  lovely and will tempt me back to the county of my birth.

I thought surely no one will complain about that one - till I read the reviews.  A complaint about there being tents - we don't want to be near tents. A complaint about the electricity - we want full power. And a complaint about a sixth Caravan arriving - we  just  want five. Selfish ? 

Only about one dozen.

But what has your comment to do with a site tying a rope between the "CL" and the rest of their commercial site?

That's just using the CAMC to give them free advertising.

I have to disagree Ian. We have used CLs with both a CS or a private area close by, and they have had separate facilities. The private area or CS is more usually the area with toilets and showers, purely because they allow tents who tend to require such facilities more than Caravans or Motorhomes. Not aware anyone has ever complained though if CL users opt to use the facilities.

If a CL owner chooses to mark an area out of use, they are probably resting it, possibly for grass to regrow, or reseeding. We come across this quite frequently being fond of grass pitches.

You can't blame CL owners if they apply for permission to have a few more pitches adjacent. So long as that planning permission is in place then all they need to do is make sure the private pitches get a mention so that Club members are aware.

Why are we so obsessed with this ancient 5 van rule? With the cost of setting up a Cl as we now need Hard standings and EHU as a minimum the old  system doesn't work. Just see how few new Cls there are and how many leave the network. Don't get me wrong wholesale increase is not justified. However those that have the space could increase and thereby remain in the network instead of gong their own way. From my experience its not the planners that are showing the reluctance but the CC in looking ahead.

Why are we so obsessed with this ancient 5 van rule?

Because it is the law.  Do you see this Club shelling out its millions of reserves to lobby parliament to get it changed?  I don't. 

And the other club does not need to since the same law allows for 10 tents as well as the five caravans. Maybe if this new generation of camper explorers that the club is so proud to know nothing about all turn up with tents we might see a difference.

What is selfish about arriving on a CL and expecting to get what you have paid for, the CL owner has (quite legitimately ) used the planning exemption certificate to  circumnavigate the need for planning permission and is at liberty to apply for permission for a larger site at any time. 

Don't know about your figures but I bet it would have been better spent than on the rebrand. At least there might have been a benefit  for members rather than an exec ego trip

Hate to disagree with you but a fairly level mown pitch with access to water & CDP is all that is required. Nice views help but not essential. 

Perhaps it's the cost of installing, maintaining the hard standing & EHU that leads to the closure of so many CL's.

Yes I will use non Elect sites in summer, but those of us that van all year want hard standings and EHU. This seems to be a regular theme of requirements here.