Steamer Quay Upgrade

One person's timid is another's sensible, Euro.

If you wouldn’t leave a MH unattended at Longmarsh, why on earth would you be happy to sleep there? 

I can’t agree with your last comment about convenience of getting around and, as Longmarsh cannot be used as a long stay base as you suggest, anyone wanting a long stay at Steamer Quay will need to use the CAMC site.

It is impossible to drill down into why they do so but clearly there are lots that do,

Not really I can think of reasons why motorhome owners use serviced pitches.

Convenience is probable the biggest reason either because they cannot be bothered with the routine chores of disposal of waste or topping up of water (lazyness) or because of infirmity that makes those chores difficult. This probably applies more to those owners of vans which only have a small capacity to store water and waste.

With a completely self contained outfit with a fresh water capacity of at least 5 days and an equally large capacity to store waste and, in spite of my age, I have no real need of serviced pitches, but admit to using them when there is no choice or when they have been offered at an acceptable price.

peedee

I, too, don't understand why some MH-ers use SPs, PD, but clearly they do and I accept it’s their choice. I wouldn’t imply those folk are lazy though as they all have their reasons which are perfectly valid to them. After all, those folk are on holiday and entitled to take it easy.

While I might do quite strenuous things on holiday I'm quite happy to keep all chores to an absolute minimum and to be as lazy as possible in the overnight accomodation. 

Steamer Quay is in a prime location. It's always been a site with a toilet/ shower block. I think the prices charged there due to that prime location and facilities before it closed while awaiting planning permission would put it on your never possible list BB. It was always full.

While I agree there's a need and a market for aire type parking in this country there's also a demand for serviced pitches from caravaners and motorhomers alike so I guess it will be busy when it reopens.

JK

You have voiced my thoughts well PD.  I suspect the majority of MH'ers favour serviced pitches when they are planning to stay longer than their tank capacities can provide without a trip to the service point.  It's certainly what we do provided the price is right.  However, when touring and staying only 1 to 4 nights we try to avoid paying for something we don't need.  

News report on the BBC about the approval of the plans, see here

David

I certainly get your point, LLM, however on (say) a two week stay with site showers, after arriving with a full tank, we would only require one half tank top up as we can usually manage upto 10 days or so with one full tankful.

so if i topped up with that half a tank once during the 14 days, i would have paid  £68.60 extra (on top of the CAMC pitch fees) for the 'pleasure' of 5 minutes with a hose pipe...now thats a mightily expensive half tank of H2O. Not even Bristol Wessex Water can get close to that.

with the amount of grey water generated being around 2/3 of the fresh intake (not everything coming into the van goes into the grey tank) we probably would only need to empty once on the way out, so again no requirement for a waste outlet on the pitch.

i realise that not everyone has largish tanks or is (perhaps) as naturally frugal with water as we seem to be, but the 'equation' still stands for many other MH but perhaps at a lower level..its that level that will get weighed against the weekly SP charge of £35 or so.

now, if the club let me use the hose on a SP once during during the two weeks (id promise not to use it again) then id happily consider paying £4.90 for the privilege but i wouldn't pay £4.90 for each of the other 13 days when i wouldn't be using the tap or drain...

...but as our UK touring doesn't involve being on a site longer than a week at a time, we have no requirement for SP.

this then brings us back to SQ and whether its 'fair' to have made the site all SP? 

im sure some will love having an SP, some will love the location and just stump up the extra £35 a week, helping the Club recoup its 'considerable outlay' more quickly.

..but for some, like us, the 'surcharge' for a service that wont be used at all is a surcharge too far.

so, nice as the site will surely be, we wont be using it, especially as its likely to be similarly priced to BW, which is now between £38.60 and £56.50 a night WITHOUT an SP....

add that fiver a night for those shiny new SP and.....

surely a CAMC site cant hit £60+ can it?