I'm Puzzled

Like only they can deliver the B word so not holding my breath

One large organisation (The Club) against one individual (a minnow) I can't see how the minnow has any power.

Surely the club can put a case for a change stating good reason.

Out of interest it would be good to know who applied for the rights in the first place. It must have been the club who proposed the idea for the members.

If the club wants to maintain or even grow the cl system as Maddie says then they are going to have to do something more than advertise in country magazines.

The club is empowered to issue exemption certificates to 5 van sites. To be seen to lobby for changes in the law would not enhance its reputation and might well result in jeopardising its present position as it could be seen as touting for business and be dodgy ground. The large commercial organisations would very probably fight an extension of the current exemption arrangements tooth and nail. They want the business and don’t want to see clubs and small sites eating into that business share. The sensible way would seem to appreciate what we have and don't rock the boat.

Many organisations have the right to issue exemption certificates. It is not a CAMC thing. Whether this club applied to the predecessor of Natural England for empowerment rights will likely be lost in the mists of time but I’m certain it will not have been this club that invented the exemption concept. 

Maddie has explained matters far better than I.

Incidentally, I have read of concern that the number of C&CC CS's is diminishing so it is not only a CAMC trend. If there really is a need for more exempt pitches, it seems strange that the number of sites is shrinking.

Be careful what you wish for, the five van exemption certificate is unique in allowing a small site to be established without planning permission and believe me there are many people that would jump at the chance of an excuse to rescind the act.

"The sensible way would seem to appreciate what we have and don't rock the boat."

It's not a question of rocking the boat. It's about keeping and growing what we have to be able to appreciate it.

Things with the cl system appear to be on a slippery slope and if the system gets to the bottom of that slope then they will be no boat to rock.

Harry, Vulcan has summed it up well.

Still, it’s not me you need to convince - it’s the club. 

As I have mentioned in another thread;

1) When discussing the 5 van rule in depth with the Director General he categorically said that it would not be reviewed 'whilst he ws DG'.  So it's not going to change.

2) As Harry B correctly points out, the number of CLs continues to diminish despite the current efforts of the Club to recruit more.  I'm told the number of applications is at an 'all time high'  but it's a long way from an application to a CL opening for business.  What is causing these applicants to drop out??  The CL team has done a good job in revamping their materials and application process, but clearly (based on current figures) this hasn't been enough to stem the tide.   Perhaps the coming months will tell a different story?

3) BREXIT and the reduction in grants and subsidies for farmers should mean that an increasing number of landowners are looking to supplement their incomes.  However, despite advice from many quarters, the Club has not yet promoted the CL network in the farming press, via the NFU or attended any relevant events (eg. Farm Business Innovation Show). 

4) Perhaps the reduction in CLs is of benefit to the Club?  It means the remaining CLs (like mine) have less direct competitors and members may choose Club Sites. 

My personal goal is to spread the word about the benefits of running a CL to landowners.  I have discussed this at talks I have given to the CLA, The Glamping Show and the Institute of Agricultural Secretaries.   

Run well, a CL in the right location, can be a viable proposition offering a reasonable ROI and an alternative to the much more labour-intensive Glamping alternative which is heavily promoted.   

I also help to support fellow CL owners with marketing advice, sharing best-practice and help (alongside a number of others) to administer a self-support group of CL owners. I do this as a volunteer.   

Unfortunately CL owners cannot provide feedback directly to the Club via Club Council as they are ineligible to be members of Council, despite being members of the club.  This, to me at least, seems perverse.

I am intrigued as to why the DG seems so vehemently against even talking about the idea of increasing the number of pitches on a CL. Surely we live in an adult society where nothing should be off the agenda? The Club doesn't have the power to change the law but surely it is free to talk about it? People will talk about all sorts of reasons why things can't change but unless we talk about it, nothing will change. Perhaps when we are down to 500 CL's people will start taking notice!

David

Isn't there a fear that to press for change to the act of 1960 will result in a backlash and the possibble loss of the concession altogether. Less of a risk might be to turn a blind eye, as now, to those owners who accept more than 5 outfits.

peedee

Cholsey Grange,  with reference to your third point.

Farmers here in Cornwall who are diversifying are certainly setting up campsites, but they not tying themselves to the narrow restrictions of the the CL system -  which insists that they can only accept visitors who are in the correct Club, and cannot admit visitors who are in the wrong Club,  or those in in no Club at all, or all those visitors here who have come from overseas for whom Club membership is completely unknown.   Equally the CL system forbids them to accept any visitors with tents - and that's another restriction which isn't attractive to them. 

The outcome is that farmers here get planning permission and open campsites with a much more broad based clientele than the restrictive CL system allows.