What constitutes an awning?

It had ceased to exist in 2015. If date is right on photo.

Like so many aspects related to the photo I don't know, didn't take it, just came across it on the Internet and it made me think about issues associated with the OP.

However, I put it down to Clumber having stayed there severa times before its closure and it looks familiar.

But it's an awning Micky and not a wind out canopy. The base camps need length of pitch if they put the awning up plus car space. Another problem with irregular sized pitches. But a non awning pitch wouldn't be any good.

But it's no longer than many caravans or motorhomes. The point I'm making is that only ' the computer says no' reasoning is applied here no logic and no firebreaks broken. Thing is, if we tip up at site and choose our own pitch, and such a unit does fit no problem on a pitch then why not? The driving issue is firebreaks not construction material or positioning of that material isn't it and such a unit would fit on the vast majority of all pitches.

But if you are saying we are to be ruled by just words with no reasoning then that's okay I guess as long  as we all understand this but this is rather a jobsworthian answer to many I guess. However, it's good to discuss such anomalies and misunderstandings because these are always behind thread like this which raise their heads time and time again.

That why when on a non awning pitch ,it is down to the size of the pitch,the layout of the site,  as to whether the site staff can use their discretion and give the concession of how and when a rollout canopy is used,to maintain the full 3mtrs fire break when not in attendance or at night

Yep, totally agreed, some would argue discretion should not be applied at all though in any rule. After all, if said canopy fits, even with sides, no firebreaks broken,  should discretion be applied then? If not, why bother? Personally I'm all for sensible reasoned discretion backed up by 'proper' facts. 

In fact this thread is all about 'understandings' and interpretation/discretion as are many reoccurring topics on CT. Such things fuel disharmony and misunderstandings unfortunately for a few!

Definitely not Clumber, the C&CC site had gone long before 2015, unless of course that date is misleading in some way. But it does look very like Clumber, I admit. Incidentally, if you walk around the old walled garden there, you can still find some old defunct electric points, and the water taps, which do still work. 🤔😀

Not so sure, it certainly looks like Clumber and with that being the only unit visible on site it may have been there for a specific reason after closure. Could the occupants have been involved in reinstating the walled garden and were able to use the facilities left behind? I know volunteers were involved. Just a possibility, other explanations may exist!

Trying to find a bit more out. We know Head Gardener at Clumber very well (he once owned our dog!). I know part of the garden  was used by CCC, think it was the Southern end. But it’s somewhere we visit regularly, and given how mature that Walled garden is, all areas of it with big plants, 2015 is just not long enough. But agree it does look like Clumber. I thought NT took it back in around 2006, because there was a big thing in some of local papers, and more tellingly for us, the signs for CCC site disappeared years ago, leaving only CC ones. I could be wrong, just can’t find any definite information.

Found a photo of Thorpe Hall Site at Rudston, hard to tell really.

I've a conventional UK door so I'm odd man out on the continent.