Crowded out

I found Maddie’s post very interesting, as we go back 30 plus years in terms of our CL usage, and some of our favourites are 40 plus years in the running. So it’s not uncommon for us to stay somewhere that has a 5 van CL, but then might have another area that might be a separate CL, CS or private site. I think if I was interested enough I could possibly come up with at least a couple of dozen that fit this model. None I can think of have been somewhere we wouldn’t return to, and yes on occasion we will have stayed on the alternative area other than the designated CL area. As members of CCC if a CS, as members of nothing if it is the private site area. We have never given a thought to the laws relating to such provision, other than assuming the owners had obtained the necessary permissions, either via the relevant Clubs, or the LA. 

What is interesting, as pointed out by someone else, is this Club’s apparent change of position in terms of wanting the owners to be tied exclusively to only 5 units, and having to go elsewhere if this model doesn’t suit. It never used to be a prerequisite that CL owners had to be Members either, but they do now, and have done for a few years? For those CL owners looking to make a half decent return on 5 pitches, this can only be achieved via pricing.

Like most folks on here, no one wants to book a CL in good faith, expecting only 5 vans to be there, to find that’s not the case. There has on the odd occasion been the odd extra one around maybe for the odd night when we have visited somewhere. But I think we have been lucky in that it’s been rare, and we have never encountered seven or eight plus on what should be a 5 van area. Totally unacceptable.

But overcrowding, more than 5 vans on the CL area, is a different issue to being on a site that has other occupancy adjacent, be it another CL, another CS, or a perfectly legal small private site.

Many CL owners have their own outfits as well, perhaps stored close by. Many have friends or family who visit with caravans, uncharged and shouldn’t been on CL in this instance, but still legal surely? We used to stay with friends and family at some point on a regular basis, and never had any issues. Overcrowding should be reported if it is regularly occurring, as per the OPs post, but likewise, jumping to conclusions and  attempting a witch hunt without being fully aware of circumstances, be it historical, personal or due to an emergency hopefully won’t become the norm.

Edit: Regarding my second paragraph above, I realise that I have misinterpreted slightly what the Club’s stance is, and that they will consider two CLs under the same land ownership if certain criteria are met. Apologies for my misinterpretation.

Firstly, thank you Maddie for your response and I appreciate that you do not set policy and are merely answering my question.

However, I totally agree with Vulcan and your message is confusing, to say the least.

It appears to me that if a landowner, operating a CL, decides to register an adjacent piece of land in his wife’s or son’s name, for example - and then satisfy unspecified criteria re facilities, access and operating systems etc, they would be allowed to operate two adjacent CLs - especially as there is already clearly established precedent for this approach.

Pardon the pun, but I think someone is sitting on the fence, here!😉

 

 

That’s the bit I misinterpreted R&R. Then I realised it was possibly the Club changing it’s policy, not the fact that it wasn’t allowed under the Act. Still not sure though.......🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️

There are some locations that could operate two CLs quite easily given the acreage available, providing the allocation of separate access, facilities, management and other criteria are met, we know of a few, primarily Farm based. One recently changed hands having operated thus for a very long time, and we drove past it this year. After the new owners met the Club’s subsequent inspections, it continues to operate two lovely and quite separate CLs. I doubt the outfits on each can actually see each other and they certainly don’t share access or pitch facilities. Either one would have been a loss, so we were pleased to see them both still offering a lovely location. 

It would also appear that one landowner could set up a CS on his land and an adjoining landowner set up a CL on his land. Different owners, different clubs but could be quite literally a wire fence between the two. The sites may not prove to be that popular being so close to each other but if they are in an area with very few  CLs or CSs and in well visited areas this may not actually be such a problem to some members of either club. 

I believe lack of alternatives is one of the reasons why the CL that I referred to in my earlier post had 7 occupied hardstandings plus another two caravans on the road and in a barn when we stayed there in spring last year. There are very few CLs or CSs in that particular area. I'll not mention the CL by name but suffice to say that it is 'unique' and MUST be known to the club's regional manager (and some of you may be able to work out my cryptic clue as to which CL it is ), who, I am sure, must visit it periodically and see more than 5 caravans / MHs. Perhaps, though, this is a similar sort of 'grey' area that Maddie refers to and tacitly accept the higher number.

The CL near Dover, I was told by the owner, is known by the local council to have, on occasions, more than five outfits. "It is better to have motorhomes, in particular, on the CL rather than them parking up overnight on the roads in Dover" the owners were told - probably totally unofficially but it solved a local problem.

I'm sure that the number of CLs that do 'overbook' is relatively small in the scheme of things so the comments that doing so puts the whole of the CL / CS system in jeopardy is a bit far fetched in my opinion. Is the government really going to willingly close down many thousands of CLs/CSs and deprive the owners of what is, after all, a very small income and deprive many thousands of caravan or MH users a pitch to stop on? I don't think so.

Things have changed enormously in the caravanning world since the Act was drawn up and so it needs to be looked at afresh to allow landowners -where space allows - to have an extra outfit. My vote would be six outfits. This would potentially make CLs more viable and we wouldn't see the continuing closures that we see now.

 

We’re going round in circles now. 

The user and all related content has been Deleted User

Ooh DD! You missed the opportunity to reply something along the lines of "just like the formula 1 layout of most club sites"! 

You're slipping! 

Thank you for your rotational impetus DD. Always a good turn

Circles are relatively safe, anything in a straight line tends to hit a brick wall.......eventually.😁