Interesting Petition Part 2

Thank you for sharing the update. The original discussion was closed as it had gone off topic. However we are happy for this to remain open as there has been an update on the petition but would please ask members to keep the discussion on topic and keep conversation friendly regardless of differing opinions. Many thanks and we really appreciate people sharing their feedback and thoughts with the Club. 

FYI the response from the original discussion from the Club is below:

Many thanks for your feedback and for highlighting the petition to the Club.

We do consider motorhome owners when designing, re-designing and reviewing sites for acquisition – looking at the availability of public transport and proximity to local amenities among other things. Many of our existing sites were acquired decades ago when demands from members were different. But as these sites remain popular despite some of them being in locations away from towns, it makes no sense to sell them. We install hardstandings and motor van waste points on all sites as a matter of policy, and we will continue to review what is needed by our members in the future. The Club is a ‘broad church’ and that’s why we try to meet all members’ needs wherever we can. The whole purpose of our name change and revised values is to ensure we do a better job on an ongoing basis of catering for owners of motorhomes as well as caravans.

There is arguably scope and demand for another level of stopover, along the lines of a French Aire. However, the establishment of these would have a cost, and there would be planning approval challenges and UK safety requirements (minimum fire safety separation distances for instance) to overcome. It’s worth debating whether the provision of such facilities should be the responsibility of an organisation like the Club, or whether local authorities should mainly provide them (as is the case in some other countries – France and Australia, for instance). There are already some examples of this in the UK, although some of them operate without compliance with the safety separation distances that those same local authorities would insist on for site operators like the Club.

Thank you Rowena

Michael, I fully support the idea of Motorhome parking along the lines of the French "Aires de Camping Cars" here in the UK,--- It would obviously need representation from Camping organisations and Local councils to speed the process along.  I would suggest that if one camping organisation were to be proactive in this endeavour , other organisations would be  encouraged to follow suit. 

I wish the petition every success

K 

Interesting to read the club's response.

Whilst appreciating the appeal of such stopovers, for all the practical reasons mentioned in the original thread,  the petition has little chance of success and would be better aimed at asking the club (s) to lobby authorities for this provision (IMHO). Nothing else new to say, really. 

I think Moulesy has said it all, as did the original thread in its early stages. 

Incidentally "…France and Australia…"???   Is that a typo from the club?

Agree with M and TW. Why should the general public fund the very considerable cost of constructing these things for the benefit of a a limited number of that public. There are a few potholes on my estate that need fixing first.

but also few statistics, so there has been 2500 signatures to this petition, of out how many club members? What is it stand at now 800,000? Now I know these are probably double counted for families? but even if all those signatures were club members that is 0.3 or 0.6% of the membership.

What about actual outfits, according to the NCC there 555,000 touring caravans and 225,000 motor homes. Assuming that only motorhomers are voting then that's 1%.

So what is the demand for these stopovers and what justification for the cost can be made out of public funds?

Don't get me wrong I am just against the cost involved.

Also am I the only one who thinks that it would be odd for the club, or the other one, or any owners of sites, to promote such a thing? The club has to look out for it's members' interest of course, but losing potential income from having free 'sites' can hardly be good?  

I agree M And I only posted it so people were aware the club has contacted the petition organiser and he has bought attention to the original thread and as I think most agree it is maybe something the club would not directly set up but their considerable weight could be used to lobby LA's etc. to provide more MH parking for both daytime and overnight use.

I wonder how many of those signatures would still be there if they had to pledge some money to enable these stopoves to happen for them? I mean they want them let them pay? Lets say £250 per name?

If people want a cheap stopover why not use what is already in place in Pub stopovers , the price of a meal for staying the night 

why use public money on the few ???

or have I misunderstood the whole thing??

but why would the club lobby to lose money?