CLs - Time for a change in the law ?

[JohnM20]

With caravanning at probably an all time high and with the resultant difficulties in finding a pitch is it time the law was changed to allow CL owners to increase their occupancy ? Where space allowed and where the owner wanted to have more caravans, what would be wrong with a modest increase from 5 'vans to six ?
The Caravan Club has approximately 2,500 CLs. If only half of these increased by one unit it would provide an extra 1250 pitches per night. I don't know about the Camping & Caravan Club but I guess they have a similar number which would make this 2000 to 2500 extra places per night. Whilst there are new CLs opening all the time there seems to be an almost equal number closing for one reason or another so the net number of pitches available remains pretty constant.
Not only would we caravanners benefit but so would the CL owners and their local economy, theoretically to the tune of about 20%.
The five caravan rule is, apparently, as a result of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act of 1960. This is now 50 years old and caravanning has moved on apace with considerably more caravans in the UK than there was in 1960. Surely it is time that this Act was reviewed.
I'm sure we all know of instances where more than 5 caravans are accepted already by CL owners willing to bend the law. Is it not now time to legalise the increase ?
What are the thoughts of others ?
JohnM

 

[DianneT]

Yes JohnM I agree with you that some CL's, that we use could possibly take 1 more van and another perhaps 2. but I would hate to see caravans having to park too close together or in uniform lines like the Club Sites. I also know of a lovely site down in Dorset that has just been struck off for going above the 5 vans when he has room for at least 10 without being over crowded.

 

[chrisbee1]

I managed to book my first choice CL 3 days before the last bank holiday. According to their web site it is a popular site with many return visitors, some several times a season. At no time were there more than 4 vans over the bank holiday w/e. I think there is plenty of capacity in CLs and it is because of the 5 van rule that I use them, they tend to be far more relaxed than large sites. Agreed, the better ones can get booked up a year in advance but that would still happen if 6 vans were permitted. If you can't get into a particular CL there is normally another one just down the road. I've never failed to find one at short notice, if not in a particular location, certainly in the area.

 

[PaulRT]

Hi All
I agree with Chrisbee. I would not want CLs to have more than 5 vans on them - that is part of the beauty of using CLs. In any case, seeking changes to the 1960 Act would no doubt open up a range of other issues. We always book CLs at the last moment as our destinations are influenced by the weather pattern for the period we are going to be away. Only in the middle of August have we had any difficulty in securing a chosen pitch. We now have our own compendium of 45 'favourite' CLs and CSs we have stayed on in England and Wales over the last 10 years. Leave well alone.
Cheers
Paul

 

[Big S]

I would certainly agree with the potential to increase the capacity of some sites. We have stayed on a number of Cl's in which you could easily have put in an extra couple of vans without impinging on anybodys privacy.
However not all sites are able to accomodate many more vans.
We stayed at a site for August bank holiday to go to Wembley for the Rugby League Challenge Cup Final. It wasn't the largest site, situated in a fruit farm, and the owners allowed eight vans on the site, which was a clear breach of the rules. To be honest the site was rather cramped on the Saturday.

 

[Woody3]

The biggest problem with CLs - and it affects CC sites severely as well - is that people will book two or three sites in different areas for the weekend and chose the one likely to have the best weather, but don't notify the others that they are not coming.

Bring back deposits, and for CC, if anyone makes two bookings and fails to turn up without good reason or notification at least 24 hours before arrival they should have CC site access suspended for three months minimum and/or make them pay in full at the time of booking.

 

[DerektheSecond]

The biggest problem with CLs - and it affects CC sites severely as well - is that people will book two or three sites in different areas for the weekend and chose the one likely to have the best weather, but don't notify the others that they are not coming.

Bring back deposits, and for CC, if anyone makes two bookings and fails to turn up without good reason or notification at least 24 hours before arrival they should have CC site access suspended for three months minimum and/or make them pay in full at the time of booking.

I agree with the last paragraph, it causes more work with the booking system but it seems a fairer way of allowing ALL members a shot at especially the good or better sites, saying that we have been fairly lucky when we tour we tend to follow the better weather and have been fairly sucsessful in booking sites on the morning or day of arrival for at least a night, a lot of phone calls though.

 

[JTQ]

I worry that any pressure to change the law will have the opposite effect to what is in our best interest.
Remember that CLs and CSs operate on a legal "exemption" system, i.e. exemption from needing Planning Control Permission.
Any pressure to change the numbers of vans allowed could so easily lose us this “right” as its really is a bit of an anomaly in the regulated society we live in.
Should there be that loss of exemption from the rigours and cost of applying for Planning Permission, how many owners would bother to apply? Most do it now out of interest, few out of financial gain. Adding in the burdens of applying for Local Authority permission I feel would be a “death blow”. Also consider that then the interest of neighbours, Parish Councils and anyone who wants to voice an opinion will be enabled to have their say and object. This also brings possible contention into often small closely nit communities a thing many potential owners would fear inviting. An objection does not necessarily need to be well grounded and could be based on false fears of what letting a site being created might mean within a community. I shudder to think of the misconceptions that even well meaning objectors might bring to the table let alone unleashing the anti caravan brigade to control our hobby.
No in this case lets live with what we are privileged to have and not rock the boat.