MCC Licensing CL's for public use (1 Viewer)

[TheBig1]

Sorry to distract from the debate - I'm new to all this club stuff. So certain sites affiliate themselves with certain clubs and, allegedly, provide preferential treatment to those members in return for increased revenue, as business will be funnelled through to them via the clubs? And there is also a set quota to allow non-affiliated public (or other club members) to use the Certified Locations.

Do I have that right?

Cheers,
Lee.

sorry should have explained better
if somebody owns some land that they want to allow caravans/motorhomes on, there are a couple of ways.
full planning permission for a campsite. very expensive and not guaranteed you will get permission granted

apply to one of the clubs that have what is known as an exemption certificate so they dont need full planning but can allow up to 5 vans on their site at any one time. this according to the rules of the exemption means that anyone using a certified site should be a member of the relevant club

it really can be a very messy can of worms getting a site set up and the use of the clubs' exemption certificates cuts down red tape and expense but it comes at a cost. the mcc has been claiming they have the right to exempt sites open to non members and no other exempted club can.

 

[Snowbird]

You seemed to enjoy your stay on mine

I did indeed Jim, also I enjoyed my stay with Roger the wilder, and hope to return to both in the future. If that Mo man books another visit, I had to promice him I would go, so he could use my generator

 

[Snowbird]

Like most things in life, there are two sides to every story. If someone had invested vast amounts of money and time building a bona fide campsite then his neighbour Joe Farmer thinks to himself. Hey, that wealthy entrepreneur next door is making a fortune out of all these motorhomers that used to be freeloading tossers who used to park up in the local supermarket carpark, and now cant. I know what, am going to open a CL and charge a bit less and get em on my turnip field. Would that be fair on Alexander the entrepreneur who is now going to lose all his Wonga and put all his staff on the dole, making the taxpayer foot the bill .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jim]

You might have a point Dave. Some big site owners must hate CLs. However the biggest regular site owners, the CC and the C&CC, also have the most CLs, so it would seem they are shooting themselves in the foot as they make nothing from their CLs. But they aren't as the CLs are a good reason, and for some, the only reason to join.

Much is made of the French Aires system but our CL network is as good or better. I think we have as many or even more CLs as the French have Aires. But to keep prices down and choice high we need many more. Regular pitches are declining as Motorhome and caravan use increases. More sites will go as regular campsites are bought as brownfield sites and developed as houses or hotels. For Motorhomes especially, unless you are a fan of the mega sites that resemble the council estate I grew up on, CLs are the future for camping in the UK. :thumb:

 

[Snowbird]

You might have a point Dave. Some big site owners must hate CLs. However the biggest regular site owners, the CC and the C&CC, also have the most CLs, so it would seem they are shooting themselves in the foot as they make nothing from their CLs. But they aren't as the CLs are a good reason, and for some, the only reason to join.

Much is made of the French Aires system but our CL network is as good or better. I think we have as many or even more CLs as the French have Aires. But to keep prices down and choice high we need many more. Regular pitches are declining as Motorhome and caravan use increases. More sites will go as these campsites are bought as brownfield sites and developed. For Motorhomes especially, unless you are a fan of the mega sites, that resemble the council estate I grew up on, CLs are the future for camping in the UK. :thumb:

I cant see how anyone would complain about CLs being regulated Jim. And as you say as long as its across the board and everyone is on the same playing field. There has to be some form of regulation otherwise every Joe Farmer would be turning his turnip field into a campsite as there just is no money in turnips nowadays.

 

[scotjimland]

You might have a point Dave. Some big site owners must hate CLs. However the biggest regular site owners, the CC and the C&CC, also have the most CLs, so it would seem they are shooting themselves in the foot as they make nothing from their CLs. But they aren't as the CLs are a good reason, and for some, the only reason to join.

[HI]Much is made of the French Aires system but our CL network is as good or better[/HI]. I think we have as many or even more CLs as the French have Aires. But to keep prices down and choice high we need many more. Regular pitches are declining as Motorhome and caravan use increases, for Motorhomes especially, unless you are a fan of the mega sites, that resemble the council estate I grew up on, CLs are the future for camping in the UK. :thumb:

I have often said this when people bleat on about lack of aires in the Uk.. however, many CLs are not close to towns or village centers.. and many are not all weather sites.. so useless in winter.

That said.. we love them.. but more and more are pandering to the demands of caravanners for an EHU and even serviced pitches.. this has pushed the prices up making them less attractive..
Sadly, long gone are the days of a £2.50 pitch fee in a field with a tap in the corner.. a few may survive up in the far north.. where they be dragons..

I have two gripes.. and both are common complaints on Club forums..

1. the freeloaders who don't pay Club fees yet use CLs.. and think that's ok.

2. CL owners who flout the 5 van rule and pack in as many as they can..

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[eddie]

We opened as as CL in 1996 and it was immediately popular. We flouted the "members only" rule all the time, normally inadvertently. There'd be a knock at the door and some would say "we stayed on the site last night and need to pay" and would then go on to say that they weren't members when asked for their membership number.

I think that it is one thing that it happens, but another to advertise the fact and encourage it.

In 2003 we were granted planning permission to open as a full blown site which we did in 2005, so I've seen both sides of the coin.

 

[Geo]

I cant see how anyone would complain about CLs being regulated Jim. And as you say as long as its across the board and everyone is on the same playing field. There has to be some form of regulation otherwise every Joe Farmer would be turning his turnip field into a campsite as there just is no money in turnips nowadays.

Come on now Dave, Wilding on the kids parks is a pitch to faroh:oh:
G

 

[GJH]

sorry was typing

CL certificated location as used by the C&CC, camping and caravanning club
CS certificated site as used by the CC caravan club
MCC motorcaravanners club
CFL certificated fun location as used by motorhome fun sites

CL is actually Caravan Club (and MCC) and CS is Camping & Caravan Club but otherwise right

The problem lies in Paragraph 5 of the First Schedule to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960:

Sites approved by exempted organisations
5(1)Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land as respects which there is in force a certificate issued under this paragraph by an exempted organisation if not more than five caravans are at the time stationed for the purposes of human habitation on the land to which the certificate relates.
(2)For the purposes of this paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation for use by its members for the purposes of recreation.
(3)The certificate shall be issued to the occupier of the land to which it relates, and the organisation shall send particulars to the Minister of all certificates issued by the organisation under this paragraph.
(4)A certificate issued by an exempted organisation under this paragraph shall specify the date on which it is to come into force and the period for which it is to continue in force, being a period not exceeding one year.

and the fact that the wording for use by its members for the purposes of recreation can be interpreted differently. If it read "for use only by its members for the purposes of recreation" or "for use exclusively by its members for the purposes of recreation" then it would be clear. The absence of only/exclusively means that it can be read as not excluding non-members.

That, presumably, is how the MCC interpret the legislation but it is not how Natural England (the body which implements the 1960 Act on behalf of Defra) see it. The CC and C&CC appear to accept/agree with the NE interpretation. NE's interpretation is that allowing non-members would be regarded as bypassing the normal need for planning permission. I'm not sure that stands scrutiny as Paragraph 13 of the First Schedule enables LAs to object to CLs and the MCC themselves, in their Link Removed, say "we will check that Local Authority has no reasonable objections". Having said that, we are where we are and, given NE's position of authority, then all exempted organisations must accept their ruling or mount a legal challenge against it.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

The other aspect I can foresee, should the MCC have to accept the NE ruling, is a call for a crack down on places which operate (and advertise) openly as allowing overnighting without having either a site license or exemption certificate.

 

[Snowbird]

Come on now Dave, Wilding on the kids parks is a pitch to faroh:oh:
G

Ya gota have something to hang the washin on. Those roundabout things are just as good as a wirlygig washing line.

 

[Jim]

We opened as as CL in 1996 and it was immediately popular. We flouted the "members only" rule all the time, normally inadvertently. There'd be a knock at the door and some would say "we stayed on the site last night and need to pay" and would then go on to say that they weren't members when asked for their membership number.

[HI]I think that it is one thing that it happens, but another to advertise the fact and encourage it.
[/HI]
In 2003 we were granted planning permission to open as a full blown site which we did in 2005, so I've seen both sides of the coin.

Exactly right, it's rare to be asked to show a membership card, in fact I don't think a CL/CS owner has ever asked me in 24 years. It seems no one is really bothered. Signing people up to the MCC at the gate might be a solution but I don't know how Natural England would feel about that.

I doubt we would ever see spot checks by Natural England to ensure that visitors are members, that would be a massive undertaking, though I feel they care sufficiently about our CL network to definitely follow up individual complaints.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Exactly right, it's rare to be asked to show a membership card, in fact I don't think a CL/CS owner has ever asked me in 24 years. It seems no one is really bothered. Signing people up to the MCC at the gate might be a solution but I don't know how Natural England would feel about that.

[HI]I doubt we would ever see spot checks by Natural England to ensure that visitors are members, that would be a massive undertaking, though I feel they care sufficiently about our CL network to definitely follow up individual complaints.[/HI]

Good point. NE certainly do not have the resources to check on caravan sites (licensed, exempted or otherwise) proactively but they seem pretty determined to act in cases where they have identified potential breaches of the legislation.

 

[Terry]

So who is going to bother paying for any legal action ? What happened to live and let live ? sure if a farmer allows more than 5 vans on a field where you could park 20 why does it spoil the 5 van rule for other stayers ? I understand if the 5 vans are on top of each other but if not ? Cannot say I care if there is 1 or 20 so long as we have room and the farmer makes a bit of extra cash I use 20 as an example but some van owners moan if the site exceeds 5 vans by 1 making 6 in total - If I go away with my mate I would not want to be on one site and him on another simply because of a 5 van limit
I would put up with a extra van or two if the site is worth it --if it bugs you so much that there are members/non members then I suggest move on -not report the site owner -common sense must prevail not just stick to the rules because it says so -- some will stick to rules while others won't give a toss so who is right
terry

 

[Jim]

So who is going to bother paying for any legal action ? What happened to live and let live ? sure if a farmer allows more than 5 vans on a field where you could park 20 why does it spoil the 5 van rule for other stayers ? I understand if the 5 vans are on top of each other but if not ? Cannot say I care if there is 1 or 20 so long as we have room and the farmer makes a bit of extra cash I use 20 as an example but some van owners moan if the site exceeds 5 vans by 1 making 6 in total - If I go away with my mate I would not want to be on one site and him on another simply because of a 5 van limit
I would put up with a extra van or two if the site is worth it --if it bugs you so much that there are members/non members then I suggest move on -not report the site owner -common sense must prevail not just stick to the rules because it says so -- some will stick to rules while others won't give a toss so who is right
terry

If the farmer want 20 vans he must get planning permission. The law stops the farmer from having 20 vans in his field by way of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. We as recreational campers are recognised in the act and they give us certain exemptions to it.

In reality, no one is interested if a site has an extra van or two at busy times, or if someones stays 30 days instead of 28, but if councils see the CL network being abused to bypass proper planning, then who knows what might happen. Our CL network is a wonderful thing, if it's abused or not used as intended the powers that be might re-visit it. That could prove disastrous for us.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jim]

I have often said this when people bleat on about lack of aires in the Uk.. however, many CLs are not close to towns or village centers.. and many are not all weather sites.. so useless in winter.

That said.. we love them.. but more and more are pandering to the demands of caravanners for an EHU and even serviced pitches.. this has pushed the prices up making them less attractive..
[HI]Sadly, long gone are the days of a £2.50 pitch fee in a field with a tap in the corner.. a few may survive up in the far north.. where they be dragons.[/HI].

I have two gripes.. and both are common complaints on Club forums..

1. the freeloaders who don't pay Club fees yet use CLs.. and think that's ok.

2. CL owners who flout the 5 van rule and pack in as many as they can..

As long as you are a member, We let you park on a hardstanding at the top of a field for fiver a night, we have a dump point and spring-water on tap. :thumb:

We need more of these basic CFL's. I'll admit, they have not been a priority for me in the past, but I now fully appreciate that a good selection of them would be very beneficial to MHFun in the future.

 

[maz]

Sadly, long gone are the days of a £2.50 pitch fee in a field with a tap in the corner.. a few may survive up in the far north.. where they be dragons..

When I was updating my CC and C&CC handbooks with new/defunct CLs and CSs, it was noticeable that most of the new ones were of the expensive EHU variety and most of the defunct ones were of the cheap basic variety - which I much prefer. :Sad: We need more of the 'possible sheep on site' £5 a night versions - otherwise I will become even more of a freeloading to$$er.

 

[GJH]

When I was updating my CC and C&CC handbooks with new/defunct CLs and CSs, it was noticeable that most of the new ones were of the expensive EHU variety and most of the defunct ones were of the cheap basic variety - which I much prefer. :Sad: We need more of the 'possible sheep on site' £5 a night versions - otherwise I will become even more of a freeloading to$$er.

This sort of topic comes up regularly on the CC's forum (which I dip into from time to time) and provokes comment from supporters of both types of CL.

CL owners will obviously react to what they see as demand from potential customers, including caravanners as well as motorhomers. We see plenty of questions on here about ability to use hair dryers and other mains appliances and that is magnified in the wider community.

I much prefer to use rallies/meets/THSs rather than having to pay a site fee which includes EHU whether I want it or not (though I will happily use the latter if it is more convenient) but our van is set up for that sort of usage. What puts me off CLs/CSs most is the remoteness of many from public transport.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[scotjimland]

What puts me off CLs/CSs most is the remoteness of many from public transport.

I mentioned this earlier Graham ... The vast majority of CLs, by nature of their location, are far better suited for caravanners .. or motorhomers who have another means of transport..

but it's the remoteness that makes them attractive for me... I don't want to be staying in a village or town center where there is a noisy night life.. or potential for trouble.

That said.. some prefer being within staggering distance of the town.

 

[GJH]

I mentioned this earlier Graham ... The vast majority of CLs, by nature of their location, are far better suited for caravanners .. or motorhomers who have another means of transport..

but it's the remoteness that makes them attractive for me... I don't want to be staying in a village or town center where there is a noisy night life.. or potential for trouble.

That said.. some prefer being within staggering distance of the town.

I completely understand Jim. I was trying to make a distinction between remoteness from a village/town centre and remoteness from public transport.

We've stayed on CLs, THSs and larger sites which are peaceful and well out of the way of any trouble but close public transport links means one can get around during the day easily.

 

[scotjimland]

I completely understand Jim. I was trying to make a distinction between remoteness from a village/town centre and remoteness from public transport.

We've stayed on CLs, THSs and larger sites which are peaceful and well out of the way of any trouble but [HI]close public transport links [/HI]means one can get around during the day easily.

Public transport in the sticks.. ? you are having a larfff..

Our bus service was axed a few years ago.. so my bus pass is a waste of time.. we now have a mini bus that you need to book in advance.. and it won't stop unless you have booked it. .. both journeys.. oh:

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Public transport in the sticks.. ? you are having a larfff..

Our bus service was axed a few years ago.. so my bus pass is a waste of time.. we now have a mini bus that you need to book in advance.. and it won't stop unless you have booked it. .. both journeys.. oh:

Remoteness doesn't have to be in the sticks Jim

For instance THS at Blackpool South Shore Cricket Club last year. Nice and quiet with buses outside the gate to Blackpool or St Annes

 

[scotjimland]

Remoteness doesn't have to be in the sticks Jim

For instance THS at Blackpool South Shore Cricket Club last year. Nice and quiet with buses outside the gate to Blackpool or St Annes

true.. I was generalizing..

people normally associate remoteness with stickland, smells, tractors and lack of busses..

we have all three ..and love it despite the lack of public transport..it keeps the riff raff at bay

 

[trophychap]

Interesting ....we have used a particular CL in Norfolk a few times and last time we were surprised the cost hadn't risen. The lady said the CC were always trying to persuade her to put the price up! She's quite busy so she doesn't WANT to - many very regular customers etc, she doesn't rely on the income, she loves it as it is and so do the people that go there.

No EHU no toilets, grass you could use as a bed, you could get twice as many vans on it than the statutory 5 so everyone has masses of space and in walking distance of a couple of food pubs and a Broad.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jim]

Interesting ....we have used a particular CL in Norfolk a few times and last time we were surprised the cost hadn't risen. The lady said the CC were always trying to persuade her to put the price up! She's quite busy so she doesn't WANT to - many very regular customers etc, she doesn't rely on the income, she loves it as it is and so do the people that go there.

No EHU no toilets, grass you could use as a bed, you could get twice as many vans on it than the statutory 5 so everyone has masses of space and in walking distance of a couple of food pubs and a Broad.

That's what we need, 100 of those:thumb:

 

[TheCaller]

Exactly right, it's rare to be asked to show a membership card, in fact I don't think a CL/CS owner has ever asked me in 24 years. It seems no one is really bothered. Signing people up to the MCC at the gate might be a solution but I don't know how Natural England would feel about that.

I've been asked for mine quite a few times - sometimes when I book & sometimes on arrival. Probably less than half, but often enough for it to matter.

You can join both the CC & the C&CC on arrival at a CL/CS, but that's quite an expense. I know you have to be a subscribed Fun member to attend rallies - does the same apply to our licensed CLs, or can free members stay on them?

I like CL/CS sites, but the biggest problem is getting hold of the owners. Some say just turn up & pay in the morning, but you usually have to get hold of them first to know that. So that makes it difficult if you are just touring & don't know were you want to be that night until, say, mid-afternoon.

Quite a few like you to arrive relatively early, which is fair enough, but it means they are not very suitable for a short overnight halt to break a journey.

 

[thehutchies]

It's peaceful and spacious in Glastonbury today.
Conveniently located, as well

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Detnor]

I've only stopped on 2 cl's, both MCC.
Snailspace at the Sidings near Louth which is first class and Bourton Rovers football club, a few minutes walk into Bourton on the Water and a bar a few yards from the pitches.
Both ideally suited to motorhomes, perhaps the MCC are just more suitable for vans rather than tents or caravans.

 

[John & Joan]

Jim is not the first to raise this issue. I raised it with DEFRA (before Natural England took it on) when I was granted the exemptions for Three Rivers Outdoor Club (TROC) . TROC hold Paragraph 4, 5, & 6 plus camping exemptions, which is the same as the Caravan and Camping Club. That was 10 or more years ago. At that time we were only the 6th exempted organisation to hold a paragraph 5 exemption.

At that time only the MCC, CC ,C&CC, CSMA (Civil Service Motoring Association), Washington Caravan Club and TROC. held paragraph 5 exemptions.

I was later able to obtain all of the exemptions for British Naturism (BN). I was the exemption certificate holder for both TROC and BN at one time.

I queried how MCC was certificating Practical Motorhome stopovers then and was told DEFRA were monitoring the situation. I pointed out that they were advertising that membership was not needed, yet my organisation had been required to agree to members only, before we were granted the exemption. Jim would have had to do the same.

The MCC were granted their exemptions when the 1960 Act was established as were the CC and C&CC.

I queried the "members only requirement" for paragraph 5 as it does not say that in the act. I was told by a DEFRA official it was a club rule. I asked which club and was told the Caravan Club. He also said that DEFRA's solicitors and ACCEO (The Association of Caravan and Camping Exempted Organisations) wanted this to be implemented by all exempted organisations. So MCC are not breaching the Act at all, however they are not party to the CC, C&CC and ACCEO agreement to limit use to "members only"

MCC, CC, C&CC and ACCEO (ACCEO represent about 200 exempted clubs) are consulted regularly about matters by DEFRA (Natural England are their executive agent) and hold regular meeting. The 200+ other exempted organisations including the ones I held the certificate for and Jim (MHFun) do not have any say.

ACCEO are against any other club than the MCC, CC ,C&CC & CSMA holding paragraph 5 exemptions and they tried to get DEFRA to rescind the exemption for TROC. I contested this and the DEFRA solicitors had to agree that we had complied with the requirements to get the exemption. TROC again had to fight to get it renewed at the periodic renewal.

To get a paragraph 5 exemption the organisation has to have in place an agreed system to check and certify potential locations. It also has to consult with the local planning authority and neighbouring property owners and take into account any objections they may raise before issuing the exemption certificate. It also has to have in those systems a way of verifying that the sites/locations it issues exemption to, are following the regulations. Each site has to be inspected annually to have the exemption renewed. Each time a site is exempted, the club the exempts it, has to send a copy of the exemption it has granted to Natural England.

The CC & C&CC have inspectors who visit each site and ensure that they are complying. They can also do unannounced inspections at any time, during these they can ask to see the membership cards for all of the users. CC certificated locations have a diary that is inspected during such visits. That has a column for the membership number. I have regularly been asked for my membership number when booking or on arrival.

At one time the CC issued a list monthly in their magazine of locations that had had the exemption withdrawn. Amongst the reasons were "breach of conditions" This is not shown now for closures.

John Thompson

 

[Jim]

5(1)Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land as respects which there is in force a certificate issued under this paragraph by an exempted organisation if not more than five caravans are at the time stationed for the purposes of human habitation on the land to which the certificate relates.
(2)For the purposes of this paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation[HI] for use by its members [/HI]for the purposes of recreation.
(3)The certificate shall be issued to the occupier of the land to which it relates, and the organisation shall send particulars to the Minister of all certificates issued by the organisation under this paragraph.
(4)A certificate issued by an exempted organisation under this paragraph shall specify the date on which it is to come into force and the period for which it is to continue in force, being a period not exceeding one year.

I don't see any ambiguity in 5.2

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}