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

[John & Joan]

I agree that the NE/Defra is unlikely to raise a court case for cost reasons but they don't really need to. If they insist on the MCC ceasing to allow non-members then the MCC would have to use the court to challenge that ruling, with the attendant cost risks.

Even so Graham I think they would not push MCC into that action, as they will have costs to defend a challenge.

If they did push MCC and MCC remove their backing to the Practical Motorhome Stopovers Scheme, then Practical Motorhome Stopovers and the other Pub stop schemes would need to be pursued by the local planners for allowing habitation on unlicensed land. The local authorities would then need to find funding for multiple cases. That could then lead to some action by the Motorhome press. A whole can of worms opens up.

NE have the copout in their guidance notes to all exempted organisations. They are contradicting themselves in their correspondence and guidance. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/combined-guidance_tcm6-9572.pdf Updated 29th November 2013 see page 13

If those organisations that have had these restrictions applied complained to their MPs about maladministration then some action could result. on my last look there were now 30 or so organisations with paragraph 5 exemption out of 400+ exempted organisations. Broken Link Removed as of April 2014

John

 

[Terry]

Right I have lost the plot (never really had it) The MCC read the rules to let non members on CLs type sites while everyone else say only members ? or make you agree to only members ? but allow you to turn a blind eye ? unless you are caught out oh:Yet it's OK to rope off a field and make more than one CL type thing ?
I am loosing the plot on what the thread started with -and truth be told don't really care if there's room for me to park and the owner let's me then I will, if not I will find somewhere else or park in a layby etc,until I am no longer tired --If plod knocks on my door and I answer he cannot do me for sleeping, because I answered the door I cannot be asleep
terry

 

[GJH]

I suppose it depends how determined NE/Defra are to push a point of view, John. I should have thought the cheapest way would be a Statutory Instrument solely to amend Para 5 one way or the other.

It certainly is a can of worms when the legislation is not only ambiguous but so difficult/costly for anyone to enforce.

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

 

[Wildman]

How about here.. "ah now I see, sour grapes", Broken Link Removed

and here, "As said earlier sour grapes comes to mind and its not a nice trait." Broken Link Removed

Then my apologies Jim. I was referring to this particular thread. short term memory loss means I forget things that have not happened in the past few days.
From the NE guidelines which you no doubt have it is clearly shown on page 13 that allowing members of the public or not to use the facility that was granted for use (but not exclusively)by members is down to the individual club or organisation, nothing further need be said the level playing field you wanted has been there all along.
I shall in future try to remember not to reply to any of your posts with any opinion different to your own in case I get carried away but will I remember that tomorrow, I've no idea.
Fun is a great place to be when it is fun and a dark place when it is not. I am an olde farte who is losing memory faster than I experience new things. I have to live for the moment because I don't remember yesterday unless I have something about it written down and remember to read it. After 10,000 plus posts maybe it is time to cut down and let others take up the slack. I say what I think and think what I say, not good for some people. Not leaving don't get me wrong just keeping out of trouble.:thumb:

 

[Jim]

Then my apologies Jim. short term memory loss means I forget things that have not happened in the past few days.
:thumb:

Look on the bright side Roger, you'll soon be able to hide your own Easter eggs

 

[Wildman]

what's an Easter egg?

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

 

[Terry]

Nice to see you two and make up
terry

 

[cruiser]

easter egg is something my wife wont let me have.so it must be something nice.??

 

[Malcolm Bolt]

It's a great shame that CLs cannot register with several clubs, thus maximising their potential customers and pleasing the customers as well. The big clubs obviously would be against it as they are not interested in serving their members, only maximising their membership and profits.
If that could be done we would only need to belong to one club to use all the CLs.

I visited a place just off the roundabout at the south west end of the Lincoln by-pass. It had spaces for 10 units. I asked how this could be and was told that 5 were CLs and 5 were CSs. Presumably the inspectors of the two organisations new which pitches were which. There was no obvious difference and I was allowed to park in whichever I liked.

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

 

[scotjimland]

I visited a place just off the roundabout at the south west end of the Lincoln by-pass. It had spaces for 10 units. I asked how this could be and was told that 5 were CLs and 5 were CSs. Presumably the inspectors of the two organisations new which pitches were which. There was no obvious difference and I was allowed to park in whichever I liked.

Don't see how that can be legal.. certainly not if the pitches are in the same field.. two registered owners perhaps ?

There is a CL near Chelmsford with 10 pitches but they are on two fields adjacent to each other.. We stayed there for a few weeks and every fourth week we were moved between the fields.. Apparently one was registered to the owner the other to his wife.

So in effect it is an unlicensed 10 pitch camp site where you can stay as long as you wish.. provided you move between fields every 28 days. .. and very nice it was too .

Handy for fulltimers..as we were when we visited..

Little Baddow Hall Fruit Farm CL
Church Road, Little Baddow,
Chelmsford,
Essex. CM3 4BE

 

[Jim]

Don't see how that can be legal.. certainly not if the pitches are in the same field.. two registered owners perhaps ?

There is a CL near Chelmsford with 10 pitches but they are on two fields adjacent to each other.. We stayed there for a few weeks and every fourth week we were moved between the fields.. Apparently one was registered to the owner the other to his wife.

So in effect it is an unlicensed 10 pitch camp site where you can stay as long as you wish.. provided you move between fields every 28 days. .. and very nice it was too .

Handy for fulltimers..as we were when we visited..

Little Baddow Hall Fruit Farm CL
Church Road, Little Baddow,
Chelmsford,
Essex. CM3 4BE

I would not exempt a site so close or in the same field as another and owned by the same family. That is exactly the type of abuse of the CL system that may scupper us in the end. If someone wants a 10pitch site they should apply for planning and get one.

Purely selfish reasons though, I'd be worried that should we do such a thing it might affect our renewal if a council complained to NE.

 

[scotjimland]

I would not exempt a site so close or in the same field as another and owned by the same family. That is exactly the type of abuse of the CL system that may scupper us in the end.[HI] If someone wants a 10pitch site they should apply for planning and get one. [/HI]

Purely selfish reasons though, I'd be worried that should we do such a thing it might affect our renewal if a council complained to NE.

agree 100% Jim.. I wasn't condoning it..

in fact I was told by the owner that the nearby C&CC site made a complaint.. but to no avail..

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

 

[GJH]

Don't see how that can be legal.. certainly not if the pitches are in the same field.. two registered owners perhaps ?

There is a CL near Chelmsford with 10 pitches but they are on two fields adjacent to each other.. We stayed there for a few weeks and every fourth week we were moved between the fields.. Apparently one was registered to the owner the other to his wife.

So in effect it is an unlicensed 10 pitch camp site where you can stay as long as you wish.. provided you move between fields every 28 days. .. and very nice it was too .

Handy for fulltimers..as we were when we visited..

Little Baddow Hall Fruit Farm CL
Church Road, Little Baddow,
Chelmsford,
Essex. CM3 4BE

I would not exempt a site so close or in the same field as another and owned by the same family. That is exactly the type of abuse of the CL system that may scupper us in the end. If someone wants a 10pitch site they should apply for planning and get one.

Purely selfish reasons though, I'd be worried that should we do such a thing it might affect our renewal if a council complained to NE.

This sort of site, whilst it operates within the law, illustrates the wider problem of control. Neither NE/Defra nor local authorities have the resources to devote to prosecuting what they see as breaches unless a situation is brought to their attention. Even then they might decide that it is not in the public interest to use scarce resources unless a significant nuisance is occurring.

 

[scotjimland]

For a closer look on G Maps.

https://www.google.com/maps?q=51.741915,0.552599&hl=en&num=1&t=h&z=18

Site A. 51.741952,0.552164

Site B. 51.740792,0.553092

Storage area . 51.742556,0.553108

 

[GJH]

For a closer look on G Maps.

Site A. 51.741952,0.552164

Site B. 51.740792,0.553092

Storage area . 51.742556,0.553108

I can see how they probably "get away" with it easily, Jim, as the two fields aren't adjacent.

We stayed on a CL outside Mansfield a couple of years ago which is also home to a static site and a 37 pitch touring site (the CL and touring site being separated just by a line of trees). If I remember rightly there was a thread about a similar site near Stratford recently.

These sorts of examples, which cause no problems for anyone, seem to me to lend weight to the argument for the more liberal interpretation of Para 5. There are sufficient opportunities for sanction within the 1960 Act for NE or LAs to stamp down on nuisance sites.

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

 

[scotjimland]

[HI][/HI]

I can see how they probably "get away" with it easily, Jim, as the two fields aren't adjacent.

ok.. . it's not exactly adjacent, wrong word.. but it's 5 years since we were there .. I should have said close. .. when we were moved between sites it felt like it was the next field.


It was only to illustrate how the regulations can be 'bent' to suit the situation.. there are plenty of examples..


adjacent (əˈdʒeɪsənt)
adj
1.[HI] being near or close,[/HI] esp having a common boundary; adjoining; contiguous

 

[John & Joan]

Then my apologies Jim. I was referring to this particular thread. short term memory loss means I forget things that have not happened in the past few days.
From the NE guidelines which you no doubt have it is clearly shown on page 13 that allowing members of the public or not to use the facility that was granted for use (but not exclusively)by members is down to the individual club or organisation, nothing further need be said the level playing field you wanted has been there all along.
I shall in future try to remember not to reply to any of your posts with any opinion different to your own in case I get carried away but will I remember that tomorrow, I've no idea.
Fun is a great place to be when it is fun and a dark place when it is not. I am an olde farte who is losing memory faster than I experience new things. I have to live for the moment because I don't remember yesterday unless I have something about it written down and remember to read it. After 10,000 plus posts maybe it is time to cut down and let others take up the slack. I say what I think and think what I say, not good for some people. Not leaving don't get me wrong just keeping out of trouble.:thumb:

The problem Rodger is that DEFRA (NE) have one thing in their guidance and are applying different rules to clubs that apply for a paragraph 5 exemption.

They require to see the rules of the club and insist that a clause is in there making it plain that any para. 5 site will be for use by members only. Jim has had to agree to this as have all of the others over the last 10 to 15 years that I have had dealings with DEFRA and then Natural England. No clause in the rules no para. 5 exemption. If you read back through the posts on here you will see I took up this issue as the 6th club to get such an exemption. There are many more now who will have had to give DEFRA (NE) this assurance. DEFRA are applying Caravan Club rules as if they were law.

They are not applying this to MCC and despite being informed many years ago of this club not operating a members only rule they have turned a blind eye.

John

 

[Jaws]

Certificated Locations

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

 

[Jaws]

Oh Bugger.. Above post proly way to late.. Thought I was at the end of the thread and there are pages more on it !!

 

[eddie]

Why don't we all write to DEFRA and complain?

They can't ignore 20,000 complaints can they?

Eddie

 

[TheCaller]

From the MMC web site at
http://dev.motorcaravanners.eu/index.php/club-cl-sites/42-club-cl-sites
which I assume is the organisation we are talking about.

The Certificated Location/Night Stop is for use by Members’ of The Motor Caravanners’ Club only.

All other information for landlords applying says the same thing.

However - from a site entry, a site which I think is fairly new:

£10 per night.(£8 Motor Caravanners Club Members.)

So - do we conclude that there has been a very recent change of policy for new sites joining the network?

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

 

[GJH]

From the MMC web site at
http://dev.motorcaravanners.eu/index.php/club-cl-sites/42-club-cl-sites
which I assume is the organisation we are talking about.

The Certificated Location/Night Stop is for use by Members’ of The Motor Caravanners’ Club only.

All other information for landlords applying says the same thing.(snip)

It appears that the CL PDF files and web pages on the MCC web site have been updated this weekend. For instance the CL Information Guide which I linked to in Broken Link Removed on Friday appears to have been replaced by the document accessed via the Certified Location Network link. The wording quoted by Caller appears in the new document but not the old one.

Perhaps that means that the MCC has accepted the NE ruling and now restricts their CLs and Nightstops to members only. If that is the case then they will, presumably, contact all the CL owners (and Practical Motorhome) and ask them to update their web sites as well.

 

[scotjimland]

However - from a site entry, a site which I think is fairly new:

£10 per night.(£8 Motor Caravanners Club Members.)

so still letting non-members use..

 

[Jim]

It certainly looks that way Graham. The info the MCC give is now explicit, MCC CLs are for MCC members.

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

 

[GJH]

so still letting non-members use..

Probably not had time to update the page yet.

It certainly looks that way Graham. The info the MCC give is now explicit, MCC CLs are for MCC members.

Not the more liberal outcome I should have preferred but at least it gives consistent application of the legislation and a level playing field to all, which is the main thing.

 

[TheCaller]

Multiple exemptions issued to the same land

I have just re-read the text of Para 5 of the Act itself (not NE's guidance on how it should be interpreted, nor the way that large clubs would like it to be applied).

Sub-section 1 of para 5 sets out the 5 vans at any one time restriction.

Sub-section 2 is the one that says an exempted organisation may issue a certificate if it has approved the land as being suitable for use by its members for the purpose of recreation. Cue much debate about whether sub-section 2 is about checking that the land is fit for the intended purpose, or whether it is intended to restrict to members only, or both.

Sub-sections 3 & 4 are administrative - who should be notified & the period of the certificate.

So - the Act restricts a site to 5 vans at a time & insists that the land has been approved by an exempted organisation. It also allows the local authority to object if it feels that there are any problems. It may, subject to argument, also insist that those using the site be members of an exempt organisation.

The purpose of the Act is to stop a free-for-all & prevent the countryside being overun with large & uncontrolled sites, while allowing the responsible small scale recreational use of the countryside by self-policing organisations who have a vested interest in ensuring that the rules are not broken. The key factor is the 5 van rule. Both NE & the exempted organisations are reluctant to grant certificates where another 5 van site is in close proximity.

But - here is the interesting bit - as far as I can see, nowhere does the Act state that only one exempted organisation at a time may grant a certificate to the same piece of land.

Why should it. Provided there are no more than 5 vans on a site & provided all those vans are occupied by members of an exempted organisation that has approved that site, why should it matter that they all belong to the same organisation. The purpose of the Act has still been met.

Now, I can well understand why the CC & the C&CC may write such a condition into their agreements with landowners. It is in their commercial interest to do so. But it is not in the Act itself.

For small exempted organisations, there is much to be gained by sharing sites. A site shared by MCC & Fun probably still wouldn't attract as much trade as a site admitting only CC or only C&CC members, so there seems little reason for NE to issue guidance to the contrary.

Enough for one post. That sets our why I believe it's possible. Next one will set out why I believe it's in NE's interest to allow it.

 

[TheCaller]

It appears that the CL PDF files and web pages on the MCC web site have been updated this weekend <snip>

Which might explain the poor proof reading. I didn't think it was in the spirit of this forum nor conducive to future inter-club co-operation to draw attention to their flagrant misuse of the apostrophe.

... Oh damn - blown it now. oh:

Edit: Just reviewed my last post & spotted four errors, despite proof reading it before posting. Pot, kettle etc.

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

 

[GJH]

(snip)
But - here is the interesting bit - as far as I can see, nowhere does the Act state that only one exempted organisation at a time may grant a certificate to the same piece of land.

(snip)

Correct and, as far as I can see, neither does NE guidance seek to prevent multiple certification.

 

[TheCaller]

Why Natural England should encourage small clubs to grant exemption certificates to the same site.

There has been a recent trend for CLs & CSs to upgrade their sites - hard standings, toilets, showers, EHU etc. It is suggested that this trend is actively encouraged by the two big clubs. There is good commercial sense behind this. The caravanning fraternity are demanding these facilities - witness the number of caravans now fitted with electric hobs & the introduction of the gas-less caravan. This has driven up prices & for popular sites, both the total revenue & the profit per unit night has no doubt improved. All good business sense.

However, apart from the 5 van restriction, these sites are now indistinguishable from a fully licensed commercial or club site. It's questionable as to whether these sites are what was originally intended when the exemptions under the 1960 Act were first implemented.

There are a significant number of motorhomers who also want such facilities - witness the 'do you use your toilet' threads & similar threads suggesting that the only use for the shower is as a store cupboard. They are well catered for by these upgraded sites.

But there is also a large group of motorhome users who are now left with nowhere to go without having to pay for facilities they don't need, or even wish to use. The CL/CS network no longer serves their needs in the way it once did.

This will drive those people away from the sites that were supposed to be for their use & into laybys, car parks, roadsides, private land etc. This is in nobody's interest. Wild camping should be for those that truly want to wild camp & know how to do it properly. It should not proliferate out of desperation by those who don't really want to do it. Natural England would probably prefer it if nobody wild camped, so must surely be in favour of providing viable alternatives for those who would really prefer not to.

It is very difficult to establish a viable exempted site outside of the big clubs' networks. No other individual club has a big enough membership nor the established means of publishing the site details to all members. People complain about the big clubs' site search & book web sites, but they are streets ahead of a simple pdf document listing all sites with a short paragraph about each. Add to that the fact that we are looking to promote low facility, low price & thus low margin sites; there is just not enough money in it.

So any site owner wanting to have a low facility site promoted to the motorhome community should be looking to get exemption certificates from as many exempted organisations as possible & NE should be encouraging this in its guidance to landowners.

 

[Jaws]

so still letting non-members use..

Actually.. this may not be the case
We have a farmer type chappy we visit on occasions. He has a licence to run a small ( I spose it can take maybe 10 vans ) site.
Last time we spoke he said he was thinking of offering members of a certain club ( not my favourite but obviously his ! ) a wee discount.

So it is possibly the tother way round

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