Impact of DEFRA Rules on Jasmin Camping Site

I would challenge the system from DEFRA, which provides the bigger clubs with huge competitive advantage. The playing field is not level. It may be level between the two big clubs in the same way that one end of a van may be on levelling jacks but the other clubs are not on the same level. Their wheels are still on the tarmac and they're effectively being subjected to a lesser competitive position by those licensors.


I'd also question why those clubs are relied on for planning exemption. If the small place can't obtain planning on their own, perhaps because they can't satisfy all requirements of the planning system, then why are the big clubs actually empowered by DEFRA to exempt them?!

Planning permission requirements on such places should be minimal. If unoccupied would anyone know what it was? Nothing built overground needs to be a permanent structure and services such as water and waste should be considered localised dumps. Much better that than people 'fly-tipping' sewage as they might do either if there's no dumping facility or in protest at the current system.

I don't know about any similar systems in Europe but I would hope that there should be examples there, perhaps in France, which could be considered 'best practice' and which could be the basis for an overhaul of the whole system in UK.

Small sites (CS/CL/Aire) are often gems and consequently of exceptional and higher value to the tourist/user than bigger ones. Imo.
 
I would challenge the system from DEFRA, which provides the bigger clubs with huge competitive advantage. The playing field is not level. It may be level between the two big clubs in the same way that one end of a van may be on levelling jacks but the other clubs are not on the same level. Their wheels are still on the tarmac and they're effectively being subjected to a lesser competitive position by those licensors.


I'd also question why those clubs are relied on for planning exemption. If the small place can't obtain planning on their own, perhaps because they can't satisfy all requirements of the planning system, then why are the big clubs actually empowered by DEFRA to exempt them?!

Planning permission requirements on such places should be minimal. If unoccupied would anyone know what it was? Nothing built overground needs to be a permanent structure and services such as water and waste should be considered localised dumps. Much better that than people 'fly-tipping' sewage as they might do either if there's no dumping facility or in protest at the current system.

I don't know about any similar systems in Europe but I would hope that there should be examples there, perhaps in France, which could be considered 'best practice' and which could be the basis for an overhaul of the whole system in UK.

Small sites (CS/CL/Aire) are often gems and consequently of exceptional and higher value to the tourist/user than bigger ones. Imo.
I'm not quite sure you get it.

In this thread (or the other one), if you follow the link there is a DEFRA spreadsheet of all the exempting organisations. Have a read, I did, it's an interesting list.

The two big clubs are listed, as are MHF, Campra, and a whole host of small organisations, plus YHA, Scouts, lots of various social clubs etc.

As I understand it, all of them have equal rights to exempt a landowner from planning permission for the purposes of running a Certificated site of no more than 5 occupied pitches.

The 2 big clubs obviously had large memberships already when this scheme was set up, and so have attracted a large number of landowners into their CL/CS schemes, but they are only doing what all the other exempting organisations can do.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
As I understand it, all of them have equal rights to exempt a landowner from planning permission for the purposes of running a Certificated site of no more than 5 occupied pitches.

That long list are mostly camping/rally exemptions para 4 and 6. To exempt land to become a CL requires a paragraph 5 exemption and there are a lot fewer of those. About 30 odd, the last time I looked
 
That long list are mostly camping/rally exemptions para 4 and 6. To exempt land to become a CL requires a paragraph 5 exemption and there are a lot fewer of those. About 30 odd, the last time I looked
Ah yes, that list makes a lot more sense now!
 
I'm not quite sure you get it.

In this thread (or the other one), if you follow the link there is a DEFRA spreadsheet of all the exempting organisations. Have a read, I did, it's an interesting list.

The two big clubs are listed, as are MHF, Campra, and a whole host of small organisations, plus YHA, Scouts, lots of various social clubs etc.

As I understand it, all of them have equal rights to exempt a landowner from planning permission for the purposes of running a Certificated site of no more than 5 occupied pitches.

The 2 big clubs obviously had large memberships already when this scheme was set up, and so have attracted a large number of landowners into their CL/CS schemes, but they are only doing what all the other exempting organisations can do.
You may be correct, when you write that I might not be 'getting it'.

I've been looking at this from the perspective of the smaller site, which, if I follow correctly the two threads about this matter, it seems that the small operator is disadvantaged.

And I read this page too, which gave me a clearer understanding because it seems not to be the bigger clubs at fault but the system that gives the bigger clubs an advantage over the smaller ones.


I maintain the opinion that to have the exemption linked to a requirement that it only be for members of the specific club, is unreasonable because it favours the bigger clubs, which obviously already have a bigger membership.

And the recent change after lobbying by the bigger clubs seems to secure their position and, also, to minimise the potential for smaller clubs to grow.

Am I nearly getting it yet, CAB96 ? :cool:

I shall read up on it more.
 
You may be correct, when you write that I might not be 'getting it'.

I've been looking at this from the perspective of the smaller site, which, if I follow correctly the two threads about this matter, it seems that the small operator is disadvantaged.

And I read this page too, which gave me a clearer understanding because it seems not to be the bigger clubs at fault but the system that gives the bigger clubs an advantage over the smaller ones.


I maintain the opinion that to have the exemption linked to a requirement that it only be for members of the specific club, is unreasonable because it favours the bigger clubs, which obviously already have a bigger membership.

And the recent change after lobbying by the bigger clubs seems to secure their position and, also, to minimise the potential for smaller clubs to grow.

Am I nearly getting it yet, CAB96 ? :cool:

I shall read up on it more.
Yes, and I think I understand your thoughts on the matter a bit more clearly, thank you. (y) (y)
 
Social clubs can apply for permission to give camping licences without having to go through formal local authority planning processes.
fascinating list

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Think I will speak to my MP the next time he’s having a surgery normally get a nice long chat with him
 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Back
Top