Message Forums

It is not the additional charges for kids / extra people  that bothers me so much,but the charges for

• Gazebo / day tent
• Pup tent
• additional car.

Now, if you do take any of the above, they are presumably because you have additional people (my wife and i do not actually travel in separate cars - just one of those quirky married habits - we prefer to travel together)and so surely if you have to pay extra charges for the additional people AND then extra for the above, you are effectively paying double!!

Also, why is it more expensive for a teeny two-man frame tent (Cabanon Pacific) and pop up (Khyam Igloo) than it is for a whopping tent? We have often thought it would be easier all round to pitch two small tents for a weekend, instead of the family one, yet the costs increase (which really does my head in, because we are the same number of people, regardless, and not using any additonal facilities - not even more tent ground space!)

Okay, that's my little soapbox moment for today...

OK, I know this is not the general view (and I'm not even sure its mine!) but for the sake of discussion I'll put it ...

Campsites charge extra for extra people because they have an increased impact on and impose costs on the site eg more hot water for showers, washing up etc, toilets need cleaning more often, bins need emptying ditto etc etc. I think that bit is fairly non-controversial!

Could you argue a case for imposing charges for second cars as a deterrent to people bringing them to the site , as they impact negatively on the feeling of the site for other campers? In other words, more cars = more traffic moving around the site, less safe for children and dozy campers like me, greater pressure on space around the pitches when parked up, a more cluttered and less relaxed ambience. So I would agree with charges for second cars.

Similarly, if all pitches on a site suddenly held a tent plus a large daytent, then the site is going to feel a lot more crowded irrespective of the number of campers present. Does that loss of amenity for others justify a charge for space-greedy day tents? Maybe.

Last summer we were on camp site with perfectly adequately sized pitches, when part way through our stay the pitch next to us was taken over by two families with two fullsize tunnel tents and two cars. Although they stayed within their pitchlines, bar a few guyropes, they were right up to the marks on both sides and our pitch instantly felt a lot smaller and encroached upon psychologically. So I think there could be an arguement for people who want to make more intensive use of their pitch (with second tents, daytents etc)  paying more as they might detract from the experience of campers around them and lead to a loss of future business. Or campsite owners having to change their site  to fewer, bigger pitches and a potential drop in profit. And campsite owners are in it for the business and the profit, not for the benefit of their health!

A lot of people here would argue for deterrent charges for gazebos - as they would not want to be  on a pitch next to a gazebo in case it took off at any point.

But I reckon that small pup tents  - below a specified size - have minimal impact on their surroundings beyond that already covered by people charges, so let those pup tents go free! MT

PS You will not be surprised to learn that we do not have a second car, day tent or gazebo but do occasionally have a pup tent!

I am not making the case for second cars, second huge tents or fragile gazebos on pitches, more that the charges are already levied on the number of people on the pitch, so why charge again?.

On one occasion, we we went camping with our 3 young children (hence = 3 additional premiums, no problem there). We took our tiny Cabanon Pacific frame tent for us and our daughter (hence was no living accommodation left in it, as we used two inners), so took a pop up tent for our two young sons (hence another additional premium) and our Cabanon Gazebo (steady as a rock - we too are highly dubious about cheapo gazebos on campsites) (hence yet another premium). We ended up paying more for our pitch (which looked neat and not at all over-pitched) than the people next door, who had a monster tent and five kids. Where is the sense in that? (note, nothing against monster tents or five kids, on the contrary......) It was our choice to camp relatively lightly, but I did feel we were paying over the odds because of it.

Quote: Originally posted by Liddenham on 03/5/2006

---

I am not making the case for second cars, second huge tents or fragile gazebos on pitches, more that the charges are already levied on the number of people on the pitch, so why charge again?.......

---

Well, one, because campsite owners run their businesses to make  a profit so may charge where they can and what the market will bear.

And my other guess, as I tried to say above, is that additional people impose one set of impacts and costs on a campsite but that also additional things (cars, large dayrooms etc) impose another and different set of impacts and costs irrespective of the number of people using them.

But I personally wouldn't include small, low level pup tents in that. Utility tents also have much less impact on their surroundings than the more imposing gazebos and dayrooms. And I can see why you'd feel a sense of injustice when the charges are higher for pitching two small tents than one big one - so would I! And yes this has influenced us too in the past in the decision as to whether to take one family or two smaller tents.

I mentioned above the site when we were on last summer with the two tents + two cars on one pitch for a few days (I am sure this can only have been because the site was full and there was no second pitch available). At another point in the fortnight we had a family in a vast mega-dome type tent plus dayroom next to us  - the difference in the way our pitch felt when the neighbouring pitches were being used this intensively, to the rest of the time when it was just one big family tent for a neighbour either side, was quite marked. We are going back to this campsite again this year because it suited us very well in lots of ways, but I did first ring and ask the owners about the pitch crowding thing. Guess what, they've now got bigger but fewer pitches! No prizes for working out what they'll have to do to keep their profits the same. MT

If things carry on as they are, then site fees could start to get very expensive.

Lets take an example site, that has 50 pitches, each with say an average of four people.  The owner can expect 50 pitch fees plus 200 people fees per night when full.  If due to the pressure of big tents, day tents and gazeebos etc the owner feels pressured to reduce the number of pitches to say 30; he can only expect 30 pitch fees but worse only 120 people fees.  Although the amount of hot water, etc he uses might reduce, most of his overheads, council tax, bank loans, maintenance etc will remain the same, as will his expected profit.

The owner will either have to almost double his pitch AND people fees, or ban large tents, day tents, gazeebos etc or go out of business.  As has been said they ain't in it for their health, or for charity.  In the end we could all end up paying extra, regardless of the size of our tent or the size of our group.

Steve

Quote: Originally posted by merlins dad on 03/5/2006

---

Good stuff!!

---

I too get quite annoyed at the breakdown of charges, we take no further tents etc with us, but I have seen recently a campsite that was charging for trailers & the strangest of things a SINGLE SUPPLEMENT !!!!!!!, they would be better in a B & B !!!! 

 My other bug bear is are children not considered children to at least 16, why do they not recognise this ????  so many campsites & other organisations do not recognise this, & then of course there was a site last year, charging for my sisters baby !!!!!!!!!

I do agree though, with some of the extras people take, it can make you feel closed in, oh & the people that SHORTCUT will end up having to get closer to your tent.

Takisawas wifey.

Quote: Originally posted by Liddenham on 03/5/2006

---

We ended up paying more for our pitch (which looked neat and not at all over-pitched) than the people next door, who had a monster tent and five kids. Where is the sense in that?

---

I hate the way campsites charge now. When I was a kid you paid per tent non of this per person & per tent & per whatever c*&p. We went camping with mum & dad cos it was a great holiday but it was also dirt cheap.

My mum gave us some cash when she took early retirment only £500. My brother blew his on a holiday to france. I shared my camping experience with my wife & we decided to invest in our own tent. A BIG ONE! We have a big frame tent. What a shock I got at the first site we rolled up at. £11 a night 2 adults & 2 kids plus tent, wouldn't mind but there was naff all on the site & no EHU, it was the one we spent most hols at with mum & dad.

I don't like Gazebos, don't see the need for them. If you need more space you should have got a bigger tent ( was gonna say propper tent, but would need my tin hat for that one eh?). If you need a pup tent, then same thing you should have got a bigger tent.

Last year in Cornwall a neighbour pitched a Big caravan and a gazebo. Oh and they had 2 cars. On the windyest (sp) night of the stay they buggered off in one car and left the gazebo & one car on the pitch with the caravan. In the middle of the night it took off. Smashed the window of his van and dented and scratched his nice car,(what a shame). It made so much noise that myself and another tenter took the thing down and stuffed it all under his car. 7 gazebos on the field that we were on blew away or blew over or just broke that night. It looked like a hurricaine had come through the next morning and it was all gazebos not one tent or caravan had been damaged.

Oh & most of the gazebo owners were caravaners & most had awnings as well.

Needed a maths A level to work out the cost of this years hols in France!

My view is that if a campsite is charging for a pitch, then thats exactly what you are paying for 'the pitch'.  What you put on that pitch is up to you ( obviously excluding anything dangerous etc ).  With the exception of a few, I have found most campers pretty sensible when it comes to laying out their pitch.

When they start charging extra for daytents then I cannot see how they justify paying for 'the pitch' because basically you are renting the same area of ground twice.  Any campsite can specify the size of their pitches, and the pitches they give themselves will exclude people with tents that are too big or have extras.

Having different sized pitches at different costs would be fairer so that people not using as much space get a better deal. But this would not be very productive for the campsite as they could use up a size of pitch and have plenty of the other size spare which nobody wants.

I think that Merry Terrier has made some good points here, which has made me stop and think a bit (don't worry - won't last long!)

'Could you argue a case for imposing charges for second cars as a deterrent to people bringing them to the site , as they impact negatively on the feeling of the site for other campers? In other words, more cars = more traffic moving around the site, less safe for children and dozy campers like me, greater pressure on space around the pitches when parked up, a more cluttered and less relaxed ambience. So I would agree with charges for second cars'

I stayed on a site which insisted that any second vehicles paid a charge, but stayed on the entrance car park - a brill idea, I thought. Okay then, I concede on that one! Only one car per pitch. Show of hands?

'Similarly, if all pitches on a site suddenly held a tent plus a large daytent, then the site is going to feel a lot more crowded irrespective of the number of campers present. Does that loss of amenity for others justify a charge for space-greedy day tents? Maybe.'

The additonal cost to campers surely won't make any difference to the loss of amenity for others, it will just put extra dosh in the campsite owner's pocket, so on that one, I reckon I have to agree with the langleys:

'My view is that if a campsite is charging for a pitch, then thats exactly what you are paying for 'the pitch'.  What you put on that pitch is up to you ( obviously excluding anything dangerous etc ).  With the exception of a few, I have found most campers pretty sensible when it comes to laying out their pitch'

There is a world of difference between pitching sensibly (whatever the combination) and overcrowding the pitch. I still think that, if you pay per head, what you put on the pitch (without overcrowding) is up to  you. But I WOULD ban flimsy gazebos. And would insist that all wire-type clothes airers are pegged down securely (but that is another issue entirely and I am getting off the subject again.

As langleys say, in an ideal camping world, there should be a nice choice of differing sized pitches, all appropriately priced, where charges are per head and not per item on the pitch? If only....

PS

I don't know how to do the quote thing properly, so if anyone would please enlighten me I should be very grateful (and so too probably would anyone who is trying to make sense of my last posting!)

I agree with Liddenham, that it's all about the "feel" of a site.  A site where every available square inch is covered with canvas is going to feel a lot less relaxed and pleasant to stay on than one where there is plenty of space between the tents, regardless of the number of people on site.

I don't think that there is an easy answer to this problem, either the size of the standard pitch needs to be enlarged, or perhaps we should be charged for the amount of canvas we errect;  i.e. small, medium or large tent plus pup tents plus day tents plus gazeebos (could you imagine the arguments that that would cause!!!).

Or perhaps it's up to us to be considerate towards each other and make sure that our own personal "real estate" ambitions don't get out of hand and start spoiling the enjoyment of others on the site.

Steve

Quote: Originally posted by langleys on 03/5/2006

---

My view is that if a campsite is charging for a pitch, then thats exactly what you are paying for 'the pitch'. .....

---

Steve, this is a genuine question to which I don't know the answer,

But are we being charged for the pitch or for the use we make of it? If the former, then you are right and it should be a flat charge per pitch per night. If the latter, then it is quite rational to impose charges for use by things as well as use by people. MT