Broadway
Comments
-
JayEss
If that is the case does it make sense? Whilst the land would be worth a pretty penny I can't see there being enough money to build a new site and having any left over to make it worth while?
David
I don't have land value comparables to hand in that area but I agree that it would be worth quite a bit as an allocated site. It also doesn't mean that it would be developed in the short to medium term of the plan but at some point it would be likely to
be developed.I have doubts that the money raised would be sufficient to acquire and develop a new site in that area. If the new site or sites were leaseheld then it may be viable but the risks of losing leaseheld sites are well documented, the latest being Much Wenlock
0 -
The fact that the club claims the site is not meeting the needs of its members is not necessarily false, as need can be looked at in a variety of ways. A site that is often oversubscribed could also be labelled as not meeting the members needs, where as
a larger site would allow more to take advantage of the area. Clearly it would all depend on where that site was located and wether that conflicted with other member needs, such as proximity to amenities. None of this can be answered unless the club is prepared
to make a statement.Some good points there, Steve. I don't believe Broadway meets the needs of people with mobility problems so that's not in its favour.
Tinny,..Where do you think it does not meet mobilty needs as since it was enlarged with the new facilities block i would think it meets all the mobility Regs,and space is normally available other than as lot of sites at w/ends
Think about accessing the Wardens' office or dog walk from the lower level if your mobility is impaired, JVB. The facility block on the lower level is quite a way from some pitches on that part of the site - it's far from central.
0 -
The fact that the club claims the site is not meeting the needs of its members is not necessarily false, as need can be looked at in a variety of ways. A site that is often oversubscribed could also be labelled as not meeting the members needs, where as a larger site would allow more to take advantage of the area. Clearly it would all depend on where that site was located and wether that conflicted with other member needs, such as proximity to amenities. None of this can be answered unless the club is prepared to make a statement.
Some good points there, Steve. I don't believe Broadway meets the needs of people with mobility problems so that's not in its favour.
Tinny,..Where do you think it does not meet mobilty needs as since it was enlarged with the new facilities block i would think it meets all the mobility Regs,and space is normally available other than as lot of sites at w/ends
Think about accessing the Wardens' office or dog walk from the lower level if your mobility is impaired, JVB. The facility block on the lower level is quite a way from some pitches on that part of the site - it's far from central.
...There is access to both via the road,if not able to use the steps,the lower block is about the middle of the site,with level access and the disabled pitches opposite,the only part of the site that has a problem is the "old goods listed? shed" with only steps for access
0 -
The fact that the club claims the site is not meeting the needs of its members is not necessarily false, as need can be looked at in a variety of ways. A site that is often oversubscribed could also be labelled as not meeting the members needs, where as
a larger site would allow more to take advantage of the area. Clearly it would all depend on where that site was located and wether that conflicted with other member needs, such as proximity to amenities. None of this can be answered unless the club is prepared
to make a statement.Some good points there, Steve. I don't believe Broadway meets the needs of people with mobility problems so that's not in its favour.
Tinny,..Where do you think it does not meet mobilty needs as since it was enlarged with the new facilities block i would think it meets all the mobility Regs,and space is normally available other than as lot of sites at w/ends
Think about accessing the Wardens' office or dog walk from the lower level if your mobility is impaired, JVB. The facility block on the lower level is quite a way from some pitches on that part of the site - it's far from central.
...There is access to both via the road,if not able to use the steps,the lower block is about the middle of the site,with level access and the disabled pitches opposite,the only part of the site that has a problem is the "old goods listed? shed" with only
steps for accessI agree there is access via the roadway, JVB, but it is a very steep roadway and not easy for those less able. Although the lower facility block looks fairly central on the site plan, it is a long way from the SW corner of the site and is situated on the
NW edge of the lower site. While it might be perfectly fine for the able bodied, it's not ideal for meeting the needs of those with mobility problems.0 -
Representations have been submitted on The Club’s behalf relating to the South Worcestershire Development Plan which has been under review as part of the Government’s reappraisal of planning policies under the Local Development Framework process.
This reappraisal process provides the opportunity to have areas of land identified as being suitable for alternative development or uses at some time in future. This mechanism enables land owners to preserve or enhance the value of their property assets. Representations submitted on The Club’s behalf were to merely identify that in planning terms, residential development on this site might be considered appropriate at some time in the future.
It was not to be construed as suggesting that the site might be surplus to requirements or that The Club do not intend its use to continue. Indeed, recent improvements to the property are consistent with Broadway firmly remaining an important part of The Club’s sites network.
Had it proved possible to have the land’s appropriateness for housing acknowledged, The Club would then be equipped to take advantage of the site’s significant development value for reinvesting in an even better site close by which would have been to members’ substantial benefit.
However, as matters currently stand, this is not the case. The paragraph posted on Club Together is an extract from a 4-sided submission letter but was nevertheless regrettably incorrectly and misleadingly worded. The Council are being informed to this effect.
We sincerely apologise for any undue concern this error may have caused and we hope that members continue to enjoy their holidays at this site.
0 -
Thank you Rowena
.......
0 -
It's a bit late now though to say that it was regrettably and misleadingly worded as the Inspectors Report is in and the Plan is going for Adoption. It's generally not a good thing to misrepresent the situation to LPAs.
Am I right in saying that the proposal did not go forward as an allocation?
How many more sites have had similar representations made to their relevant local planning authorities?
0 -
-
On the OP there was a section from the CC QUOTE :- " The site is currently used for touring caravans. This site isnow not meeting the need of members, therefore it is surplus to the requirements of the Caravan Club, who are seeking to redevelop the site. The Caravan Club are committed to providing a replacement site within the local area which is more suitable for their members, this will ensure that there is no overall loss in tourism accommodation or to the local economy."
On the post from the Forum Manager She said :- Quote "It was not to be construed as suggesting that the site might be surplus to requirements or that The Club do not intend its use to continue. Indeed, recent improvements to the property are consistent with Broadway firmly remaining an important part of The Club’s sites network"..
Call me a cynic if you like , but I don't see how the situation has been properly explained or indeed believable. Somebody somewhere have got their facts wrong !!!!.
K
0 -
The Cadeside one is interesting as the wording is pretty much the same
"The site currently provides a total of 16 hard standing pitches and further capacity for the storage of 253
caravans. The site is bound by mature hedgerows and has a substantial amount of hardstanding amounting
from the caravan pitches and internal roads. This site is now surplus to the requirements of the Caravan Club
and is not meeting the needs of members. Given the level of hard standing, it is considered that the site
constitutes ‘previously developed land’ (Brownfield), the development of which is supported by the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Local Plan Core Strategy"I'd hazard a guess that the site is more than meeting the needs of the 253 people who have their van in storage there
0 -
The Cadeside site is adjoining an area of new housing development. What does that suggest?
0 -
"This site is now surplus to the requirements of the Caravan Club and is not meeting the needs of members"
"extract from a 4-sided submission letter but was nevertheless regrettably incorrectly"
To make the same error twice, as the wording is repeated within the post from JayEss, reference Cadeside, will certainly in this case limit the level of trust between Club and members.
0 -
Broadway, Minehead, Cadeside (and the cynic in me suggests many others that have not yet been unearthed) are all described as "This site is now surplus to the requirements of the Caravan Club and is not meeting the needs of members."
Does the CC have a death wish and are trying to sell off the entire Network? Lets have a straight answer Ro.
0 -
In all cases the applications appear to be written by a Mr Duncan Parr of Savills. i assume that Savills have be instructed and paid by the Caravan Club to represent them in this matter. In each case Mr Parr states that the sites are surplus to requirements
and no longer meet the needs of its members ( I might of paraphrased slightly but that is the clear meaning of the submission.I am not clear what the Caravan Clubs position is. Is it that these statements were never true? Or are no longer true? Or is their another explanation. In each case representation is made to have the sites considered as Brownfield sites presumably would
make them more desirable for redevelopment. In each case the sites are conveniently close to local amenities which makes them highly desirable to people want to stay on them. But even more desirable to property developersFinally how many other sites have been deemed "surplus to requirements" and subject to similar applications?
0 -
Savills has a highly respected and very skilled planning consultancy and the author of the letter is a very senior member of staff. It would be almost unheard of for a highly skilled professional to make an error like this not once but three times.
A planning consultant can only work with the information provided to them
0 -
The Cadeside site is adjoining an area of new housing development. What does that suggest?
Bikes will be purloined?
0 -
PS-I don't want a red sticker thanks
0 -
I still have not seen an explanation of how the site is not meeting the members needs and therefore surplus or am I missing something?
The letter was apparently incorrectly and misleadingly worded.
This is a 'planned surplus' which would have occurred on allocation and not before. No evidence of the way that the sites aren't meeting needs has been provided to the LPA because it would be hard to demonstrate with a full diary of bookings and rave reviews.
0 -
Why the fuss?
The Club will have strategies in place covering a number of key areas of it's business - including its Sites.
I'd be more surprised if they didn't.
Do members really expect that the Club will stand still?
That somehow in today's volatile world, the Club can stand alone as the only organisation refusing to embrace change?
Personally, I'm reassured that the folks who run the Club are clearly giving thought to these issues. It might mean selling off the odd site and using the proceeds to build bigger and better ones.
Why not?
Personally, I'm content that the folks who run the Club will have more information and a greater knowledge of the business than I have. I trust them to get on with it.
Cheers
Bugs
0 -
I still have not seen an explanation of how the site is not meeting the members needs and therefore surplus or am I missing something?
Write your comments here...I do notice that he C&CC are investing in Static vans/ mobile homes on some of their campsites, mostly on the outskirts of towns. Apparently there is guaranteed income from this venture . Also the income is not weather dependant.
Perhaps the CC has seen an opportunity and intends to do likewise. Will we ever know ??.
K
0 -
Representations have been submitted on The Club’s behalf relating to the South Worcestershire Development Plan which has been under review as part of the Government’s reappraisal of planning policies under the Local Development Framework process.
This reappraisal process provides the opportunity to have areas of land identified as being suitable for alternative development or uses at some time in future. This mechanism enables land owners to preserve or enhance the value of their property assets.
Representations submitted on The Club’s behalf were to merely identify that in planning terms, residential development on this site might be considered appropriate at some time in the future.It was not to be construed as suggesting that the site might be surplus to requirements or that The Club do not intend its use to continue. Indeed, recent improvements to the property are consistent with Broadway firmly remaining an important part
of The Club’s sites network.Had it proved possible to have the land’s appropriateness for housing acknowledged, The Club would then be equipped to take advantage of the site’s significant development value for reinvesting in an even better site close by which would have been
to members’ substantial benefit.However, as matters currently stand, this is not the case. The paragraph posted on Club Together is an extract from a 4-sided submission letter but was nevertheless regrettably incorrectly and misleadingly worded. The Council are being informed to
this effect.We sincerely apologise for any undue concern this error may have caused and we hope that members continue to enjoy their holidays at this site.
Write your comments here...the forth paragraph says it all for me, what does the future hold for this site
0 -
Savills has a highly respected and very skilled planning consultancy and the author of the letter is a very senior member of staff. It would be almost unheard of for a highly skilled professional to make an error like this not once but three times.
A planning consultant can only work with the information provided to them
Write your comments here...Where is the Proof Reader.have they still got a job.
0 -
The way I see it, even if it was possible to replace the sites with bigger and better sites they will never be able to improve on location. They will only ever be further away from facilities. Cadeside wouldn't be much of a loss but Broadway and Minehead
would.peedee
0 -
The way I see it, even if it was possible to replace the sites with bigger and better sites they will never be able to improve on location. They will only ever be further away from facilities. Cadeside wouldn't be much of a loss but Broadway and Minehead
would.peedee
Write your comments here...Hence their values as building land.
0 -
Had it proved possible to have the land’s appropriateness for housing acknowledged, The Club would then be equipped to take advantage of the site’s significant development value for reinvesting in an even better site close by which would have been
to members’ substantial benefit.As bugs said, it is what you would expect any organisation such as the CC to do. The wording of parts of the document may or may not have been accidental and that is a totally separate matter. To me it makes sense for any organisation to maximise its assets.
Having the lands appropriateness for housing recognised, would have greatly increased its value. Wether it then pursued this further would be up to the club, but it would increase its options.
0
