Broadway
Comments
-
If the club owned the freehold of all the sites it would be the sensible thing to do.
Many are leased and landowners are looking to do the same thing as the club. If development is an option then the club will be off
We are not party to the discussions the club is having to find alternatives. Those alternatives are unlikely to be as well located as the sites they are looking to develop.
If the stock of semi urban sites deteriorates to be replaced with former brownfield sites in rural areas then it will not justify my membership fee.
Luckily other sites and providers are available
0 -
If the club owned the freehold of all the sites it would be the sensible thing to do.
Many are leased and landowners are looking to do the same thing as the club. If development is an option then the club will be off
We are not party to the discussions the club is having to find alternatives. Those alternatives are unlikely to be as well located as the sites they are looking to develop.
If the stock of semi urban sites deteriorates to be replaced with former brownfield sites in rural areas then it will not justify my membership fee.
Luckily other sites and providers are available
That is going to happen anyway, look at Baltic Wharf. Why expect the club to stand still. Perhaps it can make enough from the sale of premium land to replace some of the sites lost. Don't forget the CC membership is diverse and as many probably prefer sites
away from towns and villages as like them adjacent. I agree with you, I would prefer to keep them, but the CC has to operate alongside its competitors, and that means it can't aford not to consider these options.0 -
If landholdings of the CC can be considered for potential residential development or similar then the asset value increases. This improves the accounts and overall asset value of the club and hopefully gives them more bargaining power for future spending. Increasing the asset value doesn't necessarily mean the asset will be sold.
0 -
All the foregoing takes on a differnt form if we consider it in the light of a fifteen to twenty year plan, rather than just the level of booking in the remainder of the year. As a major business I would expect the "club" to have such a plan, and also to keep quiet about it.
It would include the viability of sites surrounded by housing, especially likely complaints by residents ( those not deriving any income from caravaners but upset by lack of amenity, etc.) Also include what legislation and political (small "p") action will have made the motor vehicle into - probably small, light, electric powered and with negligable use as a tow vehicle.
In fifteen years even newly built facilities will have fallen foul of future new legislation, and wear and tear taken a toll, requiring redevelopment and refurbishment.
So as part of such a long term plan the future of ALL sites are "suspect", and taking action now to maximise their cash value is just sensible good management. I just hope that is what they are doing . . . !
0 -
If the club owned the freehold of all the sites it would be the sensible thing to do.
Many are leased and landowners are looking to do the same thing as the club. If development is an option then the club will be off
We are not party to the discussions the club is having to find alternatives. Those alternatives are unlikely to be as well located as the sites they are looking to develop.
If the stock of semi urban sites deteriorates to be replaced with former brownfield sites in rural areas then it will not justify my membership fee.
Luckily other sites and providers are available
That is going to happen anyway, look at Baltic Wharf. Why expect the club to stand still. Perhaps it can make enough from the sale of premium land to replace some of the sites lost. Don't forget the CC membership is diverse and as many probably prefer sites away from towns and villages as like them adjacent. I agree with you, I would prefer to keep them, but the CC has to operate alongside its competitors, and that means it can't aford not to consider these options.
I don't expect the club to stand still. I do expect them to deliver new sites.
i have seen this approach to land asset management carried out many times by organisations bigger than the club and it is not the be all and end all of progress.
The variety of types of site is what makes the Club's portfolio valuable to me as a member. I agree that other members will prefer different things. However as BB has said these sites are gold dust and of value in attracting and retaining membership purely by virtue of the location.
I agree with you BB. The credibility of the club will be affected
0 -
They are doing the right thing in getting the value of the land adjusted.
Brue, is that just an opinion or do you base it on deeper knowledge?
0 -
I too have stayed here and am shocked that the club would consider selling it..........
The only possible justification would be that the proceeds would pay for two new sites, so adding a further site to the network. It is hard to imagine any replacement sites being so well placed though....
Clarification from the club is required urgently.......!!
And how many years would they take to be up and running, what with planning permission and then the building of all the required facilities and access roads.
0 -
The loss of the odd site is inevitable. What I do not want to see is the club just giving up sites unless there is a very good reason. At Broadway it might have been possible to sell the one site and use the money to create or buy two but otherwise hang
on to what we have got.0 -
The situation with Baltic wharf and Much Wenlock are different as they are leased and the lad owner wants the land back. Unfortunate but not the same a potentially selling a freehold site. Presumably if these sites were to be included within their respective
development plans, then the value of the land would increase many fold so this could appear on the balance sheet as an asset of greater value. This would be irrespective of whether or not the intention is to actually sell the land.0 -
They are doing the right thing in getting the value of the land adjusted.
From Rowena's reply that was the same conclusion I reached. As a site for leisure use would be worth less than if it could be used for housing. If they can designate any of the Club sites as potential building
land it becomes more valueable. There must be an advantage to the Club (and us the members) in maximising the value of their asset portfolio. It could actually work to the Clubs advantage because if at any stage a Club site were to be compulsorily purchased
the fact that it was valued as building land might be a disinsentive.David
0 -
Go on then, I'll have my say. The Club (which we all know is not a 'club' but a 'for profit' organisation) is seeking to maximise it's assets. It has therefore made representations to the local planning department saying that 'this piece of land is not really
being utilised to it's full potential and would be suitable for housing development'. If planning dept accept that, the price of the land will increase substantially. However at some point in the future the council are likely to approach the CC and say 'OK
we'll develop that land and give you an alternative piece of land and enough money to develop a lovely new campsite'. Unfortunately the new campsite will be in a location eg 4 miles from Broadway! The CC will then obviously struggle to keep the land because
they have already said they don't really need it. So the CC will have a fantastic bottom line on the balance sheet, but unfortunately a jewel in the crown will have been lost and the members will suffer! Just my rambling thoughts!!0 -
If landholdings of the CC can be considered for potential residential development or similar then the asset value increases. This improves the accounts and overall asset value of the club and hopefully gives them more bargaining power for future spending.
Increasing the asset value doesn't necessarily mean the asset will be sold.I hope your right Brue. The bean counters have ruined many a Company. I would have thought the way the representation is worded will give the Club little room to manoeuvre if a builder comes along and wants to buy it.
peedee
0 -
Whatever the motive I am left very saddened the Club seemed to me to have briefed its agent to mislead the planning authority or inspectorate, to try and achieve its aims.
How they could have done this without knowingly doing so based on the info they must hold on the popularity and quite obvious knowledge of a site's attraction based on its specific location, raises other areas of deep concern.
It raises some real concerns how they act in our name.
0 -
Looking at things overall, not just this planning issue but the management of the website, the underlying impression appears to be one of general mistrust of the management by the membership. That can't be good.
0 -
Looking at things overall, not just this planning issue but the management of the website, the underlying impression appears to be one of general mistrust of the management by the membership. That can't be good.
So we all know what to do when the election papers come round for the Executive Committee don't we?
0 -
CY That would depend on if you consider us representative. As being discussed on.other thread
0 -
Looking at things overall, not just this planning issue but the management of the website, the underlying impression appears to be one of general mistrust of the management by the membership. That can't be good.
I think what this forum has done is to expose a lack of proper communication from the Club, and this is not the first time, which I suppose can ferment some mistrust. Perhaps what the Club has been slow to recognise is that with modern communications, particularly the internet virtually all members have instant access to information and its very easy for the Club to be behind the curve. I expect the Club staff in the Estates department were merrily going about their work and not giving a thought to the impact of what might be a sensible and logical move oblivious to how the news might impact on the general membership. It might be that the Excutive take the view that they are there to run the Club in the best interests of its members and as such should be left to get on with it. Even if that is the case there is still the need to be accountable and perhaps they need to reconsider how that is achieved?
David
0 -
As the "commitee",who are voted for by the members to ,I would hope ,to look after the interests of the said membership,really up to speed with what happens at Grimstead on a day to day basis with the staff who are employed to run the "business "side of
the club,or is it a case as seems to happen so often these days when the something like this comes up have "not any knowledge!"0 -
Looking at things overall, not just this planning issue but the management of the website, the underlying impression appears to be one of general mistrust of the management by the membership. That can't be good.
So we all know what to do when the election papers come round for the Executive Committee don't we?
Am I right in thinking that at least one member of The Club Council is also a user of this forum? If so, our views should have been noted.
0 -
Whatever the motive I am left very saddened the Club seemed to me to have briefed its agent to mislead the planning authority or inspectorate, to try and achieve its aims.
How they could have done this without knowingly doing so based on the info they must hold on the popularity and quite obvious knowledge of a site's attraction based on its specific location, raises other areas of deep concern.
It raises some real concerns how they act in our name.
Absolutely agree with you. If I may just correct you on one point you use the phrase "
mislead the planning authoriity" . It should be authorities plural as there are several documented examples of this, referred to on this thread.This action in my opinion diminishes the Caravan Club's reputation for integrity. A property that is hard won but very easily lost
0 -
Lots of people/businesses seek land values by seeing if house building is a possibility. I expect the CC has quite a few sites that once sat in the countryside with very little value which have now increased due to urban encroachment and changes to planning
laws. I would expect the CC to actively look at the potential value of what it owns.0 -
Lots of people/businesses seek land values by seeing if house building is a possibility. I expect the CC has quite a few sites that once sat in the countryside with very little value which have now increased due to urban encroachment and changes to planning
laws. I would expect the CC to actively look at the potential value of what it owns.That's fair enough. But it would appear in several cases the Caravan Club has declared several sites to be surplus. Note the present tense. If the land that these sites occupy is designated as development land then I believe then the value of that land
will increase substantially.As an analogy. If I got all the brass curtain rings in my house reclassified as being made out of gold. I would appear to much richer than I actually am. But would I be acting honestly?
0 -
This is "planning" language, I wouldn't be too concerned.
The planning system is quite used to people using what they consider to be planning language which is why the veracity of submissions is researched.
Checking becomes easier with an online presence such as the Clubs.
If the wording is misleading in error then there's not much that can be said. However it is extremely foolish to portray a situation that is not accurate in these representations. It is a process that is open to public scrutiny
0
