Broadway
Comments
-
This is "planning" language, I wouldn't be too concerned.
I'm sorry Brue I am a Simpleton and not fluent in "planning" would you please translate
This site is now not meeting the need of members, therefore it is surplus to the requirements of the Caravan Club
From "planning" into English for me.
0 -
This is "planning" language, I wouldn't be too concerned.
I'm sorry Brue I am a Simpleton and not fluent in "planning" would you please translate
This site is now not meeting the need of members, therefore it is surplus to the requirements of the Caravan Club
From "planning" into English for me.
Boff, apparently it means-'reviewing asset values'. . . .No?, me neither
0 -
Rather like Bristol City tested the water over Baltic Wharf (for a school.....maybe, but maybe not ...) You have to have "outline" planning or pre-planning discussions.. Whether you act further in the future depends on what might be allowed or not, but you have increased the value of the land if it has other possibilities. Testing the water, whatever you call it exists for a lot of planning.
0 -
I'm pretty fluent in 'planning'
I can tell when 'planning' is being spoken as a second language, by a non-specialist lawyer for example. I can also tell the difference between the slight variants of 'architect planning', 'surveyor planning' and 'engineer planning'.
0 -
Ok Rocky I'm out, I think Ro explained the re-appraisal bit quite well.
Brue, your choice
. PS-you didn't need to tell me, but thanks anyway, enjoy the rest of your day
0 -
Rather like Bristol City tested the water over Baltic Wharf (for a school.....maybe, but maybe not ...) You have to have "outline" planning or pre-planning discussions.. Whether you act further in the future depends on what might be allowed or not, but you
have increased the value of the land if it has other possibilities. Testing the water, whatever you call it exists for a lot of planning.Write your comments here...Brue It exists for lots of other buisness as well.Nobody starts a buisness without market information,that information is gathered from a survey. To my way of thinking you do the survey to test the water.You would not need Outline
Planning if the site or the sale of the land was not viable for a building development of some description.0 -
Just to be clear - the Club has not applied for outline planning permission. They have sought the allocation of the sites for residential development.
This means that there is an expectation that they will be developed during the plan period. Proposals for allocation are checked against various criteria and are expected to be deliverable but it is absolutely not the same thing as outline planning permission.
While there may be accounting issues involved I can't see how it's anything other than a planning issue.
I agree with Boff's last comment
0 -
Not entirely correct, JS.
Our local authority are currently putting together their Local Plan. They invited local land owners to offer sites for inclusion in the Plan.
The Planners did no research into the suitability of the sites.....they simply plotted them on a plan and included them. They then 'consulted' with the local population (without actually making any real effort to tell the local population that they were being consulted).
Government policy says that any site included in a Local Plan will be deemed to have outline planning permission. Only the fine detail of the development would remain to be agreed.
The Club are trying to sell this site from under the feet of members and Ro's answer did nothing to alter this view......admitting that they were trying to increase the site value in order to sell it. Disgraceful......
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...just bumping this forward from Rowena...
0 -
Thank you brue. I am fully aware of the planning process though so the only interesting bit for me is where Ro says that it was not to be construed that the site is surplus to requirements.
I have read the entire submission, the council's amended proposals and the Inspector's report. I can understand that
members were not intended to draw those conclusions but that was absolutely what was put before the planning authority and the representation is clear in that respect.I have no fundamental issue with the Club reviewing its assets. I do however take issue with inaccurate information being provided. It's not fair to the planners, club members and most importantly the local community who have to live with the policies and
ensuing development.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...just bumping this forward from Rowena...
The only way that the Club could "take advantage of the site's significant development value" would be by selling it. Increasing its value on paper ('revewing its assets', as some seem to see it) would not buy another site.
There isn't another site "close by" and certainly not one with the potential to develop as a caravan site.
Even if there was, based on the Club's past record of carrying out even minor works (the upper toilet block at Broadway took them about 2 years to carry out a modest update) a new site would take them many years to develop.
0 -
I have been to this site a few times ,and every time it was full ,so I don't understand how it can be " under used"
P.S, welcome back IanH
We have frequently been to this site and every time we were lucky to get a pitch.
Perhaps the club could enlighten those of us who don't understand, what is required to, "meet the needs" of the club
welcome back from me also IanH
0 -
Good, so the Club hasn't been aquired by American venture Capitalists or Donald Trump wanting to make a few bob on the back of Club Members then. But a very Crass and stupid letter to be allowed into the public domain, do all those involved have a complete
set of marbles ? Or do they see themselves as property developers ? It's OUR money and sites, NOT theirs to play fast and loose with.0 -
Good, so the Club hasn't been aquired by American venture Capitalists or Donald Trump wanting to make a few bob on the back of Club Members then. But a very Crass and stupid letter to be allowed into the public domain, do all those involved have a complete
set of marbles ? Or do they see themselves as property developers ? It's OUR money and sites, NOT theirs to play fast and loose with.Marbles?, problem there Ray. . . .They've flogged em
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
Write your comments here...Then I suggest David that someone (I'll do it if you like) goes into the estates office and finds whoever wrote the words...Broadway Site is no longer fulfilling it's remit as a Site. And gives the man or woman almighty kick up the posterior.Letting a letter such as the one which started this thread get into the public domain, is gross misconduct and as such, should result in that someone getting disiplined if not fired.
That's how strongly most Members feel about this subject. Especially coming on the heels of the loss of Much Wenlock and uncertainty over Baltic Wharf.
0 -
Good, so the Club hasn't been aquired by American venture Capitalists or Donald Trump wanting to make a few bob on the back of Club Members then. But a very Crass and stupid letter to be allowed into the public domain, do all those involved have a complete set of marbles ? Or do they see themselves as property developers ? It's OUR money and sites, NOT theirs to play fast and loose with.
Marbles?, problem there Ray. . . .They've flogged em
its all Greek to me
Write your comments here...I would no longer trust them to mind my bike, let alone a range of lovely freehold brownfield development sites.... why do Members want to stay on silly campsites anyway.? Far nicer with rows of lovely expensive houses. Who are these people !!!!
0 -
Not entirely correct, JS.
Our local authority are currently putting together their Local Plan. They invited local land owners to offer sites for inclusion in the Plan.
The Planners did no research into the suitability of the sites.....they simply plotted them on a plan and included them. They then 'consulted' with the local population (without actually making any real effort to tell the local population that they were
being consulted).Government policy says that any site included in a Local Plan will be deemed to have outline planning permission. Only the fine detail of the development would remain to be agreed.
The Club are trying to sell this site from under the feet of members and Ro's answer did nothing to alter this view......admitting that they were trying to increase the site value in order to sell it. Disgraceful......
All sites that are put forward have to go to consultation Ian. They don't all make the final cut.
The Housing and Planning Bill is still being considered but no doubt it will introduce deemed outline permission.
Otherwise I agree with you
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...just bumping this forward from Rowena...
The only way that the Club could "take advantage of the site's significant development value" would be by selling it. Increasing its value on paper ('revewing its assets', as some seem to see it) would not buy another site.
There isn't another site "close by" and certainly not one with the potential to develop as a caravan site.
Even if there was, based on the Club's past record of carrying out even minor works (the upper toilet block at Broadway took them about 2 years to carry out a modest update) a new site would take them many years to develop.
...Welcome back Ian Just to clarify my understanding of why The goods shed facilities took so long to re open was that it was leased from the GWR until they had their major land slips and was then sold to the club to raise funds,when the refubishment was almost complete ,it was found that the roof was in poor state and needed major work,it was then held up because (I was advised)by an inter departmental "feud"as the department responsible for the purchase failed to have the building surveyed,and the dep responsible for the refurbishment would not pay for the work to be done to make it waterproof
( different budgets)
0 -
It did cross my mind that it was the Consultants that misjudged the wording rather than the Club. Or perhaps they advised the Club (or maybe ill-advised) that using such wording would ensure that the land in question was including in the local plan as potential building land. Hardly makes sense to say that the land you want allocated is fully used by members as its hardly selling point to include it in the plan. Had the Club said this is one of our most popular sites with high occupancy rates the Council could have turned round and said this is such a popular tourist attraction that we want to keep it as it is.
David
0
