Broadway
Comments
-
Broadway is one of the best sites in the network. If this site is taken from the members (owners of the club) I predict a riot at the AGM. This is our club and we should be consulted on these issues. It's simply not acceptable for people in power to act
in this way.0 -
The site is located on the western boundary of the settlement of Broadway, to the west of Station Road outside but adjacent to the settlement boundary. 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."I am not sure why everyone is getting so up tight about the wording. Any company trying to achieve what the CC has set out to do is going to put the best spin it can on the facts. For not meeting the needs, read not big enough. Whilst it might not
suit us few, that post on CT, a company the size of the CC cannot afford not to persue this sort of opportunity. Where it has failed, and what I would criticise it for, is its miserable lack of communication.0 -
Now that the cat is out of the bag, you’d hope that some kind of comment would be forthcoming from HO. I’d like to be able to trust the Club to be looking after members’ interests effectively and, on that basis, I’m happy to leave the administration to manage
its own affairs. I’m discomforted that so much suspicion is aroused by the revelation in the OP but perhaps I should not be. Confusion, doubt and mistrust are bound to arise if all we are fed is propaganda, placed in the Club magazine, rather than meaningful
explanations.0 -
If I might explain the reason that I came across this document in the first place ...
In Worcester, a speculative developer put in a planning application to put houses on a local green field site, Middle Battenhall Farm, if anyone cares to 'Google' it.
Numerous local residents opposed this plan, which the local planners were 'minded to grant planning permission' for. After much debate, the application has been rejected, but the developer has appealed against this. One reason for appeal is that the local
SWDP has not yet been approved.As many will understand, each local council is required by Whitehall to state where and how a certain number of homes will be built. Middle Batten Farm is currently excluded from the plan, because by inclusion of other sites, which include Broadway, the
requisite number of potential homes has been met.It seems disengenuous to suggest that the Club was merely testing the water by including Broadway in the plan. Indeed, if this is not a genuine offer, then we might once more be fighting the proposal to build on MBF.
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
As JayEss has flagged up this not an isolated incident. Almost identically worded applications have been made in the case of Cadeside and Minehead and for all we know others. These are not random they all relate to sites that would be valuable brownfield
development sites. To miss quote Oscar WildeTo represent one popular club site as not meeting the requirements of members and therefore surplus to requirements could be considered unfortunate, to describe two sites in such away looks like carelessness and to describe three as such ,is to go where
Oscar feared to tread, looks like conspiracy.Personally and I don't fit the job description for the Club council. I dont wear a blazer And rarely wear a tie. But for what it is worth I think that the most likely explanation is that it is a ruse to boost the value of the clubs assets! in order to
look good on the accounts. So hopefully they are not planning to flog it off to developers. However my charitable, optimistic and let's face it amateur take on this saga means that planning authorities have been misled.0 -
Rowena has informed us the the wording of the representation was "regrettably incorrectly and misleadingly worded" and that the Council are being informed to this effect. I think the Club owes it to the members to tell us exactly what was said to correct matters.
I remain unconvinced as to why the Club had to make this representation at this time. While I relise getting it acknoweldged as land suitable for housing increases its value, if the Club does not intend to sell it why bother with a paper accounting exercise. Its true value will only ever be relised on sale.
peedee
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
So what you are saying, David is that the consultant deliberately mis-led the Council by wrongly describing the current use of the land.
This is a consultant engaged by the Club and it defies belief that the Club wouldn't have been aware of the wording (they probably even supplied the wording) before the submission was made.
(thank you to some for their 'welcome back', but this forum is now far too dull and over-moderated to stay......but this is a very important topic as it goes to the heart of the purpose of the Club and I couldn't just ignore it)
0 -
Broadway is one of the best sites in the network. If this site is taken from the members (owners of the club) I predict a riot at the AGM. This is our club and we should be consulted on these issues. It's simply not acceptable for people in power to act
in this way.Write your comments here...agree wholeheartedly.Broadway is an excellent Site and exactly the type of site we enjoy going to, walking distance to a lovely village, and plenty to do in the area.Whoever wrote the description in the For Sale litrature have
obviously never stayed on the site......houses....rubbish,it's perfectly OK where it is thank you.0 -
Rowena has informed us the the wording of the representation was "regrettably incorrectly and misleadingly worded" and that the Council are being informed to this effect. I think the Club owes it to the members to tell us exactly what was said to correct matters.
I remain unconvinced as to why the Club had to make this representation at this time. While I relise getting it acknoweldged as land suitable for housing increases its value, if the Club does not intend to sell it why bother with a paper accounting exercise. Its true value will only ever be relised on sale.
peedee
Write your comments here...It's because yearly accounts have to state asset values (and depreciation.) The asset values are extremely important for negotiating with banks to make new purchases etc. Just like everyone else, public or private who might want to borrow the assets are potential collateral. The planning wording is a separate issue which some may be surprised about or not. Sorry to repeat myself but this is the way business works. I'm glad Richard Pitman has now explained his reasons for putting this info on here as it's obviously a local issue which has concerned him.
edit I appear to have liked the previous post in error!
0 -
This is not just a paper exercise or a local issue. At least three sites are involved and very probably more
Rowena said
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.If this is not a clear expression of the Club's intention to seek the redevelopment of the site then I don't know what would be.
It is clearly part of a major assessment and review of the portfolio. It's what businesses do I agree but it is not just a paper exercise.
0 -
This is not just a paper exercise or a local issue. At least three sites are involved and very probably more
Rowena said
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.If this is not a clear expression of the Club's intention to seek the redevelopment of the site then I don't know what would be.
It is clearly part of a major assessment and review of the portfolio. It's what businesses do I agree but it is not just a paper exercise.
Living in Broadway I have no need to use the site but I travel past it on most days and it is always pretty full during weekdays and it looks completely full at weekends and bank holidays.
But two things puzzle me about this whole matter: 1) why did more or less identical wording appear on three separate (and widely separated) planning documents; and 2) more importantly, where on earth do the Club think they can build "an even better
site close by which would have been to members’ substantial benefit". There simply isn't any land they could use0 -
Brue I agree why it might be desirable for the club to maximise the asset value of the property that it owns.
However the applications to achieve that are underpinned by a statement that is not true Indeed the post made on this thread by the community manager makes no attempt justify the veracity of the statement. I get the feeling that Rowena was probably the
messenger here."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."Given that the actual application made the explicit statement that the site (Broadway) was surplus to requirements. It is hard to construe it in any other way.So for me the only remaining question is was the wording deliberate or accidental? Actually this doesn't really matter because the effect is the sameFinally you say that's how Business works. I work for a very commercial hard nosed multinational and I believe that this would be considered to be an unacceptable way of doing Bussiness In my organisation.
0 -
I missed Ro’s post, way back in this thread, so was unaware that a statement had come from the Club (If only we could search a discussion based on a contributor’s name or their function).
It would appear that nothing sinister is afoot, after all, except that I do not understand how selling one plot to buy another is likely to provide a net benefit given all the ancillary costs associated with such an exercise. I think the Club is unlikely
to satisfy members’ needs by selling premium land to buy inferior. It is the location of sites that is the main attraction to members (especially motorhomers) and York provides a good example of a preference for pitches within easy reach of amenities.0 -
Forgive me if I seem a bit thick, but once the SDWP has been signed off by the relevant councils, surely the fate of the Broadway site is sealed ?
From our local paper:
"A WORCESTERSHIRE MP has spoken of his relief over the county's 28,370-home blueprint getting the nod - insisting it is "better than no plan at all".
Nigel Huddleston told your
Worcester News he was glad the
South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) has secured an inspector's approval after years of work.As we first revealed last week, the dossier has now been signed off by an independent inspector Roger Clews.
It will now go 'live' after votes by district councils in Worcester, Wychavon and Malvern towards the end of this month, all but ending the risk of developers building on sites not earmarked for new builds.
Mr Huddleston represents Mid-Worcestershire, which is taking a big chunk of the properties at well over 10,000.He said: "Planning is one of the top issues in my mailbag despite the fact I don't have any control over it whatsoever.
"I get people saying everything from 'my neighbour wants to build a conservatory' to everything else, people send me all sorts of enquiries on it.
"I'm very pleased it's been approved and relieved that we now have a plan.
"It's not ideal, I know a lot of people don't like the numbers or the locations, but we've it's much better to have one than not."
0 -
Forgive me if I seem a bit thick, but once the SDWP has been signed off by the relevant councils, surely the fate of the Broadway site is sealed ?
I must be as equally thick Richard because that is my concern as well.
peedee
I haven't been able to find any evidence that the extremely late representation from the caravan club was included in the list of allocated sites.
0 -
"Close by "in caravan club speak if the renaming of some of the sites can mean several miles
,Bourton on the water ,nee Notgrove
5mls , Stamford ,nee Top Lodge 8miles?Bath Chew Valley must be the biggest culprit of 'playing on a place name' at 13 miles and 30 mins drive from the actual city centre....a joke.
despite living only 30 miles away ourselves, we do like to visot the city in the van from time to time....we invariably stay at Bath Marina....why, because its in 'Bath' and walking distance from the city centre.
if i wanted to visit Bishop Sutton i would stay at Chew Valley
i dread to think where the 'new' Broadway might be....
...Bath Chew Valley is in the cc defence? a private site that has traded under that name since it first came on the cc network years ago,then left thinking they could go it alone ,then came back on a couple of years ago
0 -
Thanks for your efforts, Jay.
0
