Broadway
Comments
-
I'm pleased that this has been clarified, so far as the Broadway site is NOT included in the final draft of the SDWP. Doesn't alter the fact that someone somewhere thought it a good idea to make the submission in the letter that I first referred to.
Moving on, I have now found an interactive map of sites on the SDWP. The sports field adjacent to the Broadway CC site IS included in the plan, reference SWDP59/19, but this is of no real concern so far as I can see.
More useful for me, I can see from this latest map that a greenfield site that appeared to me to be included in the plan is not, for which I am relieved. Not close to my house, just a pleasant area to walk in.
Map can be found here:
0 -
Thanks for your close attention with this matter Jay Ess
0 -
I've just had a chat with a member of the planning team who confirmed that it did not go forward as a site allocation and was not added by the Inspector.
Not too sure what you mean here Jay.......were the Club too late to offer the Broadway site for development? It's up to the local council's planners, not the planning inspector, what goes into the initial draft of the Local Plan (for public consultation).
Either way, it's amazing (but sadly typical) that the Club cannot even be bothered to offer a comment or a serious attempt to defend their position on attempting to sell off one of our premier sites.
I do not consider Ro's poor attempt to explain to be any sort of apology, or even a believable explanation of what they've been up to. Accepted that she's just passing on a message, but really, would you pass on such a damning
comment?0 -
Well said Ian, you beat me to the post, as well as covering all the poiints that I was going to raise.....
0 -
Ian
The first draft of the plan had already been prepared and allocations made. The Club submitted their reps during the consultation into the final modifications. At that stage the predicted housing need had been met.
The plan was about to go to examination when the club submitted their proposal so it was put before the inspector who did not include it.
It was not submitted at the call for sites stage or even during the first round of Consultation. It was right at the end.
Hopefully that helps. I thought my mention of the inspector and the report showed they weren't at initial draft stages so sorry if I wasn't clear
0 -
JayEss: As you seem to be on top of this The fact that Broadway is not included in the development plant. Inspite of the Caravanclubs intentions not because of them? Is that a reasonable assumption.
I think it's just timing. If it had been put forward by the Club at the appropriate stage the result may have been different.
I haven't really looked at the criteria the planning authority used in any detail and I haven't looked at the way the housing need was calculated so I can't say whether or not it may have had a chance if it went forward earlier.
It looks to me as if they spotted an opportunity and had a go.
If I get a chance next week I'll see what I can find out about Minehead and Cadeside.
0 -
JayEss: As you seem to be on top of this The fact that Broadway is not included in the development plant. Inspite of the Caravanclubs intentions not because of them? Is that a reasonable assumption.
I think it's just timing. If it had been put forward by the Club at the appropriate stage the result may have been different.
I haven't really looked at the criteria the planning authority used in any detail and I haven't looked at the way the housing need was calculated so I can't say whether or not it may have had a chance if it went forward earlier.
It looks to me as if they spotted an opportunity and had a go.
If I get a chance next week I'll see what I can find out about Minehead and Cadeside.
Thaks JayEss. I just wanted make sure that when they club spin the triumph was in fact the club itself that attempted to put Broadway into play and under threat
You are of course correct that Cadeside or Minehead still need to be remembered.
As a Ps we are staying on an affiliated site this weekend, which could serve as a template for a modern state of the art site. The amenities block is immaculate, the grass is cut to bowling green consistency, every pitch is spacious, level, the wifi works
and there is even an adults only sectionSo obviously a site that meets the needs of members? Well actually this member finds the site, completely devoid of character, featureless, soulless and sterile. It is also about 2.5 miles from the town whoose name it takes. Which necessitates
a car journey to buy a paper or a pint of milk. But non the less I am sure those that are fluent in planning see it and sites like it as the blue print for the future0 -
JayEss: As you seem to be on top of this The fact that Broadway is not included in the development plant. Inspite of the Caravanclubs intentions not because of them? Is that a reasonable assumption.
I think it's just timing. If it had been put forward by the Club at the appropriate stage the result may have been different.
I haven't really looked at the criteria the planning authority used in any detail and I haven't looked at the way the housing need was calculated so I can't say whether or not it may have had a chance if it went forward earlier.
It looks to me as if they spotted an opportunity and had a go.
If I get a chance next week I'll see what I can find out about Minehead and Cadeside.
It seems that, for once, we can be grateful for the Club's incredible slowness in responding to anything!
Jay - in our area, the only criteria for including a piece of land in the draft Local Plan was that the landowner put it forward to the council - nothing more than that was required. Our pathetic council made no attempt to check its suitablilty before including
it - other councils may be different.True, the draft plan goes out to public consultation (our council's consultation period ended at the end of January) but would local people have objected to houses on such a discrete, out of view site? Or would it have been better, from a local's point of
view, to have houses there rather than on other possible sites?I suspect that we may have had a very narrow escape here - and that's, as Esme says, despite the Club's best efforts to flog it and not because of them defending the retention of one of our sites.
0 -
Don't forget that plans are reviewed.
I personally feel that the stock of owned sites goes some way to protect the club from the risks associated with the leased ones. There could be landowners out there who have successfully achieved allocation and won't be renewing the club's lease.
Ian - as in anything there is a variety in the way things are done by various councils. The procedures are clear but some are better than others.
0 -
Esme, where is the site you refer to?
I deliberately didn't name the a I believe my impression of this site can be applied to a number of sites. But seeing you asked a direct question the answer is Ludlow touring park. Objectively it ticks all the boxes, the Warden were efficient and friendly.
It has a visit England 5 star rating and I could see people loving it. The only criticism I would have was a little bit of road noise. My reaction to it was subjective I just found the site sterile devoid of any true character.0 -
Esme, where is the site you refer to?
I deliberately didn't name the a I believe my impression of this site can be applied to a number of sites. But seeing you asked a direct question the answer is Ludlow touring park. Objectively it ticks all the boxes, the Warden were efficient and friendly.
It has a visit England 5 star rating and I could see people loving it. The only criticism I would have was a little bit of road noise. My reaction to it was subjective I just found the site sterile devoid of any true character.I suppose some of this could result from the fact the site is very new, so trees, vegetation etc. Have not had a chance to develope.
0 -
Providing its not too late in the day any individual is able to register their views or object to the Planning Department concerned if they feel either that its wrong to allocate a particular peice of land or they feel the reasons for inclusion has been misrepresented. My understanding is that you don't have to live in that area.The problem I suspect is knowing these things are actually happening before its signed and sealed.
David
0 -
So, was the wording in the CC employed surveyor's report also a 'mistake' for these two sites?
How strange that the CC have not bothered to offer a realistic explanation of why they are trying to dispose of our sites......
Does anyone still think this is just a 'paperwork' excercise?
Does anyone still think that it makes perfect sense for the CC and their surveyor to describe much-used sites as 'surplus to requirements' due to them being under-used?
Does anyone think that the CC are being up-front and honest with their members?
0 -
I have not been able to get either link to work. I have not visited either site and do not know anything about them but I am absolutely against the club relinquishing any sites if they can be retained. We are desperately short of sites and pitches as it
is and the club needs to explain exactly what is going on.0 -
The link to Minehead is still down I'm afraid but the plan showed a large area of land which was allocated for mixed development. This appeared to include the Minehead site
The relevant text regarding Cadeside I've copied here
Omission Sites and Proposed Settlement Boundary Changes
There were a number of omission sites identified through the Publication Stage. These sites are put forward as alternatives or additional sites to those identified in the SADMP. Each of the sites are likely to be considered further by the Inspector although for the purposes of summarising the key issues raised at publication it is not considered necessary to do any more than list them here:
…(list of sites)
Cadeside Caravan Park, Wellington (proposed allocation)
This means that the planning authority did not include Cadeside in the first draft but support the representation and recommend the allocation
0 -
It's not much better from our point of view, though.
Thanks, Jay.
0 -
Wonder what the "Powers that Be" will have to say now? Another Fob-off I guess.
0 -
The Community Manager posted on this thread, to clarify the Club's position. Regarding Broadway and the unfortunate wording regarding the suitability of the site, that was included in the application, to justify its inclusion in local development plan.
Would the Community Manager in her role as representitive of the Club Management, please also clarify the club's position on the Cadeside and Minehead sites. Is that position still, that these sites no longer meet the needs of members and therefore are
surplus?Also could a definitive answer be given to if any of the Club's sites other sites have had similar applications made on to have them added to local development plans to allow the sale of the sites for development. If the answer is yes can theses sites be
named?0
