Broadway
Comments
-
You couldn't make it up could you?
Sent an email, for the attention of Mr.John Lefley, Chairman of the Sites Committee, regarding the issues relating to Broadway, Minehead and Cadeside.
Received a reply today;
" Dear Mr.John Lefley....." It then goes on to tell me that this email will be sent to the regional manager responsible for Broadway!
Dads Army is more up to date that this lot!
0 -
You couldn't make it up could you?
Sent an email, for the attention of Mr.John Lefley, Chairman of the Sites Committee, regarding the issues relating to Broadway, Minehead and Cadeside.
Received a reply today;
" Dear Mr.John Lefley....." It then goes on to tell me that this email will be sent to the regional manager responsible for Broadway!
Dads Army is more up to date that this lot!
Certainly doesn't inspire confidence in those at HO, does it?
0 -
I wouldn't mind but I contacted the club via their chat line to ask for his address only to be told that they couldn't give this out (easier to send one to the PM) but they would ensure it would be passed on to him if I sent it in to members enquiries address.
I told them that I would bet it wouldn't be and voilà!Stuck in the dark ages.
0 -
Companycheck has some interesting information regarding the club....
0 -
I've found that a letter maked in big letters "Personal and confidential" addressed to the head honcho and sent via recorded delivery usually finds its way on to the desk of either the man at the top or at least his PA rather than being lost in the maw of
the organisation.0 -
I've found that a letter maked in big letters "Personal and confidential" addressed to the head honcho and sent via recorded delivery usually finds its way on to the desk of either the man at the top or at least his PA rather than being lost in the maw of
the organisation.See the link above for some useful addresses....
0 -
Its about time the Caravan Club put their members before profit. Some of us will vote with our feet ( or wheels ) and start looking at more private, well run sites and good CCC 's instead. We certainly have started to do this as price hikes hit retired people most and CCC offers special rates for Senior Citizens
0 -
It looks to me as if the site is possibly leased by the Club and not owned by them. It could be that the owner of the land the site is on has engaged a planning consultant to try and include the site in the new Development Plan. The owner is probably hoping they can in future capitalise on the increased value of land with development potential when the Club's lease expires. Owners of land just outside settlements tend to do this whenever the local plan is under consideration whether or not they have any real chance of changing the land's status in planning terms. The Club won't have any say if this is the case. One just hopes that the local Planning Authority reject this request.
0 -
Oldgirl
From what we have seen elsewhere it seems it was the Club that instigated the submission which would be a bit odd if they did not own the land?
David
0 -
It looks to me as if the site is possibly leased by the Club and not owned by them. It could be that the owner of the land the site is on has engaged a planning consultant to try and include the site in the new Development Plan. The owner is probably hoping
they can in future capitalise on the increased value of land with development potential when the Club's lease expires. Owners of land just outside settlements tend to do this whenever the local plan is under consideration whether or not they have any real
chance of changing the land's status in planning terms. The Club won't have any say if this is the case. One just hopes that the local Planning Authority reject this request.The forms show Savills as agent for the Caravan Club. It is something that the club has decided to do.
Landowners of the leased sites will be carrying out similar exercises which shows how short sighted this action by the club is. They could lose more sites than they think they will
0 -
I didn't notice that they were acting for the Club. Maybe the Club think they can sell the site at a vastly inflated price for housing and fund another just outside the development area. Also, leaving themselves funds to develop other sites elsewhere? With current demand being so high this may not be a bad idea if it provides more Club sites.
0 -
Goodness knows what's in their heads.
Minehead and Cadeside are also involved and the club appear to have been more successful with these two
I really value these sort of sites so won't be too impressed with a more remote alternative. That's if they manage to find one
0 -
I didn't notice that they were acting for the Club. Maybe the Club think they can sell the site at a vastly inflated price for housing and fund another just outside the development area. Also, leaving themselves funds to develop other sites elsewhere? With current demand being so high this may not be a bad idea if it provides more Club sites.
I am sure that is what they are thinking. Well the bit about selling the land for vastly inflated prices. But remember that this whole process is based on the club or at least its agent stating that these sites are not fit for purpose and therefore surplus. Do you believe that statement is true?
For the whole thing to work. The club would need to buy cheaper land. ie Agricultural land that they can claim a change to a site would have low impact. This land to be cheaper will have to be miles from anywhere the sites they are trying to flog off as I understand it are within walking distance of towns. So you are going to need to use some sort of transport to get anywhere. And who is going to affect the most? I would suggest it will be the motorhomer.
0 -
Whatever the reason it would be a shame to lose sites that are within walking distance of settlements. I seem to remember a thread earlier where members were saying how much they wanted the Club to seek more sites near towns and villages. Certainly, the
Planning Authority ought to know that far from being 'surplus' to requirements' members of the Club feel that these sites are a real asset. It smacks of deception.0 -
At least the CC retracted their wording...lots of planning applicants don't, eco houses are a popular one round here then something else gets built.
If land really is needed compulsory purchase orders will be on the cards, the club has to keep up with so many possibilites.
0 -
The retraction of the wording is going to make little or no difference at this stage. It's far too late in the day to say 'Ooops we made a mistake and the land isn't surplus after all'
The retraction of the wording has been done because they have been caught out by members
CPOs are very rarely used and with so many landowners rushing to offer their land for housing development there isn't much need for planning authorities to go down that route.
0 -
I have no especial loyalty to the CC so am not particularly pursuing the matter from that point of view.
I do however have considerable understanding of the planning profession and am fully aware of what the CC are doing and how they are going about it. It is absolutely not a valuation exercise
0 -
Leaving aside the question of whether the wording in the Document was " unfortunate" or deliberately misleading.
Oscar Wilde, defined a cynic as someone who:
"knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".
I think that, that perfectly describes the actions of the Caravanclub in this mater.
0 -
In practice Compulsory Purchase Orders are rarely used. Only for such things as Listed Buildings that are falling into disrepair and the owner will not repair. Also, if there is a development a Council is supporting (usually in a city) and one landowner out of several is stopping it and the development is deemed to be in the public interest. It would have to be something very, very much in the public interest and a landowner was preventing progress.
It could also only apply to something that is already in a Development Plan and the purposes of the plan were being frustrated. Otherwise no.
0 -
See my postings in Broadway Part2.
Here is a copy of part of the email I received relating to Broadway.
"The original statement from Savills was totally incorrect and has now been corrected, as per the copy below:
Representation to the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) Main Modifications Consultation with regards to Broadway Caravan Club
In November 2015 a representation was submitted on behalf of The Caravan Club with regards to Broadway Caravan Club, Station Road, Broadway, WR12 7DH. The representation sought the consideration of Broadway Caravan Club within the housing allocations for the South Worcestershire Development Plan.
Within the third paragraph of the submitted representation letter dates 18th November 2015 it is suggested that this property is surplus to The Caravan Club’s requirements. This is not accurate and… it is key to note that the site’s closure is not under consideration.
A similar letter has been sent in relation to submissions made by Savills to other local authorities. In due course the newly corrected position will appear on the appropriate local authority websites."
Mod Edit
This discussion continues in this thread
0
