Broadway - Part 2
I have received a reply following an email I sent asking for clarification of the club's position regarding Broadway, Minehead and Cadeside.
I understand that further letters were sent to the relevant planning departments stating that these sites are NOT surplus to requirements and should not be included in any such plans for redevelopment as housing.
I have been told that the details as lodged with those authorities will be amended to show the correct position in due course.
The communication doesn't make any comment about the conduct of Savills or why members were not informed. I will ask about this but am not going to pursue the matter too strenuously as I have a lot on the go at the moment.
Hope this at least puts some members minds at ease. I dare say there will be a few who will come up with more questions than I can answer.
Comments
-
Thanks for this but it doesn't put my mind at ease really.
Minehead has already been included in an allocation, Cadeside is very close and Broadway hasn't been included by luck.
It honestly isn't any reassurance to someone who knows how the system works but I can see that the club are hoping it might reassure some
0 -
I happen to agree with you JayEss. I don't think we've told the full story and I really can't believe that a professional, national agent like Savills would make elementary mistakes. This has, IMO, been an underhand try to either sneak through a misguided
plan or a paper exercise to test the water.Anyway the club are at least aware of our concerns.
0 -
Well done Wherenext, good to see that they at least now appreciate that members are keeping an eye on what they are trying to do.
Moderator Comment
This post has been edited to attribute comment to the OP. Therefore the posts following commenting on the wrong attributation don't make sense and have been Deleted User so that we can get back to the original post.
0 -
It would be most unusual for the Planning Consultants not to discuss or give sight of their conclusions to their clients, the Caravan Club, before submission to the Local Authority?
David
0 -
I'm minded to recall the view that one should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. Maybe the submissions weren't proof-read rather than some cunning plan by CC.
0 -
Cyberyacht. That's certainly a possibility but for that to be true. I would of thought the following must be true.
Savills have acted in an incompetent way in making statements that the club now accept are not true And we're made without the club's knowledge or improvement. Therefore they will not be paying Savills for any work done. Further more they will be seeking
compensation for the damage that this has caused to the reputation of the caravanclub.The above assumes that the Club employed Savills to mount what effectively were appeals to have the sites included in the development plans. On the understanding that these sites were popular and well used and definitely not surplus to requirements.
It is also worth noting that the club afaik has not seen fit to confirm or deny whether or not any other sites have been subject to similar applications.
I am a great believer in the Cock up rather than Conspiracy theory of history but in the case I am struggling.
0 -
I'm minded to recall the view that one should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. Maybe the submissions weren't proof-read rather than some cunning plan by CC.
Savills are right up there in the list of competent planning consultants. There will be comprehensive in-house checks and audits and I cannot believe that these submissions have been submitted without being proof read.
An agent works closely with the client throughout. I'm sure that the CC has carried out a review of their land portfolio and has taken advice from their consultants as to which sites may have a prospect of development. Once the draft submissions have been
prepared they will be checked in house before getting final client approval.Let us not go down the route of blaming Savills, they can only work with the information that has been given to them. If the sites have been declared surplus there is only one way that will have happened and that is down to the CC
0 -
There still appears to be toing and froing on the original thread. I have posted part of a reply I received from the club on that thread and post it here so that everyone can see it.
"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."
0 -
Interesting but obviously too late as the plan is ready to be adopted. Too late for Minehead I fear but there's still a chance to get objections to an allocation before the inspector for Cadeside.
I wonder how many other local authorities will be getting this letter. I haven't had time to go through them all.
I also wonder how Savills feel about this
0 -
Well that's really my issue brue.
The sites that are owned by the club didn't need to be promoted to the LPA. To get allocated in the first place there has to be a reasonable certainty that they can be delivered and that's what the Club has said in the submission.
It seems a crying shame to me that the Club are taking this approach. It's a terribly old fashioned and short sighted approach as well
0 -
If SavillS commercial dept is on a par with their usual local offices, then it does not surprise that the submissions to local authorities ref their local plans was possibly "enhanced"to give a better view ,as they are not innocent in the way they "promote
" as is quite well known here!!?0 -
And still no word from the CC to their membership on this very important matter!
(I don't count the words that Ro passed on fron their estates people as a serious or credible comment).
This late 'correction' to their submission (after being caught out by Club members) does little or nothing to alter the fact that they are trying to sell off some of our best sites with no consultation......indeed while trying their best to keep it quiet.
Jay is correct.......an organisation like Savilles doesn't make a 'mistake' like this.....three times! (And there could be more that we haven't found out about yet).
0 -
If the Club has no intention to release the sites for development then why engage some top planning consultants at considerable expense to put the sites forward?
Why not just do nothing?
I'm not dreaming up conspiracy theories. I have a lot of experience in this field and the explanation put forward is just not credible.
I have no issue with the Club developing what they want to develop. If I don't like what goes on I'll leave. What I do take issue with is misleading information being provided to a planning authority. Nobody makes this sort of mistake.
0 -
If the Club has no intention to release the sites for development then why engage some top planning consultants at considerable expense to put the sites forward?
Why not just do nothing?
I agree with you Jayess but in saying;
"This site is now not meeting the need of members, therefore it is surplus to the requirements of the Caravan Club, who are seeking to redevelop the site"
are they preparing the ground for negoiating expansion and have crudely indicating they would like to see the size of site increased perhaps into adjacent land? The statement "surplus to requirements" is misleading. If it had said;
"This site is now too small and is not meeting the need of members, therefore the Caravan Club are seeking to redevelop the site" perhaps members would have been happier with that?
Nevertheless, to sell it in favour of a larger site further away could be a white elephant. What makes the site popular is its proximity to the village and a site further away would not be in such demand.
peedee
0 -
I'm afraid that I can't see any ambiguity in what they asked for - the allocation of the site for housing.
It's a comprehensive and well written submission. This would not have been the platform to address a need for expansion of the site.
0 -
Point taken Jayess, I was just clutching a straws! One thing for certain, if the Club does sell off sites like this, as a motorhome owner there is little point in continuing membership. The Club ought to be mindful of the increase in motorhome ownership, UK sales up 21 percent in 2015 from 2014 figures. We don't all want to be camped out in the sticks.
peedee
0 -
Very interesting thread. I have stayed at Broadway a couple of times with the motorhome and found the site to be handy for the town and a good base from which to tour. Good dog walking along the disused railway track.
I cannot believe that the CC would flog off this site.
K
0
