Broadway - Part 2
Comments
-
Thanks Boff. Interesting to read your report.
0 -
Thanks Boff.
So what exactly were Savilles engaged to do?
I find this whole business very strange. Anyone who has worked in consultancy knows that it can be like pulling hen's teeth trying to get a clear brief from a client.......but we still don't know what the CC actually engaged Savilles to do......they certainly
wouldn't have been making several sumissions to several planning authorities on behalf of a client without some sort of insruction (why would they?) so what did the CC ask them to do??Still a cloak of secrecy surrounds this matter.......I'm sorry, but I still get an odour of rat.....
0 -
Why would the Club be in dispute with Savills? Any planning consultant employed by the Club would take their instructions from the Club. They would then go away and work out a strategy for achieving what the Club asked them to do. Once that was worked out
the normal proceedure would be to submit their findings to the Club to be signed off before proceeding to submission to the Planning Authority. Is it possible the Club just told them to get on with it? If that was the case they only have themselves to blame.David
0 -
Why would the Club be in dispute with Savills? Any planning consultant employed by the Club would take their instructions from the Club. They would then go away and work out a strategy for achieving what the Club asked them to do. Once that was worked out
the normal proceedure would be to submit their findings to the Club to be signed off before proceeding to submission to the Planning Authority. Is it possible the Club just told them to get on with it? If that was the case they only have themselves to blame.David
David, I can only report what we were told by the Chairman of the Caravan Club.
0 -
Thanks Boff for your report of the meeting.
I just don't believe that any consultant would make submissions to an outside body without the full approval of the client. If the CC account of what happened is true then they have a serious issue with regard to their policy's and procedures. Whatever
the truth of the situation this has demonstrated, to me, a lack of competence of senior management within the club0 -
Thanks Boff
I, like others, struggle to understand why this situation has arisen.
The one thing a consultant avoids is work for which no fee has been agreed. The representations that we know about represent a significant amount of chargeable time. I'm not going to speculate on the Club's instruction to Savills, especially if they are
in dispute.I would like to know how they will sort the Minehead allocation out and whether they will be making representations to the Inspector to say that Cadeside should not be allocated
0 -
See my comments about the meeting here
To be honest I always had a ticket and the room was full.
I have re posted the original link to my report above Because I believe it is a membership issue rather than a strictly site issue. I have placed in that section.
Mr Chamberlain stated that representations/ corrections had sent to each authority in "February". He did say that he was surprised that I hadn't seen the clarification on the website. The only clarification I have seen was an extract posted by whereevernext
and not a post or a statement made by and with the authority of the Caravan Club. Have I missed such a statement I have no read every post or the whole website.0 -
You haven't missed it Boff I'm sure IanH or I would have found it
There has been silence on the matter since Rowena posted in the earlier thread unless that is what he meant. However the corrections will make little difference in the case of Minehead which has already been allocated for mixed use development. The only
option the Club has here is not to sell the site for development. That would be the only action that would make me believe that they had a commitment to the freehold sites and the clearly expressed views of members0 -
Thanks for the feedback, Boff.
I can confirm that I was categorically informed that ALL sites that had been put forward by Savills would have the submission rescinded and would be reported as such in the relevant authority' minutes/reports. As previously mentioned I am still none the
wiser as to how many other sites, if any, that are in the same boat.Not the CC's finest moment.
0 -
Unfortunately the fact that they have written to correct the position will make little if any difference. Broadway wasn't allocated so that's not an immediate worry. Cadeside may be recoverable as long as the correct position is put before the inspector
but Minehead has already been allocated and there will be developers knocking on the Club's door as we speak. What are they going to do? Refuse to sell?incidentally there is a difference between what is being said now and what Rowena reported back in the previous thread. Then it was suggested that if they had been successful they could have developed a 'better' site close by. Now it appears they've all
been submitted in error by Savills and the Club had nothing to do with it.I'm not sure what to make of it because this is a scenario that I have never come across. I'm sure I'll hear plenty on the grapevine in due course
0 -
As this is a draft proposal for 2013 I still haven't found anything to suggest an allocation for the Minehead site although as I previously said the land next door has been allocated.
I don't know what has been happening other than the CC have been trying to increase the potential land values involved. All other landowners on these local plans were doing the same. However I think some of the "official" responses have been rather muffled
and obfuscating.
0 -
They seem to be saying that they aren't doing anything Brue and it's all down to the consultants working outside their brief. The official responses have been less than convincing, contradictory and indicative of an organisation that lacks skills and leadership
If they wanted to increase land values this is not the appropriate mechanism either
Quite frankly I don't think they have a clue what they are doing and I will be taking this all into account when my renewal comes up.
0 -
Yes, perhaps they'll think twice in future when briefing consultants.
It does bother me because I can see a situation very soon where leases aren't renewed by successful landowners and the well located owned sites are allocated for development.
The CC could end up as a network of ASs
1 -
The question of As's was brought up and the position was still stated as that AS's are used to fill gaps in the site network.
Reflecting upon the discussion yesterday it seems to me that you can divide the caravan club into two . That is Caravan club a members organisation and caravan club ltd which is the commercial arm. The commercial arm is owned by the members club. The
answer that were given were given by the representatives of the members organisation. The Executive Secretary which I assume is a paid position remained remarkably quiet.0 -
I'd rather have a gap in the network than an AS in some ways. The fact that they pay the CC to be listed on the network doesn't really make a site any more appealing to me and they are just too confusing when searching for late availability. At least two
that I can think of are adults only so they aren't even equivalent to a club site. I actually avoid using ASs and choose CLs or commercials that haven't got this artificial endorsement instead.Back on topic though - the hearings for West Somerset start on 14th March. I am currently searching through a large number of documents that will be considered and I have not as yet found a representation from the CC which corrects the earlier statements
0 -
As this is a draft proposal for 2013 I still haven't found anything to suggest an allocation for the Minehead site although as I previously said the land next door has been allocated.
I don't know what has been happening other than the CC have been trying to increase the potential land values involved. All other landowners on these local plans were doing the same. However I think some of the "official" responses have been rather muffled and obfuscating.
Brue this is the draft that was published in January 2015 and there is nothing in the final amendments that are going to the Inspector that suggest that the position has changed
Page 97
0 -
I think that the only AS sites that we have stayed at have been Morris leisure sites at Ludlow, Shrewsbury and Betws-y-Coed. I would say in each case these sites they were of an equivalent standard to CC sites in fact almost identical to a "real CC sites"
right down to the signage. Except that in the case of Ludlow and Shrewsbury they had quite well equipped accessory shops. Obviously Morris leisure see a commercial advantage in being seen as part of the caravan club brand and have actively gone down this
route.0 -
The CC site at Braemar changed to a AS for the 2014 season. As a regular user we find the site far better than it was when run by the club. This is not only our view but the same as all the other regular site users. You are now treated as customers with
the wardens bending over backwards to help you.0 -
The CC lost the lease at Braemar (proving my point a bit about being at the mercy of landlords).
Regardless of how well managed they are and how wonderful the wardens are a list of ASs allegedly filling network gaps does not interest me in the least nor does it justify my membership fee.
If I want 'carefully selected commercial sites' I could save £48 and use Best of British sites. Or I could just do what other people do and use UKcampsite to find a site in the area. I would love to be able to exclude the ASs from site searches
However this isn't really relevant to the main point which is the potential loss of sites that the CC own and which are able to provide stability to the network.
0 -
I agree sites, which the club holds freehold should be seen as the gold standard. However I do believe that the club should also act pragmatically and if they have the chance of leasing a site in a desirable area they should take it. Obviously it would
depend upon the length of lease in terms of what non portable infrastructure they put in An affiliated site does has the advantage of requiring no or very little capital investment and in the specific case of the Morris leisure sites they appear to be
of an equivalent standard to a club site. NB equivalent should not be construed as either praise or critiscism it mean equivalentDuring the meeting Mr Chamberlain, mentioned that it had taken over 15 years to purchase a site in the New Forrest meaning these things don't happen over night. Also planning permission was put in for a site near Oxford ( I think) over a 100 objections
were lodged in the first couple of days. Both of which indicate A it is not that simple to add to the network And B what we have we should hold onto.0 -
jay, arent many of these good AS site actually in the B of B book? i think the Ludlow site is....
there are also number of other 'reference' books like 'best xx sites.....'
i dont see the issue of these sites also being in the CC reference data, unless it costs money...
what it does do, is give members a sight of other offerings in an area that has 'some sort of approval' from the club....
the ones we have used are better than the club sites anyway....
0 -
I don't have a problem with the ASs being listed by the CC. I have a problem with the way they are listed.
I'm probably not typical CC member material in that I go where I want when I want but the one thing that keeps bringing me back to the CC is the ease of booking through late availability if we get a chance of a few days away. I generally put my dates in
with no real idea of where to go and look through what comes up. Try it. You'll get few Club sites where you get a direct booking and pages of ASs which may have availability but you have to go direct to the site to find out. It drives me mad and I'd like
to be able to exclude them from searches. At least two are adult only as well so don't even fill a gap for me and other families.There's nothing wrong with ASs but do I want to pay £48 membership to get at most £1 discount per night? No I don't. I can access them directly or through other websites.
I want the Club to focus on what it is set up to do. To be a provider of sites whether owned or leased. I don't want them to become a directory of approved sites and I certainly don't want them to start dabbling in property development. That won't end
well0 -
At the West Central Region Q&A, Grenville Chamberlain [CC Chairman] left us in no doubt that he condemned the actions of Savills. I seem to recall that John Lefley, Executive Member and Chair of the Sites Committee, said at the Q&A that he found out about the Savills issue by reading it on this forum.
I think the Executive Committee are now only too aware of what the members think; I trust them to sort it out and keep a beadier eye on what is going on.
As for Affiliated Sites, it annoys me when I can't book direct through the CC booking system so I ignore them.
0 -
At the West Central Region Q&A, Grenville Chamberlain [CC Chairman] left us in no doubt that he condemned the actions of Savills. I seem to recall that John Lefley, Executive Member and Chair of the Sites Committee, said at the Q&A that he found out about
the Savills issue by reading it on this forum.I think the Executive Committee are now only too aware of what the members think; I trust them to sort it out and keep a beadier eye on what is going on.
As for Affiliated Sites, it annoys me when I can't book direct through the CC booking system so I ignore them.
Aspenshaw
Whilst that gentleman might be the Chair of the Sites Committee I expect he has nothing to do with the day to day management of sites or the estates department. The Committe would decide policy which would be put in place by the management. That raises the
question of why the Club were apparently trying to get the land currently used by Club sites reallocated and who knew about it. It would have been the management that would have engaged Savills and issued instructions and should have overseen what they submitted
to the planning authorities. Unless we get some categoric statement saying that Savills acted completely alone and went against the instructions they were given I think we have to be careful where we lay the blame.David
0
