Broadway - Part 2
Comments
-
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
David
Aspenshaw's impression of what was said at the meeting corresponds with my own. That was that the blame was being laid at Savills door. So when you say "i think we have to be careful where we lay the blame." Are you referring to we as individuals or
we the caravan club? Because if it is the latter. The impression of where the club or at least Mr Chamberlain believe that blame lays was unambiguous.0 -
Are we being expected to believe that Savilles have been making all these submissions (expending man hours workng on a project that they haven't received instructions on) with no knowledge of the CC management?
Just how stupid do they think we are?
0 -
Are we being expected to believe that Savilles have been making all these submissions (expending man hours workng on a project that they haven't received instructions on) with no knowledge of the CC management?
Just how stupid do they think we are?
Just how stupid do they think we are?.
They just know that we cannot do anything so go along as they please.
0 -
Are we being expected to believe that Savilles have been making all these submissions (expending man hours workng on a project that they haven't received instructions on) with no knowledge of the CC management?
J
Are we being expected to believe that Savilles have been making all these submissions (expending man hours workng on a project that they haven't received instructions on) with no knowledge of the CC management?
Just how stupid do they think we are?
Write your comments here... Very!
0 -
It wouldn't make easy reading for some if the press got hold of the story, would it?
0 -
David
Aspenshaw's impression of what was said at the meeting corresponds with my own. That was that the blame was being laid at Savills door. So when you say "i think we have to be careful where we lay the blame." Are you referring to we as individuals or we the caravan club? Because if it is the latter. The impression of where the club or at least Mr Chamberlain believe that blame lays was unambiguous.
Boff
I am sure that was the impression given at the meeting. But it seems totally unprofessional for the Club to basically slag off a well known and for all I know a well respected planning consultancy. ( I appreciate that it was effectively a private meeting) There must be more to it than meets the eye because the situation could have only arisen if someone from the Club was not doing their job correctly. The prospect of some rogue planning consultant ignoring instructions and going completely off piste seems unbelieveable to me.
Savills would have been given a specific brief by the Club. Unless the brief was not clear or was misunderstood it would still not be procedure for the submission not to have been shown to the Club first. If the Club said this is the brief, just get on with it and let us know what the outcome is they only have thenselves to blame? Its always possible something got lost in translation but there should be measures in place, on both sides, to ensure that does not happen. This forum can be seen by anyone and that is the reason I suggest caution in laying blame in just one direction.
David
0 -
David
Aspenshaw's impression of what was said at the meeting corresponds with my own. That was that the blame was being laid at Savills door. So when you say "i think we have to be careful where we lay the blame." Are you referring to we as individuals
or we the caravan club? Because if it is the latter. The impression of where the club or at least Mr Chamberlain believe that blame lays was unambiguous.Boff
I am sure that was the impression given at the meeting. But it seems totally unprofessional for the Club to basically slag off a well known and for all I know a well respected planning consultancy. There must be more to it than meets the eye because the
situation could have only arisen if someone from the Club was not doing their job correctly. The prospect of some rogue planning consultant ignoring instructions and going completely off piste seems unbelieveable to me.Savills would have been given a specific brief by the Club. Unless the brief was not clear or was misunderstood it would still not be procedure for the submission not to have been shown to the Club first. If the Club said this is the brief, just get on with
it and let us know what the outcome is they only have thenselves to blame? Its always possible something got lost in translation but there should be measures in place, on both sides, to ensure that does not happen.David
My feelings too.
0 -
David
Aspenshaw's impression of what was said at the meeting corresponds with my own. That was that the blame was being laid at Savills door. So when you say "i think we have to be careful where we lay the blame." Are you referring to we as individuals
or we the caravan club? Because if it is the latter. The impression of where the club or at least Mr Chamberlain believe that blame lays was unambiguous.Boff
I am sure that was the impression given at the meeting. But it seems totally unprofessional for the Club to basically slag off a well known and for all I know a well respected planning consultancy. There must be more to it than meets the eye because the
situation could have only arisen if someone from the Club was not doing their job correctly. The prospect of some rogue planning consultant ignoring instructions and going completely off piste seems unbelieveable to me.Savills would have been given a specific brief by the Club. Unless the brief was not clear or was misunderstood it would still not be procedure for the submission not to have been shown to the Club first. If the Club said this is the brief, just get on with
it and let us know what the outcome is they only have thenselves to blame? Its always possible something got lost in translation but there should be measures in place, on both sides, to ensure that does not happen.David
My feelings too.
Write your comments here...+1
0 -
David
Aspenshaw's impression of what was said at the meeting corresponds with my own. That was that the blame was being laid at Savills door. So when you say "i think we have to be careful where we lay the blame." Are you referring to we as individuals
or we the caravan club? Because if it is the latter. The impression of where the club or at least Mr Chamberlain believe that blame lays was unambiguous.Boff
I am sure that was the impression given at the meeting. But it seems totally unprofessional for the Club to basically slag off a well known and for all I know a well respected planning consultancy. There must be more to it than meets the eye because the
situation could have only arisen if someone from the Club was not doing their job correctly. The prospect of some rogue planning consultant ignoring instructions and going completely off piste seems unbelieveable to me.Savills would have been given a specific brief by the Club. Unless the brief was not clear or was misunderstood it would still not be procedure for the submission not to have been shown to the Club first. If the Club said this is the brief, just get on with
it and let us know what the outcome is they only have thenselves to blame? Its always possible something got lost in translation but there should be measures in place, on both sides, to ensure that does not happen.David
My feelings too.
Write your comments here...+1
I am only the messenger here.
0 -
Hi everyone,
Further to your posts, please see below message:
Message from Nick Lomas, Director General of The Club
This response relates to the thread running on Club Together concerning the submission made by Savills (the national firm of Chartered Surveyors and Planning Consultants), on behalf of The Club, indicating the Broadway Club Site should be included in the
allocation of land suitable for alternative uses for housing as the site was “surplus to Club requirements”.Incorrect and inaccurate wording was used in the submissions relating to a handful of sites, this has now been corrected. This has been regrettable and we are sorry that it has caused members unnecessary concern as the impression it created was misleading.
The revised statement from Savills is shown in 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.
Savills were engaged by The Club in response to the Government’s reappraisal of planning policies (local authorities are identifying land for alternative uses including employment, tourism, leisure, housing, recreation, education etc.). From time to time
this will naturally have implications for Club Sites and so it will not be unusual to see them mentioned in planning reappraisals. For its part The Club will continue to represent members’ interests by maintaining the presence of Club Sites in locations where
members enjoy their leisure time.We are dealing with this issue at a senior level with Savills’ personnel and ongoing discussions are taking place to ensure this error isn’t repeated.
We understand and appreciate the sentiments expressed by members in support of their favourite sites and I sincerely hope this has provided the reassurance you are seeking and now brings this matter to a close.
Also, it might interest you to see The Club’s ongoing commitment to expand its range of sites and facilities for members. Ten to twelve million pounds is invested in the UK Club Sites network every year. For further details
http://www.caravanclub.co.uk/uk-holidays/club-sites/site-redevelopments0 -
I'm sorry but this does not provide any reassurance whatsoever to me and in fact does not address any of the concerns that I have about the Club's approach to assets in its ownership.
I appreciate that commercially sensitive information won't be put forward on a public forum but in fact this does not address my key concerns namely:-
Will the club resist redevelopment on sites where they achieve allocations? If no then I was right all along if yes then the planning system has been abused
How many other sites have been put forward in addition to Broadway, Minehead and Cadeside?
A number of people on this thread, myself included, have a very good understanding of the processes involved in planning and land asset management and none of this sits well with us
If the Club want any advice on how to address the situation such that the planning inspector is not left with any illusions that the land is available then feel free to contact me.
0 -
...neither does it unequivicably state whether Savills dreamed up the 'flowery embellishment' (sites surplus to requirements) or that they used what they had been given by the club....
"Incorrect and inaccurate wording was used in the submissions relating to a handful of sites, this has now been corrected."
yes, it has, and a corrected Savills statement is available above, and issues are being dealt with at a senior level within Savills, etc, etc.....
but, are the club meeting Savills to read them the riot act for adding something that was not in the original brief, or are they meeting to understand how such a brief from the club could have gone to press without Savills' expert vetting making the
club fully aware of what they were saying?0 -
Please also note that the hearing into the West Somerset Plan starts on the 14th so there isn't much time to right the wrong about Minehead.
Corrections appearing on the Council websites won't count for anything I'm afraid. You have to follow procedures as set out in law and associated guidance
0 -
I'm sorry but this does not provide any reassurance whatsoever to me and in fact does not address any of the concerns that I have about the Club's approach to assets in its ownership.
I appreciate that commercially sensitive information won't be put forward on a public forum but in fact this does not address my key concerns namely:-
Will the club resist redevelopment on sites where they achieve allocations? If no then I was right all along if yes then the planning system has been abused
How many other sites have been put forward in addition to Broadway, Minehead and Cadeside?
A number of people on this thread, myself included, have a very good understanding of the processes involved in planning and land asset management and none of this sits well with us
If the Club want any advice on how to address the situation such that the planning inspector is not left with any illusions that the land is available then feel free to contact me.
Write your comments here...Well said JS,and as i said in an earlyer post Savills in this area are not backword in "enhancing "their submissiions
0 -
It's good that the DG has communicated with the membership, via the forum, on this matter.
However what the statement does not do is to confirm whether the Consultants were given a brief and told to go away and get on with it without anyone in the Club having knowledge of what was going to be presented to the planning authority. If this was the
case it is complete folly. Surely in such circumstances the Club need to have some sort of audit mechanism in place to make sure that the brief is being accurately represented? However experienced Savills are in general planning matters I doubt even they would
say they were experts in either the Club or campsites. It seems, in order, to present the best case for their clients they used language in their submission which on reflection didn't represent the best interests of the Club. I go back to the point that had
there been some audit of the submission by the Club before being passed to the local authority this sorry state would not have happened. I would like some confirmation that lessons have been learnt here, not just in this case but for the future.David
0 -
I don't understand why the submission was made in the first place.
peedee
...Govenment Policy
No.
Landowners have been invited to submit sites to be included within the local development plans. It's entirely up to the landowners whether they put a site forward.
An opportunity was spotted.
0 -
The statement reads to me like as an attempt at a damage limitation exercise. It doesn't disclose anything new.
In my view it has failed to the answer the 2 questions that have been asked numerous times.
They are. What was the brief that Savills were instructed to carry out?
Secondly, were other sites apart from the three we know about subject to similar applications? I you consider there are only three possible answers to that question, Answer 1, No it only applies to these three sites. Answer 2, Yes followeded by a list of the sites. Answer 3 Yes, but we aren't prepared to divulge what other sites are affected.
Finally by placing the statement on page 11 of a thread means in a few weeks it will be effectively buried from sight.
0 -
The statement reads to me like as an attempt at a damage limitation exercise. It doesn't disclose anything new.
In my view it has fails to the answer the 2 questions that have been asked numerous times.
They are. What was the brief that Savills were instructed to carry out?
Secondly, were other sites apart from the three we know about subject to similar applications? I you consider there are only three possible answers to that question, Answer 1, No it only applies to these three sites. Answer 2, Yes followeded by a list
of the sites. Answer 3 Yes, but we aren't prepared to divulge what other sites are affected.Finally by placing the statement on page 11 of a thread means in a few weeks it will be effectively buried from sight.
...Or be like the Deps thread,kept going by a few nipping at heels
0 -
I don't understand why the submission was made in the first place.
peedee
...Govenment Policy
No.
Landowners have been invited to submit sites to be included within the local development plans. It's entirely up to the landowners whether they put a site forward.
An opportunity was spotted.
I can understand such a submission would increase the land value but if your invited to include the land for development, that means you are prepared to accept a change of use, in this case for housing. It therefore does not make sense to make the submission
in the first place. That is what I cannot understand.peedee
0 -
That's correct peedee and to achieve such an allocation (this isn't change of use or planning permission) there must be a reasonable assumption that the land will become available for the allocated purpose within the plan period.
That is why the Sites were described as surplus. If the planning authority had been told that there was no intention to develop then the representation would have been effectively put on file.
Discussion of land values and compulsory purchase has muddied the water here. If this has been done as a paper exercise to enhance value it's the wrong way to go about it
It is also a complete waste of officer time at the planning authority
0 -
Quite frankly I find it appalling that the person responsible for Sites found out about this "problem" by reading this forum! If this is the case then HO need to take a good look at themselves in the mirror and ask who the heck is taking responsibility up
there. Who is overseeing these things?We're being asked to believe it's all Savills fault. Rubbish!
0 -
In this case at least the forum has had a positive effect in highlighting issues.
I believe in situations like this, it is far more important to learn lessons than to apportion blame.
I will now go back to enjoying muddy rally fields and stop worrying about club sites which we hardly ever use.
0 -
Amazing. So even the top man won't even say what they actually asked Savilles to do. Still trying to pretend that Savilles somehow did their own thing, without instruction.
Not only have they been caught with their pants down, but those pants seem to be firmly ablaze...
0
