Reports raise concerns over major visitor centre plans

8:00am Friday 11th January 2013 in News By Wendy Brading

 

A BATTLE Royal has been pitched into the virtues - or otherwise - of the controversial Horkesley Park development.


Three reports have been commissioned by Colchester Council into the Stour Valley Visitor Centre in addition to a planning policy document.


One of the reports recommends the council supports the development on 117 acres of land but only as long as certain criteria are met.


Serious concerns about the centre's viability have been raised by each of them.

However, the developers, Buntings and Sons, challenge the reports saying information used in them is flawed.

For more on this story, see today's Gazette.

Comments(7)

Simon Taylor says...
10:16am Fri 11 Jan 13

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the whole proposal is based on an unsubstatiated and wildly optimistic assumption. The realistic conclusion from these reports is that Horkesley Park (as promoted) would make a loss of £5,000 a day.

Report this post »

Jess Jephcott says...
11:00am Fri 11 Jan 13

But then you would say that wouldn't you Simon?

Report this post »

Boris says...
11:08am Fri 11 Jan 13

Jess Jephcott wrote:
But then you would say that wouldn't you Simon?
Of course he would, because he has considered the issues carefully, and you haven't.

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
1:25pm Fri 11 Jan 13

I thought CBC weren't going to publish these ?

Has the Gazette actually been doing some investigative journalism ?

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
12:30am Sat 12 Jan 13

The Council has published the reports from its three consultants, who have seen two version of the business plan, plus the Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) between itself and the applicant.

Some information has been redacted, such as figures drawn directly from the business plan and the applicant's financial contribution towards the planning process. There is no reason to be suspicious about this contribution, but a PPA should be based on a "shared vision" agreed by the two parties and publication of it reveals that there isn't one, unless it is CBC's vision is to establish a tourist attraction on the site.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
12:30am Sat 12 Jan 13

The Council has published the reports from its three consultants, who have seen two version of the business plan, plus the Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) between itself and the applicant.

Some information has been redacted, such as figures drawn directly from the business plan and the applicant's financial contribution towards the planning process. There is no reason to be suspicious about this contribution, but a PPA should be based on a "shared vision" agreed by the two parties and publication of it reveals that there isn't one, unless it is CBC's vision is to establish a tourist attraction on the site.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
12:31am Sat 12 Jan 13

oops. Sorry. I'm posting quite enough on here without duplications!

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree