Bigbury Bay Golf Club Ltd Registered No. 6929632 Vat No. 236 1893 93
As you may know, I was asked by our Chairman to continue to maintain the relationship with our landlord since the Bantham Estate was purchased by Nicholas Johnston. Stephen and I have been steadily working toward replacing the highly restrictive lease that would otherwise remain in place until 2030 and includes some very challenging financial obligations.
We are delighted to advise you that Nicholas Johnston has agreed to the basic principles of a joint long term strategy that will help secure the future of our Club. I have explained some key elements below and ask you to please share these as widely as possible to ensure all members and especially potential members understand this positive development.
1) Nicholas Johnston continues to express his great appreciation that our Golf Club is an important part of his Estate. He has again confirmed that he has no desire to use the course for any other reasons. He specifically has no intention to use the course to extend the pheasant shoot, or for building purposes or any activity that would interfere with golf in any way. His ambition is for the Club to remain a prosperous Member owned and run asset, as we are now.
2) We are actively working with the Estate on the details of our joint strategy which includes an entirely new long term lease. We have a shared intention to complete this work over the next few months.
3) We have the Estates assurance that providing the strategy is successfully delivered, all outstanding deferred rent payments will be cancelled.
4) As an interim gesture of his commitment to the Club, Nicholas has also agreed to an additional reduction in our rent payments. This is a generous offer and underpins his support for the Club and the local community, and his ambition for Bigbury Golf Club to remain a vibrant business.
5) The Estate have agreed that a permanent Air Ambulance Landing Site will be created between the carpark and practice bunker. This again demonstrates the Estates view of our Club as an important community asset that they wish to support.
The financial generosity offered to the Club as part of the strategy will need to be balanced by the successful development of a limited and contained residential scheme on the Estate, but outside the Golf Course boundary. The Estate will be progressing this scheme over the next 12 months.
We will be releasing a press announcement jointly with the Estate, building on these key points.
In recent months many of us have been greatly troubled to hear of all sorts of ridiculous rumours circulating about the relationship between our landlord and the Club, none of which have been constructive. We hope that this very clear and positive statement will squash these rumours and demonstrate to all those interested that we continue to build a solid future. Please do your best to immediately correct any negative and unfounded discussion which can only damage our Club.
Richard Adcock and Stephen Price
Posts in category NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Contains all entries relevant to the Neighbourhood Plan
Flying in the face of local opinion – that of many residents of both Bigbury and Ringmore, of Bigbury Parish Council, of Bigbury’s Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group AND of SHDC – the appeal against the refusal of planning permission for up to 8 houses to be built at StAnn’s Chapel has been allowed. The appellants costs were not allowed, however.
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the residential development of circa 8 dwellings, open space and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for means of access (and associated off-site highway works) at Site at Sx 663 471, St Ann’s Chapel, Bigbury, Devon in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 4079/16/OPA, dated 20 December 2016, and the plans submitted with it, and subject to the conditions contained in the attached schedule.
Representations on behalf of Bigbury Parish Council to SHDC, concerning recent applications for demolition of Warren Cottage and Bay View Cafe
Valerie Scott, Chair of the Neighbourhood Planning Group, writes:-
I have been asked by the Chairman of Bigbury Parish Council to send to you the representations of Bigbury Parish Council to the above applications. The Parish Clerk is abroad at the moment and may not be in a position to send these to you until he returns.
I will be putting similar objections on behalf of the Bigbury Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group directly on to the on the websites.
The applications are in three separate parts, covering Warren Cottage, Bigbury Bay Cafe and the two buildings combined. Following the same pattern, the PC’s representations are as follows;-
Furthermore, I will try to prepare an article explaining the position for parishioners to enable them to write in letters of objection. Although there are very limited reasons that SHDC can give to refuse these applications ie relating to method of demolition and satisfactory restoration of the site I believe the presence of Japanese knotweed would be a reason to prevent any demolition until it has been fully eradicated or satisfactorily treated. The fencing to be left around the site following demolition is wholly unnecessary. It is not specified in the Method Report or shown on the post demolition plans. In fact the post demolition plans show specifically state that the existing vegetation and boundaries are to be retained. It is only in the letter from Ashfords Solicitors that the proposal to retain the fencing is mentioned. This is also wholly unacceptable as the fencing could be left in place for many months if not years as there is no planning approval in place for the redevelopment of this site.
There is no reason why people should not object to the principle of losing a heritage asset and an asset of community value (ACV). The site will retain its ACV status even if the Bay Café is demolished and the lawful use of the site remains as part residential/part Class A3 (café/restaurant).
Valerie Scott will be placing leaflets and nomination forms in Holywell Stores for people to send in suggestions for the List of Local Heritage Assets and also asking people to let her have suggestions for important views and vistas to be included in the Neighbourhood Plan.
There will be a comments box in the Holywell Stores for people to post their ideas but it would be more helpful if people could do this on-line by sending Valerie an email (to: email@example.com) and also including photographs of local heritage assets, views and vistas.
A nomination form for Heritage Assets can be found here – Nomination form
An explanatory leaflet about Heritage Assets is available here – List of Local Heritage Assets – Leaflet explaining process
The invitation to submit public views and vistas is here – Important Views and Vistas
This is brilliant news for the community coming hard on the heels of SHDC’s favourable delaying ruling on the application for demolition (see elsewhere on this site).
Valerie Scott, Chair of the Neighbourhood Planning Group writes – ‘You will all be delighted to hear that the appeal on the Bay View Café has been dismissed. I attach a copy of the decision. It is a very thorough decision letter picking up many comments made by the local residents either in writing prior to the hearing and or as other matters raised at the hearing itself. The fact that so many of you attended the hearing will have made it very clear how important these buildings are to the local community both as a community asset and a local heritage asset so many thanks to all those who objected to the application or attended the hearing.’
For the Inspector’s full Decision Notice click here – 3171733 Decision
Many congratulations and thanks to all those people who wrote in to express their objections to the demolition of the Bay Cafe. The following notice (see link below) has been issued by SHDC’s planners who want more information prior to any demolition. Until the details are provided, demolition cannot proceed without penalty. The delay should provide time for the two outstanding appeals (against the ACV designation & against the refusal of planning permission for 4 houses on the site) to be decided.