Experts have doubts over Buntings' heritage centre plans

2:37pm Friday 11th January 2013 in News

Daniel, Stephen, Kate and Hector Bunting, who are behind the heritage centre plans Daniel, Stephen, Kate and Hector Bunting, who are behind the heritage centre plans

PLANNING experts hired by Colchester Council to look at plans for a heritage centre at Horkesley Park hae raised doubts of the centre's viability.

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 a number of criteria are met.

Serious concerns have been raised by each of them.

However, in response, Bunting and Sons, which is applying to Colchester Council for permission for the centre, claims some of the findings are flawed.

Bunting and Sons want to create a centre in Horkesley Park dedicated to a celebration of the English countryside on 117 acres of land.

Colchester Council's planning committee will decide on the application on Thursday.

Comments(10)

greenbroker says...
7:56pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Why don't hey use the site to grow some other produce? This saga has been going on too long. We don't need it.

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
9:44pm Fri 11 Jan 13

PG Rix farms offered to use it for garlic production but they turned them down.

Not Wanted
Not Needed
Not Right!

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
11:26pm Fri 11 Jan 13

The writing is on the wall in the applicant's own Tourism Evaluation Report, where it is "assumed" that the "unique concept of Horkesley Park" would "hope" to penetrate its market as effectively as a list of 10 leading attractions. It then plucks a wholly unrealistic number out of thin air (higher than the eqivalent for 9 of the other attractions) as the basis for its wildly optimistic visitor number estimate.

This most fundamental of flaws is only confirmed by the independent reports commissioned by CBC. What they do tell us, however, is how much this flaw undermines the proposal's economic sustainability claims.

Their much more realistic estimate of 130,000 visitors, (more than the Museum of East Anglian Life and Bressingham combined, so even this may be optimistic), equates to an annual net loss of £1.8m, or nearly £5,000 per day.

The only reasonably foreseeable outcomes are that the attraction would close within a few months, or that the nature of the attraction would need to be substantially altered to increase income. Either scenario would eliminate any promised sustainable social and environmental benefits.

Obviously, it doesn't take a genius to work this out, so the recommendation of approval is downright bizarre.

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
7:32am Sat 12 Jan 13

I wonder how much CBC paid for these three reports only to ignore their advice?

I went to Bressigham recently and would think that 130,000 visitors was wildly optermistic, it's a shell of its former hey days in the early 80's.

Report this post »

totallyfootball says...
10:32am Sat 12 Jan 13

This smug lot remind me of the Middletons, they are determined to have their five minutes if it bankrupts them. The plan is flawed but I think its a power thing now with the Buntings. Oh and before you start Jessie J, judging by other comments on this no one is either interestsed in what you have to say or supports your theories!

Report this post »

Catchedicam says...
11:58am Sat 12 Jan 13

I can only agree with Simon, the scheme as proposed is non-viable and the Bunting clan are astute business people, so clearly recognise this. So we can only assume that this is just a cover to create the base for something far less 'sustainable' and even less attractive, but far more lucrative, our very own 'Alton Towers' perhaps? Lets hope the members see sense and refuse the application and are willing to back their decision through the inevitable appeal that would ensue. This development is detrimental to Colchester.

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
12:09pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Sadly people's apathy and time constraints stop them from actually doing anything about it.

If the Bunting figures for visitors are to be believed then 1000 cars a day will travel through both Horkesley to and from the venue. West Bergholt will have the same problem as Sat Nav from London takes you off at Eight Ash Green. 1000 cars a day up and down Lexden Road.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
6:41pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Bressingham's target is around 85,000, but they have suffered marked drops in visitor numbers in recent years.

Worth noting that 1980's was the heyday of many similar attractions, before the advent of PCs and Sunday shopping; not least the National Shire Horse Centre near Plymouth. They had horse shows, car boot sales and a "death slide", but it got into difficulties, eventually closing in 2000 with the sale of the entire contents, including the horses. The family who ran it for the last 4 years said they wished they had never bought it, but claimed there was keen interest in turning the site into a national theme park. I understand that it is now derelict.

Report this post »

Hamiltonandy says...
11:22pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Thanks to jim_bo for information on a proposed bid by PG Rix farms. If only the Buntings would face reality and sell the land. I would definitely support, and hopes others would, the purchase of the land from the Buntings for horticultural use. It would be a great day when the threat of the Buntings retail park is finally ended!
PS And the end of council expenditure on expensive consultants for these unending planning applications.

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
1:28pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Sadly Andy, agricultral lands worth nothing. Whereas retail space is a premium.

If the planning goes through then they stand to make millions.

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