Agenda item

Councillor Yasseen presented the report on the proposal for the caravan site at Rother Valley Country Park.

Extensive work has been undertaken to develop outline proposals for a new caravan site at Rother Valley Country Park and to assess its business potential. Financial projections suggest that such a development could enable the park to generate a significant net revenue stream for the Council, particularly if it were operational by the time that Gulliver’s opens in 2019. It would also improve greatly the availability of affordable overnight accommodation in Rotherham and enhance Rotherham’s reputation as a welcoming and enjoyable visitor destination. In particular, it would meet Gulliver’s requirement for a caravan site within the vicinity of their major new visitor attraction on the adjacent Pithouse West site.

Much consultation has taken place to date, around the proposal which will provide an AA 5 pennant Standard accommodation with 129 caravan pitches either with one or two shower blocks. The financial projections over the first 5 years of operation are included in the report. This is a capital project for which RMBC will borrow funds which will extend the availability and quality of overnight accommodation in Rotherham.

Councillor Albiston asked why the proposal will take so long to implement.

A response was provided by Phil Gill, Leisure and Green Spaces Manager, Culture, Sport and Tourism, that advice has been sought from Asset Management on the timescale for completion of the project, and that it is, in fact, an ambitious but achievable programme, taking into account the need to obtain planning permissions, building regulations permissions and undertake a tendering process in accordance with procurement requirements.

Councillor Elliot questioned the use of the caravan site, should it be called a caravan and camping site. Not everyone with a tent has a car but there are potential users who are cycling the trans Pennine trail.  Also the allocated space on the map is the same regardless of whether it’s for a caravan or tent.

The Project Team are developing a marketing plan and will need to ensure that the facility appeals to all regardless of what form of transport they use. The research done to date shows that the caravan market is what is most likely to generate most business.

Councillor McNeely explained that the Caravan Club and the Caravan and Camping Club are two separate organisations who should be consulted with equal importance.

Page 44 (12) implication for partners and directorates. Councillor McNeely highlighted possible  impact on Transportation, including the need for tourist road signs to the attraction. This should emphasis the fact that the attraction is based in Rotherham and not Sheffield.

In reply Phil Gill noted that whilst contact had been made with both caravanning clubs in the past, it is the intention of the Council to operate the caravan site at Rother Valley itself as this offers the greatest potential financial return.

Councillor McNeely suggested that both organisations should be approached again regarding possible promotion of the site to their members. All the suggestions put forward by Councillor McNeely can be considered further in the development of the marketing plans.

Councillor Cutts made reference to point 4.1. Asking if it is feasible for Rotherham MBC to operate the site.

Various options for the operation of the site are considered  in the report. The most favourable option for the Council to achieve its objectives and to maximise the return on investments is to manage the site in house, utilising existing business systems and experience at the park.

Councillor Cutts showed support for this project and the fact that RMBC were looking to manage it, but questioned then why it could not manage care homes and crematoriums also.

The response from Councillor Yasseen was that three examples provided by Councillor Cutts were not comparing like with like services.

Observations put forward by Lillian Shears made reference to the site map in that

·         there were no pot washing facilities shown;

·         that the toilet blocks appear to be a long distance from the tent area and

·         the informal tent areas are to have electrical hook ups.

Phil Gill explained that two toilet blocks are proposed, one of which is near the reception block and tent area. He also noted that these are draft plans, drawn in a small scale that does not allow all the details to be shown. He will check if the pot washing facilities have been included and the specification of the pitches.

Councillor Reeder was pleased to hear that RMBC were proposing to operate the site and if this was to change could Members be notified prior to any changes being made public.

Councillor Mallinder went on to the read the Exclusion of Press and Public notice and the meeting went into closed session to discuss the exempt papers.

Discussion took place covering several aspects of the proposal with Members sharing their views and ideas with Officers.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the recommendation made to Council to include the RVCP Caravan Site project within the Council’s approved Capital Programme as an invest-to-save initiative be noted.

(2)  That, subject to inclusion of the project within the Council’s approved Capital Programme, a further report be submitted to the Improving Places Select Commission when tenders for construction of the facility have been evaluated and the preferred contractor has been selected.