Thoughts, anyone ?
https://planningapps.pkc.gov.uk/online- ... FakkFv6ZIs
Development at the marina
It doesn't surprise me.
In my opinion and I know we have owners in studios and apartments,as a club we should have investigated the options of selling this land and units to the hotel, bringing in much needed revenue for the benefit of all.
If we have approx 1700 weeks owned by club and it is a guarantee this will increase in the next few years, this should be under serious consideration.
One-three night rentals at a timeshare club is short term planning and puts us in direct competition with hotel albeit brings rental revenue to club.
We are not a hotel, they are.
Personally I believe rental income will reduce and as we have read recently, owner rental is now outstripping club rental.
In my opinion and I know we have owners in studios and apartments,as a club we should have investigated the options of selling this land and units to the hotel, bringing in much needed revenue for the benefit of all.
If we have approx 1700 weeks owned by club and it is a guarantee this will increase in the next few years, this should be under serious consideration.
One-three night rentals at a timeshare club is short term planning and puts us in direct competition with hotel albeit brings rental revenue to club.
We are not a hotel, they are.
Personally I believe rental income will reduce and as we have read recently, owner rental is now outstripping club rental.
True enough and there’s substantial commission paid annually to a number of letting companies which is unavoidable unless all rental’s were let via the office.
I believe that the plans are to move the existing gym to an area beside the Spa which would make the development at the marina site possible.
Interesting times
I believe that the plans are to move the existing gym to an area beside the Spa which would make the development at the marina site possible.
Interesting times
Could be a bit of "Karma" here.
If the hotel builds self contained apartments or any other sort of accommodation, it could well have an impact on the revenue stream brought in by rentals.
The other knock on effect of this is the potential increased and long overdue emphasis on sales or we look to negotiate another arrangement which would help reduce the club owned lodges stock and the future burden on the owners.
If the hotel builds self contained apartments or any other sort of accommodation, it could well have an impact on the revenue stream brought in by rentals.
The other knock on effect of this is the potential increased and long overdue emphasis on sales or we look to negotiate another arrangement which would help reduce the club owned lodges stock and the future burden on the owners.
We take onboard with the comments other Owners have already posted. Is the LRHC going to put in a collective Objection to Planning Application 23/01101/FLL? If not, we need to get concerns/objections in by 16th August.
Having looked at the Planning Application on the Perth and Kinross Council website, we're concerned about the Apartments being 'marginally taller than the buildings it is to replace' (the Plans do not include this measurement, but everything else: is this deliberate?), what would be the visual impact on LRHC Lodges?, what will be the impact of Construction work on LRHC during what will be a long build and will there be access difficulties?, the escalated demand on already strained shared water and sewage systems is a big concern, the siting of the 'bin store and collection area' for the proposed Apartments being on the land on LRHC side of the B846 with the problems that would bring. The strain on shared leisure facilities - would LRHC even be able to share these? Maybe it's time to withdraw from the Leisure Fee Agreement? The proposed development is just 33metres from LRHC Lodges - what impact on the closest Lodges? Would the development improve the look of the current marina buildings or be a blot on the landscape? Is there evidence to show that the area needs additional holiday apartments? What would happen to LRHC Lodge water and sewerage supply during the Construction period? Trees are going to be felled - are they to be replaced elsewhere on the site as the area is in The Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon National Scenic Area (NSA)? The Application states that it will provide more jobs for the area but the population cannot meet demand for the current jobs available - where will these people come from?
These are just our initial thoughts and I must stop to do some packing, because we're leaving to stay in our Lodge later this week! We welcome your thoughts.
Having looked at the Planning Application on the Perth and Kinross Council website, we're concerned about the Apartments being 'marginally taller than the buildings it is to replace' (the Plans do not include this measurement, but everything else: is this deliberate?), what would be the visual impact on LRHC Lodges?, what will be the impact of Construction work on LRHC during what will be a long build and will there be access difficulties?, the escalated demand on already strained shared water and sewage systems is a big concern, the siting of the 'bin store and collection area' for the proposed Apartments being on the land on LRHC side of the B846 with the problems that would bring. The strain on shared leisure facilities - would LRHC even be able to share these? Maybe it's time to withdraw from the Leisure Fee Agreement? The proposed development is just 33metres from LRHC Lodges - what impact on the closest Lodges? Would the development improve the look of the current marina buildings or be a blot on the landscape? Is there evidence to show that the area needs additional holiday apartments? What would happen to LRHC Lodge water and sewerage supply during the Construction period? Trees are going to be felled - are they to be replaced elsewhere on the site as the area is in The Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon National Scenic Area (NSA)? The Application states that it will provide more jobs for the area but the population cannot meet demand for the current jobs available - where will these people come from?
These are just our initial thoughts and I must stop to do some packing, because we're leaving to stay in our Lodge later this week! We welcome your thoughts.
You have certainly raised some of the concerns we have too. In addition, there are few facilities in the area as it is to meet the many demands of Tourists in 2020's. Most families on holiday dine out, but there are few options now, even Dunalastair Hotel is Residents only plus there are no carry out meal facilities. Does this mean LRHC Owners/Renters be banned from Hotel? The only Food shop is the Country Store which has very limited supply of basic foodstuff, and having 'Home Deliveries' from larger Supermarkets in Perth will merely add to the traffic on the road around Loch Tummel/Rannoch. The Committee would need to negotiate with Nick to ensure access for LRHC owners/ guests to the Restaurants and Bar.
In respect of Leisure Facilities, the Committee must ensure our access is in no way affected should this new accommodation get the go ahead, as no matter whether you personally use the Leisure Facilities or not, the value of your Week owned has gone up as the result of our access to them. Such facilities are deemed a necessary part of ANY FAMILY Holiday in Scotland with the addition of Gym; Climbing Wall; and Loch Watersport facilities and ALL add to the value of each LRHC Unit.
Remove them and we are back to Rannoch of 5 plus years ago, ie grey dreich days spent just staring out the window with bored kids/Teens HATING their Rannoch Holiday and their parents for not going to Spain! Now they use the pool; the Loch water facilities; parents the Sauna; Spa; Gym; Climbing Wall AND ALL can enjoy meals in the Hotel Restaurants with entertainment and a promise of bringing back the Ceilidhs of past years which were such great family fun!I
Lastly, availability of Emergency Services, particularly the Fire Brigade should this new Accomm. Block go up in Flames, with so many Trees surrounding it could be tragic!
Ronnie
In respect of Leisure Facilities, the Committee must ensure our access is in no way affected should this new accommodation get the go ahead, as no matter whether you personally use the Leisure Facilities or not, the value of your Week owned has gone up as the result of our access to them. Such facilities are deemed a necessary part of ANY FAMILY Holiday in Scotland with the addition of Gym; Climbing Wall; and Loch Watersport facilities and ALL add to the value of each LRHC Unit.
Remove them and we are back to Rannoch of 5 plus years ago, ie grey dreich days spent just staring out the window with bored kids/Teens HATING their Rannoch Holiday and their parents for not going to Spain! Now they use the pool; the Loch water facilities; parents the Sauna; Spa; Gym; Climbing Wall AND ALL can enjoy meals in the Hotel Restaurants with entertainment and a promise of bringing back the Ceilidhs of past years which were such great family fun!I
Lastly, availability of Emergency Services, particularly the Fire Brigade should this new Accomm. Block go up in Flames, with so many Trees surrounding it could be tragic!
Ronnie
Have we as a club investigated the opportunity/option to sell the studios and apartments to the hotel?
In light of the current circumstances, the number of those units for sale and on reading the reviews of same on various fora, I personally am of the opinion that this should be of consideration.
Any plan would have to be favourable for existing owners of those units, but with over 1600 club owned weeks, there would appear to be a surplus of other types of lodge which could be used to accommodate owners if affected with favourable terms, also at same time reducing club owned stock and possibly creating a better sales strategy.
As we already know, the club owned lodges are losing approx £800,000 pa in fixed, guaranteed fees. The profit on rentals is on the surface minimal when you factor in the extra costs of cleaning, booking.com fees and other costs it would appear from budgets.
If the club were to seek to sell those units and it was agreed by a majority vote it could potentially result in securing not just the clubs future and reducing an ever increasing club stock, but speed up what most owners are seeking, refurbishments.
In light of the current circumstances, the number of those units for sale and on reading the reviews of same on various fora, I personally am of the opinion that this should be of consideration.
Any plan would have to be favourable for existing owners of those units, but with over 1600 club owned weeks, there would appear to be a surplus of other types of lodge which could be used to accommodate owners if affected with favourable terms, also at same time reducing club owned stock and possibly creating a better sales strategy.
As we already know, the club owned lodges are losing approx £800,000 pa in fixed, guaranteed fees. The profit on rentals is on the surface minimal when you factor in the extra costs of cleaning, booking.com fees and other costs it would appear from budgets.
If the club were to seek to sell those units and it was agreed by a majority vote it could potentially result in securing not just the clubs future and reducing an ever increasing club stock, but speed up what most owners are seeking, refurbishments.
Morning all
Some valuable points made here. You will have received the News Article which the Club sent out a couple of days ago which outlines what we have done so far. The Committee believes that we have followed an ethical and pragmatic approach to dealing with the proposed development. We first surveyed the Members and had an unusually high turn out to our survey. The majority - around 75% - were in favour of the Club making an Objection and to use experts. We have done this using a top law firm who have provided us with solicitors with particular expertise in planning. Prior to any action, the full Committee has been consulted and we are unanimous in what we have done.
All the matters which are brought up on this thread have been considered. We have concerns about the shared water supply and sewage arrangements and Richard is talking to experts about this. If the plans go ahead, then there is likely to be disruption. We are advised that in this case we shall need to have extensive discussions with Nick Pattie about how the construction would progress in great detail.
The Committee agrees that the Leisure Facility should remain and the numbers of our Members visiting the spa indicates that it is something we wish to keep.
Concerns have been raised on here about rentals. When the present Committee came on board it was obvious that looking forward a couple of years the Club was in a perilous position financially. As always, the problem is the number of Club weeks, bringing in no fees, which had not been properly addressed. Rentals were introduced as an immediate method of bringing in money. In the previous year rentals brought in about £20,000. Now we bring in more than ten times that amount. It has its own problems, it involves much extra management time, much extra cleaning and maintenance time, high costs to outside introducers and so on. But we cannot get away from the fact that it brings in substantial amounts of cash and if we had not made the effort we might well be talking to a Receiver by now.
We are making efforts with sales, maybe we should have started earlier but we prioritised what we thought would keep the Club solvent. Nothing would make me happier than to have a Club largely owned by Members again. It is still of course a Members’ Club, its just that there aren’t enough of them. We are now working hard on increasing the number of new Members and all existing Members who have shown loyalty to the Club over decades can help us by referring friends to us to buy their own lodges. A reward is of course paid for successful referrals.
One thing we have to ensure is that whether the Planning Application is successful or not that we keep a good relationship with Nick Pattie. It is in everyone’s interest for that to be the case. Our office and the hotel people have routine discussion regularly and Nick and myself are due a face to face shortly.
Regards, John
Some valuable points made here. You will have received the News Article which the Club sent out a couple of days ago which outlines what we have done so far. The Committee believes that we have followed an ethical and pragmatic approach to dealing with the proposed development. We first surveyed the Members and had an unusually high turn out to our survey. The majority - around 75% - were in favour of the Club making an Objection and to use experts. We have done this using a top law firm who have provided us with solicitors with particular expertise in planning. Prior to any action, the full Committee has been consulted and we are unanimous in what we have done.
All the matters which are brought up on this thread have been considered. We have concerns about the shared water supply and sewage arrangements and Richard is talking to experts about this. If the plans go ahead, then there is likely to be disruption. We are advised that in this case we shall need to have extensive discussions with Nick Pattie about how the construction would progress in great detail.
The Committee agrees that the Leisure Facility should remain and the numbers of our Members visiting the spa indicates that it is something we wish to keep.
Concerns have been raised on here about rentals. When the present Committee came on board it was obvious that looking forward a couple of years the Club was in a perilous position financially. As always, the problem is the number of Club weeks, bringing in no fees, which had not been properly addressed. Rentals were introduced as an immediate method of bringing in money. In the previous year rentals brought in about £20,000. Now we bring in more than ten times that amount. It has its own problems, it involves much extra management time, much extra cleaning and maintenance time, high costs to outside introducers and so on. But we cannot get away from the fact that it brings in substantial amounts of cash and if we had not made the effort we might well be talking to a Receiver by now.
We are making efforts with sales, maybe we should have started earlier but we prioritised what we thought would keep the Club solvent. Nothing would make me happier than to have a Club largely owned by Members again. It is still of course a Members’ Club, its just that there aren’t enough of them. We are now working hard on increasing the number of new Members and all existing Members who have shown loyalty to the Club over decades can help us by referring friends to us to buy their own lodges. A reward is of course paid for successful referrals.
One thing we have to ensure is that whether the Planning Application is successful or not that we keep a good relationship with Nick Pattie. It is in everyone’s interest for that to be the case. Our office and the hotel people have routine discussion regularly and Nick and myself are due a face to face shortly.
Regards, John
Good evening John
Mulling over once again the relevant points in your posting, I note that the Club still has ongoing financial problems in respect of too many Club owned weeks and not enough Sales. Finances are presently assisted a little by Lets but these are merely a series of elastoplasts and some larger injection of cash is needed. Surely the committee could kill two birds with the one stone by approaching Nick Pattie to see if he would be interested in purchasing the Studio Apartments block rather than the more costlier option for him of building down at the Quayside and then having to build a Gym. He could pull down the Apartments and rebuild on their Footprint. He would make a HUGE saving, AND I think we could ask in excess of £650,000 for the Apartment block given the savings Nick Pattie would make on his part of the deal.
This would offer the Club an immediate Sale of all the Weeks/Units owned within the Block and the much needed injection of cash to complete Refurbishment Programme.
The existing owners of weeks/Units in Studio block have no chance of selling them, therefore to offer them an ownership from one of the Club owned weeks would be to their advantage, or if they want out of the Perpetuity Clause, a compensatory amount of say £100 would be 100 times their monetary worth.
Ronnie
Mulling over once again the relevant points in your posting, I note that the Club still has ongoing financial problems in respect of too many Club owned weeks and not enough Sales. Finances are presently assisted a little by Lets but these are merely a series of elastoplasts and some larger injection of cash is needed. Surely the committee could kill two birds with the one stone by approaching Nick Pattie to see if he would be interested in purchasing the Studio Apartments block rather than the more costlier option for him of building down at the Quayside and then having to build a Gym. He could pull down the Apartments and rebuild on their Footprint. He would make a HUGE saving, AND I think we could ask in excess of £650,000 for the Apartment block given the savings Nick Pattie would make on his part of the deal.
This would offer the Club an immediate Sale of all the Weeks/Units owned within the Block and the much needed injection of cash to complete Refurbishment Programme.
The existing owners of weeks/Units in Studio block have no chance of selling them, therefore to offer them an ownership from one of the Club owned weeks would be to their advantage, or if they want out of the Perpetuity Clause, a compensatory amount of say £100 would be 100 times their monetary worth.
Ronnie
Good evening,
Unable to sleep I seem to have taken up mulling over the Club's cash flow problems and resolutions thereof and I had an additional thought on John Hurst and Committee Members meeting with Nick Pattie at end September. Given the possible number of objections lodged against Nick's Development Plans, the meeting could be tense at best and fractious at worse, perhaps a little sweetener from the Club would be a suggestion that if Nick were interested in a possibly more cost effective solution to his need to expand on the Site, the Committee could put to Owners the possibility of selling off the Apartment block.
This would at least let the Committee be aware of Nick's views on the possible purchase before moving forward on it at the AGM.
Ronnie
Unable to sleep I seem to have taken up mulling over the Club's cash flow problems and resolutions thereof and I had an additional thought on John Hurst and Committee Members meeting with Nick Pattie at end September. Given the possible number of objections lodged against Nick's Development Plans, the meeting could be tense at best and fractious at worse, perhaps a little sweetener from the Club would be a suggestion that if Nick were interested in a possibly more cost effective solution to his need to expand on the Site, the Committee could put to Owners the possibility of selling off the Apartment block.
This would at least let the Committee be aware of Nick's views on the possible purchase before moving forward on it at the AGM.
Ronnie
That's a no brainer.
Accommodation of this type and bearing in mind they are almost 50 years old have been demolished in every major city.
They are unsightly and refurbishments are just a waste of money.
A few surveyors have already suggested this which I don't think will be disputed by anyone attached to the club.
Accommodation of this type and bearing in mind they are almost 50 years old have been demolished in every major city.
They are unsightly and refurbishments are just a waste of money.
A few surveyors have already suggested this which I don't think will be disputed by anyone attached to the club.
We've read all of the comments with interest and share the views of other Posters, particularly the idea of offering to sell the Studio/Apartment Block to Nick. Obviously the opinions of Owners would need to be taken into account, but if Nick was interested in purchasing these it would mean that he would not need to build at the Marina and could choose whether to refurbish or rebuild.
Positives for LRHC in no particular order: there would not be a blot on the landscape marring the view of numerous Lodges, trees and wildlife would not be disturbed, there would not be problems with waste disposal near LRHC Lodges, nor changes to waste and water systems with the consequent impact on our Lodges. Displaced Owners of Studios and Apartments could be offered Lodges owned by the Club which would use up 'stock' and increase income. LRHC would not have to endure months/years of disruption and noise generated from building work and traffic. There would be fewer traffic accidents due to increased Marina traffic trying to exit on the blind corner or pedestrians using a narrow pathway and putting their rubbish out across a road which is used by loggers. The Club would benefit financially from the Sale of the Studios and Apartments. There will be other positives, but these are just off the top of my head.
Positives for Nick & Co: a massive saving of money and time! Either ready built apartments and studios which he could re-model, or demolish and rebuild. He would gain the existing parking and none of the guest staying in his apartments would be injured or worse, trying to cross the road with refuse or walk towards the Spa and Pool along a narrow pathway. He would retain the goodwill and spending power of LRHC Members. Sure that John and the Committee can think of more.
Just a thought: a few years ago, a new roundabout and major improvements to a nearby road network were held up for months, because some rare newts were living there! Perhaps we could invite a rare species to settle into the Marina area? We're not suggesting that we invite an eco group to import some rare species so that Planning Permission will not be granted of course! But maybe it would be a good idea!!!
Over to you John and Committee ........ but we think 1) another quick survey could be appropriate before your meeting with Nick to assess support for the idea, 2) ask the Studio and Apartment Owners of course, 3) followed by a Motion at the AGM. It will be interesting to see the reaction of Owners.
Positives for LRHC in no particular order: there would not be a blot on the landscape marring the view of numerous Lodges, trees and wildlife would not be disturbed, there would not be problems with waste disposal near LRHC Lodges, nor changes to waste and water systems with the consequent impact on our Lodges. Displaced Owners of Studios and Apartments could be offered Lodges owned by the Club which would use up 'stock' and increase income. LRHC would not have to endure months/years of disruption and noise generated from building work and traffic. There would be fewer traffic accidents due to increased Marina traffic trying to exit on the blind corner or pedestrians using a narrow pathway and putting their rubbish out across a road which is used by loggers. The Club would benefit financially from the Sale of the Studios and Apartments. There will be other positives, but these are just off the top of my head.
Positives for Nick & Co: a massive saving of money and time! Either ready built apartments and studios which he could re-model, or demolish and rebuild. He would gain the existing parking and none of the guest staying in his apartments would be injured or worse, trying to cross the road with refuse or walk towards the Spa and Pool along a narrow pathway. He would retain the goodwill and spending power of LRHC Members. Sure that John and the Committee can think of more.
Just a thought: a few years ago, a new roundabout and major improvements to a nearby road network were held up for months, because some rare newts were living there! Perhaps we could invite a rare species to settle into the Marina area? We're not suggesting that we invite an eco group to import some rare species so that Planning Permission will not be granted of course! But maybe it would be a good idea!!!
Over to you John and Committee ........ but we think 1) another quick survey could be appropriate before your meeting with Nick to assess support for the idea, 2) ask the Studio and Apartment Owners of course, 3) followed by a Motion at the AGM. It will be interesting to see the reaction of Owners.
Im sure that the Committee are fully aware of all of the issues in this complex matter and will do their utmost to achieve the best result for LRHC. A major factor influencing decisions will be if LRE get planning permission or not as the case may be, for the marina site and the outcome of that remains to be seen. It’s possible that LRE may not be interested in buying the studio complex unless for a very low price since the cost of demolition and rebuilding would need to be taken into account. Also they may simply not be interested and view the Marina site as the main focus. That being the case then there is the open market, however owners would need to vote on either option and the latter option probably wouldn’t help relations with LRE.
On a different subject, Ive heard it been said by several owners that since the start of the Leisure contract that the resale value of lodges has increased and this should also make them easier to sell.
Ive not yet seen any confirmation of this concept actually working , however, and I wonder if anyone can provide statistics which show a significant increase in sales as a result of the Leisure contract / access to LRE leisure facilities?
If there has been such an increase in sales in that period of time since the Leisure contract began then that will be great news.
On a different subject, Ive heard it been said by several owners that since the start of the Leisure contract that the resale value of lodges has increased and this should also make them easier to sell.
Ive not yet seen any confirmation of this concept actually working , however, and I wonder if anyone can provide statistics which show a significant increase in sales as a result of the Leisure contract / access to LRE leisure facilities?
If there has been such an increase in sales in that period of time since the Leisure contract began then that will be great news.
The bigger problem with the sales is how they were measured.
If someone swapped a lodge they were at one time classed as as a sale.
Your question is a good one and I, for one would be interested in this.
What I do know is that there has been no real focus on sales, till now,preferring to focus on rentals which has been obvious with previous comments by representatives of club.
It has been an almost arrogant attitude highlighted now by the number of club owned weeks.
It should make a massive difference to have the leisure facilities available, but only if the sales process is aligned.
But again as I have commented before the net gain from rentals is minimal when wages and other fees are calculated.
If someone swapped a lodge they were at one time classed as as a sale.
Your question is a good one and I, for one would be interested in this.
What I do know is that there has been no real focus on sales, till now,preferring to focus on rentals which has been obvious with previous comments by representatives of club.
It has been an almost arrogant attitude highlighted now by the number of club owned weeks.
It should make a massive difference to have the leisure facilities available, but only if the sales process is aligned.
But again as I have commented before the net gain from rentals is minimal when wages and other fees are calculated.
The new sales strategy of rewarding owners for recommending others to buy into LRHC weeks is interesting and must be given time before any assessment can be made of the success or otherwise of this initiative.
I would err on the side of caution though in citing the leisure facilities as a selling point, since these might not always be available to LRHC owners or may at some stage become too expensive to be viable.
On a personal note I’m not likely to be recommending perpetuity weeks to anyone, let alone close friends as I’d prefer to stay friends. Scotland must be the last place on earth where perpetuity is still legal ?
Term ownership is in a different league and I have no issue with that and its now entirely up to others if they progress a term ownership or not.
No doubt there will be an update on sales in due course
I would err on the side of caution though in citing the leisure facilities as a selling point, since these might not always be available to LRHC owners or may at some stage become too expensive to be viable.
On a personal note I’m not likely to be recommending perpetuity weeks to anyone, let alone close friends as I’d prefer to stay friends. Scotland must be the last place on earth where perpetuity is still legal ?
Term ownership is in a different league and I have no issue with that and its now entirely up to others if they progress a term ownership or not.
No doubt there will be an update on sales in due course
No problem Ronnie. I believe that the link is up to date.
I suppose PKC will have a lot to consider, in view of the number of responses and also the fine detail of some responses regarding the planning application.
The official LRHC response is the most professional I’ve personally ever seen
I suppose PKC will have a lot to consider, in view of the number of responses and also the fine detail of some responses regarding the planning application.
The official LRHC response is the most professional I’ve personally ever seen
It’s the current information on the PKC website re planning applications. It may just not be updated but probably no further updates will be made before Christmas . ( Christmas 2024)