UK holiday park reveals major £8.1million makeover plans with new holiday cabins and campsite
Forest Holidays is hoping to gain permission to replace 85 caravans and camping pitches at its site in Beddgelert, in Snowdonia National Park.
3
The site plans to add 22 year-round, luxury cabins to its existing 16 cabin development and 85 additional pitches for both touring caravans and camping.
In addition, Forest Holidays wants to create a new reception and cafe building.
Currently, the site has 25 touring caravan pitches and 85 camping pitches.
The proposals are part of a wider plan in collaboration with the Roberts Group - the owners of Cae Du and Cae Canol campsite, also in Beddgelert.
Under a separate application, there will be more touring and camping pitches at Cae Du and Cae Canol so the village doesn't lose capacity.
Public toilets and better path access for guests are also part of the plans.
Back in 2017, the site gained planning consent for 16 cabins and up to 85 touring caravan pitches and camping pitches.
Forest Holidays has 13 sites across the UK in woodlands owned by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, and Natural Resources Wales.
The Beddgelert site is the smallest of the Forest Holidays locations and is set in a riverside wooded area.
Each cabin currently has a hot tub and guests can enjoy access to the new Elvis Owl Nature Trail - which is ideal for kids as it includes activities to immerse them in nature.
This holiday park has Maldives-like overwater bungalows
Families can also hire bikes from the site, to explore the local area on wheels.
Alternatively, guests can get some R&R with a spa treatment.
Prices to stay at the holiday park vary, but can be found from £895 for a week, for a family of four.
Beddgelert itself is a picturesque stone-built village, which is the ideal base for exploring Snowdonia National Park.
From the village, travellers can head onto the Lôn Gwyrfai path which can be used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders.
The route stretches over four miles to the village of Rhyd Ddu - which is then a good starting point to hike to the summit of Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon).
According to Forest Holidays, since opening in 2018 demand for the 16 cabins at Beddgelert has been high throughout the year.
The site also expects annual occupancy levels of the cabins to be 96 per cent, with guests expected to spend £650,000 per annum in the local area as well.
A NEW £23million woodland holiday park with lodges, treehouses and play zones is set to open in the UK.
Forest Holidays, which submitted the plans for the project, hopes to build 75 timber holiday cabins on 140 acres in a Derbyshire woodland at Farley Moor.
If approved, the holiday park would feature a shop, cafe, outdoor play area and 249 parking spaces.
The whopping £23million project will be able to host 185 people with cabin sizes varying from one to five beds along with treehouse rooms.
Forest Holidays plans to suspend all cabins above the ground on steel pillars to protect the forest floor.
The cabins would be a flat-pack design reducing the need for heavy construction equipment.
Center Parcs' boss also recently revealed what to expect from its brand new holiday park in the UK.
Plus, the lesser-known UK holiday park named the best in the country – with unique all-inclusive stays and free booze.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Less reorganising, more doing': landmark report alone won't fix broken water sector
It started with sewage. Few environmental crises evoke such visceral public anger as pumping poo into waterways, but for years, that is exactly what water companies in England and Wales have done in large volumes. Their failure to build infrastructure, plug leaks and protect nature has infuriated customers who at the same time have struggled with soaring water bills. It has also shocked European neighbours whose publicly owned water companies keep things far cleaner. Critics say the increasingly sorry state of the UK's waterways is the result of mismanagement and underinvestment by debt-ridden water companies who were allowed to run wild by toothless regulators. The problem, as they see it, is the environmental conundrum at the heart of the modern consumer paradigm: public goods such as healthy rivers and clean beaches do not appear on company balance sheets. Why should corporations – which have a duty to create value for their shareholders – look after public goods? And if governments won't force them to, should we really expect them to look after the environment? In this case, after a landmark report into the troubled sector on Monday, the government announced it would combine the powers of four water industry watchdogs – which had competing economic and environmental aims – into one entity with oversight for the sector. It promised 'strong ministerial directives' and an end to its light touch approach. 'A single, powerful regulator responsible for the entire water sector will stand firmly on the side of customers, investors and the environment, and prevent the abuses of the past,' said Steve Reed, the UK environment secretary. The adopted proposal is just one of 88 recommendations from a report by an independent water commission– the bulk of which the government will consider over the summer – and the response from environmental experts has so far been muted. Hannah Cloke, a hydrologist at the University of Reading, said water industry reforms were 'long overdue and badly needed' but warned against spending years setting up new structures while rivers stay polluted and reservoirs run dry. 'The real challenge isn't designing better systems on paper – it's getting companies to actually fix leaking pipes, stop dumping sewage, and build the infrastructure we need,' she said. 'Less reorganising, more doing.' The report contains a number of recommendations that could help improve water quality and manage its supply, such as better third-party monitoring, new infrastructure standards, compulsory smart meters and a ban on wet wipes with plastic. It considers drawing from new EU rules to make polluters pay for the extra treatments needed to clean up emerging micropollutants, which could eventually include long-lasting Pfas and microplastics. The report also calls for the updating of existing environmental laws, in addition to overhauling the regulators. The proposed 'streamlining' includes setting a new long-term target for the health of water bodies in England and Wales – though the move might tempt ministers to lower ambition, given that the existing targets are set to be missed. Mark Lloyd, chief executive of the Rivers Trust, said it was understandable that 'many people will have wanted this report to go further' but that he believed the recommendations, if implemented, would lead to a 'dramatic improvement' in the water environment and more cost-effective delivery. Most of all, though, the report has also come under fire for what it has left out. Adrian Ramsay, co-leader of the Green party, compared the proposed regulatory changes to 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic'. 'Not only that, but the majority of the public are going to be expected to pay more in bills, as we watch the industry continue to sink under the failed model of privatisation,' he said. 'The government deliberately left out the option of public ownership from the review, but that's the only real way to get the water industry to clean up its act.' That outcome isn't guaranteed. When the water companies were privatised in 1989, the UK was regarded as 'the dirty man of Europe'. A trip to its beaches shows it has come full-circle.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Cunliffe's reforms for water should have happened 20 years ago
Farewell, Ofwat, soon to disappear down the regulatory U-bend. Its leadership has been up against some serious corporate miscreants and boardroom financial engineers over the years, but abolition is the right decision. The original sin – overseen by New Labour – was to allow the leveraged takeover boom of the mid-2000s, which was the point at which regulatory control over the sector started to be lost. The past decade has been about trying to undo the damage, which has only exposed yawning gaps in regulatory knowledge, such as the storm overflow scandal that broke in 2021. A 'reset' moment is overdue by about 20 years. Sir Jon Cunliffe's review goes to the heart of one main problem: the fragmented, overlapping and inflexible nature of a regulatory system that takes in not just Ofwat and the Environment Agency (a regulator that lost its way as severely) but also the Drinking Water Inspectorate, Natural England and Natural Resources Wales. That structure is simply confused. A super-regulator in England (and equivalent in Wales) should, the theory goes, solve the problem of duplication and lack of coordination. Simpler is better. One line of criticism says the government is merely rearranging the deckchairs. Not necessarily. The bite in Cunliffe's recommendations, if they are to succeed, will be the switch to a 'supervisory' model. The description is bland but, if done correctly, it could make a difference, as it has in financial services, from where Cunliffe, one of the clean-up officials at the Bank of England after the great crash, has drawn his analysis. The Prudential Regulation Authority is capable of striking fear in bank boardrooms. For water, it will require the regulator to know a company's operations in detail at a basic engineering level, and thus be equipped to know when excessive returns are being made or when, genuinely, the company hasn't been given the financial resources to do the job. It is, for example, amazing that Ofwat's board does not include anyone with the job title 'chief engineer'. (The new regulator should have one, says Cunliffe.) And it is even more astonishing, 36 years after privatisation, that nobody seems to have a clear idea of the real state of companies' assets. (Fix that too, says the report.) Add it up and there is a framework for a more commonsense approach than the current cycle of reviews and exchanges of documents running to thousands of pages. 'Ofwat has relied too heavily on a data-driven, econometric approach, and has not taken sufficient account of company-specific conditions and challenges,' says Cunliffe's commission. It is hard to disagree. In the end, it is not possible to run a privatised system without strong regulators who form their own judgments. New powers, under Cunliffe's advice, would allow regulators to block certain owners and to apply a financial-style suitability test for senior executives. Both sound like improvements if backed by 'public benefit clauses' in water company licences that would allow the regulator to interfere more aggressively. Given the sector's history of financial engineering, Cunliffe could have gone further and suggested caps on debt levels. Instead, he opted for new regulatory powers to set minimum capital levels. That is weaker, but at least we may see an end to the nonsense of Ofwat announcing a leverage ratio for its 'notional' company (55% of assets currently) and then being ignored. In other respects, the report will read as investor-friendly: 'company-specific' supervision and the possibility of 'regulatory forbearance' in turnaround situations will be music to the ears of the sector laggards. If the latter is to achieve public consent, the other side of that coin will have to be tougher day-to-day enforcement of environmental laws, which comes down to the government's willingness to fund boots on the ground. That part is the gift of ministers. Indeed, Steve Reed, the environment secretary, should take note of what this report demands of government – a 'step change' in strategic approach, including setting medium- and long-term priorities and an acknowledgment of trade-offs. Step one, one can suggest, would be for Reed to stop claiming the government has 'secured £104bn of private sector investment' when everybody knows the vast bulk of the sum comes from customers' bills. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion For some, nothing less than full nationalisation will do. On that score, the government's resistance is justified. Nationalisation would take years, would be challenged in court if attempted at less than market value, and offers no guarantee of success if the HS2 debacle is a guide to departmental talents in building critical infrastructure. Cunliffe's vision of a 'low-risk, low-return' sector for investors is a better pragmatic bet if the goal is to clean up lakes and rivers as quickly as possible and actually build some reservoirs. Low-risk cannot mean risk-free: it must still be possible for the owners of outright corporate flops to lose their shirts, as the mugs who bought Thames Water from Macquarie will. Everything will depend on execution, of course. In the meantime, the Thames crisis rumbles on and special administration remains a highly possible outcome for that disaster, not least because Cunliffe's review should remove the 'contagion' risk for the wider sector. For now, the forward-looking aspect of his review is the thing to focus on. A tally of 88 recommendations illustrates how much has gone wrong. But the core advice to create a single, stronger regulator – one that can throw its weight around on the basis of up-to-date information – should be unarguable.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the water industry: a return to public ownership should still be on the table
Labour could have chosen the public interest over the profit motive, as it set about its promised reorganisation of the water industry in England and Wales. Polling last year showed a higher level of support for publicly owned water companies than railways. Yet while train companies are being renationalised as contracts expire, ministers ruled out a reversal of 1989's water privatisation before they commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe, a former central banker, to report on how they could improve this failing industry through tougher regulation. This newspaper regrets that the question of ownership was taken off the table. Water is among the most precious of all natural resources and the pro‑market logic for the sell-off was bogus. In the absence of competition, regional monopolies were created and, in the decades since, businesses have enriched themselves while failing to fulfil their responsibilities. No other European government has followed suit in offloading vital infrastructure including pipes and reservoirs, and enabling investors to extract wealth by loading up balance sheets with debt. Asking Sir Jon's commission to reconsider public ownership, alongside regulatory reform, would have offered more options. Growing pressure on the water supply, and increasing instability of hydrological cycles due to global heating, mean proper stewardship centred on human needs is more essential now than ever. It remains likely that Thames Water will end up in special administration due to its vast debt – despite this scenario having been left out of the commission's scope. The Common Wealth thinktank has proposed this as a stepping stone to long-term public control. Within the terms offered, Sir Jon has done a thorough piece of work. If they are accepted by ministers and work in the way he intends – and these are big ifs – his 88 recommendations ought to bring a shocking period of mismanagement to an end. But they probably won't prevent another from beginning. Not all of England and Wales's 11 regional water companies have the disgraceful records of Thames and Southern. The approach to pollution of these two businesses, combined with their aggressive financing structures, have undermined public confidence more deeply than all the rest. But tougher regulation is clearly overdue. The supervisory approach proposed, modelled on financial regulation, would be a significant improvement provided that the right people, including engineers, are put in charge. Rather than conduct statistical tick-box exercises, this new regulator should aim for an overview. Bringing under one new roof the various regulatory functions – including those carried out in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and by the little-known Drinking Water Inspectorate, as well as Ofwat – makes obvious sense. The rollout of smart meters is also a good proposal, provided that a social tariff is created for low-income households. An ombudsman ought to make it easier to seek redress when local services fail. It is right to highlight the need for a longer-term approach to water policy too. It remains to be seen which of these ideas will be taken forward. Businesses in multiple sectors are experts at running rings around regulators. Making water companies value the public interest more highly, relative to private profit, will be an ongoing struggle. Without structural reform, the cycle of regulatory failure and corporate evasion remains all too likely.
