QUVL & Kingsway Developers
Created by CliveThere has been much confusion about the role of the QUVL (Quedgeley Urban Village Ltd) and the various builders/developers who have played a part in the construction of Kingsway Village.
Part of the confusion arises from the fact that the QUVL are often referred to as “the developers”, whereas they are – in fact a consortium of (some of) the developers.
In February this year, Baz_k and I were invited to attend a meeting with Andrew Hunter where he explained the relationship between the various interested parties and invited me to create an article defining the areas of responsibility. It seems that many residents contact him (as a representative of the QUVL) for problems which are in fact, the responsibility of the various developers.
Andrew supplied several documents (plans) and gave me permission to edit and publish them here.
I have created a page for the Kingsway Developers where I have explained the set up, linked to the relevant plan documents and furnished details of contact numbers for all of the developers and the QUVL.
The relationship is not simple to explain! Baz_k put it quite well in an email to me when he said:
QUVL is a limited company comprising representation from George Wimpey, Taylor Woodrow, Persimmon and Robert Hitchin’s. They exist to provide the infrastructure (the main roads and large green areas). This is project managed by Andrew Hunter (who is a consultant employed by QUVL).
The land has been sold off in packets to various builders/developers. These include George Wimpey, Taylor Woodrow, Persimmon, Robert Hitchin’s, Barratt, Bryant, Lioncourt and Miller (I think that’s it, though others have been sub-sold again.
Its important to note that while Taylor Wimpey (for example) that sits on QUVL is the same overall company that is also a builder, it is different parts of the same business. Thus a complaint going to QUVL about a parcel of land which is owned by Taylor Wimpey will not be actioned by QUVL and should be redirected to the appropriate Taylor Wimpey representative.
I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to get this published… See the first part of my article entitled School Closed for Elections for the reason(s) why!
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
and is filed under Kingsway Community, Kingsway Roads.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I couldn’t find it.
Am I correct in thinking Stanbridge Way & Coltishall Close form part of the Kingsway development?
Construction seems to have long since been finished in this area, but the roads have yet to have a proper tarmac surface.
Have they been forgotten about?
Cheers!
August 15th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Hi teef,
Sorry for the delay… looks like I missed your comment
To be honest, I’m not sure! I took a look at the developers website and there’s nothing there anymore except links to all the builders
My guess – since the roads are still unsurfaced – is that it probably IS part of the Kingsway development
August 15th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Evening Guys,
On the original plans and granted planning permissions, Stanbridge Way and Coltishall Close were part of the Kingsway Development, hence the crossings and footpaths installed across the A38.
Westbury Homes the original developer were part of the initial developer consortium, but they got bought out by Persimmon and their more upmarket sister company Charles Church. I’d think it would be wise to direct queries to their offices, as these roads should have been handed over to The Council by now in a finished state… Maybe The Council should be chasing things though!
August 16th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Hi ndn,
Thanks for joining in… and for the information
Contact information for Charles Church and Persimmon is available on our Kingsway developers page.
Road surfacing for that section will certainly be their responsibility (rather than QUVL’s), so I agree, teef should start by contacting them.
Whether that section will be adopted by The Council seperately from the rest of the development is uncertain, but I see no reason why they would wait; as that part of the development is “self-contained” and seperated by the dual carriageway, it seems logical that it should be adopted seperately (after all… the sooner The Council adopt the roads, the sooner the developer hands over the responsibility for maintenance/repairs).
Either way the developer should be able to tell you…
Please come back and let us know.