Plans for watersports and outdoor activity centre could go down the drain

A planning application to create a watersports and outdoor activity centre on a Green Belt site in Chelford will be decided next week.

Cheshire Lakes' proposal includes a cable wakeboard park, low ropes course, open water swimming, paddle sports, café, watersports shop, showers and changing facilities at the former Mere Farm sand quarry, which is currently undergoing environmental restoration.

The scheme, which would create 30 jobs, also includes a new entrance, parking for 100 vehicles and a single-storey multi-use building which will provide a reception, small kitchen; indoor seating; staff office, toilets and changing rooms as well as a kit room and plant room.

The intention is to have the site fully operational in Spring 2017, however the planning officer is recommending that the Strategic Planning Committee refuse the application at their meeting on Wednesday, 27th July.

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of the Green Belt, as the use of the lakes maintains openness. it considered to be socially sustainable as it would provide an opportunity for local residents to participate in sport and it is considered that the proposed development would be very positive in terms of contributing to the local rural economy and supporting local businesses. It would also attract visitors from the local area and from further afield to use the facility, therefore making a positive economic contribution.

With regard to flood risk, noise, air quality, highways and design these matters are considered to be acceptable. However, the site has a rich biodiversity, which is proposed to be enhanced further through the continued development of the restoration scheme.

The planning officer feels that the biodiversity would suffer as a result of the proposals and in particular the birdlife at the site. It is considered that even with mitigation, the levels of disturbance would be detrimental to the biodiversity at the site.

The report prepared for the Strategic Planning Committee states "When weighed in the planning balance, it is clear that there are a number of positives to the scheme, however the harm to biodiversity, in particular bird populations cannot be overcome in order to achieve a scheme that would see the proposed use and the biodiversity exist together.

"Therefore, it is considered that on balance, the proposal is unacceptable and contrary to policy NE11 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework which aims to achieve sustainable development."

Chelford Parish Council recommended the planning application for refusal stating "The argument that this development will somehow allow more people to experience the local countryside of Cheshire East is a spurious one. Similarly, the argument that this is some sort of brownfield site is simply not true.

"On balance, councillors believe that the Lakes proposal is not appropriate for our local environment and will do much to detract from our rural setting. It is felt that the development will do little to enhance the amenity of our area and in fact may have a negative effect on the desire of people to move into the area."

Nether Alderley Parish Council felt the application is an inappropriate development within the Green Belt and no special circumstances exist to substantiate this type of commercial development within the Green Belt.

Cheshire East Council also received 66 letters from the public, 29 of which were letters of objection and 37 were letters of support.

The plans can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning reference 16/1353M.

Tags:
Cheshire Lakes, Planning Applications
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Peter Evans
Friday 22nd July 2016 at 12:44 pm
I can't understand why the issues raised re bio diversity cannot be easily overcome, the issues about rural environment seem rather groundless as the lake is not visible anyway and there seems to be a good level of support for a good investment. Maybe it would get more council level support if it was being developed by Jones Homes - cynical moi?? Surely not :-)
Or maybe we should have a referendum, we are good at those.
Simon Worthington
Saturday 23rd July 2016 at 12:19 pm
Bird life and biodiversity (expansion of normal diversity?). Wouldn't apply if Pete was desiring to slap up some "prefabs" or eyesore offices.
Peter Jestico
Monday 25th July 2016 at 6:26 pm
Couldn't agree more with the previous comments.
This must be the only news article I've seen here about a planning report where the environmental report carries any weight.
Housing developments on green field sites (green field not just green belt) also have an environmental impact but I'm yet to see one of those rejected to save the birds, hedgehogs or any other species that doesn't pay council tax.
If PE above is cynical then I think he may have company.
Pete Taylor
Tuesday 26th July 2016 at 1:28 pm
This would make a splendid location for a floating village; a well-known local house-builder could surely come up with some over-sized gin-palace house-boats; just imagine how much tax CEC would be able to obtain- they could then create some new Directorate posts on six-figure salaries.
Julian Barlow
Wednesday 27th July 2016 at 12:49 pm
With the rampant and much opposed development of our greenbelt, you'd think CEC would give some consideration as to how all these new households are going to spend their free time.

Central government are constantly warning us about the perils of alcohol and obesity and yet the moment someone bravely proposes a business that isn't a wine bar or coffee shop, CEC demonstrate uncharacteristic creativity in dreaming up reasons why this project shouldn't go ahead. CEC-Ignoring the people who pay their wages since 2009.
Clive Richards
Wednesday 27th July 2016 at 2:17 pm
I can recommend reading some of the letters of objection, folks. The environmental and conservation aspects/ values are very real and it is refreshing that non-economic reasoning is carrying some [due] weight. One only has to look around to see how wildlife is faring badly and this is an important site within the Borough. There are plenty of ways to battle obesity without spoiling something rather great on our doorstep.
Alison Keeling
Wednesday 27th July 2016 at 5:28 pm
It would be a massive shame if this development did not ahead. This is a great idea, it is a fresh and exciting new sporting activity and I know many people locally and beyond who are very excited about this venue opening. In my opinion it will significantly add to the local area, not detract and, as so many of the other commentators have said, there is surely an opportunity to find a middle ground so that the environment is generally preserved and the area gets a much needed new sports facility as well as creating more jobs.
Clive Richards
Thursday 28th July 2016 at 4:16 pm
30 permanent fulltime jobs seems like rather a lot to me. I have, over the years, seen the water sports facilities at various sailing places at Redesmere, Tatton, Winsford, Rudyard, Astbury, Pickmere, and Erwood. I suspect much quieter than the proposed operations in two senses of the word. Sale has water skiing and other sports - a busier draw for the public too.
Ryan Dance
Thursday 28th July 2016 at 11:14 pm
well said Simon. For once we agree