Whilst members of the Strategic Planning Committee voted to reject plans for a water sports and outdoor activity centre this week, due to an administrative error the scheme will be reconsidered next month.
Cheshire Lakes' proposal for 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 in Chelford was recommended for refusal by the planning officer because he feels that the biodiversity would suffer as a result of the proposals and in particular the birdlife at the site.
At the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday, 27th July, five members voted to refuse the application whilst four voted to approve it and one member abstained.
However, due to an administrative error the application was considered without the applicant or supporters of the proposal being given the opportunity to speak. As a result the decision notice from the Stragetic Planning Board meeting on Wednesday, 27th July, was not issued and the application is due to be reconsidered at their next meeting on 24th August.
Tim Woodhead, Managing Director of Cheshire Lakes, explained "Due to a delayed consultation by the council with Manchester Airport, we ended up receiving an objection from Manchester Airport the day before the planning board! Our planning consultants asked the council if we could be withdrawn from the agenda and the Council agreed.
"We had actually not been withdrawn from the planning board and there was an administrative error on the Council's behalf. Our case was actually heard without the applicant or applicant's supports speaking."
He added "Once we informed the Council of their mistake, they then did not issue the decision notice and hence we have actually not been refused!
"The council has apologised for their administrative error and we will now be seen on the 24th August. We now have the opportunity to discuss with Manchester Airport a way to mitigate their concerns and hopefully when we actually get a chance to speak at our application we will be in a much stronger position."
A spokesman from Cheshire East Council said: "Cheshire East Council has apologised to the applicant and has immediately deferred the application to a date in August when the applicant will have the opportunity to speak to the planning board.
"There was no intention to deprive them of that opportunity and the next meeting of the Strategic Planning Board is due to take place on August 24 when this application will be represented for a decision."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
What on earth however could Manchester Airport possibly object to
- it must be at least 5 miles away from the airport SE boundary
- it's not on a flightpath
- it has no significantly tall projections offering hazard for air traffic
- it's a considerable distance from main roads/feeder roads for the airport
- it could not be a site of strategic worth to the airport and developed or not, at the end of the day it's a stretch of water, thankfully plenty of those in the region for us to enjoy
Admin. error!! Is it me or maybe just a whiff of rat odour in the air with this story.
"The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding aspect by the Aerodrome Safeguarding Authority for Manchester Airport. As currently presented the proposals would conflict with Manchester Airport’s safeguarding criteria relating to potential bird hazard and we therefore object to this application."
The Aerodrome Safeguarding Authority for Manchester Airport need to get a life instead of justifying their existence.
My point, it's ridiculous. In terms of the area of water 'redevelopment' really has nothing to do with the argument . I've just looked at the local map and, considering the site is already a tract of water, around it (and within approx. 1.5Km) are 3 or 4 similar sized stretches of water in addition to numerous other smaller tracts.
Considering how much 'damage' Manchester Airport already does to the environment (gobbling up adjacent land - who still build acres of ground level car parking and monster warehousing on previous green belt) it's the very thin end of the wedge when they try and use their position of privilege (major employer for Manchester etc.) in assessing air safety to object to an existing piece of water that, otherwise left unadopted, would simply continue to attract birds and wildlife as nature intended.
If their attitude to the proposed development is based on such slender reasoning just watch out Cheshire.
Repeat, in no way would I support the proposed water park development.
The planning officer's report 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. Objections from Manchester Airport to the scheme have been received relating to potential bird hazard."