Cheshire Lakes boss speaks out about planning fiasco

CL---Ropes-Course-4

As reported on alderleyedge.com last week, a planning application to create a watersports and outdoor activity centre at a former quarry in Chelford was refused at the third time of being considered on Wednesday, 16th November.

Following this u-turn by the Strategic Planning Committee, who has approved the application in August, the Managing Director of Cheshire Lakes has spoken out about the planning fiasco.

Tim Woodhead said "In an almost unbelievable turn of events last week, Cheshire East Council has now rejected our planning application for Cheshire Lakes, even though they agreed its approval in August!

"We are getting inundated with people asking what happened, so we thought we would try and explain it for you here. It is practically impossible to believe that the council find it so hard to approve an application that they admit is full of so many wide and varied benefits and so few negative impacts. We are trying to use a former sand quarry which is still some way from being restored, to create a social enterprise leisure and tourism facility which is in demand and wanted by the vast majority of the local population. We are not trying to build 300 houses, a retail park or bang a railway line straight through the middle of hundreds of miles of countryside! Our application is something that actually has real positive social benefits for people.

"We will try to keep it simple, but here goes:

"On the 24th August our application was heard at the Cheshire East Strategic Planning Board and approved subject to the signing of a Section 106. A Section 106 is a legal document which ties you into having to deliver certain things. In our case the Section 106 was in relation to Manchester Airport and making sure we didn't increase the numbers of large birds (eg Geese).

"Whilst we had our application approved in August, it is not 100% official until the Section 106 is signed. Unfortunately, the process of agreeing the bird management plan with the Council and Airport has taken a long time and 3 months later we have still not been sent the Conditions or Section 106 and hence could not sign it.

"During this time, we had been chasing the council and airport as much as we could, but at the same time, a local and wealthy resident paid a lot of money to a QC to see if there were any grounds for a Judicial Review of our application. In simple terms a Judicial Review can take place if a planning application has been granted and the wrong processes were taken by the council.

"Unfortunately, the QC advised that a single and minor error had been made by the Cheshire East Case Officer, in that they missed out a paragraph of text from the Case Officer Report. This was in relation to a regulation about the conservation of habitats and species. We know this information would not have made any difference to our approval in August as it was debated in length! The council received a letter of intent for a potential Judicial Review on the basis of the missing text from the case officer report.

"If we had already signed the section 106 and had our planning officially signed off, the only option for the council would have been to let the case go for a Judicial Review via the High Court. Our legal and expert advice was that if the case went to a Judicial Review our planning permission would have remained. A Judicial Review is very expensive for both parties, eg the local resident and the council.

"Because we still had not officially signed all the planning documents, the easy option for the council was to put us back to the Strategic Planning Board and make them aware of the missing text from the case officer report and this is unfortunately what happened. So rather than risk a potentially long and expensive Judicial Review, they just reheard our application. We were told by the Head of Planning at Cheshire East not to worry and they were merely debating if the missing text would have made a difference to the last decision.

"On the 16th November at the Strategic Planning Board, they actually debated our application and refused it. The big difference from August was that some of the members on the board had changed. Unfortunately, these new members did not get to hear our supporters speak, including the local ward councillor who has been hugely supportive of the scheme, they did not get the opportunity for a site visit, they did not get to hear our applicant's speech in full and they did not get to hear us answer all the questions we were asked in August, etc. It was not in any way shape or form a fair hearing!

"They voted and refused our application, based soley on ecology reasons, in relation to birds that might be there in the future.

"We now have to take legal advice on how we appeal it, if we take it to the Ombudsman, re-submit the application, etc. Our legal team and planning consultants are currently working with us to create the best way to move forward.

"We feel we have not been a given a fair chance to gain planning permission by Cheshire East. Our entire application process has been littered with errors and mistakes that have not been of our doing. Our application has been heard 3 times due to council errors. In our opinion of those 3 times, only 1 of them was a fair hearing and that was the one that we won.

"Many people are asking us who to send letters of support to, once we know our plan of attack we will be issuing full details on how you can help our application.

"We fight on!"

A Cheshire East Council spokesman said: "This application had to be referred back to the strategic planning board after further matters concerning Regulation 9a of the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012 arose.

"The planning board had to consider the potential for legal challenge if it had not given full regard to its duties under the Act.

"After further consideration, the board resolved to refuse the application."

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.

DELETED ACCOUNT
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 at 1:57 pm
Isn't this the second time that the applicant has said that things have gone "awry"? As I remember it they initially lost, but wanted it sent back to the Strategic Planning Board for some reason. The Head of Planning asked the SPB to consider it again, - something totally unknown - there usually has to be a fresh application, and this time it was passed. Then it went for a third time because of the missing section and was refused.
Richard Slater
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 at 2:33 pm
Tim, we really can't wait for this wonderful local facility to open, and dissapointed that these idiots have turned it down, what right have they. If this was flat land, they (CEC) would be all over you, setting up secret agreements, and common ground documents to get around the laws for greenbelt to build cardboard house, that we dont need, because there are no jobs in the area to support house building.

Because this resource will be a great benefit to the community and the wider area, bringing enjoyment, and learning skills to both adults and children, clearly there is a taste of sour grapes, because the councillor hadnt thought of the idea.

Its a large expance of water, wildlife will use the habitat, if your development is there or not, it outrageous that these people can refuse such a fantastic idea, and waste our money by refusing a plan that has already been approved. Legal action need taking against these individuals.

I can fully understand the airports concerns with regards to large birds, but they also have a duty to keep the aircraft from straying off the regular tracks. We too in our locality had a big issue with Cheshire East and a developer over a section 106, it took months and a petition, and even reached the TV news, but it finally came to light it was the council being awkward. Ask David Rutley for help, he resolved our issue.

Keep going Tim, it will be well supported when you do finally get there, please dont give up!
Pete Taylor
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 at 7:22 pm
I do not understand the airport's concern regarding birds. The lake is already there, the birds are already there, what difference does the proposed development make to that, other than it might slightly reduce the number/type of birds?
Guy Beardsley
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 at 7:30 pm
Tim. I get the sense that the vast majority of the population in the area are 100% behind your venture. I am only one voice but want to support your challenge in any way I can

I am looking forward to bringing my family to your watersports centre and am convinced that ultimately the officials who are supposed to represent us do just that!
Peter Evans
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 at 10:46 pm
I agree with the sentiments expressed above - this is a brilliant idea and will bring a great leisure facility without any negative impact on the locality. I have made a few comments about the total ineptitude of CEC recently and this is yet another example of how totally stupid they are, they make no sense attempt to represent the views of their "customers" or act in the interest of their community.
Alan Brough
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 at 11:23 pm
I agree that the project has considerable merit and I will happily support it in any practical way possible.

This area urgently needs a healthy, outdoor, adventure leisure facility and this scheme appears to offer exactly that. What's more, it regenerates a former industrial mineral excavation quarry, making it accessible to water sports enthusiasts of all ages, creating jobs and investment on site as well as revenue for businesses in the surrounding towns and villages.

It's right and proper that Manchester Airport should consider the danger of displaced birds in their aviation security plans and I wish that they'd exercised the same levels of caution before inflicting the environmental and infrastructural damage of Runway 2 or "Airport City" upon us....perhaps a tiny bit of reciprocity might be appropriate?

Good luck Tim Woodhead!
Richard Burgess
Thursday 24th November 2016 at 7:01 am
I passed this site yesterday what a great site for a water park,I could not see any birds on the lake ,it would make a prefect place for this type of facilities,with I think of one house that over looking the site,
You have someone that wants to employ people and invest in what is a hole in the ground that no one else wants,it's not as if it is near any big housing estates,it's just a big hole in the middle of the fields full of water.
Simon Worthington
Thursday 24th November 2016 at 7:45 am
Because there is little money in this for the council there is no incentive, similar to building schools or running buses. Judging by the other responses this is a plan with massive public support but those elected have chosen on spurious grounds to reject the plan. We have recently learned of the power of the ballot box. Watch out councillors.
Alison Keeling
Thursday 24th November 2016 at 8:34 am
I think this would be an outstanding contribution to our local economy and general quality of local life - it is outrageous that the council/planning office do not take heed of the local support for this venture. It is even more disturbing that it seems that a local resident with a deep pocket and NIMBY attitude should hold sway in such matters. Unbelievable - here's hoping that the council and powers that be listen to sense(and their local community) for a change!
Graham Shaw
Thursday 24th November 2016 at 9:13 am
Does this remind anyone of the Brexit legal challenge? Once again a single individual thinks that they can ride roughshod over the wishes of the majority and challenge a perfectly legal democratic decision.

I'm sure if the application had been to build hundreds of 'affordable' houses from Jones Homes and others that CEC would have instantly approved such a good idea!

I only hope that we can raise a perfectly good campaign to get this facility open. Good luck Tim!
Mark Goldsmith
Thursday 24th November 2016 at 9:54 pm
Tim - welcome to the vagaries of Cheshire East's planning process. You may wish to take up something easier to do instead. Like walking on your lake, rather than understand their impenetrable logic.