Plans to create a watersports and outdoor activity centre at a former quarry in Chelford were Planning considered by the Strategic Planning Board for the fourth time this week.
Cheshire Lakes' plans for a cable wakeboard park, low ropes course, open water swimming, paddle sports, café, water sports shop, showers and changing facilities at the former Mere Farm sand quarry have endured a fairly unprecedented path through the planning process.
Having been considered on three separate occasions by the Strategic Planning Board, the application was first refused, then approved, then refused again because they considered it would have a detrimental impact on biodiversity at the site and in particular on the birdlife.
Cheshire Lakes' subsequently submitted a revised application which includes some ecological enhancements and more mitigation to seek to overcome the perceived negative impact.
The planning officer recommended that the revised plans be approved at the Strategic Planning Board meeting on Wednesday, 24th May, subject to a Section 106 agreement, however committee members voted to refuse the application by 6 votes to 5.
Tim Woodhead, Managing Director of Cheshire Lakes, said "This was despite being recommended for approval by the Cheshire East planning experts, having no objection from the RSBP, no objection from Manchester Airport and having over 90% of all our feedback from Cheshire East being positive including the local ward councillor! There was simply no legitimate reason to refuse the application.
"As Cheshire residents we are utterly appalled at the way this application has been handled and decided upon. They ignored the evidence in front of them, ignored their officers advice and ignored the views of the local communities they represent."
Tim added "Onwards and upwards though. We have already appealed the rejection from 2016, and we are hoping this appeal will be heard in summer. Thankfully the appeal will be heard by an independent inspector and not the voluntary and out of touch members of the Cheshire East Strategic Planning Committee, many of whom really need to retire ASAP. They are completely out of touch with the general public they represent, they completely dismissed all our amazing public consultation results and the huge number of formal public comments left on the planning portal. Some of the comments made by the voting members were simply outrageous and not remotely based on facts or evidence.
"If you are one of the many Cheshire East residents who left positive feedback, you should be utterly appalled at how little weight they gave your opinion. What is even more sad is how little effort the case officer and planning department gave to try and back up their expert advise in recommending our approval. I don't think they even listed one of our many benefits!
"We now focus everything on the appeal and will not be giving up any time soon!"
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
In the interest of balance and having read the documents on the planning site:
Manchester Airport wanted both a condition and a Section 106.
RSPB - "Whilst it is considered that the proposed development will be damaging to the existing biodiversity of the application site it is the RSPB’s belief that the mitigation and enhancement proposed within the Joint Response should mitigate for losses". In other words it will do harm to what we have, but that mitigation is more likely than not (should) limit those losses.
As to the 90% feedback being positive. In contrast the Adlington Road site had as many negative comments and it didn't make a bit of difference to the outcome either.
Not included - those who lived locally objected on the grounds that they were assured it would be returned to nature.
Cheshire and Wirral Ornithology - "The mitigation cannot fully compensate for the loss of value of the site for birds. I can confirm that the CAWOS objection to Watersports development stands.
Finally I would say that evidence is judged and not weighed. That is what the planning committee do. The Planning Inspector may agree with them or not, - as the case may be.
Sorry - but tired of the propaganda war which is being conducted over this site.
For once N Cheshire Planning Comm. are doing their job and the Applicant is behaving as a spoilt child.
I don't recall anyone shouting for Woodford Aerodrome to be returned to greenbelt when it's day was done.