Cheshire Lakes will appeal as plans for watersports park refused at third hearing

watersports

Plans for a watersports and outdoor activity centre at a former quarry have been refused today (Wednesday, 16th November) at the third time of being considered.

Despite having been approved by the Strategic Planning Committee in August, committee members have backtracked with seven members voting against the application and five in favour.

In July the Strategic Planning Committee voted to reject Cheshire Lakes' proposal 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 in Chelford.

Members refused the application in line with officer's recommendation because they felt it would have a detrimental impact on biodiversity at the site and in particular on the birdlife as a result of the network of wires associated with the wakeboarding infrastructure.

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 Strategic Planning Board meeting on July 27th was not issued and the application was reconsidered at their meeting on August 24th - where members overturned their earlier decision and approved the plans.

Subsequently, Cheshire Lakes' plans for a watersports centre on the North and South lakes of the former Mere Farm Quarry were called back to be heard by the Strategic Planning Committee for the third time, due to concerns that the Council has not fully considered their duties in relation to the wild bird habitat as set out in Regulation 9A of The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012.

A spokesman for Cheshire East Council said: "Since the application was resolved to be approved at the previous meeting of the Strategic Planning Board, a further matter has been brought to the council's attention and the planning board has been advised to give the application further consideration."

The planning application was recommended for refusal by the planning officer again, on the grounds that "the proposed development is likely to result in a significant loss of biodiversity".

The planning officer's report, prepared for today's meeting, stated "As part of the application process, the Council's ecologist was a consultee and provided detailed comments and advice, and worked with the applicant to secure the best scenario for the site and for the protection of wild birds in the event that the application be approved contrary to the advice given.

"However, it was made clear through comments made in light of the mitigation proposed, that notwithstanding this, the Local Planning Authority could not comply with the duties set out above and that biodiversity and in particular wild birds would be adversely affected as a result of the proposals."

Tim Woodhead, Managing Director of Cheshire Lakes, said "Our planning application was seen for a third time today and rejected. It had to be seen for a third time due to yet another error from the Cheshire East planning department. We don't want to say too much right now, because we need to take more legal advice on how we will appeal and what we do next.

"There has been amazing public support for our proposals and we feel, along with our professional team of lawyers and planning consultants that errors by the council planning department have not given us a fair hearing. We can assure you, we will be appealing and fighting and will absolutely never give up! Full update coming soon."

Cheshire Lakes were intending to have the site fully operational in Spring 2017, creating 30 jobs, with a new site entrance and parking for 100 vehicles.

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.

Duncan Herald
Wednesday 16th November 2016 at 8:09 pm
Forgive my cynicism but do we end up paying or the appeals/reconsiderations ?