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.

Robin Barton
Wednesday 30th November 2016 at 9:49 am
Well done the ecology officer on Alderley Edge Council for standing up to those who regard care for birds and other wildlife as totally insignificant and who seem to care nothing for environmental matters. The missing paragraph in the council's application to develop the quarry as a leisure which apparently caused the application to fail at the last minute, is a suspicious omission on the council's part in my opinion, because it suggests that they wanted to avoid further discussion on the environment in case it would raise exactly the kind of objection the ecology officer did in fact raise.

Well done also to the individual who spent his/her own money in raising the legal objection. The decimation of so much wild life, especially birds, is something the general public must become much more aware of. The decline in bird life, especially, throughout the country is HORRIFIC. Those without understanding of this issue ought to read the literature on it, notably the RSPB and 'Song bird Survival' magazines and open their eyes to the awful decline in nearly all song birds and other wildlife. Anything that opens the eyes of the public to what is going on in this field is to be supported. Alderley Edge itself should be regarded as supplying a high degree of leisure activity simply because of its beauty, which those fortunate enough to live in or near it can take advantage of.
Glenn Hudson
Saturday 3rd December 2016 at 12:48 pm
Suspect, if anyone ever bothered to ask that there is more public support for Cheshire lakes than there is for yet another wildlife sanctuary.