Spotted this whie out running tonight…

Looks like after a fair while of debating, the FC has finally put in the application that will look to kill the Forest for anyone who currently enjoys it.. 🙁

78 new cabins proposed..

Full planning app here:

Clicky thingy

what they ARE GOING TO DO

http://194.187.35.179/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=1308742&PDF=true&content=obj.pdf

The plan will bring in a large amount of tourists into a rural area,and he;lpm improve the cycling and train services in the area, creating jobs in construction and maintenance for years to come.

And lets not forget its a tree farm, so the trees chooped down will be harvested for re use or recycling, again more jobs created.

Obviously everyone on here who know the area, know that the current plan is going to go ahead,no matter what objections are raised by nimbys, so hasnt bothered trying to put up any argument to stop it, possibly bats roosting, crested newts or old coal mine workings.

Yet somebody changing their windows or painting their house a different colour or even chopping down one tree gets hit by a huge fine.

I’ll be objecting to the access road to the cabins. Perfectly good access from the north at Waterloo Gate but they want to build a 1 mile access road from Ashton Road straight through the middle of the forest – madness.

The access road will have a big impact on MBers and dog walkers so get your objections in.

The Planners is currently filming for bbc2 about the planning dept of CWAC, so hopefully a bit about it on there.

Strange how these ‘improvements’ seldom do.

Interesting, the bit that says:
“The proposed development does not accord with the provisions of the development plan which covers this area”
Could be grounds for a solid case against this particular development.

http://194.187.35.179/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=1308676&PDF=true&content=obj.pdf

Above is the plan of the area, so on ashton road from chester youve gone over the + crossing and under the railway bridge and on a bit, and between the railway bridge and car park, with the squirrels is the new access point, just after the entry to the skills area,on left and zig zagging across the forest, still leaves a huge lot of trees to play in.

The developers will just apeal the decision, and probably win, due to jobs created in a rural setting.

I’m actually very surprised that they didn’t just go ahead and build it all, then apply for retrospective planning permission..

Rumour has it, most of the underground services are already in situ.. Certainly if you go to the top of Toms’ trail, they’ve put lots of new pipes in..

Hasn’t the law been changed so that if the Council object and loses, the council has to pay the developer’s fees? I believe it was one of the ‘industry’ friendly changes Tony Bliar introduced just to help out under dogs like Tesco….

Cheshire east went ahead and started building a waste transfer station, and then got refused planning permision, a few top bods got the push with loads of money to go.ad the place didnt get built it appears.

Then there was the glass factory at ince, created lots of jobs, on a derelict powerstation site,built without planning permision and allowed to stay on appeal.

strange world palnning.

The proposed access road goes close to the skills/jumps area so the people who just use this area will presumably start parking on the new road.

Its been a long time coming, and i doubt it will be stopped, having a road off the switchback (see proper local me 😉 ) doesn’t seem like a good idea to me though. As for job creation in a rural setting, well id argue that most villages around there are populated by commuters into chester etc and fairly well off and that unemployment is relatively low. It could be argued that the area being considered is outside the area visited by the majority of people ( its about as far away from the main car parks as you can get ). Its mainly guys at the skills area and general mountain bikers that go to the area and some locals with dogs etc. I guess thats why its a subject on here. personally id rather it was not happening and not for any NIMBY reasons its just that i like it as it is, having said that there are plenty of other places to go round there and id probably ride primrose more.

personally id rather it was not happening and not for any NIMBY reasons its just that i like it as it is, having said that there are plenty of other places to go round there and id probably ride primrose more.

Ahem to that brother. The problem with primrose though is thet there’s not ‘that’ much riding there really and it does get proper wet in the winter.

Link to the Communities Against Delamere’s Destruction website

This was the drawing that made it clear to me:
http://cadd.me.uk/doc/Proposed_full_site_layout.pdf

It’s definitely going to change!

Just wanted to bump this back up as the deadline for objections is getting near. The CADD Website has been updated following the meeting on Friday when about 200 people attended. One of the local objectors has knowledge of what grounds you should object on having previously worked on the side of developers, and the new information on the website lists the material grounds for objections you should use if you decide to object.

Simple really:

– if you object go to CADD and write a letter based on the information in ‘Policy Objections’ and send to the CWAC planning dept. in the next week,

– if you don’t ………..

That’s a pretty sizeable area of forest they are going to build on, when taken in the context of Delamere being reasonably small in the first instance. Why aren’t the lodges built just outside the forest somewhere? The very thing that attracts people is the forest, by reducing the areas available to recreation surely there’s an increase in usage pressure and the potential for a lot more friction between users?

I’d imagine that the residents of the old sanitarium aren’t too happy about it either.

It all looks as though it’s going to get exceedingly busy around there, more like a leisure park – what is the remit of the FC nowadays? Is it to provide amenity and green spaces or turn their land in to commercial enterprise areas, over and above the commercial logging?

I probably won’t know where on earth I’m going next time I’m around there for a ride…..

you never did rich… and when will that be?? it’s a fair drive from Perth…

FC mission = milk it for as much cash as they can..

unfortunately

Cutting Marcus, that hurt 😉

Bit late to the party- but it looks like they are going ahead with it..

Gutted 🙁

They needed a vid with boobs in it

(Still need to be shown around there!)

That’s a shame. 🙁

Sometimes there can be a pleasant surprise down the line – the proposed development for 78 houses in Delamere Forest has been out on hold and sent to a Local Public enquiry:
Campaign Against Delamere Destruction

Bring jobs to the area?

Part time Cleaners.

All the builders etc etc wont live local will they. FC = dodgy lot.

Thanks Nick, this has been a strange business and I don’t think the Forestry have come out of it well.

hmmm I hope the enquiry stops it but tbh I think it will only delay it, my experience of developers locally is they will hammer on constantly until they get their way. they pay for top legal teams and put a lot of technical stuff in that frankly on paper is ridiculous but at planning meetings appears flawless. unless those actively opposing this have experience of fighting this sort of legal battle I’m afraid that apart from costing the developers more money they won’t stop it. I’d be more involved but have enough problems with house builders putting our village under siege. good luck to those fighting it, they will need it.