[shark]

At this evenings Peak Area Meet the amended application for a bottling plant was discussed. This is a large scale development involving major excavations (quarrying by the back door?) with the removal of aggregate (£11million worth!) via narrow roads such as the one past Craig Y Biceps / Cowdale. IIRC the building will be two storeys high and measure 70m / 100m and involve tunneling under the A6 (which will be closed during construction).

Objections are various - a factory in an inapprporiate rural location, construction traffic through Cowdale, damage to trees and nature, noise, lack of public transport for workers, visually intrusive etc

Lodging an objection is easy.Click on this link and scroll down to the Cowdale Quarry A6 application and click on that

[theemoominhunter]

its going in a quarry, hardly a thing of natural beauty. look at the surrounding industry as well.

[SA Chris]

Let's hope they bottle it.

[Wood FT]

its going in a quarry, hardly a thing of natural beauty. look at the surrounding industry as well.

As far as quarrys go Staden is rather nice, at least it was last time I went.

signed.

[shark]

its going in a quarry, hardly a thing of natural beauty.

Nice enough for a picnic

[slackline]

At this evenings Peak Area Meet the amended application for a bottling plant was discussed. This is a large scale development involving major excavations (quarrying by the back door?) with the removal of aggregate (£11million worth!) via narrow roads such as the one past Craig Y Biceps / Cowdale. IIRC the building will be two storeys high and measure 70m / 100m and involve tunneling under the A6 (which will be closed during construction).

The blurb on the BMC website suggests that there is a tunnel proposed to provide access to/from the A6, not under it and that this will be used for the removal of aggregate, but that the tunnel will be built from the top down so access to the quarry during the tunnels creation will involve going through Cowdale.

[rginns]

It's near an already busy A road and it's being built in a quarry in which there is no climbing and it's also going to create 100 jobs...

Sorry, why are we objecting?

 

[Nigel]

It's near an already busy A road and it's being built in a quarry in which there is no climbing and it's also going to create 100 jobs...

Sorry, why are we objecting?

 

Because there is climbing. We're climbers and there must be numerous sites in the locale which would be suitable and aren't climbing areas, and also wouldn't involve a lucrative quarrying operation to build. In fact I doubt this would either, sounds on the face if it like they're just reopening the quarry, wouldn't be surprised if a bottling plant never appeared.

[slackline]

It's near an already busy A road and it's being built in a quarry in which there is no climbing and it's also going to create 100 jobs...

75 climbs

Gary Gibsons Staden Quarry page

Its actually quite sheltered from the A6 and a very pleasant, peaceful venue with some quality lines.

[rginns]

Because there is climbing. We're climbers and there must be numerous sites in the locale which would be suitable and aren't climbing areas, and also wouldn't involve a lucrative quarrying operation to build. In fact I doubt this would either, sounds on the face if it like they're just reopening the quarry, wouldn't be surprised if a bottling plant never appeared.

There probably aren't numerous sites that the landowner owns on which he could build a bottling plant. Even if there were, there are highly likely to be objections from whoever is in the vicinity or uses the area for their chosen activity. Your argument comes across as a little NIMBYistic ...

It sounds to me on the face of it (nice pun by the way) that they're realising the potential of land that otherwise isn't 'productive' whatever that means.

It's near an already busy A road and it's being built in a quarry in which there is no climbing and it's also going to create 100 jobs...

75 climbs
Gary Gibsons Staden Quarry page
Its actually quite sheltered from the A6 and a very pleasant, peaceful venue with some quality lines.

Thanks Slackers, I stand corrected.
Isn't access to this going to be preserved? Although I did read this on UKC so.....

You have to weigh up the creation of 100 jobs with the loss of what is there now. If I was on the dole I know what I'd want to happen. This is already in an area where there is a massive concentration of climbing.
There are always conflicts between landowners and the climbing community, look at the Wilton development recently - these issues need to be resolved by negotiation, communication and compromise. Otherwise the owner may get his back up and blow up what climbing is there already.

I'm partly being devil's advocate too...

[slackline]

Isn't access to this going to be preserved? Although I did read this on UKC so.....

You have to weigh up the creation of 100 jobs with the loss of what is there now. If I was on the dole I know what I'd want to happen. This is already in an area where there is a massive concentration of climbing.
There are always conflicts between landowners and the climbing community, look at the Wilton development recently - these issues need to be resolved by negotiation, communication and compromise. Otherwise the owner may get his back up and blow up what climbing is there already.

I'm partly being devil's advocate too...

See the BMC article I linked to above as to how many jobs might realistically be created based on operations at similar plants in the area.

[SA Chris]

There probably aren't numerous sites that the landowner owns on which he could build a bottling plant. Even if there were, there are highly likely to be objections from whoever is in the vicinity or uses the area for their chosen activity.

There are existing areas set aside for places things like bottling factories. They are known as industrial estates. I realise that this being a former quarry doesn't exactly make it pristine greenfield, but it's certainly become "greener", and should hence be preserved and allowed to become more so.

[Johnny Brown]

It's probably worth noting that most of the other former quarries in the area have become nature reserves - these sites are hardly derelict wastelands.

I really like the climbing at Staden, and its a real shame access has become a problem. The landowner originally suggested access would be restored provided climbers 'didn't bugger up his plans'. His repeated planning proposals have not been rejected on any grounds to do with climbing objections, but basically due to being ill-conceived. The first proposal included a climbing centre, though climbers were not consulted on this afaik, and he didn't gain much support. Since then any allowances for climbing seem to have been dropped.

[shark]

See the BMC article I linked to above as to how many jobs might realistically be created based on operations at similar plants in the area.

Thanks Slackers.

Said article - which I hadn't seen 


https://www.thebmc.co.uk/staden-quarry-climbing-threatened-by-new-water-bottling-plant-plans


A new planning application for a water bottling plant at Staden Quarry (aka Cowdale Quarry) has been received by the High Peak Borough Council. The BMC’s volunteer access co-ordinator Henry Folkard recently attended a Parish Council meeting about the proposals at King’s Sterndale and takes up the story.

The new application (reference no: HPK/2014/0023) is substantially different from previous ones, though it is still for a water bottling plant. Essentially it proposes a 6.3m excavation at the far (Buxton) end of the quarry to accommodate a two storey building some 150m long and 125m wide. This will be accessed by a tunnel from the A6 of 14.8m width reached via a 12m deep cutting. Blasting would occur twice weekly over almost two years. If the tunnel is to be lined no mention is made of how. Importing reinforced sections could be problematic.

Parking for 72 cars is envisaged. Lagoons similar to those in the last proposal are shown on the plans. The method of excavations is not mentioned. On the drainage plan there is no link to it from the river nor from the roof water system. Estimate is that to be effective at least 30,000 cu m of rock would be dug out, and presumably need to be transported off site. A heritage centre and trail is mentioned but not shown. A new lay by (this appears to impinge on the curtilage of the ancient monument) on the A6 is shown on some plans but not others.

300,000 cubic meters of good quality aggregate would be released, weighing an estimated 750,000 tonnes, and sold. A notional £15 per tonne was quoted, totalling well over £10m. It was presumed this would be aggregate tax exempt. Whilst 19,000 lorry movements were anticipated in the proposal, at the meeting it was suggested the real figure would be in the order of 50,000.

Existing mounds would remain, or even be extended, presumably to mask the new building. There would be an on-site concrete manufacture facility (though no mention of water source for cleaning aggregate or making concrete). The capacity of the spring is apparently 175 million litres per annum.

Construction was estimated to last 87 weeks. It was claimed 100 people would be employed and sales would rapidly exceed those of Buxton Water – though interestingly Buxton employ only 45 – 60 people and Harrogate Water 35 – 45.

An Environmental Impact Assessment accompanied the planning application. This appeared to be markedly similar to that submitted with the previous proposal, though the current proposal is substantially different. Ornithological data, particularly on bats, was demonstrated to be incomplete. The Public Inquiry after the last proposal confirmed this is a greenfield site.

One substantive difference is that the tunnel will be worked from the top down so all construction traffic (including a 25 tonne excavator) would come along the single track Cowdale road, across the field and down the loose ramp. Some use of the heritage ramp may also be implied, though this may in fact be protected.

As with previous applications this one seems internally inconsistent and incomplete, especially on any construction detail. Similarly there is apparently no assessment of noise or other adverse impact during construction, nor of construction method. Assessment of inconvenience caused by road closure of the A6 for periods during construction or for knock on effect in Buxton is also incomplete.

The BMC will register an objection on the grounds of an incomplete proposal, loss of amenity, environmental and landscape impact, and negation of any notional economic benefit. This is privately owned land, so we have no right of access and as Mr Hockenhull has currently banned climbing, we have nothing to lose.

If individuals wish to comment on the proposal, the current deadline for comments is 24 April and these can be made either online through the High Peak Borough Council website by clicking ‘comment on this application,’ or in writing to the Planning Officer:

Mrs J Colley
Development Control Section
High Peak Borough Council
Town Hall
Buxton
SK17 6EL

[shark]

I really like the climbing at Staden, and its a real shame access has become a problem. The landowner originally suggested access would be restored provided climbers 'didn't bugger up his plans'. His repeated planning proposals have not been rejected on any grounds to do with climbing objections, but basically due to being ill-conceived. The first proposal included a climbing centre, though climbers were not consulted on this afaik, and he didn't gain much support. Since then any allowances for climbing seem to have been dropped.

Worth emphasizing that people have continued to climb at Staden (and are encouraged to do so to demonstrate continued usage).

If asked to leave do so but don't give your (real) name/address.

Someone at the BMC Meet said they had climbed there last October whilst the farmer was there (I don't think the farmer is the landowner) and was not challenged.

[rginns]

There probably aren't numerous sites that the landowner owns on which he could build a bottling plant. Even if there were, there are highly likely to be objections from whoever is in the vicinity or uses the area for their chosen activity.

There are existing areas set aside for places things like bottling factories. They are known as industrial estates. I realise that this being a former quarry doesn't exactly make it pristine greenfield, but it's certainly become "greener", and should hence be preserved and allowed to become more so.

I agree, but the landowner doesn't own an industrial estate, he owns a quarry...
He is sitting on a potential gold mine if he's granted permission - an estimated £11.25 million to gain...
What would you do?!
If the job creation is genuine, it could be an economic boost for the local area.

Of course, it doesn't make it right from an environmental perspective...

[shark]

I agree, but the landowner doesn't own an industrial estate, he owns a quarry...
He is sitting on a potential gold mine if he's granted permission - an estimated £11.25 million to gain...
What would you do?!
If the job creation is genuine, it could be an economic boost for the local area.

Of course, it doesn't make it right from an environmental perspective...

So you agree its an individual on the take to the detriment of the environment and the bottling plant could be located on any one of a number of estates near Buxton/Chapel En Le Frith.

What point are you arguing exactly?

[SA Chris]

I agree, but the landowner doesn't own an industrial estate, he owns a quarry...
He is sitting on a potential gold mine if he's granted permission - an estimated £11.25 million to gain...
What would you do?!
If the job creation is genuine, it could be an economic boost for the local area.

But the company who owns the bottling plant can look for alternative locations if the landowner gets permission overturned. If I was him I would, but everything must be done by those who don't want it to happen to resist him. The jobs will still be jobs, regardless of the location of the plant.

[rginns]

I agree, but the landowner doesn't own an industrial estate, he owns a quarry...
He is sitting on a potential gold mine if he's granted permission - an estimated £11.25 million to gain...
What would you do?!
If the job creation is genuine, it could be an economic boost for the local area.
Of course, it doesn't make it right from an environmental perspective...

So you agree its an individual on the take to the detriment of the environment and the bottling plant could be located on any one of a number of estates near Buxton/Chapel En Le Frith.
What point are you arguing exactly?

My point is that it's hardly cut and dry.
Too often these situations are made out to be totally one sided. "The evil landowner / burn the witch etc etc ".
Whatever the appropriateness of this particular application, employing 100 people will certainly benefit the local economy (and we all benefit from that).
Is it an individual on the take? Probably otherwise he wouldn't have applied.
Will it be to the detriment of the environment? Probably.

But all too often frenzied reactions don't lead to good outcomes for those with vested interest especially in the sorts of situations that frequently come up with climbers, i.e. Landowner vs land user:

This is privately owned land, so we have no right of access and as Mr Hockenhull has currently banned climbing, we have nothing to lose.

And this is the BMC saying this ?! I don't agree with this at all - Look at the work Les has done in the North West to gain access to Hoghton, a previously banned crag. This has only been acheived through tireless effort to build relationships with the land owner, there should never be a situation where we 'have nothing to lose'.

On the information I've read, my opinion is this will have a negative affect on the natural landscape but a positive affect on the local economy. The balance of this will presumably be reflected in the planning decision (assuming no brown envelope factor). But if permission is granted we can't expect to save any of the existing climbing if if there is animosity between the climbing community (read BMC) and the land owner.

[slackline]

Whatever the appropriateness of this particular application, employing 100 people will certainly benefit the local economy (and we all benefit from that).

The proposed factory is unlikely to employ the estimated 100 people based on the numbers who are employed at nearby existing facilities of a similar nature.

On the information I've read, my opinion is this will have a negative affect on the natural landscape but a positive affect on the local economy. The balance of this will presumably be reflected in the planning decision (assuming no brown envelope factor). But if permission is granted we can't expect to save any of the existing climbing if if there is animosity between the climbing community (read BMC) and the land owner.

If you read the review from the BMC that includes the above information I've alluded to you'll see that the planning application is, as with the previous one, considered to be inconsistent and poor in its scope (e.g. also massively underestimating the amount of industrial traffic involved in removing the aggregate, although neither party provide indications of how they have arrived at their estimates).

[SA Chris]

I'm partly being devil's advocate too...

Overplaying that a bit now.

[Wood FT]

The devils avocado

[rginns]

I'm partly being devil's advocate too...

Overplaying that a bit now.

That's forums for you!

[SA Chris]

Just respond to my last statement and I'll let you off

[Sloper]

It's near an already busy A road and it's being built in a quarry in which there is no climbing and it's also going to create 100 jobs...

Sorry, why are we objecting?

 

Absolutely agree, there will be well paid jobs in engingeering, construction and all the related aspects of the construction followed by long term jobs in the plant. 

This isn't Longstone Edge FFS

Can we really hold out the preservation of some climbs that would be ignored in 99% of the world against the investment, jobs and benefit to the local economy?  In my view the simple answer is no.