its going in a quarry, hardly a thing of natural beauty. look at the surrounding industry as well.
its going in a quarry, hardly a thing of natural beauty.
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).
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?
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...
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.
Quote from: rginns on April 10, 2014, 09:33:34 amIt'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 climbsGary Gibsons Staden Quarry pageIts actually quite sheltered from the A6 and a very pleasant, peaceful venue with some quality lines.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: rginns on April 10, 2014, 10:37:06 amThere 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...
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.
Quote from: rginns on April 10, 2014, 12:15:35 pmI 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?
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.
Whatever the appropriateness of this particular application, employing 100 people will certainly benefit the local economy (and we all benefit from that).
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.
I'm partly being devil's advocate too...
Quote from: rginns on April 10, 2014, 10:37:06 amI'm partly being devil's advocate too...Overplaying that a bit now.