To receive questions from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order No. 12.
Question submitted by James Allsop;
Given the current climate crisis does the Council still feel its support, promotion and financial assistance for a development at Peak resort in Unstone that so many oppose, and that if successful, despite multiple failures over multiple decades will generate pollution, congestion and disruption for the residents is appropriate when none of the proclaimed thousands of jobs have been created and when so many other potential backers have pulled out of some of the other schemes proposed on this site?
Question submitted by Chris Allsop;
Will there be new environmental studies done on the land and air pollution as if the project goes ahead and we end up with a carpark what penalties/ consequences will there be for the developer and/or the Council that has passed the planning if the environment suffers in any way?
Minutes:
Under Standing Order No. 12, the following question was asked on behalf of James Allsop:
Given the current climate crisis does the Council still feel its support, promotion and financial assistance for a development at Peak Resort in Unstone that so many oppose, and that if successful, despite multiple failures over multiple decades will generate pollution, congestion and disruption for the residents is appropriate when none of the proclaimed thousands of jobs have been created and when so many other potential backers have pulled out of some of the other schemes proposed on this site?
Councillor Tricia Gilby provided a verbal response as follows:
· The Council had reflected the significance of the Peak Resort development in the latest Council Plan, Growth Strategy and Visitor Economy Strategy.
· Peak Resort would comprise of a 165-bed hotel, a range of food and beverage outlets, a cycling school, retail outlets for the hire and sale of outdoor equipment and apparel, a covered area for artisan markets, a skills academy to skill, reskill and upskill the staff that would be employed by the various operators and many more exciting initiatives.
· The development in time would lead to the creation of a significant number of new jobs within the Chesterfield economy, estimated at 1,000 and was projected to attract 1.3m additional visitors per year to the area.
· A solar PV canopy would be installed covering 875 of the planned 1,587 car parking spaces, alongside EV charging points, sustainable urban drainage systems and significant planting schemes, helping mitigate any negative impacts arising from the development.
· Travel planning initiatives such as hydrogen buses and taxis, and cycle hubs would be developed in line with the original Section 106 planning agreements.
The Leader stated that the reference to so many opposing the development is worthy of further consideration as to the vast majority of people signing the petition did not live within the Borough or surrounding areas, in fact only 8.38% did.
The Leader concluded by stating that the decision as to whether to allow the Peak Resort development to proceed would ultimately rest with the Council’s Planning Committee, weighing up all of the material planning considerations relating to the application.
Under Standing Order No. 12, the following question was asked on behalf of Chris Allsop:
Will there be new environmental studies done on the land and air pollution as if the project goes ahead and we end up with a carpark what penalties/ consequences will there be for the developer and/or the Council that has passed the planning if the environment suffers in any way?
Councillor Tricia Gilby provided a verbal response stating that she did not wish to repeat that which she had already said in response to the first question, but she could confirm that the Peak Resort development was not a car parking scheme.
The latest proposals prioritised a range of measures which aimed to reduce the development’s carbon footprint and there had been several supporting studies carried out to inform earlier planning submissions. The latest planning application had referenced those studies and included the results from recent ground investigations.
The site of the Peak Resort development was not within or close to any designated air quality management areas and the Leader had seen no evidence to date to suggest that air quality would be made worse by the latest proposals.
The Leader stated that should the Peak Resort development proceed, the Council would be vigilant in relation to monitoring and managing any resultant impacts on the environment.