A public inquiry into Blackpool Council’s rejection of two new rides at the South Pier is being heard at Layton Methodist Church hall this week, with Blackpool Pier Company claiming the local authority has been “disingenuous” in refusing proposals while operating their own attractions on the seafront.
A public inquiry is being held in Blackpool this week after the local council twice refused the
Blackpool Pier Company permission to install two new rides at South Pier headland, a decision the attraction operators have branded “disingenuous.”
The hearing was originally scheduled for Blackpool Town Hall, but was held at Layton Methodist Church hall, with representatives from both parties appealing to the Planning Inspectorate over the future of the plans.
“Last September, Blackpool Pier Company’s application for planning permission for the siting of two rides – a Log Flume and a Starflyer -on either side of South Pier Headland area, was rejected,” reported the Gazette.
“Two months later in November, a new application, this time for a Certificate of Proposed Lawfulness (CLOPED) for the siting of two rides, was also refused.”
The company had highlighted how the addition of the two rides would significantly boost tourism while providing much needed income for ongoing maintenance, however the council rejected the CLOPED on 17 December as it constituted “development” and would therefore require full planning permission.
The appeal relates directly to the council’s response to “similar” proposals for its annual Christmas by the Sea attraction, located close to North Pier.
“To have submitted, assessed and approved an application for a ‘use of land’ for themselves as a Council in the wider context, it is somewhat disingenuous now for the Council to argue that the proposal now before the Inspector is not a use of land but operational development,” said a spokesperson for the Blackpool Pier Company.
A decision from the Planning Inspectorate is expected in September.
One rule for you…
Blackpool Pier Company said……. “To have submitted, assessed and approved an application for a ‘use of land’ for themselves as a Council in the wider context, it is somewhat disingenuous now for the Council to argue that the proposal now before the Inspector is not a use of land but operational development……
