Kendal Rugby Club supermarket ruling planning appeal (From The Westmorland Gazette)
When news happens, text KENEWS and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
Kendal Rugby Club supermarket ruling planning appeal
12:00pm Thursday 8th December 2011 in Business
STORE: How the Morbaine plan would look
DISGRUNTLED developers are taking their Kendal supermarket fight to a Government planning inspector.
Morbaine Ltd is contesting South Lakeland District Council’s decision to refuse the development at Mint Bridge – the Shap Road home of Kendal Rugby Club.
It is appealing the ruling and says it is confident it will be overturned.
After previous traffic flow problems were addressed, planning officers recommended councillors to approve the application.
But SLDC’s planning committee voted to turn it down.
The store scheme would have funded a new rugby stadium at Strawberry Fields, Oxenholme, allowing the club to move from its run-down facilities.
Morbaine director Alex Brodie said the decision was a ‘tremendous blow’.
“We have spent years putting together an application, jumping over hurdles and presenting it for review,” said Mr Brodie.
“It’s common knowledge that the club’s finances are not in a good state and this move gave it a lifeline.”
Kendal RUFC officials believe the decision was politically motivated and puts the club’s future at risk.
They feel councillors would prefer a supermarket to be built at Canal Head, the site of a planned £80m regeneration scheme.
Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon weighed into the debate, urging the council to reject the rugby club’s plan and back its scheme.
Mr Brodie said it was disappointing that, having satisfied original concerns, its bid was still refused.
“We passed all the points but all that went totally over the heads of the councillors,” he continued.
“It is an opportunity missed, at the moment anyway.”
Despite the refusal, Mr Brodie is hopeful that an independent inspector will back Morbaine because the council officers recommended approval.
“It’s very advantageous to have a recomendation,” he added.
“It gives us confidence because there is very little to argue against, from a planning point of view.”
A Planning Inspectorate spokesman said it could take up to five working days to receive an appeal.
A decision is usually made within six months.
Comments(4)
nickjohn
says...
8:57pm Thu 8 Dec 11
Or are we all just getting stuck in a rut of accepting there has to be a supermarket, or is it that a supermarket is the only viable proposition for either site to be developed satisfactorily..
There should be more than one way to skin a cat and it could be that the interest / investment generated by Gilkes and RFC could have a spin off whereby both parties benefit..
Surely discussions along those lines would be more beneficial for all parties in place of just a slanging match over who's development is biggest and best..
nickjohn
says...
9:01pm Thu 8 Dec 11
Gilkes want a new factory with easy access for infrastructure etc etc the RFC want to move, a supermarket / hotel / houses / offices want to be built.. Why don't Gilkes build on the RFC site, the RFC move to their new site and a supermarket etc etc go at Canal Head....
derkw
says...
5:25pm Fri 9 Dec 11
SLDC prove they are obeying EU law on Air Quality (agreed by the UK Government).
Surely it is impossible for any Government Inspector to allow more development to take
place before this and the RED Junction Congestion problems are proven to have been fixed.
Developers need to be made aware that while the EU law on Air Quality is not being met they
are wasting their time in appealing against the decision the Planning Committee has made.
There seems to be a core of District Councillors who are so fixed on their own agenda
(and not the wishes of the people as indicated in the recent SLDC Consultation) that they
are willing to pick & choose which laws SLDC obey.
The health of the people (in particular those living in Kendak town who are most at risk)
must take top priority over everything else.
These are my own personal views, but EU law must be obeyed.
GaryTown says...
3:48pm Thu 8 Dec 11
The Canal Head proposal requires the impetus of a major supermarket to kick start the development of the 20 acres site. Gilkes have already received a grant of £2.75 million for there new facilities, but the whole proposed project is estimated to cost £80 million.
It is well known that KRUFC has financial problems; if they move to a new site would they be able to support it with the current monies from their spectators?
As already mentioned Gilkes contributes millions to the local community, should the council ignore this in there deliberations. SLDC members were elected to look after the area and people living in their constituency, would it not be remiss of them to not debate both the rugby club development against the Canal Head one?