‘LANDFILL IN DISGUISE’ ON GOLF COURSE

A GOLF club planning to remodel part of its course using construction waste has been refused permission after objectors branded it ‘landfill in disguise’.

The revamp of the northern part of the Whiston Hall course, north of Cheadle, is needed to improve drainage and make it more accessible for players, Whiston Hall Golf Club has said.

The former members-only facility is now open to the public and a report to Staffordshire County Council’s planning committee stated it had been financially struggling for several years to remain open.

Around 150,000 tonnes of nonhazardous construction demolition and excavation waste would be brought onto the site for the remodelling. But objectors have raised concerns about the amount and nature of the waste to be used.

Kingsley Parish Council objected to the plans, as did the neighbouring Ipstones and Cotton parish councils.

A further 33 residents contacted the county council to raise their concerns, which include risk of contaminated land, HGV traffic and damage to a ‘highly sensitive location’.

It was also questioned whether or not the project would be completed within the 24 months proposed.

Resident Sally Marjoram told the planning committee meeting: “We moved here four years ago to provide a sanctuary for our children.

“We have three children, all with additional needs.

“We not only strongly object to this application but if it goes on with the noise and disruption we will find it harder than it already is to keep our children safe and settled.

“The oldest is severely autistic, having violent and explosive meltdowns when things are difficult for him. One of his special interests is the environment, having emailed the council several times with regards to people dropping litter.

“He was also gifted a couple of grabby sticks from the council to help with his regular litter pick.

“I’m not entirely sure how I would tell him his beloved council – who thank him for picking up the litter – had approved a waste dumping ground opposite his house.

“The applicant hasn’t considered or made any attempt to resolve the supposed drainage problem using conventional methods such as gravel soakaways or French drains.

“It would be impossible to police and subsequently enforce any contaminates or toxic waste due to the vast quantity and duration of dumping envisaged.

“This would also cause destruction of the great crested newt and other protected species.”

But Peter Hopkins, who spoke in support of the application, said: “We are applying for a temporary two-year permission to carry out the works.

“Our proposals have received no objections from Natural England, the Environment Agency or any technical officer at the council is concerned with protecting landscape character, biodiversity, traffic impact, noise, air quality, cultural heritage or flood risk or water quality management.

“These experts are stating that the scheme is acceptable and can be controlled by planning conditions.

“Parts of the existing course are too steep for accessibility and ease of play, some areas don’t drain well and the landscaping consisted of a significant amount of Leylandii planting along the fairways which is completely alien to the landscape character of the Staffordshire Moorlands.

“The current playing quality of the course – especially in the northern half where we are proposing these works – is very poor.

“The current situation of the course has resulted in Whiston Hall Golf Club struggling as a business. Without improvements being made to the quality of the course it is likely to be closed and lost as a leisure facility and this has been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.

“There are clear economic, social and environmental benefits for carrying out remodelling work to the northern half of the course to save the golf club.

“In order to establish the course as a destination for tourism golf and increase membership and general participation the current course needs investment to improve its quality and attract new golfers.”

The application was recommended for refusal by planning officers before the meeting, who concluded the development ‘could give rise to materially harmful impacts’.

The report to the committee added: “The applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposal is reasonable and necessary, and comprehensive, detailed, practicable and achievable within the proposed time scale.

“The applicant also failed to demonstrate that the unacceptable adverse impacts of the operations on local amenity and the environment resulting from noise, dust, water pollution, traffic impact and the visual impact could be satisfactorily mitigated such that the site was capable of being operated to high environmental standards within the Churnet Valley.”

Committee members voted to refuse planning permission.