Plans for “grotesque” water park in derelict Derbyshire quarry rejected after hundreds of objections
The plans, from BMET Limited, would have seen Crich Quarry turned into the Amber Rock resort, complete with a water park, 152-room hotel, 128 straw-bale lodges and 210 apartments, cliff-top restaurant, spa, sports complex, zipline, medical centre and climbing centre – along with more than 600 underground parking spaces.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHowever, following a Derbyshire County Council planning meeting today (Monday, September 30), councillors promptly and unanimously rejected the development, in line with officer recommendations based on seven core reasons.
These reasons were the “unacceptable adverse impact on heritage assets, landscape, ecology and local amenity” along with the highway network and the lack of sufficient information in all categories to be able to support any form of approval.
The developer has confirmed to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that it will be submitting a “vigorous” planning appeal in a bid to overturn the refusal.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdRefusal at County Hall, in Matlock, followed years of to-ing and fro-ing over the application, revealed by the LDRS in 2019, and saw more than 700 objections filed to the council, most from campaign group ROAR (Residents Opposed to Amber Rock).
This focused on concerns over the surrounding constrained rural road network, the impact of light and noise on the overlooking Crich Stand war memorial and the landscape surrounding the Derwent Valley Mills.
Tony Mills, on behalf of his fellow campaigners, told the LDRS following the decision: “We are very pleased and delighted. We have 650 members in our group and we spoke as a community with one voice.”
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdAs for a potential, now confirmed, appeal, Mr Mills said: “We will play the match in front of us. If they appeal we will deal with it. The applicants have misjudged it, they don’t seem to get it.
“It is inappropriate where they want to put it.”
During the meeting, Mr Mills said the scheme proposed to build a “giant water park at the heart of our community” and that the community agreed it was a “wholly inappropriate development”.
Mr Mills said the scheme would leave behind “danger, pollution and destruction” throughout the five-year construction period.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIan Clarke, on behalf of the applicants, told the LDRS: “The planning committee formed an opinion based on missing information.”
He said this included the existing “extant” planning permission for the quarry, allowing further mining to be carried out, that the current restoration was deemed “undeliverable” in 2009 and that Amber Valley Borough Council should have been the authority to deal with the scheme.
Mr Clarke claimed there was a “crystal clear” case for the matter to be dealt with by the borough, but that the county said the application involved the “winning and working” of materials.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe said: “Hopefully the grown-ups will want to talk about it and whether they do or don’t we will vigorously appeal. There has been a miscarriage of procedure and we want to bring it back in line. We will also attempt to resume quarrying at Crich.”
County council officials said they were confident that they should deal with the application and had agreed this with Amber Valley.
During the meeting, Mr Clarke said that the new development would complement and boost foot traffic to the neighbouring Crich Tramway Village, and encourage overnight stays instead of day-trips, representing a “significant revenue stream” for the area.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdMr Clarke said there were one million tonnes of materials which could be mined up until 2042 and that this would be the fallback position if the water park resort is not approved.
The current plan would not involve any further materials leaving the site.
He said there was already “interest from leading operators” for the water park resort.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdKevin Oliver, a Crich resident, claimed during the meeting that the scheme was being promoted “purely for financial gain” and would leave the community to “suffer the consequences”.
He said Derbyshire County Council would be left with the “burden” of required road improvements to cater for the development and urged for an “emphatic, unanimous and irreversible” refusal.
Steven Woolley, a Crich resident, told the meeting that as with an exam paper, the applicant should have answered all the questions posed by the council.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe said the applicant and council should heed the warnings of UNESCO, which had singled out the Crich development as one that should not be approved in its current form or risk further negative impact on the Derwent Valley Mills’ world heritage status.
In August, the water park scheme was named as one of the reasons UNESCO had “grave concerns” over the Derwent Valley Mills after continued “inappropriate” developments.
Mr Woolley dubbed the scheme a “grotesque aberration” which was “purely speculative” and would cause “irreparable environmental damage, reducing Crich to a “traffic marshalling ground” serving the water park.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe said none of the five routes into Crich were able to meet current traffic and that this would worsen the situation.
A resident speaking in favour of the scheme said the area needed this sort of development along with the jobs it would bring – more than 560.
He said UNESCO should concentrate on the future of Belper Mills, which has fallen into disrepair for years, instead of looking further afield at other issues, saying the international body should “mind their own business”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCllr Chris Collison, of Crich Parish Council, said the failings of the scheme were clear from the beginning and that the “fragile” nature of the world heritage site needed to be considered.
He claimed the scheme would be “wholly inappropriate and even distasteful” due to its proximity and potential impact on Crich Stand.
Cllr Ron Ashton said: “This is far too large for the area. The road infrastructure is insufficient all around Crich, it is all country lanes, it cannot take 650 extra vehicles.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad“People go to Crich Stand to reflect on people that have lost. They don’t want that overshadowed by people making noise at the water park.
“It is just not practical to put that development there.”
Cllr David Wilson said: “On a good day I can see Crich Stand from my office in my house and it bears the name Johnson, which is the brother of my maternal grandmother. “I must put that emotional fact in a box. I have looked at the planning merits in depth and unfortunately I could not support this at all.”
Cllr Linda Grooby said: “I am a mother and grandmother of children who love these types of facilities. But at places like Center Parcs, they disappear into the countryside and there is no impact on the residents or on the surrounding area.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad“This would be incongruous in the countryside and no matter how much we want to see these jobs come into Derbyshire, I cannot support this.”
Cllr Paul Niblock said: “This is a big, bold, very impressive development and it is exciting in so many ways, and somewhere else it would be acceptable. It is a fantastic scheme in the wrong place.”
Cllr Martyn Ford, chair of the planning committee, who has Mercia Marina, near Willington, in his council division, which attracts 800,000 people a year, said he is all too aware of the impact of extra traffic to a tourist destination, which he said would be unsustainable for Crich.
The application was rejected unanimously by all six planning committee members, with four members absent from the meeting.
Comment Guidelines
National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.