Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

advertise with us
Sponsored by
Read more about on-line and in print,
advertising or call 01723 363636 now.
 
 
Thursday, 28th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sands development hits stumbling block



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

THE developers of the multi-million pound Sands project have hit a stumbling block with Scarborough councillors.
Members of the planning and development committee decided to defer a decision on whether plans for two leisure units, a multi-storey car park, a block of 36 flats and a golf attraction, as well as public toilets should be built on the site of the former Atlantis water pool And it left David Rhodes, boss of Benchmark Leisure, the firm behind the scheme astounded.

Mr Rhodes, the firm's managing director, who attended yesterday's meeting, said: "We have put a huge amount of work into it and I cannot understand the reasons for their decision. It was recommended for approval by officials which members have now gone against. We have been working hard with everyone to ensure that various issues were addressed."

Mr Rhodes said he will now meet officials to consider the next steps. Benchmark Leisure are still keen to build a new waterpark on the site and at yesterday's meeting Mr Rhodes indicated that if the leisure units plans were passed then he would table amendments to include a water park.

He stressed that plans before the committee were important, irrespective of what happened about a waterpark because he would then have the option of going ahead with them.

He did not consider the latest application to be controversial and that a master plan submitted to the council some years ago showed that a leisure attraction with a multi-storey car park was inseparable.

"If you want to have a major family attraction then you have to have the car parking adjacent to it," said Mr Rhodes. But committee members wanted to know more details about what leisure facilities would be provided in the two proposed buildings and there were concerns about their architectural merits.

There was also concern that no definite figure had been put on the number of affordable housing units that would be provided in the block of flats. Earlier this year, Merlin Enterprises pulled out of plans to build a LEGOLAND Discovery attraction at The Sands but the architects' body, CABE, had criticised the designs of that proposed attraction.

At yesterday's committee, Richard Flowitt of Scarborough and District Civic Society, said the proposed car park was "ugly" and said that if a water park did return to the site there was already sufficient existing ground level nearby.

What do you think? You can leave your comments below.

The full article contains 415 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 June 2008 9:45 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Scarborough
 
Prev
1
2 3 4 5 6
1

Gary Glit,

27/06/2008 11:58:02
Scarborough Borough Council are a DISGRACE...they should ALL be sacked, wot good do they actually do???

idiots
2

Gary Glit,

27/06/2008 13:46:53
Not buzzing about it meeeeeeeeeee, proper poor work by uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu at council. Hi Robbo!
3

conzy boswell,

Notts 27/06/2008 13:59:02
Is there any wonder folks no longer regard Scarborough as a vialble place to go for a holiday etc.
The thing is half built and at a standstill and is one great big eyesore.
Get yer finger out Scarborough put some wellies behind the council and whoever is responsible for the farce.
4

love that benny,

the boro 27/06/2008 14:22:21
cant believe this council meeeeeeeeeeeee, shocking , council need to wake up and sort these problems out
5

BGS,

27/06/2008 17:20:04
Sorry, I do not agree with the above comments. For once I believe that a SBC committee is to be congratulated on acting in the interests of Scarborough rather than pander to the desires of Benchmark. The submitted plans under consideration were supposedly DETAIL plans - but they failed to establish the significant detail regarding exactly what leaisure provision was to be delivered. If you don't know that, how do you assess what car parking provision will meet requirements and thus the size of the car park required? And then as you don't know the size of the car park how do assess the amount of cross funding that could be required to build that car park? Benchmark did not submit a planning application to build a water theme park on the site of Atlantis - that was just thrown into the equation last week. What they did apply for was D2 use so Atlantis site could just as easily be a Bingo Hall or Gymnasium or the like and any Water Park could have been sidelined again to use at a later date to support another questionable application. Remember this Main Visitor Attraction has already been suggested on Marvels Site, and Burniston Barracks site as well as being presented once before on the Atlantis site in support of the Corner Flats. So as I said at the beginning, I believe that Councillors deserve commendation for wishing to confirm just what they were being asked to consider and their action to defer judgement until Benchmark has provided what they should have provided in the first place was the only one they could reasonably reach.
6

English like wot she is meant to be spoke,

27/06/2008 17:47:50
Well said BGS. Maybe some of our Councillors have woken up to how totally Benchmark have taken in their colleagues and the unelected "officials" (wonderful ambiguous phrase that!) who "recommended" Benchmark's transparent and unjustified scheme.

"Love that Benny" and "Gary Glit", you are clearly the same person, why try and hide, what is your agenda?

And didn't David Rhodes, this fountain of Benchmark propaganda, used to be described as their spokesman? Suddenly he has been promoted to Managing Director!

Wish I could get a job with this shadowy and secretive organisation, promotion seems very rapid for those who follow the party line.

SBC, one day very soon from now some organisation like Panorama will in the town covering the way this has been handled. It will, you all know that, it's just a matter of when.

And finally ... "There was also concern that no definite figure had been put on the number of affordable housing units that would be provided in the block of flats." THAT'S BECAUSE THE NUMBER IS ZERO!!!! Surely everyone can see that!?
7

Northsider,

scarborough 27/06/2008 18:02:13
At last a no to Benchmark.Why a multi story car park when Government policy is for park & ride. A park ride around the Scalby Manor area would keep all the traffic outside.Having personally kept track of parking in the area since last August Bank holiday up to the present week the car parks have not been 40% full,how a multi story car park will pay beats my calculations.
A very serious question the Council must ask is what is it going to cost to heat any Waterpark.With the cost of energy i wonder if we can have a viable park without a huge Council subsidy.
As the sheeting comes down on the flats i wonder if we are going to have the biggest blank wall on the Peasholm end of the flats? Wonderi if the planners failed to spot it.Anyone good at murals.
8

joefish,

Scarborough 27/06/2008 19:23:09
It's good to see the Council standing up to Benchmark at last. Decide what the Town needs, where it should be located and then find a way to get it built and managed. Is it too late to find an experienced developer of leisure facilities or have Benchmark got the Council by the proverbials? By the way, looking at the new flats (sorry apartments) I think we already have our Legoland. Can't see the development winning many awards for architectural quality and innovation.
9

Amaroo,

Scarborough 27/06/2008 22:16:50
This must be a first for Planning to turn down a Benchmark application. That said they have to commended for doing so.

One gets the feeling that Mr. Rhodes was of the opinion he could do what he wanted and where he wanted on this site. Seems that is not the case.

It is about time the council inisted that a condition of furthering 'The Sands' development was leisure facilities are started to be built. Because all Mr. Rhodes seems concerned with is a housing development.

The Water Park needs to be to ASA standards and not some large paddling pool with a couple of slides and a diving board. As I read the report as above I get that feeling Mr. Rhodes has little intention of a Water Park being built where Atlantis is/was.

Benchmark are only interested in profit through house and flat build, not anything to do with leisure because there is not the return on that.

It would be nice if the relevant Councillors of the ward voiced an opinion along with Cllr. Popple whose doorstep the project is on. Strange they stay silent over this but voice opinions by the bucket full on Park & Rides.
10

English like wot she is meant to be spoke,

28/06/2008 07:27:15
To Joefish, yes I drove past yesterday and the sheets appear to have been dislodged for some reason.

What an eyesore this inappropriate and utterly ugly building complex is going to be!

And while I'm on, who are these "security" men who take it upon themsleves to hold up the traffic when they want to get one of their lorries in or out? Like so many construction personnel they think putting on a fluorescent jacket qualifies you to act like a traffic policeman, but they are also absultely rubbish at it and distinctly dangerous, walking into the road without looking, failing to make eye contact with driver, etc. They nearly caused a pile-up yesterday morning, not for the first time, and a serious accident won't be far off unless they get professinals in.
Prev
1
2 3 4 5 6

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.