Public inquiry set over bid to site Starflyer and Log Floom rides at South Pier

Proposals for two rides to be sited at Blackpool’s South Pier are set for a public inquiry hearing after the scheme was rejected on two occasions by resort planners.

Back in 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.

Just 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.

Blackpool Pier Company contended that the rides would prove a major attraction and help boost tourism, and that money raised from them would be vital in helping to repair and maintain all three piers,

But in rejecting the CLOPED application on December 17, the planning head argued that the application constituted ‘development’ and would need full planning permission. The bid for the CLOPED was consequently refused on those grounds.

Now an appeal hearing, concerning both applications, is to be determined by the Planning Inspectorate after the pier company launched an appeal.

That hearing, in the form of a public inquiry, is to be held at Blackpool Town Hall on  Tuesday, July 7.

In its submission, Blackpool Pier Company is arguing that Blackpool Council has been “disingenuous” in refusing a CLOPED for the South Pier plans while allowing the authority’s own “similar” proposals for the annual Christmas by the Sea attraction close to North Pier.

A statement to the Inspectorate says: “The Council in the officer’s report contend that there is a material difference between the applications where they granted themselves permission and this appeal application.

“The officer’s report contends that the granting of permission was for a use of land and operational development. However, the facts of the case in the form of the application form, the officer’s report and most importantly of all, the decision notice, do not support the Council’s position.

“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.”

Blackpool Council, which argues that the rides would be inappropriate for the site at South Pier, contends that the Blackpool Pier Company’s application for the two rides and the Christmas by the Sea proposals were not the same and therefore had different outcomes.

A statement in support of Blackpool Council’s case says: “The Council notes that the Appellant (Blackpool Pier Company) considers that the Council has taken an inconsistent approach to different applications. This is not accepted.

“The Council will explain how an application for one form of development on one site will axiomatically be considered differently to an application for a different form of development on a different site.”