Drake's Island regeneration plan may be scrapped after council refusal
A £10million scheme to build a hotel on Drake's Island was in jeopardy today after city councillors turned down a planning application by developer Dan McCauley.
Members of Plymouth City Council planning committee reluctantly refused to give permission for the plan saying there was not enough information on the risks to wildlife.
-
CGI
-
10057 Site Plan
-
Drakes Island_Model View 1
-
Drakes Island_Model View 2
-
Drakes Island_Model View 3
-
Drakes-Island_Artists-Impre
-
DSC00013
-
DSC00088
-
DSC00117
-
DSC00126
-
DSC00133
-
DSC00139
-
DSC00331
-
DSC00337
-
DSC00356
-
DSC00395
-
DSC00450
-
DSC00483
-
P1010017
-
P1010034
-
P1010043
-
P1010060
-
P1010099
-
P5050006
-
P5050008
-
P5050070
-
P5050063
-
P5050071
The island in Plymouth Sound is home to protected bats and little egrets and is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.
Sean Swales, finance director of Mr McCauley's company Rotolok, said later: “This decision seriously jeopardises the regeneration.”
This voucher entitles you to 10% off your quoted price.
Exterior painting only!
Terms:
1 voucher per person.
1 Voucher per household!
Contact: 01752 421998
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
He said they would have to take some time to consider the options.
The planning committee was advised by officers to refuse because environmental surveys of the island and surrounding sea were missing or incomplete. The councillors were told that environmental surveys needed to be carried out in the summer.
Cllr Lynda Bowyer (Con, Eggbuckland) wanted to know whether they could approve the plans subject to a later environmental survey. And Cllr Patricia Nicholson (Con, Plympton) said that the presence of bats was a very weak reason to turn down an application of this importance.
But Cllr Brian Vincent (Lab, Efford and Lipson) said: “We can’t afford to lose more sensitive sites and we have to work in harmony with the environment.”
Cllr Ian Darcy (Con, Plympton Erle) said this development would put Plymouth on the map and he believed lack of information was not a reason to refuse.
Legal chief David Shepperd told the committee that approving the application without the necessary environmental surveys would open the council to legal action by anyone from residents and the developer to wildlife groups.
The area around the island is also important for wildlife, including eel grass beds which are home to the spiny seahorse, a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). Cllr Bill Stevens, chairman of the planning committee, said afterwards: “It is more in sorrow than in anger that we have taken this decision. We very much look forward to a successful and complete application some time in the next 12 months. I have lived in Plymouth all my life but never been on Drake’s Island. It would be exciting to see it opened up to public use again.”
In a statement Rotolok said: “We have invested significant time and money into preparing a scheme that strikes the right balance between being deliverable and being sensitive to the rich wildlife and heritage assets of the Island. We felt that key issues and challenges had been successfully addressed.”
The company said it could not understand why the council planners had considered the original application from January last year when they had submitted amended plans to address concerns, including wildlife surveys.
“We need to reflect on the decision. If the investment in time and cost would be too great then we may have to rethink our strategy for the future of the island.”
Comments
by AdelaideAlbi
Tuesday, May 07 2013, 2:21PM
“It would be great to visit Drake's Island (or St Michael's or St Nicholas' island - as previously known), but not if that ruins what it is.
The recent period of isolation has created a refuge for wildlife. A swanky hotel for w@nky visitors may do far more harm than good.”
by scannerman
Saturday, January 05 2013, 7:16PM
“When It comes to Dan McCauley and the ownership of Drakes Island it makes my blood boil to think that the island was sold to this man in the first place. As a child I remember the Island as being used as an outward bound centre, enabling able bodied and disabled children and adults to experience the island and go out on the sea where they would not normally be able to do so. My brother worked on the island as an instructor, having been a teacher in lifesaving, and I fondly remember being on the island myself, and the fun and joy I had doing watersports learning about the history of the island, and seeing the wonderful wildlife of the land and sea.
Come on Mr McCauley release the island back to the people of Plymouth and stop being a greedy hoarder of a famous and local landmark!!!
Your plans are obviously being turned down for good reason. I think I can speak for alot of Plymothians who are fed up with your flawed plans for the Island, and it is quite obvious that the city (including the council planning commitee) does'nt want this type of development there.
Quote: "MILLIONNAIRE businessman Dan McCauley has revealed he is too "embarrassed" to step foot on his own island after admitting he has neglected it".
You have said it yourself Mr McCauley...Embarrasment is the least of your worries. I thought a man of your stature would have realised that by now. The people of plymouth are not afraid of re-development, it is going on all around us, and is needed for the economy of the city, but alot of us do not have any faith in you or your plans, going by what I have read.
Time to do the right thing Mr McCauley and hand it over. If you cannot find the heart to do that then give the facilities back to the people who used to get great pleasure from the island.
A very disappointed Plymothian.”
by jessica91
Saturday, January 05 2013, 2:20PM
“@ shamomf01
Maybe the bats that used to fly around the area of Barne Barton/Weston Mill are now on Drakes Island??? They were soon scared off when preliminary works started on the site.
Early spring last year a falconer was employed to fly his birds around the site to deter birds from nesting (nesting birds would have held up construction) many species disappeared.”
by Plymouthking
Saturday, January 05 2013, 1:10PM
“this is all a long term plan...'strategic'....just like SHH and the airport...
Dan Mc being SHH largest shareholder...
Its only a matter of time now when we will learn the REAL reasons behind this 15 year debacle...
Private prosecutions against PCC this year - may tip it over the edge...bankruptcy looms!
PCC wont be able to enforce anything (including CT!) pretty soon...the costs will be simply to high!”
by nineplatoon
Friday, January 04 2013, 11:49PM
“just burn it to the ground then resmitt your plans”
by pogle63a
Friday, January 04 2013, 11:13PM
“Good grief a Council that is too afraid of being sued to be able to make a decision on something of major importance.
Did not see David Shepard leaping to the aid of thousands of people who are having a massive incinerator built in their backyards or the adverse impact its operation could have on PEOPLE!
I just hope someone sues the backside off the council when that backfires might even give it a go myself.
Sums it up really when the Clouncil are more worried about flying rodents than people.
If I was the developer I wouldn`t bother to invest in a City that has very little future. I mean do you really want to build a luxury Hotel down stream from a nuclear dismantling plant and an incinerator? Who in their right mind would want to stay there?”
by timplymouth
Friday, January 04 2013, 9:35PM
“If they built a cable car it would be a good tourist attraction”
by craterkid
Friday, January 04 2013, 7:12PM
“How about Dan McCauley 'funding' a fact finding trip, for say, 20 -30 P.C.C. bung takers, down to a small island in the Indian ocean for a couple of weeks, just to see how it's run there? I'm pretty sure by the time they got back, the development of St. Nicholas' island would be quite advanced?”
by josdave
Friday, January 04 2013, 7:12PM
“Bats have got it made apparently. £55,000 was spent building two "bridgeS" over the Dobwalls bypass for their benefit. Personally I thought they were capable of flying over a road but then what do I know?”
by lemon_entry
Friday, January 04 2013, 6:46PM
“It would make a good religious retreat for right thinking folk.
They could still see the decadence that they are lucky enough to be away from.
Bats are satanic though.”