Developers update controversial plans for water park in Derbyshire quarry

BMET Limited submitted its plans to turn Crich Quarry into a water park resort more than two years ago, with several years before that involving further development and negotiations.

Now the firm has submitted a flurry of new documents responding to Derbyshire County Council’s formal notice requesting more information – or face the application being rejected – which the authority issued in June 2022.

The developers, who unveiled their plans in 2019, make clear in their response that the regeneration of the quarry into a water park resort is preferred but that, if this fails, the door remains open for its continued use for quarrying, along with scope for a significant extension of that work. That could include either 300,000 tonnes or up to 1.3 million tonnes of further quarrying, it claims.

It details that the impact of the scheme on the surrounding Derbyshire landscape, including the Crich Stand war memorial overlooking the quarry, would not be significant due to it largely being contained within the quarry itself.

The firm goes further in saying the water park resort plans would provide reinforcing engineering for the war memorial itself by securing the ground beneath it.

Impact on the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site and its buffer zone, five miles away is also negligible, it claims, due to the confines of the quarry walls.

If approved by Derbyshire County Council, the plans would see the creation of the Amber Rock containing an indoor water park, 152-bed hotel, 128 straw-bale lodges, 210 holiday apartments, an indoor/outdoor climbing centre, a heritage centre, a cliff-top restaurant, sports complex, underground parking for 769 vehicles, water-powered lifts and solar panels.

Meanwhile, a total of 561 jobs would be created by the scheme, with 200 people to be employed during the construction phase.

The developers claim in their new batch of reports that the resort would employ more people than currently accounted for by Derbyshire’s limestone and sandstone quarrying works (461 direct jobs).

A campaign group of some 600 people, Residents Opposed to Amber Rock (ROAR), has responded to the batch of new documents, stating it “profoundly disagrees” with the proposed benefits of the scheme.

It claims the resort plans will “only serve to destroy the quarry setting” “in search of nothing more than financial gain”.

Documents submitted by BMET detail: “We have carefully considered the detailed analysis of the significance of, and the potential effect on, the DVMWHS and other heritage assets, taking note of the contribution to the setting of the DVMWHS and development within its Buffer Zone.

“The Amber Rock Development proposal is enclosed on three sides and set down at the base of Crich Quarry. For these reasons, the Amber Rock Development has limited visual effects on the significance of the DVMWHS, its Buffer Zone and other heritage assets.

“The distance between the Amber Rock Development and DVMWHS is approximately fiv miles, which is a heavily wooded contour difference of around 70 meters below Crich Quarry, so any effects on the setting of the DVMWHS would be minimal; therefore, the significance of its setting would be preserved.”

It contends the “benefits from the Amber Rock Development are collectively sufficient to outbalance the identified ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the DVMWHS or its Buffer Zone”.

It details: “The proposed Amber Rock Development would provide a superior public use of a brownfield site, prevent continued quarrying under the”fallback” or extant planning permission, cease quarrying early, and create a public facility that does not exist in the local or county area.

“Visitors to Amber Rock have the potential to significantly increase the footfall and revenues at several Derbyshire visitor attractions, including Crich Tramway Village and Crich Stand, accessible to the patrons of the Amber Rock Development from footpaths linking into the wider network. These benefits should carry moderate weight in favour of the Amber Rock proposal.

“Crich Stand was built in 1922-23 and listed in 1997. Therefore, DCCMPA must have previously investigated and considered the setting of the Crich Memorial Tower, particularly when considering the 1999 and 2005 Planning Applications (for quarrying).

“Consequently, we can only conclude that the proximity of the Crich Memorial Tower Conservation Areas carried less weight when considering the overall picture and future quarrying at Crich Quarry.”

Speaking about Crich Stand further, the developer says: “The Amber Rock Development hotel will be integral to this area, including engineering, which preserves the stability and setting of this important heritage asset.

“The Amber Rock Development could provide an opportunity to enhance and improve the Crich Stand memorial setting.”

The ROAR campaigners wrote: “BMET are proposing constructing an immense water park and holiday complex within the quarry, claiming it will restore the quarry within this beautiful rural backdrop, preserve heritage, and boost the local economy. Residents Opposed to ROAR profoundly disagree.

“At best this application is seriously negligent towards wildlife, heritage and the special landscape surrounding the quarry and at worst, shows contempt for residents of Crich and elsewhere, and is purely for financial gain by selfish developers.

“If this development is approved industrial quantities of machinery and materials will pass through Crich village en route to the quarry and subsequently by numerous visitors to the Amber Rock Resort.

“The proposal is within the immediate setting of Crich Stand and will adversely affect the significance of the Grade II* designated heritage asset through visual intrusion, and noise and light pollution.

“Those who consider this a Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) objection are far from the truth, this is not a case of nimbyism, this development will have far-reaching consequences not just on Crich but towns, villages and hamlets far and wide. In a nutshell this is a totally inappropriate development in this area and must be refused.”