close
close

Ossett Public Pool owner to appeal against plan rejection

  • By Steve Jones and Tony Gardner
  • BBC News and LDRS

image source, Jon Gardiner

image caption, Up to 1,000 people used the Wakefield pool each month, its owner says

A contractor has vowed to challenge a council decision to refuse back-dated plans to run a public swimming pool at his home.

Wakefield Council rejected an application from Ossett Leisure over noise and traffic safety concerns raised by neighbours.

Business owner Jon Gardiner, who opened the establishment in December, said he would fight the council’s “undisciplined” decision.

The council said the application was rejected for “a number of reasons”.

Mr Gardiner said he had seen huge interest amid a shortage of similar facilities locally.

The pool, on Station Road in Ossett, was seeing up to 1,000 swimmers a month, including schools, children’s parties and disability groups, he added.

Describing the council’s decision to reject his application as ‘appalling’, Mr Gardiner continued: ‘They didn’t do their due diligence, they definitely made an undisciplined decision.

“They take resources, and if someone tries to replace them privately, they reject it.”

Wakefield Council’s director of services for planning, transport and strategic highways, Joe Jenkinson, said the application was refused due to “insufficient information from the applicant regarding noise nuisance, vehicle parking and road safety concerns and the impact of the development on the conservation area. in Ossett’.

“Themed Party Location”

An environmental health officer raised concerns about the establishment which is being billed as “an upbeat, high-energy, party-themed venue” with disco lights and a sound system.

A report said: “The officer stated that it appeared inevitable that the blast of amplified music from this unit could cause a disturbance.

“Concerns were also raised about rowdy and excited behavior from patrons which could have a negative impact on neighboring residents.”

The business is in a conservation area and is close to two nursing homes.

In recommending refusal, the officer’s report said: “No significant public benefit has been provided to outweigh the identified harm to the heritage asset.”