WILDLIFE CONCERNS MAY STALL EARLY START TO AMBITIOUS PLEASURE ISLAND REVAMP PROJECT

                                                             

Since the demise of the theme park, Nature has bounced back at Pleasure Island

WORRIES over the threat to wildlife, including rare birds, could scupper any hopes of an early start on an ambitious scheme to transform the former Pleasure Island site in Cleethorpes into a holiday village.

The consortium behind the project had hoped to avoid the time and cost of commissioning a full environmental impact assessment.

Since the closure of the theme park, the land has 're-wilded' itself, providing a  precious home to badgers, deer, birds, bats and probably  frogs, newts and other amphibians.

Developers have suggested that mitigation could be provided, for instance, by installing nestboxes, plus some cosmetic planting.

But Natural England has indicated its unwillingness to approve any short-cut approaches to safeguarding the important ecology of the site

The organisation has warned any development could have  "significant impacts" which could spill over to the Humber Estuary  - one of the UK's most important wildlife habitats - and it is calling for an in-depth environmental assessment.

This view is shared by North East Lincolnshire Council's ecology officer Rachel Graham who has made a couple of other significant observations - the site was once used for landfill and it is ravaged by Japanese knotweed, an invasive plant that is very difficult to eradicate.

The consortium aiming to breathe new commercial life into the site is led by two property developers, both with local connections, and the supermarket chain, Lidl.

Their vision is for a complex of holiday lodges, a recreational lake, an hotel (accommodating a casino and conference facilities), a fuel-filling station,  a small-scale supermarket and various other small shops and leisure units.

NELC's planning function is controlled by Engie, itself a developer, which is understood to be strongly in favour of the project given the potential job-creation benefits.

But should Nature be sacrificed at the altar of the economic gods? It is a tricky dilemma.

The planners are perfectly at liberty to disregard the comments of both Natural England and its ecology officer, but at the risk both  of reputational damage and the integrity of the planning system.