YOUR VIEW: Threatened Chesterfield gym should, and must, stay where it is

I write regarding the story in the Derbyshire Times last week and calls for a U-turn by planners over a decision that is threatening the future of CrossFit 252 at Hasland.

Friday, 21st April 2017, 3:16 pm
Updated Friday, 21st April 2017, 4:18 pm
Crossfit 252 owners Paul and Sarah Roberts pictured with members. Picture: Rachel Atkins.

In my view there is absolutely no consistency to the way the council approaches retrospective planning requests.

This gym has been running for three years, why did the council not know about it?

If the request had not gone in would they have ever known?

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

Below are examples of the lack of consistency from our council.

There is a lane just outside Chesterfield and people will know what I am on about.

They bought some land, no problem there (we can all buy land) to have horses and stable block. That was the planning application.

Look at this area now everything from the first planning application was granted retrospectively, even a public path was moved to accommodate them.

How many builders have sent in plans to the council where everything seemed OK then they send in retrospective plans knowing full well it will be granted.

Had the plans been sent in as one the council more than likely would have said NO.

There is a building plot I know of. Work has been going on for years since the first plans were granted.

Where is the access road onto it which was part of the first plans before any work could start? Is there going to be a retrospective planning application sent in to the council any time?

With this gym being where it is and running for three years, they must have been paying rent for it? Someone had the rent. If it’s the council even more reason to grant the planning request (to stop looking stupid).

The council should look at what this gym is providing.Three jobs and 100 members. It is an asset to the area. The argument is that it is short of this size building, so suddenly, what happened to the last three years did they not need it then?

I am sorry but the council should reverse its decision. Refusing this request on a 1958 rule in this day and age is just grasping at straws.

If they really wish to help this gym and its members, allow the council’s economic development team to find a building of similar size with no rent increase. I will not hold my breath on that.

However if I am speaking out of turn and the council can do this I will most readily apologise.

Until it does the gym should, and must stay.

Adrian Mather


For our story on the problems facing the gym and the owner’s plea to planning chiefs, CLICK HERE