rockbanker, thanks for putting this on. this sort of information is what makes this forum so valuable as a community resource.

the national planning policy framework has facilitated this loop hole that developers (and their wealthy legal teams) look to exploit nationally, not just in the high peak.

the nppf is too long, boring to go into in a message. in a nutshell, current policy has effectively de-centralised the planning process for larger developments in the name of 'localism'.
the loophole appears in the gulf between local and national government policy.

'localism' must be used by the community for a robust response to the developers and hpbc at the community consultation events, if you strongly object.

put loosely, this nppf requires local authorities to have a framework / local plan in place, bought about by the change in planning policy by the coalition government. developers look to prove that local authorities do not have the policy in place to prove they have the required supply of housing over a given period. i think the site at chinley forge works is a good precedent for this. refused by hpc on terms of access, but overturned by the developers legal team on appeal.

there are arguments both for and against for this development. for example pros - much needed housing, a diversification of the population: cons - more traffic, loss of open land etc

thanks again, looking forward to this thread continuing....

Perhaps I am imbued with my usual Christmas cynicism, but I suspect that the public consultation organised by the developers is just part of the box-ticking in the application process and that the developer will take no account of any opinions expressed by local residents. Perhaps someone with greater knowledge can disabuse me.

I am sure I am not alone in being hugely disappointed that after all the effort that has taken place to consult on and publish the draft plan, which proposed limited developments in largely brownfield areas around Whaley Bridge, that the fact that the plan has not been adopted allows developers this loophole.  I would hope that HPBC will oppose this development, but, as JT pointed out, without a local plan in place their opposition can be overturned on appeal.  This is a worrying situation.
 

Macclesfield road is heavily congested throughout the day , add the potential of another 200 cars using it and the road will be grid locked , the impact on whaley at peak times will be intolerable , it's hard enough to get through at 3.30 pm already

A problem that could easily be solved by enforcing the current legislation on parking and obstruction.   

Edited by user 22 December 2013 08:38:49(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Looking at the subject in a more holistic way,..and I expect some critique for this,....there is an existing demand for housing,....a look at the primary school traffic congestion (where it would seem a 4x4 has become essential to transport little darlings to school, for fear of encountering Taliban snipers as its "just not safe" these days), it would seem the village population is growing. Where would these concerned parents have their children live once they achieve adulthood? Are they to evacuate upon maturity that their NIMBY parents can continue to live in their Peak District idyll? I am as sensitive to the maintenance of a degree of restraint in all these issues, but cant help feeling that whilst their is a finite hormonal drive to reproduce, it should come with a certain acceptance of consequence.

Just in case anyone missed the announcement, there is an open  meeting tonight, 8th Jan, at 8pm in the Mechanics downstairs meeting room.

http://www.whaleybridge.com/2014/01/special-meeting-of-neighbourhood-plan-group/

Edited by user 08 January 2014 10:58:28(UTC)  | Reason: Formatting issues

There seems to be a great deal of opposition, even hostility to the proposal by Gladman Developments to build 107 houses behind Macclesfield Road: however, I confess to being confused. Are the objections to the houses being built, or to this "outsider" submitting the plans? As a Whaley resident, I too wouldn't like to see this land developed, for all the reasons listed in this thread, but it does seem to me that if Gladman don't build here, the council will..... and possibly more than 107 houses???
Is this correct? Maybe someone from the council can enlighten us?

Can any one point me to the argument that HPC planning tabled in favour of approval?

Dear Rusty, Thank you for taking time to reply. I am trying to obtain the statement of legal argument which HPBC will table as to why they are choosing to not take into consideration , HPBC published documentation and Governmental guidance documentation on possible permitted development of "green field sites". All available for inspection and determination in the open. The community in WB have without doubt and eloquently argued all the points in the guideline documents,for not allowing" possible permitted development", some 200 + voices and interpretations listed in the report. Why are the planning dept "allegedly" not choosing to observe UK policy? Admittedly OPP has been granted at this stage, lets hope the access problem from Macc' Road and through routes is enough to disallow this project. Or the Mid Shires way transitioning the site (any one contacted the LDWA for assistance) if any monies were received for development of the bridal way will HBPC have to give it back? I am not against development in WB, any village needs to keep developing to "permitted development" , or we will stagnate, and yes my family and home is in WB. Yes, we need local housing that is affordable, not just for "locals" but for anyone who wants to move to WB, build more houses, build more schools, invest in the infrastructure. "But not to the determent of the existing community". (Government statement, you can look it up). One final question...who owns the land, yes I could go on Land Registry portal and find out,( before some one posts and tells me that I can do that) but I am prepared to wager someone has beat me to the discovery of the legal owner. For all the trolls asking possibly where I was at meetings etc, well my friends, I was off in far away lands................ see you soon. Mines a Marstons please Simon. Regards to all

Edited by user 19 August 2014 10:15:22(UTC)  | Reason: spelling,

It was a very sad day when planning permission was granted on C9. John Pritchard David Lomax and Linda Leather did their best to represent Whaley Bridge and should be congratulated for their efforts. The reason why C9 will become a housing estate is down to Caitlin Bisknell and her Labour council colleagues who have shown no interest in local opinion or the effects this decision will have on Whaley Bridge. It will be a long time before Whaley Bridge residents forget how shabbily they have been treated and this may well be remembered at the next election.