A good topic JonG but you must admit we have been here before. That is why Bellas now has a traditional frontage. It was supported by public funds.

The flower shop at The Whaley Wharf refused financial assistance to have a traditional frontage when they first bought the premises. These buildings at The Wharf (the Town's main heritage site) were sold by British Waterways and my perception is that no interest at all was shown by anyone on Whaley Bridge Town or High Peak Borough Council. No vision!

There is little power, if any, to compel shopowners to conform to an acceptable standard i.e. in keeping with a conservation area.

Now that High Peak Borough Council have abandoned any support for their local Regeneration Committee's there is even less hope. I suspect it did not go down too well when WB Regen. Cttee. gave £11k to the 'millionaire' the companies Network Rail and British Waterways. This could and should have been better spent within Whaley Bridge to directly benefit the Town. Providing a 'Gateway to Bugsworth Basin' (quote from a  WBTC pamphlet) did little of direct benefit and the same applies to the money given to Network Rail.

The first challenge is to get all members of WBTC singing from the same hymn sheet and not being led astray into peripheral 'benefits'.

All the portals into W.B. could have been upgraded with such monies and yet now we are holding out the begging bowl. There has been no progress in three years at Cotton Close Chapel Road junction.

There is a new thought to reinstate a local Regen. Cttee. I see in the press. Let's hope that there is a change of chair of this new committee and members are restricted to W.B. residents and W.B. business people. We need new thinking.

That's the big challenge! You alone, from the 12, seem to able to respond to JonG. It is only you who seems to have any notion of pragmatic solutions and any achievable vision of a W.B. in, say, 2015 or 2020.

Some of us did, but our vision has been smashed by our so-called elected representatives and as I have said before, in other threads on this Forum, the opportunity of a life time (The Transhipment Warehouse and Whaley Wharf) has been sent down the plughole by those who should know better.

Edited by user 30 December 2010 13:26:53(UTC)  | Reason: typos and spelling

Hi HE,

Personally, I dont like the colour, and I dont think it fits within the conservation area .

I believe an illuminated sign was outside Footsteps previously. However, looking at it , I have to say that if the sign colouring had been arranged to match the blues and creams of the rest of Footsteps, it would have fitted in a lot better. A small example perhaps of how a little more thought might have led to a more pleasent overall street scene at very little extra cost. Many people have probably never noticed it though, and to be fair there are slightly more glaring examples of 'colour' elsewhere. It all adds up though.(attached image courtesy of google street view)

The smoking shelter saga at the Sheps illustrates the problems that occur when unapproved structures are built within the conservation area. The original unaproved structure was rejected on appeal and had to be demolished. The brewery then went through the proper planning process and consequently erected the current shelter. I think the current one, which had some adjustments to height, line and materials is a really nice structure. If the brewery had taken the right approach initially, then the resulting saga would probably not have occurred. Many would say that the old structure and new structure are not that different, but I think the lesson is that if people disregard planning obligations and build regardless, they are unlikely to be viewed leniantly or supported by either WBTC or HPBC when it comes to appeal.

Cheers

Jon.

Edited by user 30 December 2010 17:38:23(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

CllrJonG attached the following image(s):

Good Evening CllrJonG

I appreciate you are a very busy person but I noticed you have just posted under another topic and therefore must be around at the moment.

I believe Jenks Burgess Opticians have received a planning enforcement notice for their shop front to be removed and I was wondering what response you received from Footsteps regarding their hideous green sign and Yo Yo's about the colour of their paintwork.

Please could you update us on the current position with Footsteps, Yo Yo's and Jenks Burgess.

I agree with davethescope (apart from the e in Tescoe's). Well said!

Good afternoon davethescope.

Please could you tell us:

Who wants to close Footsteps down because they don't like the shade of green used on the sign?

Who is trying to drive out the “ethnic minorities” from the Chinese restaurant?

Good evening davethescope.

I do not understand why Footsteps or Yo Yo's would have to shut down if the external appearance of their properties were improved.

I agree with CllrJonG when he says it is the little things that can add up to make Whaley a more interesting, vibrant and attractive village and I was merely suggesting that he asks Footsteps whether they would consider removing their sign and also ask Yo Yo's whether they would consider painting their woodwork a more appropriate colour. In no way was I suggesting either venture should be closed down.

As for your comments regarding The Jodrell and Station Approach I totally agree with you.

I am guessing you had consumed alcohol on the day you made your initial post and I would suggest that when G. Jackson starts agreeing with you, you should take time to reflect and reconsider your comments because if Mad Jacko is in agreement, you will probably find what you have said is not too far away from nonsense.