Jealousy does not become you, Jack.   If you study diligently - read improving books and take night classes - then, within a few years, you might rise to the level of buffoon.

Again, I read "whaley Bridge matters" on facebook and prevent myself from asking to join the group, due to its clearly NIMBY outlook, citing the landowner of C9 s morality and the lack of consideration for local infrastructure to support the development. We would all like the world to stand still,...to live in a peak district eutopia where e can escape the "growth" so beloved of politicians. Unfortunately, I am a realist, and look around at a small town, (not a village I suspect for at least 30 years) where a significant part of the population have chosen to have families. I applaud and join these people in their choice of venue. However, I find it ironic, when on occasion, my return from a busy night shift is often hindered by the very fraternity who are so vociferous in their condemnation of the C9 development, and its impact on congestion in the "centre of the village", as they drop their children off at school on Buxton Rd. I am not condemning their right to breed, per se, but feel their views are more than slightly hypocritical.

To take the issue to a more holistic level: where do they wish their children to live when they eventually fly the nest? Are they to move to affordable housing in Manchester brownfield sites? They are very vocal on how these properties are not "affordable" and indeed I have even seen comments that there is no guarantee that they will be available to "the right sort of people",......whatever that may mean.

The affordability or otherwise of starter homes to the young is not a problem for Whaley Bridge in isolation,....it is a reflection on the nation as a whole; and pretending that financial limitations only affect the young in this area is a work of fantasy.

Whether the pressure group and its efforts to halt the development are truly representative of the true strength of feeling seems to becoming an irrelevance as the development seems poised to go ahead. Isn't this time to bend with the wind, and approach the developer to get a best deal for the existing occupants of houses on Macc Rd?, Parking is a huge issue on Macc Rd as it is. I lived there for 12 years. Surely the prudent move would be to try to tie Gladmans down to providing parking behind the existing properties on Macc Rd?

I expect criticism for this input, but I stand by my observations: Its still is and still will be a beautiful place,.....but surely its time to take heads out of the sand and look at the possibility of a "third way" to make any changes as advantageous as possible.

I quite agree.  I have listed several and been branded a buffoon for so doing...   But I wish I could get a definitive answer to my question as to whether the consent of the landowners is required before land can be put in the plan.  If it is, it could be that the majority of landowners in Whaley are opposed to development and are withholding permission.,

Edited by user 01 May 2014 06:52:45(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Gladman planning application also states that the 30% 'affordable homes' (32 in total) will include 26 affordable rented homes.

Here is a link to Gladman's planning application.
The affordable housing statement is the 3rd attachment:
http://planning.highpeak...earchServlet?PKID=162384

The following description is made in the planning statement attachment:

Affordable Housing
9.3.1 The application proposal will deliver 30% affordable housing on site which will immediately assist the Borough in helping to begin to remediate the shortage of affordable homes within the Borough.
9.3.2 80% of the homes will be affordable social rented, with the remaining 20% being intermediate housing. The delivery and phasing of affordable housing on the site will be outlined and secured by a Section 106 agreement.

Well I hope this won't be regarded as a 'flame', but that wouldn't really solve anything than the perceived delay in getting through the lights - traffic would still need to negotiate the parked cars on Buxton Road between the lights/roundabout and The Cock. Unless you're also going to propose demolishing most of the housing on the park side of Buxton Road to widen the road ... 


Sadly Gladman will almost certainly get their way on C9, because the cards are stacked against HPBC. What we should be doing, rather than getting into petty local internecine scraps, is starting to organise now so that the national government, who are after all the ones who have deliberately created the chaos in local planning laws that Gladman are exploiting, are replaced at the first opportunity.

Yes, Jack, I am an unashamed NIMBY.   But the difference is that I am prepared to loose money for the sake of my piece and quiet.   A considerable sum of money since my few acres would be worth a six figure sum as building land.