logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
RockBanker  
#1 Posted : 20 December 2013 13:25:41(UTC)
RockBanker
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 09/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 515
Man
Location: "In a primitive area and on a steep hill"

Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
It seems that the delay in the HPBC getting the local development plan approved has left the door open for a large new development between the Botany and Linglongs

www.your-views.co.uk/whaleybridge


Rock "Yellow Alert" Banker

TheShallcrossCode@hotmail.co.uk
jt  
#2 Posted : 20 December 2013 20:52:45(UTC)
jt
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Member
Joined: 09/07/2011(UTC)
Posts: 4

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
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....
Whaley Wanderer  
#3 Posted : 21 December 2013 08:02:43(UTC)
Whaley Wanderer
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 23/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 64
Location: ?

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Thanks Rockbanker for this link - I have fed back my comments to the development company highlighting the concerns I have with this development - basically the impact on traffic and schools. Hopefully anyone with similar views will take the opportunity to express them too.

Edited by user 21 December 2013 08:03:32(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

RockBanker  
#4 Posted : 21 December 2013 10:30:25(UTC)
RockBanker
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 09/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 515
Man
Location: "In a primitive area and on a steep hill"

Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
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.
 

Rock "Yellow Alert" Banker

TheShallcrossCode@hotmail.co.uk
pensionman  
#5 Posted : 21 December 2013 12:17:38(UTC)
pensionman
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 11/05/2012(UTC)
Posts: 225
Location: Whaley Bridge

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Totally agree with you Rockbanker. What was the point of the public engagement of this & subsequent Brownfield conclusions? While we're at it, is anything going to be done to the former school that is abandoned at the end of Linglongs Road? Wasn't HPC rejecting it's development on grounds of congestion to Macc' Road? The site needs sorting out & the land developed.How long can it stay like this?
Janep  
#6 Posted : 21 December 2013 12:52:28(UTC)
Janep
Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 01/10/2011(UTC)
Posts: 10
Location: Whaley bridge

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
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
OSHSFA  
#7 Posted : 21 December 2013 17:02:43(UTC)
OSHSFA
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Member
Joined: 07/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 8

Originally Posted by: RockBanker Go to Quoted Post
It seems that the delay in the HPBC getting the local development plan approved has left the door open for a large new development.......


Look no further than that statement.

Someone will have been very well paid for 'facilitating' that delay.


Money wins, unfortunately.
davethescope  
#8 Posted : 21 December 2013 19:51:59(UTC)
davethescope
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 15/06/2009(UTC)
Posts: 475
Man
United Kingdom
Location: Whaley Bridge

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 17 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Janep Go to Quoted Post
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

The optimist believes that Whaley Bridge is the best place in the world to live. The pessimist fears he might be correct.
RockBanker  
#9 Posted : 22 December 2013 21:42:43(UTC)
RockBanker
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 09/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 515
Man
Location: "In a primitive area and on a steep hill"

Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
From the Sunday Times, reprinted on another local website:

http://www.audlem.org/newsroom/sunday-times-article-on-gladman.html
Rock "Yellow Alert" Banker

TheShallcrossCode@hotmail.co.uk
dougie  
#10 Posted : 05 January 2014 11:46:47(UTC)
dougie
Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 02/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 27
Location: whaley bridge

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 6 post(s)
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.
thanks 1 user thanked dougie for this useful post.
Janep on 05/01/2014(UTC)
curtaintwitcher  
#11 Posted : 05 January 2014 11:52:54(UTC)
curtaintwitcher
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 23/09/2009(UTC)
Posts: 97
Location: Whaley Bridge

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Our little darlings on leaving school won't be able to buy there own homes due to income not supporting a mortgage with the current cost of housing . Many will still be at home into there 40s and beyond but by then at least parents can put them on there car insurance to drive there 4x4 s .
RockBanker  
#12 Posted : 08 January 2014 10:56:30(UTC)
RockBanker
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 09/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 515
Man
Location: "In a primitive area and on a steep hill"

Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
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

Rock "Yellow Alert" Banker

TheShallcrossCode@hotmail.co.uk
RockBanker  
#13 Posted : 08 January 2014 22:45:21(UTC)
RockBanker
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 09/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 515
Man
Location: "In a primitive area and on a steep hill"

Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
A very interesting meeting. Thanks to those who organised it.
The land off Macclesfield Road has re-introduced to the local plan for housing development and a new consultation process has begun. Any comments on the revised plan have to be submitted by the 10th Feb - See the link above ( http://www.whaleybridge.com/2014/01/homes-plan-whaley-gets-new-chance-to-have-a-say/ )   
Rock "Yellow Alert" Banker

TheShallcrossCode@hotmail.co.uk
Jonny Summers  
#14 Posted : 22 January 2014 19:36:18(UTC)
Jonny Summers
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 18/04/2011(UTC)
Posts: 105
Location: Whaley Bridge

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
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?
Rusty  
#15 Posted : 24 July 2014 21:29:25(UTC)
Rusty
Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 18/03/2014(UTC)
Posts: 16
United Kingdom

Thanks: 1 times
The High Peak Planning Officer has now made their recommendations on the Macc Rd/Linglongs Gladman planning application:

http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/sites/default/files/meetings/papers/papers-462184074/106.pdf

T
he application will be voted on at the next Control Development Committee on the 4th Aug
Kiv42  
#16 Posted : 15 August 2014 09:41:43(UTC)
Kiv42
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Member
Joined: 15/08/2014(UTC)
Posts: 2

Can any one point me to the argument that HPC planning tabled in favour of approval?
Rusty  
#17 Posted : 19 August 2014 06:27:45(UTC)
Rusty
Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 18/03/2014(UTC)
Posts: 16
United Kingdom

Thanks: 1 times
Originally Posted by: Kiv42 Go to Quoted Post
Can any one point me to the argument that HPC planning tabled in favour of approval?


The Planning Officer's report can be found using the link above.

Minutes of the meeting should be published ahead of the next CDC Meeting and when ready will be found here: http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/node...dar?meeting-date=2014-09

Edited by user 19 August 2014 06:29:10(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Kiv42  
#18 Posted : 19 August 2014 09:38:32(UTC)
Kiv42
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Member
Joined: 15/08/2014(UTC)
Posts: 2

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,

Horwich Ender  
#19 Posted : 30 August 2014 11:32:58(UTC)
Horwich Ender
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 16/06/2009(UTC)
Posts: 559

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)

Good afternoon.

High Peak Borough Council have now published the minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 4 August 2014.

The minutes confirm planning permission has been approved for up to 107 houses on the Linglongs Road / Macclesfield Road site:

http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/sites/default/files/meetings/papers/papers-1332674179/103.pdf


Whaley Laner  
#20 Posted : 01 September 2014 12:18:33(UTC)
Whaley Laner
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 02/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 114

Thanks: 28 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
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.
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages12>
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.