Consultation statement
Consultation Statement Consultation statement Contents
1 Introduction 3 2 Evidence Gathering 6 3 Plan preparation and consultation 7 Local Plan 28 4 Habitats Regulations Assessment 77 5 Sustainabilty Appraisal 79 6 Appendix 1: Core Strategy Issues and Options leaflet 81 7 Appendix 2: Consultation Method Matrix 89 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases 91 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings 101 10 Appendix 5: Preferred Options: Door to Door Leaflet 122 11 Appendix 6: Local Plan Publication: Door to Door Leaflet 123 12 Appendix 7: Statement of Representations Procedure 124 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan 126
Consultation Statement Consultation statement 1 Introduction
1.1 This statement has been produced in support of High Peak Borough Council’s Local Plan. Preparation of the Local Plan has been undertaken in compliance with Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. Community consultation has been carried out in accordance with and building upon the council’s Statement of Community Involvement (Adopted 2006).
1.2 As stipulated by regulation 30 (d) this statement will set out: i. those bodies and persons invited by the council to make representations ii. how these bodies and persons were invited to make representations iii. a summary of the main issues raised and iv. how these representations have been taken into account and addressed in the development plan
1.3 The Council will actively seek to involve people at an earlier stage in the plan preparation process than has traditionally occurred. This statement outlines the ways in which the council has carried out consultation in its production of the Local Plan in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement.
1.4 Extensive consultation has taken place during the production of the Local Plan and this document provides a succinct statement of these activities and details how these have shaped future development and those views raised through consultation have been carried forward in policy.
1.5 Work began on the preparation of the High Peak Local Plan following the termination of joint working arrangements with Derbyshire Dales District Council in April 2012. The two local planning authorities had until that point been working on the production of a Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy. However, at that time work to assess the latest evidence on the number of houses needed in Derbyshire Dales and High Peak in the period up to 2026, had shown that there were significant differences in the housing markets in operation across the Peak Sub-Region. Furthermore with the introduction of the Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework, the Borough Council was mindful of the tone and content of emerging guidance that referred to ‘Local Plans’ and not Local Development Frameworks or Core Strategy, and as such decided to produce a Local Plan for the area for which it is the local planning authority.
1.6 Although the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy is no longer being prepared, the consultations and other joint evidence studies undertaken as part of the process still form part of the evidence base for the High Peak Local Plan. The table below sets out the key consultations undertaken to date, in respect of the preparation of both the Joint Core Strategy and the High Peak Local Plan.
1.7 This Statement considers each of these stages in the following sections. Each section sets out who was consulted, how they were consulted, the main issues raised in representations received at each stage, and how they have been addressed by the Council in each stage of the Local Plan preparation. This Statement is supported by a comprehensive set of appendices which provide further details of each consultation exercise. A list of organisations consulted at each stage of the process is included in Appendix 1.
Consultation Statement 3 Consultation statement 1 Introduction
Duty to Cooperate
1.8 Whilst the East Midlands Regional Plan has now been revoked, this decision does not take away the need to address planning issues of cross authority boundary significance. To achieve this, public bodies now have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries. Local Planning Authorities are required to work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly coordinated and clearly reflected in individual local plans.
1.9 Paragraph 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the strategic issues where co-operation might be appropriate. Paragraph 179 of the NPPF requires councils to work together to address strategic priorities across boundaries and development requirements which cannot be wholly met within their own areas.
1.10 In order to satisfy the duty to co-operate, High Peak Borough Council has involved neighbouring authorities, along with Derbyshire County Council, and will continue to involve neighbouring authorities and other public bodies in order to implement the High Peak Local Plan. Discussions and meetings have been held with relevant public bodies under the duty to cooperate on strategic and cross boundary issues. Detail of these can be found in the Duty to Cooperate Statement which accompanies this plan.
1.11 Under the Duty to Cooperate, an agreement has been made with Cheshire East Council for that authority to accommodate 500 dwellings out of High Peak's objectively assessed need for housing. This is due to development constraints in High Peak. Further details are provided in the Strategic Housing Development section of the Local Plan. The Borough Council will continue to work with other authorities to meet its objectively assessed needs.
4 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 1 Introduction
Picture 1 Progress Chart
Shaping the Future Preparation of draft document – August – October 2007 Committee approval – 24 October 2007 Public Consultation - 8 November 2007 – 25 July 2008
Joint Core Strategy: Issues and Options 26 March 2009 – 21 May 2009
Joint Core Strategy: Growth Options Workshop with Parish Counciilors – 9 September 2009 Briefing with High Peak Councillors – 16 September 2009 Public Consultation - 27 August 2009 – 1 October 2009
Joint Core Strategy: Draft Plan 3 June 2010 – 15 July 2010
Community Conversations Summer 2011
Local Plan Issues and Options September 2012
Local Plan Preferred Option February 2013
Local Plan Additional Consultation December 2013
Publication of Submission Local Plan April 2014
Consultation Statement 5 Consultation statement 2 Evidence Gathering
2.1 The statement of community involvement, adopted in May 2006, details High Peak Borough Council policy and guidance on public consultation including the councils commitment to community involvement and what can be consulted on. The consultation undertaken as part of the preparation of the Local Development Framework is in compliance with those methods identified in the statement of community involvement and more detailed explanation of these methods can be found in Appendix 1 (page 21) of the statement of community involvement. As highlighted by figure 2 consultation was sought from statutory consultees, relevant and specific agencies and most importantly the local population.
2.2 The style and scope of public consultation has been devised to be appropriate and relevant to the policy decision at issue. Appendix 2 of this statement outlines the consultation method matrix for the Local Development Framework. As this shows, the methods undertaken throughout the consultation have aimed to reach a wide audience, including those hard to reach groups who do not usually engage in the consultation process.
2.3 Large print, Braille and audio versions of all consultation materials were made available to ensure that those who have difficulty communicating in English or require information in different formats could access the consultation material. This meets the terms of the corporate equalities plan to ensure that its services are accessible to all sections of the communities.
6 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Shaping the Future
3.1 The discussion paper was the first step in the preparation of the (now discontinued) joint Core Strategy. Its purpose was to gather views and opinions from the local population, stakeholders and interested parties about what are the key issues in the High Peak and how they might be addressed and secure input in the early stages. The results of the consultation would be used to inform the Issues and Options stage of the Core Strategy.
3.2 The paper was broken down into the following sections: -
Housing Jobs and the economy Transport and access Climate change Regeneration Buildings and landscape
3.3 The emphasis was placed on making the document accessible to a wide a range of people as possible. It was written in plain English and the key issues were detailed in bullet points. The focus was placed on looking at the key topics not on the Local Development Framework process itself. There were a short series of questions on each topic and people were invited to highlight any further issues that they felt were relevant. A full list of consultees is available in the appendix.
Who was consulted and how?
3.4 The main elements of the consultation are as follows:
Area Forums, Buxton (14 May 2008), Glossopdale (22 May 2008) and Central Area (15 May 2008?) were held with the discussion paper presented. The forums were well attended. People were invited to make comments on key issues which were taken forward by High Peak Borough Council. Reference copies of the document and a summary leaflet was made available in council offices based at Chinley, Glossop and Buxton as well as copies deposited at Glossop, Hadfield, Gamesley, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Whaley Bridge, Buxton and New Mills libraries. Advertisements were placed in local newspapers. Information was given to town and parish councils to enable them to forward information to residents. A questionnaire was provided as part of the discussion paper for Shaping the Future, this gave consultees the opportunity to comment on the specific topics addressed in the consultation but also provided an opportunity to make comments on any issues they thought should be taken forward.
Consultation Statement 7 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Compliance with High Peak Borough Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (Adopted May 2006)
3.5 The consultation which took place at the Shaping the Future consultation complies with the Statement of Community Involvement adopted by the Council. At this stage the council is concerned with gathering a sound understanding of the characteristics of the area and therefore consultation will take the form of information gathering and inviting comment in order to continue with the preparation of issues.
Summary of main issues and how they were addressed in the Issues and Options Consultation.
3.6 The Shaping the Future consultation was the last consultation undertaken by High Peak Borough Council before beginning preparation on the joint core strategy with Derbyshire Dales District Council (DDDC). The main issues that arose from this consultation were combined with those raised by DDDC in their own consultation to produce the Issues and Options. Those comments taken forward and responses to the document were used to influence the production of the issues and options document and it is this document that started to bring together the issues and began to ask questions relating to where and what type of development is needed in the High Peak.
3.7 The shared vision outlined in the issues and options consultation reflects and is informed by those priorities identified during the stakeholder and public consultation undertaken by both authorities, in this case the Shaping the Future discussion paper. The consultation undertaken to date across the two authorities has resulted in the identification of key emerging issues.
3.8 Sixteen strategic objectives were put forward as a means of delivering the priorities set out in the vision which came about through a consideration of the consultation exercise. This required more refinement and further dialogue between interested parties given the new joint approach. These included; to provide affordable and decent housing; to support future generations; develop a high skill, high wage economy; and the health, well being and ageing population.
3.9 Three potential growth scenarios were put forward; a focus on market towns; Semi-dispersed growth; and Dispersed growth.
3.10 The strategy addressed the housing needs of both authorities and focused on the distribution and allocation of housing land to meet targets; the threshold targets for the provision of affordable housing; the proportion split affordable housing on development sites; and the tenure split sought on new developments.
3.11 Broadly the responses from the consultation can be summarised as:
Support for local business growth in higher paid, knowledge based industries. Need for high quality design. Allocation of sites in sustainable locations only. Support for broader growth in rural orientated business. Redevelop redundant employment sites. Support home working and invest in ICT infrastructure.
8 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Joint Core Strategy: Issues and Options
3.12 Issues and options consultation took place between 26 March and 21 May 2009 with views being sought on the following key options; development options; housing; employment; environment; retail; health and wellbeing; access and transport; open space, sport and recreation; and climate change. This was the first consultation sought since it was decided that a joint core strategy with Derbyshire Dales District Council would be prepared.
3.13 The issues and options consultation put forward three development options. These were:
Development Option 1: Concentrated Growth in Market Towns
Development Option 2: Semi- dispersed Growth
Development Option 3: Dispersed Growth
3.14 A detailed issues and options consultation document was produced as well as a summary leaflet (Appendix 1).
Who was consulted and how?
3.15 Extensive consultation of local residents, statutory consultees and parish/ town councils was carried out as part of the issues and options consultation.
3.16 The main elements of the consultation were:
Letters and emails to all those on the LDF consultation database as well as statutory consultees on 26 March 2009. Reference copies of the document and a summary leaflet was made available in council offices based at Chinley, Glossop and Buxton as well as copies deposited at Glossop, Hadfield, Gamesley, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Whaley Bridge, Buxton and New Mills libraries between 26 March and 21 May 2009. There were four manned exhibitions in Buxton, Chapel-en-le-Frith and Glossop held on 1 April, 24 April and 1 May 2009 respectively. Extensive online consultation through the interactive system. Wider circulation of the consultation was made through an article placed in Connect magazine in spring 2009 which was delivered to all householders in the High Peak. A presentation on 14 April 2009 was given to town and parish councils to enable them to forward information to residents. Finally, Planning Aid led and facilitated a youth forum with local youth groups and Derbyshire Youth Parliament. DATE
Compliance with High Peak Borough Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (Adopted May 2006)
3.17 The issues and options stage of the core strategy complied with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement. The council invited all those on the LDF database to take part. In addition to this representations were sought from the hard to reach groups as identified in Appendix 1 of the Statement of Community Involvement (p. 21) particularly young people.
Consultation Statement 9 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Summary of main issues
3.18 1,158 organisations and individuals were consulted. There were 145 individuals or groups that responded and 1,234 comments were made, with generally favourable support of the options posed by the report.
3.19 In summary, the main issues raised at this consultation stage were as follows:
Vision and Strategic Objectives
The majority of respondents felt that there was a gap in the vision and strategic objectives, with a proposal that more emphasis be placed on climate change, biodiversity, culture, the natural and historic environment, transport and the importance tourism plays in the local economy.
Development Options
Primarily support was for the concentrated growth in Market Towns option, which was deemed most sustainable, reducing the need to travel and ensuring the protection of the countryside. There was also support for the semi-dispersed pattern of growth on the basis that it would support the viability of rural services and facilities, reducing pressure on the market towns to provide all required development. There was less support for the dispersed option, however respondents recognised that this would allow towns and villages to thrive and that it would deliver employment and housing where needed. The retention of built up area boundaries in order to limit urban sprawl was heavily supported. It was felt this would protect the countryside and provide certainty in decision making on proposed developments. It is recognised however that there is need for flexibility to account for future growth. There was broad support for the settlements that have been considered in each development option. Comments advocating development in the larger settlements inside the National Park were also received.
Housing
Respondents supported the provision of affordable housing in sites larger than 5 dwellings although it was felt that a figure of 61% affordable housing on all sites was too high. Comments received contended that affordable housing requirements should not have a negative impact on viability of schemes. It was also ascertained that there was an urgent need to meet the requirements of an ageing population, and that the Core Strategy should deliver a range of housing tenures and types to meet the needs and demands of the population.
Employment
A key aim of the Core Strategy was seen to be the encouragement of new businesses to locate to the area and an important element of this would be ensuring there are enough quality premises. All employment development should be suitably designed and located to minimise environmental impact and mitigate against climate change.
Environment
10 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
High quality landscape and townscapes are important assets for both Derbyshire Dales and High Peak and as such comments contended that these needed to be protected from harmful development whilst at the same time allowing flexibility to deliver high quality design where development is needed and minimise negative impacts.
Retail
Responses indicated a high level of support for a retail hierarchy that predominately focused on major retail development in the main towns of Buxton, Matlock, Glossop and Ashbourne, whilst still allowing appropriate development in smaller settlements in line with their current roles and functions. The Core Strategy should strategically plan for retail growth indentifying appropriate sites for supermarkets and extending town centre boundaries where appropriate.
Access and Transport
Development, it was suggested, should be located in the most accessible locations and an enhanced green infrastructure network considered important, improvements to road and rail networks and broadband coverage was suggested.
Health and Well Being
There was support for encouraging people to walk and cycle more often to encourage a healthier population. Sustainable locations for services should be indentified which are accessible to communities. Development that met the needs of an ageing population, encouraged recreation and contributed to the health and well being of the population was supported.
Open space, Sport and Recreation
Respondents fell that all residential development should have adequate, accessible open space including recreation land and allotment space. It was felt that all new development should include green space for the benefit of the local residents and the wider community with developers making an appropriate contribution to the enhancement of open space.
Climate Change
It was considered that the running theme throughout the Core Strategy should be the subject of climate change with all development mitigating against the effects of climate change. In particular the role of the Core Strategy in minimising harmful impacts on wildlife and habitats was considered important, with high standards being set for energy efficiency development and renewable energy generation.
How were the representations addressed?
3.20 Where appropriate comments received during the consultation period were considered and informed the next stage of the formation of the Core Strategy. The results of the consultation exercise were used to inform the potential direction of growth and key elements of the joint core strategy. An emerging strategic policy direction was suggested as a direct result of the comments raised.
Consultation Statement 11 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.21 Through the consultation undertaken it was considered that whilst no development option came through as a clear favourite, the most favoured was the option to focus on the market towns, with a strong emerging argument to make the market towns the centre of development in the Core Strategy. However through the consultation there was support for modest growth in some of the larger villages, particularly where there is good public transport and good provision of services. Taking on board these comments there was seen to be scope to essentially refine development option 2 of semi-dispersed growth but incorporating a more selective range of village settlements.
3.22 The consultation exercise highlighted key principles which were of importance to the population. These were taken forward for more detailed cross cutting policies including; promoting Peak District character; prudent use of resources; enhancing prosperity; mitigating climate change; and a pleasant living environment.
3.23 The consultation comments received, along with lessons learned from Core Strategies that were further advanced, all suggested that some more detailed consultation on the growth options was desirable.
Joint Core Strategy: Growth Options
3.24 Growth options consultation ran from 27 August – 1 October 2009. The Growth Options Consultation built on the Issues and Options Consultation where the comments received suggested that the development strategy should focus new development on the market towns and the larger villages. The consultation sought to bring forward the comments received at the issues and options stage combined with the locations and areas proposed in the SHLAA study. As the previous consultation had demonstrated a desire for development to be focused around the market towns and large villages, these represented the main focus of the development based on those options made aware to us through the SHLAA study. The options put forward for consultation did not suggest specific sites or the scale of development.
Who was consulted and how?
The growth options consultation included 1,300 organisations and individuals being notified by letter or email on 27 August 2009 with the production and distribution of 6,000 summary leaflets. Reference copies of documents and a summary leaflet was made available between 27 August and 1 October 2009 in council offices based at Chinley, Glossop and Buxton as well as copies deposited at Glossop, Hadfield, Gamesley, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Whaley Bridge, Buxton and New Mills libraries. Three workshops were organised to assist parish councils to make informed and timely responses to the consultation with a briefing for High Peak Councillors being held in September 2009. Manned exhibitions were held in Buxton, Glossop and Chapel-en-le-Frith on 9 September, 4 September and 3 September respectively. Press coverage included advertisements in the Glossop Chronicle and Buxton Advertiser, with the consultation exercise generating a number of ‘Letters to Editors’. Radio interviews were broadcast on High Peak Radio and Radio Derby and articles appeared in the Manchester Evening News and on the BBC website.
12 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.25 A total of 1,479 comments were received. Comments received did raise concerns regarding the publication and advance notice of the consultation exercise and the possible disenfranchisement as a result of this. Nonetheless there was significant public interest generated as a result of the consultation and the benefit of this to policy formation is evident.
Summary of main issues
3.26 In summary, the responses primarily highlighted the preferred growth options of those consulted on the sub areas. In Glossopdale the most preferred option appeared to be redevelopment of mill sites. In High Peak Central sub area again the most favoured option was the redevelopment of mill sites, with option CC (development of south west Whaley Bridge) attracting the most opposition. Within the Buxton area there was no clear preference for growth.
3.27 Alternative sites were highlighted through the consultation process, with potential locations for housing demand being sought specifically. Across the plan area there were 74 suggested alternative sites with 29 of these being identified in the High Peak area. The majority of these alternative sites were focused around Buxton and the larger villages of Whaley Bridge and Hadfield.
3.28 The consultation also received a number of general comments, primarily focused around the location of the potential growth options and the overall development strategy. These comments focused around concentration of development in the Market Towns, the possibility of greater distribution of development and concerns around the infrastructure requirements for new development.
3.29 There was particular mention of Whaley Bridge, and a large number of comments were received regarding the draft proposals from concerned residents living in this area. The consultation raised concerns over the location of some of the growth areas and in relation to the overall development strategy. It was felt that development should be focused on previously developed sites and existing areas in the market towns.
3.30 Comments indicated that further development in the area would be unacceptable without the appropriate infrastructure. It was suggested that Glossopdale in particular could not cope with any further development without accompanying transport and accessibility improvements.
How were the representations addressed?
3.31 Response to the growth options paper had included some concern over the scale and size of proposed development and as such it was felt that in certain areas there was scope for further public engagement and to seek views that could be further fed into the preparation of the draft core strategy. Within High Peak the pattern of responses was different to those witnessed in Derbyshire Dales and only one further community consultation was carried out with Harpur Hill Residents Association on the 24 November 2009.
3.32 From the alternative sites that were suggested from the consultation, a series of maps were produced identifying their location and size. These alternative sites were taken forward for more detailed assessment of their suitability and deliverability. It was also recommended that a Site Allocations Development Plan Document be produced to identify non strategic development sites.
3.33 In taking the strategy forward three options were identified from the growth options consultation in achieving site allocation options in the draft core strategy.
Consultation Statement 13 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Option 1 – All sites in the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy. Option 2 - Only Strategic Sites are identified within Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy Plan and an Allocations Development Plan Document be prepared to identify the remaining sites. Option 3 – The Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy indicate the overall distribution of the housing across the plan area and a Site Allocations Development Plan Document be prepared to identify sites.
Joint Core Strategy: Draft Plan
3.34 The draft plan consultation took place between 3 June and 15 July 2010 and invited comment on the policies set out to shape the future of development in the area. The comments received from previous consultation on the Growth Options informed the preparation of the joint core strategy.
Who was consulted and how?
Letters and emails to all those on the LDF consultation database as well as statutory consultees on 3 June 2010 .
Advertisements in local newspapers included
Glossop Chronicle 3 June 2010 Buxton Advertiser 10 June and 17 June 2010
Meetings with parish and town councils were held throughout June 2010 to enable them to forward information to residents. Reference copies of documents and a summary leaflet were made available between 3 June – 15 July 2010 in council offices based at Chinley, Glossop and Buxton as well as copies deposited at Glossop, Hadfield, Gamesley, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Whaley Bridge, Buxton and New Mills libraries. Manned exhibitions were held in the evenings at New Mills, Glossop, Buxton and Chapel on 7 July, 9 June, 15/16 June and 22 June 2010 respectively. Presentation given to Glossopdale Community College to a GCSE Geography class. Connect magazine published an article in June 2010 which was distributed to all residents in the borough. Presentations were given at three public meetings in Glossopdale on 9 June, Central Area on 16 June, Buxton Area on 22 June 2010 . A presentation was given to local delegates from High Peak Networking, the local business network, to ensure that businesses were targeted in the Draft Plan consultation.
Summary of main issues
3.35 The Core Strategy Draft Plan consultation received 1331 comments from 434 individuals, with a range of views put forward both in support and objection to the draft plan.
Portrait of the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak
14 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.36 There was a limited level of response to this section although the portrait was viewed favourably. There was recognition of the quality and condition of employment land in the area and the need to address local housing requirements. It was suggested that these issues be backed up with robust policies to address them.
3.37 It was thought that diagrams could be used to greater inform the portrait and illustrate the context of the High Peak in relation to the Peak Park. As well it was felt that the portrait could be more specific about the nature and condition of the built environment in the plan area.
Key Issues
3.38 Key Issue 1 should be more explicit in its aim to protect and enhance the natural environment. There was support for key issue 2 and 3 relating to the protection of the National Park and issues of climate change. It was felt that in meeting local needs and the targets and locations to meet these needs such be based on a robust evidence base and should be agreed with local residents. Key issue 8 does not go far enough in reflecting the difficulty faced in changing peoples travel behaviour and the urgency at which carbon emissions should be addressed. The key issues did not pick up the need to protect the character of the countryside and surrounding villages and the need to encourage habitat creation was not reflected adequately.
Spatial Vision, Aims and Objectives
3.39 The vision was generally viewed favourably and was considered well balanced considering the range of issues that face the plan area. Points of concern are around the omission of green infrastructure and the enhancement of biodiversity through the vision, as well as greater emphasis placed on reducing road use through strengthening of Market Town economies which will reduce out-commuting. It was suggested that the insertion of a section entitled ‘Spatial Themes’ which would interpret the aims and objectives of the Sustainable Community Strategy spatially.
Strategic Objectives
3.40 In terms of their content the strategic objectives do not align closely enough with the Sustainable Community Strategy and as such the core strategy needs to demonstrate a real commitment to the needs of an ageing population and should refer more directly to the challenges of supporting younger and older members of the population. It was noted that the strategic objectives cover too wide a range of areas and therefore may be unachievable.
The Spatial Strategy
3.41 There was generally support for the strategy however there were concerns. It was commented that brownfield land could not deliver affordable homes due to the remediation costs of developing such land and that there is insufficient brownfield land without constraints to deliver adequate housing growth.
Core Strategy CS1 Sustainable Development Principles
3.42 The CS1 Sustainable Development Principles is largely endorsed with 14 comments of support from a total of 21. Consultees mainly suggested amendments to wording to strengthen the policy as well as clarification over the term ‘Peak District; which is taken to mean the National Park but in fact refers to the Peak sub region.
Consultation Statement 15 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Core Strategy CS2 Settlement Hierarchy
3.43 Views on CS2 were mixed with considerable comment made around the definitions and methodology used to identify the settlements. For instance where villages without defined settlement boundaries are considered as countryside there are fears that it may restrict development. Conversely there are fears the large settlements may not be able to accommodate housing growth. Comments around market towns such as Buxton and Glossop include developing their own categorisation due to their strategic importance and more discussion on the scale of development in settlements outside of market towns.
Protecting Peak District Character
3.44 Greater clarification around the term ‘Peak District’ is required, it needs to be stressed that this refers to the Peak sub region as opposed solely to the Peak District National Park. This section is largely supported especially in reference to the aesthetic qualities of development and prominence of new development.
Core Strategy CS3 Landscape Character
3.45 This policy is supported as is the recognition of the contribution that landscape character makes to both residents and visitors lives. Diagrams should be clearer to define the plan area and where the policy relates to, specifically not the National Park. It was suggested that the policy should make more reference to the restoration of landscapes to address those deteriorating areas.
Core Strategy CS4 Biodiversity
3.46 The policy as it stands does not address the importance of biodiversity in the plan area and the observations suggest changes to the wording of the policy to strengthen and improve the policy.
Core Strategy CS5 Design Quality
3.47 The objective of ensuring high quality inclusive design in all development is supported and the importance of accessibility of buildings for people with disabilities is a feature which is recognised and supported. There could be more reflection on the opportunities posed by the historic environment to stimulate modern development of high quality design. Design guidance should be reviewed to ensure compliance with Planning Policy Statement 12.
Core Strategy CS 6 Built and Historic Environment
3.48 Objection received here relate to the policy not extending far enough to take into consideration the unlisted buildings in the borough and policy wording needs to be strengthened to protect and enhance the unique built and historic environment tin the borough. Policy should be seen as too restrictive instead protecting from the adverse effects of development rather than the effects of all development.
Core Strategy CS7 Green Infrastructure
16 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.49 There was general support for the policy although there was a general suggestion that the policy be strengthened. This included the creation of green infrastructure assets as opposed to simply the retention and protection of them. Greater emphasis should be made to the importance and value of green infrastructure in the plan rather than merely mapping them.
Core Strategy CS8 Maintaining and Enhancing an Economic Base
3.50 There were few objections to this policy. Rural diversification was generally supported, particularly in its role in retaining young people in the area. The continued supply of employment land was deemed important, particularly the redevelopment of existing employment sites that were no longer fit for purpose. It was suggested that the policy be cross referenced with policy CS2, Settlement Hierarchy.
Development Management Policy DM1 Existing Employment Land and Business Premises
3.51 While there was general support for the policy some aspects were considered to prescriptive and inflexible. For instance where a mixed use development requirement was placed on redeveloped employment sites. It was suggested that mixed use development only be supported when viable and appropriate and that the sustainability and alternative uses of employment sites be strongly considered.
Core Strategy CS9 Regenerating an Industrial Legacy
3.52 The policy was supported as it provided a framework for new uses to be delivered on redundant industrial sites, however it was felt that where buildings were of heritage and historical value they should endeavour to be maintained.
Core Strategy CS10 Countryside Development
3.53 The restrictive nature of the policy was supported as a measure to prevent creeping urbanisation and inappropriate countryside development. However clarity was requested over what constituted tourist and visitor development to give certainty on the type of development this policy permitted. It was suggested that the policy should reflect on the fact that not all uses would be permitted in the countryside and that the redevelopment of brownfield sites in the countryside be enabled.
Core Strategy CS11 Promoting Peak District Tourism and Culture
3.54 The policy was supported for its positive impact on the local economy. It was felt that the Peak Forest Canal merits specific mention for its contribution to sustainable and leisure in the plan area.
Development Management Policy DM2 Chalet Accommodation, Caravan and Camp Site Developments
3.55 Generally there was support for this policy although clarification was required over the type of development covered by this policy.
Core Strategy CS12 Retail and Town Centres
Consultation Statement 17 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.56 Comments were mixed regarding this policy and there were several observations made. There was concern regarding the impact of further retail development on existing retailers. Supermarket developers expressed support of the requirement for additional convenience retail space in the town centres however the inclusion of retail floorspace figures raised concerns over the flexibility of the policy to adapt to changing needs and other town centre uses.
Core Strategy CS13 Strategic Housing Development
3.57 There were considerable objections to the policy with 23 of 40 comments objecting to the policy. There was concern over the reliance on regional spatial strategy housing figures and the regional strategic approach adopted. However there was a disparity between comments with some support for growth in order to meet local needs and household projections. It was felt that any housing figures needed to reflect local requirements, be brought about through public consultation and mitigated against any detrimental impacts of the environment and infrastructure.
3.58 It was felt that there was no mechanism in the plan for a preference of brownfield development and that a phasing of development, with brownfield the preferred option and less Greenfield development should be put forward. The remediation costs of such development options were understood and the adverse impacts on viability. That being, an emphasis on Greenfield development would greatly hinder the policy of legacy site redevelopment (CS9).
Core Strategy CS14 Affordable Housing
3.59 The need to provide affordable housing was understood however there were mixed views on the affordable housing policy. There were differing opinions on the strength of the policy in delivering affordable housing. Some comments were pleased with the flexibility it allowed where developers could justify reduced affordable housing requirements through financial appraisals, whilst others felt it was too prescriptive and reduced developers ability to respond to local circumstances. It was suggested that strengthening the policy would ensure that housing was delivered on site rather than financial contributions. It was considered useful to have different affordable housing requirements for each sub area, however the thresholds of affordable housing was felt by some to be too low and others too high.
Core Strategy CS15 Exception Sites
3.60 There was strong support for this policy as it was felt it contributed to much needed rural affordable housing. It was felt that policy wording should be modified to ensure that sites within the built up area are considered before the exception sites. It was also felt that the policy should include criteria for assessing rural brownfield sites, particularly in circumstances where they would be unsuitable to be redeveloped for employment use.
Core Strategy CS17 Climatic Change
3.61 The main concern regarding this policy was the financial implications this would bring to delivering new development. An energy hierarchy was suggested as a measure to encourage more responsible energy usage as opposed to an emphasis on low carbon use and renewable energy. It was considered beneficial to place emphasis on carbon reduction initially in order not to impact the financial viability of schemes.
Core Strategy CS18 Provision of open space and recreation facilities
18 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.62 Sections of this policy were considered to be too onerous, particularly the requirement for on site open space provision as part of small development. It was considered that the policy should contain an outline of the types of leisure and recreational facilities required for each main settlements.
Development Management DM3 Provision for open space and outdoor play space in new housing developments
3.63 This policy was supported however it was suggested that criteria should be set to for the re-development of open space and play resources where they are no longer required for their original intended use.
Core Strategy CS19 Accessibility
3.64 Reducing the need to travel by un-sustainable uses was supported. However due to the rural nature of some of the locations in the plan area it was considered that provision for private car should be made.
3.65 The scale and cost of delivering physical infrastructure should be met where possible through developer contributions and should be taken into account in negotiations for s106 obligations. Developers are encouraged to consider impacts on increased passenger footfall when developing within close proximity to rail stations and contact rail network providers to seek enhancements where possible.
3.66 It was suggested that consideration be given to relationships between clusters of settlements as opposed to considering each settlement individually, which may deem development within them unsuitable.
3.67 The use of travel plans was supported although effective systems need to be in place to monitor use.
3.68 Lack of high speed broadband was highlighted as a deterrent to new businesses within the plan area.
Core Strategy CS20 Infrastructure
3.69 The policy was supported as it sets out that new infrastructure is required to compliment any further development.
Sub Area Strategy
CS21 Glossopdale
3.70 There were mixed views received on this policy.
3.71 The retention of the greenbelt was supported to limit urban sprawl and protect the rural nature of the sub-area. It was argued that there should be transition zones for the national park to prevent settlements merging.
3.72 The design and colouring of any new development in this sub area should be a primary consideration. There was support for the development of past industrial land.
Consultation Statement 19 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.73 The main concern in Glossopdale related to the capacity of the physical infrastructure to accommodate future housing growth with traffic congestion already an issue. Any increase in housing would contribute to increased car use and stretch the strategic road network to beyond capacity, particularly at Mottram. If any significant housing growth is to be delivered it was felt that improvements needed to be made to transport infrastructure. Any future housing growth should be coupled with growth in employment opportunities.
3.74 It was felt that housing types and tenures should meet local needs and demand to accommodate local residents who wished to continue living in the area rather than attracting more commuters to the area.
3.75 Support was offered for the redevelopment of existing employment sites however here was concern over the viability of delivering such options. As such those consultees with direct interests in particular sites expressed a desire for any residential element of development be permitted.
3.76 The broad location site at Gamesley was supported along with potential development of the railway network. There was concern over potential impact on local congestion, wildlife habitats and strategic leisure routes.
3.77 Small scale urban extensions was supported as an option for development around Dinting Vale, Gamesley and the north of Glossop.
CS22 High Peak Central Area
3.78 The development approach for the central area was met with strong objections including a 228 signature petition from residents who vehemently objected to housing development on the land around Chapel and surrounding towns. Concerns were focused around the scale of potential housing growth and the capability of infrastructure and services to cope with further development. The scale of development was felt to be too high and that a more even distribution of housing growth across the area would be better. Particularly the broad location of growth around south west Chapel raised the most concern. The capacity of the road network to cope with increased traffic especially at peak times, close to the school and A6 trunk road was of specific concern. The capacity of local services, including the overstretched dental practice, the reduced retail provision seen in recent years and the need for employment to support the level of housing growth were all raised. It was felt the scale of development would be detrimental to the character of Chapel and impede on its role as capitol of the peak and as a tourist destination. It was felt that there should be a preference to develop on brownfield land first. There was also concern over the effect more housing growth would have on house prices.
3.79 Comments received referring to the central area generally included a criticism of the method of consultation for not effectively targeting those who were affected by strategic proposals. Some felt that certain proposals had been kept quiet.
3.80 There were repeated calls to improve Whaley Bridge town centre and the area around the canal basin particularly due to the regenerative impacts canal side development could generate. Inclusion of the Peak Forest Canal in the strategy was acknowledged and supported.
3.81 There was support for small scale urban extensions in Hayfield and small scale development in Buxworth and Dove Holes.
20 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
CS23 Buxton
3.82 The aims were considered and more information was needed as to how the aims were to be realised. While generally an improvement in retail offer was supported concerns were raised about any development impacts on Higher Buxton.
3.83 In terms of infrastructure a Fairfield link road was welcomed as was a desire for future re-opening of the Buxton- Matlock railway link and an improved transport hub at the train station. A better provision of services and facilities to the east of Ashwood park would relieve congestion in the town.
3.84 Buxton has a Design and Placemaking Strategy which was supported and all buildings needed to be built to high quality design principles with the design strategy acting as the principal document for the basis for any decisions on design quality.
3.85 Housing growth in the town was supported as a means of maintaining the towns vitality and ensuring its future viability. Though some felt the scale was too high and it should be reviewed following the revocation of the regional plan.
3.86 It was argued that all sites identified should be deliverable and that some of the broad locations allocated had previously been dismissed by the planning inspector.
3.87 Growth in employment was supported particularly maintaining existing business use. Incubator units were proposed to support start up businesses in the town. However there was concern over reference to specific businesses in the plan, and that a more broad approach taken to support all local businesses with more emphasis given to the role mineral extraction plays in the local economy.
3.88 Environmental concerns included the capacity of the sewage and water treatment works to cope with increased growth and the potential impact increased outflow could have on the River Wye and the Peak District SAC.
Core Strategy CS27 Developer Contributions
3.89 As it currently stands the wording lacks clarity and fails to comply with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 that stipulates that planning obligations must be necessary to render the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
How were the representations addressed?
3.90 After the period of consultation undertaken on the draft core strategy it was evident that the implications of the Localism Bill and the abolition of the regional spatial strategy for the councils current work on the preparation of the LDF needed to be addressed.
3.91 The consultation highlighted a wide range of concerns particularly with regards to the sub area strategies (as discussed above). This coupled with the future enactment of the Localism Bill, gave an opportunity to go back to those communities and engage with them directly in the form
Consultation Statement 21 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
of a community conversation. This was endorsed by the Joint Advisory Committee on 5 January and it was proposed that this take place over the Summer of 2011, with a pilot ‘conversation’ to be held in March 2011.
Community Conversations
3.92 Going forward, a programme of community conversations was decided on as the next stage of consultation. The community conversations were carried out over the summer of 2011 as a means for local residents to spell out their priorities for development in their area. The events - which gave residents the opportunity directly to tell the authority how they thought their area should change in the future - were organised by High Peak Borough Council and facilitated by Rural Action Derbyshire and Planning with People.
3.93 Harpur Hill was piloted as the first Community Conversation, with further conversations carried out in Fairfield and Hogshaw, Gamesley, Whaley Bridge, New Mills and Furness Vale.
Table 1 Community Conversations
Community Conversations
Harpur Hill (pilot) 14 March 2011
Fairfield and Hogshaw 23 June 2011
Gamelsey 30 June 2011
Whaley Bridge 7 July 2011
New Mills 20 July 2011
Furness Vale 5 September 2011
Who was consulted and how?
Conversation booklets were produced for all of the community conversations which were sent out to those who expressed an interest and signed up to attend the conversations. These were specific to the town or village in question and included key points and information about the area, a summary of the responses to date and outline of the vision proposed for the area. They also included an agenda for the evening and outlined the focus of the community conversations. Further details and copies of the booklets can be found at:
http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/core-strategy/community-conversations
Letters and emails were sent to all those on the LDF consultation database. Reference copies of documents and a summary leaflet were made available in council offices based at Glossop and Buxton, New Mills Town Hall and the Mechanics Institute in Whaley Bridge as well as copies deposited at Glossop, Hadfield, Gamesley, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Whaley Bridge, Buxton and New Mills libraries. Reference copies of documents and summary leaflets made available at Fairfield and Gamesley Residents Association offices and High Peak Community Housing Offices.
22 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Parish and Town Councils were provided with information about the conversations and the conversation booklets. Lamppost posters were used to advertise the conversations in the local area from 10 June for the Fairfield and Hogshaw conversation, 9 June for the Gamesley conversation. Press releases sent to local newspapers. Radio interview with High Peak Radio. Publicity for the Furness Vale Community Conversation was carried out by Whaley Bridge Town Council and was undertaken at the request of the town council.
Compliance with High Peak Borough Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (Adopted May 2006)
3.94 The community conversations undertaken were in compliance with the council’s statement of community involvement. The conversations sought to directly involve the residents of the communities who would be impacted by the core strategy. The publicity surrounding the conversations was substantial, with online publicity as well as press releases in local press and radio. This complies with methods of involvement outlined for the preferred options and proposals stage in the statement of community involvement (p. 10). However it should be noted that the conversations form a unique process of consultation that has come about through an opportunity to re-address the core strategy under new legislation.
3.95 In order to engage with hard to reach groups external facilitators were used with the hope that they would act as an impartial mediator and engage more with these groups. The conversations sought to reach these disengaged groups, as a result further consultation exercises were held, such as the mother and toddler group in Whaley Bridge.
Summary of main issues raised
3.96 Feedback reports were produced for each community conversation and are available to access here http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/neighbourhood/communityconversations/
3.97 Recurring themes from all the community conversations were the strong individual identity of each community and sense of belonging and community spirit.
3.98 The community conversations were set against the background of the previous growth options consultation which had outlined areas of possible growth in each built up area. The community conversations adopted an interactive format to facilitate group discussions around simple and open questions. The production of a conversation booklet which accompanied each conversation helped to ensure informed debate and the opportunity for residents to inform the council of the needs and aspirations for the future development of their communities.
3.99 Each conversation followed a format which included small group discussions over specific questions and talking points:
What do you like about your area? What do you dislike about your area? What needs to change? What needs protecting? How do you see your area in the future?
Consultation Statement 23 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.100 Each group discussion was then followed by a ‘Put it on the map’ activity where attendees were given the opportunity to show specific areas and sites that they felt were special to them, needed protecting, needed improving or where they thought was an opportunity for development.
Harpur Hill 14 March 2011
3.101 45 people attended the Community Conversation in Harpur Hill which was facilitated by Rural Action Derbyshire.
3.102 Key themes that emerged were focused around the strong sense of community, a feeling of safety and belonging as a result of this and being distinct from the rest of Buxton but with good transport connections. Concerns were raised around parking and HGV’s on the main routes through Harpur Hill. Often mentioned was a lack of health facilities including doctors and dentists and a desire for more community facilities such as a village/ community centre, allotments and more shops.
3.103 When asked to comment on aspects of the core strategy, housing land and provision was a dominant theme and the main focus of comments raised. There was a desire to develop brownfield sites as the preferred option for housing growth and a preference of small scale developments as opposed to large uniform housing developments. Furthermore there was a concern that housing should be provided to meet future need in particular affordable housing. The impact of new development on physical infrastructure was a concern and the ability of current services to cope with population increase.
3.104 In terms of employment sites and provision there were fears that there would not be enough employment to meet current and future demands and that more should be done to stimulate small businesses in the area and bring forward sites for development of industry.
Fairfield and Hogshaw 23 June 2011
3.105 26 people attended the event in Fairfield which was facilitated by Rural Action Derbyshire, of which 22 submitted forms telling us of their age and economic status. Of the 16 women who completed forms, 7 of them had children of school age and 2 were retired. A total of 6 men attended the conversation of which 5 were in paid employment and 1 was retired. Each age group was relatively well represented with 3 attendees under the age of 18 and 3 attendees over the age of 65 however men under the age of 31 were under represented. This was a better represented meeting for the under 18 age group than other community conversations.
3.106 There was concern over the need and impact of further development, residents raised concerns over many empty properties which could be brought back into use and how the neighbourhood is already overcrowded. Again there was a strong sense of community and identity in Fairfield. A major concern raised was access issues with particular reference to the A6 at times of congestion and HGV’s using ‘unsuitable’ roads and vehicular routes.
3.107 Fairfield has very distinct issues associated with it which was highlighted by the stigma felt by residents. They felt the neighbourhood needed to improve its image to move towards a more positive community image.
24 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.108 The protection and extension of local facilities was identified as the biggest suggestion for change. Residents missed having a post office and local grocers and wanted to protect and maintain existing facilities and build upon these, especially the capacity of these existing facilities to cope with any further growth.
3.109 The protection of the countryside bordering Fairfield and Hogshaw was rated highly amongst the attendees particularly the ‘common’ area of Fairfield and wildlife sites in Hogshaw. 13% of comments referred directly to the preservation of local heritage including original streetlights, roman road and cobbled streets to retain the local distinctiveness of the area.
3.110 Most responses were unopposed to future growth, however most wanted to see the right kind of growth particularly housing appropriate to the area and needs of residents. This included a good range and mix of affordable housing, regeneration of existing derelict buildings and good architectural and design principles.
Whaley Bridge 7 July 2011
3.111 57 people attended the conversation and everyone completed a form telling us of their age and economic status. The Whaley Bridge Community Conversation was facilitated by Planning with People, and was well attended reflecting the level of interest and concern this community has taken in the planning process. Of the 25 women who attended, 76% of them were over the age of 51 with only 3 having children under the age of 18. There was only 1 female under the age of 30 and the majority were in paid employment. 32 men attended the event, this was a change to other conversations where the turn out was predominantly female. 72% of the male attendees were over the age of 51 and 38% were retired and over the age of 65.
3.112 As witnessed at other conversations the younger population was greatly under represented with only 5 people out of 57 (9%) under the age of 40. As a result of the conversation not being truly representative of the community, two maps were later circulated at the Mechanics Institute and a mother and toddlers group.
3.113 Things people loved about Whaley Bridge included excellent access to the countryside as well as good rail links to Manchester and Buxton. People commented on the strong community spirit the town had and a heritage that people are proud of.
3.114 Almost half of responses about dislikes related to parking and traffic congestion in the town and inadequate road access through the area, particular mention given to junctions at Horwich End and the volume of traffic at busy times. A lack of adequate parking for local shops and amenities it was felt pushed people to shop at Tesco. A lack of local employment and provision of services for young people was also a matter of concern, especially given how they were not represented at the meeting, a fact many wanted to ensure was recognised.
3.115 The canal basin and the potential for tourism was a point made by many respondents. People saw this as a chance to improve the towns economic vitality and through building a second bridge and regenerating the canal basin as a way to maximise the economic potential of the town. People wanted to protect existing facilities and stop further decline of local shops and services and a new school was seen as essential.
Consultation Statement 25 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.116 In terms of housing people had felt let down by previous badly designed schemes that were of poor quality, without pavements or on the edge of the town rather than infill sites. There was a mix of opinions over affordable housing for younger people and homes for an ageing population, both view points agreed that housing for local people and local demands was essential. Particular sites identified for development included the land to the east of Tesco and the school site as an opportunity for development.
New Mills 20 July 2011
3.117 The New Mills community conversation was attended by 50 people with 44 completing forms detailing their age and economic status. 50% of those who attended were over the age of 51 and retired. There were 16 male attendees and 28 female attendees. There was a considerable lack of representation from younger people with no delegates under the age of 18 and only 2 out of 44 were under the age of 30.
3.118 Following previous formats attendees were given the opportunity to discuss the questions posed and then to ‘Put it on the map’.
3.119 When discussing what they liked about their area people were very positive with a large percentage scoring the friendly and supportive community highly. The arts culture of the town was mentioned specifically, the quality of the built environment particularly the heritage of old buildings and the thriving voluntary community sector.
3.120 The quality of the built environment and heritage previously remarked on is set against disappointment at the ‘scruffy’ and poor quality of some areas of the town. Crime, vandalism and nuisance behaviour were all commented on. There was considerable discontent around parking issues with particular reference to the Doctors/Leisure Centre car park and dangerous parking on Hyde Bank Road as a result.
3.121 A main concern which was raised by a large percentage of the community was the Town Council and governance with over a quarter of the responses to the question ‘What can be improved in your area?’ eluding to the Town Council. There was a call for better opportunities for local people to be involved in decision making and a lack of representation.
3.122 Physical aesthetic was a concern with specific mention of the Swizzels site and the redundant church adjacent to the Town Hall. As a result, protection of and improvements to the built environment was a major point of improvement for the residents.
Furness Vale 5 September 2011
3.123 The Furness Vale Community Conversation was carried out by High Peak Borough Council and was part of a wider public meeting held by Whaley Bridge Town Council, who invited the council to carry out a small exercise based on the Community Conversations format.
3.124 50 people attended the meeting with 44 people completing a form to tell us their age and economic status. 56% of attendees were female, with an age distribution heavily weighted to the older age range. 63% of attendees were aged 51 and over, 11% aged 30 and over and just one attendee under the age of 18.
26 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.125 The meeting was called to address several issues faced by Furness Vale including traffic problems and parking on Yeardsley Lane, Community Organising Green Space (COGS) and social issues. This part of the meeting was taken to mean the likes and dislikes portion of the conversation and issues raised were taken from the minutes produced by the Town Council.
3.126 Yeardsley Lane provides access to 194 homes, 4 farms, a 70 van caravan site, a football field, play area, bowling green and community centre. Vehicles park along its length effectively making the road single track and unsuitable for large vehicles and HGV’s which often have to mount the pavement to avoid parked cars. It is particularly congested on refuse collection days when wheelie bins further obstruct pedestrian access. The main concerns are around the risk to pedestrians and perceived speeding over the 30mph limit.
3.127 The Community Organising Green Space (COGS) outlined a scheme to enhance the playing field in Furness Vale. However Derbyshire County Council Cabinet member for education raised the issue that although the field is owned by High Peak Borough Council, it is notified in the Local Plan as the designated playing field for Furness Vale Primary School. It was also noted that, if funds were available, DCC would seek to build a new school on this site so that the playing fields were not detached from the building itself. Consequently this designation has implications for the progress of the COGS project to develop the area as community space.
3.128 Residents also raised concerns around dog fouling and a need for more disposal bins, reports of bad smells from the sewers and a need for the tennis court to be cleaned more regularly.
3.129 The ‘Put it on the map’ stage gave people the opportunity to highlight to the council areas for achieving improvement and development, as well as where protection is needed. There was clear consistency around areas that were important to them and needed protection and those opportunities for development. Primarily sites highlighted for development were land in the greenbelt to either side of the Haulage yard on Buxton road and a residential address off Charlesworth Crescent.
3.130 In terms of housing there was a popular feeling that there should be no more homes built. Residents felt there were already a number of properties for sale and building new homes was not a solution, there was also concern over where the new homes would be situated and the detrimental effects on congestion and traffic. Where development was acceptable residents wished for small scale development in keeping with the village size and design, it was also felt that a greater number of affordable homes was needed as local people were being priced out of the area. Residents had felt that recent housing developments were not in keeping with the rural nature of the village and were of poor design. It was felt that Furness Vale should have its own individual design statement in any design document produced as recommended by the Whaley Bridge Community Conversation.
3.131 Transport concerns mainly matched the previous issues discussed though there was concern about the A6 and the Furness Vale railway station becoming a request stop.
3.132 Views expressed on the night made clear that any change taking place in Furness Vale over the next twenty five years, should contribute to, and not detract from, the close community and strong identity of the village.
3.133 How were the representations addressed?
Consultation Statement 27 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.134 In April 2012 the decision was taken to cease preparation of the Joint Core Strategy and to prepare a Local Plan for High Peak.
3.135 The comments received through the Community Consultations were used to shape the Issues and Options stage of the High Peak Local Plan preparation process.
Local Plan
Local Plan Issues and Options
3.136 Public consultation on the options took place over a 6 week period from 13 September to 25 October 2012 with later representations being accepted.
Who was consulted and how?
3.137 The consultation arrangements comprised of:
9 drop-in sessions – Harpur Hill, Buxton (2), Glossop (2), Whaley Bridge, New Mills, Chapel, Chinley Attendance at 3 public meetings – Old Glossop, Hayfield and Whaley Bridge Consultation documents with questionnaires A dedicated web page and on-line consultation portal Consultation material available in key public locations 1,057 emails and 1,144 letters sent out to all consultees and those on the Council’s consultation database Press notices and releases in local papers (Appendix 3) Posters placed in appropriate locations Approx. 2,000 letters to all residents living near to options sites
3.138 In order to allow people to focus on the options specific to their local area, three Local Plan options consultation documents were produced – one each for Buxton, the Central Area and Glossopdale.
3.139 The consultation documents asked for comments on a number of questions relating to the housing targets, the distribution of housing across the Borough, potential housing allocations and other development issues, such as employment, retailing, leisure and local green spaces. The same options for the High Peak and sub-area housing requirements were provided in each document. Local options for potential housing sites and other development issues were set out in each sub-are options document.
3.140 A total of 1,146 respondents made comments in response to the consultation. Of these, 690 were from residents or organisations in the Glossopdale area, 311 from the Central Area and 133 from the Buxton area. Comments were also made and recorded from the drop-in sessions which were attended by approximately 530 local residents. Other responses received were a 600 signature petition in support of the Local Open Space designation at George Street Wood, Glossop, a poster signed by 26 people objecting to the potential development sites in Charlesworth, and a letter with 47 signatories objecting to development in Simmondley.
28 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.141 Consultation on the policies was more targeted to specific organisations and statutory consultees although it was also open for others to comment.
Summary of main issues
Consultation Statement 29 30 Consultation 3 Consultation Table 2 Plan
Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary object comment support Dwellings of
in Options Site preparation
Statement Document statement
B1 Batham Gate Road 9 7 29 22 8 25 G No statutory objections. Some local opposition. Land Peak Dale owner support
B2 Land at Batham Gate 9 8 31 18 7 18 G No statutory objections, subject to highways Peak Dale requirements. Some local opposition. Land owner support.
B3 Land at Hogshaw 16 22 16 12 8 31 G Mixed response. Option B3 less favoured. Concerns and (reserve land) Buxton over loss of woodland. Link road required from A6 to access site. Lack of landowner interest. Natural England require replacement open space. consultation Conservation Area issues. Improvements needed to Fairfield Infant School. Long term potential only.
B4 Land at Hogshaw 15 20 12 24 9 93 G Buxton
B5 Ambulance Station The 9 3 9 29 27 11 B Public support. Availability uncertain still. Could go Glade Buxton in small site allowance.
B6 Hardwick Square South 4 3 4 32 35 30 B Public support. Planning permission for care home. Buxton Education concerns regarding impact of option B6, B7 & B10 on Buxton Infants - no scope to expand. Conservation Area issues. Highways considerations.
B7 Market Street depot 3 5 8 27 35 24 B Public support. Boundary issues. Highways - avoid Buxton loss of parking and further considerations. Education concerns regarding impact of option B6, B7 & B10 on Buxton Infants - no scope to expand. Conservation Area issues.
B8 Land west of Tongue 6 8 20 23 18 215 G Public and land owner support. NE / DCC / National Lane Fairfield Buxton Park concerns re-landscape/nature/heritage conservation impact. Link road required from A6. Improvements needed to Fairfield Infant School. Long term potential only. Public transport improvements required 3 Consultation Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary Plan object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document preparation
B9 Land behind Granby 8 9 24 21 13 21 G Mixed response. Highway concerns - safe access statement Road Buxton cannot be provided
B10 Land off Dukes Drive 23 12 14 17 13 338 G Mixed response. Education concerns regarding Buxton impact of option B6, B7 & B10 on Buxton Infants - no scope to expand. Highways do not think suitable access can be provided - further details awaited from owner. Dukes Drive / A6 concerns. NE concerns re. wildlife/landscape. Land owner support and B11 Sherbrook Lodge 8 8 18 28 14 13 G Public support. Highways - change boundary to Harpur Hill Road Buxton conform to past planning consent area to provide suitable access consultation
B12 Land adjacent to 9 6 11 24 24 8 G Public support. Include in small sites allowance. Buxton Hospital London Highways - access can only be achieved with Road Buxton adjoining hospital
B13 Green Lane Farm 42 15 7 5 9 115 G Strong public objections. NE objections. May be Buxton needed for school extension. Land owner support for housing.
B14 Land to south east of 37 14 11 5 9 20 G
B15 Land off Leek Road 10 12 27 16 10 12 G Public objections. Highway concerns. Setting of LB. Buxton Could be included in small sites allowance if suitable. Education concerns re. Burbage school - no scope to extend.
Consultation B16 Harehills Kennels 15 5 23 24 12 23 B/G Mixed public response. EA, NE, HRA, CPRE and Buxton education concerns. Pre-app. Land owner support.
B17 Land behind 28 11 17 19 11 82 G Mixed response. PDNP, HRA, CPRE, education Macclesfield Main Road and DCC landscape concerns. Land owner support. Buxton Statement B18 Land at A53/A54 20 8 16 21 13 49 B/G Mixed public response. PDNP, HRA, education amd DCC landscape concerns. Partial development fronting Leek Road. Land owner support for B19. 31 32 Consultation 3 Consultation Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary Plan object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document preparation
Statement B19 Ladmanlow Yard Leek 15 8 18 23 18 6 B/G statement Road Buxton
B20 Land off Ashbourne 21 19 10 17 12 232 G Public objections (but less then other greenfield Road Buxton sites in HH). Cumulative impact of Harpur Hill sites would need expansion of school. NP concerns if higher land is developed. DCC / EH / CPRE landscape / heritage concerns. Developer interest with draft Masterplan, including new employment
land and open space. and
B21 Land at Foxlow Farm 28 20 13 12 6 26 G As B20 with additional landscape concerns re. (between B20 and B22) higher ground consultation
B22 Foxlow Farm 28 18 15 7 6 105 G As B20 with additional landscape concerns re. Ashbourne Road Buxton higher ground
B23 Land on Burlow Road 27 9 21 16 2 40 G Significant public objection. PDNP / EH concerns. (behind pub) Harpur Hill DCC landscape concerns re. B23, B24, B25, B26, B28 and B29. Highways - no means of safe access.
B24 Blue lagoon and 22 13 10 15 17 72 G Mixed public response. PDNP concerns. Significant adjacent land Harpur Hill remediation needed. Highways - no means of safe access. DCC / NE / CPRE landscape concerns. DCC transport concerns re cumulative impact of HH sites / impact on fiveways junction and lack of facilities. Public transport improvements required
B25 Haslin Road Harpur 25 13 17 15 1 12 G Significant public objection. PDNP concerns. DCC Hill / NE / CPRE landscape concerns. DCC transport concerns re cumulative impact of HH sites / impact on fiveways junction and lack of facilities. Public transport improvements required
B26 Land between Haslin 25 11 19 17 1 12 G Significant public objection. PDNP concerns. DCC Road and Burlow Road / NE / CPRE landscape concerns. DCC transport Harpur Hill concerns re cumulative impact of HH sites / impact on fiveways junction and lack of facilities. Public transport improvements required 3 Consultation Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary Plan object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document preparation
B27 Harpur Hill College 4 8 12 59 105 B Strong public support. Developer support, subject statement Campus to site constraints. DCC transport concerns re cumulative impact of HH sites / impact on fiveways junction and lack of facilities. Public transport improvements required
B28 Land at Haslin Road 28 11 20 8 9 108 G Significant public objection. DCC / NE / CPRE Harpur Hil landscape concerns. Land owner support. DCC transport concerns re cumulative impact of HH sites
/ impact on fiveways junction and lack of facilities. and Public transport improvements required
B29 Land between Burlow 28 9 19 13 9 114 G Significant public objection. DCC / NE / CPRE consultation Road and Heathfield Nook landscape concerns. Land owner support. DCC Road Harpur Hill transport concerns re cumulative impact of HH sites / impact on fiveways junction and lack of facilities. Public transport improvements required
B30 Land south of Burlow 27 10 24 10 5 90 G Significant public objection. DCC / NE / CPRE Road landscape concerns. NE - remote. Land owner support. DCC transport concerns re cumulative impact of HH sites / impact on fiveways junction and lack of facilities. Public transport improvements required
TOTAL FOR BUXTON 2050 Consultation
CENTRAL AREA SUMMARY Statement 33 34 Consultation 3 Consultation Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary Plan object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document preparation
Statement Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary statement object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document
C1 Hayfield Road Hayfield 28 17 24 18 8 28 B Availability uncertain. Would have to be part of wider scheme to redevelop this area which is not a
current proposals. Adjacent to the Sett Valley Trail. and HRA raised concerns over the site and possible impact on SPA. Natural England seek reassurance that development will not adversely impact consultation designated areas.
C2 Land at New Mills 36 18 32 6 1 17 G Significant level of public objection. DCC highway objection regarding access poor visibilty on to New Mills Road. English Heritage site is adjacent to Conservation Area and listed building.Natural England seek reassurance that development will not adversely impact designated areas.
C3 Land off Derby Road 33 8 34 10 1 174 G Many public objections. Pylons major constraint. New Mills Coal Authority possible mining legacy issues, need to investigate mining position and ground conditions. Education issues, Thornsett Primary School can only accommodate limited development up to 100 dwellings. School has no possibility of expansion.Natural England seek reassurance that development will not adversely impact designated areas.
C4 land off Low Leighton 48 12 27 4 1 55 G High level of public objections. Education issues, Road New Mills Thornsett Primary School can only accommodate limited development up to 100 dwellings. School has no possibility of expansion. Site would need archaeological survey.Coal Authority possible mining legacy issues, need to investigate mining position and ground conditions. DCC Highways 3 Consultation Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary Plan object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document preparation
access is an issue would need satisfactory access statement into site. Owner willing to develop.Natural England seek reassurance that development will not adversely impact designated areas.
C5 Land at Ollersett 45 14 29 3 146 G High level of public objections. Coal Authority Lane/Pingot Road New possible mining legacy issues, need to investigate Mills mining position and ground conditions. DCC Highways access is an issue would need
satisfactory access into site.Maybe potential to have and access onto Hayfield Road would need traffic assessment. Natural England seek reassurance
that development will not adversely impact consultation designated areas.
C6 Land at Laneside Road 44 12 29 4 1 78 G Many public objections. Site would need New Mills archaeological survey.
C7 Land at Woodside 9 4 25 24 16 20 B Public support. Current employment uses. Site Street New Mills boundary needs to be redrawn part of the site in employment use and owner has no wish to develop.
C8 Land at Wharf Road 12 15 15 41 26 20 B Public support. Environment Agency site in flood Whaley Bridge zone 3. DCC highways possible access issues, existing access is constrained.
C9 Land to the south of 108 16 10 5 83 G Public objection to development on the site. DCC Macclesfield Road Whaley Highways access issues but possible to resolve.
Consultation Bridge Site would need archaeological survey. Coal Authority possible mining legacy issues, need to investigate mining position and ground conditions. Natural England seek reassurance that development will not adversely impact designated areas.
C10 Land at Horwich End 86 24 17 7 1 70 G High level of public objection. DCC Highways no Statement Whaley Bridge access to the site. DCC concerned about landscape impact.Natural England seek reassurance that development will not adversely impact designated areas. 35 36 Consultation 3 Consultation Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary Plan object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document preparation
Statement C11 Land at Horwich End 94 27 12 2 108 G High level of public objection. DCC Highways no statement extension Whaley Bridge access to the site. DCC concerned about landscape impact. PDNP potential adverse impact on landscape.Natural England seek reassurance that development will not adversely impact designated areas.
C12 Land off Brierley Park 34 11 30 7 3 G High level of public objections. DCC highways no Buxworth satisfactory access to the site. and C13 Land at Buxton Road 20 8 29 13 2 31 G Public support. Reduced capacity to reflect nature Buxworth of site. consultation
TOTAL FOR CENTRAL 833 AREA
GLOSSOPDALE SUMMARY
Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document
G1 Arnfield Water 28 12 44 61 96 49 B Well supported by public. Issues of access and Treatment Works availablity
G27 Land adjacent to 40-46 196 37 61 17 2 34 G High level of objection due to traffic issues and Glossop Road conservation area impact. Access requires third Charlesworth party land. 3 Consultation Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary Plan object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document preparation
G28 Land off Glossop Road 190 34 58 20 6 11 G statement Charlesworth
G2 Paradise Street 31 16 33 55 60 28 B Well supported by public. HPBC partly owned. Hadfield Highway concerns.unadopted acess
G3 Roughfields Hadfield 213 19 37 38 4 102 G Unpopular. Impact on National Park. HPBC partly owned. Possibility of smaller scale development.
G4 Temple Street Padfield 208 24 40 29 0 30 G Unpopular. Constraints on site. Conservation Area and
G5 Adjacent to Park 82 25 50 8 0 60 G Unpopular. Landowner unknown. Landscape and Crescent Glossop wildlife impacts. consultation G6 North Road Glossop 124 35 35 11 2 264 G No support. Landscape impacts - suggested as strategic site. Interested developer. Possibility of smaller area for development.
G7 Land off Woodhead 84 53 51 13 4 30 G Unpopular. In several ownerships Road (Kingsmoor Fields) Glossop
G8 Land off Woodhead 87 57 38 13 5 63 G Unpopular. Willing developer. Need combining Road Glossop together if developed to facilitate access to all sites. Education and highways concerns.
G9 Land off Woodhead 76 59 42 13 8 13 G Road Glossop (1)
Consultation G10 Land off Woodhead 71 45 57 17 7 25 G Road Glossop (2)
G12 Land off Bute Street 66 33 47 21 20 30 G objections. Education concerns. Flood risk, impact Old Glossop on National Park
Statement G13 Hawkshead Mill Old 38 18 42 54 92 31 B Current application. Public support. Glossop
G14 Hope Street Old 51 36 52 22 23 19 G Mixed response. Previous application. Highways Glossop concerns. 37 38 Consultation 3 Consultation Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary Plan object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document preparation
Statement G15 York Street Depot 25 11 32 72 102 25 B Pre-app for 19 dwellings. Much public support. statement Glossop
G16 Woods Mill High Street 21 11 39 57 109 104 B Subject of development brief. Access issues. east Glossop
G17 Land off Cliffe Road 45 28 77 24 8 37 G Mixed response. Landowner known in part. Impact Glossop on Woods Mill. Access constraints
G18 Bank Street Glossop 41 27 83 19 7 16 G Public support. Highway concerns.possible smaller and number
G19 Dinting Road/Dinting 62 52 46 22 14 64 G Unpopular but some support. Highway concerns. Lane consultation
G20 Dinting Lane Glossop 61 55 51 20 11 50 G Unpopular. Highways concerns. Reduced scale to minimise impact. Strategic gap
G21 Land off Dinting Road 59 49 47 24 12 13 G Mixed response. Landowner interest. Glossop
G22 Plot 3 Dinting Road 57 25 64 24 8 1 G Include in small site allowance. Glossop
G23 Former railway 57 20 55 45 25 89 G Some support. Highway concerns. Strategic gap. museum Dinting
G24 Land to the rear of 70 22 54 32 35 30 G High objections but ownership issues and highway Cottage Lane Gamesley concerns.
G25 Land off Melandra 57 23 43 53 39 35 G Some support. Some highway concerns. Castle Road
G26 land adjacent to 47 19 36 60 51 38 G Some support. Some highway concerns. Gamesley slidings
G29 Spring Rise 67 27 50 26 25 2 G Unpopular. Highway concerns. Simmondley 3 Consultation Strongly Object Neutral/general Support Strongly No. of Type Commentary Plan object comment support Dwellings of in Options Site Document preparation
G30 Land between Spring 68 30 52 26 22 11 G Unpopular. Highway concerns. statement Rise and High Lane Simmondley
G31 Charlestown Works 24 15 36 44 121 76 B Strong support. HRA concerns. Glossop
TOTAL FOR 1391 and GLOSSOPDALE consultation Consultation Statement 39 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
How were the representations addressed?
3.142 A summary of the responses received on options for housing and other development issues for the High Peak Local Plan was reported to Councillors on 12 December 2012 to summarise the responses received on options for housing and other development issues for the High Peak Local Plan. The housing targets for the Borough and the sub-areas were endorsed and a list of housing allocations agreed as the basis for the Preferred Option Local Plan.
Local Plan Preferred Option
3.143 Consultation on the Preferred Options Local Plan commenced on 27th February 2013, initially for a period of 6 weeks, although due to the need to reschedule one of the Buxton consultation events because of bad weather and an additional Hayfield event being organised, this was informally extended to enable late representations to be made. The consultation sought views on the council’s preferred approaches for meeting the development needs of the Borough, in particular the housing requirement and site allocations.
3.144 The preferred options document was accompanied by an Interim Sustainability Appraisal Report, a draft Habitats Regulations Assessment Report and a Maps document illustrating the location of the preferred options proposals.
Who was consulted and how?
3.145 The consultation arrangements comprised of press releases (Appendix 3 ), notices, flyers to all businesses and households ( Appendix 4), emails and letters to those on the consultation database and a total of 9 consultation events across the Borough which were attended by approximately 650 people. A total of 770 representations were received from 244 individuals, organisations, statutory bodies and consultants.
3.146 A summary of the consultation responses can be found on High Peak Borough Council website at
http://www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/the-high-peak-local-plan/ local-plan-preferred-options-2013.
How were the representations addressed?
3.147 The following changes resulting from the consultation responses were discussed with Members attending the Local Plan Workshop held at Bradbury House, Glossop on November 27th.
Plan Period
Amend to 2011 - 2031
Housing requirement
Increase the Borough’s housing requirement to 360 dwellings per annum (and adjust subsequent sub-area housing requirements) to more fully meet objectively assessed need.
Employment Requirement
40 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Increase the Borough’s employment requirement to 33.15 hectares to meet needs over plan period (subject to confirmation by update to Employment Land Study)
Changes within the Glossopdale sub-area are set out in the table below.
Table 3 Changes within the Glossopdale sub-area
Site Change Additional Consultation
Padfield Triangle Extend boundary of Local Green Space to include Yes all the triangle
G3 Roughfields Reconsider Issue and Options site Notification only
G12 Bute Street Reconsider Issue and Options site Notification only
G11 Land off Woodhead Reconsider Issue and Options site Notification only Road
G14 Hope Street Remove from Plan as has planning permission. Notification only
G15 York Street Remove from Plan as has planning permission. Notification only
G17 Cliffe Road Reconsider Issue and Options site. Site not to Notification only be allocated in Plan, but built up area boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance
G18 Bank Street Site not to be allocated in Plan, but built up area Notification only boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance
G21 Dinting Road Site not to be allocated in Plan, but built up area Notification only boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance. Boundary extension to also take in Issues and Options site G22 (Plot 3)
Waterside, Hadfield Change of use from employment land allocation Yes to Primary Employment Zone
Land to the west of North Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to add Yes Road land to the Green Belt
Land off Manor Park Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to add Yes Road, north of Cricket land to the Green Belt Ground, Old Glossop
Changes within the Central sub-area are set out in the table below.
Consultation Statement 41 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Table 4 Changes within the Central sub-area
Site Change Consultation required?
Rear of Laneside Road, New New site proposed for allocation Yes Mills
Triangle of land off Pingot New site proposed Yes Road, New Mills
Field joining C5 and C6 New New site proposed for allocation Yes Mills
Land at Shire Croft,Reservoir New site, too small for allocation, but built up Yes Road, Whaley Bridge area boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance
Furness Vale green belt site Amendment to the Green Belt boundary Yes enabling new housing site allocation
Land at New Mills Newtown Change of use proposed from employment Yes to mixed use
Land at Birch Vale Industrial Change of use proposed from Primary Yes Estate Employment Zone to mixed use
C1 Hayfield Bus Depot Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation Notification only not met
C8 Wharf Road Small site within built up area does not Notification only require housing allocation, but can contribute to the small sites allowance
Land opposite Tescos, Whaley Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation Notification only Bridge not met
Old Road/Buxton Road Whaley Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation Notification only Bridge not met
C2 New Mills Road, Hayfield Site not be allocated in Plan, but built up area Notification only boundary extended to include site, so that it can contribute to the small sites allowance
C9 Macclesfield Road Whaley Reconsider Issues and Options Site Notification only Bridge
Kinder Road, Hayfield Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to Yes remove land from Green Belt
42 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Site Change Consultation required?
Land between Start Lane and Amendment to the Green Belt boundary to Yes Reservoir Road, Whaley Bridge add land to the Green Belt
Changes within the Buxton sub-area are set out in the table below.
Table 5 Changes within the Buxton sub-area
Site Change Consultation required?
B11 Sherbrook Lodge Include in green wedge. We need to decide Yes exact boundary
Harpur Hill green wedge Creation of a green wedge or green fingers Yes
B2 Land at Batham Gate Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation Notification only not met
Frontage to Cavendish Golf Remove site from Plan – criteria for allocation Notification only Club,Manchester Road not met
B5 Ambulance Station, Small site within built up area does not require Notification only Buxton housing allocation, but can contribute to the small sites allowance
B6 Hardwick Square South Members would like to allocate the site Yes specifically for extra care / elderly persons accommodation
Leek Rd /Macclesfield Road, Small site within built up area, does not require Notification only housing allocation, but can contribute to the small sites allowance
Tongue Lane Remove southern section of employment land Yes allocation
Hoffman Quarry Remove employment land allocation from Plan Yes
Foxlow Farm Amend employment allocation to support the Yes creation of a local centre
Station Rd / Spring Gardens Amend boundary of Regeneration area to Yes remove land east of Bridge Street
Land to north of Station Rd Designate as mixed use area Yes
Land to South of Station Designate as retail area Yes Road
Consultation Statement 43 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Significant Policy Changes
Policy EQ9 Pollution and Flood Risk - proposed to split this policy into two (Policy EQ9 Pollution Control and Unstable Land and Policy EQ10 Flood Risk Management) Policy CF4 Provision of Open Space and Recreation Facilities - proposed to add details of sports facilities and to remove details of open space costs used to calculate developer contributions. Instead the policy will refer to a forthcoming Developer Contributions SPD. Policy CF6 Transport and Accessibility – proposed to be amended to refer to new parking standards that will displayed as an appendix to the Local Plan. The new standards have been suggested by Derbyshire County Council. Policy CF1 Retail and Town Centres - proposed to include support for an out of- centre food store in New Mills. Proposals would need to be supported by an impact assessment. Explicit support for additional food stores in Buxton and Glossop to be removed. Town centre boundaries to be amended as recommended in the Retail Study update with the exception that land to the north of Station Road will be retained within the town centre to allow office and leisure developments to come forward as part of a mixed-use scheme. Changes to include minor amendments in New Mills and Whaley Bridge. The town centre in Glossop also to be amended, most significantly in the Woods Mill area. This would retain the boundary in its current position in the adopted Local Plan (the Preferred Options Local Plan had proposed to extend the boundary further to the east to support the need for a food store as was identified at the time). The reduced boundary would mean that applications for retail, leisure and office space would need to be supported by an impact assessment and sequential site assessment. This is in response to the reduced need for a food store now identified in the Retail Study update. The Primary Shopping Area as recommended by the Retail Study for Buxton (Spring Gardens and Springs Shopping Centre) to be included in the plan and this will designate that part of the town centre as the retail core. Proposals for retail outside of the Primary Shopping Area will need to be supported by an impact assessment and sequential site assessment. In addition, the threshold for requiring retail impact assessment is proposed to be reduced from 500m2 to 200m2 as recommended by the Retail Study. Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy - proposed to reclassify Hadfield as a larger village / other local centre within the retail hierarchy in response to the Retail Study update (Hadfield is currently proposed to be designated as a small town centre alongside New Mills, Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge).
Local Plan Additional Consultation
3.148 Consultation on the agreed changes took place for more than 6 weeks from 27th December 2013 to 10th February 2014.
Who was consulted and how?
3.149 Consultation comprised of postcards or e-mails sent directly to over 2,000 people registered on the consultation data base. In addition 526 “neighbour notification” letters were sent to all those living directly adjacent to 15 sites included in the consultation document. Details of the consultation were also publicised in the Buxton Advertiser and Glossop Chronicle, High Peak radio, on Twitter, the HPBC website and at local libraries. There were two public meetings which officers attended: one in Whaley Bridge and one in Hayfield.
44 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.150 In order to assist in making responses, a consultation document was produced which set out why changes are being made, how the development targets are changing and what changes are being made to sites and designated areas. This was made available on the consultation portal and the Council’s website as well as in libraries and Council offices.
3.151 At a meeting of the Regeneration Select on 11th February a presentation was given summarising the latest evidence and main responses from the public consultation. An update was also given by the Leader of the Council at the Council meeting on 24th February.
3.152 Current totals indicate around 2,500 representations have been received from approximately 1,250 individuals and organisations. In addition, four petitions have also been received. These are for the South of Macclesfield Road site, Whaley Bridge (375 signatures and 152 signatures), Old Glossop (372 signatures) and Kinder Road, Hayfield (13 signatures).
Responses received to Additional Consultation – December 2013
3.153 A total of around 2,500 representations have been received from approximately 1,250 individuals and organisations.
Development Targets
Question Q1. Amend plan period to 2011 – 2031?
Number representations received 84
In support: 26
Objections: 51
Other: 7
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: No views
DCC: supports proposal to extend the Local Plan period to 2031.
Summary points raised by public Level of growth proposed is too high.
Infrastructure is not sufficient.
Question Q2. Increase target to 360pa?
Number 95 representations received In support: 16 Objections: 72
Consultation Statement 45 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q2. Increase target to 360pa?
Other: 7
Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: the Habitats Regulation Assessment draft Feb comments 2013 indicates that a number of factors relating to impacts on European Sites (SACs and SPAs) could constrain the growth of housing and built development within High Peak. Particular concern regarding phosphates in the River Wye and the ability to deliver planned growth in Buxton.
DCC: In the light of the NPPF and Planning Inspectors’ reports on Local Plans that stress the need to meet in full objectively assessed need, it is acknowledged that HPBC’s preferred target of 270 homes would be difficult to justify in the face of this latest evidence. Conversely, it is agreed that the objectively assessed need figure of over 400 new homes pa would not be deliverable without significant impacts on the Green Belt, landscape character, infrastructure needs and the supply and safeguarding of mineral reserves. DCC has doubts about HPBC’s ability to deliver the higher level of housing provision currently proposed. Additionally, from an infrastructure planning and delivery point of view, DCC would prefer a greater proportion of the housing to be located at larger sites and for the small sites allowance to be reduced.
Summary points Too many new homes. raised by public Not meeting Objectively Assessed Need.
Glossopdale
Question Q3. G3, Roughfields, Hadfield
Number 193 representations received In support: 7 Objections: 183
Other: 3
Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: have not assessed this site and there is no comments known biodiversity data on its status.
Natural England: mitigation measures should be considered to avoid significant adverse effects on the landscape and the setting of the National Park.
46 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q3. G3, Roughfields, Hadfield
Summary points Increased pressure on infrastructure. raised by public Loss of gap between Hadfield and Padfield. Loss of green space.
Evidence Base Landscape Impact Assessment: area identified as having potential to accommodate development – given an appropriate landscape framework.
Education: DCC proposing extension to Hadfield Infants to increase capacity to 210. S106 may be required to increase capacity further. Site includes a notified school site for which a requirement remains.
Highways: A satisfactory access can be achieved. Development of the site would not cause an adverse impact on surrounding highway network. Topography does not present a highway problem, either within the highway or within the site. A TA would be required. Need to improve pedestrian facilities on Padfield Main Road.
Question Q4. G11, Land off Woodhead Road
Number 95 representations received In support: 4 Objections: 88
Other: 3
Stakeholder PDNPA: Strategic concern raised in relation to setting of National Park comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: All the allocation units within this area will require additional ecological assessment of the habitats. Note drainage, particularly surface water disposal, is an issue in this area.
DCC: Footpath HP12/5 runs adjacent to the site and should be protected.
Summary points Infrastructure cannot cope with extra traffic. raised by public Site includes foraging area for bats and other wildlife concerns. Impact on Conservation Area.
Evidence Base Highways: A satisfactory access can be achieved to serve the site. Development of the site risks causing an adverse impact on surrounding highway network -Thorpe Street is narrow with no pedestrian facilities or turning facility. Topography does not present a highway problem within the highway, but it does within the site. No TA would be required. Part of Thorpe Street is one way and emerging visibility is adequate.
Consultation Statement 47 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q4. G11, Land off Woodhead Road
Education: The Duke of Norfolk school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem.
Landscape Impact: Site not consulted on as an original preferred option - so not specifically considered by study, however is in an area of landscape sensitivity requiring any development to address landscape impacts through an appropriate landscape framework.
Question Q5. G12,Bute Street
Number 92 representations received In support: 5 Objections: 86
Other:1
Stakeholder PDNPA: Strategic concern raised: site is a green wedge out into the comments countryside of the National Park and is likely to be prominent when seen from certain vantage points within the National Park
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Will need comprehensive bat survey. The Landscape Impact Assessment January 2014 identified landscape constraints on the site and it should be recognised that the landscape assessment can be integrally linked to the ecological landscape and the establishment of a coherent ecological network for the borough.
Natural England: mitigation measures should be considered to avoid significant adverse effects on the landscape and the setting of the National Park.
DCC: site forms an important green wedge and is
prominent from the Peak Park.
Summary points Green Gateway into Glossop. raised by public Traffic and congestion. Flood risk. Impact on Conservation Area and National Park.
48 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q5. G12,Bute Street
Evidence Base Highways: A satisfactory access can be achieved to serve the site. Development of the site risks causing an adverse impact on surrounding highway network -Thorpe Street is narrow with no pedestrian facilities or turning facility. Topography does not present a highway problem within the highway but it does within the site. No TA would be required. Public highway fronting appears only to serve rear of hospital.
Education: The Duke of Norfolk school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem.
Landscape Impact: Site not consulted on as an original preferred option - so not specifically considered by study, however is in an area of landscape sensitivity requiring any development to address landscape impacts through an appropriate landscape framework.
Question Q6. G17, Land off Cliffe Road
Number 34 representations received In support: 2 Objections: 30
Other: 2
Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: DWT’s alert map shows that a small area of comments the site (<0.5ha) has been identified as semi-improved grassland. This area is on the very steep slope to the north-west of the site and it is unlikely this area will be developable. DWT would welcome a reduction in the allocation area to exclude the area of biodiversity interest.
Natural England: seeks reassurance that there would be no adverse impacts on the ancient woodland and other UK BAP priority habitat from increases in recreational use.
DCC: it would be difficult to accommodate the additional pupils arising from the total growth proposed within the normal area of St James’ Primary School.
DCC: site is potentially visible at distance from across Glossop near Shire Hill so it is considered preferable to restrict development to the northern (upper slopes) of the site to reduce any visual intrusion.
Consultation Statement 49 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q6. G17, Land off Cliffe Road
Summary points Key green field site visible from the town centre. raised by public Landscape impact. Steep slope and poor access.
Question Q7.G18 Bank Street, Glossop
Number 25 representations received In support: 5 Objections: 17
Other: 3
Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: - This allocation should be seen as part of comments the G17 & G16 complex. Suggested a development brief should be used to identify the environmental opportunities and constraints of these 3 areas together, including managing the contribution of Glossop Brook to the ecological network.
DCC: Site abuts G17 but is much less conspicuous in wider views. Public footpath (HP12/24) runs through the site. As this site has been identified, it should be allocated in the Local Plan with an accompanying site allocation policy that specifies that this footpath must be safeguarded and should require the developer to incorporate improvements to the section of footpath between Cross Cliffe and Bank Street to bridleway standard as part of the design of any future development at this site.
DCC: it would be difficult to accommodate the additional pupils arising from the total growth proposed within the normal area of St James’ Primary School.
Summary points Loss of green space and biodiversity. raised by public
Question Q8. G21, Land off Dinting Road, Dinting
Number representations 22 received In support: 7
Objections: 14
Other: 1
50 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q8. G21, Land off Dinting Road, Dinting
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: DWT have not assessed this site and hold no information on the alert map.
DCC: A proposed bridleway (HP12/124) runs along the eastern boundary of this site and should be protected.
DCC: concerns that development alongside the other allocations could lead to the visual connection of Dinting and Glossop.
DCC: it would be difficult to accommodate the additional pupils arising from the total growth proposed within the normal area of St Luke’s Primary School.
Summary points raised Impact on strategic gap between Hadfield and Glossop. by public Traffic. Change in character of area.
Question Q9: Waterside Employment Land, Hadfield
Number representations received 12
In support: 12
Objections: 3
Other: 3
Stakeholder comments Environmental Health: Site is a former landfill and gas testing will be required prior to development.
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: no comment
Summary points raised by public Job opportunities should be protected.
Question Q10: Local Green Space – Padfield
Number representations received 34
In support: 31
Objections: 2
Other: 1
Consultation Statement 51 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q10: Local Green Space – Padfield
Stakeholder comments Site is in 3 ownerships including HPBC. Remaining 2 owners strongly oppose the designation.
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Support
Summary points raised by public Gives village identity and character. Important to safeguard green spaces.
Question Q11. Green Belt addition at North Road
Number representations 28 received In support: 25
Objections: 2
Other: 1
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: support as it provides additional protection to the Local Wildlife Site and recognition to the ecological network and landscape corridor on the north side of Glossop providing connectivity to the valuable habitats of the Peak District National Park.
DCC: would assist in protecting the setting to Howard Park, which is a Conservation Area.
Summary points raised Protect landscape from harm. by public Green area highly visible from surroundings and contributes to rural character of Glossop. Acts as buffer between Hadfield and Glossop. Other areas should be considered for inclusion in Green Belt.
Question Q12. Green Belt addition at Old Glossop
Number representations 26 received In support: 21
Objections: 3
Other: 2
52 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q12. Green Belt addition at Old Glossop
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: the change to this addition appears to be logical.
Summary points raised by Provide future protection from development pressures. public Help protect Old Glossop. Other areas should be considered for inclusion in Green Belt.
Central
Question Q13. South of Macclesfield Road, Whaley Bridge
Number 682 representations received In support: 4 Objections: 673
Other: 5
Plus two petitions: 527
Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: 2009 desk based assessment identified site as comments low impact - but value might be higher as BAP habitats may be present. It is known that there are veteran trees on site, nearby bat roosts, badger sets and slow worm records. Site is part of wider ecological network providing linkages to adjacent habitats and PDNP.
Natural England: seeks reassurance that there will be no adverse impact on the Toddbrook Resevoir SSSI from recreational impacts.
DCC: site would need to incorporate the Goyt Way/Midshires Way, which runs through it. The site is visually contained by existing trees and these will be a significant constraint if the site is developed.
Summary points Traffic and congestion raised by public Impact on wildlife Impact on tourism and character of the area Impact on services and infrastructure Lack of demand for housing Impact on Mid shires way Landscape impact
Evidence Base Landscape Impact Assessment: area identified as having potential to accommodate development – given an appropriate landscape framework.
Consultation Statement 53 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q13. South of Macclesfield Road, Whaley Bridge
Highways: A satisfactory access cannot be achieved to serve the site as drawn, site frontage is limited on to Linglongs Road where safe minimum visibility splays do not appear to be achievable. A satisfactory access could be achieved subject to control of sufficient third party land to secure adequate emerging visibility splays. Development of the site risks causing an adverse impact on surrounding highway network with probable negative impact at the junction of Linglongs Road with Macclesfield Road. Topography does not present a highway problem within the highway, but it does within the site. A TA would be required. A public right of way crosses the site which would need to be incorporated/diverted/upgraded.
Education: This proposed allocation is for 83 dwellings, which would yield 17 primary school pupils. Housing development on this scale can be supported with an appropriate education contribution.
Flood Risk: The Environment Agency confirms that the site is within flood zone 1 (low risk) and therefore in principle supports the option.
Question Q14. Rear of Laneside Road, New Mills
Number 145 representations received In support: 3 Objections:140
Other: 2
Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Site is directly upstream from proposed green comments wedges and strongly advise that narrowing of this area by development would restrict green corridor. Noted Landscape Impact Study indicates landscape constraints.
DCC: Public footpaths HP19/139 and 169 run close to the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. The Local Plan site allocation policy should include a requirement to incorporate links onto these routes as part of the on-site design of any future development.
Summary points Traffic and congestion. raised by public Access unsuitable will need third party land for access. Impact on wildlife. Flooding stream crosses the site. Green field site loss of farming land.
54 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q14. Rear of Laneside Road, New Mills
Landscape impact. Mining issues possible mine shafts.
Evidence Base Landscape Impact: Site not consulted on as an original preferred option - so not specifically considered by study, however is in an area of landscape sensitivity requiring any development to address landscape impacts through an appropriate landscape framework.
Highways: Third party land required to provide satisfactory access, there are associated issues with land ownership and securing third party agreement.
Education: This site is within the normal areas of St George’s CE Voluntary Aided Primary School and New Mills School Business and Enterprise College. Overall growth proposed within the normal area of the Primary School could be accommodated through expansion of the existing school, subject to financial contributions via Section 106 planning obligations. The normal area secondary school would have sufficient capacity to accommodate growth proposed in this area.
Question Q15. Land at Shire Croft, Whaley Bridge
Number 23 representations received In support: 12 Objections:8
Other: 3
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Site close to Todbrook Reservoir SSSI, need to assess flooding impact and make provision for local toad population.
Natural England: would like reassurance that there will be no adverse impacts on the Toddbrook SSSI and CPA pond LNR.
DCC: The proposed growth could be accommodated through expansion of the existing schools, subject to financial contributions via Section 106 planning obligations.
Summary points raised No developer interest. by public Next to Brookfield Nature Reserve and reservoir and not suitable for development. Greenfield site.
Consultation Statement 55 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q15. Land at Shire Croft, Whaley Bridge
Will increase crime. Should be used for local housing and be in keeping with the area.
Question Q16. Green Belt Amendment, Furness Vale
Number 28 representations received In support: 11 Objections:17
Other: 0
Stakeholder Natural England: seeks reassurance that there would be no adverse comments impact on the Goytside Meadows LNR through an increase in air emissions and increased recreational use.
DCC: Furness Vale is immediately adjacent to the Peak Forest Canal Greenway, Footpath HP23/2 and the claimed public footpath along Calico Lane between Station Road and the canal towpath. The Local Plan site allocation policy for this site should require connections to these routes as part of the on-site design of any future development.
DCC: The proposed growth could be accommodated through expansion of the existing schools, subject to financial contributions via Section 106 planning obligations.
Summary points Other sites more suitable. raised by public No clear reasons to remove site from Green Belt. Increase traffic on A6. Furness Vale is a village should stay small. Green field site. Distant from town centre. Good site for development.
Question Q17. C17,Pingot Road, New Mills
Number representations 22 received In support: 4
Objections:17
Other:1
56 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q17. C17,Pingot Road, New Mills
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: no known information on their alert map. Will need wildlife surveys.
Summary points raised by Is a children’s play area. public Flooding. Were slag heaps on the site. Mining subsidence. Landscape impact. Greenfield site. Will create a rat run. Will increase traffic.
Question Q18. Field joining C5 & C6 New Mills
Number 23 representations received In support: 3 Objections:17
Other: 3
Stakeholder Peak District National Park: Agree that C5, C6 and extension would comments probably not have a strategic impact on the valley bottom nature of development or on the National Park provided it does not extend above the 200m contour level.
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: no known information on their alert map. Will need wildlife surveys.
Natural England: The landscape effects of these allocations should be examined further.
DCC: The proposed growth could be accommodated through expansion of the existing schools, subject to financial contributions via Section 106 planning obligations.
Summary points Overdevelopment. raised by public Visual impact. Ground quality issues: were slag heaps, mining on site Flooding. No developer interest, would be a ransom strip making development uncertain.
Consultation Statement 57 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q19. Land at Newtown, New Mills
Number 24 representations received In support: 17 Objections: 4
Other: 3
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: There is a need to incorporate suitable buffer/protection and wildlife enhancement of the canal when proposals come forward.
Natural England: seek reassurance there would no adverse impact on the Goytside Meadows LNR through an increase in air emissions and recreational use.
DCC: it would be difficult to accommodate the additional pupils arising from the total growth proposed within Newtown Primary school’s normal area.
Summary points raised Should be tourist based development; make use of the canal. by public Need to keep employment land. Support for increased parking at the station. Should use brownfield sites before Greenfield.
Question Q 20. Birch Vale Primary Employment Zone
Number 26 representations received In support: 12 Objections:8
Other:6
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: There is a need to incorporate suitable buffer/protection and wildlife enhancement of adjacent land.
Natural England: seeks confirmation that there would be no adverse impact on the Bluebell Wood LNR through an increase in air emissions.
DCC: it would be difficult to accommodate the additional pupils arising from the total growth proposed within Thornsett Primary school’s normal area.
58 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q 20. Birch Vale Primary Employment Zone
Summary points raised Need more detail of the impact on neighbouring properties. by public Used by fishing club, tourism potential. Concern about more housing close to Arden quarry. Employment land should be retained. Housing would improve brownfield site. Should be affordable housing.
Question Q21. C2, New Mills Road, Hayfield
Number 39 representations received In support: 16 Objections:14
Other: 9
Stakeholder Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: This site is adjacent to the Sett Valley Trail comments Local Wildlife Site which is part of the wider ecological network; development needs to be carefully designed is to protect this. Impact on SAC/SPA should be considered in HRA.
Natural England: agrees with proposal.
DCC: As this site has been identified, it should be allocated in the Local Plan with an accompanying site allocation policy which includes a requirement for a buffer zone as part of the on-site design of any future development between the site and the Sett Valley Trail. Public bridleway HP15/81, which is part of the Pennine Bridleway National Trail and the Sett Valley Trail, runs along the northern boundary of the site. The Local Plan site allocation policy should include a requirement for the on-site design of any future development to incorporate a Greenway link from the site to the Sett Valley Trail fromNew Mills Road, if the
nearby track cannot be used.
Summary points Fringe development extending boundary of Hayfield. raised by public Should be kept for husbandry. Concerns about housing close to Arden quarry. Green field site. No developer interest. Other more suitable sites brownfield. Site not suitable for development. Access unsafe.
Consultation Statement 59 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q21. C2, New Mills Road, Hayfield
Hayfield cannot accommodate more housing. Should be affordable housing.
Question Q22 Green Belt deletion at Kinder Road, Hayfield
Number representations 313 received In support: 3
Objections:308
Other:2
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Impact on SAC/SPA should be considered in HRA. No information on this site.
Summary points raised Would harm the character of the village. by public Is a tourist area. Green belt boundary is strong and relevant to the surrounding area. Landscape and visual impact: historically significant landscape in which Twenty Trees and surrounding area are central. Should develop brownfield sites first. Access along Kinder Road is poor narrow with parked cars. Set a precedent for other green belt areas. Flash flooding. Impact on services and infrastructure. Site fulfils green belt purposes.
Question Q23. Green belt addition at Whaley Bridge
Number representations 30 received In support: 19
Objections:11
Other:0
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife trust: Support inclusion in the green belt.
Natural England: agrees with proposal.
60 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q23. Green belt addition at Whaley Bridge
Summary points raised by Impact on infrastructure and services. public Green belt is being proposed in a well developed area and green sites are being taken out of green belt. Site is developed and doesn’t meet the exceptional circumstances for green belt designation in NPPF. Has potential to accommodate some development.
Question Q24. C1, Hayfield bus depot
Number representations 23 received In support: 17
Objections: 4
Other:2
Stakeholder comments Peak District National Park: Agree, provided that the loss of this site outside the National Park creates no greater presumption for new housing in that part of the village inside the National Park.
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: No wildlife issues, welcome retention of existing facilities.
DCC: The proposal to remove this site as an allocation from the Local Plan is supported because it is used by DCC to provide essential countryside services.
Summary points raised Site and facilities are important for the village and tourism. by public Hayfield needs affordable homes. Site could accommodate some residential development and retain current facilities.
Question Q25. C8,Wharf Road, Whaley Bridge
Number representations 25 received In support: 7
Objections:15
Other: 3
Stakeholder comments DCC: Public Footpaths HP23/35 and 105 cross the site.
Consultation Statement 61 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q25. C8,Wharf Road, Whaley Bridge
Summary points raised by Site should be developed: brownfield site in town centre. public Would be a suitable site for low cost/ sheltered housing. Development would improve the area. Access could be improved. Site not suitable for development: poor access.
Question Q26. Opposite Tescos, Whaley Bridge
Number representations 17 received In support: 13
Objections: 4
Other: 0
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: The woodland forms a small part of the ecological network along with the Peak Forest Canal/River Goyt and Goyt Mill Wood Local Wildlife Site and Ancient Woodland.
Summary points raised by Site is unsuitable for development. public Access difficulties. Mature trees on site make nice entrance to the village. Suitable for small development, easy access to main road and close to town centre. Would increase traffic congestion.
Question Q27. Old Road /Buxton Road, Whaley Bridge
Number representations received 22
In support: 15
Objections: 7
Other: 0
Stakeholder comments
Summary points raised by public Site unsuitable for development. Unsuitable access. Traffic congestion.
62 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q27. Old Road /Buxton Road, Whaley Bridge
Impact on linear park. Smaller sites like this preferable to C9 Macclesfield Road.
Buxton
Question Q28. B6,Hardwick Square South allocated for extra care
Number representations 19 received In support: 12
Objections: 5
Other: 2
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: No information on this site, would need bat survey.
DCC: This proposed site has an adopted pathway which enters the north western corner of the site from Hardwick Square South, and a second runs partly along the southern boundary from Market Street. The site allocation policy should require protection of and connections to these routes as part of the on-site design of any future development at this site.
Summary points raised Good site for sheltered housing. by public Existing employment use should be maintained. General allocation suitable.
Question Q29: Green Wedge or Green Wedges
Number representations 17 received Option 1: 4
Option 2: 12
Other: 1
Stakeholder comments Buxton Civic Association: O2: Designate two green wedges.
Consultation Statement 63 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q29: Green Wedge or Green Wedges
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: O1: Support the continuity of the semi-natural habitat structure along the brook. This site is an important part of the ecological network linking the drainage of the Leek Moors SAC to the SSSI and SAC of the River Wye and the Peak District Dales.
DCC: it would be preferable to designate a single green wedge.
Summary points raised The old YHA site is already compromised and should be by public developed for housing. This important green wedge should be maintained.
Question Q30:Tongue Lane employment land allocation
Number representations 16 received In support: 12
Objections: 2
Other: 2
Stakeholder comments Buxton Civic Association: Agree
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Support: High specification is needed for surface water drainage. All water disposal should be away from the SAC and will require an assessment under the Habitats Regulations irrespective of any conclusions regarding phosphate loading in the Buxton area.
Natural England: welcome that the southern part of the allocation of this site is to be removed.
Summary points raised Employment land should be retained where possible. by public Lessens the impact on the countryside east of Buxton and the SAC.
Question Q31. Hoffman Quarry
Number representations 15 received In support: 7
Objections:5
64 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q31. Hoffman Quarry
Other: 3
Stakeholder comments Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Welcome removal of site.
DCC: the omission of Hoffman Quarry as employment land is supported given the visual prominence of this site.
Summary points raised by Should keep employment land. public Should be used for mixed development it is a brownfield site.
Question Q32. Foxlow Farm employment allocation
Number representations 20 received In support: 10
Objections:8
Other:2
Stakeholder comments
Summary points raised by Landscape impact. public Contrary to NPPF, creating new local centre in a remote greenfield site, doesn’t support Buxton town or Harpur Hill. Need jobs for houses proposed on adjacent sites. Loss of farmland. Concern about loss of B1 element.
Question Q33. Station Road and Spring Gardens
Number representations 30 received In support: 12
Objections: 7
Other: 11
Stakeholder comments Nestle Waters & CPG: Disagrees with findings of Retail study and proposes that the Nestle site is most sequentially preferable and should be allocated.
Consultation Statement 65 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q33. Station Road and Spring Gardens
Summary points raised South side maximise parking potential. North of Station Road by public agree housing for older people. Land to the north of Station Road should be exclusively earmarked for housing. Site could be an excellent mixed residential area, including student housing, budget hotel, sheltered housing and social housing with space for allotments and minimal parking. Site represents opportunity to include re-provision of centralised Health Facilities.
Question Q34. Options for school site
Number 41 representations received Option 1: site previously identified: 40 Option 2: land to east of previous site: 1
Stakeholder Buxton Civic Association: Option 1 comments Harpur Hill Residents Association: Option 2
Green Holm Community Group: Option 1
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Need to consider impact on SSSI. Both Options support informal public access and provision needs to be incorporated into either scheme to compensate for this loss.
DCC: Public footpaths HP4/61 and 58 abut the north western and eastern site boundaries. Both of these footpaths could be improved and used to access land from the school on the northern side of Green Lane, Poole’s Cavern and the network of paths through Grinlow Country Park. There is potential to provide a bridleway link from Temple Fields to a suitable point on Green Lane for riders to use the quiet estate roads to access Greenways, including the White Peak Loop. Option 2 is DCC’s preferred option - land to the east of the Preferred Option site within its ownership.
Summary points Needs to be green space between housing on Green Lane and raised by public Grinlow Wood. The land at Option 1 is more appropriate and ideally situated for dual use as public amenity and playing fields.
66 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q35. Land at Batham Gate
Number representations received 13
In support: 6
Objections: 6
Other: 1
Stakeholder comments Buxton Civic Association: disagree
DCC: removal is supported.
Summary points raised by public Site is not in a sustainable location and is remote from all the facilities in Buxton. Small infill site would be suitable for housing.
Question Q36. B5: Ambulance Station
Number representations 13 received In support: 4
Objections: 8
Other: 1
Stakeholder comments Buxton Civic Association: Essential to retain the Ambulance Station in the town.
Harpur Hill Residents Association: If the Ambulance Service intend staying there: remove B5; if not - then allocate as brownfield housing site.
DCC: The proposal to remove this site as an allocation is supported as it would reduce pressure on existing infrastructure.
Summary points raised by Ideal site for a small development of houses – if there is no public ambulance use.
Question Q37. B11: Sherbrook Lodge
Number representations 15 received In support: 8
Consultation Statement 67 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q37. B11: Sherbrook Lodge
Objections: 5
Other: 2
Stakeholder comments Buxton Civic Association: Retain for housing.
Harpur Hill Residents Association: Leave as Greenfield.
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Support removal of B1 from allocation and formation of green wedge.
Summary points raised by Only build on site of former YHA. public Maintain a wedge whilst utilising the land best suited for development.
Question Q38. Leek Rd /Macclesfield Rd
Number representations 16 received In support: 4
Objections: 2
Other: 10
Stakeholder comments Buxton Civic Association: Retain for housing.
DCC: Burbage Primary School is unable to expand; the cost of building further on the school site is prohibitive because of the difficult access and topography.
Summary points raised by This area needs sorting out, it should not be left as an public eyesore. Suitable for a small number of homes.
Question Q39. Frontage to Cavendish Golf Club,Manchester Rd
Number 16 representations received In support: 10 Objections: 4
Other: 2
68 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q39. Frontage to Cavendish Golf Club,Manchester Rd
Stakeholder comments Buxton Civic Association: Remove from Plan.
Harpur Hill Residents Association: Where were the site mentioned in the September 2012 plan?
Cavendish Golf Club: Disagree: development would have limited landscape and visual impacts.
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Support.
DCC: Burbage Primary School is unable to expand; the cost of building further on the school site is prohibitive because of the difficult access and topography.
DCC: removal is supported.
Summary points raised The site links well with existing development and has good access by public to a main road. A poor site in respect of main road access on a very busy road. The site currently allows a pleasant view upon entering Buxton which would be lost.
Policy Changes
Question Q40. Creating new policy EQ10: Flood Risk management
Number representations 19 received In support: 17
Objections: 0
Other: 2
Stakeholder comments Environment Agency: Agree, and small addition to the pollution policy suggested.
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: The splitting of the policy into two will make High Peak’s approach clearer.
Summary points raised by Yes - they both merit focused attention. public
Consultation Statement 69 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q41. Policy CF4 renamed and details required for developer contribution calculations removed to an SPD
Number representations 14 received In support: 11
Objections: 0
Other: 3
Stakeholder comments Harpur Hill Residents Association: Not sure of implications.
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: wish to be consulted on SPD
Summary points raised by Not clear as to how the developer contribution will be public calculated and apportioned.
Question Q42. Policy CF6 – reference to new parking standards
Number representations 15 received In support: 7
Objections: 3
Other: 5
Stakeholder comments Harpur Hill Residents Association: Not clear of implications.
Summary points raised Agree with the parking figures except for those relating to by public residential development - the parking allocation will not be enough. Disagree with standard D1-2a (creches and day nurseries); D1-3a (infant, primary, and secondary schools): D2-1 (cinemas and conference facilities); D2-5-viii (Driving ranges); and Non-Scheduled Uses 1 (Theatres). More flexible approach needed. Recommendations made in relation to cycling and mobility scooter parking standards.
Question Q43. Policy CF1: Retail and town centres
Number 22 representations received In support: 11
70 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
Question Q43. Policy CF1: Retail and town centres
Objections: 7
Other: 4
Stakeholder comments Whaley Bridge Town Council: Disagree with proposals relating to Whaley Bridge: It makes little sense to remove the one area which has easy access to a public car park.
Harpur Hill Residents Association: Should the removal of the retail area from Foxlow go ahead, then this action will cause even more job opportunities to be lost in favour of housing.
Summary points A retail store in New Mills East would have the potential to badly raised by public affect the town centre. Opposition to town centre boundary change in Whaley Bridge as it almost halves the town centre area. Agreement with removing support for a food store in Glossop and Buxton. Support for provision of new food store for New Mills - as part of a wider retail strategy for the town.
Question Q44. Policy S2 to re-classify Hadfield as a larger village
Number representations 9 received In support: 3
Objections: 2
Other: 4
Stakeholder comments Peak District National Park Authority: Uncertain. The extremely close proximity of the village to the Park boundary means that significant parts of Hadfield could not grow ‘National Parkwards', so it is unclear whether the re-designation as a larger village/other local centre is justified in terms of deliverability of development that such a place might be expected to absorb.
Loxley Developments: Hadfield's centre should be classified as a small town centre.
Summary points raised Hadfield is neither a small town nor a larger village. by public
Consultation Statement 71 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
How were the representations addressed?
3.154 The majority of the proposed changes have been taken forward into the Publication version of the Plan. In some cases, in response to the evidence base and consultation responses amendments to the plan were suggested.
Local Plan Submission Version
3.155 The Submission Local Plan was published and made available for receipt of formal representations over the period 23rd April to 23rd June 2014. The publication of the Local Plan also invited representations on the Sustainability Appraisal which accompanied the plan.
3.156 Publication included making available new evidence on the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), Plan and Site Viability, Landscape Impact Assessment and Local Transport Study. The Submission Version Local Plan set out in the section on Strategic Housing Development that the Local Plan's housing target does not match the objectively assessed full housing requirement for the plan area.
3.157 The document also set out that as a result of not meeting objectively assessed need, that there is a ‘duty to cooperate’ with the Borough’s neighbouring local authorities. High Peak's strategic housing market and travel to work area extends primarily westwards incorporating Cheshire East, Tameside and Stockport and, to a lesser extent, eastwards incorporating parts of Derbyshire Dales and Sheffield. Many of these areas also face similar challenges in meeting housing requirements. In accordance with government guidance, the Council has been engaging constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with these neighbouring authorities with regard to addressing any shortfall to ensure the full objectively assessed needs of High Peak can be met.
3.158 The outcome of these discussions is that Cheshire East is in a position to be able make some provision to assist in meeting the needs of High Peak during the plan period. The Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, which has recently been approved for publication and submission, makes provision for up to 500 homes to assist in meeting the housing needs of High Peak during 2020 - 2030.
3.159 The additional evidence and outcomes of the Duty to Cooperate were provided in order that members of the community were able to make an informed response to the publication of the Submission Local Plan.
Who was consulted and how?
3.160 The publication of the Local Plan was undertaken in accordance with and exceeded the procedural requirements set out in the Regulations(i) at that time and the guidance issued by the Government and the Planning Inspectorate. This involved the following:
Copies of the main submission Local Plan documents and forms were made available at the main Council offices in Buxton and Glossop and all libraries in the Borough. Copies of all the supporting documentation were made available at the main Council offices in Buxton and Glossop.
i Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012
72 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
All of the above documents were published on the Council’s website with a direct link from the homepage. Over 2000 individuals, developers/agents and other organisations who were on the LDF database as a result of previous representations or interest were notified of the publication of the Local Plan and sent a copy of the Statement of Representations Procedure along with a link to the Consultation Portal. Leaflets were delivered to all residential and business addresses in the Borough notifying them of the publication of the Local Plan, the process for making representations and where to find relevant information. The leaflet is at Appendix 5. Guidance notes were produced and made available on the website and in Council offices to assist those wishing to make a representation. Press and media releases were issued.
Responses received
3.161 In total 561 valid representations were received within the period for making comments from 200 respondents in relation to the Local Plan and the Policies Maps. A further 18 representations were received after the 23rd June. As these did not raise issues which had not already been raised by other respondents or would not require an additional further change, it was agreed at the Council meeting of 15 July 2014 that they also be accepted as duly made representations.
3.162 Submission document A4 Summary of Representations to Submission Local Plan (August 2014) summarises all of the representations received and the Council's response to those representations.
3.163 The publication of the Local Plan also invited representations on the Sustainability Appraisal which accompanied the plan. There were 31 representations received on the Sustainability Appraisal.
3.164 The report to Council on Submission of the Local Plan dated 15 July 2014 can be seen at the link: www.highpeak.gov.uk/sites/default/files/meetings/papers/papers-986706179/109.pdf
3.165 Appendix A of the Report to Council lists all of the representations received for each of the policies and proposals. Appendices B and C provide a summary of each respondent’s comments, an officer response to those comments and the issues raised and whether, in the light of the comments made, further change to the Local Plan was considered necessary in order to improve the soundness of the Local Plan. Where a change was recommended these were incorporated into the list of modifications in Appendix E of the Report to Council.
3.166 The bulk of the representations were on matters of soundness in relation to proposed housing development policies and allocations. The representations in the main gave the reasons for objecting as the loss of greenfield sites (suggesting brownfield sites should be developed in preference), landscape and wildlife impact, highways and access issues.
Consultation Statement 73 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
3.167 The housing allocation on land south of Macclesfield Road, Whaley Bridge (C9) received 45 representations of which 44 were objecting. Other sites which received the most number of representations - mainly objecting - were Roughfields, Hadfield (G3) which received 13 representations; land at Woodhead Road, Glossop (G8/9/10/11) which received 13 representations; and the New Mills sites generally which received 14 representations between them. Site C14 at Laneside Road, New Mills also received 34 representations of which 33 were objections to its allocation, although this site had not been allocated. There were also additional objections made under the respective DS policies.
3.168 In terms of suggestions for new housing allocations, most of these were sites which had previously been considered at the issues and options or preferred options stages, or were considered in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), but discounted for specific reasons. The most significant of these is the site at Macclesfield Road, Buxton.
3.169 In terms of the comments made on other policies, the bulk of the representations and objections related to the levels of housing development (S3), the sub-area strategies (S5, 6 and 7), the countryside and green belt policy (EQ3) and the phasing of housing development (S5). In the main these came from organisations, consultants/developers and landowners.
3.170 Other significant representations related to:
Highways Agency welcome for work undertaken on transport impact but identifying A628/A57 as a key junction which may have implications for the phasing of some sites. Objection from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council to Cheshire East Borough Council accommodating 500 dwellings. Peak District National Park Authority had no objection subject to minor modifications to policies to provide additional protection to the setting of the National Park. Coal Authority and Derbyshire County Council request for further clarification in the Local Plan of the position in relation to the Minerals and Waste Local Plans. English Heritage, Natural England and National Trust suggestions for additional considerations for policies to address potential impacts on heritage, wildlife and landscape assets. National Farmer’s Union request for minor policy changes regarding conversion of farm buildings and agricultural buildings. George Street Wood – generally there was support for its designation as a local green space but also an objection from an individual who claims to own the site. Omya raised an objection to the housing allocation west of Tongue Lane, Buxton because of potential environmental conflict with quarry operations, but suggested alterations. Nestle requested a further extension to Waterswallows employment site and objected to proposals for the town centre site. A number of consultants raised concern that the full objectively assessed need as identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) is not being met and queried the 500 dwellings proposed in Cheshire East.
3.171 With regard to the remaining objections, these were limited in the main to the detailed wording of specific policies and generally did not seek to challenge the principles of the strategy or the policies.
74 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
How were the representations addressed?
3.172 Careful consideration has been given to all of the issues raised by objectors. In particular, careful consideration was given to whether any of the representations raised issues or provided new evidence which would suggest that the Local Plan as published is not sound.
3.173 Discussions have been held with some of the statutory bodies who raised policy concerns, including the Peak District National Park Authority, Natural England and the Highways Agency, to agree amended or additional wording. These amendments have been included in a list of proposed modifications. This list is discussed in paragraphs 3.175 and 3.176.
3.174 It is not considered that any of the representations raise fundamental issues which suggest that the plan is likely to be found unsound, nor do they present any significant new evidence which challenges the substantial supporting evidence on which the Local Plan is based. Further significant changes are considered unlikely to make the plan any more sound.
3.175 The Council has suggested to the Inspector minor changes, considered to be ones which would not fundamentally alter the plan and which would not require further consultation. These minor changes will be listed as an attached schedule to accompany the Local Plan when it is submitted to the Secretary of State and the inspector will be asked to consider recommending these changes in their report.
3.176 It is considered that there are a number of such minor modifications which could be made to improve the plan and ensure it is accurate and up-to-date. These are listed in submission document A3 List of Proposed Minor Modifications to Submission Local Plan (July 2014).
3.177 The minor modifications proposed comprise of the following types:
Points of clarification, factual and grammatical or typographic corrections and changes necessary to ensure that the document is clear and up-to-date when adopted. Minor changes arising from representations to which the Council is not opposed and which would improve the document. Updating of figures as a result of recent monitoring, particularly the housing land supply figures. Minor policy wording changes to better accord with NPPF or improve its intentions.
3.178 The key minor modifications are:
housing supply and requirements updated to reflect latest permissions as at June 2014 – this gives a reduced requirement to be found on new sites but also a consequential reduced provision on allocations; allocations at North Road (G6) and Charlestown Works (G31), Glossop identified as commitments but still retained in list of allocations to ensure their provision in the event that permission lapses; additional Strategic Development Site (DS) policies for Roughfields, Glossop (G3), North Road, Glossop (G6), South of Macclesfield Road, Whaley Bridge (C9) and Market Street Depot, Buxton (B7) to identify development requirements and constraints which need to be addressed; amended green gap between Hadfield and Glossop as consequence of allowed appeal;
Consultation Statement 75 Consultation statement 3 Plan preparation and consultation
new section inserted referring to Minerals and Waste Local Plans and Peak District National Park Core Strategy; reference to the need to address phasing and impact of development in the light of the outcome of the Trans-Pennine Feasibility Study and improvements to the A57/A628; additional protection for the National Park in policies S1, EQ5 and DS8 (Woodhead Road); additional protection for heritage and wildlife assets in the sub-area, environmental quality, housing and strategic development sites policies; further clarification regarding current work on site B8 Tongue Lane, Buxton, exploring alternatives to address any environmental impacts of locating housing in proximity to the quarry; clarification of the Council’s support for growth of the mineral water bottling sector and how any further expansion may be considered at the Waterswallows site; amended boundary of site B10 to include a small parcel of additional land fronting onto Dukes Drive.
76 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 4 Habitats Regulations Assessment
4.1 European Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive) requires a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) to be undertaken on the Local Plan. In the UK, the Habitats Directive is implemented through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the “Habitats Regulations”).
4.2 The HRA assesses any impacts of the Local Plan against the conservation objectives of sites of European importance for nature conservation in, and outside the plan area, to ascertain whether it would adversely affect the integrity of any sites concerned. These sites, often just referred to as European sites, include Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs).
4.3 In 2009 the Borough Council commissioned an HRA screening exercise for the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak joint Core Strategy, however preparation of this document has now ceased. The purpose of screening is to determine whether the plan could have significant effects on the conservation objectives of any European site. A Screening Report was prepared to record the screening process of the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak joint Core Strategy Issues and Options (April 2009) and the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak joint Core Strategy Growth Options consultation (August 2009). The Screening Assessment can be viewed at: www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/council-services/ldf-evidence-base/habitats-regulation -screening-assessment-march-2010
4.4 The HRA Screening Assessment identified a need for HRA Stage 2 (Appropriate Assessment) due to the identification of Likely Significant Effects (LSEs) resulting from the options considered.
4.5 Since work on preparation of the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak joint Core Strategy was discontinued, ENVIRON used the existing screening assessment and further work on proposed development sites in the High Peak, alongside a review of proposed policies for the preferred options Local Plan, to prepare a draft Habitat Regulations Assessment of the High Peak Local Plan.
4.6 A draft HRA Report has been produced for the Preferred Options Local Plan and this can be viewed on the Local Plan Options web-page at: www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/preferred-options
4.7 Consultation on the draft HRA Report took place alongside consultation on the interim SA Report and the High Peak Local Plan - preferred options document in February 2013.
4.8 A further HRA Report was prepared to accompany the publication of the Submission version of the High Peak Local Plan. The Report was available to view at Council Offices and all Borough libraries, as well as on the Council's web-site and consultation portal. An addendum to this report was subsequently prepared in order to conclude the HRA prior to submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State.
Contribution of the HRA to the Local Plan
4.9 Prior to publication of the submission version of the High Peak Local Plan, the HRA found that adverse effects could not be ruled out on the following European sites as follows:
Consultation Statement 77 Consultation statement 4 Habitats Regulations Assessment
Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors Phase 1) SPA
Possible urban effects from development close to the site; Possible air quality effects from operation of employment development close to the site; and Possible effects of wind turbine development on designated birds.
South Pennine Moors SAC
Possible urban effects from development close to the site; and Possible air quality effects from operation of employment development close to the site.
Peak District Dales SAC
Possible urban effects from development close to the site; Possible air quality effects from operation of employment development close to the site; and Possible water quality effects on phosphate levels in the River Wye from housing development in Buxton.
4.10 The draft HRA Report (March 2014) was available as a supporting document to the SA report (April 2014). The HRA report suggested mitigation measures for the remaining potential adverse effects identified above. These measures were set out in Table 10 of the draft HRA report and were incorporated into the Submission version of the Local Plan.
4.11 Comments received from Natural England and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust on the draft HRA Report (March 2014) have been taken on board within the Addendum Report and within the proposed minor modifications of the Submission Local Plan. The HRA of the Local Plan has found that it is now possible to conclude that the High Peak Local Plan would not result in adverse effects on European designated sites, both alone and in combination.
78 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 5 Sustainabilty Appraisal
5.1 High Peak Borough Council's Local Plan will guide future development in the High Peak Plan area. In accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the Council must carry out a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Plan. The SA of the Local Plan has been on-going since 2009 and is being undertaken alongside the preparation of the Plan.
5.2 A key function of the SA process is to provide advice and recommendations to the plan-maker in order to mitigate negative effects and enhance positive effects identified through the process. These can then be carried forward in the remainder of the plan-making process and can include further recommendations for other Plans and proposals and for processes including development control and site master planning.
5.3 The SA is an iterative and ongoing process that has been undertaken at each stage of the Local Plan, both during the internal production and external consultation of the document, helping to influence its development. The issues identified in initial SAs have led to additional mitigation measures for sites proposed and the tightening of policies to create appropriate conditions for sustainable development. The SA has also influenced the selection of sites included in the Local Plan.
Contribution of the SA to the Local Plan
5.4 To date the process of preparing the SA alongside the Local Plan has included the following key stages:
Table 6 Stages in Local Plan and SA preparation
Activity Date
Evidence Gathering 2007 – ongoing
Preparation of an initial SA report assessing alternatives January 2009 to provide SA commentary for inclusion in the consultation document “Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy – Issues and Options”
Consultation on Issues and Options for Derbyshire Dales 26th March – 21st May 2009 and High Peak Joint Core Strategy
Consultation on Scope of Sustainability Appraisal 26th March – 21st May 2009
Consultation on Growth Options with accompanying SA 27th August – 1st October 2009 report
Consultation on Draft Joint Core Strategy with 3rd June – 15th July 2010 accompanying draft SA Report
Proposed revisions to joint Core Strategy: Preparation Autumn 2010 of SA of Housing target options and Sub-Area Strategies
Consultation Statement 79 Consultation statement 5 Sustainabilty Appraisal
Activity Date
Series of “Community Conversations” held to help identify March – September 2011 local priorities for development
Consultation on High Peak Local Plan SA Scoping Report 13th September – 25th October 2012 Update
Consultation on High Peak Local Plan Options 13th September – 25th October 2012
Consultation on Draft SA Report High Peak Local Plan 27th February – 10th April 2013 Preferred Options
Consultation on High Peak Local Plan Preferred Options 27th February – 10th April 2013
Additional consultation on High Peak Local Plan 27th December 2013 – 10th February Preferred Options 2014
Preparation of SA of proposed changes to Preferred January - February 2014 Options draft of High Peak Local Plan
Consultation on draft Sustainability Appraisal Report and 23rd April - 23rd June 2014 submission version of the Local Plan
Final Sustainability Appraisal Report submitted alongside August 2014 Local Plan for Examination
5.5 The following specific changes have been made to Plan policies as a result of the SA:
S1: Sustainable development principles: Bullet point relating to biodiversity was more positively framed, with reference to NPPF requirement for net gain in biodiversity and creation of ecological networks. S2: Settlement hierarchy: Policy amended to refer to scale, role and function of smaller villages and settlements in relation to enabling new development. S5: Glossopdale sub-area strategy: Specific reference to distinctiveness and character of the Glossopdale area in the preamble to be supported by stronger policy wording to protect and enhance this. S7: Buxton sub-area strategy: Policy amended to be more specific on the issue of built heritage and townscape, given the national importance of Buxton's heritage features. EQ3: Countryside development: The policy amended to be more explicit in relation to protection of landscape character and the setting of the Peak District National Park. H5: Affordable Housing: An area trigger included alongside a minimum number of units to trigger the policy. Eg 20% affordable housing on sites of 5 – 24 dwellings (0.16 hectares) – to prevent developments of 4 units coming forward on sites that would normally deliver 5. Inclusion of appropriate mitigation measures in Strategic Development Sites Policies.
5.6 The SA report accompanied the publication of the Local Plan Submission Version and forms part of the evidence base for the Plan as it is subject to the Examination process. A final SA Statement will be prepared to accompany the Plan, once adopted.
80 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 6 Appendix 1: Core Strategy Issues and Options leaflet
Picture 2 Core Strategy Issues and Options leaflet
Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Joint Core Strategy
Issues and Options Summary
Derbyshire Dales District Council and High Peak Borough Council are preparing a new plan for the area known as the Core Strategy.
It will set out the overall vision and objectives for the future development of the parts of Derbyshire Dales and High Peak that lie outside of the Peak District National Park.
The Core Strategy will, when adopted, form the basis for the Councils decisions about what can be developed and where up to the year 2026.
We would like your views on the key issues that the Core Strategy needs to address and the options that have been identified to do this.
This leaflet summarises the issues and options that we are consulting you on. A more comprehensive document is available at Council offices, local libraries and online.
Consultation Statement 81 Consultation statement 6 Appendix 1: Core Strategy Issues and Options leaflet
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
The location, scale and distribution of development can have an impact upon the sustainability of an area.
Three options for the future location of new development have been identified. These are set out below along with the advantages and disadvantages of each Concentrated Growth in Market Towns This growth option would direct the majority of development towards the main market towns in the Core Strategy Area, which are shown in the maps below. These towns are already well developed and benefit from well established road and rail routes which link these towns both with each other and surrounding villages, as well as towns and cities in neighbouring authorities.
These towns already act as key service centres for residents in the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak and this growth option would build on this, ensuring that communities across the Core Strategy area have appropriate access to housing and employment opportunities, as well as retail, health and leisure facilities.
Some of the main considerations for this option include:
Advantages Disadvantages A significant proportion of development could be There is a risk of ‘Town Cramming’ built on previously developed land
All new development would be in settlements with There would be little new planned development good access to key services, facilities and jobs. outside the market towns. This may lead to fear This would help reduce car journeys about the future of the rural areas. The high quality landscape and environment There would be some impact upon the townscape outside of the market towns would be protected and historic setting of the market towns
82 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 6 Appendix 1: Core Strategy Issues and Options leaflet
Semi-Dispersed Growth
The semi-dispersed growth option would direct some new building away from the main market towns and would focus certain types of development in the smaller towns, which are labelled in blue in the maps below. These smaller towns are home to a range of diverse communities and as such, have different requirements from any future development in the area.
This growth option would ensure that appropriate levels of housing would be directed to locations where there is a proven need for it and that new land for employment would be provided on the basis of local need. These settlements would benefit from increased levels of service provision as well as improvements to vital facilities, reducing the need to travel to the main market towns to access them.
Some of the main considerations for this option include:
Advantages Disadvantages A large proportion of development could be on There is the risk of “town cramming” in some areas, previously developed land The majority of new development would be in There would be little new planned settlements with good access to key services, development outside the Market Towns. This may facilities and jobs. This would help to reduce car lead to fear about the future of the rural areas journeys The character of smaller villages in the Core More greenfield sites may be required than under Strategy area would be maintained the Market Town growth options
Consultation Statement 83 Consultation statement 6 Appendix 1: Core Strategy Issues and Options leaflet
Dispersed Growth
This third growth option would distribute new development across the whole of the Core Strategy area. The Derbyshire Dales and High Peak are predominantly rural and are therefore home to a number of small communities in villages and hamlets across the area. These smaller settlements which are labelled in green on the maps below are less well served by services and facilities than surrounding settlements and therefore rely on access to these larger towns for health, education and employment provision.
A pattern of dispersed growth would continue to focus the majority of development in the main, larger settlements, although it would allow for some targeted development in rural communities. A particular example of this would be affordable housing for local needs. Allowing such development in these settlements would ensure the future sustainability of these communities, providing opportunities for people to continue living in them and supporting existing local
Some of the main considerations for this option include
Advantages Disadvantages
A significant proportion of new development would There may be some impact on the character and take place over a wider geographic area, where appearance at the edge of some settlements opportunities to secure affordable housing could be achieved The size of sites would be appropriate to their New development in the smaller settlements is location and to the capacity of settlement in which unlikely to have good access to major services, they are located facilities and jobs Development in villages may enhance the viability of More greenfield sites may be required existing shops and services.
84 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 6 Appendix 1: Core Strategy Issues and Options leaflet
vision
The Core Strategy Vision describes what the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak will be like in the future and begins to outline how this might be achieved.
The Vision for the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak is outlined in the box below and is closely related to that within the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the area.
The Peak District will be a distinctive high quality rural environment with...
People of all ages who are healthy and safe High-wage, high-skill jobs Affordable, decent homes for local people
The Vision is supported by a series of ‘Spatial Objectives’. These objectives are outlined in detail within the main Issues and Options consultation document and indicate how the issues and challenges that the area faces will be addressed, as well as setting out the direction of detailed planning policies and strategies for the Core Strategy Area
We would like you to comment on the suitability of this vision, as well as the list of objectives that have been proposed. This will tell us if the proposed direction of the Core Strategy is right from the outset. ISSUES There are a number of issues that the Core Strategy will have to address. These issues, which are outlined under a series of headings below, are all interrelated and outline the options that we would like your comments on.
An effective Core Strategy will take account of all of these interrelated issues and will provide a spatial framework for all types of development. We would like you to consider each of these topical issues in turn so that you can tell us if we have missed anything out. We would also like you to think about how development of one thing, for example housing, might affect other issues such as retail or the environment, so that you can make suggestions for sustainable development in your area.
Housing
Ensuring that everybody has the opportunity to live in a decent home that they can afford, and in a com- munity that they want to live in, is a key challenge. The Core Strategy will seek to:
• Determine the broad distribution and allocation of land to meet the East Midlands Regional Plan tar- gets of 12,500 new homes by 2026. • Ensure that an appropriate level and type of affordable housing is provided to meet the needs of the community • Address the needs of the gypsy and traveller communities. • Meet the needs of an ageing population • Ensure that future housing design and layout is appropriate for the high quality rural environment and minimises its impact on climate change
The options consider:
• Where and how much housing should be built, • How much affordable housing developers should be asked to provide as part of new residential devel- opments • What is the best location for the sites for gypsy and travellers • What type of housing is best for the ageing population of the area
Consultation Statement 85 Consultation statement 6 Appendix 1: Core Strategy Issues and Options leaflet
Employment
Opportunities for employment in the right locations and at the right time can not only contribute to the delivery of sustainable development, but can also have beneficial effects on the health and well being of residents in the area. The Core Strategy will seek to:
• Ensure that there is sufficient land and premises of the right quality to support the growth of the local economy and changing business needs • Strike a suitable balance between enabling business growth and protecting the area's high quality environment • Assist the growth of the local economy by improving the range of job opportunities (including high skill/ high wage) across all sectors • Ensure that employment related development is appropriate to the high quality rural environment of the area and minimises its impact on climate change
The options consider:
• Whether it is appropriate to allocate new employment land or make better use of the existing stock by encouraging new development • What policy approach should be taken to ensure employment related development does not effect the environment
Environment
The protection and enhancement of the environment in the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak will be one of the key aims of the Core Strategy. To do this the Core Strategy will seek to:
• Protect and enhance the high quality rural landscape of the area • Protect the area’s built heritage and the historic character of settlements • Protect and enhance biodiversity through the protection of existing habitats and the creation of new ones. • Ensure an effective green infrastructure network that links open spaces for the benefit of communities and wildlife. • How to preserve natural resources such as air and water.
The options consider:
• Ways in which the landscape can be protected and enhanced • How best to conserve the area’s heritage features • What can be done to protect and secure improvements in biodiversity • How to protect water resources and air quality from the effects of inappropriate development
Retail
The availability of shops and services is important to the sustainability of communities and the quality of life overall.
The Core Strategy will seek to:
• Identify a suitable retail hierarchy of town and village centres • Plan for additional food shopping provision in Buxton, Glossop, Wirksworth and New Mills • Plan for retail for other goods including clothes, DIY products and domestic appliances in Matlock, Buxton and Glossop • Guide the development of high quality town centre environments, • Ensure that town and villages centres offer a diverse choice of shops, provide a focal point for communities and enable easier access to essential goods and services.
The options consider whether a two or three tier hierarchy is appropriate, and whether it is appropriate to plan for the additional retail floorspace within the identified town centres
86 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 6 Appendix 1: Core Strategy Issues and Options leaflet
Health and Wellbeing
Policies within the Core Strategy must contribute to improving the health and well being of residents by:
• Making the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak a healthier place to live. • Ensure that the needs of people of all ages are accounted for. • Creating a safe environment in which people can live, and which helps reduce crime and the fear of crime
The options seek, by working in partnership with the Primary Care Trust, to improve the overall level of facilities available to residents and visitors to the area and to ensure that new development meets stan- dards such as ‘Secured by Design’
Access and Transport
Access to shops, key services, facilities, training and employment is important to maintaining the quality of life in area. The Core Strategy must demonstrate the means by which the following will be achieved:
• Connecting people to places by improving infrastructure, services and locating new development in sustainable locations • Connecting key services and facilities with people by providing mobile and outreach services, increasingly through the use of IT • Raising awareness of the availability of alternatives to the car through personalised travel planning services, publicity and marketing
The options identify that partnership working is the most appropriate way of improving access to services and facilities particularly in the more rural parts of the area
Open Space, Sport and Recreation
The provision of open space for sport and recreation activities is important for the development of sustainable communities as they promote social interaction and community cohesion, contribute to the health and well being of local residents and improve the unique character and appearance of places. The Core Strategy will seek to:
• Improve the quality and provision of open spaces for sport and recreation including parks, pitches and allotments. • Support the development of sports and leisure facilities in appropriate locations
The options support improvements to the quality of existing parks and open spaces and suggest that developers should contribute to the provision of new and improvement of existing parks and open space. Where new allotments can be provided and the promotion of new indoor sports and leisure facilities are addressed
Climate Change
It is widely accepted that climate change is one of the most serious issues that needs to be addressed. The Core Strategy will need to ensure it is addressed by:
• Ensuring that development is resilient to the effect of climate change and uses sustainable resources. • Promoting the development of energy efficient buildings. • Increasing the use of renewable/low carbon energy.
The options seek to: • Encourage the use of sustainable design and construction techniques • Promote the use of the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM standard for new development • Encourage the development of renewable and low carbon energy • Introduce policies that require a proportion of a development’s energy requirement to come from renewable sources
Consultation Statement 87 Consultation statement 6 Appendix 1: Core Strategy Issues and Options leaflet
How to get involved
This leaflet summarises the main issues and options that need to be addressed in Derbyshire Dales and High Peak up to 2026. If you would like to comment on this document, please write to us or email us.
If you would like to read the full Issues and Options consultation document, or submit your comments and views on the future shape of the area, you can do so by using one of the following methods
Online at http://highpeak-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/jointcorestrategy/ Email to either email address given below Post to either postal address given below
Please ensure we receive your comments by 21 May 2009 so that they can be used to inform the next stages of the process
Please note that all submitted comments will be made available to view on the consultation website.
If you have any questions about the consultation, please contact the Planning Policy teams at either Derbyshire Dales District Council or High Peak Borough Council.
Derbyshire Dales District Council, Town Hall,
Bank Road,
Matlock,
Derbyshire. DE4 3NN
Tel. 01629 761100
Email. [email protected] High Peak Borough Council,
Municipal Buildings,
Glossop,
Derbyshire. SK13 8AF
Tel. 0845 129 7777 or 01298 28400 Email. [email protected]
This document is available free of charge in electronic, audio, Braille and large print versions, and in other languages on request. For assistance in understanding or reading this document please call 01629 761251
Printed by Peak Press and published by Derbyshire Dales District Council, Town Hall, Matlock, Derbyshire DE4 3NN and High Peak Borough Council, Municipal Buildings, Glossop, Derbyshire SK13 8AF
88 Consultation Statement 7 Consultation Table 7 Consultation method matrix for the LDF Appendix
Methods Who was Shaping Issues Growth Draft Community LP LP LP LP targeted the and Options Plan Conversations Issues Preferred Additional Submission
Future Options and Option consultation Version statement Options
Letters/ emails Local yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 2: and where population appropriate full Consultation supporting documents to those on the LDF consultation database and all statutory consultees. Method
Reference Local yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes copies of population supporting
documents and Matrix summary leaflets in all council offices and local Consultation libraries.
Area Forums. Local yes population
Statement Display boards. Local yes yes yes yes yes yes population 89 90 Consultation 7 Consultation
Methods Who was Shaping Issues Growth Draft Community LP LP LP LP Appendix targeted the and Options Plan Conversations Issues Preferred Additional Submission Future Options and Option consultation Version Options Statement statement Manned Local yes yes yes exhibition. population 2: Presentation to Parish yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Consultation parish and town Councils councils to allow them to cascade information locally.
Newspaper Local yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes advertisements. population Method Magazine Local yes articles. Population
Workshop Local yes yes yes events. population Matrix YouthYouth yes yes engagement population. events.
Business Businesses yes Forums Consultation statement 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases
Press Releases
Issues and Options Consultation
High Peak Local Plan consultation
Submitted: 11th September 2012
You can now make your voice heard on a crucial document that will shape development in the High Peak until 2028.
We are working on a new Local Plan that will earmark land for housing, employment and leisure while protecting the countryside against unsuitable development.
Once adopted, the plan will be used to determine planning applications.
We have now launched a consultation that will seek your views on options for:
The number of homes that should be built across the borough How the new homes should be distributed Which specific sites should be allocated.
We are also asking where new businesses should be located, which areas should be earmarked for leisure or protected from development, and how the council should plan for development of the town centres.
To view the options document, people should click here.
Or call in at Buxton Town Hall or Glossop Municipal Buildings; or visit the Buxton, Glossop, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Hadfield, Hayfield, New Mills or Whaley Bridge libraries.
The documents will include maps showing the specific sites that are being considered as options for housing development.
In addition, we have organised a series of drop-in sessions at which the public can see the options and talk with planning officers. People can call in at the following sessions any time between 6.30pm and 8.30pm:
Monday, October 1, Octagon Lounge, Pavilion Gardens, Buxton Tuesday, October 2, Bradbury House, Glossop Tuesday, October 9, Uniting Church, Whaley Bridge Thursday 11 October, Volunteer Centre, New Mills Wednesday, October 17, Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Hall Thursday, October 18, Chinley Women’s Institute
There will also be a meeting with Harpur Hill Residents’ Association at Harpur Hill Club on Tuesday, September 25 at 7.30pm. In addition, council officers will be available in Glossop Market Arcade from 11am to 2pm on Friday, October 12.
Consultation Statement 91 Consultation statement 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases
A similar drop-in session is planned for Buxton on 22 October in the Octagon Lounge, Pavilion Gardens, Buxton from 12 noon to 3pm.
Consultees have until Thursday, October 25 to express their views by clicking here; e-mailing [email protected]; or writing to Planning Policy, High Peak Borough Council, Town Hall, Market Place, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 6EL.
Council leader Caitlin Bisknell urged people to have their say: “The Local Plan is a vitally-important document that will determine how the High Peak develops for the best part of two decades.
“If you want to influence the allocation of land for housing, employment and leisure – and our policies to protect the countryside – now is the time to make your voice heard”, she urged.
Speak up on High Peak development plans
Submitted: 25th September 2012
NEXT week sees the start of a series of drop-in sessions that gives High Peak people a chance to have their say on a crucial document that will shape development in the area until 2028.
The Borough Council is working on a new Local Plan that will earmark land for housing, employment and leisure while protecting the countryside against unsuitable development.
Once adopted, the plan will be used to determine planning applications.
Now, the council has lined up a string of events that start next Monday (October 1) in the Octagon Lounge in Buxton’s Pavilion Gardens, continuing the following day in Bradbury House, Glossop.
Running from 6.30pm to 8.30pm, the sessions continue the following Tuesday (October 9) in the Uniting Church, Whaley Bridge before heading for New Mills Volunteer Centre on Thursday, October 11.
The penultimate surgery in Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Hall on Wednesday, October 17 is followed by an event in Chinley Women’s Institute 24 hours later.
At the sessions, residents will be able to make their voices heard on:
The number of homes that should be built across the borough How the new homes should be distributed Which specific sites should be allocated.
In addition, council officers will be available in Glossop Market Arcade from 11am to 2pm on Friday, October 12 while a similar drop-in session is planned for Buxton – date, time and venue to be confirmed.
A meeting with Harpur Hill Residents’ Association took place on Tuesday (September 25) at Harpur Hill Club.
92 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases
Consultees have until Thursday, October 25 to express their views by clicking here; e-mailing [email protected] or writing to Planning Policy, High Peak Borough Council, Town Hall, Market Place, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 6EL.
Godfrey Claff, executive councillor for regeneration, urged people to take part in the consultation: “The Local Plan is a vitally-important document that will determine how the High Peak develops for the best part of two decades.
“If you want to influence the allocation of land for housing, employment and leisure – and our policies to protect the countryside – now is the time to make your voice heard”, he stressed.
High Peak Local Plan consultation still counts in Chapel
Submitted: 3rd October 2012
RESIDENTS of a High Peak town have been urged not to miss out on a golden opportunity to influence a crucial document that will shape development in the area until 2028.
The plea was made this week by the Borough Council, which has joined forces with Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Council to stage a drop-in session at the Town Hall on Wednesday, October 17.
Running from 6.30pm to 8.30pm, the event will give residents a chance to have their say on a draft Local Plan that the borough council is working on to earmark land for housing, employment and leisure while protecting the countryside against unsuitable development.
Once adopted, the plan will be used to determine planning applications right across the borough.
The surgery will be attended not only by borough council officers but also by a parish council representative who will describe progress on an innovative Neighbourhood Plan that the parish council is developing in partnership with Chapel Vision.
The overarching local plan will create a framework for the neighbourhood plan, which will go into site-specific detail on appropriate land uses.
The borough’s consultation on the draft local plan started on Tuesday (September 25) with a meeting with Harpur Hill Residents’ Association, and will continue on Monday, October 1 and Tuesday, October 2 with drop-in sessions in the Octagon Lounge in Buxton’s Pavilion Gardens, and Bradbury House, Glossop respectively.
The sessions continue the following Tuesday (October 9) in the Uniting Church, Whaley Bridge before heading for New Mills Volunteer Centre on Thursday, October 11.
The event in Chapel Town Hall will then be followed 24 hours later by a surgery in Chinley Women’s Institute.
At the sessions, all running from 6.30pm to 8.30pm, residents will be able to make their voices heard on:
Consultation Statement 93 Consultation statement 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases
The number and distribution of homes that should be built across the borough; Which specific sites should be allocated for housing, new businesses, local green spaces and other types of leisure; Priorities for town centres and retail shopping streets.
In addition, borough council officers will be available in Glossop Market Arcade from 11am to 2pm on Friday, October 12 while a similar drop-in session is planned for Buxton – date, time and venue to be confirmed.
Consultees have until Thursday, October 25 to express their views by visiting the Local Plan Options pages on the council's website; e-mailing [email protected] or writing to Planning Policy, High Peak Borough Council, Town Hall, Market Place, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 6EL.
Godfrey Claff, the borough’s executive councillor for regeneration, urged people to take part in the consultation: “The Local Plan is a vitally-important document that will determine how the High Peak develops for the best part of two decades.
“If you want to influence the allocation of land for housing, employment and leisure – and our policies to protect the countryside – now is the time to have your say”, he stressed.
Preferred Option
Have your say on High Peak development plans
Submitted: 11th February 2013
NEXT month sees the start of a series of drop-in sessions that gives High Peak residents a chance to have their say on the draft Local Plan that will shape future development in the area.
The Borough Council is working on a new Local Plan that will earmark land for housing, employment and leisure while protecting the countryside against unsuitable development. Once adopted, this plan will be used to help determine planning applications.
Proposals for Buxton include protecting the town’s spa heritage while encouraging the growth of local employment and improving school capacity as well as town centre retail and services.
In Glossopdale, proposals include redeveloping the Woods Mill area to support the town centre, maintaining a strategic gap between Glossop and Hayfield, identifying green spaces at George Street and Padfield and protecting land for Gamesley Station.
For the central area, proposals include improving town centres, redeveloping Britannia and Torr Vale Mills, making minor changes to the Green Belt boundary at Furness Vale and Whaley Bridge to allow limited growth and supporting the Chapel neighbourhood plan.
The consultation period will run from 27th February to 10th April. Copies of the draft plan can be found in council offices and libraries from 27th February and full details will be online from 27th February at www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/preferred-options
94 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases
Drop-in sessions are being held throughout March to enable residents to view maps of the proposed sites and have their say on the plans. Planning officers will be present to answer any questions at the following venues:
Bradbury House in Glossop – Thursday March 7 - 6.30pm to 8.30pm and Monday March 18 12pm to 3pm
Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Hall – Monday March 11 - 6.30pm to 8.30pm
Octagon Lounge, Pavilion Gardens, Buxton – Wednesday March 13 - 12pm to 3pm and Monday March 25 - 6.30pm to 8.30pm
Chinley parish room – Thursday March 14 - 6.30pm to 8.30pm
Whaley Bridge Uniting Church – Tuesday March 19 - 6.30pm to 8.30pm
New Mills’ Springbank Arts Centre – Thursday March 21 - 6.30pm to 8.30pm
The development of the Local Plan involves consultation at each of three stages. The first of these was last autumn.Residents who responded to the consultation last autumn will have their views held on file and, should they wish to change or update them, may submit a new response.
Godfrey Claff, executive councillor for regeneration, urged people to take part in the consultation: “The Local Plan is a vitally-important document that will determine how the High Peak develops for the best part of two decades.
“If you want to influence the allocation of land for housing, employment and leisure – and our policies to protect the countryside – now is the time to make your voice heard”.
Next stage of the Local Plan consultation starts in High Peak
Submitted: 26th February 2013
The next stage of the consultation process for High Peak's Local Plan will run from Wednesday 27 February to Wednesday 10 April 2013.
A new Local Plan for High Peak is being prepared to shape the future development of the Borough up to 2028. The Plan will contain polices and identify sites for development or protection. These will be used to help the us to determine planning applications.
This consultation seeks your views on the council’s preferred approaches for the key issues addressed by the Local Plan.
Please go to our web pages to find out more.
Consultation Statement 95 Consultation statement 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases
Cancelled: Tonight's Local Plan meeting in Buxton
Submitted: 25th March 2013
Due to the poor weather conditions in and around Buxton the High Peak Local Plan Preferred Options drop-in session arranged for this evening at Pavilion Gardens has been postponed until further notice.
The Local Plan documents, including the maps of the preferred option sites are available to view at local libraries, at Buxton Town Hall and also on our website.
If you have any questions about the Local Plan Preferred Options please either email them to us at [email protected] or call us on 0845 129 77 77 and ask for Planning Policy and we will answer them as quickly as we can.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Have your say on High Peak development plans
Submitted: 14th May 2013
Two more events are being held offering High Peak residents the chance to have their say on future development plans for the area.
High Peak Borough Council is working on a new Local Plan that will earmark land for housing, employment and leisure whilst protecting the countryside against unsuitable development. Once adopted, the Plan will be used to help determine planning applications.
Drop-in sessions were held throughout March to enable residents to view maps of the preferred housing sites, as well as other development areas, and to give their views on the plans.
A session planned for Monday 25 March had to be postponed due to bad weather and this has now been re-arranged for Monday 20 May between 6.30pm and 8.30pm in the Octagon Lounge at the Pavilion Gardens, Buxton.
Maps of the proposed development sites will be displayed and planning officers will be present to speak to residents and answer questions.
A new event has also been arranged in Hayfield following requests from the community to allow people to tell the council and the Peak District National Park Authority what they like and dislike about living and working in the village and what their hopes are for the future of Hayfield over the next 15 years.
This community conversation will take place from 7pm to 8.30pm in the Royal Hotel, Hayfield on Thursday 23 May. It will be set in the context of the draft High Peak Local Plan, the emerging Hayfield Housing Needs Survey and the Peak District National Park’s Development Capacity Assessment work.
96 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases
Councillor Godfrey Claff, executive member for regeneration at the council, said: “The Local Plan is the key document that will shape what happens in the High Peak over the next two decades in terms of development.
“It’s critical that local people have every opportunity to tell us what they think of the Plan so I’m pleased that we have been able to provide these sessions and would urge everyone interested in High Peak’s future to come along.”
The formal period of consultation for the preferred options closed last month but anyone attending the re-arranged Buxton event or the new Hayfield one can write to the council at the address below and their views will be taken into account.
A final Local Plan will be published this autumn.
Comments can be sent to: [email protected], or in writing to: Regeneration High Peak Borough Council Town Hall Buxton Derbyshire SK17 6EL
Additional Consultation
ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION ON LOCAL PLAN
RESIDENTS have been given the chance to make comments on additional changes to a crucial document that will shape future development in the High Peak.
The Borough Council is working on a new Local Plan that will earmark land for housing, employment and community uses whilst protecting the countryside against unsuitable development. Once adopted, the plan will be used to determine planning applications.
In February 2013 the Council had consulted on a Preferred Options version of the Local Plan. Now, the council has launched further consultation that will seek the public’s views on potential changes to that plan which will help inform the final version of the Local Plan. This has been necessary largely because of recent evidence showing a higher need for new homes then previously planned for and an expectation from government that Council’s meet their full need for housing.
The changes include:
Increasing the number of homes that should be built across the Borough Considering additional sites that could be allocated for housing development Minor changes to the green belt Other changes to land designated for employment, retail, education or green spaces Some significant policy changes relating to retailing, parking and the environment
Consultation Statement 97 Consultation statement 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases
To view the additional consultation document, people should visit www.highpeak-consult.objective.co.uk/portal; call in at Buxton Town Hall or Glossop Municipal Buildings; or visit any of the borough’s libraries.
Consultees have until Monday 10th February to respond by visiting www.highpeak-consult.objective.co.uk/portal e-mailing [email protected]; or writing to Regeneration, High Peak Borough Council, Municipal Buildings, Glossop, Derbyshire, SK13 8AF.
Godfrey Claff, executive councillor for regeneration, urged people to have their say: “The Local Plan is a vitally-important document that will determine how the High Peak develops for the best part of two decades. It is regrettable that the Council now has to consider significantly increasing the housing provision across the Borough due to the government’s drive to promote housing growth, but having a sound Local Plan will put the Council in a stronger position to resist unplanned speculative development.“
“Before the Council makes any final decision we are giving people the chance to have their say on the proposed changes.” he commented.
Have your say on possible changes to Local Plan
High Peak residents are being given the chance to make comments on additional changes to a crucial document that will shape future development in the borough.
High Peak Borough Council is working on a new Local Plan that will earmark land for housing, employment and community issues whilst protecting the countryside against unsuitable development. Once adopted, the Plan will be used to determine planning applications.
The Council consulted on a Preferred Options version of the Plan in February 2013 and has now launched a further consultation asking for the public’s views on potential changes to that Preferred Options version.
These changes include:
Increasing the number of homes that should be built across the borough Considering additional sites that could be allocated for housing development Minor changes to the green belt Other changes to land designated for employment, retail, education or green spaces Some significant policy changes relating to retailing, parking and the environment
The proposed changes have been necessary largely because of recent evidence showing a higher need for new homes than previously planned for and an expectation from government that councils meet their full need for housing.
Councillor Godfrey Claff, executive member for regeneration, urged people to get involved in the consultation: “The Local Plan is the key document which will determine how the High Peak develops for the best part of two decades.
“It is regrettable that the Council now has to consider significantly increasing the housing provision across the Borough due to the government’s drive to promote housing growth, but having a sound Local Plan will put the Council in a stronger position to resist unplanned speculative development.
98 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases
“Before we make any final decisions, we are giving local people the chance to have their say on these proposed changes and I would encourage residents to let us have their views.”
The additional consultation document is available on the website http://highpeak-consult.objective.co.uk/portal or at Buxton Town Hall, Glossop Municipal Buildings and any of the Borough’s libraries.
Consultees have until Monday 10 February to respond either online via the link above, by email to [email protected] or in writing to Regeneration, High Peak Borough Council, Town Hall, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 6EL.
After this current consultation, the Council will produce its final draft of the full Local Plan. There will be consultation on that final draft and every household in the Borough, as well as a wider range of interested parties, will receive notice of this.
Publication of Submission Local Plan
High Peak Local Plan Published
High Peak Borough Council has published its draft Local Plan. The Plan allocates sites for new homes and businesses that are needed up to 2031, it explains how new jobs will be supported and how the environment will be protected.
The Council is now starting final public consultation on the draft Plan before submitting it to an independent Planning Inspector. The Council is seeking public views on the draft Plan and is sending a leaflet to explain the process to all 38,000 households in the Borough. Comments on the draft Plan need to be received by the Council between 23rd April and 6th June 2014. All responses must be made on the Government’s form provided on the Council’s website. All comments will be sent to the Government Inspector.
The draft Plan and consultation response forms together with many documents of supporting evidence, information and guidance on how to make representations will be available for inspection at all libraries in High Peak and at the Council’s offices at Buxton Town Hall and Glossop Municipal Buildings.
High Peak Local Plan – Notice of Correction and Extended Period for Making Representations
A correction has been made to the recently published Submission Version of the High Peak Local Plan which affects land at the rear of Laneside Road, New Mills.
The allocation for housing on land at the rear of Laneside Road, New Mills (C14) for 47 dwellings is included in the Submission Version of the Local Plan in error. This site is not included in the Policies Maps document but unfortunately, due to an error, is included in policy H3 (Housing Allocations) of the main Local Plan document.
Consultation Statement 99 Consultation statement 8 Appendix 3: Press Releases
The Council is therefore correcting this error by amending policy H3 (page 113 of the document) to delete the reference to the allocation of land at the rear of Laneside Road, New Mills (C14) for 47 dwellings. Consequential amendments are also made to the total provision on allocated sites for the Central Area (page 113) which is reduced from 744 dwellings to 697 dwellings and to the total indicative provision for the plan area (para. 5.149, page 111) from 3,147 additional dwellings to 3,100 additional dwellings.
In order to make sure no-one is disadvantaged by this correction the Council has extended the deadline for making representations on the Local Plan to 5.00pm on Monday 23rd June.
The Statement of Representations procedure has been amended accordingly.
The Local Plan
The Local Plan allocates sites for new homes and businesses that are needed up to 2031, explains how new jobs will be supported and how the environment will be protected.
There is now a formal consultation period when representations can be made, regarding its legal compliance and soundness from April 23rd to 5pm on 23rd June 2014.
We will then send the Local Plan to an independent Inspector before it can be formally adopted. If you would like the Inspector to consider your views, you need to submit representations to this consultation.
100 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 1 Joint Core Strategy Issues and Options
Consultation Statement 101 Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 2 May 7th 2009
102 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 3 Glossop Chronicle: September 3rd 2009
Consultation Statement 103 Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 4 27th August 2009
104 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 5 27th August 2009
Consultation Statement 105 Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 6 3rd September 2009
106 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 7 3rd September 2009
Consultation Statement 107 Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 8 3rd September 2009
108 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 9 4th September 2009
Consultation Statement 109 Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 10 24th September 2009
110 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 11 24th September 2009
Consultation Statement 111 Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 12 24th September 2009
112 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 13 24th September 2009
Consultation Statement 113 Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Picture 3 Buxton Advertiser, June 10 2010
114 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Picture 4 Glossop Chronicle, June 3 2010
Consultation Statement 115 Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 14 17th June 2010
116 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Consultation Statement 117 Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
118 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 15 Buxton Advertiser: 5th August 2010
Consultation Statement 119 Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 16 September 27th 2012
120 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 9 Appendix 4: Press Cuttings
Figure 17 9th January 2014
Consultation Statement 121 Consultation statement 10 Appendix 5: Preferred Options: Door to Door Leaflet
Picture 5 Door to Door leaflet preferred options
Buxton WHAT’S THE PLAN FOR HIGH PEAK?
High Peak Borough Council is consulting on its draft Local Plan The map below shows the sites that the Council is proposing from 27th February to 10th April 2013. to allocate in the Local Plan for new homes in Buxton.
The Plan identifies sites for new homes and businesses. It also proposes policies that will help decide future planning applications. Copies of the draft Local Plan and details of how to give us your views can be found in Council offices and libraries. Preferred Options
Buxton Area Full details are at:
www.highpeak.gov.uk/hp/preferred-options
The following drop-in events are being held across the Borough. Maps of proposed sites will be displayed and Planning Officers will be present to answer questions. Thursday 7 March 6.30pm - 8.30pm - Bradbury House, Glossop
Monday 11 March 6.30pm - 8.30pm - Town Hall, Chapel-en-le-Frith
Wednesday 13 March 12.00pm - 3.00pm - Octagon Lounge, Pavilion Gardens, Buxton
Thursday 14 March 6.30pm - 8.30pm - Parish Room, Chinley
Monday 18 March 12.00pm - 3.00pm - Bradbury House, Glossop
Tuesday 19 March 6.30pm - 8.30pm - Uniting Church, Whaley Bridge
Thursday 21 March 6.30pm - 8.30pm - Spring Bank Arts Centre, New Mills
Other proposals for Buxton include: Monday 25 March 6.30pm - 8.30pm - Octagon Lounge, Pavilion Gardens, Buxton
Encouraging growth of local employment. Venues may be added or details changed, please check the website for Improvements to school capacity. latest news of events. Improvements to town centre retail and services. Protecting Buxton’s spa heritage.
If you responded to the consultation last Autumn, those responses will be held and taken as responses to this consultation. If however you wish to change or update your response, a new response should be submitted.
Glossopdale Central Area
The map shows the sites that the Council is proposing to The map shows sites that the Council is proposing to allocate allocate in the Local Plan for new homes in Glossopdale. in the Local Plan for new homes in the Central area. Sites in Chapel-en-le-Frith are not shown as the Parish Council is preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan.
Preferred Options
Central Area
Other proposals for Glossopdale include: Other proposals for the Central area include:
Redeveloping the Woods Mill area to support the town Supporting the Chapel Neighbourhood Plan. centre. Improving town centres. Maintaining a strategic gap between Glossop and Redevelopment of Britannia and Torr Vale Mills. Hadfield. Making minor Green Belt boundary changes at Furness Identifying Local Green Spaces at George Street and Vale and Whaley Bridge to allow for limited growth. Padfield. Protecting land for Gamesley Station.
122 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 11 Appendix 6: Local Plan Publication: Door to Door Leaflet
Picture 6 Door to Door Leaflet: Summary of Statement of Regulations Procedure
Consultation Statement 123 Consultation statement 12 Appendix 7: Statement of Representations Procedure
Figure 18 Statement of Representations Procedure
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
Statement of Representations Procedure
High Peak Borough Council has published the submission version of its Local Plan and is inviting formal representations on the plan before it is submitted to the Government for an independent examination.
The High Peak Local Plan identifies where development will take place, how new jobs will be supported and how the environment of the Borough will be protected and enhanced. It allocates sites for new development which are required up to 2031.
The Local Plan covers the whole of the administrative area of High Peak excluding the Peak District National Park. It also does not include proposed allocations for the Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish area which are covered by the emerging Chapel Neighbourhood Plan.
Where You Can View the Local Plan Documents
The Local Plan together with the accompanying Policies Maps, Consultation Statement, Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment are available for inspection throughout this period on the Council’s website (given below) and at all libraries in High Peak and the Council’s offices:
• Town Hall, Market Place, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 6EL (Monday to Friday, 9am to 4.30pm) • Municipal Buildings, Glossop, Derbyshire, SK13 8AF (Monday to Friday, 9am to 4.30pm)
The supporting background documents and evidence base documents are also available for inspection on the Council’s website (given below) and at the Council’s offices at Buxton Town Hall and Glossop Municipal Buildings.
How to Make Representations
The statutory period in which representations can be made on legal compliance and the ‘soundness’ of the Submission Local Plan will run between 23 rd April and 5pm on 23 rd June.
To be valid, all representations must be submitted within this period and relate to matters of legal compliance and/or ‘soundness’ of the Local Plan. The Council considers the Local Plan– Submission Version to be sound, so representations should specify in what respect(s) the Plan is considered to be unsound and what change(s) would be needed to be made to make it sound.
More information and help on making representations can be found in Guidance Notes available on the Council’s website and the libraries and Council offices.
Representations can be made electronically by way of the Council’s website or by email or in writing using a representation form available from the website and all libraries in
124 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 12 Appendix 7: Statement of Representations Procedure
High Peak and the Council’s offices at Buxton Town Hall and Glossop Municipal Buildings.
Website: http://highpeak-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/high_peak/localplansubmission
Email: [email protected]
Post : Regeneration, High Peak Borough Council, Town Hall, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 6EL
Representations must be returned by 5:00 pm on 23rd June.
Representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified at a specific address of any of the following: • the submission of the Local Plan for independent examination, • the publication of the recommendations of the Inspector appointed to carry out an examination, and • the adoption of the Local Plan.
Further Information
This can be obtained from the Council’s website or by contacting the Planning Policy team of the Council by email at [email protected] or by phone on 01298 28400.
General information regarding Local Plans and the examination process can also be obtained from the Planning Portal at www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/
Consultation Statement 125 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
New Mills Volunteer Centre
Derbyshire Mental Health
Glossop Community Transport
Derbyshire Dales CVS
High Peak CVS
Peak and Dales Advocacy Forum
Gaddum Centre
Connexions
Amber Valley PCT
Chesterfield PCT
Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire PCT
Erewash PCT
Greater Derby PCT
North Eastern Derbyshire PCT
Derbyshire Constabulary
Derbyshire Probation Service
Community Safety Officer
Crime Prevention Design Officer
Derbyshire Youth Offenders Team
Centre for School Improvement
Derbyshire Fire Service
Buxton Community School
Hope Valley College
New Mills Lower School
New Mills School Business & Enterprise College
St Thomas More Catholic School
126 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Derwent & Hope Woodlands Parish Council
Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Council
Department of Communities and Local Government
Department for Transport
East Midlands Regional Assembly
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Ministry of Defence
Department for Culture, Media and Sport DCMS
Home Office
The Housing Corporation
Government Pipelines and Storage Systems
Office of Government Commerce
Government Office North West
Derbyshire Dales District Council
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Cheshire County Council
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council
Chinley Buxworth & Brownside Parish Council
Green Fairfield Parish Council
Hartington and Upper Quarter Parish Council
Wormhill Parish Council
New Mills Town Council
Charlesworth Parish Council
Tintwistle Parish Council
Consultation Statement 127 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Hayfield Parish Council
Peak Forest Parish Council
King Sterndale Parish Meeting
Whaley Bridge Town Council
Chisworth Parish Council
Chapel District Library
The County Librarian
The Divisional Library
Glossop District Library
Hadfield Library
New Mills District Library
Whaley Bridge District Library
Age Concern Derby and Derbyshire
Age Concern
Buxton Old People's Welfare Committee
Glossop, Hadfield and District Pensioners Assoc
New Mills and District Go Not Out
Civil Aviation Authority
Council for British Archaeology
Cyclists Touring Club
Derbyshire Archaeological Society
Derbyshire Historic Buildings Trust
Derbyshire Historic Gardens
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
Central Networks
English Heritage
128 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Forestry Commission Midlands Conservancy
Stockport M.B.C.
High Peak Borough Council
Health & Safety Executive
The Woodland Trust
The Coal Authority
Network Analysis
British Telecom
Diocesan Board of Finance
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority
Network Rail
Sport England
Innes England
Access Hope Valley
Buxton Home Support Service
Buxton Readycall
Karten Ctec Centre University of Derby
SPECTRUM
Small Group Project
Amethyst Project
High Peak Borough Council
High Peak Borough Council
New Mills for Youth
Department for Business Innovation & Skills BIS
Department for Education
Fairfield Residents Association
Consultation Statement 129 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Whaley Bridge Residents Association
Buxton Advertiser
Rural Action Derbyshire
University of Derby
Ancient Monuments Society
Association of British Insurers
Auto Cycle Union
Blackbrook Conservation Society
British Horse Society
British Horse Society (Local)
High Peak Borough Council
Byeways and Bridleways Trust
Chapel-en-le-Frith Amenity Society
Twentieth Century Society
Traffic Commissioner
Wastewater Network
Whaley Bridge Amenity Society
High Peak Borough Council
National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
NPFA Fields In Trust
Open Spaces Society
Staffordshire / Derbyshire Rural Transport Partner
Northern Rail Ltd.
Peak & Northern Footpaths Society
Post Office Property Holdings
Buxton Civic Association
130 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Buxton Festival
Buxton for Youth
Buxton Mountain Rescue Team
Buxton Opera House
Buxton Talking Newspaper Group
Buxton Volunteer Bureau
Council of Churches
Derbyshire Coalition for Inclusive Living
Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group
East Midlands Churches Forum
Gamesley Residents Association
Glossop & Hadfield Disability Club
Glossop Arts & Leisure Association
Equal Opportunities Commission
Glossop Heritage Trust
Glossop Womens Aid
Hayfield Fun Club
High Peak Access Group
High Peak Citizens Advice Bureau
High Peak Community Arts
High Peak Health Forum
High Peak Rail Users Group
Hope Valley Access Group
Hope Valley After School Care Group
Hope Valley Rail Users Group
Mottram Jam Group
Consultation Statement 131 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
New Mills Heritage & Information Centre
South Area Tenants Consumer Panel
Trent Buses
Belle Engineering (Sheen) Ltd
Carpenter PLC
Chapel-en-le-Frith Traders Association
Railway Heritage Trust
The Ramblers Association (New Mills & District Group)
Ramblers Association
Ramblers Association Manchester Area
High Peak Borough Council
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
The Camping and Caravanning Club
The Garden History Society
The Georgain Group
The National Trust
The Planning Inspectorate
The Victorian Society
OFCOM
Buxton & High Peak Law Society
Collective Enterprises Ltd
Federal Mogul Friction Products
Federation of Small Businesses
Firth Rixson Superalloys Ltd
Flowflex Components Ltd
132 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Glossop Indoor Market Traders
Lee Wood Hotel
Lhoist UK Ltd
Otter Controls Ltd
Palace Hotel
Philip Whitfield
PVC Group Plc
Regency Kitchens
Roymere Ltd
Wm Morrison Supermarkets
Street Crane
Swizzels Matlow Ltd
Tarmac Ltd
Tesco Stores Ltd
British Wind Energy Association
Church Commissioners for England
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
Glossop Mountain Rescue Team
Ramblers Association New Mills Branch
British Association for Shooting and Conservation
Quarry Products Association
County Land & Business Association
Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group
Derbyshire Chamber and Business Link
Barnsfold Farm
Health and Safety Laboratory
Consultation Statement 133 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Environment Agency
English Heritage
British Council for Archaeology
Commission for Racial Equality
Hartington Middle Quarter Parish Council
Chelmorton Parish Council
Blackwell in the Peak Parish Council
Disley Parish Council
Heritage Lottery Fund
Hargate Hill Equestrian Centre
Friends of Howard Town
Sanderson Weatherall
Confederation of British Industry
Crown Estates Commissioners
Disability Rights Commission
Future Energy Solutions
Friends of the Earth
Longdendale Heritage Trust
Rail Freight Group
Rail Passengers Committee
National Farmers Union
Stagecoach Manchester
Trent and Peak Archaeological Trust
High Peak Community Housing
The Planning Bureau Ltd
CB Richard Ellis Ltd
134 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Barton Willmore Planning
Harris Lamb Chartered Surveyors
Jones Day
Roger Tym & Partners
Matthews & Goodman
Deloitte Real Estate
DPDS Consulting Group
Higham & Co
Radleigh Homes
High Peak Borough Council
Kwik Fit
Walker Safety Cabinets Ltd.
Tariq Trading of Glossop
Modus
David Allcock & Partners
Old Glossop Residents Association
High Peak Borough Council
Rowarth Antiques
Autoden
Bulldog Fashions
Magic Mountain
DPDS Consulting Group
Highways Agency
Glossop Tourist Association
Colliers CRE
Indigo Planning
Consultation Statement 135 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Hayfield Development Trust
Home Builders Federation
Barratt Homes
Derbyshire Constabulary
The Theatres Trust
Pegasus Planning Group
Mosaic Town Planning
WA Fairhurst & Partners
Fusion Online Limited
Fordham Research Ltd
United Co-operatives Ltd
Colliers CRE
Johnnie Johnson Housing
Peak District Rural Housing Association
Manchester Methodist Housing Group
Equity Housing Group
Adullam Housing Association
High Peak Housing Project
Northern Counties Housing Association
Nottingham Community Housing Association
Stewart Ross Associates
PDA Group
Barton Willmore
Natural England
Charlesworth WI
Glossopdale Community College
136 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
The Lift Global Music Club
Glossop Market Traders
J W Mettrick & Son Ltd ( Mettricks Butchers)
Quest Media Network Ltd (Glossop Chronicle)
Va Bene
The Hewitt Partnership
Glossop Concert Society
HSBC Bank
Padfield Residents Society
St Philip Howard Catholic School
St Philip Howard Catholic Sports College
Access Glossop
Modus Group
GAS
Plain Talk Print
The National Legal Service
Joe Barbers Ltd
Hadfield Bakery
Turley Associates
Womens Institute
Heritage Lottery Fund
Glossop Operatic and Dramatic Society
Friends of Howard Town
Redrow Homes
Mere Developments
Threadneedle Property Investments
Consultation Statement 137 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Montagu Evans
Buxton Gateway Partnership
Natural England
David Wilson Homes North West
English Heritage
Derbyshire Constabulary
Derbyshire County PCT
Emery Planning Partnership
Friends of the Peak District
Environment Agency
Peak Rail plc
Derbyshire County Council
White Young Green
Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group
The Buxton Group
Architectural Services
B & R Developments
Bovis Homes
Campaign to Protect Rural England
Citizens Advice Bureau
Community Care and Support
Dales Housing Ltd
David Lewis Associates
Derby & Derbyshire Economic Partnership
Derby Racial Equality Council
Derbyshire Building Society
138 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Derbyshire Chamber and Business Link
Derbyshire Coalition for Inclusive Living
Derbyshire Community Foundation
Highways Agency
Friends of the Earth
AJ Architectural Services
AAP Consulting Ltd
AF Simms & Co
AJ Startin Technical Services
Architectural Design Studio
Bakewell & Partners
Bi Design Architectural
David Sutherland Architects
Deville & Lear Limited
Planning & Building Services
Elvin Ibbotson Architecture
Evans Vettori Architects Limited
Ian Baseley Associates
JMW Planning Limited
Latham Architects
MFA Building Control Limited
Ashton Property Consultants
Michael Dyson Associates Limited
Nick Marriott Associates
Oldfield Design Limited
Oulsnam Design Limited
Consultation Statement 139 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Parker Design Associates Limited
Peak Drawing & Design Limited
Schofield Horsman Architects
Stephen Gower Associates
The Hollins
Samuel Bettany Associates
Derek Trowell Architects
Alton Design
The Peter Woore-Watkins Partnership
Anthony Short & Partners
John Church Planning Consultancy Limited,
Montague Architects
JB Design (Ashbourne) Ltd
Allen & Hunt Ltd
Sammons Architectural Ltd
The Howitt Partnership
David Granger Architectural Design Ltd
Philip Billham Planning & Design
Miller Homes
Home Housing Association
Derwent Living
Care and Home Support
Olympia Homes Ltd.
Cedar House Investments
S & S Land & Property Ltd
Haus Builders Limited
140 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Signet Planning
Pinelog Ltd
Talbot Associates
AA Design Ltd
Barncroft Homes Ltd
Rickard Design Associates
Fletcher Smith Architects
West & Machell Ltd
Maber Associates
HOW Planning
Mercia Building Consultancy
Adrian Russell Associates Limited
BDC Ltd
Angela Amesbury Design
Apex Design
Barlow Associates
Chris Scholes Design
Chris Thorp Planning Ltd
Clash Associates
Design Connexions
Faithful & Gould
Fernie Design
Geldards LLP
Graham Markwell Associates Ltd
HA Briddon Ltd
Hall Grey Limited
Consultation Statement 141 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Halletec Associates Ltd
HC Designs Plans Prepared
Henry Mein Partnership
Derwent Housing Association Limited
East Midlands Housing Association
English Churches Housing Association
Home Group Ltd Housing Association
Nottingham Community Housing Association
JVH Town Planning Consultants
Alps International
Maple Arena Ltd
Michael Edwards Associates
Mitchell Proctor
MJ Barrett Construction (Staffs) Ltd
Wootton Estate Office
NCHA Limited
Ilett House
NSW Architects
Pegasus Planning Group
RAL Designs
Robert Bacon Architect
Rock & Water Ltd
SDA Jackson Calvert
Singleton Architects
Smytheman Architectural Services
Styles Design
142 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
The Design Team Partnership
Vision Architects & Engineers
Alkmonton & Hungry Bentley Parish Council
Ballidon and Bradbourne Parish Council
Bonsall Parish Council
Boylestone Parish Council
Brassington Parish Council
Carsington and Hopton Parish Council
Cubley Parish Council
Edlaston & Wyaston Parish Council
Hognaston Parish Council
Hulland Ward Parish Council
Longford Parish Council
Marston Montgomery Parish Council
Matlock Bath Parish Council
Middleton by Wirksworth Parish Council
Norbury & Roston Parish Council
Offcote and Underwood Parish Council
Rodsley & Yeaveley Parish Council
Rowsley Parish Council
Shirley Parish Council
South Darley Parish Council
Stanton in Peak Parish Council
Sudbury Parish Council
Tansley Parish Council
Ashbourne Town Council
Consultation Statement 143 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Darley Dale Town Council
Matlock Town Council
Atlow Parish Meeting
Callow Parish Meeting
Hulland Parish Meeting
Mercaston Parish Meeting
Somersal Herbert Parish Meeting
Frank Marshall and Company
Ken Wainman Associates
Andrew Martin Associates
Bellway Homes Ltd
Derbyshire Rural Community Council
DPDS Consulting Group
Elmdale Properties Ltd
Emery Planning Partnership
Wilkins Vardy
EWP Associates
Fairfield Residents Association
Federation of Small Businesses
Forward Planning Section
Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy
Head of Policy Strategy and Partnership
High Peak & Dales PCT
High Peak Community Housing
High Peak Housing Project
Hurst Farm Tenants Association
144 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
John Rose Associates
Johnnie Johnson Housing Trust
Jones Homes
Kevin Bradbury Architects
Action Housing Association
Age Concern Derby and Derbyshire
Alan Newton Associates Ltd
Almshouses
Andromeda Architecture
Architectural Design
Malcolm Fuller Associates Ltd
Great Places Housing Group
Matlock Business Club
Matthew Montague Architect
McCarthy & Stone Ltd
MCP Planning
Mercian Developments Ltd
MMA Design Ltd
Moorlands Housing
Northern Counties Housing Association
Northern Counties Housing Association
Nottingham Community Housing Association
Oldroyd Associates Ltd
Peak Rural Welfare Rights
Persimmon Homes East Midlands
Peter Diffey & Associates Ltd
Consultation Statement 145 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Senior Planning Policy Officer
Regional Housing Board
Sanderson Weatherall
Savills Commercial Limited
Smith & Roper
South Yorkshire Housing Association
Staffordshire Moorlands CVS
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council
The Development Planning Partnership
The Federation of West Derbyshire Mental Health
The Old Barn
Wildgoose Construction
William Davis Homes
Wirksworth Civic Society
Peak District Affordable Housing Forum
Persimmon North West
Northern Counties Housing Association
Derbyshire Rural Community Council
The Kilkelly Partnership
AW Hunt (DS) Ltd
RVA Design Ltd
RED 4 Ltd
Beckett Jackson Thompson Architects
Gino Lombardo & Associates
Archiplan
Natural England
146 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Manchester Methodist Housing Group
Enable Housing Association
Peak Older People Priority Service
Chesterfield Borough Council
Bolosver District Council
The Guinness Trust
Home Builders Federation
Wheeldon Brothers Ltd
Ibis Design
Environment Agency
South Derbyshire District Council
North East Derbyshire District Council
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council
Matlock Civic Association
Planning Policy Manager
Derbyshire Coalition for Independent Living
Age Concern
Dales Housing Association
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Erewash Borough Council
National Trust
Hope Valley Fairtrade Initiative
High Peak Community Arts
Marshall Chartered Surveyors
Grosvenor House
Vision Buxton Ltd
Consultation Statement 147 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
redrow homes (nw) ltd
Marple Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
CB Richard Ellis Ltd
Lambert Smith Hampton
John Herington Associates
East Midlands Trains
Armstrong Burton Planning
Cliff Walseningham And Co
Keep High Peak Green
URS Scott Wilson
Chapel Regeneration Partnership
Whaley Bridge Town Council
Gleeds
Derbyshire County PCT
Derbyshire County PCT
Harpur Hill Residents Association
Design Council
Environment Agency
Paul Butler Associates
Tameside and Glossop PCT
Derbyshire County PCT
Derbyshire Dales District Council
High Peak Borough Council
Derbyshire Dales District Council
Derbyshire RCC
Derbyshire Dales District Council
148 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Derbyshire Dales District Council
Peak District National Park Authority
Natural England
Chapel-en-le-Frith High School
Womens Institute
Purearth plc
Natural England
Cubic Property Investments
HPBC
Tintwistle Residents Association
Parkfield Homes
Keep High Peak Green
Cerda Planning
Heaton Planning
Transport for Greater Manchester
Countyside Properties
The Planning Cooperative
Peak District National Park Authority
Walker Okeover Estate
Hewitt Freeborn
Hourigan Connolly
Rollinson Planning Consultancy
Keep High Peak Green
D B Schenker Rail UK Ltd
Savills
Emery Planning Partnership
Consultation Statement 149 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Storth Partnership
Torr Vale Mill Preservation Trust
Atlow Parish
Walsingham Planning
Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service (Glossop)
Lawn Tennis Association
United Utilities
Transition Buxton
Visit Peak District and Derbyshire
East Midlands Tourism
Peak District National Park Authority
Gilbert and Sullivan Festival
Buxton Festival Fringe
EWS Property Services Group
Network Rail
Buxton Access Group
Pavilion Gardens Antique Fair
Steven Abbott Associates
High Peak Borough Council
Derbyshire Dales District Council
Fairfield Endowed School Trust
Martineau
Glossop Volunteer Centre
Electricity North West
Matlock Golf Club
J R A Moorhouse BA MRTPI
150 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Dig Hadfield
George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd
Jones Homes
Steven Abbott Associates
Green Lane Residents Group
Derbyshire Probation Service
The Coal Authority
Save Swallow's Wood
Cubley Parish Council
Campaign for Better Transport, Derbyshire & Peak District
Brailsford Preservation Society
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
Country Land and Business Association
The Buxton Group
Persimmon Homes Yorkshire
Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Council
Environment Agency
National Trust
Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
Hognaston Parish Council
Peak Rail Plc
Peak District Mining Museum
British Wind Energy Association
Osmaston & Yeldersley Parish Council
DNS Planning and Design
Wirksworth Town Council
Consultation Statement 151 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Derbyshire Youth Forum
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
Miller Homes Ltd
Brailford Preservation Society
Cardonier Escafeld
Peak District National Park Authority
High Peak CVS
Equity Housing Group
Chapel-en-le-Frith Civic Society
Hulland Ward Parish Council
Matlock Town Council
EP Emery Planning Partnership
Vision Buxton
DPDS Consulting Group
Heaton Planning Limited
Plan:8 Town Planning Ltd
GL Hearn Property Consultants
CJK Packaging Ltd
Highways Agency
Tetlow King Planning
Indigo Planning Limited
Brassington Parish Council
Bloor Homes
Bloor Homes
W A Fairhurst & Partners
University of Derby
152 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Derbyshire Constabulary
British Telecom
Courses Allotments Society
CJK Packaging ltd
United Utilities Water PLC
JR Consulting and Barratt Developments PLC
Pegasus Planning Group
Henry Boot
Natural England
Reeves and Partners Property Consultants
JVH Town Planning Consultants Ltd
High Peak Borough Council
Hourigan Connolly
Alliance Planning
G L Hearn
St George's Parish Church
St Margarets school
Whaley Bridge Town Council
High Peak Community Arts
Peak and Dales VA
Strutt & Parker LLP
Kirkwells Town Planning & Sustainable Development Consultants
Pegasus Planning Group
Northern Trust
Indigo Planning
Planning Potential
Consultation Statement 153 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Thomson Ecology
Transition Buxton
Derbyshire Community Health Services
Aggregate Industries
Planning Design Practice Ltd
Bagshaws
Shuldham Calverley
BNP Paribas Real Estate
Ecclesbourne Valley Railway
Wirksworth Civic Association
Design Council
Peak District National Park Authority
East Staffordshire Borough Council
Clifton Parish Council
Nottingham Community Housing Association
Natural England
Tarmac Central Ltd
Brailsford Parish Council
Wirksworth & District Community Sports Group
Snelston Parish Meeting
Sport England
Lady Fair
Montague Evans
Network Rail
Brian Barber Associates
William Davis Homes
154 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Chairman of South Darley Parish Council
Cheshire East Council
The Planning Bureau Ltd
URS Scott Wilson
Building Research Establishment
GL Hearn
Amber Valley Borough Council
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Sheffield City Council
Oldham Council
Kirklees Metropolitan Council
United Utilities Water PLC
BE Group
National Grid
Arcus Renewable Energy Consulting Limited
Environment Agency
Electricity North West
Severn Trent Water
Barton Willmore
Inland Waterways Association
Peacock and Smith
Persimmon Homes North West
Crowley Associates
Bagshaws LLP
Acorus Rural Property Services Ltd
Consultation Statement 155 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service
Patrick Properties
Lomas Distribution
Williams (HS) Ltd
Pearwalk Properties Ltd
Electricity North West
Buxton Traders
Visit New Mills
Stirling Lloyd Group Plc
Otter Control Ltd
Friends of Peak District
john dugdill fabrications
The Local Civic Society for Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale
Clover Chemicals Ltd
Arden House Medical Practice
Hayfield Parish Council
English Heritage
Whaley Bridge Town Council
CBRE Limited
Sport England
HOW Planning
Indigo Planning Limited
Planning and Design Group
Omya UK Limited
Charlesworth Parish Council
Longdendale Community Group
156 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
United Utilities Water PLC
Home Builders Federation
Derbyshire County Council
Nestle Waters
Office of Rail Regulation
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
John Ross Associates / acting for Barrat Homes
Frank Marshall & Co
Philip Millson Associates
The Granary
A.E Planning Consultants
Kalro Building & Construction Ltd
Duffy Macclesfield Ltd
Environment Agency
Natural England
Environment Agency
High Peak Clinical Commisioning Group
High Peak Clinical Commisioning Group
Tameside and Glossop Clinical Commissioning Group
Rapleys LLP
Tameside MBC
D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership
RIVERTOWN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Cedar Limited
Glossop Cartons
Green Holm Community Group
Consultation Statement 157 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Friends of George Street Woods
Waltons
Fidler Taylor
Bagshaws
Frank Marshall & Co
DPP
Nottingham Community Housing Association
Himor Group
Rapleys LLP
Castleton Parish Council
Charlesworth Parish Council
Edale Parish Council
Hope with Aston Parish Council
King Sterndale Parish Meeting
Tintwistle Parish Council
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
NHS Derbyshire County
NHS Tameside & Glossop
James McAllister Ltd
Morten Property Partnership
NHS Derbyshire County
English Heritage
Barton Willmore
Buxton Rugby Union Football Club
Kingsmoor Leisure
Seddon Construction
158 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
St Georges Parochial Church Council
Steveson Deane Property Company
John McCall Architects
Transport for Greater Manchester
Highways Agency
Brown Edge Residents Group
Derbyshire Federation of Mental Health
Sport England
Peak District National Park Authority
Old Glossop Residents Planning Group
The Woodland Trust
Chapel Vision
Hallams Commercial
Whaley Bridge Town Council
Buxton Traders
Richborough Estates
The Woodland Trust
High Peak Access Group
Canal & River Trust
Buxton Civic Association
Adderley Place Association
Friends of the Peak District
JHWalter LLP
NJL Consulting
MVMediagroup
Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Local Strategic Partnership
Consultation Statement 159 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Natural England
Derbyshire County PCT
East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust
WA Fairhurst & Partners
Savills
High Peak Borough Council
Cheshire East Council
Canal & River Trust
Regency Group Limited
Development Planning Partnership
Gladman
Chartbranch (Chapel-En-Le-Frith) Limited
Home Builders Federation
NHS Commissioning Board - Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Area Team
Hayfield Civic Trust
Glossopdale Action for Allotments (GAFA)
Persimmon Homes (North West)
Churches in the Peak
NHS England - Area Team – Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire
Cheshire East Council
Country Land and Business Association
Cavendish Golf Club
Ferro Alloys
Fairhurst
NHS Tameside & Glossop
160 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
NHS Property Services
LaFarge Tarmac
NHS Tameside and Glossop Clinical Commissioning Group
High Peak Borough Council
NHS England - Area Team Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire
Hoffman Quarry Limited
Longdon Truck Equipment
Emery Planning Partnership
Peacock and Smith
Waltons Property Services Ltd
Paul Butler Associates
Paul Butler Associates
Cordingleys Chartered Surveyors
Sanderson Weatherall
Turley Associates
Levvel Ltd
Emery Planning Partnership
Mono Consultants
John Church Planning Consultancy Limited
Lambert Smith Hampton
Barton Willmore
Barton Willmore
Barton Willmore
John Rose Associates
Tanner & Tilley
The Development Planning Partnership
Consultation Statement 161 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
FRICS
Peak District Affordable Housing Forum
W A Fairhurst and Partners
W A Fairhurst and Partners
W A Fairhurst and Partners
W A Fairhurst and Partners
Indigo Planning Ltd
Indigo Planning Ltd
king sturge
First City Limited
WYG Planning & Design on behalf of Aldi Stores Ltd
Bakewell & Partners
Bakewell & Partners
Bakewell & Partners
Taylor Young Ltd
DPP
DPP
Addleshaw Goddard LLP
Development Planning Partnership
Heaton Planning Ltd
Atisreal Ltd
DPDS Consulting Group
Atisreal Ltd
Roger Yarwood Planning Consultant Ltd
Savills
JRConsulting
162 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
DPDS
BNP Paribas Real Estate
Emery Planning Partnership
Heathcote Design and Development
Heathcote Design and Development
King Sturge
GVA Grimley
Browne Jacobson
Montagu Evans
DPP
Indigo Planning Limited
England & Lyle Ltd
Entec UK Ltd
Higham & Co
Jolley & Co
Turley Associates
Dowd Town Planning
Capita Symonds
Mono Consultants Limited
Emery Planning Partnership
Mitchell + Proctor
Barton Willmore
Mosaic Town Planning
Hourigan Connolly
Hourigan Connolly
Hourigan Connolly
Consultation Statement 163 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Peacock and Smith
The Planning Bureau Ltd
Emery Planning Partnership
Emery Planning Partnership
DLP Planning Consultants
NLP Consulting LLP
Crowley Associates
CBRE Ltd
Quarryplan (GB) Limited
Planning and Design Group
The Emerson Group
Hayfield Civic Trust
Reading Agricultural Consultants
CDN Planning
Walsingham Planning
CA Planning
Addleshaw Goddard LLP
NJL Consulting
Malcolm Judd & Partners
Morgan & Co
Savills
Marshalls Design and Build
Rapleys LLP
GL Hearn
The Planning Bureau Ltd
BNP Paribas Real Estate
164 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Turley Associates
Indigo Planning Ltd
Higham & Co
Barton Willmore
CBRE Ltd
GL Hearn
Mathews & Goodman
Visit New Mills
W Y G Engineering Ltd
Loxley Developments Ltd
Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc
Glossop Town Centre Partnership
Glossop Land Limited
Bulldog Sparkstar
Royal Mail Property Services PLC
Aldi Stores
Miller Homes East Midlands
Miller Homes
McCarthy & Stone Developments
Persimmon Homes East Midlands
Mobile Operators Association
Lambert Smith Hampton
Woodford Group
Woodford Group
Woodford Group
High Peak Land Ltd
Consultation Statement 165 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Pegasus Retirement Homes Ltd
Tesco Stores Limited
Cordingleys Chartered Surveyors
Peak District Affordable Housing Forum
Woodford Land
Woodford Land
Woodford Land LTD
Indigo Planning
Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd
Tarmac Limited
Aldi Stores Ltd
Meadowbrook Devts Ltd
Tasco LLP
Federal Mogul
Heyrose Property Group
J C Bamford Excavators Limited
Tesco Stores Limited
Lafarge Aggregates Ltd
Astor Properties Ltd
Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service
Veolia Water Systems and Technologies
Savills Planning and Regeneration
High Peak Land Ltd.
Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service
Astor Properties Ltd
Loxley Developments Ltd
166 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Heathcote Design and Development
Aggregate Industries
Higham & Co
Mark Twain Ltd
BARRATT DEVLOPMENTS PLC
NHS Derbyshire County
Threadneedle Asset Management
Polebrook LTD
National Grid
B and G.T. Dignan Properties
xVinyl Compounds, Eagley Plastics, Vinyl Powders
Western Power Distribution
Chatsworth Settlement Trustees
Mobile Operators Association
Hallam Land Management Ltd
High Peak Developments
ADC properties Ltd
Waitrose Limited
Majic Rental Services Ltd
Innovation Forge Limited and Woodford Land Limited
United Utilities Property Solutions Ltd
United Utilities Property Solutions Ltd
Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc
McCarthy & Stone Developments
Treville Properties Ltd
bowsall ltd
Consultation Statement 167 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Rock Asset Management
Omya Limited
Chatsworth Settlement Trustees
Ashwood Dale Quarry
The Estate Office
Emery Planning Partnership
Peacock and Smith
Waltons Property Services Ltd
Paul Butler Associates
Paul Butler Associates
Cordingleys Chartered Surveyors
Sanderson Weatherall
Turley Associates
Levvel Ltd
Emery Planning Partnership
Mono Consultants
John Church Planning Consultancy Limited
Lambert Smith Hampton
Barton Willmore
Barton Willmore
Barton Willmore
John Rose Associates
Tanner & Tilley
The Development Planning Partnership
FRICS
Peak District Affordable Housing Forum
168 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
W A Fairhurst and Partners
W A Fairhurst and Partners
W A Fairhurst and Partners
W A Fairhurst and Partners
Indigo Planning Ltd
Indigo Planning Ltd
king sturge
First City Limited
WYG Planning & Design on behalf of Aldi Stores Ltd
Bakewell & Partners
Bakewell & Partners
Bakewell & Partners
Taylor Young Ltd
DPP
DPP
Addleshaw Goddard LLP
Development Planning Partnership
Heaton Planning Ltd
Atisreal Ltd
DPDS Consulting Group
Atisreal Ltd
Roger Yarwood Planning Consultant Ltd
Savills
JRConsulting
DPDS
BNP Paribas Real Estate
Consultation Statement 169 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Emery Planning Partnership
Heathcote Design and Development
Heathcote Design and Development
King Sturge
GVA Grimley
Browne Jacobson
Montagu Evans
DPP
Indigo Planning Limited
England & Lyle Ltd
Entec UK Ltd
Higham & Co
Jolley & Co
Turley Associates
Dowd Town Planning
Capita Symonds
Mono Consultants Limited
Emery Planning Partnership
Mitchell + Proctor
Barton Willmore
Mosaic Town Planning
Hourigan Connolly
Hourigan Connolly
Hourigan Connolly
Peacock and Smith
The Planning Bureau Ltd
170 Consultation Statement Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Emery Planning Partnership
Emery Planning Partnership
DLP Planning Consultants
NLP Consulting LLP
Crowley Associates
CBRE Ltd
Quarryplan (GB) Limited
Planning and Design Group
The Emerson Group
Hayfield Civic Trust
Reading Agricultural Consultants
CDN Planning
Walsingham Planning
CA Planning
Addleshaw Goddard LLP
NJL Consulting
Malcolm Judd & Partners
Morgan & Co
Savills
Marshalls Design and Build
Rapleys LLP
GL Hearn
The Planning Bureau Ltd
BNP Paribas Real Estate
Turley Associates
Indigo Planning Ltd
Consultation Statement 171 Consultation statement 13 Appendix 8: Bodies invited to make representations on Submission Local Plan
Higham & Co
Barton Willmore
CBRE Ltd
GL Hearn
Mathews & Goodman
Visit New Mills
W Y G Engineering Ltd
Marine Mangement Organisation
Miller Homes East Midlands
172 Consultation Statement