TAHRA OBJECTION TO BROOKSIDE BUNGALOW

This evening will almost certainly see the rubber stamping of the Planning Department's recommendation to build 20 two bedroom flats in the space currently occupied by a single bungalow. The application was discussed at length, at both the July and August meetings of the Association, following which a unanimous decision was taken to formally object to these damaging proposals.

We have no faith or expectation whatsoever that the Development Control Committtee will take the slightest heed of local opinion. Were that the case then the Rossington Park and Bridge Mills outrages could never have happened.

Even on the rare occasions when proposals meet with such determined opposition that permission is deferred or refused, applicants simply re-submit a slightly amended plan a couple of months later, ad finitum, until they succeed. So skewed in favour of developers are the wheels of planning and so limited is 'democracy' at a local level.

You may be able vote for your councillors from time to time but you can never vote to keep the bulldozers at bay. Thanks goodness it's always in the name of progress and heavens above, never anything to do with money!

Nevertheless, just for the record and for what it's worth, here is the full text our submission:
===========================================================
OBJECTION TO BROOKSIDE BUNGALOW, LAMBGATES LANE, HADFIELD, GLOSSOP - FROM TINTWISTLE & HADFIELD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION - REF NO. HKP/2008/0369

We object to this planning application for all of the following reasons:

Lambgates Lane is currently just a rough path, not a road. It gives access only to the few homes that lie within it. As such, it provides and has always provided a safe route for its many pedestrians on their way to and from the shops on Station Road and for children en route to school.

Indeed, it is one of the few places in the village that pedestrians do not feel threatened or intimidated by vehicles and can amble safely at all times. We wish to keep it that way. The proposed development will effectively create a road that will bring new traffic to the lane and remove the safety element of this well used track.

New traffic is also the last thing that Hadfield needs. Driving around the village is a precarious business, parking is at a premium and can now be said to be out of control, with vehicles routinely mounting footpaths and parking on junctions. These sort of issues are now the most common ones raised at our meetings and are the direct result of excessive and unsustainable development within the area.

The problem has been acknowledged by Councillors, the Police and the Highways Dept. of Derbyshire County Council and has at various times created access problems for Emergency Services and Waste Collection services etc.

This development provides for another 20 unwanted, unwelcome vehicles. The reality though, is that if the flats were ever to be sold, they would generate far more than 20 vehicles, spilling more cars onto congested roads and requiring more parking spaces than the number allocated.

In essence this is an unsustainable development in an already overcrowded village. The evidence is visible all around in the grid-locked streets that are double parked, junction parked and pavement parked and should be rejected on these grounds alone.

We object to the loss of mature trees and are at a loss to understand why the Tree Officer does not object either. Perhaps he is in the wrong job! The trees and shrubbery present a lovely little oasis of greenery that have survived a tidal wave of development but even this small pocket of nature is no longer safe from the hands of HPBC and Johnny Johnson, who cannot afford Hadfield residents even a modicum of respite from their incessant housing demands.

The proposed destruction of publicly owned parkland robs us of another piece of what remains of Hadfield’s Green Field areas. The copse, in particular, would be a sad loss, as it affords a safe haven, away from traffic, where children can play close to their homes. It has been used safely by generations of children in the past and should remain so in the future.

We feel that the design and appearance of the planned flats are out of character and out of scale for the area. They are too tall, overlooking neighbours and are not appropriate for the setting. They are too dense, to the point that they undermine and change the character of the area.

Essentially this is a building that wouldn’t look out of place in a city, which is being slapped by a small brook 13 miles out of town, on the edge of open countryside, close to the Peak Park boundary.

There are parallels here with Rossington Park, whereby the Planning Dept. is attempting to impose urban designs in a semi-rural area, in what appears to be a delilberate attempt to urbanise the area for unfathomable reasons. The net result is an unwanted and unacceptable change in the character of the area that is undoubtedly for the worse.

The point is even acknowledged by the case officer “the scheme provides a dense urban form and can be considered to represent the limits of acceptability”.

The upshot of this for local residents is a detrimental impact on property values. For most residents, their home is their most valuable asset. Many homes on the Roughfields estate, for example, and beyond have a pleasant aspect due to the presence of the copse and the green space it affords:
Turning this into yet more housing will devalue these properties at a time when those looking to sell already face tough times. How much more onerous will their task be and their losses become if this beautiful spot that provides a pleasing aspect is replaced with a 3 storey tower block with accompanying parking lots?

We would now like to address some of the comments that have been made in support of the application:

To begin with the spurious allegation that Lambgates Lane is dark and unsafe. We would like to ask what evidence this assertion is based on? Have there been any reported incidents here? If so, then how do the numbers compare with say Station Rd or other streets in the area? Favourably one should imagine. Unless evidence in the form of statistics can be provided then this argument should be discounted.

As for it being dark, if this is perceived as a problem then might we suggest street lamps rather than 20 flats to be a more appropriate solution, not to mention a much cheaper option! Far from improving the character of the area, this development is detrimental as I have argued. The area of Lambgates Lane that is unkempt is the former site of Quinns garage. This is certainly a spot where the Council could step in and do something about but it is irrelevant to this application.

Our final point of objection concerns the grey area of ‘affordable’ housing which is a tactic used again and again by would-be developers and the Planning Dept. to justify the unjustifiable and to evade moratoriums where housing is oversupplied. So what exactly is meant by ‘affordability’?

Adrian Fisher recently defined this at an Area Forum as “housing that is available at below the market price.” It can be either built for rent at below market rents, or it can be built for sale on a shared ownership basis”. Affordability is a key argument being put forward to justify these proposals. We are told that the development will provide very welcome affordable housing, which is urgently needed.

So who is going to be able to afford it and who says it is very welcome? Residents have made it quite clear that they do not welcome it. As for the urgent need, where is the evidence?

Empty properties on Bank St. only 100 yards away suggest that this type of housing is either not needed or is not affordable. They remain empty years after completion, even after reverting to shared ownership, after failing to sell on a full mortgage.

If HPBC and/or Johnny Johnson are really concerned about providing housing that is ‘affordable’ then there are existing properties aplenty that are available for purchase, right now, at knock down prices. Why don’t they simply buy some up and either offer them up for ‘affordable’ rents and/or ‘affordable’ mortgages?

That way empty properties could be put to use with immediate effect for those in need, whilst at the same time the parklands and green spaces that people use, cherish and enjoy could be spared from the constant threat of development.

Why do Johnny Johnson feel that their homes would sell when others have failed to do so and what evidence do they have to support their claims? The evidence of empty properties, we suggest, indicates a lack of demand in the area for the type of housing they are proposing.

Our closing statement is to note that in a press release just a couple of months ago, HPBC revealed that they had ‘secured funding’ from Johnny Johnson towards the refurbishment of Brosscroft play area, as part of the Hadfield Parks Improvement Area.

At the time it seemed like an altruistic gesture. Now one wonders. Some few weeks later, planning application HPK/2007/0899 was re-submitted as the current application HPK/2008/0369.

Crucially, as the case officer notes “the amenity space on which the scheme is dependent is almost entirely located within the area of land currently owned by the Council, without which the scheme could not be supported”.

We note the impeccable timing of the application together with the officer’s recommendation and draw our own conclusions, as will others.

We trust that our objection is duly noted and can only hope that it is given the weight that it merits. Considering the above facts, it seems to us the outcome is already pre-determined.

– on behalf of Tintwistle & Hadfield Residents Association.