HADFIELD COUPLE WIN TENANT GARDEN COMP.

Delia Bennett being presented with her Best Garden 2008 Award
Congratulations to Delia and Albert Bennett who beat off competition the length and breadth of the High Peak to scoop the 2008 Tenant Garden Competition and a barrow full of gardening vouchers into the bargain. The event was organised by the Tenants Garden Group who spent two wet but enjoyable days in August judging the entries.

Keith Wood, Chair of the group said "we thought that the standard of entries was high last year but this year we were surprised at how the bar had been raised, every year the standard gets higher and the judges job becomes more difficult".

Delia and Albert of Bankbottom, Hadfield, were surprised but delighted to have won and indeed had no inkling they were in the running until they were invited along to the awards ceremony where the above photo was taken. Below is a photo of the winning garden, taken from the current edition of 'Peak Performance' (the High Peak Community Housing newsletter for Tenants and Leaseholders).

Those of you who know the couple, formerly of Speedwell, Tintwistle, will easily recognise Delia being presented with her award but will ask "where is Albert?" on the photo. Well he could be the one stood behind Delia but in fact that's not him at all and even if it was it's clearly not a good enough photo to pick him out easily.

No problem, I can help here as I just happen to have a photo of the man himself for your perusal, though it's not exactly a recent one.

Here he is, top row, third left - don't laugh out too loud though.

CLICK ON PHOTO TO ENLARGE

So now you know why he tries to avoid the camera! Congratulations once more to them both though. A huge triumph for a Hadfield couple, who despite living in the shadow of Rossington Park, are trying to keep a small corner of High Peak green.

Rossington Park Alarm - Hadfield's Very Own Cannabis Farm!

News reached yours truly last Friday from various local sources that there had been a major drugs sting down in the park - Rossington Park, that is! First wind that something was amiss came from local delivery people, who had noticed lots of police activity in the area. Fortunately it was my day off so I got out the old bike and had a nose on down. I found a solitary police car guarding the premises, as you can see from the photo below.

(For those of you who don't recognise the whereabouts of this particular tin shed, it's on the left as you enter the monstrosity known as Rossington Park, via the infuriatingly off-centre roundabout that unnecessarily impedes motorists. The road that leads into the park has been named in keeping with the wretchedness of the place as Graphite Way.)

Then followed an unsubstantiated rumour that nine Chinese men had been arrested for growing cannabis plants looking something like this:


Further 'news' claimed that people had been living in these sheds on a fairly permanent basis. Sleeping facilities, a T.V. set and various other home comforts were alleged to have been seen removed from the building during the bust, along with an entire lighting system.

I cannot substantiate these details but what I can say for certain is that the early rumour of a raid on a cannabis growing factory on Rossington Park has definitely proved to be true and has indeed now been confirmed as such on the Advertiser's website. They state however, that only two arrests have been made to date.

The photo below which I also took at the scene is quite interesting and mildly amusing. It suggests that CCTV is in operation 24 hours a day. So how come it failed to pick up footage of people entering and leaving the premises, along with the truckload of baggage and belongings that comes with permanent residence and the operation of a wholescale agribusiness?!

Dare I suggest that CCTV in this instance stands for Cannabis Cultivation Treatment Vacinity!

Notice when you read the Advertiser story that the Police were alerted to the incident as a result of "vital information from the community" and NOT from CCTV footage, which one suspects, does not exist.

People will have their own views as to the pros and cons of growing the cannabis weed but the real issue here is all about the dopes in planning who have never had any control over this sprawling mess known as Rossington Park and who continue to have no control. We have always argued that the site has been uncontrolled and unregulated from the start and continues to be.

From the beginnng S.C.C. were allowed to dump hundreds of concrete pods on the opposite bank of the river for the best part of two years without any planning permission and in the teeth of local opposition.

Then the supposed live-in workshops, (passed in planning on the basis that they would provide local jobs to reduce commuting) are now being marketed not as workshops but as Rossington Homes... a luxury riverside development.

A modern day scandal of monumental proportions if ever there was one, were it not for the fact that this is the free for all known as Rossington Park where anything goes, so long as HPBC gets a revenue from it!

When planning rules and regulation have been flouted from the start, when the voices of local people don't count for one jot, where monitoring procedures do not exist and when actual planning permissions are simply ignored or blatently flouted, is anyone really all that surprised that this can happen and go unnoticed for so long?

The only real surprise is that the incompetence of our planning officials has been tolerated for so long and that our councillors have simply turned a blind eye to what's going on here. Questions have to be asked and heads need to roll over this one.

Tintwistle and Hadfield Residents Association meet at the New Lamp, Bankbotton, Hadfield, the first Monday in every month at 8.00pm. As today(6th) is the first Monday in the month you are welcome to join us. This month will be an open forum without a structured Agenda so it will be an opportunity for anyone to come along and raise an issue. No doubt one or two of you may want to raise this particular story as a discussion item!

VICTORY OVER BROOKSIDE BUNGALOW PROPOSALS

A large but very sweet and delicious slice of humble pie was served up to yours truly at last night's planning meeting where proposals to build 20 two bedroom flats on Back Lambgates, the current site of a single bungalow (see picure above) were discussed.

In yesterdays post I was very downbeat about the prospects of the Development and Control Committee overturning Adrian Fisher's recommendation to give plans the green light. The prognosis was based on previous high profile cases of major developments in the area, most notably S.C.C. and the Rossington sheds, which had zero local support, indeed massive opposition but were rubber stamped by the Committee regardless.

What was particularly pleasing is that not only was it defeated but it was rejected unanimously, a decision which dovetailed neatly with the outcome of our own vote to object at this month's meeting. So what were the factors involved in this massive defeat inflicted on Adrian Fisher and his planning cohorts who supported the application and recommended its approval?

Without doubt the efforts of Jo Osborn and other local residents who objected in strength and further raised the profile of the campaign through numerous letters to the Press, was a significant, probably the most significant factor. It highlighted the fact that this ought not to be a simple straight forward rubber stamping job and that there were lots issues surrounding the case. Many of these were detailed in our own letter of objection, which can be read in the previous blog here but suffice to say that it gave the Committee food for thought and plenty of grounds on which to hang their concerns.

The other important ingredient was a hired brief in the name on Andrew Moorhouse who made good use of his three minutes to summarise the detailed objections. He noted that the plans flouted no less than three policies of the local plan and that the density of the flats worked out at a huge 160 dwellings per hectare, meaning that levels of amenity would be very low and asked why these residents should have less amenity than anyone else?

He also made the point well, which though obvious needed to be said, that the proposed structure had no local distinctiveness and showed no sympathy to the area. Indeed the whole question of design and sensitivity had been brutally ignored. In essence this was an urban structure in a semi-rural setting, inappropriate and out of character - echoes of Rossington Park - a point that Cllr. Kay went on to make, stating that it would be a scar on the landscape.

The area is actually within the boundary of Cllr. Kay's constituency and he was first to speak in the ensuing debate. During his comments it emerged that Committee members had earlier been on a perilous site visit which entailed a minibus journey along Back Lambgates. It revealed to them the truth that this was indeed a track and not a road, illustrating not only the poor vehicular access but also that it was well used by pedestrians.

He made further incisive points, particularly with regard to the alleged need for these type of affordable homes, noting that there were similar existing properties, currently unoccupied because local people want houses not flats. Also that there were two mills in Glossop full of available flats! After asserting the fact that there is a shortage of public space in Hadfield and that the loss of parkland would reduce that still further, he put forward a motion to reject the application.

A worried look came over Fisher's face and he visibly blanched. He was right to. For Chris Pearson (Chinley) picked up on the loss of amenity and open spaces, suggesting that any problems of anti-social behaviour should be dealt with in a positive way rather than simply taking away green spaces.

Whilst he thought it was the right kind of development, he shared the opinion that it was in the wrong place, speaking about fire hazards with regard to getting emergency vehicles down the unadopted track, along with a lack of parking for tradesmen and visitors. He added that the money would be better spent on brownfield sites and went on to second Cllr. Kay's motion to reject the application.

From this point onwards Fisher started to hedge his bets and was quickly back peddling. As Cllr. after Cllr. started to wade in with different reasons to overthrow the application...overbearing development, traffic safety, safe route to school, inadequate parking, should not fulfill quotas at any cost..etc he conceded that were some good grounds on which refusal could be hung.

Local Cllrs. Cynthia Mitchell and Bob Mc Keown also chipped in to good effect and by the end of the debate it was a question of, on which grounds to quash the application, rather than any doubt as to the outcome of the vote. In the end there were unanimous votes to turn it down due it being an overbearing development and an unacceptable loss of amenity.

Chris Pearson wanted to go further and add inadequate access but there was a fear that doing so might aid any appeal from Johnny Johnson who are now as popular as Dr Shipman in these parts.

In summary, an excellent, if unexpected outcome. The flannel of Fisher and the seeming inability to question or overrule anything that comes with his recommendation, has finally been overcome.

Hopefully the DCC committee have found their feet and their confidence. Let's hope this is the first defeat of many for Fisher and his ridiculous recommendations. That is the only thing that will stop the Planning Dept. supporting everything that comes their way regardless of its suitability for the area or local sensitivity.

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.

KEEP HIGH PEAK GREEN

This is to let everyone know about a new group that has sprung up in the borough called Keep High Peak Green. They are a collection of campaigners and residents that have got together borough wide in order to fight "unnecessary development of Green places and spaces in the High Peak"and can be found here.

Whilst they are essentially trying to hold back greenbelt and greenfield developments they also point out that inappropriate usage of brownfield land can be of equal concern to residents of the borough and use the example of Rossington Park and S.C.C. Ltd at Bridge Mills, as a case in point:

"We have seen sites such as Rossington Park and Bridge Mills in Hadfield spring up, and although these were Brownfield sites, they are clear examples of types of development that are inappropriate and clearly not wanted by local people.

We are also opposed to the seemingly widespread policy of squeezing large housing developments into relatively small parcels of land. Such schemes are proliferating all over the Borough and need to be checked."

Their immediate priority is to encourage everyone to respond to the document 'Shaping The Future Of High Peak', which you can do in slightly different formats here or here . The deadline is this coming Friday 25th July, so please take a look and find time to respond.

I have mentioned the document in a previous blog, when it came up at an Area Forum which can be read here You can also link to the document using the blogroll at the right hand side of this blog. It isn't necessary to reply to every question or section - just fill in the questions you want to or the sections that you feel strongly about.

So why is this document so important? I will leave you with the words of Keep High Peak Green:

"The document is crucial as it will determine how High Peak decides to pursue development projects in future years. Those who love the unique character of the Borough need to respond to the consultation.

It needs to be made clear to the Authority that the designation of any more countryside, greenfield or garden sites for development in any future plan is unacceptable.

Furthermore, the Council should refuse to collude with any central or regional government objectives that cannot be achieved without violating this principle, irrespective of any financial carrots that are being dangled by central government to obtain its cooperation." Quite.

LIGHTING THE WAY - BLOGGING TIP

Hi Readers

I know that some of our audience are new to blogging and don't feel that comfortable with finding their way around the Internet. So from time to time I will do a short post by way of lending a helping hand - a tip or two (no not the Rossington Park type of tip) to help guide people along.

You will recognise tips by the LIGHT BULB image at the start of the post.

To begin with, we now have some regular readers who come back to the blog every day to see if a new post has been created. I have to admit that a daily post as a minimum is the aim but due to time constraints that is proving difficult. However, once we have a few other people on board to post up news as it happens, it is something we will achieve.

Aah! But what has all this got to do with the tip you promised? - I hear you cry. Simple. Whilst I do encourage viewers to return to the site on a regular basis, there is an easier way to detect when a new post has been added.

On the right hand side of the blog there is a blue rectangular box that says "Subscribe via e-mail" at the top. Here you will find a space to type in your e-mail address. By doing this you will get an e-mail alert every time a new post is added without actually having to visit the site.

Go on, try it. It really works and it's free, so nothing to lose.

SPOTTED A BLOT ON THE LANDSCAPE?

CLICK ON PHOTO BELOW TO SEE FULL SCREEN TECNICOLOUR GLORY

CALL 08456 058 058

IF YOU'VE SPOTTED A BLOT ON OUR LANDSCAPE

The front page article of the most recent copy of Insight (Derbyshire County Council's own newspaper) encourages us to tackle 'green' crime by spotting blots on the landscape and reporting them. The article begins quite boldly by stating the plain fact that 'dumping rubbish is a crime.'

Quite right. So I'd like to report High Peak Borough Council and more specifically their 'Planning Department' for knowingly allowing hundreds of concrete pods to be dumped at Bridge Mills, Tintwistle, courtesy of SCC Ltd and allowing hideous tin sheds to be dumped on the opposite bank of the Etherow at Rossington Park

The article goes on to describe the effects of said rubbish : 'it looks horrible can damage our health and it costs a lot to clear it up' . Here, here. Consequently, DCC are prepared to go so far as to take finger-prints and DNA samples to track down the culprits.

Steady on. No need to go that far - we know who they are. Culprit No.1 is Adrian Fisher, Chief 'Planner' and Culprit No.2 is his sidekick and 'Regeneration Officer' his holiness the Dai Larner.

If anyone has pictures of these green criminals please send them and I will add them to the post. It should make it easier for those nice people at DCC to identify these environmental vandals, who face huge fines - up to £5,000 for individuals but up to £50,000 or 12 months in jail for businesses.

Come on Derbyshire County Council - bang them to rights and let's see some real justice. Justice for the hundreds of residents who fought HPBC and their rubbish tipping in this area, in the name of 'regeneration' and justice for the environment itself.

Remember this: DCC 'need your help to make it really work. We want you to report the crime' (haven't we already done that?!) twin blots on landscape

'So if you see someone dumping their rubbish...or...you've spotted a blot on our landscape that needs dealing with call us too'. 08456 058 058 is the magic number to call folks.

CLICK ON PHOTO BELOW TO SEE FULL SCREEN TECNICOLOUR GLORY

CALL 08456 058 058

IF YOU'VE SPOTTED A BLOT ON OUR LANDSCAPE

LiDL for Brookfield?

Did anyone spot this little nugget in the local press this week?

CLICK ON PHOTO BELOW FOR LARGER IMAGE

The gist of the story is that LiDL food chain who have a branch In Ashton are seeking to open up a new store at Brookfield on the site of the old garage just down from the Spring Tavern.

What's just a little quirky about the ad is that they openly admit they are having a 'Public Open Day' before a planning application has even been submitted.

The question is obviously WHY?

Perhaps it is LiDL policy to do this every time they propose to open a store. Or is it that the Planning Dept at HPBC have given them the advice given the bad publicity that has surrounded furtive applications just round the corner at Rossington Park, where such openness has never been in evidence! Enough said.