The Castle at High Peak Council Offices

In a stroke of irony - to me at least - of almost Orwellian proportions this week beginning 6th October has been designated Customer Service Week at High Peak Borough Council. I am not sure what this entails other than a bit of glib PR and a visit from mainly absentee Council CEO Simon Baker who is part-time but for me it meant a particularly toxic dose of rudeness from their Customer Service Telephone Team.

Thus the call will start along the lines of a somewhat over- parroted "High Peak Borough Customer Services, how can I help you? which I personally find a bit chilling and off putting. Their staff probably go on highly costly courses to learn this mechanical routine when ultimately in view of their seeming unhelpful remit I think I would prefer the machine, so at least I knew where I was. I find such an unerring replication of a machine from a person a somewhat chilling introduction!

What I have found on previous occasions then occurs. You want to speak to a specific officer in a Team, say Planning. No chance really, they are always in a meeting. You call back in the afternoon, they are out on a site visit. Basically the deal is they call you when it suits them!
Assuming they are busy there are no other members of staff in the relevant Team to take your call. Also in a new development nowadays the Telephone Operator seem to think they have been empowered to deal with your enquiry complete, and will not offer you any access to a professional officer. The only way past is to move heaven and earth, and be prepared to engage in strenuous negotiation with the grim guard of the Reception Team.

This whole "bunker mentality" creates stress and aggravation in even reasonable people. I do not wholly blame the Customer Services Team because it is evident they are acting on the express instructions from above. It does lead them to be very curt however. It is a bit disconcerting to be asked roughly "Whats your name?", particularly in Customer Service Week. When I worked in Customer Service I never found it difficult to ask even in a slightly stressful situation "Could I have your name please?".

However ultimately if the Council is to be inaccessible to the public in this way I think it should
publish that fact. If it has empowered the Customer Service Team to deal wholly with Inquiries it should be clear at outset, and they should not pose as a Reception Service. Similarly if the Professional Officers in a team, or in their absence other team Officers are only available at their convenience, not yours, let it be known! We can surely have no complaint, for after all they are paying us are they not? At least I think it must be that way round - it surely cant be the case that the subsidy is ours, and they are supposed to perform at our behest?

If it were the latter, and I offer this as a hypothetical reading - a situation where we pay them to rule - that would surely mean a kind of return to feudal times, and the bunker mentality of the middle ages, where the Manorial Lord resides in his castle, and the serfs outside work and pay for the privilege of having him and his Lady there. Small government structures are often worth monitoring for paradigms of political organisation and power relations and the trouble is that this disconcerting model does appear to be incipiently in operation, which is mainly why in a warning vein I have chosen to write about it here. Recently I wrote similarly for the same reason about about the Standards Committee and suggested similar sinister forces might be at work when they dealt with an alleged case of bullying.

During a particular grim period of history, in the between the war years of the last century, Franz Kafka wrote a prophetic book about the dynamic of political structures. I read "The Castle" as a veiled metaphor of just such a feudal paradigm, a study in medieval power relations which he saw being re-incarnated and reworked for modern times. So High Peak Borough Council, when I ring for its "assistance" often rings the Kafkaesque alarm bells for me, And especially during Customer Relations Week!

(This place, is comin' like a ) Ghost Town

A few weeks ago I blogged about the Glossop Vision situation, which appears to mean huge, burnt out or mothballed mill regeneration schemes in the main. I qualified this criticism by pointing out the more acceptable facelifts in terms of pavements and station surround improvements, though the general consensus has been that these were implemented in a way designed to seriously inconvenience the local population and hit the local retail industry particularly hard. It is only reasonable to say that the town continues to look “like a ghost town” as the Howard Town mill project currently has the authentic air of the “Marie Celeste”, as if abandoned suddenly with all hands on deck.

Anyway, Glossop Vision are unrepentant, flagging up the next phase of their projects, and seeking new members to help Glossop submit to the latest dose of “regeneration”. There appears to be only Woods Mill left in terms of the usual approach but no doubt there are plenty of opportunities there for similar “white elephants”. Many will be wondering what is coming next.

Of course there is a disused railway line – currently a trail in an area that is not exactly spoilt for choice in terms of countryside facilities – but would that be the kind of thing that Glossop Vision is interested in? . Would it be a money spinner (quite possibly actually!)? But it does look old economy and that is always a problem with the “vision” people, who usually want “business as usual” 1990s style. As a colleague recently wrote, the “Vision” seems to favour enterprise that takes money out of the town into large corporate concerns.

Fortunately for the Council there seems to be no shortage of hapless individuals in the firing line recently to deflect public attention, so they can happily pursue their Vision line without embarrassment. Stories like those of the Dainty Deli repeatedly inspected by the Health and Safety Inspectorate, and ultimately closed with damning verdict by a Crown Court Judge make the Council look good, as a protector of public standards or safety without damaging any major interests.

The previous week it was Councillor Ivan Bell, labelled a “bully” by the Standards Committee amidst a deluge of expensive explanatory paperwork but strangely having to stand trial without the plaintiff being present. That seemed a little disrespectful of the process somehow, or even disrespectful of Councillor Bell whose reputation was after all at stake. The irony was that the accusation of “disrespect” was the very one levelled at Councillor Bell, and in fact one he had the courage to own up to.

And following that, bid farewell to the Dainty Deli - the latest casualty of Glossop’s High Street West. Whilst not being a patron of the store, it is worth saying that this appeared to be a quite a pleasant, busy, old-fashioned little business, in keeping with the town’s character, and likely to blend well with the tourist trade. Sometimes businesses like these struggle to comply with the new demands of health and safety regulations and need a lot of support to maintain their business in the current retail climate.

Whilst realising the Food Hygiene Officers repeatedly advised them of the need to radically improve and that they failed, seeing another local business with High Street frontage go down does not warm the heart. While in the formal sense the owners apparently missed their chance to improve, whether the Hygiene Officers did everything possible to keep the business afloat is not made clear from the newspaper reports. One would have liked to feel that a small local business got the same repeated second, third and fourth chances handed out to the regeneration projects.

Similar censure of the ill-fated Regeneration Policy is not to be heard and the questions regarding this seem hidden under press coverage of matters of ultimately less importance - under in fact what could be something of a fine web of spin?

No doubt the further excellence awards for our visionary council are not going to be handed out just yet but it is probably just a matter of time. Meanwhile one wonders just how much more Vision Glossop can take?

(Editors note: One retail chain has recommenced trade from the ground floor at Wrens Nest)

Regeneration in Glossopdale? What Went Wrong?

Not too long ago, High Peak Borough Council, as I recall, attended a handsome awards ceremony in a posh hotel somewhere in the capital where they received an award for their regeneration of Wrens Nest Mill. Today despite reconstruction work having begun some time ago Wrens Nest stands a burnt out hulk, the casualty of an arson attack. It is natural to ask what went wrong?

Across the town the next jewel in the Borough Council's Crown, the Howard Town Mill Development stands desolate and empty, in part construction, following a reported dispute between the various parties involved, which include Hurstwood Construction and B&R Developments. Again it is natural to ask what went wrong?

The idea of regenerating old mill sites into swish modern living apartments and shopping emporia (maybe!) seems in principle not a bad one. From an architectural point of view Wrens Nest is a big improvement on the disused derelict building which was there before, and the reconstruction in the main seems to have been sensitively achieved with regard to the wider landscape features of the area. Yet it has not worked out, and while one could say to have one regeneration planning disaster is misfortune, two smacks of carelessness!. Or maybe something beyond carelessness, such as bad karma.

Concepts such as karma seem a little ill fitting for a hard bitten satirical review like this blog spot but I would ask readers to bear with me. By all accounts, and I have to ask you to refer to back issues of the Chronic for the exact Inquiry findings, not all the proper procedures were in place at Wrens Nest or had been followed when it had been opened up for occupancy. The fact of the fire is indisputably a human tragedy, but apparently it may have been one that could have been prevented.

Similarly with the Howard Town Mill development it would have seemed advisable before disturbing the livelihood of existing traders both on the main street, and in the Howard Town complex to be sure that the funds were in place to complete the development. This seems to be the problem or 'karma' element that I am talking about. The Council Planners and Regeneration department have seemed to ignore the human element, considering their projects as purely computer models, to perhaps promote their own careers, irrespective of the human cost elsewhere. Sometimes when you implement schemes it does not serve too badly to show you have a heart, but the Council has not seemed to have much of one. And maybe this is why the human element has come back to haunt them.

Many people found the descent of an army of people in yellow Hi-Viz jackets on the High Street before Christmas an unwarranted invasion. Again, the end product of repaved streets and station forecourt modernisation probably needed to happen, but not in this insensitive way. There have been business casualties as a result of the disruption on the high street, and businesses and local traders in Howard Town Mill are apparently facing serious customer access problems to which now there seems no end in sight or on site!

However safely ensconced in the "planning bunker", as other contributors to this blog have termed it, the Planners offer little contrition for the seeming disaster that has befallen the town as a result of their efforts. Not all of the 'Vision for Glossop' seems to have been a bad thing, but the somewhat callous route taken over over people's livelihoods and everyday lives seems to have backfired in a big way.

One has to wonder if the right people are in post to deliver what Glossopdale and High Peak needs? Are these local inhabitants who have the local interest at heart (with "heart" being the operative word)? Or get rich quick merchants, of the boom and bust economy type who will deliver ill-fated disaster projects and environmental destruction, somewhere they do not live themselves, and that nobody much wants?

Meanwhile something that really would be "good for Glossop" and would count as a sustainable development delivering those much talked about local jobs - Glossop is an area of almost full employment incidentally- would be revitalisation of the Woodhead line for freight and perhaps passengers. However - surprise! surprise! - this does not seem to be part of the Regeneration rubric.

This surely needs to change. Climate change is part of the Council's core strategy discussion in the Local Development Framework , and for the Council to ignore such a fantastic sustainable opportunity on their very doorstep just because it looks "old economy" and not about more cars , higher CO2 emissions and supermarkets, would appear to be just the wrong decision. Sustainable development is too often about putting a couple of eyesore and largely inefficient windfarms in open countryside, rather than a real practical project that would deliver real CO2 reduction benefits. Obviously one cannot lay all the burden of social problems and malfunction and its practical consequences at the door of High Peak Borough Council, but their "bunker" mentality, and indifference to public concerns seems symptomatic of that malaise, so there seems some justification perhaps in doing so.

Can the Council learn from what seem very obvious and serious mistakes in ignoring the human element and improve their karmic standing? More big bucks projects that fall apart are not what the area need, but sensitive regeneration of the area through an appropriate revival of a sustainable transport alternative would be a very welcome change of direction.

In the meantime maybe they could hand back their architectural awards, because they look a little misplaced in hindsight and it would indicate an appreciation that there are big lessons to be learnt. Don't hold your breath though!

Lidl - bribing the public

We had spies at last week's Lidl 'Open Day', and they brought back all kinds of goodies - though not products produced by Lidl.

We hear that Lidl put on a large spread, but more important than that, they were asking people to write to them to support a future planning application. Whilst we can't think why anyone in their right mind would want to do so, they obviously thought it might work and this flier was handed to all visitors (we've been careful to obscure the relevant address in case any morons who like supermarkets read this blog). Of course, this kind of tactic is nothing new in this area - JD Williams employed similar methods by 'asking' (more like threatening!) their employees on Rossington Park to write in support of a planning application last year (HPBC approved it, natch).

Lidl propose to provide 72 car parking spaces, but lord only knows what disruption will be caused to the area due to an inevitable traffic increases - there's no mention of this in their leaflet.

You can view the brochure they were handing out here and here. But we thought we'd publish the Q&A section, which are (unsurprisingly) overwhelmingly positive and seemingly poorly translated from a standard German text, with attendant poor grammar. Our comments are underneath in bold:

Q - Why have you chosen this location?

A - Lidl have chosen this location as it primarily serves as a catchment of Hadfield, Gamesley and Hollingworth and these areas currently have a limited offer for convenience goods.

There is a 7-11 store in Hollingworth, and a similar store in Gamesley. There are 2 minimarts in Hadfield. So it's not needed on that front.

Q - Will the store undermine Glossop Town Centre?

A - No, the small scale of the development will have little or no impact on Glossop Town Centre. A full Retail Impact Assessment is provided with our application. It should also be noted that Lidl do not operate in-store Bakeries, Delis, Butchers, Fish counters, Dry cleaning, Newsagents and therefore complement rather than compete with local small businesses.

One wonders what use the store is to anyone if it does not provide those facilities, and what need there is for it if it is a 'catchment of Hadfield, Gamesley and Hollingworth'? I suppose if you really want pumpernickel and really can't face going to Aldi, it might come in handy. Then again, Lidl and Aldi are currently a zeitgeist thing for the Bourgeoisie who like 'slumming it' as this recent article in the Guardian shows.

Q - How will the store look?

A - The site, as is currently stands, clearly is in need of redevelopment. Lidl design their buildings to complement their surroundings and as such the proposal is for a traditional building in keeping with the surrounding area.

Personally, I'd rather have an empty car garage that generates no traffic than this plan. The logic here seems to be 'if there's spare Brownfield land, it must follow that something new is created on it'. And it's not hard for it to be 'inkeeping with the surrounding area', when that means a small industrial estate, a car dealer and Europe's largest caravan showroom!

If you want to object - in advance - to this proposal, then you could always write to that paragon of virtue Adrian Fisher, the Director of Planning (Disasters) at Der Bunker, High Peak Borough Council, Municipal Buildings, Glossop, Derbyshire, SK13 8AF.

Glossopdale Supermarket sweep part 3: Tesco

In our final post about Supermarket expansion and the (thus far attempted) transformation of Glossopdale, we turn to the veritable Dark Lords, Tesco.

'What about Tesco' you may ask? Well, putting aside the traffic problems their current store in Glossop causes we can reveal that they too have plans for expansion. We say 'reveal', but it is actually a reminder of information that is already in the public domain, with a certain amount of educated guesswork and speculation tagged on. But as usual, we are prepared to fall, as well as stand, by our predictions.

On 7th November 2007, the Glossop Advertiser (and not the Glossop Chronic, which is rather strange) featured a front page headline 'Supermarket on Stilts'* about Tesco's plans for Glossop. In the article, they outline their plan to relocate the store 'nearer to the Town Centre', although it was hinted that this would be 'in a different part of the (Wren Nest) site'. An exhibition of the plan was held on one day - the same day that the article in the paper was published!

Despite this, a follow up article, with more detail, was published a month later. It revealed that Tesco now wanted to construct another entrance to their store from High Street West, increase the number of parking spaces, and also expand the warehousing facilities on the site. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the plan was that the store would be raised 'on stilts' to allow an increase of parking underneath it.

Again, this 'softening up' exercise was concluded prior to a formal planning application being made, one which has still yet to materialise, but the November 2007 article stated that the application would be made 'next year' and that work would not start until at least 2009.

The psychology of the way all 3 Supermarkets have conducted their affairs in the area is highly significant. By presenting exhibitions on their own premises, on near to the planned sites, they control the perception of the plans, as well as the access to them. You effectively have to be a customer to take part, and you also have to know about it. In the case of Tesco a notification of a one day exhibition was posted on the day it took place - and a lot of people in the area don't receive that paper through their letterbox until the very same evening!

Having said that, despite the way Tesco managed the process to actively exclude people, it's actually possible to argue that more people will know about it than were it left to High Peak Borough Council. One only has to look at the fact that thousands of people in Hadfield literally woke up to Rossington Park one morning that shows how hard this Local Authority works to marginalise the people in the area as to major planning decisions that greatly affect their lives.

After all, it was this time last year that saw HPBC allowed Tesco to keep signs they had erected that had breached advertising consent rules. It seems you can do anything you like if you are Tesco.

In relation to all this, what is very interesting is if we recall a war of words in the press earlier last year centred on Surrey Street itself, a potential access road for any new development by Tesco. Residents wrote in to the Glossop Chronic to complain about any attempts to make Surrey Street accessible to more traffic. Others wrote in to counter that and berate residents for their 'selfishness', as if wanting to preserve a degree of calm outside one's front door was an offence. Chief amongst the hecklers was a Tory Councillor, Anne Worrall, and her letter can be read here (albeit cloaked in the emotive issue of the Wren Nest Mill apartments fire). Of course, she is more likely than anyone else to be aware of Tesco's plans, since she is on both the Environment and Regeneration committees of HPBC.

So why have Tesco delayed matters? Who knows? Perhaps HPBC have told them to do so.

But perhaps their plans lie elsewhere? Remember the recent news that the despised Ferro Alloys factory was to be demolished? - the Glossop Chronic told us that HPBC refused to disclose who the owner is. And then the news that Glossop North End AFC are looking to leave their ground of the last 50 years at Surrey Street and move to a larger site elsewhere - how did they get the money and why move now? Is it a coincidence that the Football Ground and Ferro Alloys are adjacent, and that these sites are 'nearer to the centre of Glossop', as desired by Tesco? Or do we have an over-active imagination? Only time will tell.

* Tesco 'Stores on Stilts' are springing up all over - just type the term in Google

Glossopdale Supermarket sweep part 2: Sainsbury's

At the beginning of April, local newspapers carried reports of a plan to bring another Supermarket to Glossop. This time, it was Sainsbury's. Tom Rowley's initial article in the Glossop Advertiser was more about the whole of the Howard Town Mill development, of which Sainsbury's would be a part. The article was followed a week later with a more detailed reports in both the Glossop Advertiser and our old friends the Glossop Chronic.

The companies involved are Glossop Land and Evans and Reid (E&R). Glossop Land share a director (Mike Ryan) with the company who are developing the mill site - B & R Developments. Evans and Reid are particularly interesting - take one look at their site and look at the geographical spread of their companies - Cardiff, Newcastle, Wolverhampton and ... Glossop! Don't get me wrong, I love Glossop, but the fact they are based in 3 large cities and one small town should lead to all Glossopians to wonder what's going on. But if you do some digging, it's not too hard to make some connections.

One of these companies, E&R Polymers, was the name of the company formed following the merger of St Albans Rubber and ... Volcrepe! Yes, that well known Glossop Company (who had contracts with the Ministry of Defence, just like Ferro Alloys), whose former works is now also up for sale to developers. So we've come full circle.

Whilst Tom Rowley in the Advertiser skirts around the issue, hinting that Sainsbury's is a possibility for Glossop, in the Chronic, David Jones says Sainsburys WILL move into the Mill (his capitals). And further, that "tree lined streets, dressed stone pavements and a new look station forecourt" are all part of this deal. So has this consortium paid for this work, and all the disruption that has cost small traders dearly? This must surely be the 'sweetener' for the deal, but one that leaves a bitter taste in Glossop.

In the more recent Advertiser article, Mike Ryan told us that his companies had "worked closely with High Peak Borough Council over 5 years to deliver Howard Town Mill" - does this mean that HPBC know all about Sainsbury's, and that it's pre-approved. Is this another 'softening up' exercise? If you think back again to how the 'regeneration' of Hattersley/Mottram is being paid for - the as yet un-named Tesco plugging a large financial hole - it looks as if something similar has been happening here. In the 2004-2005 financial year, the entire E&R group of companies had a turnover of £22 million and profit of merely £350,000 (read the PDF here). It all seems a bit too grand a project for such a seemingly minor company!

Like last week's news about Lidl was part of a trend to announce plans before a planning application has been lodged. This runs in complete contrast to the way that TMBC have handled the (still clandestine) intentions of Tesco for Mottram. In our final article about the Supermarket Sweep that is Glossop, we'll look at another 'softening up' exercise that has dipped under the radar somewhat.

But we'll finish with another quote from Mike Ryan:

"it cannot be underestimated how important the securing of Sainsbury's is to the potential successful redevelopment of these sites and to Glossop as a whole and the important and exciting benefits and opportunities this will bring to the town"

We're sure the traders along High Street West feel very excited about their future annihilation because that is what it will amount to. Not to mention transforming Glossop beyond recognition (for the worse) and ensuring the traffic situation is even worse than before.

Glossopdale supermarket sweep part 1: Lidl

Keen readers of the Glossop Advertiser will have noticed an astounding advert in this week's edition. The German supermarket giant Lidl have announced that they plan to apply for planning permission for a store on the site of the former Vauxhall Garage at Brookfield, Hadfield.

They're holding an Open Day opposite the site at Glossop Antiques Centre (who have clearly been bought!) next Thursday 15th May between 1 - 4 p.m.

What's astounding about this advert is that we usually hear about things like this in the press because a planning application has been lodged. But in the High Peak, and Glossopdale in particular, there are more and more examples of things like this taking place (as we will show in other articles to follow). As we write, there is no planning application from Lidl on HPBC's website.

Can you imagine that Lidl are taking a huge chance, being cocky, pre-emptive? We doubt it - the recent planning history of this area has shown how High Peak Borough Council's response to advances from developers is to bend over obligingly. And this looks like yet another example where permission has been 'pre-approved'.

There are may good reasons to oppose this idiotic plan. Firstly, the area does not need any more supermarkets. There are enough, and they are destroying the area. They do nothing for the area other than provide minimum wage jobs which have a high turnover rate - not needed in an area where there is full employment. Furthermore, every penny spent there goes out of the community, not into it.

Secondly, the traffic problems that will result will be hugely significant (there's no need to expand on that, surely?).

Thirdly, the way Lidl treats it's staff is appalling. Read here for details and reference points, and this excellent article from the Guardian in March of this year has extensive details. Other reasons can be found on this excellent German flier (opens PDF).

What's becoming more and more clear in this part of Glossopdale is that developers are keenly eyeing the area with the Glossop Spur in mind. First Rossington Park, then the Home farm hotel/Travelodge and now this plan (as well as activity in Glossop itself) all show that the objective that High Peak Borough Council are colluding in is to to turn the A57 in Glossopdale into a long retail strip easily accessed from the motorway network.

We'll be watching this one like a hawk, and doing our bit to oppose it. By any means necessary.

**Update 13/05/2008: Lidl themselves landed today on this blog post after searching Google for 'glossop & lidl' - everybody wave!

Village Green Preservation Society

There has been a lot of coverage in the press recently regarding the issue of housing in High Peak for younger persons from the locality who cannot get a foot on the housing ladder. MP Tom Levitt has added his voice to the debate, and put the boot in for good measure to the concept of Village Greens, which according to our MP have allowed a few selfish individuals to stop developments and sports halls in Buxton.

At first sight Mr Levitt’s indignation with such selfish individuals seems wholly in the right, but sometimes - or perhaps quite often in his case - it is worth looking that little bit further, and this seems one of those instances.

It is worth noting that there are many houses in High Peak, which are not in the complete sense of the word “homes” because they are wholly or mainly unoccupied. These are second homes or houses bought as investments. It is not unusual in fact to find a worryingly high percentage of the housing stock on many local streets out of effective circulation for one reason or another, predominantly due to absentee or landlord ownership.

This might not seem a relevant concern for Mr Levitt and the government when they advocate more local housing supply for local people. However it should be, as the policy described below indicates something of a contradiction in their position. Whilst bemoaning the lack of supply the government will from this April start increasing subsidy to such unused stock by cutting the capital gains tax on 2nd homes. This practice that can only inflate prices and reduce the availability for local people , so it does not sit well with Mr Levitt's complaint.

MSN Money reports, and we quote in case the the link seems dead -

Good news for landlords

This is great news for landlords and owners of a second non-residential property. Investors pay CGT on the difference between the price they paid for the asset and the price they sell it for. As it stands, the tax rate is 40% for the first three years of property ownership, falling by 2% a year to a minimum rate of 24% after 10 years of ownership. The new system means that the length of time a property has been owned will be irrelevant; someone who has owned a second home for one year will be taxed at the same rate as someone who has owned theirs for 20 years. The capital gains annual exemption will continue to apply which (in 2008/09) will mean the first £9,200 of the gain is exempt from the tax charge. As far as the buy-to-let market is concerned, landlords will certainly emerge as the winners of the situation, as they will see a significant reduction in tax should they decide to sell a property.

In fact the selfishness which Mr Levitt deplores in one case – assuming it is selfish to care about precious green open spaces and voluntarily make unpaid efforts to protect them– is being actively encouraged by fiscal measures promoted by his government to enable people to have more homes than they actually need, either as capital investment or for personal use.
It is a somewhat weak position to adopt really, trying to expand the new build on the back of the needs of local people yet at the same time allowing, in fact encouraging, the removal of large amounts of housing stock from the same local supply.

We believe Mr Levitt adopts such a cockeyed or contradictory approach towards housing supply - i.e. abetting private ownership yet seeking more social supply - because there is a subtext behind his utterances which we would spell out as follows

The subtext of Mr Levitt’s approach is to support the construction industry and developers at all costs, and use the plight of local people to do so. Also throw in a swipe at environmentalists if possible and try to undermine their legitimate use of village green legislation that developers see as obstructing invasion of rural areas for profits. Who suffers from this cockeyed thinking? Well above all the environment, which is generally overlooked by the politician, leaving it to allegedly selfish people to use their own time and unpaid labour to try and find ways to keep the area somewhere that people actually do want to live in. How very selfish of them!

And this really is the crux of the issue, because assuming that new build is given a free rein on village greens and the green belt, and the current attitude towards housing as capital rather than a home is continued, it begs an interesting question.

14,000 homes on down the line - and that is the plan for High Peak in the coming years - will anyone, local or otherwise, very much want to live in High Peak Borough anymore. There is after all a distinct lack of buyer enthusiasm for over housed places like Droylsden or Dukinfield. Sadly such a sorry outcome can be the only outcome of Mr Levitt’s position, which is why it must be resisted. Despite the many shots of beauty on the MP’s web site these are simply gratuitous in this case, and the vital remit to protect the environment remains the remit of unselfish volunteers, who deserve our full thanks

With regard to Village Greens, they require our utter support and it is very important that they are assisted and this legislation safeguarded. It is meanwhile it is time locally and nationally that a coherent and environmentally responsible policy in the field of housing is developed, where local people can enjoy a local home without being forced to sign up to environmental destruction to get it. If we can’t have a reasonably buoyant economy without environmental destruction then there is something seriously amiss.

Travelodge/Submarine plan vanishes...(or sinks without trace)

We were going to write about this in depth (approximately 4 fathoms), especially after David Jones' gushing article in last week's Glossop Chronicle. But it seems that Cllr Anthony McKeown has told us that Shepherd Developments has withdrawn it's plan for a Submersible Travelodge in Hadfield, presumably now that the Environment Agency have objected once again.

So for now, we can only sit back and smile at David Jones' blurb saying that High Peak Borough Council is 'committed to promoting Glossop as a holiday destination' - yes, lots of people want to stay at a 'luxury' hotel that is slap bang next to a huge roundabout & main road (Glossop Spur) and not far from a load of ugly grey industrial development (Etherow & Rossington Park). Lots of business people needing a stop off a (soon to be) motorway on their way to somewhere else that is...

There's little doubt that Shepherd Developments will re-submit their application again - this project is pinned to hopes that the Glossop Spur planning application will be renewed by the end of this year. How that can happen with the increasing risk of regular floods - and the opposition that will be mustered by anti-bypass activists - remains to be seen.

SCC - defeat?

The worst news this past week has been that SCC seem to have won this round of their fight to erect yet more buildings at Bridge Mills, near to Rossington Park. These will be two huge buildings, between 37 & 46 feet high and 48,000 & 41,000 square feet in area. The best they can offer is that they will be 'sympathetically coloured' to blend in with the environment: it seems they've listened to Ivan Bell if no-one else.

There's been a lot of activity by the Residents Association to oppose any new construction, and hundreds of local people have signed petitions against any new plans. But this has predictably been ignored by SCC and High Peak Borough Council. The familiar justifying cry of 'bringing jobs to the area' is irrelevant since High Peak has full employment.

Glossop Advertiser and the Glossop Chronicle have both had articles this week about the planning meeting where the decision was ratified. The latter seems to have had use of a Crystal Ball and is headed 'villagers lose fight', and the Chronicle has a fatalistic 'Watchman' column (always written by David Jones, natch). Well, we'll see won't we? Because it's now clear that the authorities do not pay attention to polite objections, and this is clearly the time for new tactics. Either that, or this situation can only get worse for the area.

We'll be interested to see what happens from now on.

Running scared?

Front page news in the local papers this week is the latest tactics in the raging battle being fought by the despoilers of Hadfield and the residents of Hadfield.

JD Williams, the mail order catalogue giant, seem to be running scared that local activists are kicking them where it hurts in acting against their crackpot scheme to make their unfeasibly ugly grey sheds even bigger. According to the Glossop Advertiser, the company is asking it's employees to write in to High Peak Borough Council's Planning Dept in support of their application whilst passing themselves off as residents. This all sounds like stories coming out of Russia during the recent election, where Vladimir Putin's party had made civil servants an offer they couldn't refuse: vote for us or get the sack.

It gets better - today, they landed on our site, searching Google with the words 'high-peak (sic) planning hadfield'. Even more ironic, they landed on our recent article about the local anti-Del Boy, Trevor Mooney.

The consultation date has already ended for this application, but the Committee date is 14th January 2008, and we hope that a charabanc will wend it's way to the Council Offices at Chinley to tell HPBC's grey shed-loving nutters where to stick it. There's a more recent opportunity for similar fun this coming Monday (17th December), when further applications for de(re)generation will be heard from Rossington Park and Bridge Mills.

Shock - High Peak Planning Officer rejects crackpot scheme

You may remember our post some time back about local impresario Trevor Mooney's plan to build a golf driving range on Dinting. Well, he's been re-treading the boards with his 'Del Boy spurned by local authority' act once again, in both of last week's local papers (Glossop Chronicle & Glossop Advertiser).

In a bizarre change to High Peak Borough Council's usual policy of carving up the landscape through the area, his plan has been rejected by an officer. What is of interest is that both articles suggest that this is only because they'd want him to have floodlighting and buildings, and he makes it clear that - luckily - he isn't prepared to pay for that.

Another interesting point is Mooney's clear ignorance about what an understanding & care for the environment entails in this quote:

"They (HPBC) also say the area is a wildlife site and needs protecting yet the field next to us is mown every week. Our field is full of knotweed and we are prepared to eradicate that for the golf range"

In Mooney's world, a Golf Course is good because it's a green space. Anyone who knows more about the environment than this pleb is aware that they are entirely artificial and highly environmentally damaging. Since they consist largely of huge sections of turf they are ecological 'desert' requiring huge amounts of water to keep them alive.

Mooney also rather childishly seems to think that mowing grass will kill all the little insects and mice who live there, and that has to be bad for the environment.

In Mooney's world, there are good plants and bad plants. For him, the environment is something to be tamed and controlled (which may go someway to explaining his semi-conscious analogy of his being a stranger in the 'Wild West' that the Chronicle article suggests). Of course, this could well be because he's a keen gardener, a leisure activity originally promoted in the nineteenth century by a ruling class very keen on social control in a time of huge social upheavals and class conflict. The Bourgeoisie do so like their little boxes with labels where everything will fit neatly, and the world can simply be divided into good and bad, and knotweed is clearly bad (despite being an important food source for butterflies and moths).

So it's golf or moths. I know which I prefer.

But Mooney does ask an important question which requires an answer:

"if is open countryside and designated, then why did they let me turn the field right next to it into a car park?"

Indeed, why did they?

Re-post: Do We Need More Housing?

We're consistently providing scoops for the press, so when the Glossop Advertiser today published an article on the disaster area that Glossop is becoming, we feel the need to remind them and our readers in the real world of a post by kirtlegreen from nearly 3 weeks ago. Before reading, take some time to look at High Peak Borough Council's new 'Core Strategy Consultation'. You might like to ponder how this 'strategy' will affect planning and consultation in the future, but bear in mind that this is the same Council that gave you Rossington Park, SCC and Trevor Mooney's car park (that no-one uses). And the same crew that will no doubt roll over and have their tummy tickled by Tesco...

At the moment Glossop is a construction site. Wherever the humble pedestrian ventures in this erstwhile quiet market town is impeded by building site fencing, dust clouds, and infill building sites which block their way. Not to mention the random removal of mature trees, followed by the obligatory desultory apology, and swift pinning of blame on other parties. Hitherto pleasant open areas to shop such as Smithy Fold and the Bulldog Shopping Precinct (coincidentally prey to an overnight robbery) are all probably being conducted in the name of Glossop Vision.

No doubt the similar vision which brought Glossop the visionary burnt out Wrens Nest apartment block, the pinnacle planning masterpiece that has brought High Peak Borough Council its flagship planning award.

No question what the vision for Glossop is: eradicate its heritage.

More worryingly this is part of a greater "vision", the strategy of that well known "visionary" and "conviction" politician Gordon Brown, to get rid of the country's rural heritage by abolition of the green belt.

There is an enormous threat to the greenbelt and rural beauty of Great Britain which will be detailed in future blogs.

In the meantime let us ruminate in what is happening in Glossop at present and draw this conclusion. The Council and its Planning Department want building and construction action. They are hooked on it more than any junkie on his daily fix. They do not care about pedestrians or the public, as long as they are able to set records for the most number of yellow clad safety jacket operatives in a single market town, and enhance their reputation for so called "regeneration". Currently frustrated by the Bypass impasse and the Green Built ring fence they are concentrating on making the town a pedestrian no go area with obstructive and burnt out flagship planning projects that do not take human factors into account and are therefore doomed from outset. Even their only other toy, Rossington Park is running into trouble, so they are really going for Glossop as the best place to play Meccano, though Rossington Park watchers need to be very alert as well.

But be warned. In our view like irritable children they will get tired with that game of Glossop as building site, and want further action outside the town before long.

The dangers of Dinting Road

Over the past few weeks, the Glossop Chronicle featured several articles by the pro-bypass journalist David Jones, both focusing on Dinting Road, between Glossop and Hadfield.

The first article was a feature about the latest instalment in the saga that is the 'Park & Ride' next to Dinting Railway Station. A businessman, Trevor Mooney, has blighted the area with this useless lump of tarmac and was moaning in the article that High Peak Borough Council have withdrawn permission to use it for Car Boot sales on Sundays. Apparently, he has had a premonition that the car park is doomed. There have been a succession of similar articles like this over the past few months - Mooney is eager to portray himself as an honest-to-goodness businessman (there's an oxymoron - as well as a moron - in there somewhere) hamstrung by bureaucracy. But the truth is more complex than that.

Firstly, prior to the construction of this park and ride, no one parked their cars halfway down Dinting Road. The mere fact that it was free to park on it for the first few weeks meant that the selfish idiots that now leave their vehicles down the road knew about it in the first place because of the car park (that they no longer use). Where do these people live? If it's near to Glossop - walk to the Railway station there and use it. The same for Hadfield. Surely if you live within 15 minutes of Dinting Station, you can walk? Is it really too much trouble?

That aside, these individuals are creating a very dangerous situation on Dinting Road. The vehicles are parked on one side of the road, from the top of a blind summit which snakes round a bend to nearly halfway down the road. If you're using the road in either direction, you have to hope that no-one is travelling at more than 40 mph (the speed limit on the road) and is paying a lot of attention to the route - it's even more precarious at night and in bad weather. With lorries from the nearby quarry travelling hell-for-leather (time is money) down the hill leaving mud all over the road surface, it is a dangerous route: and all the more so now for Mooney's useless car park.

But the fact his car park is not used suits his plans. Why? Well because after his development, it's now a brownfield site, so he can build on it. If his little venture fails, he'll move on to something else - either 'developing ' it himself or selling it on to someone else who will. As local people know, one of the great things about the Hadfield side of Dinting Road is the view from the Station across land which is unfarmed and uncultivated - and therefore very ecologically diverse. Mooney has done his bit to ruin it.

And over the last two weeks, we've seen Mooney in the Chronicle and the Glossop Advertiser again. His latest wheeze is to promote an idea to build a Golf Driving Range adjoining his car park. Jesus Christ! But hang on - didn't he once have the same wheeze about Wimberry Hill, above Hadfield? And there are rumours flying that there's a link up between Mooney and another businessman who made a Cemetery Road in Glossop a muddy deathtrap for weeks owing to earthworks they created for some ill-fated project a few years back.

Reading these articles, you could almost close your eyes and remember the time when Chris Woodward used to occupy the Chronicle virtually every other week. At one point, that charming individual plumbed the depths by using racism - he threatening to allow Gypsies to park on land he owned that HPBC had refused planning permission for. In a similar way, clad in his undertaker's jacket, Mooney is prone to portraying himself as the victim and using the local press at every opportunity. Who knows what depths he'll eventually plumb to keep his Slobodan Milošević-like fizzog in the local rag.

If anything, High Peak BC have not hindered this moron - they have in fact helped him to create this situation in the first place. Why did they allow his car park to be developed? This crew are continually making idiotic decisions about the environment in the area. Where will it end?

Another recent feature penned by David Jones highlights the hazardous nature of Dinting Road to schoolchildren who have to cross it to get to Hadfield School. They have for years - but now the road is recognised as being far more dangerous. All owing to Mooney - and High Peak BC.

But wait - one of those moaning about the road is Andrew Byford. Remember him? Is this the same guy that had his (best left in the loft) ideas for a Glossop Bypass and plugged them in the local papers earlier this year. So he wants less traffic now?

That's the trouble with the 'leading advocates' of this road, like Jones and to a much-lesser Byford (who is also a Neighbourhood Watch coordinator - thank god!) is that they live in a world full of contradictions. They want less traffic and less congestion, but more roads (is there such a thing as a new road that remains unused by traffic?). They want to shout about the special place that Glossop and the High Peak are (or increasingly were), but froth at the mouth with excitement about the plans of developers whose business plans bring nothing to the area that enhances the environment - and on the contrary makes it worse to inhabit.

Do We Need More Housing ?

At the moment Glossop is a construction site. Wherever the humble pedestrian ventures in this erstwhile quiet market town is impeded by building site fencing, dust clouds, and infill building sites which block their way. Not to mention the random removal of mature trees, followed by the obligatory desultory apology, and swift pinning of blame on other parties. Hitherto pleasant open areas to shop such as Smithy Fold and the Bulldog Shopping Precinct (coincidentally prey to an overnight robbery) are all probably being conducted in the name of Glossop Vision.

No doubt the similar vision which brought Glossop the visionary burnt out Wrens Nest apartment block, the pinnacle planning masterpiece that has brought High Peak Borough Council its flagship planning award.

No question what the vision for Glossop is: eradicate its heritage.

More worryingly this is part of a greater "vision", the strategy of that well known "visionary" and "conviction" politician Gordon Brown, to get rid of the country's rural heritage by abolition of the green belt.

There is an enormous threat to the greenbelt and rural beauty of Great Britain which will be detailed in future blogs.

In the meantime let us ruminate in what is happening in Glossop at present and draw this conclusion. The Council and its Planning Department want building and construction action. They are hooked on it more than any junkie on his daily fix. They do not care about pedestrians or the public, as long as they are able to set records for the most number of yellow clad safety jacket operatives in a single market town, and enhance their reputation for so called "regeneration". Currently frustrated by the Bypass impasse and the Green Built ring fence they are concentrating on making the town a pedestrian no go area with obstructive and burnt out flagship planning projects that do not take human factors into account and are therefore doomed from outset. Even their only other toy, Rossington Park is running into trouble, so they are really going for Glossop as the best place to play Meccano, though Rossington Park watchers need to be very alert as well.

But be warned. In our view like irritable children they will get tired with that game of Glossop as building site, and want further action outside the town before long.

Where do they build Travelodges?

If anyone has any doubts that Hadfield is doomed and Oldham & the Highways Agency want a motorway through Longdendale, all they need to do is go to High Peak Borough Council's planning website.

There they will find a planning application (full plans can be downloaded) for a 40-bed Hotel, alongside the point the Glossop Spur is supposed to join the A57. The Hotel will have 120 car parking spaces and measure 1525 square meters in floorspace. It will have 15 employees, and feature a bar and restaurant (both separate, i.e. like a Little Chef or Burger King at Travelodge hotels), and will be open 24 hours a day.

Sound familiar? If you've every visited a Travelodge or similar hotel, this fits the description. And why build such a place? Well, you find them at the end of motorways or alongside major dual carriageways or similarly very busy roads.

What's surprising is that outline planning permission was granted in 1999, and renewed in 2004. The current plan has been under 'consultation' since 6th July this year, and it expires tomorrow, 27th July.

You can object here ('comment on this application' button). Sorry, make that you should if you care about the area and live in and around Hadfield and don't want it to turn into a disaster area. Schemes like this and Rossington Park need to be stopped and/or strangled. If you think the Bypass and Spur are really about alleviating traffic and you know about plans like these (which suggest anything but good intentions), you are dreaming...

Incidentally, the Company proposing the development, Shepherd Developments, belong to the Shepherd Group, who describe themselves as one of the "largest privately owned group(s) in the European building sector". A subsidiary company is Portakabin, no less. No small fish then, in fact a big fish looking for a big pond. To pollute...

Beer Goggles

Anthony McKeown must have had a crate of his namesake brew before last Thursday's Glossopdale Area Forum, because he seemed to have attended a different meeting than some of our correspondents.

Rossington Park finds itself relegated to one paragraph in his latest blog, yet the issue dominated the meeting, with the anger being palpable. Whilst the council officers prattled on about distracting 'trinkets and baubles' such as new bins and playground equipment, they also did all they could to wring to their hands about the whole issue, going on about 'creating jobs' (which the area doesn't need as there's full employment) and being ham strung by planning regs. No one brought a violin.

McKeown was present, but chose to keep quiet (as did other more local councillors present - i.e. Mann and McKeown senior). Now he blames it on the Tories, for not being there. But it's one thing to not bother to turn up (for God's sake, we know they don't give a shit!), and another entirely to do so but keep quiet. The best any councillor could offer was to 'make the sheds (of RP) more in keeping with the environment' - yes, it was bloody Ivan Bell! He meant that they should be painted a different colour, but this individual means to split the campaign against Rossington Park, as we've noted before. 'Making them more in keeping with the environment' would mean levelling them. Amen to that!

And there was also plenty of talk of increased traffic in Hadfield. One or two made the link with RP, but how many others have seen the statistics about the predicted traffic increases when the bypass/spur comes online? People in Hadfield are currently looking down the barrel of a gun, and it's time to act before it's too late. It will be too late when the Bypass is built.

Showdown

Following on from our last post, we're genuinely excited by another of Councillor McKeown's blogs today. He announces that Thursday's Glossopdale Area Forum meeting (7.00 p.m. Glossopdale Community College, Newshaw Lane) is all about 'Regenerating Hadfield'. Since the current policies of HPBC vis-a-vis Rossington Park are all about degenerating Hadfield, and because hundreds of people in the area are very pissed off, this should be a meeting worth attending to watch the shit hit the fan.

Having your cake and eating it

Older (or should that read 'weary'?) readers of this weblog will remember that amongst our first posts was an attempt to have a dialogue with a Glossop Councillor, Anthony McKeown, about High Peak Borough Council's decision to support the bypass. This fell flat on its face, largely because he refused to allow 'anonymous' comments on his blog (although that doesn't seem to have stopped certain Longdendale Councillors...).

But after months of tedious posts about things that are mostly only of interest to himself, he has now given us something to go on. Today, he reveals that HPBC are steamed up because the National Grid want to use the remaining accessible tunnel at Woodhead to carry electric cables, thereby putting it beyond other uses. His conclusion is that we should all support HPBC:

"...the proposals should not be supported and instead referred to the relevant government office where hopefully the proposals can be stopped or at (word missing Ant!) amended to prevent the loss of this potential future transport route"

How ironic. This is the same lot who fully support the bypass, and join TMBC in pouring scorn on existing alternative proposals to re-use the Woodhead railway line and tunnel to relieve Longdendale of HGVs. So how long do we have to wait for future use of the tunnel? Are HPBC and their councillors lobbying government for sustainable & environmentally friendly alternatives to more roads and more cars? If you've got a point of view, pop over to this post and leave a comment (and remember, any old name will do as long as it's not a nickname...)

From the horses mouth

The Bypass promoters Proofs of Evidence have now been uploaded to the Persona Website, and there'a a lot of stuff to look at.

But we've spotted an interesting nugget in there already. In their Proof of Evidence (situated rather tellingly amongst TMBC's documents) High Peak Borough Council's Head of Planning and Development, Adrian Fisher, states rather blatantly the Council's position on the inter-related nature of the Bypass, Glossop Spur & Rossington Park. All in one paragraph (4.8), but here it is verbatim:

In the 1998 High Peak Local plan a large strategic employment site
was allocated at Etherow Park (now Rossington Park) off Wooley
Bridge Road in Hadfield. The Plan makes it clear that the planned
construction of the Bypass and spur would add to the attractiveness of
this site for investment and so was a significant factor in its allocation.
Following considerable new infrastructure Rossington Park is only now
fully coming on stream and the prospect of the bypass being completed
remains an important feature of local investment decisions.

The message to those opposing the Road & Rossington Park is clear - they are effectively part of the same plan, but the growth of Rossington Park (& no doubt similar developments) is dependent upon the bypass & spur being built. Without the bypass & spur, it cannot get any worse and may in fact wither away.

Our friend Councillor Ivan Bell has tried to put himself at the head of the campaign opposing Rossington Park, but in a recent letter to the Advertiser, the best he is able to offer now is that some of the existing monstrosities will be 'painted green' (Greenwash indeed) alongside making a call for everyone to go away now and leave it to the Councillors. But the Council and the Councillors are the reason we have this mess in the first place. Thanks Ivan, but we can get along fine without you...