16 July 2026
Hello I support the application in some respects, object to it in others, have cautions on others, and some observations, as follows: I support the use of the land to provide housing, certainly in preference to use of agricultural and other green space. It is centrally located so minimises travel to town facilities, has the necessary utilities leading to it, and is convenient for public transport. I have cautions about how realistic occupancy of, and income from, retail and residential units is. I have strong concerns that the councils should not be exposed to financial risk should the occupancy or income be lower than expected. If C&C are to benefit from any success, they should also bear the risk. There is prior "form" here with The Crescent where similar happened on a smaller scale. I question whether there is the demand for the residential short terms rental sector which is already well provided for, and certainly note the lack of evidence for residential properties at the proposed price point. I suspect the proposed price point is more to do with the council wanting to keep out tenants who would claim Council Tax Rebate, which would be valid if there acutally is that demand, but something of a major financial risk if there isn't and the residential units lose effective council tax income or remain empty. However I acknowledge national policies to increase house building and that this somewhat forces the provision of such and would welcome housing at an affordable level, especially if it could be prioritised for local people. I am not convinced there is demand for the commercial units. [Page 2] Other cautions include how the proposal was imposed without any reference to the Local Plan, which is supposed to be the authorative over-arching statement of planning. Not only did it not feature in the Local Plan, the Local Plan itself was supposed to be in active consultation review, but that seems to have been quietly dropped. This isn't assisting with public engagement. A timely caution should also be exercised given the impending restructure of local government. There needs to be a clear plan for accountability, responsibilities, and LG occupancy during and after such a major change. I object on the basis that the application does not resolve existing road transport capacity problems. particularly given the extensive heavy quarry traffic, and will make the capacity issue even worse. I appreciate that the ideal solution of a town bypass is out of scope, but there would be opportunities to improve road connections from the A6 Bakewell Road, A6 Fairfield Hill, A5004 Long Hill and A53 Leek Road, and Terrace Road. I object again on the lack of parking. This is already at capacity with one car per adult, multiple cars per household. Whilst the drivers (no pun intended) for this are out of scope for the application, it does limit the tourism sector essential for the local economy. The current levels of parking need to be maintained, in addition to parking for at least one vehicle per accomodation or business unit. The emphasis on rail travel is out of proportion to demand. I am not convinced that there is a demand for business units, or which there are many already in the town. Bricks & mortar business are largely dead in the internet age. Suggesting an upmarket approach has been tried in the past but never garnered sufficient or long term customer support, and opens up claims of gentrification. I appreciate that C&C are only interested in generating revenue from the residential units and would want to minimise the cost of providing the development by providing a cheap generic solution. Whilst the existing "Springs" development is an eyesore out of keeping with the rest of the area, the proposal has all the lack of aesthetic charm of the Manchester Hulme Crescents. In summary? Great for affordable residential housing, terrible for road capacity and parking, but with major financial risk for the authority should the demand for the development be less that proposed and largely unevidenced. Thank you. [Page 3]