21 July 2026
I object to this application. I have recently moved to Buxton and was aware of this development and am supportive of regeneration. However having viewed the previous consultation online this application has departed too far from the original plan. My objections are as follows 1) The development is now 332 apartments - this is over development on a constrained area. This is not what was consulted on. The apartments are all rental and I see little reference to affordability. Many are single person apartments but have limited facility for storage etc for people with disabilities. Regeneration should be about giving people a step up not pulling the ladder from underneath them by requiring high rents which prevents them ultimately from saving to buy there own place. 2) The development is not in keeping with the architecture of the local area. In my opinion it should be in keeping with nearby conservation areas. Whilst acknowledging it may be personal taste it is also ugly and looks very much like all the other capital and centric developments as such it is not tailored to Buxton. I do not understand why other developers are required to make buildings more in keeping yet this is supported when it is clearly not. The height of the buildings will impact the skyline view and again impinge on nearby conservation areas. The developer should not be allowed to have large signage on the sides of buildings. 3) There does not appear to be any impact assessments in terms of the local economy. There are already vacant shops and there doesnt appear to be any reference as to what may happen if commercial spaces remain unfilled or indeed why new ones are to be built - surely regeneration should regenerate. I cannot see any consultation with local businesses. 4) Buxton is a place that tourists visit it is also a place that sadly the transport infrastructure is a little lacking - cars are required and as such parking - the parking provision is inadequate - the proposed mitigation is also not definite and remains inadequate. If regeneration is the aim then it seems to me that either the infrastructure needs improvement or parking has to be integral. Equally residents in the apartments will have cars - a season ticket to Manchester is almost £4K per annum - the journey is around an hour by train - Sheffield is an hour away - it is disingenuous of the developer to mask the real lack of transport infrastructure. 5) There appears to be viability concerns, potential concerns about flooding and gaps in funding - there is no reference to contingency plans or plans if units are unoccupied. [Page 2] 6) There is minimal reference to any contribution that the developer will make to schools, community facilities etc but there will be around 800 people living in the apartments if they are successfully let. My understanding is that some of the money for this development is public money as such I think there should be more evidence of the benefits of this application beyond a heavily curated social media platform that tells you nothing other than a developers viewpoint. I could support this application if the buildings were more sympathetic to the local area and the development was smaller. Equally I think the public money maybe better spent enhancing what already exists . If the planning authority is minded to pass this application then I think there should be strict conditions. The buildings should be more in keeping with the conservation areas, the parking should be sorted prior to construction, the construction should be phased, there should be impact assessments and a clear transparent public conversation about contingency plans if the development is not let to its full potential.