Date not provided
I request that the application be called in by MHCLG on the grounds that High Peak Council should not be both LPA and owner of the land to be developed. No Chinese wall could be high enough. Those determining the application may be deemed to have a vested interest in the development proceeding, and I object to the application on the following grounds - Affordable Housing - if the Applicant is unable/unwilling to meet the Council's aspirations of providing 30% affordable units on site and ensure a deliverable, high quality, mixed-use scheme in line with the desire for comprehensive regeneration of the site, then the Council should either reprocure the developer, drop its asking price for the land, or both. Residential units - it is understood the developers initial proposals, and the one upon which it took to community consultation, comprised 74 units; now 332 units are proposed. Did the architect confuse Imperial for Metric? If not, then such a huge increase in numbers surely requires the application to go out for community consultation again. Parking provision - it is understood there are currently c400 cps within the red line boundary of the development site, this to be reduced to 264, whilst building 332 more residential units; a woeful under provision of car parking. The proximity of the railway station is excellent should residents of the new residential units want/need to go to and/or commute to Stockport or Manchester, but of no use should their desired destination be Bakewell, Chesterfield, Leek, Congleton, or Macclesfield. Climate change - what provision is made in the proposed construction techniques to accommodate increasingly hot weather, i.e. bris solei, shutters, passive ventilation, air conditioning, grey water recycling, pv/solar panels, air heat pumps etc? [Page 2] Nutrient neutrality - can the River Wye waste water treatment plant cope with the increase in waste water?