In attendance:
- Dai Larner, HPBC
- Roddie Maclean BTT and VB
- Kevin Skingsley, Higher Buxton Action Group (HBAG) Business Rep
- Geraldine Gill, Local Residents Rep
- Dick Silson, Buxton Neighbourhood Plan Project (BTT)
Background
1. The meeting had been called due to the level of disquiet expressed over HPBC’s application for redevelopment of the former depot site. Kevin has established a community action group to opposed the scheme. Roddie had submitted objections. Buxton TT, Buxton Markets Company and BCA have all made representations, along with many individuals. A number of statutory consultees have registered objections to the PA.
BTT has initiated a proposal for a Neighbourhood Plan for Buxton. That exercise is seen as having the potential to contribute to the design quality and sustainability aspects of the scheme. However that depends on the time scale for determining the application, currently intended to be Feb / Mar 19.
2. There are two main sources of concern.
(i) the poor quality of the proposals, especially the loss of public car parking, the mature tree on market Street and the existing Victorian buildings that have been allowed to fall into disrepair.
(ii) a perceived ‘under the radar’ approach of the council, with lack of engagement with the community, minimum (statutory) notification, and inadequate or missing technical information to support the application, including statutory information requirements to consultees.
The meeting discussed both these aspects at length.
Specific Issues
4. The question of a mixed use scheme was raised. Dai confirmed that there is no prospect of this as the site is allocated for housing in the fully adopted HPBC Local Plan which was an exhaustive and prolonged process. While it would be open to a Neighbourhood Plan to produce evidence and arguments for alternative sites / alternative uses for identified sites the time scale for that exercise is 18 months, which is wholly outside the intended timescale for the application.
5. The loss of car parking is a major issue. The LP states that redevelopment of the site will not involve a reduction on parking spaces. This reflects the importance of convenient parking to serve shops and eateries / pubs in Higher Buxton. Support for the local economy of Higher Buxton is a stated objective of both BTT and the HPBC. The Council’s position is that many policies of the Local Plan conflict when looking at specific sites. This requires priories to be established. In effect some objectives are abandoned in order to deliver what are seen as the overriding ones.
6. The Council’s priority for this site is its financial viability and attractiveness to the market.
HPBC has been advised that small family homes are the only type of accommodation that will appeal to the market. That was questioned and is intended to be tested by the opponents of the scheme through structured consultation with local estate agents.
7. The main consequence of prioritising the deliverability of the scheme was the decision to seek a higher number of dwellings than that stated in the local plan. There is no objection to this in principle, indeed higher density, and better urban design quality, would be possible with a more varied product mix. However, the decision to restrict the scheme to small family homes with individual gardens and private parking spaces ( a standard sub-urban form of housing layout ) results in inefficient use of space. Combined with the additional 16 dwellings proposed that leads inevitably to the consequent loss of public car parking. The remodelled proposed public CP is also chronically inefficient in terms of space as it has one access lane to serve one row of vehicles. Parking ideas are further considered below.
8. The retention of the existing buildings was discussed. The council’s position is that it is easier to build out the site and to manage the affordable housing if it is all new build. The counter view was put that the 5 existing buildings could be converted to 11 flats, a net gain of 5 units over the 6 houses proposed on the same footprint. Private builders have expressed a possible interest to the Action Group for taking on this conversion. This is being actively pursued. (KS)
9. The points made by the objectors were acknowledged as valid. However they were discounted by HPBC because of the overriding concern to deliver a scheme that met the developers’ expressed view of the market. Unfortunately that view will almost certainly coincide with a scheme that holds out the optimum chance of minimising risk and maximising the profit from the scheme.
10. The point was made that the purpose of the planning system is to balance this acknowledged commercial consideration for the developer with full the range of social and environmental concerns expressed in the adopted Local Plan. That proposition was not disputed. At the moment there is no evidence as to how / whether that has been done.
Outcomes
11. It was agreed that the meeting had been useful, and it was acknowledged that such meetings are limited in number and duration due to pressures on staff resources. The Group offered to provide resources to aid improvements to the scheme. These included research / market testing on accommodation types, design and layout configuration, exploring local commercial interest in taking on parts of the site, interest from RSL’s disposition of private / shared open space within the site and further parking ideas.
12. The aim of this would be to help produce a scheme that meets the requirements of the council identified as
- a significant number of dwellings, ( target 40 )
- development of a brown field site
- appropriate affordable housing
- capable of attracting commercial interest from the development industry
- a financial return to the council ( a requirement of treasury rules for the disposal of a publicly owned asset ).
13. At the same time it would aim to produce a scheme that created a pleasant, attractive residential development, appropriate to the character the location, well connected to the surrounding area, and retaining the existing buildings, the one tree adjoining the site and the highly valued public car parking capacity as far as possible.
14. Consultation on the PA via the Portal has closed, but Dai assured us that representations emailed to the Case officer, Ben Haywood, (ben.haywood@highpeak.gov.uk) would be fully considered.