ANOTHER THREAT TO THIS GREEN AND PLEASANT LAND

pansyface

OK,  this is nothing to do with gardening, it’s about new planning laws in England, so if you aren’t interested in that please save yourself some time and don’t read further.

Tell me, what is the difference between:

An office building with working hours 9-5 and a restaurant open until 11pm?
An office building open 5 days a week and a restaurant open 7 days a week?
An office building employing 6 people and a restaurant employing 12 people?
A parking allocation of 8 spaces for 6 and an allocation of 8 spaces for up to 120?
An office with a coffee making area and a restaurant with a flue for kitchen pong?
An office that has no nighttime lighting and a restaurant blazing away until 24.00?
An office with no deliveries and a restaurant with out of hours deliveries?
An office with no noisy recycling bin collection and a restaurant with several?
An office with no food takeaway service and a restaurant with one?
An office with no external seating for 60 people and a restaurant with that?

According to the planning laws brought in last year, there is no difference at all.

And so, the old station building on the Monsal Trail near Bakewell, which was a silent, odourless, 9-5, 5 day a week listed building housing six office workers is going to become a noisy, stinking, lit up like a funfair until nearly midnight, 7 days and nights a week, litter-creating, rat-encouraging restaurant.

The people who live around it have no recourse to object to the change of use. The can only object to the addition of an enormous “Jet” metal kitchen flue, stuck on the side of a listed building. 

Any other complaints, about the light pollution, the lack of parking, the noise of slamming car doors late at night, the noise of people seated on the Monsal Trail, the litter from the takeaway window, the increase in rat numbers, the lack of any provision for public loos and the smell and noise from the flue can only be recorded in an effort to modify the plans.

The man who has put in the application owns many many properties in Derbyshire and has, no doubt, got expensive lawyers to help him.  The residents have none of these things.

If you have ever visited the Monsal Trail, ever enjoyed its green corridor away from urban features, please consider registering an objection to this monstrosity, at least to get it modified.

There are two application numbers. One is to object to the kitchen flue on a listed building. There is a box at the bottom of the page for you to enter your objection.

https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/result/YToyOntzOjE0OiJPYmplY3RfVHlwZV9JRCI7czoxOiI3IjtzOjE2OiJPYmplY3RfUmVmZXJlbmNlIjtzOjE2OiJOUC9EREQvMDcyMS8wODQyIjt9

One is to object to all the other dreadful things that the restaurant will bring.

https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/result/YToyOntzOjE0OiJPYmplY3RfVHlwZV9JRCI7czoxOiI3IjtzOjE2OiJPYmplY3RfUmVmZXJlbmNlIjtzOjE2OiJOUC9EREQvMDcyMS8wODM3Ijt9

Thank you for reading this.

KT53

Just reading the list of differences made it obvious that the second situation in each list is far more disruptive to people in the area than the current limitations.  I accept that planning probably did need overhauling, but this seems very much a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

pansyface

It is telling that an email sent to the local MP has so far been met with a deafening silence.

wild edges

To clarify this for people: Planning policy used to lump the use of land or buildings into various Classes (A, B, C and D, with a 'doesn't fit the others clause' to pick up everything else). Within those classes there were also sub classes A1, A2 etc and to move a property between classes and sub-classes required planning approval for the most part. English Planning law has been changed to lump a load of classes together with the basic intention of making it easier to keep high streets and town centres vibrant, rather than properties staying empty while planning applications were dealt with. It basically widdles all over the carefully researched local development plans to try and buffer businesses from 'economic turmoil' which I'm sure has nothing to do with the Brexit shambles...

pansyface

Whatever it does, the end result is misery for local people like us. There already is a parking crisis round the proposed restaurant area. The local MP has been out and made tutting noises. The Highways people couldn’t care less. The town councillors (bar one) haven’t paid a visit.  The planners don’t live locally. The locals are on their own.

And that’s just the effect on parking. Noise, litter, light pollution, using the bushes as a lavatory when the two measly loos are upstairs for seated customers only, the rats from the litter, the crashing of glass recycling in the early hours of the morning. 

Nobody took that into account when some bright spark lumped A with B with C with D.

Vibrant is maybe OK for town centres. Nobody comes to live in the Peak District for Vibrant.

wild edges

It seems like a poorly considered bit of legislation. Luckily it seems to have been rejected in Wales. We fought to stop a house in our street being changed into a care home for delinquent teenagers based on use class. Planners, Highways and Social Services all fought to get it through but the local councillors sided with us thankfully. We had a solid case against it and this was all being ignored in favour of inter-council back rubbing.