Tracking the Midhope moor case – Peak District

 

Long-term readers of this blog may remember this case in the Peak District National Park from May 2016.

This track was constructed in 2015 without planning permission but funded by Natural England despite it being in an SPA, SAC and SSSI.

In 2016 the estate applied for retrospective planning permission and over 180 of us objected to the application which was then deemed invalid and withdrawn.

In late 2016 we were told that this was now an ‘enforcement matter’ and therefore not in the public domain.

As I understand it, in 2016/17 the decision was made to proceed with enforcement action but it seems that little was done and the track is currently looking really good as you can see below…

The National Park, being the Planning Authority, has until January 2019 to start enforcement action but the land owner has now submitted a new planning application. The 180 comments on the previous planning application (the retrospective invalid planning application) are not deemed valid for this application.  So we have to start all over again – do you feel that the system is vastly weighted against us?

Rather wonderfully though, local campaigners have set up a Facebook page, Protect Midhope Moor and Mickleden,  which will help you craft your objection to this damaging, public-funded track to a row of grouse butts which our National Park Authority has, so far, failed to enforce.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Likes(54)Dislikes(1)
Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

7 Comments

  1. Weavers says:

    Are they your pictures, Mark? I wondered if you'd been up there recently or plan to go. It'd be good to meet on the hill and have a chat one day.

    Likes(4)Dislikes(0)
  2. Lyn Ebbs says:

    According to Mark Carwadine in the March edition of BBC Wildlife, none of ours actually meets the IUCN standards for a national park. They belong in the category 'protected area' managed mainly for landscape and recreation. Wildlife and habitats just don't come into the equation.

    Likes(3)Dislikes(0)
  3. nimby says:

    If the estate is in receipt of public funding then it is not unreasonable that they deliver public benefit and the images do not portray that, IMHO.

    Other members of society have to comply with laws and regulations, why are estate owners any different?

    If the LA or NE are to enforce then we should get behind them and assist. Conversely if they fail then we need to challenge?

    If there is a 'Management Plan' of sorts then given NEs past performance there needs to be evaluation through independent assessment, sadly there is little if any confidence in the NDPB.

    It would be good to take up Weavers offer and all meet up on the hill, methinks there would be some interesting chats but the reality would remain, that is to say the site & others, continue to be degraded by infrastructure development(s) sought by shooting estates?

    Likes(5)Dislikes(0)
    • nimby says:

      OK I wonder if I wasn't too charitable about NE, just read their recent documents available on the LPAs website. Oh dear, they are not going to come out of this very well are they?

      There are also some local representations which offer contra statements to those of the developers and their supporters.

      This latest application for RETROSPECTIVE planning was validated on 09 February, so 21 days makes representation deadline 01 March?

      Anyone know the value of the HLS arrangement & how shooting estates deliver tangible public benefits to justify public funds? These photographs evidence damage not the restoration the applicants agents claim?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  4. nimby says:

    Just wondering Ernest Moss (May 7 2016) commented thus:

    Good point Paul - and the fact that the applicants are applying for retrospective planning permission implies that they also did not consult with NE first. If that is the case then the SSSI management conditions will have been breached and the owners should have been issued with a Cross Compliance penalty. As this would clearly constitute an intentional breach of the management conditions, then one would expect the financial penalty to be in the region of 10-15% of the applicants combined Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 payments. Last year Wakefield Farms Ltd received £288,549.94 in subsidy payments. The RPA should be contacted to see what deductions have been made, and if not, why not?

    Does anyone know if RPA were contacted and if any action was taken to investigate and perhaps recover public funds?

    Likes(1)Dislikes(0)
  5. T Willis says:

    Thanks for this Mark. I was one of those who objected previously so was particularly interested in this update. How frustrating that those original objections are being disregarded. I'll have to see if I can access my previous submission.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Leave Your Comment

Your email will not be published or shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.