January 2026 Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of High Lane Residents’ Association

Date: 8th January 2026                                                                                                                        Time: 8pm

Venue: High Lane Library

Present: Caroline Smith; David Burks; John Baker; Darrell Williams; Barry and Angie Sequeira; Sue Forrester; Lisa Robinson-Hall and Richard Jones (HLVNF)

Apologies: Eryl Hughes

1.  Welcome given by Caroline Smith and a thank you to everyone for attending on such an inclement evening.

2.  Minutes of the last meeting – approved.

3.  Police and Crime Report – no police presence at the meeting.

4. Update on Stockport Local Plan – Caroline asked Richard to provide the meeting with an update on the Stockport Local Plan consultation and associated planning issues as follows:

The first consultation (regulation 18) closed on 21st December 2025 and we had some very good responses in the region of 500 (hard copies and downloaded copies from SMBC website) which could hopefully make a difference. On top of that, Disley Council have also submitted their own response, which is a very strong rejection mostly on the grounds of the impact that it will have on transport within Disley so I think we've done everything we can for now.

The Neighbourhood Forum had a pre-meeting with SMBC planning at the beginning of November and they said that their timescales were for a review in January/February as there is obviously a great deal of information to look at and consolidate. Then I think in March/April there will be review by various scrutiny committees and HLVNF will be informed of that, giving the opportunity to lobby our councillors. Until then the councillors must remain neutral and are unable to comment.

The second consultation (regulation 19) would take place probably in June/July and following on from that, an examination from a government planning inspector, which would take place about October time. Then it will be submitted to the government once any technical errors that the examiners may have picked up have been corrected and then to the final public examination in the spring of 2027 and the anticipation is it'll be adopted in late 2027. But the key thing is that the council, with the letter of direction that they got from the housing minister, must complete and submit by November 2026 otherwise they'll be judged to be in default. The next step for us, once we hear that the application is going to be reviewed by the scrutiny committees, is to obviously engage with our councillors to obtain their views and support them with any further questions.

Q.Can we find out who's on that committee?

A. Yes I think Cllr Shan Alexander is certainly on one of the committees so she would be a primary contact for us.

HLVNF received over 100 responses to our questionnaires stating people's preferences and what we understand from the consultation event that was held here at the library, the key question that was asked of everybody was, "How many houses would you accept?" I think the very loud answer was generally "None". The questionnaire responses we received show that 79.5% of people have said that they would accept between 0 and 100, which is a very strong direction to be shared with our councillors - we're not saying zero homes - yes there has to be some development but it should be much more proportionate.

Q. I assume the council will be looking at the whole of Stockport?

A. Yes. The councillors, in the round, will be representing the different wards but our 3 councillors will be able to make a strong case that 1000 homes is disproportionate and having seen the grey belt map, there are other places to build houses.

WSP [one of the major UK consultancies] produced a report that stated – on average for the whole of the Stockport housing increment – traffic flow would be slowed down by as much as 50%. The problem is they haven’t been very transparent because some of the most important information is hard to find and in fact it’s not even listed as one of the key supporting documents.

Q. If a speculative development [for instance 250 new builds] goes to the government and is passed, would that affect the quantity of new homes that SMBC have been asked to provide [1000] by reducing that amount by 250?

A. It depends on how the SMBC approach it. Because they've only allocated 80% of the target they're hopeful that that will get approved and accepted as sufficient. The developers are obviously thinking there’s 20% that hasn’t been allocated and I think that's what they're doing through their speculative planning proposal but HLVNF’s advice on this is until there's a proper planning submission made, then it is just speculation and we're advising people not to engage because they will use any engagement to their own ends.

Regarding the Persimmon proposal, HLVNF have been contacted by Marple Civic group saying they're very concerned about the potential of that development on traffic in Marple so they want to talk to us and we've suggested that they attend our end-of-January meeting. They've already written to the council strongly objecting to the development so we’re gaining support from other people.

But on those speculative developments, developers will look at the fact that SMBC is 20% short of its target and use that as an excuse for putting in an application. I think SMBC's approach to that will be to wait until the plan has gone through scrutiny and has been reviewed before they decide whether they need to allocate more but it does leave a window of opportunity for more development and unfortunately the developers will exploit this.

David commented that it might be nice for SMBC to make it absolutely clear to potential developers that the commuted sum [a single, upfront payment made to cover future maintenance or obligations often by a developer to a local authority for adopted infrastructure like roads, streetlights, etc.] cannot be reduced if the developer/builder finds the sum to be uneconomical. That will force developers to consider if this is an economic proposition for them to build or not.

Richard continued to say that one of the few changes to the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) that was slightly positive was that it has strengthened the council's ability to impose infrastructure and development costs on developers, meaning less wriggle room for developers than there was but it hasn't really been fully tested because it's new. That was one of our arguments, that if you're going to build anything in a rural area then you need the infrastructure — which we haven't got — which is why we would say that most, if not all, of the houses should be allocated to urban areas.

A resident asked if anybody had seen the BBC website post about a development in Somerset for plans for 180 homes to be built on a field, which a Somerset councillor described as one of the best fields in the county. Persimmon Homes have been given the green light to start building in spring and the first to be occupied by 2026. 50 are classed as affordable housing. Persimmon's have promised to provide £84,000 to new school places; £180,000 towards transport and £80,000 for local GP services.

Richard agreed that a lot of money needs to be provided. This gives SMBC a stronger position to make infrastructure funding more mandatory . It would be easier if the allocation was for 100 homes or fewer, reducing concerns. Development plans often involve speculation about future needs, like extra allocations over the next 10 to 20 years.

A resident told the meeting that Quinns have been holding land at the rear of her property for 20 years with ongoing speculation whenever new developments arise [land banking]. It was thought that developers sometimes seek planning permission just to increase land value and sell for profit without building. Richard was hopeful that by March or April, after scrutiny, we'll get feedback on whether we've influenced the plan's allocation and said that it was notable that SMBC planning came here and held a meeting where much of the discussion was about what would be acceptable. It wasn't an all-or-nothing situation. So, he believes there's some room for negotiation, and gets that impression from the councillors—it’s about what we can reduce it to.

A BBC programme was mentioned which explained why the government has to set this target for themselves because it's almost certain to fail. However, in the process of failing, it might result in building homes that aren't needed in locations where no one wants them. This could resemble the situation they had in Ireland some years ago with ghost developments—people built 100 homes that were never occupied, and eventually the land was abandoned.

A resident asked what is meant by the scrutiny period between March and April? Richard replied that it's just the different committees the planning process has to pass through. For example, it goes through the planning committee, and after various planning stages, it has to go to the full council.

Q. Will they be considering our submissions?

A. Yes. The council have to review all the submissions. They have to process all that information and create a summary for the entire Stockport area and for each specific area. After that is done by February, they can share it with the councillors, who will then review and consider it. We’ll have to wait and see, but we’re hopeful that by the end of April, we will know if there has been any change, and hopefully, how significant that change is.

Richard continued to say that thanks to generous funding, HLRA hope to hold another event before the reg 19 consultation in June or July, giving people another chance to influence the process once we know our position. The committees include councillors from various areas, though not all may be directly responsible for our concerns. Once proposals are made, we'll receive feedback and can respond accordingly, likely around Easter. We'll also seek another meeting with SMBC to hear their views. Meanwhile, there's little to do except gather useful information, like the WSP report, to support our case against developments such as the Hazel High Lane project, especially when councillors and inspectors oppose it.

In the meantime it would be helpful to find examples where similar rural villages successfully opposed developments through their councils and inspectors. We have some examples but more would strengthen our case to argue that this isn’t the right place for development, despite any changes made.

Having a major road running through the village is unusual and both a weakness and strength. Many would think a village with a trunk road [Editor: the A6 through High Lane is actually a primary road, not a trunk road; it was detrunked in 2002] is suitable for development, but heavy congestion actually argues against it. Councillors agree that transport issues are a strong reason to oppose development. For example, installing staggered  traffic lights on the A6 would worsen travel times significantly, and add to the congestion on the A6.

We have strong arguments but need to stay alert for other rural villages that have successfully challenged grey belt developments. Having precedents helps us argue why building here is unjustified. The grey belt policy is confusing and poorly understood and challenging its principles is difficult since the government seems set on their decision. A better approach is to highlight the lack of infrastructure and transport problems in building so many homes here, especially when there are at least eight other nearby locations with similar or lower-rated grey belts that could accommodate new homes with proper infrastructure.

Also, the documents from Stockport Council were poorly handled, with decisions hidden from the consultation process on how the sites were allocated. The green belt assessment mentioned an overlay, and since 25 out of 27 sites had development proposals, I assume the overlay means they accepted existing plans, which seems like the easiest option rather than a rational one. Changing green belt land to grey belt then causes surrounding land to degrade similarly, which many see as anti-rural policy pushing development into countryside areas. The strategy is unsustainable, prioritising rural development over urban development. We can only keep trying and hope for cases where rural communities successfully oppose such developments, as that sets strong precedents.

Richard finished by saying that it's been a big community effort with many responses, and hopefully, it will influence the plan and thanked everyone for their support.

5. Finances

The HLRA General account

The opening balance for the HLRA General account at the beginning of December 2025 (taking rounding into account) was £ 3,552

Income

During December, the income was:

One individual subscriptions of                                                £ 10

An Individual donation of                                                       £ 100

A donation from the War Memorial Fund to go towards

the High Lane Park Gym Equipment project of                     £ 500

Giving an income Total of   £610 

Expenditure

The expenditure during December was

Expenses incurred for maintaining the village flower planters 

£   51

The IONOS Website Licensing charge

£    9

The Lloyds Bank account charge

£   10

The transfer of the donations to the Project Fund

£ 600

For December, our Total Expenditure was £ 670

The Account balances now are                 

General account                         £3,492                                                                                                          

HLRA Project Account               £3,537

HLRA Total Amount                    £7,029

 

The War Memorial Account provided by Barry.

1st November

Balance

£2,108

Paid In

 Nov £42
  Dec £62
Paid Out Wreath £20
  Village Signs £192
  Gym equipment £500
31st December Balance £1,500

5.  Planning applications provided by Eryl

a. Windlehurst Hall    DC/ 097403 - 4 Birch Trees crown lift to 5 metres. Oak tree fell suppressed by a larger Oak tree; 3 Willow trees fell due to risk of breaking. Willow tree remove broken limb; Willow tree fell leaning due to storm; Ash sapling fell Ash dieback; 3 Ash trees fell significant sign of disease; 2 Ash saplings signs of disease fell risk over path; Ash group disease and risk as being over road to hall; Ash saplings disease risk over road to hall; Ash tree disease over path to the hall; Ash tree disease risk to public over footpath.

One for Stockport tree officer, OFN

b. Persimmon DC/ 097770 Residential development for up to 250 dwellings with associated access open space, landscaping, biodiversity - Pegasus Group on behalf of Persimmon Homes N. West. As far as I can tell from the map it is the land approximately between  Andrew Lane and Batesons trailers. Two large fields which are agricultural land (I seem to remember sheep being grazed, and hay being grown and cut). There appears to be two accesses - one approximately opposite Torkington Lane and one appears to be in the region of the row of terraced cottages. It is on the hill and a bend not far from the turning to Andrew Lane. Does not seem to be the safest place. The footpath from Bancroft Bridge (by the hall) to Windlehurst to be a cycle way. Comes out opposite the stables. Again not the safest place, limited view, close to the brow of the hill. The details can be viewed by going to Stockport MBC, planning applications, click Weekly/Monthly, in the box scroll down to Marple South  and High Lane, the date is 15 Dec the application should be listed.

6.  Outdoor Gym

Caroline reported that we're very close to completing the project, with a total cost of £10,921 to move and install eight pieces of equipment donated from a school. We hoped installation would be simpler, but due to groundwork needed, we're just under £1,000 short. David has been working hard to raise funds, and we've received generous donations from the village. If we can't raise the full amount, we might install fewer pieces, but we aim to get all eight in.

The Residents' Association will contribute £1,500 to the gym fund, leaving some money in their account for other needs. We're still seeking that final £1,000 and welcome any ideas or donations. The gym will include equipment for disabled users and promote gentle exercise and socialising, especially for older people.

Transporting the equipment is costing around £1,500, and we're asking local councillors and businesses for support. We hope to have the gym installed by spring. The equipment is currently in storage, and once moved, we’ll proceed with installation. If funds fall short, we may reduce the number of pieces, but the gym will remain a valuable community asset.

7.  A.O.B.

  • Car Parking Charges. From Louise Crowder, Head of Thriving Neighbourhoods, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council:

Details of the go-live dates and affected sites are published on our website, https://www.stockport.gov.uk/free-car-parks-that-are-becoming-charged-in-2026. To support residents who do not have reasonable on-street alternatives, a limited number of resident permits will be available for nearby properties. The full eligibility criteria and conditions are set out here:

Residents can apply online using our form:

The main Parking permits page also summarises permit types, costs and guidance:

The full list and dates are on the “Free car parks that are becoming charged in 2026” page:

Resident permits are intended for properties within a defined radius of the car park without off‑street parking or suitable on‑street options; permits are one per property and tied to a specific vehicle:

Applicants will need proof of vehicle ownership and proof of address (the online form explains accepted documents).

If residents need help or have questions about availability, they can contact the Parking team via the details on the eligibility page:

We will continue to monitor occupancy, feedback and impacts in the early weeks and will keep you updated so you can reassure constituents. If you have ward specific queries, please send them through and the team will respond promptly.

  • From Eryl Hughes: Gym update

A couple of days before Christmas I received a cheque for £500 towards the gym project.
The generous donation was from the War Memorial Fund. We are very grateful  that they thought about the project and we thank them for their kindness.

  • Parking on footpaths

A resident reported cars blocking footpaths, especially on Terrace Road [sp?] and Andrew Lane. Some vehicles are parking on the pavement, forcing pedestrians, including those with prams, to walk on the road. It’s unclear who enforces footpath parking—police or council but complaints are increasing and it’s a problem in some areas where cars block the entire footpath. It was suggested sending photographs (but obscure the number plates) to the council so they can be notified and hopefully address the issue. Caroline said she would enquire who was responsible for illegal parking.

  • Fly tipping

A resident reported an incident of fly tipping on the canal bank heading towards Poynton just past The Bull's Head. It was thought that a property on Cromley Road is being renovated and the rubbish has been tipped over the end of the garden onto the canal bank. It was discussed as to whether the canal bank belongs to the Canal and River Trust or the council. The resident in question lives on Cromley Road and will look at the deeds.

  • Sainsbury's

The front of the car park which had been planted up with trees and shrubs hasn’t been maintained since it was built. This was promised by the manager who has now left and operators didn't replace the trees properly after work on cables. The area is now overgrown and poorly maintained and people take shortcuts and trample over the planted area. Caroline would try and make contact with the new manager.

 

The next HLRA meeting is on Thursday 5th February 2026 at 8pm in High Lane Library