High Lane Residents' Association

Minutes of the meeting of High Lane Residents’ Association

Date: Thursday 1^st October 2026                                                                                                      Time: 8pm

Venue: High Lane Library

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

Apologies: Eryl Hughes; Cllr Shan Alexander and Cllr Dominic Warner

1.  Welcome given by Caroline Smith. Caroline welcomed attendees and noted that others might arrive shortly. Richard attended on behalf of the Forum to explain the Stockport Local Plan. The ordinary agenda would be completed first so that adequate time remained for the planning discussion.

2.  Minutes of the last meeting – the September minutes were noted and approved.

3.  Police and Crime Report – there was no police presence at the meeting although PCSO Simon Carr had been invited. It was understood that Simon may have moved to another area. Sgt Rachel Walton to be contacted to clarify this matter.

4. Finances by John Baker 

The HLRA General account

This is the report for September, which is the first month of the HLRA financial year 2026/27.

The opening balance for the HLRA General account, at the end of August (with rounding)           £ 1,645

During September we have start to receive subscription payments from residents for the coming year.

Income

The subscription income so far has been	£   335
We have also received donations from the, three, library coffee mornings held in June, July and August amounting to	£    71
Giving a total income of (with rounding)	£   406

 

Expenditure

The expenditure during September (with rounding) was:

The IONOS Website Licensing charge	£ 9
The Lloyds Bank account charge	£ 4
For September our Total Expenditure from the General account was	£13

                                                     

The Account balances (with rounding) at the end of  September were  

General Account                        £ 2,038                                                                                         

HLRA Project Account                   £785            (£0.32 Int payments for this month)     

HLRA Total combined Accts       £  2,823

 

HLRA War Memorial Account provided by Barry

Balance at end of August	£ 1,611.00
Memorial Garden supplies	£       57.59
War memorial plants	£       69.00
Books income as of 1/10	£       68.27
Balance	£ 1,552.68

 

5.  Planning Applications provided by Eryl.

• 1 Orford Close  DC/ TPO 103E,TPO211 E

  Reduce by 1-2 metres to maintain height.  OFN

• Pinfold Buxton Rd Hazel Grove  DC/ 100031

  Installation of metal access gate to fields to include vehicular access from Buxton Rd.

  Install cabinet ref DC/ 099665  of planning permission DC/ 095135. Discharge of condition 2 of planning permission DC/095135. Building work completed.. Next to no 225 Buxton Rd. OFN is a bit late now work is finished.  

• Crosslea land adjacent at Buxton Rd [previously the little garden centre]

  DC/ 100013 Residential Development of two dwellings.

  Response from the Coal Board: “site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area. Therefore within the site and surrounding area there are coal mining features present at surface or shallow depths. The risk is that these features indicate that the site lines in an area where historic unrecorded coal mining is likely to have taken place at shallow depths. Voids and broken ground associated with such workings can pose a risk to surface stability and public safety. Coal mining Risk Assessment JULY 2026 acknowledges the presence of historic coal mining workings which could impact the proposed development. No above ground development should commence until a scheme of investigations has been carried out”. OFN and Stockport planning authority

• CHECKERS 72 Jackson Edge Rd,  DC/099955

  The plan shows the following development:  pool; poultry shed; No1 leisure box; No2 Leisure box; extra garage, sauna and steam room OFN

  Eryl’s comment: “I have emailed the planning authority asking for clarification 1. Is this development for personal use? or is it a commercial fitness centre?”

6. Gardening sessions

Caroline spoke of the gardening sessions that had taken place over the summer evenings. Some afternoons are now being spent clearing the courtyard at the back of the library room. Volunteers are still needed to help with various gardening projects e.g. a volunteer is required every 4 weeks for the war memorial garden and there are planters in Windlehurst Park and outside High Lane Primary School that aren’t being maintained. People were asked to speak to Caroline if interested in helping.

7. HLRA stall

The Club [formerly the Conservative Club] are holding a Christmas market on 4^th December between 6pm and 9pm and a representative from the HLRA will be in attendance for residents to find out more information about the association and its purpose in the village.

8. Library coffee morning

There is a monthly coffee morning at the library [first Friday of every month] from 10.15am to 12pm. Free refreshments but any donations will go towards the maintenance of the defibrillator outside the doctor’s surgery.

Footnote: a yoga teacher was present at the Library coffee morning on Friday 2^nd October to give a 10-min demonstration of seated yoga.  She is hoping to bring a class to High Lane and will advertise around the village accordingly.

9. Stockport Plan – Richard from HLNVF

Current Position

The Local Plan had reached Regulation 19, following the Regulation 18 consultation before Christmas. Recent scrutiny and Cabinet meetings were available online. Councillors had explained that they believed they had little choice but to submit the plan: if it was not approved and sent to an independent examiner by Christmas, the Government could intervene and prepare the plan for the Council. At Regulation 18, the Forum had submitted evidence opposing the allocation of 1,000 homes. Despite assurances that representations would be considered, the Regulation 19 plan still included 1,000 dwellings.

Legal Compliance and Soundness

Regulation 19 representations must focus on whether the plan is legally compliant and sound. Although Council officers described it as both legal and sound, the Forum’s view was that it might be legal but failed all four soundness tests:

1. 1. Positively prepared: important evidence and relevant matters had not been considered adequately.
   2. Justified: allocating 1,000 homes beside a village of about 2,000 residents, without matching infrastructure, was not supported by a proportionate case.
   3. Effective: the absence of an integrated transport plan, combined with site and infrastructure constraints, made the allocation difficult to deliver.
   4. Consistent with national policy: Green Belt and “grey belt” guidance had not been applied correctly.

Public Meetings

Two public meetings were planned at the Village Hall:

• • Friday 16^th October, 7.00 pm – 9.00 pm
  • Sunday 18^th October, 10.00 am – noon

Capacity would be limited to 154 at each meeting for health and safety reasons. Previous use of both halls had left people in the smaller room unable to see or hear, so numbers would be managed. The consultation deadline was Sunday 8^th November. Meeting material would also be placed online, allowing residents who could not attend to obtain the same information.

Portal and Response Limits

The Regulation 19 portal was considered more logical and accessible than its Regulation 18 predecessor, although it could slow or crash under heavy use. The main concern was the 4,000-character limit—roughly 600 words—for explaining why the plan was unsound. A second 4,000-character field asked what changes would make it sound. Members understood that both parts should be completed. The Forum had drafted responses addressing all four soundness tests. Portal versions would be kept close to 3,900 characters. Residents would receive three formats:

• • Portal version: concise text for the two online fields.
  • Two-page version: a fuller email or postal response identifying the relevant policies.
  • Full version: an approximately 15-page submission containing the Forum’s complete case.

The documents would be supplied in Word format for copying, pasting and adaptation. Supporting files might be uploadable, but this had not been tested. The practical advice was to place the headline objection in the portal and send detailed evidence by email. Residents could use the portal, email and post if they wished. Every individual could respond, including several people in one household. Regulation 18 had generated an estimated 300 objections from High Lane, and the Forum hoped to match or exceed that figure.

Sites, Infrastructure and Development Pressure

The principal allocation was HOM 2.16, the High Lane site. The Forum’s preferred remedy was to remove the allocation and its 1,000 homes. If retained, it should be reduced substantially to a scale supportable by local transport, infrastructure and services. Sandown Road remained in the plan but had been reduced from 300 to 250 homes without a clear explanation. Other speculative schemes were separate from Regulation 19 and could continue to be promoted while the Council lacked a five-year housing-land supply.

Traffic, Access and Construction

Transport formed a central part of the objection. Members said no comprehensive transport plan had been completed since the A555 service began. Development on both sides of the A6 could create a staggered-crossroads arrangement, which the Forum regarded as especially harmful to traffic flow. The illustrative plan included a route through the estate towards Windlehurst and a northern exit. Questions concerned Windlehurst Bridge, heavy-goods access, the capacity of local roads and the status of private or accommodation roads. One route was said to date from the construction of the Macclesfield Canal in 1831, when access was created for a farmer whose land had been divided. The phasing showed 75 homes in the first five years. At that rate, the far-end exit might not be reached until around 2042. Members stressed that disruption would begin during construction. A full pre-construction management and transport plan was needed to show how lorries and deliveries would reach and leave the site.

Tunnel, Mining and Physical Constraints

The plan recognised that homes could not be built directly over the tunnel. Mining risk was also significant. The Forum referred to 72 known mine entries and the possibility of further unrecorded workings. Mining, flood risk and other site constraints would support the argument that the allocation was not effective.

Examination and National Policy

An independent planning examiner would decide whether the plan was legal and sound. If it failed either test, the Council could be required to amend it. The Forum intended to request participation in the examination so that its case could be presented directly. Members noted repeated changes to national planning policy over the previous decade. They believed these changes had reduced local influence and strengthened the position of developers. A further change expected on 31^st October was said to reduce the powers of area planning committees. The Council had initially faced an end-of-November deadline before receiving the same Christmas deadline as other authorities. Although it seemed unlikely that Government could take over the work of several hundred councils, the threat of intervention was influencing councillors. The community was not asking the Council to abandon its plan, but to remove, reduce or properly justify the High Lane allocation.

Publicity, Funding and Wider Engagement

Leaflets, posters and banners would publicise the consultation and the meetings. The Forum had spent approximately £220 on leaflets and asked the Residents’ Association to contribute £70 for banners. The request was supported. Suggested locations included the A6, the Co-op and other prominent sites. Printed response forms would be provided for residents who did not use the internet. Members also asked that the campaign be shared with Disley Parish Council because traffic effects would cross the borough boundary. Existing contacts would be used, and neighbouring residents would be encouraged to respond where eligible.

Councillor Participation

Concern was expressed about councillors’ attendance. Colin had attended previously, and all three ward councillors had attended at least once after Dominic’s election. Dominic had requested a discussion about what councillors could say without predetermining a future decision. They could not adopt an irrevocable position in advance, but could express concern, listen to evidence and consider a response. Richard would speak with Dom Warner and invite councillors to the public events.

Council Sessions and Supporting Documents

The Council was reported to be holding three information sessions, including daytime sessions from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm and an evening session at Stopford House from 5.00 to 8.00 pm on Wednesday 7^th October. The precise details of the daytime venues and dates were unclear and would be confirmed in circulated notes. The main plan was approximately 250 pages, with additional supporting documents and a separate site document covering layout, phasing and affordable housing. The material was easier to locate than at Regulation 18, although still extensive. One member described using an AI tool to review unfamiliar technical documents. This had identified a parallel environmental-impact-assessment issue involving two fields that did not appear readily accessible through the Local Plan portal. A separate portal was said to have closed on the 24^th after information appeared on the 23^rd; this required investigation. The portal reportedly had a 30-minute session limit, so residents were advised to prepare text in advance. A separate matter had attracted 443 portal responses, with an unknown additional number sent by email.

Appeals and Grey-Belt Issues

Without a five-year supply, developers could bring forward sites and appeal refusals. A successful appeal could expose the Council to substantial costs, described as potentially around £1 million per case. It was said that 27 of the plan’s 29 sites already had prior developer interest. The Forum questioned the classification of the site under grey-belt policy. It was described as high-quality grey belt, with part remaining Green Belt, rather than land in the lowest-performing categories. Flood risk and other constraints were also raised. Any later planning application would be considered separately and opposed on the relevant grounds.

Next Meetings and Actions for HLNVF

• • Finalise the portal, two-page and full Regulation 19 responses.
  • Provide editable Word copies and printed copies.
  • Explain portal, email and postal submission routes.
  • Hold the two Village Hall meetings within the 154-person limit.
  • Distribute leaflets and posters and arrange banners.
  • Share material with Disley Parish Council and neighbouring communities.
  • Seek participation in the independent examination.
  • Discuss councillor involvement with Dom Warner.
  • Confirm Council information sessions and the transport-consultation deadline.
  • Investigate access ownership, mining, transport modelling and construction traffic.

Richard thanked everyone for supporting the consultation work and Caroline in turn thanked Richard for his attendance at the meeting.

10. AOB

• Stockport Transport Strategy. Members briefly discussed a separate consultation on Stockport’s Highway and Transportation Strategy. A possible change to the 192 bus service would take it through High Lane and Park Road. Questions arose about access restrictions, bridge capacity and the lack of a suitable turning location. School buses had also been observed using Andrew Lane and stops near the church. Access to hospital services remained difficult. The Windlehurst service was described as running roughly every two hours, with an early first bus and a last service at around 5.00 pm. The consultation deadline had not yet been found. [Editor: it's now on our News → Consultations page as 8^th November 2026 — the same deadline as that for the Stockport Local Plan.]
• Carr Brow care home. A resident raised concerns about a care-related facility near the bottom of Keswick Road, including driver behaviour, reported disturbance and uncertainty about planning status. The discussion distinguished between supported accommodation for self-caring residents and uses requiring a formal change of use. The facility was described as privately operated and used by another council, rather than run by Stockport Council. No firm conclusion was reached. Companies House links between the provider, property-development and finance companies were mentioned, but not verified. A comparison with accommodation at Carr Brow produced differing views: some believed predicted parking problems had occurred, while nearby residents said they had not experienced problems attributable to the care home itself. Members agreed that the two facilities served different groups and were not directly comparable.
• Roadworks. Reports of possible A6 works near Lyme Park and a diversion through Carr Brow were discussed. Work near the chicanes appeared to involve the pavement rather than changes to the chicanes. A sign near Park Road indicated forthcoming work, but dates and closure arrangements were not confirmed.

• AGM. The AGM was confirmed for Wednesday 28^th October at the Village Hall. Doors would open at 7.30 pm for an 8.00 pm start. It would include a raffle and brief updates from the HLVNF and speakers: Paul Vickers [Home Instead] and a representative from Marple Hub. 

The next HLRA meeting is on Thursday 3^rd December 2026 at 8pm at High Lane Library

[there is no meeting in November]

&
AGM Wednesday 28^th October at 8pm at High Lane Village Hall