Hello, TSBW Patrons! Many thanks/commiserations for/on deciding to read my first blog. I seem to have been recruited as the Resident Exile, and exactly how exiled I hope to come to in later pieces. However, given the (potentially) exciting news surrounding the ground this week my personal relationship with County will have to wait; instead, I’m hoping to shed a bit of general light on something a bit more topical. So first, a confession:

My name is Josh, and I’m a practicing architect. 

People usually go ‘ooooo’ when I tell them that, so let’s get one thing clear. I do NOT have a glamorous job, I don’t have a bulging bank balance and I certainly don’t swan around on my yacht drinking vodka martinis past a pair of oversize thick-rimmed specs. Building in the UK is a complex business. The best way I can describe it is a giant 3D jigsaw puzzle with various people who have nothing to do with each other chucking pieces in, which we somehow have to fit together in a legally acceptable format, while being paid the bare minimum as we are not ourselves legally required. But that’s for another time also. What THIS is about is the Edgeley Park planning application, and above all the two things that will be concerning County fans:

1. Why the delay?
2. Why would it NOT get approved? 

Now again, the news this week so far is positive for County fans, so hopefully question 2 is moot. Also I should make it clear that I was not involved in the application and make no comment as to the quality of it or validity of the objection. This is purely a look at the planning process in the UK, that hopefully gives people a bit of insight into what might have been going on. Facts only. All this is a matter of public record.   

So question 1: why the delay? Buckle in, because we may be here a while. 

The planning app to extend the ground was submitted over a year ago now, in June 2024 (you can view it on the council’s website here.) As background, there will have been a lot of work to even get it to that point. For something this size you always want Pre-Application meetings with the council to get them on board – there’s nothing worse than getting off on the wrong foot with the local authority by dropping an EP-sized bomb on their desk last thing on a Friday afternoon. You want to know where they see any potential challenges. Edgeley Park is historically significant and sandwiched between a railway line (legal/land issues) and the rezzers (legal/land issues.) All these things are considered and the council are usually given a chance to look at early designs and have their say, plus highlight any local legislation that may not apply elsewhere or any areas where they want specialist input. A statement of all these early findings and how the proposed design deals with them is then produced as part of the application (The Supporting Planning Statement.) 

So we know, because we can go and look, that the team considered Japanese Knotweed, impact on the Airport, trees and local ecology, Environmental Impact Assessments, approaching viewpoints (i.e. how it will look from surrounding areas,) heights of stands, drainage, Biodiversity Net Gain (more on this later) and the impact on highways before the application was even submitted. I did say there was a lot. In fact, it adds up to 208 separate documents and drawings, which look at everything from air quality, to potential glare onto the railway causing an issue for train drivers, to bird hazard risk assessments or the likelihood of archeological finds once builders start digging. And with all that work, you’d have thought stamping it and sending it back would be a formality, right?

Well. Once the application is formally submitted, the local Planning Officers have to assess all the information (which takes time) as well as advertising the application and inviting comment from anyone affected. They received 238 comments, which may have been positive or negative and also need to be considered. And then there was the last-minute delay caused by Edgeley Wildlife Reserve group, their objection, and the Planning Committee meeting, due to take place on Thursday 14th.

Again, all this is public record. You can read the objection letter, if you so wish, on the EWR website here. Essentially, they object to a car park that will replace an area of woodland next to Sykes Reservoir, behind the Pop-Side Vernon Together Stand Pop Side again. They list planning policies and guidance which they claim are being breached, and suggest possible alternatives. The policies they quote are all absolutely legit and should be considered in any planning application.

Image credit: Google maps. The area of woodland is roughly shown with the red outline. 

The problem is that planning policy is messy, very often has contradictory aims, and the interpretation of it is ultimately decided on (in almost all cases) by Local Councillors from a variety of backgrounds with a variety of underlying motives. These guys are not Planning Officers and though they may have a background in construction, or be lifelong County fans, they may equally have a background in wildlife conservation. It is they who make up the Planning Committee. 

When it comes to any Planning Committee up and down the country, any one member is unlikely to be an expert on planning policy (there’s just too much of it; they rely on Planning Officers to make sure that any application doesn’t fall foul of that) but what they SHOULD be well versed in is their Local Development Plan. Here’s another link if any of you have trouble sleeping.

The Core Strategy document, in a nutshell, sets out what the Council wants to see built and where. This is for the benefit of the whole town, not just the area surrounding EP, and a few things are worth noting.

1. Edgeley itself is identified as ‘experiencing substantial difficulties requiring major intervention,’ that sits within a Neighbourhood Renewal Priority area (pg39, 40). I.e, the Council wants it developed. 
2. EP is noted as a draw for potential restaurants, bars and cafes (pg 78.) Football = footfall. You can see how, if you want to get people to spend money in bars and eateries, increased capacity is a very enticing prospect. 
3. ‘Safeguarding and Improving the Environment’ gets its own chapter, but so does ‘Accommodating Economic Development.’ It’s the Committee’s job to weigh up how the greater good is best served in each case. 
4. CS8 (quoted by the Wildlife Reserve in their letter) notes that there may be ‘situations in which other factors determine that the need to continue to protect existing [wildlife] assets are outweighed by the interests of achieving sustainable communities…’ (pg103.) So if more benefit can be gained by removing the woodland than keeping it, that is a legitimate option. 
5. Elsewhere, CS8 describes other obligations with regard to the environment that the development will still be subject to. 

On this last point, then, before I finally address question 2, even IF the application is approved and the car park is built, that doesn’t mean that all environmental bets are off. Every planning application made in the UK has to demonstrate a Biodiversity Net Gain of 10%, by law. That is non-negotiable and is addressed in the EP application. The loss of mature trees will have to be mitigated (i.e. more trees planted elsewhere.) In addition, the Council may see fit to impose conditions that preserve a certain area or access route. But would the points raised in the letter actually be grounds for refusing the application?

Question 2: Why would it NOT get approved? 

From a purely environmental standpoint, the slam-dunk for the EWR group would have been to prove the presence of a protected species in the wood. With the proximity of the reservoir, a great crested newt or water vole sighting, for example, would have made it extremely difficult to develop the land. There are also certain species of plant that are protected. You would assume that EWR are aware of this and would have been on the lookout, which would suggest that, as no such species is identified in their letter, none have been found.

In the absence of that, the application has to satisfy the council that the loss of habitat/mature trees/biodiversity etc described by EWR is being adequately replaced. There are multiple (honestly, I tried to count them all and lost it somewhere in the Appendices. Certainly 20+) reports, statements and consultee comments in the application that seek to do exactly that, down to a plan showing where wildflowers will be planted. 

It will be up to the Planning Committee to decide if the Development Plan for Stockport is better served by protecting the wood, by allowing the car park, or by allowing the application with some conditions imposed on the land to the south. Approval has been recommended, but the Committee do not have to adhere to this if they disagree with the Planners.

With any luck, no future blog will be required on Appeals to the Secretary of State.