THE HEADLINE emblazoned across page 18 of a recent edition of the Express read: 'Is the 'Rooney' effect ruining Prestbury?'

An idiot in a hurry can see the answer is yes but according to a senior planning officer 'it is not the job of the planning department to stop people buying up houses and having them bulldozed'.

He went on to add that 'people want better than is already there'.

So, why move to Prestbury? Why go to a village if you don't like what's there? Why not choose some place that matches your aspirations.

Last year Mrs B and I applied to have 400 square feet of hard standing outside our kennels to facilitate the delivery of supplies. The plan was turned down despite it being invisible from anywhere but Google Earth.

But when it comes to bulldozing houses in a picturesque village - no problem at all.

So what's the game? What's really going on? How can a few square yards of gravel be more offensive than bulldozing an entire building?

Now I'm sure, given a bit of research, justifiable reasons can be found for these 'inconsistencies' but what about the 'spirit' of planning law.

Are such decisions fair and reasonable?

The residents of Prestbury think not.

NB: If you don't know Prestbury and wonder what the hell I'm talking about take a drive around the village and see for yourself what's going on. If you've had any dealings with Macclesfield planning, did you receive the same leeway?