Sandbach Neighbourhood Development Plan (Draft Version)

2010 - 2030

Representations and Comments from

Developers, Planners and Land Owners to –

Statutory Consultation under regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012

Revision: 0.3(draft)Date: June 2015

Period of Consultation: 17 March 2015 to 01 May 2015

Following are a summary of relevant comments received by interested parties, being Developers, Planners, Consultants and Land Owners. These comments will be taken into consideration during the ongoing review of the draft NDP, prior to submission to the Local Authority (CEC):

RTBRTB Planning

WAWardell Armstrong LLP on behalf of W & S (Sandbach) Ltd. (Capricorn)

PHPersimmon Homes (North West)

NJLNJL Consulting on behalf of HIMOR Ltd.

SAPStrutt and Parker LLP on behalf of the Betley Court Estate

SAPStrutt and Parker LLP on behalf of Safeguard Ltd

MPGMuller Property Group

ZANRichard Hovey, ZAN Ltd.

INDIndigo Planning Ltd on behalf of Barratt Homes

EPEmery Planning on behalf of Morris Homes and the Hind Heath Trustees.

SGCSandbach Golf Course Ltd

·

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

NJL - The Neighbourhood Plan states at Section 1.3 that it has been prepared in line with policies contained within the Cheshire East Local Plan, and we have set out above our concerns in relation to this approach. Nonetheless, we raise further concerns regarding the consistency of the approach taken when preparing the Neighbourhood Plan.

Despite this declaration at Section 1.3, within Section 3, as part of the justification for a number of proposed policies, reference is made to both the proposed policies of the Cheshire East Local Plan and also to the ‘saved’ policies of the Congleton Local Plan. Therefore, there is a need for clarity as to which Local Plan the Neighbourhood Plan is to conform with.

In its current form, the Neighbourhood Plan is contradictory as to which local planning policy document it has been written in accordance with. But either way, there is a fundamental problem that one Plan is out of date, whilst the other is currently unsound.

RESPONSE: The Plan aligns to the latest Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy and the saved policies of the Congleton Borough Council (where the policies have not been carried forward. Housing needs survey has been undertaken within the community as an extension to the Phase 2 questionnaire (report available on request). Further, an independent housing needs survey for Sandbach has been undertaken by Housing Vision (extrapolated from Government released figures at March 2015). Housing numbers are in line with latest forecast figures released by CEC on 13.May.2015.

A clarification statement has now been inserted to section 1.4 as follows:

Positioning the Neighbourhood Plan in respect of the Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy (which was submitted for Examination in 2014) has been difficult as its’ approval was delayed by the Inspector’s decision that certain elements required revisiting, including the overall housing figures. The community felt that it was important, however, to prepare a Neighbourhood Development Plan, and the Sandbach Neighbourhood Plan has, therefore, been produced taking full consideration of the strategic direction and policies in the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Submission Version, and through discussions with Cheshire East Council. Cheshire East Council has been very supportive of the Neighbourhood Plan, and has been involved from the outset, and commented on the draft document. This has enabled us to amend policies as necessary, draft a Neighbourhood Plan we consider to be in general conformity and minimised any potential conflict between policies. General conformity with existing plans and guidance is detailed in the Basic Conditions Statement.

Additionally the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Submission Version does endorse many of the saved policies of Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review (adopted in 2005). Certain policies will be retained and used in the determination of planning applications until superseded by the Site Allocations and Development Policies and Waste Development Plan Documents.

SGC - I am concerned that the starting point for the plan is fundamentally flawed. At present the draft Neighbourhood Plan does not align itself to any particular Local Plan. Indeed it is somewhat confusing in that it refers to both the out of date Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan and the emerging new Local Plan Strategy. It is somewhat incumbent upon the Neighbourhood Plan to help implement the Strategy and, as you know, this has some way to go in terms of actually understanding exactly what this may mean for the Sandbach area in terms of overall housing land needs. This is amplified by the implications of the Warrington court decision on the assessment of Objective Housing Need.

RESPONSE: See response above

ZAN –

· Sandbach is designated as a Key Service Centre, it provides essential education, medical, financial and shopping facilities for an area much larger than the civil parish of Sandbach.

· Reference to “Civic”, most of these are in error and should be replaced with Civil Boundary, Civil Parish etc. RESPONSE; amended

· 1.7 About Sandbach. Given the numbers employed by Cheshire East Council, they should be mentioned early on in this section. They have a major impact on inward commuting, availability of day time parking space in the town, lunchtime shopping revenue etc. RESPONSE; included

· 1.7 The section on Sandbach station is inaccurate and out of date. There are two trains an hour to Manchester, one of which runs via Manchester Airport, for most of the day they leave Sandbach 16 minutes apart and arrive in Manchester 2 minutes apart - this is not a half hourly service, miss the train and you will be an hour late getting to Manchester. The services from Crewe have improved - London can be reached in 1hr 35, and Edinburgh in 3hrs 15 mins. RESPONSE; amended

· Page 13 Elworth is West not East of Sandbach RESPONSE; amended

· Page 13 Ettiley Heath - barges are too wide to have ever travelled further than Middlewich on the Trent and Mersey Canal, Narrow Boats would have worked around Rookery Bridge. [Bargees used to work narrowboats!] RESPONSE; included

· Page 16 One of the employment areas in Wheelock is Zan Industrial Park - this is accessed from Crewe Road, the privately owned Zan Drive is a residential area, although there is a legal right of access through into the Zan Industrial Park, the employment units are accessed from Crewe Road. RESPONSE; included

· Page 17, A private Gym has operated from the former Central Tyres building in Wheelock for some time. RESPONSE; included

·

SECTION 2: THE KEY ISSUES, VISION AND AIMS

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

SAP - Agree with preserving heritage and character, promoting jobs and local economy, improving infrastructure and community and well-being.

Housing needs figures need to be in line with the Authority’s Housing Need Assessments.

We disagree with the extent of the proposed Green Gap designation.

RESPONSE: An independent housing needs survey for Sandbach has been undertaken by Housing Vision (extrapolated from Government released figures at March 2015). Housing numbers are in line with latest forecast figures released by CEC on 13.May.2015.

Green Gaps will be re-stated and classified as “areas of Separation”. MAP H3 (Fig. 2) will be amended.

SGC – Agree. Except for the Housing Need Section, I agree with the Key Issues, Visions and Aims.

RESPONSE: See response above for SAP

ZAN - Page 19 (and p74 definitions) protecting the countryside, does this plan also need to protect the green gaps between the parish of Sandbach and those outside such as Winterly/Wheelock Heath and possibly Malkins Bank and Moston. I understand you want to avoid the accusation that you are trying to protect all the green fields, but the character of the area would be destroyed if distinct commenities are allowed to merge. The land south of the canal between Ettiley Heath and Wheelock could be vulnerable to development due to the ease of access to the sewage farm at Hind Heath before 2030. Need to avoid problems like Abbeyfields where the land was supposed to be protected by a policy that was dropped at the last minute from the Congleton Borough plan.

RESPONSE; Concerns are acknowledged and serious consideration will be given towards creation of gaps between Sandbach and other parish developments

·

SECTION 3: OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE PLAN

3.1 PROTECTING THE COUNTRYSIDE (PC)

POLICY PC1 – AREAS OF SEPARATION

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

EP - The policy proposes 3 separate Green Gaps, which would cover the vast majority of the built up area of Sandbach. The only areas of countryside not proposed as Green Gaps are unlikely to be developed (for example the land beyond the M6 motorway).

The designation would therefore restrict any future development outside of the existing settlement boundaries. This would clearly rule out new housing, employment or retail developments beyond the existing settlement boundaries. Even if it were to be accepted that there is not a need for additional land to 2030, it is not clear how future development needs beyond 2030 would be met without breaching the proposed Green Gaps. The Green Gaps are proposed as a constraint before the assessment of objectively assessed needs through the emerging Local Plan, and would undermine the delivery of housing needs and sustainable development in the Borough.

We also question the assertion that there is a need to protect the ‘distinct settlements’ that makeup Sandbach. They are in fact all part of the town of Sandbach and all are physically connected. We consider that it is misleading to treat Sandbach as a series of separate villages, and not a single town. It is also of note that development has already been approved within a number of the Emery Planning Partnership Ltd trading as Green Gaps proposed, including appeals determined by the Secretary of State. The issue of separation will have been considered through these applications and appeals.

The proposed Green Gaps were previously designated Areas of Special Landscape and Environmental Value (ASLEVs) in the 1996 Congleton Local Plan but were deleted on the recommendation of the inspector who conducted the Congleton Local Plan Inquiry in 2004, as they were contrary to the then government policy in PPG7, which considered that local countryside designations unduly restricted acceptable development and economic activity, without identifying particular features of the countryside, which needed to be respected or enhanced. This draft plan makes the same error. The inspector considered that Green Gap designations should be based on sound and formal assessments of the countryside, their function and be fully justified. That had not been demonstrated, he was of the view that the policies of the local plan provided the necessary protection of the countryside and therefore ASLEVs should be deleted his recommendation was accepted by the council.

The proposed Green Gaps are not supported by any robust or proportionate technical evidence. For a restrictive designation of this kind, the evidence should be substantial and compelling. However no such evidence exists.

The policy is essentially a highly restrictive open countryside policy, even more restrictive than Green Belt policy, without any attempt to justify it with the required robust evidence base. Therefore it would not be appropriate having regard to national policy and basic condition 8(2)(a). The policy seeks to frustrate the achievement of sustainable development, contrary to basic condition 8(2)(d). The policy would also not be in conformity (general or otherwise) with any strategic policies in the development plan contrary to basic condition 8(2)(e).

RESPONSE: We have revised the Areas of Separation, accepting this term in preference to ‘Green Gaps’, and have sought to distinguish these from open countryside.

We will provide a further indication of the distinctive characteristics of Ettiley Heath and Wheelock, Elworth and Sandbach Heath. This is a cornerstone of the neighbourhood plan and should be properly acknowledged.

We believe that there is ample evidence to demonstrate the importance of Sandbach within its agricultural and landscape setting. We do not seek to frustrate the achievement of sustainable development but rather to highlight the extent of recent and on-going developments as sufficient to reflect the needs of Sandbach without further erosion of valued land, whether described as an area of High Ecological value, an open green space, amenity land or open countryside. We make clear our assessment of housing requirements in Section 3.3 of the Plan and how best to manage the growth we feel will be appropriate for the remaining period of the Plan.

In our view the Plan does not conflict with the NPPF and pleased to note from CEC that it is not in conflict with its LPS or the adopted DP.

WA - This policy is a restrictive inflexible anti-development planning policy. In policy terms, the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to restrict all development in much of the surrounding countryside around Sandbach. Therefore the plan is treating these areas similar in effect to having Green Belt status. These areas do not form part of the Green Belt. Policy PC1 is therefore in conflict with the NPPF. The housing and employment needs are unknown therefore such a policy approach is in complete conflict with the NPPF and other guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

RESPONSE; We do not accept that this policy is anti-development as we make clear in our response to EP above.

NJL - The promotion of Sandbach Green Gaps is not, however, supported. It is not appropriate to have such restrictive policies within a settlement, which will restrict the growth of Sandbach and prevent future development coming forward to address the needs of the residents.

Policy PC1 – Areas of Separation states that the ‘Sandbach Green Gaps separating the distinct settlements of Sandbach, Elworth, Ettiley Heath, Wheelock and Sandbach Heath...will be maintained and enhanced’. The Policy goes on to state that developments which detract from the open character of these Sandbach Green Gaps will not be permitted.

The Sandbach Green Gaps are identified on the Sandbach Green Gaps map, MAP H3, which is included within the Neighbourhood Plan. MAP H3 identifies 3 key areas which have been proposed for designation as Green Gaps. These are to the north of Elworth and Sandbach, to the east of Wheelock and Sandbach Heath and between Elworth and Ettiley Heath to the west and Sandbach to the east.

Within the Justification for Policy PC1 no robust evidence has been provided as part of the consultation process to support the proposed designation of Green Gaps within Sandbach.

It is stated that evidence has been received from local organisations, the Cheshire Wildlife Trust, A Rocha and Sandbach Woodlands and Wildlife Group, and this is demonstrated within MAP PC3 and MAP PC4 which describe Land Character Areas and MAP PC5 and MAP PC6 which describe the areas of High Ecological Value.

The Land Character Areas, as shown on MAP PC3 and MAP PC4 have been identified by Cheshire Wildlife Trust, who prepared the maps. However, there is no evidence provided as to why they have designated the different Land Characters and no evidence provided which discusses the implications of development in certain locations and why this should be prevented.

The intention to protect areas of high ecological value is supported, however as shown on MAP PC5 and MAP PC6 these are identified as small areas within the larger Green Gaps identified. Therefore it would be more appropriate to restrict development within these areas and ensure that development nearby mitigates for the impact it may have on them and considers its location close to high ecological value areas.

As the above alludes to, there is not considered to be sufficient evidence to support the designation of large areas of land around Sandbach as Green Gaps, within which development which detracts from the open character of these will not be permitted. A landscape and visual impact assessment of each of the Green Gaps has not been carried out. Such an assessment would enable a full understanding of the implications of development within these areas to occur, thereby ensuring an evidenced and informed decision is made regarding their designation.

Further to this, an assessment should be carried out for each of the settlements stated within the policy, to identify the features which define each area and to demonstrate how these are distinct within the wider town of Sandbach. 4.13 The Neighbourhood Plan states that the policy is in accordance with paragraph 109 of the NPPF. The intention of the Working Group to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment is supported, however no evidence has been provided to support the view that the Sandbach Green Gaps include landscapes which are considered to be valued and therefore, there is no evidence to support their required protection and enhancement.

As well as stating that the policy has been developed in accordance with the NPPF, it is also stated that Policy PC1 accords with Policy GR5 of the Congleton Borough Local Plan. This is contradictory to Section 1.3 of the Neighbourhood Plan which states that it has followed the strategic policies of the Cheshire East Local Plan. It is inappropriate to use one Local Plan to justify some policies and then another Plan to justify other proposed polices. This approach has clearly been done to provide ‘justification’ where policies within the Cheshire East Local Plan would not have.

RESPONSE: In addition to earlier comments, we have requested a Landscape Character Assessment. We believe that the independent contributions made by the Cheshire Wildlife Trust, Sandbach Woodland and Wildlife Group and A Roca to be invaluable and well documented. We have included areas of high ecological value within areas of separation as we believe the setting is important to protect specific areas, not simply mitigation measures.

SAP - There is no justification for designating land to the north of Elworth and Sandbach and land to the south and east of Sandbach Heath. These areas of land do not form strategic gaps between any of the identified settlements.

Supporting this conclusion, the land to the south/south east of Sandbach Heath was not identified within either the “New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gap Study” (2013) nor the Local Plan submission version.

Accordingly there is a lack of evidence to support this designation.

We consider that the land to the west of the M6 (identified employment and housing site) forms an important strategic gap between Sandbach and Sandbach Heath.

RESPONSE: We have responded in relation to housing and jobs in JLE1 and set out in the revised paragraph 3.4

IND - Mindful that the DNP has to be in general conformity with the policies of the Local Plan, it is incorrect for the DNP to be seeking to protect areas of Green Gap around Sandbach, when the Council is in the process of reviewing green gap designations as part of work on the emerging CELP. The purpose of this review is to establish whether such a local policy constraint is necessary and is consistent with the aims of the NPPF, in light of the future growth needs of Sandbach being established through the emerging CELP.

Until such time as this review is complete, it is incorrect for the DNP to assert that its Draft Policy PC1 accords with, in particular, the NPPF. Once complete, the DNP will need to be in conformity with this evidence as it will underpin the CELP.

RESPONSE: As supported by the response from CEC, our proposed policies are not in conflict with but supportive and complimentary of the CEC LPS and DP

RTB – Quality of Maps need to be improved

RESPONSE: We agree that the quality of the maps needs to be improved and clarify specific areas and issues.

SGC – Strongly disagree. The redevelopment of brownfield sites in favour of greenfield seems sound, but will not be able to meet the full housing need for Cheshire East and Sandbach as a key service centre. The green gaps between Sandbach and Elworth were lost 20 years ago through roadside, ribbon development. The gaps are all in private ownership and do not have rights of way across them. The only residents who now benefit from these gaps are the house owners with a view and the birds! However if the policy is to stand, The regeneration of SGC will support the separation between Elworth and Sandbach with a long-term, viable golf club.

RESPONSE; Whilst we understand the Golf Club’s position, we do not accept that housing needs cannot be met without using golf club land. The Golf Club forms an important and clear area of separation between Elworth and Sandbach. We are not persuaded that altering the area in this part of the Plan will do other than signal to other developers with similar financial interests, that areas of separation can be diluted by piecemeal development.

ZAN - Page 23, I suspect amenable space should be amenity space

RESPONSE: The term should of course be ‘amenity land’, and ‘Civil’ should replace the word Civic throughout the Plan.

POLICY PC2 – LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

EP - We would question the purpose of identifying specific landscape areas within a policy document such as this, particularly as the plan does not then provide any guidance as to what should be considered for development proposals within each landscape character area.

RESPONSE: One of the stated aims and objectives of the Plan is to protect the countryside. As stated earlier, we do not seek to prevent all development but manage this over the whole period of the Plan, and without damaging the setting in which Sandbach sits.

NJL - Policy PC2 states that Land Character Areas are set out within MAP PC3 and MAP PC4 and that new development proposals must indicate how they have considered the Landscape Character Areas.

The justification for Policy PC2 refers to The Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment, however this document has not been made available for review as part of this consultation. As such, insufficient evidence has been provided to support the protection of some landscape character areas around Sandbach.

The Neighbourhood Plan states that the policy has been developed in accordance with paragraphs 58 and 109 of the NPPF. However, as discussed previously it is not considered that sufficient evidence has been provided to justify the protection of these landscape character areas or to demonstrate that such areas are ‘valued’ which paragraph 109 of the NPPF states should be protected and enhanced.

Paragraph 58 states that policies of local and neighbourhood plans should be based on ‘stated objectives for the future of the area and an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics’. It is not considered that a thorough evaluation of Sandbach’s defining characteristics has been carried out to ensure this is fully understood and therefore reflected within policies.

The justification of Policy PC2 states that it accords with policies within the Cheshire East Local Plan, namely SD2, SE1 and SE4 and also Policy GR5 of the Congleton Local Plan. As previously discussed, to justify the policy by referencing the Congleton Local Plan is in inconsistent with the Neighbourhood Plan itself. Additionally, policies within the Congleton Local Plan should not be used as justification, as many of these are out-of-date, whilst policies within the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan have yet to be found sound. As such it is not appropriate for the Neighbourhood Plan to be developed in accordance with these.

RESPONSE: We have requested a Land Character Assessment and have commented earlier that there appears no conflict with other existing or emerging policies.

IND - Sandbach does have a mixed character, however, as standard practice, development management policies contained in Local Plans do require schemes to assess local character as part of the application process. Therefore, matters of scale, massing and design are taken into account to ensure developments are in keeping and reflect local surroundings.

RESPONSE: We have requested a Land Character Assessment and have commented earlier that there appears no conflict with other existing or emerging policies.

POLICY PC3 – AREAS OF HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALUE AND WILDLIFE CORRIDORS

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

EP - The policy is inconsistent with the current Congleton Local Plan, which permits the loss or damage of nature conservation sites if there are “overriding reasons for allowing the development and there are no suitable alternatives”. NR4 also sets out criteria that should be met if development is to take place. In contrast Policy PC3 is too simplistic and overly restrictive. Given that it is reliant upon the designations in the Congleton Local Plan, it is unreasonable to depart from the policy approach in NR4. The policy would not be in conformity (general or otherwise) with the strategic policies in the development plan contrary to basic condition 8(2)(e). It also fails to have regard national policy in particular the balancing exercise required at paragraph 14 of the NPPF, contrary to basic condition 8(2)(a).

The proposed areas of high ecological value and wildlife corridors also give rise to concern. There is no new evidence to support their continued designation. Area J is referred to in the document as a Wheelock Disused Railway Local Wildlife Site. In the adopted local plan it is identified under Policy NR4 as a non-statutory wildlife corridor. It is not an identified area of high ecologic value and there is no supporting robust evidence to suggest it is a “wildlife site”.

Furthermore, area K (“Any other areas identified as areas of high ecological value or wildlife corridors in the future”) is far too vague in the context of a policy which is clearly site specific. It should not be included.

RESPONSE; Public representations throughout preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan have strongly supported the clarification of areas of high ecological value and the area known as Sandbach Wildlife Corridor. CEC has confirmed that this policy is not in conflict with its LPS and DP. The Report of Cheshire Wildlife Trust confirms what has been known for many years by local residents and community groups, that the areas shown are of special value to the Sandbach community and should be protected from intrusive development. The value of Sandbach Wildlife Corridor has not always been sufficiently specific in describing the area or properly taken into account in earlier policies and in one recent instance resulted in an appeal being allowed for development of land in the corridor. The new policy is intended to strengthen protection for this area. We do not believe the policy contravenes the requirements of the NPPF.

WA - No evidence has been provided which supports the identification of areas of ecological value and wildlife corridors. The extent of the sites (including Arclid Brook Valley which form part of Capricorn Park) identified in Map PC5 is completely inconsistent with the allocations within the Congleton Borough Local Plan and draft Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (Submission Version) Policies Map.

RESPONSE; See comment for EP above

NJL - Our client’s site, Hindheath, is location to the west of Crewe Road and includes an area identified by Cheshire Wildlife Trust as being of high ecological value, known as Abbeyfields Woodlands; a further area is located along the site’s southern boundary, the Wheelock Rail Trail. The proposed development of the site does not impact upon the Woodland, nor the Rail Trail. Instead the scheme retains the Woodland in its entirety and seeks to positively enhance the Rail Trail and where possible has also created links between 2 high ecological value areas.

Insufficient evidence has been provided to support the designation of these sites and the subsequent introduction of restrictive planning policies. MAP PC5 and MAP PC6 have been prepared by Cheshire Wildlife Trust and show the location of areas considered to be of high ecological value, however no supporting information is provided to support the proposed designations.

Neither Policy PC3 nor the justification provided set out exactly how the high ecological value areas and the wildlife corridors will be protected and enhanced.Therefore the policy is not effective as it will not achieve what it intends to.

The policy justification states that the policy accords with paragraphs 109 and 117 of the NPPF. It is accepted that the policy seeks to support paragraph 117 which states that planning policies should minimise impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity through a number of measures, however further information is required as to how these will be achieved within Sandbach.

The justification also states that the policy is in accordance with policies contained within both the Congleton Local Plan and the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan, however as previously discussed this approach is neither appropriate nor consistent with the Neighbourhood Plan (which states at Section 1.3 that policies are in line with the Cheshire East Local Plan).

Furthermore, we reiterate the point that the Neighbourhood Plan cannot be in accordance with either, as the Congleton Local Plan is out of date, whilst the policies within the Cheshire East Local Plan have not been found sound.

RESPONSE; See comment for EP above

IND - The recent outline consent for the Old Mill Road, M6 Northbound slip road site includes a condition that any reserved matters applications shall include the provision for an ecological buffer zone to the wildlife corridor. This consent therefore ensures that development coming forward at this site will be acceptable in terms of protecting ecological/wildlife corridors.

Furthermore, the whole of the Capricorn site does not fall within a wildlife corridor designation. As previously discussed mechanisms have been put in place through the recent outline consent to ensure these wildlife corridors within this wider site are protected and also that new development provides green linkages.

There is no justification as to why the four sites identified (H, I , R and S) require protection and their relevance to the Capricorn site coming forward is unclear. As a mixed use scheme has already been consented on part of the Capricorn site, this demonstrates that impacts to these wildlife has been assessed and deemed to be acceptable.

RESPONSE; We are aware of the position regarding CS24, known as the Capricorn site. Our revisions to Policy JLE1 makes clear the level of protection needed and conforms to the NPPF by allowing a viability review after a period of time.

SGC – Strongly agree. The regeneration of SGC will protect the wildlife pond at the north of the new development in the pond adjacent to Elworth Hall Farm

ZAN - As the land owner, I feel that the boundaries of the wildlife corridor need to be adjusted around the back of the Zan Industrial Park area to reflect the true status of the area - e.g. former tip and active car parks are included within the wildlife area boundary. These lines on the map need to be corrected, and may only require adjusting by a few metres, they were at fault in the Congleton Borough and the faults have been carried forward by Cheshire East and potentially the Neighbourhood plan. Some of the flood risk contours may be appropriate boundary lines.

RESPONSE; We will review the area described running to the rear of the Zan Industrial Park to clarify the position.

POLICY PC4 – LOCAL GREEN SPACES

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

EP - Map PC7 is difficult to read and it is not clear which sites are proposed for designation as Local Green Space. A number of the sites are not even numbered, and it is impossible to identify them on the plan. A more detailed plan is required, clearly showing the designations and their detailed boundaries.

Insufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate how the proposed Local Green Spaces meet the requirements of paragraph 77 of the NPPF.

Furthermore, the policy is not consistent with national policy in respect of development proposals at Local Green Spaces. For example, the NPPF allows development in very special circumstances (i.e. Green Belt policy applies), whereas Policy PC4 states: “Proposals for any development on the land will not be permitted unless it is for the provision of appropriate recreational uses which improve and enhance the land”. The policy is therefore contrary to basic condition 8(2)(a).

RESPONSE: We accept that improvements to all maps are required to clarify areas and sites. PC7 is an adapted and updated version of the CEC Open Spaces Survey Map. All sites are listed in Appendix 2 of the Plan and are numbered. As noted in our response to CEC, as accept the need for some flexibility, whilst trying to ensure that Open Green Spaces do not suffer from inappropriate and incremental encroachment. During our consultations with the public, all these were identified and in our view comply with the criteria set out in paragraph 77 of the NPPF.

WA - No evidence has been provided as part of the neighbourhood plan with regard to the need for open space or how the proposed sites for open space have been identified. This is completely contrary to the NPPF. The proposed sites for open space as defined by Map PC7 in the Neighbourhood Plan are contrary to the NPPF, the Congleton Borough Local Plan and draft Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (Submission Version) Policies Map.

RESPONSE: See comment above for EP

IND - The designation and protection of green spaces is typically based upon an audit of local provision. There is no explanation in draft policy PC4 or the accompanying justification as to how or why these sites have been allocated and why each needs protecting. The scope of draft policy PC4 should therefore be limited to the scope of protecting existing local green spaces as per existing development plan policies.

RESPONSE: Justification has been enhanced

SGC – Strongly agree. The regeneration of SGC will include a foot and cycle path around the periphery of the course connecting Sandbach and Elworth and providing better access to the countryside for local residents.

ZAN - Reference to Zan Wood, I suspect this could be on land that Zan Ltd owns, but were not aware that it had been named. Could all the areas within Policy PC4 be labeled on a map. And landowners directly consulted when the boundaries are clearer.

RESPONSE: See comment above for EP

POLICY PC5 – BIODIVERSITY

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

NJL - Policy PC5 states that all development proposals need to demonstrate that there will be no net loss in biodiversity using appropriate evaluation methodologies. The policy states that areas identified on MAP PC5 and MAP PC6 as supporting high or medium value habitats will require a comprehensive evaluation if they are put forward for development purposes.

The protection of areas of high or medium value habitats and the requirement for a comprehensive evaluation to support development proposals is supported as this will ensure no net loss of biodiversity.

Hindheath contains an area of high value habitat, which has been protected within the current planning application, ensuring no net loss in biodiversity as a result of the development. On the contrary, the proposed development will enhance biodiversity in the area, as it proposes linkages between habitats and encourages the movement of species.

However, there is a lack of evidence to support the designation of the areas identified on MAP PC5 and MAP PC6. It is important that prior to the Neighbourhood Plan stipulating the requirement of a comprehensive evaluation of such areas, that the exercise has already been carried out to support the proposed policy.

The policy justification states that it accords with paragraphs 109 and 117 of the NPPF and with Policy SE3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan. However, Cheshire East Local Plan has not been found sound and therefore it is not appropriate for policies in the Neighbourhood Plan to be prepared in line with this.

RESPONSE: We have commented on the independent report provided by Cheshire Wildlife Trust in identifying areas across the neighbourhood plan area. We are of the view that the Plan can proceed without having to await the outcome of the CEC Local Plan.

IND - Typically, planning applications have to be accompanied by an Ecological Assessment, which is reviewed by the Council’s Ecologist during the determination period. These assessments set out necessary mitigation measures where proposed schemes will result in a net loss of biodiversity. It is for the Council’s Ecologist to consider the acceptability of these mitigation measures.

SGC – Strongly agree. The regeneration of SGC will protect the wildlife pond at the north of the new development in the pond adjacent to the Elworth Hall Farm Development. Golf club planting will be exclusively native woodland species.

ZAN – Too restrictive

POLICY PC6 – FOOTPATHS

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

IND - Whilst the importance of maintaining public rights of way is acknowledged, the policy as drafted does not allow any flexibility for public rights of way to be diverted as part of new development proposals. There are instances where diverting footpaths as part of new schemes would lead to improved connectivity and there shouldn’t be a blanket approach preventing this. Furthermore, the relevant tests in terms of site connectivity are often set out in development management policies.

RESPONSE: We are pleased that the need for improvements to public rights of way is acknowledged. We believe that a robust footpaths policy is essential to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate loss of or diversions to our developing network of footpaths.

·

3.2 PRESERVING HERITAGE AND CHARACTER (HC)

POLICY HC1 – HISTORIC AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

IND - There is objection that this policy seeks to protect ‘potential’ archaeological sites. For sites where archaeological interest is expected there are investigations that can be undertaken to assess the level of potential of a site, rather than imposing a blanket protectionist approach.

RESPONSE: Use of “Potential” is removed

In the penultimate paragraph, reference is made to developments needing to respect the ‘historic landscape character’; however, what constitutes the historical landscape character is not defined. This requirement is ambiguous and is not specific enough. Therefore, this paragraph should be deleted.

RESPONSE: Landscape Character Assessment underway- no change made

ZAN - This applies only to the town centre, not the whole of the parish.

POLICY HC2 – PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE PRIMARY SHOPPING AREA

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

IND - The delivery of new homes in Sandbach can be beneficial in supporting existing shops and local services and facilities. Additional spend from new residents to an area can assist in boosting the local economy. This view is shared by Cheshire East Council, as new housing growth is identified as part of the wider economic strategy for both Sandbach and the Borough.

RTB - Policies HC2, HC3 and HC4 are excellent policies that will help to retain the historic townscape and strengthen Sandbach town centre.

ZAN - P40 Policy HC2, should the fast food limit of 10% also apply to Betting Shops and Charity Shops?

MPG - Policy HC2 since Town Centre and Primary shopping Areas not updated.

RESPONSE: This is responsibility of CEC

POLICY HC3 – SHOP FRONTS AND ADVERTISING

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

POLICY HC4 – MARKETS

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

IND - Expansion and improvement of existing markets and delivery of new markets will add to the character of Sandbach of enhance the retail offer to local residents.

·

3.3 MANAGING HOUSING SUPPLY (H)

POLICY H1– HOUSING GROWTH

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

EP - The emphasis of the policy approach is on ‘managing housing supply’ rather than meeting the objectively assessed needs of the area, as required by the NPPF. The justification text stating that the current approved level of development is ‘not considered sustainable’ is highly inappropriate given that in granting planning permission, the decision maker (whether it be Cheshire East Council or the Secretary of State at appeal) will have had regard to whether the proposal represents sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF.

We question reference to the Sandbach Housing Needs Surveys within the policy. The requirement should be established through the Cheshire East Local Plan. The needs survey is only useful in the context of identifying particular local needs, for example a local need for affordable housing. The policy should be clear that it is the Local Plan requirement which is the basis for the housing requirement, and that it should be treated as a minimum.

The proposed maximum development limit of 30 dwellings prescribed in Policy H1 is entirely arbitrary and without justification or evidential basis. Sandbach is a large town which plays an important role in terms of housing, commerce, employment and recreation. There is no justification whatsoever for requiring developments to be below a maximum size. The limit may prohibit the most suitable sites from being developed and lead to less suitable sites coming forward. It could also hinder the delivery of affordable housing due to the recent changes by the Government to the threshold levels for affordable housing. In any event whether the scale of a development is appropriate would be a normal development management consideration.

The policy seeks to frustrate the achievement of sustainable development, contrary to basic condition 8(2)(d). The policy would also not be in conformity (general or otherwise) with any strategic policies in the development plan contrary to basic condition 8(2)(e).

PH - The Company is concerned that Policy H1 states that future housing will be delivered predominantly on small scale sites of up to 30 dwellings. Whilst appreciating that the Town Council wish to see the Town grow at a rate so as not to overburden infrastructure such as medical facilities, schools and highways, the Company would strongly suggest the delivery of smaller schemes would not necessarily provide the same significant economic and social benefits that can be guaranteed as part of a comprehensive development scheme, including improvements to infrastructure and highways, increased delivery of affordable housing or contributions to public open space or education. Such a policy also fails to take into account the policies contained within the emerging Local Plan, which has already identified a Strategic Site in Sandbach which is expected to deliver around 250 homes in the Plan period, or the number of applications which are presently being considered.

WA - This policy is not supported with an adequate evidence base as the Sandbach Housing Needs Survey has not been provided for comment, but is likely to contradict existing evidence with regard the emerging Local Plan and future evidence of the Local Plan. It is also clear that the level of housing need has not been established for Sandbach. Such a policy approach is required to ensure that the policy is in conflict with the adopted Cheshire East Strategy Local Plan. This policy is contrary to the NPPF.

NJL - Reference is made to a Housing Vision report dated March 2015, however this report is not provided alongside the document and therefore, as the methodology for this report is unknown, the report should not be used as supporting evidence for the Neighbourhood Plan. The Housing Vision report should have been provided for review as part of this consultation process and as such a further consultation period for the document should be allowed.

Policy H1 states it will ensure that ‘any new housing within Sandbach will be delivered in line with the requirements of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Submission Version (2014) or latest housing requirements as identified by Cheshire East Council’. The Policy also states that new housing will be delivered in line with the Sandbach Housing needs surveys 2015. Although comments which have been made within the Neighbourhood Plan suggest that the Housing Vision and Cheshire East Local Plan contradict each other and therefore it is inappropriate to state that the housing will be delivered in line with both documents.

The Sandbach Housing needs survey referenced within the policy and the justification has not been provided as part of the consultation and therefore we request that this is made available for review alongside the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

The justification of the policy also refers to the Cheshire East Local Plan and the fact that the submission version allocates 2,200 homes for Sandbach during the plan period and that recent approvals have seen 96.3% of this target already achieved. However, the figure of 2,200 homes up to 2030 has not been found sound and should not therefore be used within the Neighbourhood Plan.

On the contrary, it is anticipated that the overall housing requirement figure, and as a consequence, Sandbach’s requirement also, will increase once Cheshire East’s full OAN (objective assessed need) is understood. When he released his interim view, the Local Plan Inspector stated that there were shortcomings in the Council’s objective assessment of housing needs, and that the proposed level of housing seems inadequate to ensure the success of the overall economic, employment and housing strategy. It is therefore expected that the revised figures will be higher than previously stated, although how much higher is not yet known.

The Neighbourhood Plan can only provide for more dwellings than the number specified in the Local Development Plan, however, as there is currently no figure to use as benchmark it is essential to await the full OAN figure.

It is vital to await further information regarding the housing requirement figures for Cheshire East as a whole and more specifically for Sandbach. This will ensure that the Neighbourhood Plan policies are in line with local planning policies as required. 4.39 A recent High Court decision (as mentioned previously), Satnam v. Warrington stated that Warrington Council failed to provide for an appropriate level of housing in Warrington over the plan period. Furthermore, it was determined that having identified the OAN for affordable housing, that figure should then be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market/affordable housing development. It was found that an increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes. It is anticipated that this decision is likely to significantly impact upon the future calculation of OANs by Council’s across the country and ensures that the full market and affordable need is fully considered, which is only expected to result in the increase of OANs.

The latest Cheshire East SHMA states that there is a net annual shortfall of 1,401 affordable dwellings. Therefore, ensuring this shortfall is adequately addressed, as the Satnam High Court decisions states should be the case, will significantly increase the overall OAN for the Borough and as a result also increase the need for Sandbach.

The housing requirement for Sandbach (and the figure for the borough as a whole) is a minimum, rather than a maximum and therefore development should not be restricted to this figure. It must be accepted that the provision of housing within Sandbach will solve some of the issues currently faced by the local population, these include:

· Traffic – high levels of congestion exist within Sandbach and new residential development will be required to make contributions towards highways and junction improvements. Through these contributions, necessary improvements and highways schemes could be introduced to minimise the congestion problems which currently exist.

· Facilities – a number of local residents have expressed concern that the local facilities and services, including doctors’ surgeries and schools are oversubscribed and struggling to cope with demand. New residential developments are required, where a need is identified, to provide a contribution towards the provision of services and facilities, therefore more residential development will provide additional funding for these services.

· Viability of the town’s shops and services – a greater number of residents within the settlement will increase spending in local shops and services thereby benefitting the local economy.

Policy H1 also states that ‘housing will be delivered predominantly on small scale sites of up to 30 houses’. This proposed policy is not supported.

As previously discussed, the exact number of homes to be accommodated within Sandbach is not yet known and, as such, the limitation of the size of residential development sites is not appropriate.

Notwithstanding the above, the policy states that housing will be ‘predominantly’ delivered on small scale sites, and therefore where larger scale sites are considered to be appropriate the deliverability of such sites must be carefully considered. A number of larger sites have been granted planning permission in recent months within Sandbach, however, some concern is now being raised as to the deliverability of some of these sites. Hindheath represents a deliverable site, which, should larger scale developments be sought within Sandbach should be considered appropriate and duly supported.

SAP - To ensure that Cheshire East’s Neighbourhood Plans and new Local Plan deliver the Authority’s housing needs, a flexible approach should be applied to exceeding the proposed limit of “30 houses” where proposals demonstrate that there will be no adverse impacts to the community and phasing is agreed. Moreover, larger developments bring increased ability to deliver community/infrastructure benefits, which should be recognised within the Neighbourhood Plan.

Overall, the Authority are required by the Local Plan Inspector to increase the proposed level of housing and as Sandbach is identified as a Key Service Centre, the likelihood is that increased growth beyond that identified in the submitted version Local Plan will be necessary.

Accordingly, to ensure that the Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions, the housing policies need to be more flexible to allow for increased growth beyond the settlement limits. Whilst H1 allows for this in principle, the proposed Green Gap designation significantly restricts such growth and is, on the whole, unjustified. We accordingly advise that the proposed Green Gap policy and designation is reviewed.

IND - Therefore, whilst the accompanying justification for draft policy H1 suggests that recent planning approvals granted in Sandbach mean that the housing target has almost been reached, this conclusion cannot be made as the housing targets and wider objectively assessed need are being reviewed. To ensure that future housing growth strategies do meet the objectively assessed need for current and future housing, the additional work the Council is undertaking will need to have been completed and the evidence tested at examination before policies can be formed.

Section 1.1 of the DNP states, “the Plan must be flexible and adaptable in order to provide a structure which meets the needs of a growing population”. However, this is contrary to the housing growth strategy set out in draft policy H1. Setting a threshold that all new residential schemes must be 30 dwellings or under is not “flexible and adaptable” and is not a policy that is aimed at meeting the needs of “a growing population”.

The restriction suggested on the size of residential schemes that are able to come forward is also inconsistent with the messages of the NPPF, which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development schemes (regardless of size). There is no planning justification for setting a size threshold for new housing sites as this will be informed by the objectively assessed housing nee, settlement hierarchy and distribution of development, all of which are still be assessed by the Council.

Notwithstanding the objection to imposing onerous restrictions on housing delivery, neither the draft policy nor accompanying justification provides any explanation as to the work undertaken to establish why 30 dwellings is a sufficient size; how this will meet the housing requirements for Sandbach; how such an approach will avoid piecemeal development taking place on larger parcels of land; and how restricting new schemes to 30 or less represents sustainable development.

There is no evidence to demonstrate that alternative options have been considered and that smaller or larger scheme thresholds have been tested. Seeking to impose this restriction is flawed and unjustified.

Please also see comments in response to draft policy H5.

SGC – Strongly disagree. The gap in the housing supply for Cheshire East as a whole makes this policy in isolation strategically unsound. The housing around the new golf course will enable the golf club development and will be delivered in lots of less than 30 houses.

ZAN –

· P46, policy H1 should small sale limit of 30 only apply to Greenfield sites? as this clashes with policy H5 on page 50

· P46, unplanned housing growth since 2010 - [not sure this date is correct] only since 2012? with Richborough etc the Elworth Developments had been in the Congleton Plan waiting for S106 agreements and can’t be called unplanned. Could you check the dates please. Prior to the Elworth estates the only substantial recent development had been Coppenhalls Scrapyard and land next to Homebase.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON HOUSING GROWTH:

The Sandbach NDP seeks to promote genuinely “plan led” development. It is therefore appropriate to assess the cumulative sustainability impact of developments in the parish rather than the site by site, adhoc and unplanned approach, which has been the case recently.

The Sandbach NDP clearly acknowledges the need to align with any future housing needs identified in the Cheshire East Local Plan and realises that this is a minimum requirement. The Local Plan Inspector also noted that the current housing allocation had focussed on the South of the Borough, It therefore does not necessarily follow that any increase in Borough wide housing need will automatically result in an increase for Sandbach.

The Sandbach Housing Needs Survey does, however, add a further insight into the particular needs within the parish of Sandbach, which is the area that the neighbourhood plan is primarily concerned with. The policies within the Sandbach NDP do not seek to limit housing growth, but simply identify the most appropriate housing allocation. . This study will be used in conjunction with the minimum housing target allocated by the emerging CEC Local Plan to determine both housing numbers & type required to meet the future needs of the town & the borough, as a whole. The Housing Needs Survey is available for inspection and does not contradict the emerging Local Plan.

As the housing target for Sandbach is already close to being exceeded, even within the potentially uplifted figures of the revised CEC Local Plan, it seems entirely appropriate to limit future developments within the plan period to smaller developments.

· Since 2010 approvals on smaller sites have contributed significantly to the future growth of Sandbach as follows:195 dwellings were approved on sites up to 30 units.141 dwellings were approved on sites up to 20 units, 90 dwellings were approved on sites up to 10 units.

There is no reason to believe that this trend will not continue for the remainder of the planning period, up to 2030.

The strategic site within Sandbach already has planning approval for 300 houses (Cheshire East Local Plan identified 200 houses). This site was considered to be beyond the scope of the Sandbach NDP although the number has been included in the Sandbach housing delivery number.

POLICY H2 – DESIGN & LAYOUT

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

IND - There is agreement that the housing mix and type of a scheme should be largely dictated by local need. However, the draft policy refers to ‘community need’ , which needs to be defined before comments can be made as to whether this policy is supported or not.

In addition, there is no mention in draft policy H3 of viability. Taking account of scheme viability is crucial when determining housing mix and type, especially affordable housing provision, to ensure that development is not hampered by onerous requirements.

The draft policy should be amended to allow for viability to be considered when determining housing mix and type.

RESPONSE: Wording has been changed to local need

SGC – Strongly agree. The housing around the course will be designed to integrate both with the landscape and views over the course as well as with existing neighbouring housing.

ZAN - P48, Policy H3 Housing Mix and Type - should the i.e. be an e.g. otherwise would not comply with NPPF details given below e.g. homes for disabled, self builders etc.

RESPONSE: Wording has been amended to e.g. accordingly

POLICY H3– HOUSING MIX & TYPE

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

IND - There is strong objection to draft policy H5 part a and e, in particular seeking to prioritise the use of brownfield sites first and restricting development to small scale schemes.

a) Prioritising Brownfield Sites

Whilst it is acknowledged that efforts should be made to bring back into active use brownfield sites where possible, there is no national policy requirement that prioritises the use of such sites in preference to greenfield sites. The presumption in favour policy set out in the NPPF relates to overall sustainability and not whether the site is brownfield or greenfield.

The Inspector also raises this point in his Interim Views to the CELP (dated November 2014), stating at paragraph 61 “The NPPF encourages the use of previously developed land, but there are no targets or policy requirements to enforce the development of brownfield land before using greenfield sites”.

Imposing a sequential assessment seeking to proprieties brownfield sites in the first instance, as is being promoted by draft policy H5, does not accord with the NPPF and should therefore be deleted from draft policy H5.

Barratt Homes are involved in bring forward development on both brownfield and greenfield sites, for example the ‘Elworth Gardens’ development at the former Foden Site in Sandbach.

RESPONSE: The Plan does not restrict to Brownfield sites. Brownfield redevelopment will be supported.

e) restricting the size of new residential development

The restriction suggested on the size of residential schemes that are able to come forward is inconsistent with the messages of the NPPF, which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development schemes. The NPPF is about adopting a proactive not restrictive approach to sustainable development. This is not currently reflected in draft policy H5.

Notwithstanding the objection to imposing onerous restrictions on housing delivery, neither the draft policy nor accompanying justification provides any explanation as to the work undertaken to establish why 30 dwellings is a sufficient size; how this will meet the housing requirements for Sandbach; how such an approach will avoid piecemeal development taking place on larger parcels of land; and how restricting new schemes to 30 or less represents sustainable development.

There is no evidence to demonstrate that alternative options have been considered and that smaller or larger scheme thresholds have been tested. Seeking to impose this restriction is flawed and unjustified.

The exception that larger schemes will only be supported on brownfield sites again is not justified. There is no explanation as to how brownfield sites would be better suited to being able to deliver a larger quantum of development than greenfield sites. The key criterion according to the NPPF is site sustainability not whether a site is brownfield or greenfield. This refers back to the fact that the NPPF only encourages and does not priorities the use of brownfield sites first.

Restricting the level of housing to sites of 30 dwellings or less is not in accordance with the NPPF, the adopted Congleton Local Plan or the emerging CELP, has not been justified within the DNP and should be deleted from draft policy H5.

RESPONSE: Evidence has been included to show that large sites are not required over the Plan period. Development approval rate has been “front loaded” with over 2680 approvals during period 2010 to May 2015 (of which over 2286 houses have been built on sites with greater than 50 houses).

SGC – Strongly agree. The housing to the North East of the course will be a mixture of affordable and retirement housing in keeping with the Belmont Avenue homes. The housing to the South West of the course will be larger, family style homes in keeping with Rowan Close.

POLICY H4– HOUSING FOR AN AGEING POPULATION

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

ZAN –

· P49 Where are the Brownfield sites - do they need listing. Reference to the SHLAA?

· ES14 and ES15, downsizers may require less bedrooms but may require larger family rooms - cannot assume properties need to be smaller - just laid out differently.

POLICY H5 – PREFERRED LOCATIONS

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

EP - Criterion a) of the policy proposes a sequential approach to the use of previously developed land. This is contrary to the NPPF, which encourages the use of previously developed land, but does not prioritise it over greenfield. This was confirmed by the Secretary of State in the Burgess Farm, Salford appeal decision letter (see APP/U4230/A/11/2157433, paragraph 17).

The requirement to meet ‘local housing needs’ under criterion b) is unnecessary, given that the housing requirement should be treated as a minimum, and paragraph 49 of the NPPF requires housing applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Sandbach forms part of the Cheshire East housing market and the need for market and affordable housing will eventually be established through that process.

Turning to criterion c), the policy should specifically recognise that accessibility is only one part of sustainability. It needs to reflect paragraphs 7, 17 & 34 of the NPPF, in terms of recognising the potential for locations to be made sustainable, and taking into account other policies in the NPPF as opposed to taking a narrow view on accessibility as the policy currently does. A development may therefore be acceptable even if the location is not considered to be particularly accessible to public transport.

In respect of criterion d), we have addressed the development size limit of 30 dwellings under our objections to Policy H1. The proposed limit is unnecessary and is not supported by any evidence. The policy seeks to frustrate the achievement of sustainable development, contrary to basic condition 8(2)(d).

PH - Policy H5 of the Neighbourhood Plan sets out that the redevelopment of brownfield sites will be supported in favour of greenfield locations. Whilst the Framework supports the development of previously developed land, it also states that authorities should seek to ‘significantly boost the supply of housing’. The Company has delivered significant housing on brownfield sites in Sandbach (including at the former Foden Test Track). It is considered that through the Neighbourhood Plan, the Council should encourage the delivery of those sites that can best guarantee the delivery of sufficient housing to meet the identified needs of Sandbach and the wider area, including greenfield sites were necessary.

As set out in our response to policy H1, the Company does not support the provision of point D, which states that development should be small scale of up to 30 dwellings further stating that exceptions will only be made where a proposed development is on a brownfield site. Such a policy does not accord with the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework, which whilst encouraging brownfield development, also states every effort should be made to identify and then meet the housing needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities to growth. It is considered that to stymie development of sustainable greenfield sites is not in accordance with such principles nor does it align with the ethos of national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing.

NJL - Policy H5 states that ‘the redevelopment of brownfield sites will be supported in favour of greenfield locations’. This is not supported by national or local planning policy.

The justification for this policy refers to the core principles of the NPPF, one of which encourages ‘the efficient use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land)’. However, the Neighbourhood Plan has not used this principle correctly. The principle encourages the reuse of brownfield land, but does not, as the Neighbourhood Plan suggests, state that brownfield land should be favoured over greenfield. Therefore, this policy is not supported by national planning policy and needs to be reconsidered prior to the progression of the Plan.

SAP - Please refer to comments made in response to PC1 and H1.

SGC – Strongly disagree. The redevelopment of brownfield sites in favour of greenfield seems sound, but will not be able to meet the full housing need for Cheshire East and Sandbach as a key service centre. The green gaps between Sandbach and Elworth were lost 20 years ago through roadside, ribbon development. The gaps are all in private ownership and do not have rights of way across them. The only residents who now benefit from these gaps are the house owners with a view and the birds!

ZAN –

· small scale, brownfield exceptions etc, need to change so does not clash with policy H1

· is a list of brownfield sites required - to prove they exist and are potentially developable.

· Do you need to review the Cheshire East SHLAA sites for Sandbach, or develop your own list, Cheshire East do not appear to have updated the SHLAA for two years, it was to be updated each year, but resources have been allocated elsewhere.

IND - There is strong objection to draft policy H5 part a and e, in particular seeking to prioritise the use of brownfield sites first and restricting development to small scale schemes.

a) Prioritising Brownfield Sites

Whilst it is acknowledged that efforts should be made to bring back into active use brownfield sites where possible, there is no national policy requirement that prioritises the use of such sites in preference to greenfield sites. The presumption in favour policy set out in the NPPF relates to overall sustainability and not whether the site is brownfield or greenfield.

The Inspector also raises this point in his Interim Views to the CELP (dated November 2014), stating at paragraph 61 “The NPPF encourages the use of previously developed land, but there are no targets or policy requirements to enforce the development of brownfield land before using greenfield sites”.

Imposing a sequential assessment seeking to proprieties brownfield sites in the first instance, as is being promoted by draft policy H5, does not accord with the NPPF and should therefore be deleted from draft policy H5.

Barratt Homes are involved in bring forward development on both brownfield and greenfield sites, for example the ‘Elworth Gardens’ development at the former Foden Site in Sandbach.

e) restricting the size of new residential development

The restriction suggested on the size of residential schemes that are able to come forward is inconsistent with the messages of the NPPF, which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development schemes. The NPPF is about adopting a proactive not restrictive approach to sustainable development. This is not currently reflected in draft policy H5.

Notwithstanding the objection to imposing onerous restrictions on housing delivery, neither the draft policy nor accompanying justification provides any explanation as to the work undertaken to establish why 30 dwellings is a sufficient size; how this will meet the housing requirements for Sandbach; how such an approach will avoid piecemeal development taking place on larger parcels of land; and how restricting new schemes to 30 or less represents sustainable development.

There is no evidence to demonstrate that alternative options have been considered and that smaller or larger scheme thresholds have been tested. Seeking to impose this restriction is flawed and unjustified.

The exception that larger schemes will only be supported on brownfield sites again is not justified. There is no explanation as to how brownfield sites would be better suited to being able to deliver a larger quantum of development than greenfield sites. The key criterion according to the NPPF is site sustainability not whether a site is brownfield or greenfield. This refers back to the fact that the NPPF only encourages and does not priorities the use of brownfield sites first.

Restricting the level of housing to sites of 30 dwellings or less is not in accordance with the NPPF, the adopted Congleton Local Plan or the emerging CELP, has not been justified within the DNP and should be deleted from draft policy H5.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON PREFERRED LOCATIONS

· SNDP is not seeking to impose a sequential assessment. It is simply seeking to encourage the redevelopment of existing brownfield sites, wherever possible in accordance with the NPPF & stated government policy

·

3.4 PROMOTING JOBS AND THE LOCAL ECONOMY (JLE)

POLICY JLE1 – PRESERVATION OF AREAS ALLOCATED FOR EMPLOYMENT

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No View

COMMENTS:

PH - Chapter 3.4 and Policy JLE1 of the Neighbourhood Plan sets out that a key objective of the Town Council is to preserve the ‘Capricorn’ site for business and employment purposes only, further stating that ‘housing or care related uses will not be permitted.’ As written, the policy does not accord with the strategic policies set out within the emerging Local Plan, namely Policy CS24, which allocates the Site for mixed uses, and which is expected to deliver around 20ha of employment land to the north and around 200 homes to the south of the Site, nor does it take account to the approved residential/mixed use planning applications granted on the Site. Indeed, paragraph 15.346 of the Local Plan highlights that housing is required on the Site to enable the delivery of this site for employment purposes.

RESPONSE: The policy reflects the community wish to retain the site for employment only

CEC LP allocates up to 200 residential dwellings on the site and 300 have already been approved – 250 on the north side, along with business use and 50 on the south side with no long term employment opportunities.

We would also highlight that MAP H3 of the Neighbourhood Plan erroneously locates employment development to the south of the site, not the north as per the extant planning permissions or policies within the Local Plan.

RESPONSE: MAP H3 (Fig. 2) correctly shows approved mixed development including up to 250 residential dwellings on the north side of the Capricorn site (ref. CEC planning application 12/3948C). South side (blue) shows the area that the community wants to retain for employment MAP JLE1 (Fig. 19) confirms this.

MAP H3 (Fig. 2) will be reviewed to clarify the point

As stated in the justification text to accompany Policy JLE1, the Site has recently been granted planning consent for mixed use development including the provision of 250 residential dwellings (Ref: 12/3948C), 50 dwellings more than identified within the Local Plan.

The delivery of 250 dwellings at this location follows the Company receiving outline consent for 50 dwellings for the southern part of the Strategic Site in November 2013 (and which is currently subject to a Reserved Matters application). The Company is also awaiting determination of a separate Phase 2 application for 144 dwellings. Should the Council be minded to approve this application, this will take the quantity of residential development approved at this Strategic Site to 446 dwellings, in excess of the 200 dwellings stated in the Local Plan.

The Council’s Local Plan Strategy Site Justification Paper (March 2014) supports the inclusion of the Site as an allocation within the Local Plan because of its ability to contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements, employment needs and the continued vitality of Sandbach within the M6 corridor. Indeed, our phase 2 application seeks to assists with the delivery of the employment uses by contributing towards a new bridge over the wildlife corridor, without which parts of the site would be inaccessible and ultimately undeliverable. By restricting housing at this location, the Neighbourhood Plan is inadvertently preventing the delivery of the employment uses on the site.

The Company acknowledges the desires of the Sandbach community, as set out in paragraph 1.1 of the Neighbourhood Plan, to ensure that appropriate contributions towards facilities and services are provided as part of any additional housing development. It is considered that the delivery of the Strategic Site at Capricorn for mixed use development will provide significant economic and social benefits to new and existing Sandbach residents, and opportunities to further increase these benefits should be encouraged. Indeed, it was considered in the Sandbach Town Strategy (August 2012) that the site could accommodate in the region of 700 homes and associated community facilities together with 25ha of employment land.

The Company would encourage the Town Council to acknowledge the significant benefits of achieving mixed use and comprehensive development (employment and residential) at this location, in line with the conclusions set out by the Council in the Site Justification Paper and Town Strategy; and would encourage the Town Council to acknowledge through the Neighbourhood Plan, that the Site can sustainably deliver a significantly higher quantum of residential development than presently identified within the Local Plan, without detriment to the achievement of employment development at this location, and such opportunities to deliver efficient and increased scales of development in the most sustainable locations should be encouraged. Indeed, sufficient flexibility should be given within the Neighbourhood Plan to encourage logical extensions to development in sustainable locations. This is supported by the Framework (para 17) which sets out that every effort should be made to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.

RESPONSE: Mixed use is acknowledged. What is considered not acceptable is housing without provision for long term employment

WA - A planning application, reference 12/3948C, has been approved by the Council for development comprising office and light industrial units, commercial development, supported by up to 250 dwellings required in order to meet the very significant costs necessary to deliver the development. The permission was granted in March 2015.

The detailed proposed road improvements were granted planning permission by the Council in April 2014. The application for the mixed use development was supported by a detailed financial viability appraisal, which the Council had independently assessed and accepted the findings. The reality is that the list of requirements for the site imposed by the Council including other on and off site costs could not viably be financially delivered without up to 250 residential units or so proposed. Other requirements required through S106 include new green infrastructure, open space and recreation facilities, appropriately bridging the protected wildlife corridor, education and health requirements, and affordable housing.

The Council have previously granted reserved matters approval for 50 houses (to Persimmon Homes) under reference 13/5239C. Although this site is within the area of CS24 it makes no direct contribution toward the strategic infrastructure required to deliver the employment land. In addition it is included within the housing commitments already set out in Table 7 of the Local Plan Housing Background Paper 2013. It clearly therefore does not form part of the indicative 200 units promoted for the CS24 allocation.

The proposed Local Plan allocation has been supported in principle. It is considered that the significant matters and issues surrounding the delivery of the CS24 strategic development site could be resolved through properly weighing the planning balance in the matters previously referred to. Also, certain statements have been made about the deliverability of the site which conflict with objectively assessed position affecting the site. In general these comments have been put forward by other interests who are not acting in an objective manner. We will respond to such representations, through the re-examination of the Local Plan.

Preservation of Areas Allocated for Employment has been developed without an appropriate established evidence base. The economic and housing needs of the Borough and the Town have not been properly established. Therefore the policy is in complete conflict with the NPPF.

The policy indicates that Capricorn Park should allocated solely for the provision of business and long term employment opportunities in Sandbach. However the Cheshire East Local Plan (Policy Site CS 24) indicates that the site should provide a mix of uses including employment, housing, some retail development and green infrastructure. Therefore Policy JLE1 is in clear conflict with the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan. The site as a sustainable development location should be allocated as a mixed use development capable of accommodating a range of uses including housing and employment development.

In addition, land north of Old Mill Road (Phase 2b) is also a sustainable development location equally capable of accommodating a range of uses including housing and employment development. This land was identified by the Sandbach Town Council in its Town Plan in order to achieve gateway status and to facilitate the delivery of a parking area for car-sharing.

The choice of allocated sites and inconsistencies and omissions associated with Capricorn Park are the result of an inconsistent plan making process, a lack of robust evidence base and an attempt to restrict future development within the town rather than an attempt to direct sustainable development.

RESPONSE: Mixed use is acknowledged. What is considered not acceptable is housing without provision for long term employment

NJL - Our client agrees with the concern raised within the Neighbourhood Plan regarding the future use of Site CS24, known as the ‘Capricorn’ site. The local community’s view that the site is at risk of change to include housing if employment take-up is slow is also felt by our client, and others. Therefore we believe that the Neighbourhood Plan should include a suitable policy to control the site for specific uses only.

In spite of the recent permission at the site, representations previously made are considered to still be of relevance. It is not considered that there is a need to provide an element of homes on the remainder of the site to ensure that the site’s redevelopment for employment use is viable. There is no evidence to support the Council’s justification that new homes are needed to ensure that the employment uses can come forward. In fact, evidence to the contrary exists; the site is attractive to the market, can viably deliver solely employment uses, and has had previous impediments to development removed.

On behalf of HIMOR we have previously suggested that for the Local Plan to be made sound, the allocation should be amended to refer solely to employment uses. Following the recent decision it is considered that the remainder of the site should be allocated, within the Local Plan and within the Neighbourhood Plan as such.

Therefore, although Policy JLE1 of the Neighbourhood Plan is not currently in line with local planning policy, with the suggested amendments, it is supported as it is considered to accurately reflect the site’s suitability for future employment development.

RESPONSE: Agreement to this policy is acknowledged. A provision has been included which allows for review of viability after a period of time.

SAP - Please refer to comments made in response to PC1.

IND - Draft Policy CS24 of the emerging CELP relates to land adjacent to J17 of the M6 and seeks to allocate this land for mixed use development including delivery of new homes, which have since been approved pursuant to an outline application (Ref: 12/3948C).

Emerging CELP Policy EG3 seeks to allow flexibility for employment sites to be brought forward for alternative non-employment uses in specific circumstances, where it can be demonstrated there is no longer a requirement for employment development and the sustainable development objectives of the Plan can still be met.

This accords with the provisions of the NPPF, which at paragraph 22 seeks to avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Therefore, to impose a blanket approach to employment sites never being considered for alternative uses would not be in accordance with the NPPF.

Any policies relating to the future protection or allocation of employment sites should allow, where it can be demonstrated there is no reasonable prospect the site will be used for employment purposes, the consideration of redevelopment for non-employment uses. This will ensure policies are consistent with the objectives of the NPPF.

RESPONSE: Agreement to this policy is acknowledged. A provision has been included which allows for review of viability after a period of time.

IND - Whilst part of the site does have outline consent for a mixed use development including up to 250 houses (Ref: 12/3948C), if policy JLE1 and MAP JLE1 were to allocate the site for employment purposes this would be contrary to the emerging CELP and inconsistent with the recently consented scheme for part of the site. In addition, the only mechanism for allocating sites is through the Local Plan process not Neighbourhood Plans. It would therefore be unlawful for the DNP to seek to allocate this site.

Furthermore, as set out in response to Section 2, the NPPF (paragraph 22) is against the long term protection of employment sites and requires such sites to be regularly reviewed to ensure it is still being promoted for the most appropriate use. Where it can be demonstrated that employment sites are no longer fit for purpose, alternative non-employment uses, including housing should be considered.

Policy JLE1 should therefore include a reviewing mechanism to allow alternative non-employment uses to be considered on the remainder of the Capricorn site if there are no reasonable prospects of it being used for employment purposes.

Furthermore, the whole of the Capricorn site does not fall within a wildlife corridor designation. As previously discussed mechanisms have been put in place through the recent outline consent to ensure these wildlife corridors within this wider site are protected and also that new development provides green linkages.

There is no justification as to why the four sites identified (H, I , R and S) require protection and their relevance to the Capricorn site coming forward is unclear. As a mixed use scheme has already been consented on part of the Capricorn site, this demonstrates that impacts to these wildlife has been assessed and deemed to be acceptable.

RESPONSE: Agreement to this policy is acknowledged. A provision has been included which allows for review of viability after a period of time.

RTB - The site is allocated by Cheshire East Council as part of their emerging Local Plan and has recently acquired planning permission. As a result, it is highly unlikely that the NDP will be able to remove the need for housing on this site, especially when there is a requirement for approximately 2,200 homes over the Plan Period. Despite you making it apparent that this has been exceeded though planning consent between 2010 and to date, the Plan is not adopted as of yet. Refer to point 4 http://www.pas.gov.uk/45-neighbourhood-planning-faqs regarding this issue.

The correct term is ‘enabling development’ in reference to the last sentence of the first bullet point.

RTB - The ‘Capricorn’ site is allocated as a mixed-use site including the provision of housing as part of CS24 of the emerging Local plan. As of the 9 March 2015, planning permission was granted for the delivery of a mixed-use site including 250 homes. Please refer to (ref: 12/3984), particularly the Decision notice.

http://doc.cheshireeast.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/07682368.pdf

The TC should strongly consider removing Policy JLEL1.

I also reiterate point 4 detailed by following this link

http://www.pas.gov.uk/45-neighbourhood-planning-faqs

SGC – Strongly agree. Losing Capricorn to residential development would be a huge loss. 50 years ago when the town had two truck manufacturers, the council should have turned the area around junction 17 into the distribution hu