Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy – Proposed Changes Version
The Sustainability Appraisal Addendums
The following statement relates to the following documents:
SA Volume 1 – Proposed Changes to Strategic and Development Management Policies SA Volume 2 – Proposed Changes to Local Plan Strategy Sites and Strategic Locations
On Friday 26 February, Council agreed changes to the wording of the Local Plan Strategy – Proposed Changes document prior to public consultation on the 4th March 2016. The amendments proposed have been considered by consultants Enfusion (for Sustainability Appraisal matters) who have confirmed that they do not consider that the proposed amendments have any significant implications with regards the Sustainability Appraisal process or findings to date.
Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic and Development Management Policies
Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
February 2016
Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic and Development Management Policies
Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
February 2016
Treenwood House Rowden Lane Bradford on Avon BA15 2AU t: 01225 867112 www.enfusion.co.uk
Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: SA Addendum Report Volume 1
Contents
Page Numbers 1.0 Introduction 1 Background 1 Purpose and Structure of this SA Addendum Report 4
2.0 SA Method 5 Introduction 5 Approach and Method 6
3.0 SA of Alternatives 9 Introduction 9 Assessment of Alternatives in SA/SEA 9 Assessment of Options in Plan-Making 12 SA Findings and Reasons for Selecting/Rejecting Alternatives in 13 the Local Plan Strategy
4.0 SA of Proposed Changes to the Local Plan Strategy 45 Introduction 45 LPS Chapter 8 - Planning for Growth (Policies PG 1 - PG 6) 45 LPS Chapter 9 - Planning for Sustainable Development (Policies SD 50 1 & SD 2) LPS Chapter 10 - Infrastructure (Policies IN 1 & IN 2) 50 LPS Chapter 11 - Enterprise and Growth (Policies EG 1 - EG 5) 50 LPS Chapter 12 - Stronger Communities (Policies SC 1 - SC 7) 50 LPS Chapter 13 - Sustainable Environment (Policies SE 1 - SE 15) 50 LPS Chapter 14 - Connectivity (Policies CO 1 - CO 4) 50 Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) 51 Health Impact Assessment (HIA) 51 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) 51
5.0 Summary and Next Steps 53
Tables:
1.1 Local Plan Strategy and SA published documents to date 1 2.1 Refined Significance Key 6 3.1 Issues & Options Paper Growth Options (2010) 13 3.2 Development Strategy & Policy Principles Phasing Options (2013) 15 3.3 Growth Options (2015) 18 3.4 Additional Growth Option (2016) 19 3.5 Summary of Revised SA Findings for Growth Options (2016) 21 3.6 Summary of Approach to Alternatives Assessment and Selection for 25 Growth Options
February 2016 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
3.7: Summary of Approach to Alternatives Assessment and Selection for 27 the Phasing of Growth 3.8 Issues & Options Paper Spatial Distribution Options (2010) 28 3.9 Development Strategy & Policy Principles (2013) 30 3.10 Options for Spatial Distribution (2015) 33 3.11 Options for Spatial Distribution (2015) 37 3.12 Summary of SA Findings for Spatial Distribution Options (2015) 38 3.13 Summary of Approach to Alternatives Assessment and Selection for 42 Spatial Distribution Options
Figures:
3.1 Hierarchy of Alternatives in SA/SEA and Options in Plan-Making 10
APPENDICES (AVAILABLE SEPARATELY)
I Revised SA of Growth Options (2016) II Fresh SA of Spatial Distribution Options III SA/SEA Screening of Proposed Changes IV SA of Significant Revisions
February 2016 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
1.0 Introduction
Background
1.1 Cheshire East Council (CEC) has been undertaking Sustainability Appraisal (SA) incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) since 2009 to inform the preparation of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (LPS). The SA and LPS progress to date may be summarised as follows:
Table 1.1: Local Plan Strategy and SA published documents to date Local Plan Strategy Documents & SA Documents & Consultation Consultation Evidence gathering and consultation SA Scoping Report (April 2009) Prepared by exercises CEC Public consultation 27 April to 1 June 2009 SA Scoping Report (Sept 2009) Prepared by CEC Incorporated changes as a result of previous consultation Issues and Options Paper SA Report (Nov 2010) Public consultation 8 November to Prepared by CEC 20 December 2010 Public consultation 8 November to 20 December 2010 Considering representations on Issues Revised Scoping Report (March 2012) and Options and developing policies Prepared by CEC Public consultation 2 March to 10 April 2012 Revised Scoping Report (Sept 2012) Prepared by CEC Incorporated changes as a result of previous consultation Town Strategy Phase 1 Consultations Draft Alsager TS SA Report (originally published (Alsager, Congleton, Middlewich March 2012 then revised in Aug 2012) and Sandbach) Draft Congleton TS SA Report (March 2012) 2 March and 2 April 2012 Draft Middlewich TS SA Report (originally published March 2012 then revised in Aug 2012) Draft Sandbach TS SA Report (originally published March 2012 then revised in Aug 2012) All reports prepared by CEC Public consultation 2 March and 2 April 2012 Town Strategy Phase 2 Consultation Draft Wilmslow TS SA Report (Wilmslow) Prepared by CEC 1 April 2012 until 31 May 2012 Public consultation 3 May to 31 May 2012 Town Strategy Phase 3 Consultations Draft Crewe, Macclesfield, Nantwich, (Crewe, Macclesfield, Nantwich, Knutsford, Poynton, and Handforth TS SA Knutsford, Poynton, and Handforth) Reports 31 August and 1 October 2012 All reports prepared by CEC Public consultation 31 August and 1 October 2012 Development Strategy and Policy SA Report (Jan 2013) Principles Prepared by CEC Public consultation 15 January to 26 Public consultation 15 January to 26 February February 2013 2013
February 2016 1/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Possible Additional Sites Consultation Purpose was to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on possible additional sites without any analysis or judgment from the Council 3 to 30 May 2013 Pre-Submission Local Plan Core Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Report Strategy (Nov 2013) 5 November to 16 December 2013 Prepared by CEC with specialist independent advice from Enfusion Public consultation 5 November to 16 December 2013 Local Plan Strategy Submission Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Report Version (March 2014) 14 March to 25 April 2014 Prepared by CEC with specialist independent advice from Enfusion Public consultation 14 March to 25 April 2014 Local Plan Strategy Submission Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Report Submitted to the Secretary of State (May 2014) 20 May 2014 Prepared by CEC with specialist independent advice from Enfusion Submitted to the Secretary of State 20 May 2014 to accompany the Local Plan Strategy Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal including suggested revisions to Addendum Report (July 2015) Chapter 8 of the LPS Prepared by Enfusion Submitted to the Inspector 31 July Appendix 11 of the LPS Cabinet Report 2015 Submitted to the Inspector 31 July 2015 Local Plan draft Suggested Revisions Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Submitted to the Inspector Addendum Report (September 2015) September 2015 Prepared by Enfusion Submitted to the Inspector September 2015 Local Plan Proposed changes for Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Strategic and Development Addendum Report Volume 1 (February 2016) Management Policies Prepared by Enfusion Public consultation 4 March to 19 Public consultation 4 March to 19 April 2016 April 2016 (provisional dates) (provisional dates) Local Plan Proposed Changes for Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Local Plan Strategy Sites and Addendum Report Volume 2 (February 2016) Strategic Locations Prepared by Enfusion Public consultation 4 March to 19 Public consultation 4 March to 19 April 2016 April 2016 (provisional dates) (provisional dates)
1.2 The LPS and all associated documents, including the SA Report, were submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 20 May 2014 for independent examination. Hearing sessions were held from 16 September to 3 October 2014 with the Inspector deferring the remaining sessions to allow the consideration of the large volume of statements and material submitted in relation to the strategic sites and allocations1. Following the adjournment of the hearing sessions on 3 October
1 [PS A014] Inspector's Announcement at the Close of Hearing Sessions on Friday 3 October 2014
February 2016 2/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
2014 the Inspector informed the Council that he would be providing interim views on the legal compliance and soundness of the submitted plan2.
1.3 The Inspector’s Interim Views were published on 6 November 20143 and found that on the basis of the evidence submitted so far, he would probably conclude that the submitted Plan was unsound due to shortcomings in the proposed strategy and evidence base, including the economic and housing strategies, the relationship between them and the objective assessment of housing need, the spatial distribution of development and the approach to the Green Belt and Safeguarded Land4. In response to this, the Council formally requested that the Inspector suspend the examination for a six- month period to allow additional work to be undertaken to address the issues outlined in his interim views.
1.4 Following the suspension of the Examination the Council has undertaken a range of further technical work to address the Inspector’s concerns, which includes work on the overall level of housing and employment growth, the spatial distribution of development as well as the selection of sites. In February 2015 the Council commissioned Enfusion Ltd to provide specialist, independent services to undertake any further SA work required during the suspension of the Examination.
1.5 The further technical evidence produced by the Council and further SA work carried out during the suspension have informed the development of suggested revisions to the LPS. The Council submitted draft suggested revisions to the Inspector for the Planning for Growth policies (Chapter 8) in July 2015 and this was accompanied by a SA Addendum Report (July 2015) [PS E042]. Following receipt of the further evidence the Inspector confirmed that he was prepared to formally resume the Examination in August 20155.
1.6 The Council submitted further draft suggested revisions to the Inspector for the remaining Strategic and Development Management Policies (Chapters 9 to 14) in September 2015. The previous SA Addendum Report published in July 2015 was updated to include consideration of the further draft suggested revisions to policies in Chapters 9 to 14. The updated SA Addendum Report (September 2015) [RE B006] was submitted to the Inspector alongside the draft suggested revisions in September 2015.
1.7 Enfusion undertook further SA work in relation to growth options in January 2016, in order to address concerns raised by participants at the resumed hearing sessions as well as the Inspector’s Further Interim Views. This SA Addendum Report builds on the previously submitted Report (September 2015) [RE B006], updating it where necessary to reflect the further SA work and the current stage of the Examination process.
2 [PS A015] Letter from Inspector to Council re Examination Progress 3 [PS B033] Letter from Council to Inspector re Examination Progress 4 [PS A017b] Inspector’s Interim Views dated 6 November 2014 5 [PS A037] Letter from Inspector to Council re Resumption of Examination
February 2016 3/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
1.8 It should be noted that the further SA work carried out during the suspension of the Examination is presented in two separate Volumes: . Volume 1 (this Report) - considers the further technical work and Proposed Changes to the Strategic and Development Management Policies (Chapters 8 to 14) in the LPS. . Volume 2 (available separately) considers the further technical work and Proposed Changes to Sites and Strategic Location Policies (Chapter 15) in the LPS.
1.9 Both Volumes are available for comment alongside the Proposed Changes to the LPS.
Purpose and Structure of this SA Addendum Report
1.10 The purpose of this SA Addendum Report (Volume 1) is to clearly set out the method and findings of any further SA work carried out in relation strategic options (growth and distribution) as well Proposed Changes to Strategic and Development Management Policies (Chapters 8 to 14) in the LPS. Following this introductory Section 1, this report is structured into four further sections:
. Section 2 explains the approach taken and details the methods used for any further SA work; . Section 3 sets out the history of the SA of strategic alternatives and options assessment to date. It provides a summary of the findings of the fresh and independent appraisal of strategic options/alternatives and sets out the reasons for their selection or rejection in plan-making; . Section 4 considers the Proposed Changes to Chapters 8 to 14 of the LPS and how these affect the findings of the previous SA work; and . Section 5 sets out the overall summary findings and next steps for the LPS and the SA.
February 2016 4/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
2.0 SA Method
Introduction
2.1 Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment is an iterative and ongoing process that aims to provide a high level of protection for the environment and to promote sustainable development for plan- making. The SA evaluates the likely significant effects of the plan, including reasonable alternatives, and taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan. The role of SA is to inform the Council as the planning authority; the SA findings do not form the sole basis for decision- making - this is informed also by other studies, feasibility and feedback from consultation. There is a tiering of appraisal/assessment processes (see also later Figure 3.1) that align with the hierarchy of plans - from international, national and through to local. This tiering is acknowledged by the NPPF (2012) in paragraph 167 that states that “Assessments should be proportionate and should not repeat policy assessment that has already been undertaken.”
2.2 It should be noted that it is not always possible to accurately predict sustainability effects when considering plans at a strategic scale. Impacts on biodiversity and cultural heritage, for example, will depend on more detailed information and studies at a site-level. Whilst climate change science is becoming more accurate, it is difficult to predict impacts likely to result from climate change, including cumulative and synergistic effects.
2.3 The method and approach for the SA was previously reported in Sections 2 and 3 of the SA (Integrated) Report [SD 003] submitted alongside the LPS to the Secretary of State for Examination in May 2014.6 This explained the scoping of the SA Framework of objectives and decision-aiding questions, how they developed and were amended to reflect updated evidence, and how they were used for the appraisal of the emerging plan at different stages.
2.4 In February 2015, the Council commissioned Enfusion Ltd to provide specialist, independent services to undertake any further SA work required during the suspension of the Examination. This section sets out the method and approach for the additional SA work that has been carried out during the suspension period of the LPS which seeks to respond to the Inspector’s Interim Views. This SA Addendum Report (Volume 1) builds on the previous SA Addendum Reports produced by Enfusion and submitted to the Inspector in July 2015 [PS E042] and September 2015 [RE B006]. It considers the further technical work and Proposed Changes to the Strategic and Development Management Policies (Chapters 8 to 14) in the LPS.
6 Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal (May 2014) [SD 003]
February 2016 5/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Approach and Method
2.5 The SA Framework presented in Section 3 (Table 3.2) of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] continued to form the basis for any SA work carried out during the suspension of the Examination. For continuity, the significance criteria presented in Table 2.2 of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] were also used. However, it should be noted that minor amendments to the significance key were made in order to make the identified sustainability effects of the LPS clearer. The refined significance key used by Enfusion is presented in Table 2.1 below. It is important to note that the further SA work presented in this Report is an addendum to the Submission SA Report [SD 003] submitted to the Inspector in May 2014.
Table 2.1: Refined Significance Key Categories of Significance
Symbol Meaning Sustainability Effect
Problematical and improbable because of known Major - - sustainability issues; mitigation likely to be difficult and/or Negative expensive
Minor Potential sustainability issues: mitigation and/or - negative negotiation possible
+ No sustainability constraints and development Minor positive acceptable
Development encouraged as would resolve existing ++ Major Positive sustainability problem
? Uncertain Uncertain or Unknown Effects
/ Neutral Neutral effect
It is possible to have two symbols for an SA Objective. For example, a development could have the potential for a minor negative effect - ? against SA Objective 11 (Biodiversity); however, there is an element of uncertainty until lower level assessments have been carried out.
SA Objective 12 considers more than one topic (landscape and - + heritage) and as a result the options could have a different effect upon each topic considered.
Fresh SA of Growth and Spatial Distribution Options
2.6 Following further technical work during the suspension of the Examination in relation to the objectively assessed housing need, housing and employment strategies and spatial distribution of development, it was considered
February 2016 6/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
necessary to reconsider options through the SA for the overall level and spatial distribution of growth. For further information on the history of the SA of alternatives and options assessment to date see Section 3 of this Report.
2.7 Five reasonable housing growth options and five reasonable spatial distribution options identified by the Council were subject to independent SA by Enfusion in 2015 against the SA Framework presented in Section 3, Table 3.2 of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] and using the key presented in Table 2.1 above. A comparative appraisal of the alternatives was carried out using the baseline information (presented in Appendix C of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] and any available updated evidence, together with professional judgment where appropriate.
2.8 The nature of the likely sustainability effects (including positive/negative, duration, permanent/ temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic) were described in the appraisal commentary, together with any assumptions or uncertainties. The appraisal took into account the mitigation that is provided by various policies in the LPS and the symbols reflect this within the detailed appraisal matrix. Where relevant, the SA made suggestions and recommendations to mitigate negative effects or promote opportunities for enhancement. The findings of the appraisal were summarised in Section 3 of the SA Addendum Report [RE B006] submitted to the Inspector in September 2015 with the detailed appraisal matrices presented in Appendices I and II of the same Report.
2.9 To address the concerns raised by participants at the resumed hearing sessions in October 2015 and the Inspector’s subsequent Further Interim Views7, the Council identified an additional 6th growth option based on a 0.9% jobs growth rate to be considered through the SA process. As part of the iterative and on-going SA process, Enfusion revised the previous appraisal of growth options to include consideration of the additional 6th growth option. The summary findings of the revised SA for the six growth options are presented in Section 3 of this Report with the detailed appraisals provided in Appendix I. It is important to note that revised appraisal did not result in any changes being made to the significance or nature of effects previously identified against SA Objectives for Options 1 to 5.
Screening of Proposed Changes
2.10 The Council is proposing a number of changes to the Submission LPS based on the findings of the further technical work, including further SA work, carried out during the suspension of the Examination. It is important to ensure that any Proposed Changes are screened through the SA process to determine if they significantly affect the findings of the SA presented in the Submission SA Report [SD 003] and further appraisal work is required. A screening table was produced to consider all the proposed amendments, which includes proposed changes to policies and supporting text. The summary findings of
7 [RE A021] Inspector’s Further Interim Views, dated 11 December 2015
February 2016 7/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
this work are presented in Section 4 with the detailed screening matrix provided in Appendix III of this Report.
SA of Significant Changes
2.11 The screening of the changes to the LPS (Appendix III) found that the Proposed Changes to Policies PG 1 and PG 6 were of significance with regard to the SA. It also found that the inclusion of new Policy 4a (Strategic Green Gaps) was also significance for the SA. In recognition of this and as part of the iterative and on-going SA process a fresh appraisal of policies PG 1 and 6 was carried out and an appraisal of new Policy 4a was also produced. The policies were subject to independent SA by Enfusion in June 2015, using updated evidence where available, against the SA Framework presented in Section 3, Table 3.2 of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] and using the key presented in Table 2.1 above. A symbol was provided for each of the SA Objectives as a whole rather than for each of the decision-aiding criteria that sit beneath them as was previously done for the SA of policies undertaken by the Council. It should be noted that there have been no revisions to this work since the submission of the first SA Addendum Report (July 2015) [PS E042] to the Inspector in July 2015. The reason for this is that there has been no significant changes to the revisions that were previously proposed.
February 2016 8/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
3.0 SA of Alternatives
Introduction
3.1 The development of plan-making options and the SA/SEAs of alternatives have been on-going throughout the production of the LPS and its accompanying SA. This section sets out the history of the SA of alternatives and options assessment to date. It summarises how options have been identified, assessed and progressed through different stages of plan-making; it summarises and refers to SAs that have been undertaken and outlines how the findings of these SAs have influenced different stages of the LPS. This section also sets out the reasons why alternatives have been rejected or selected.
Assessment of Alternatives in SA/SEA
3.2 The EU SEA Directive8 requires assessment of the likely significant effects of implementing the plan and “reasonable alternatives” taking into account “the objectives and geographical scope” of the plan and the reasons for selecting alternatives should be outlined in the Report. The Directive does not specifically define the term “reasonable alternative”; however, UK SA/SEA guidance9 advises that it is should be taken to mean “realistic and relevant” i.e. deliverable and within the timescale of the plan. This approach has been confirmed in recent case law10 - an option which does not achieve the objectives of the plan is not a reasonable alternative.
3.3 Extant SEA guidance11 sets out an approach and methods for developing and assessment of alternatives. This includes acknowledgement of a hierarchy of alternatives that are relevant and proportionate to the tiering of plan-making. Alternatives considered at the early stages of plan-making need not be elaborated in too much detail so that the “big issues” are kept clear; only the main differences between alternatives need to be documented i.e. the assessment should be proportionate to the level and scope of decision-making for the plan preparation. This is confirmed by the NPPF that requires that assessments should be proportionate (paragraph 167). The hierarchy of alternatives may be summarised in the following diagram:
8 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm 9 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strategic-environmental-assessment-directive- guidance 10 R(Friends of the Earth) v Welsh Ministers [2015] EWHC 776 (Admin) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/776.html 11 http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/strategic-environmental-assessment- and-sustainability-appraisal/
February 2016 9/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Figure 3.1: Hierarchy of Alternatives in SA/SEA and Options in Plan-Making
Need What development is necessary?
Process How should it be done?
Location Where should it go?
Timing & Implementation When, what form & sequence?
3.4 Case law in England has clarified and provided further guidance for current practice on how alternatives should be considered in SA/SEA of spatial and land use plans. The decision of the High Court in Save Historic Newmarket Ltd v Forest Heath DC12 confirmed that the reasons for selecting or rejecting alternatives should be explained, and that the public should have an effective opportunity to comment on appraisal of alternatives; moreover, the SA report accompanying the draft plan must refer to, summarise or repeat the reasons that had been given in earlier iterations of the plan and SA, and these must still be valid.
3.5 In Heard v Broadland DC13, the High Court applied the proper approach identified in the Forest Heath case and held that, although not an explicit requirement in the EU SEA Directive, alternatives should be appraised to the same level as the preferred option; the final SA Report must outline the reasons why various alternatives previously considered are still not as good as the proposals now being put forward in the plan, and must summarise the reasons for rejecting any reasonable alternatives - and that those reasons are still valid. In Cogent Land LLP v Rochford DC14 the High Court found that the local planning authority had explained adequately how it had carried out the comparative assessment of competing alternative sites and that any
12 Save Historic Newmarket Ltd v Forest Heath DC [2011] EWHC 606 (Admin) 13 Heard v Broadland DC [2012] EWHC 344 (Admin) 14 Cogent Land LLP v Rochford DC [2012] EWHC 2542 (Admin)
February 2016 10/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
shortcomings in the early process had been resolved by the publication of an SA Addendum Report. The Court of Appeal has recently endorsed the High Court's decision in the Cogent Land case and Singh, J's conclusion on the issue of principle that defects at an earlier stage of the SA/SEA process can, in principle, be cured at a later stage in the plan making process.15
3.6 In Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v Wealden DC16, Sales, J held the choice of alternatives for environmental assessment is a matter of planning judgment and that the planning authority has a substantial area of discretion as to the extent of the inquiries which need to be carried out to identify the reasonable alternatives which should then be examined in greater detail.
3.7 In Friends of the Earth v Welsh Ministers (March, 2015)17 the High Court confirmed that the plan-making authority is the primary decision-maker responsible for identifying what is to be regarded as a "reasonable alternative" to the implementation of a plan or programme likely to have significant effects on the environment, acknowledging that neither the SEA Directive or the Environmental Assessment Regulations 2004 define "reasonable alternatives". However, noting that Article 5(1) of the Directive requires an environmental report to identify, describe and evaluate all, and not merely a selection, of the alternatives capable of meeting the plan objectives, Hickinbottom, J identified a number propositions concerning "reasonable alternatives" derived from existing case law.18
3.8 Having carefully analysed those authorities, the High Court held that "an option other than the preferred option that is capable of meeting the objectives of the relevant plan, as determined by the relevant decision- maker, is the truest and most helpful formulation".19 The Court also held, however, that an option which the decision-maker considered "viable … having regard to the full planning context", was also a helpful and appropriate way to characterise "reasonable alternatives".20 It was primarily for the decision-maker to identify objectives, give each appropriate weight, and determine whether they were met by a particular option. If a particular plan was incapable of meeting the identified objectives such that in practice it would never be pursued, there was no point in subjecting it to an environmental assessment.
3.9 On 9 July 2015, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of Sales, J on the grounds that the local planning authority had adopted the impugned policy in breach of the duty under Regulation 12 of the Environmental Assessment
15 No Adastral New Town v Suffolk Coastal DC [2015] EWCA Civ 88, at paras. [48] to [53], per Richards, LJ (delivering the sole judgment in which remainder of the Court agreed) 16 [2014] EWHC 406 (Admin) 17 [2015] EWHC 776 (Admin) 18 ibid., at [88], per Hickinbottom, J 19 ibid., at [105], applying the decision of the High Court in R (Buckingham CC v Secretary of State for Transport [2013] EWHC 481 (Admin), particularly at [160]-[165], per Ouseley, J 20 ibid., at [105], applying the decision of the High Court in Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v Wealden DC [2014] EWHC 406 (Admin), at [100], per Sales, J
February 2016 11/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Regulations21 relating to the assessment of reasonable alternatives. It is important to note that the Court of Appeal confirmed the Sales, J’s analysis that the identification of reasonable alternatives is a matter of evaluative assessment for the local planning authority, subject to review by the court on normal public law principles, including Wednesbury unreasonableness.22 However, the Court of Appeal also held that, in order make a lawful assessment, a local planning authority does at least have to apply its mind to the question of reasonable alternatives. On the particular facts of the Ashdown Forest case, the Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence that the local planning authority gave any consideration to the question of reasonable alternatives to the 7km zone excluding new housing development in the vicinity of the Ashdown Forest SPA.
Assessment of Options in Plan-Making
3.10 Development planning issues, such as how much, what kind of development and where, are considered within the requirements of legislation and policy together with the characteristics of the plan area and the views of its communities. Potential options for resolving such issues are identified by the Councils through various studies, such as population projections and housing need, community strategies, infrastructure capacities, and environmental constraints analysis - and through consultation with the regulators, the public, businesses, service providers, and the voluntary sector.
3.11 At the earlier and higher levels of strategic planning, options assessment is proportionate and may have a criteria-based approach and/or expert judgment; the focus is on the key differences between possibilities for scale, distribution and quality of development. At this early stage, the options presented may constitute a range of potential measures (which could variously and/or collectively constitute a policy) rather than a clear spatial expression of quantity and quality. Each option is not mutually exclusive and elements of each may be further developed into a preferred option. As a plan evolves, there may be further consideration of options that have developed by taking the preferred elements from earlier options. Thus the options for plan-making change and develop as responses from consultation are considered and further studies are undertaken.
3.12 At the later and lower levels of development planning for site allocations, options assessment tends to be more specific, often focused on criteria and thresholds, such as land availability, accessibility to services and impacts on local landscape, and particularly informed by technical studies such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). There is a hierarchy of options assessment with sites that are not viable or deliverable or might have adverse effects on protected environmental assets rejected at an early stage.
21 The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1633) 22 Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v Wealden DC [2015] EWCA Civ 681, at para. [42], per Richards, LJ (delivering the sole judgment of the Court of Appeal)
February 2016 12/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
3.13 The role of the SA is to inform a Council in their selection and assessment of options; SA is undertaken of those reasonable alternatives (options) identified through the plan-making process. The findings of the SA can help with refining and further developing these options in an iterative and ongoing way. The SA findings do not form the sole basis for decision making - this is informed also from planning and other studies, feasibility, and consultation feedback.
SA Findings and Reasons for Selecting/Rejecting Alternatives in the Local Plan Strategy
Options for the Level of Growth
3.14 The Issues & Options Paper published in November 2010 proposed three reasonable options for the overall level of growth up to 2030, which are set out in the table below.
Table 3.1: Issues & Options Paper Growth Options (2010) Growth Average Average Implications Strategy Housing Changes in Option p.a. Jobs p.a. Low 1,150 350 This option would provide for a continuation in (total of the average levels of housing provision 23,000 achieved during the past decade. Therefore, it during would not provide for all the locally generated the plan housing needs of the existing population of period) Cheshire East. Opportunities for additional affordable housing and job growth would be more limited, resulting in less scope to create the better balanced and sustainable communities desired within the Borough Medium 1,350 650 This option would provide for the approximate (total of housing needs of the existing population but 27,000 would not allow for any net migration into the during area. The levels of employment growth would the plan help to reduce out-commuting by creating a period) better balance of job opportunities to housing within communities in the Borough, but would not deliver the levels of growth needed to deliver the ambition of the economic strategy. High 1,600 950 This option would be most likely to deliver the (total of economic growth aimed at in the sub-regional 32,000 Strategy 'Unleashing the Potential'. It would during achieve the highest level of affordable housing the plan and would be the option most likely to reduce period) out-commuting. It would also best achieve funding for new transport, social and green infrastructure provision.
3.15 The three reasonable growth options were appraised by the Council against the SA Framework with the findings presented in the Issues & Options SA
February 2016 13/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Report (Nov 2010)23 which accompanied the Issues & Options Consultation Paper on public consultation from 8 November to 20 December 2010.
3.16 The SA found that as the level of growth increased so did the potential for negative effects against SA Objectives relating to the natural environment. It also found that as the level of growth increased so did the potential for positive effects against those SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing, the economy, communities and sustainable transport. The SA concluded that the nature and significance of effects against the SA Framework were uncertain at that stage, as they would be dependent on the distribution and management of development.
3.17 The findings of the SA, including other evidence, and representations received informed the Council’s decision to progress with the medium growth option (1,350 homes). The medium growth option was progressed because it was considered to provide a balance between views expressed during consultation, and competing factors that either constrain or increase the need for development. The low growth option was rejected because of concerns it would not make sufficient provision for growth and the high growth option was rejected because of concerns it would result in unjustified levels of growth. A summary of the appraisal findings for these options was provided in Section 4 of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]24, with detailed appraisal matrices presented in Appendix E and the reasons for their selection or rejection provided in Table 4.1 of the same Report.
3.18 To take account of the changes in plan-making since 2010 as well as updated evidence a fresh SA of growth options was carried out. The three reasonable growth options previously considered in Table 3.1 were subject to a fresh appraisal by the Council against the Revised SA Framework (detailed in the Revised SA Scoping Report 2012) with the findings presented in the Development Strategy & Policy Principles SA Report (Jan 2013)25, which accompanied the Development Strategy & Policy Principles on public consultation from 15 January to 26 February 2013.
3.19 The fresh SA found that that all three options for growth could have a range of both positive and negative effects. Overall, it was predicted that as the level of proposed growth increases, so too does the potential for both positive and negative impacts. For example, greater levels of growth are likely to lead to greater positive increases in the choice of housing and the ability to deliver viable infrastructure enabling access to sustainable transport, community facilities, renewable energy schemes and so on, whilst conversely leading to greater negative increases in pollution and impacts on natural resources and the environment.
23 Cheshire East Council (2012) Issues & Options SA Report. Available online: http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/planning/spatial_planning/cheshire_east_local_plan/local_plan_co nsultations/issues_and_options.aspx 24 Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal (May 2014) [SD 003] 25 Cheshire East Council (2013) Development Strategy & Policy Principles SA Report. Available online: http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/planning/spatial_planning/cheshire_east_local_plan/local_plan_co nsultations/development_strategy.aspx
February 2016 14/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
3.20 Informed by the findings of the fresh SA and supported by the evidence base developed to support the Local Plan, the Council considered that the decision to progress with the medium level of growth 27,000 homes during the plan period) was still valid. The medium growth option would allow for growth whilst balancing the considerations of development constraints. The reasons for not progressing the other options were also still considered valid. The low growth option was not progressed because of concerns that it would not make sufficient provision for growth and the high growth option was not progressed because of concerns it would result in unjustified levels of growth. A summary of the appraisal findings for these options was provided in Section 5 of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]26, with detailed appraisal matrices presented in Appendix E and the reasons for their selection or rejection provided in Table 5.3 of the same Report.
3.21 Following consideration of the consultation responses received on the Issues and Options Paper, the findings of the SA and having regard to the evolving evidence base, Cheshire East Council published the Development Strategy and Policy Principles documents in January 2013. Together these documents set out evolved objectives and strategies as well as proposed policies and strategic development sites, detailing alternatives where these had been considered. The Development Strategy Document proposed the delivery of 27,000 new homes between 2010 and 2030 in Policy CS 1.
3.22 In order to allow flexibility in the delivery of growth and to reflect economic conditions at the time, a series of sub-options for the phasing of the overarching growth strategy were considered by the Council. These options are set out in the table below.
Table 3.2: Development Strategy & Policy Principles Phasing Options (2013) Phasing Option Phasing Option 1: Consistent 2010 to 2030: at least 1,350 homes each year level of delivery (27,000 homes total) Option 2: Two phase 2010 to 2020: at least 1,150 homes each year increasing level (11,500 homes total) of delivery 2021 to 2030: at least 1,550 homes each year (15,500 homes total) Option 3: Three 2010 to 2015: at least 1,150 homes each year phase increasing (5,750 homes total) level of delivery 2016 to 2020: at least 1,250 homes each year (6,250 homes total) 2021 to 2030: at least 1,500 homes each year (15,000 homes total)
3.23 The three phasing options were appraised by the Council against the Revised SA Framework (detailed in the Revised SA Scoping Report 2012) with the findings presented in the Development Strategy & Policy Principles SA Report
26 Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal (May 2014) [SD 003]
February 2016 15/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
(Jan 2013)27, which accompanied the Development Strategy & Policy Principles on public consultation from 15 January to 26 February 2013.
3.24 The SA found that the nature and significance of the effects of the options against the SA Framework are ultimately dependent on the location and management of development. Option 1 and 2 were not progressed because it was considered not to reflect the Council's plan for growth, with the levels of development increasing as infrastructure is put in place to support it. Option 3 was progressed because it best reflected the Council's plan for growth with the level of development increasing as infrastructure is put in place to support it.
3.25 A summary of the appraisal findings for these these phasing options was provided in Section 5 of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]28, with detailed appraisal matrices presented in Appendix F and the reasons for their selection or rejection provided in Table 5.3 of the same Report.
3.26 The Submitted Cheshire East Local Plan contained a 500 dwelling contribution to meeting housing needs arising in High Peak. This was a relatively modest offer in terms of scale when compared to the overall housing needs in Cheshire East. It was made following acceptance of the physical constraints on development in High Peak and in recognition of the functional interrelationship, albeit limited, between the two Boroughs. However, the High Peak Local Plan is also currently being examined and that Inspector asked that Council to do further work on housing needs in that plan area given the release of the 2012 sub-national household projections after submission of the Plan.
3.27 For High Peak, these projections show a significantly reduced growth in future households compared to the data used for the Submitted Plan. Following further work translating the new projections into a revised (lower than before) housing requirement which the planning authority considers could be met on development sites already identified in the High Peak Local Plan.
3.28 The proposed changes to the High Peak Local Plan are the subject of consultation and the comments made will thereafter need to be presented to their Inspector. However, given the weight of the revised evidence it is appropriate to assume that there will be no necessity for the Cheshire East Local Plan to include a contribution to meeting High Peak’s housing needs. High Peak Borough Council have confirmed this is their understanding. The inclusion of an additional 500 homes during the life of the Plan was not considered of significance with regard to the findings of the SA.
3.29 The Local Plan Strategy and evidence documents, including the Submission SA Report [SD 003], were submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 20 May 2014 for independent Examination.
27 Cheshire East Council (2013) Development Strategy & Policy Principles SA Report. Available online: http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/planning/spatial_planning/cheshire_east_local_plan/local_plan_co nsultations/development_strategy.aspx 28 Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal (May 2014) SD 003
February 2016 16/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Hearings sessions on a range of strategic matters were held from 16 September to 3 October 2014, including the overall development strategy. The inspector deferred the remaining hearing sessions to allow the consideration of the large volume of statements and material submitted in relation to the strategic sites and allocations29. Following the adjournment of the hearing sessions on 3 October 2014 the Inspector informed the Council that he would be providing interim views on the legal compliance and soundness of the submitted plan30.
3.30 The Inspector’s interim views were confirmed on 6 November 201431 and found that on the basis of the evidence submitted so far, he would probably conclude that the submitted Plan is unsound due to shortcomings in the proposed strategy and evidence base, including the economic and housing strategies, the relationship between them and the objective assessment of housing need, the spatial distribution of development and the approach to the Green Belt and Safeguarded Land32. In response to this the Council formally requested that the Inspector suspend the examination for a six- month period to allow additional work to be undertaken to address the issues outlined in his interim views.
3.31 Following the suspension of the Examination the Council has been undertaking a range of technical work to address the Inspector’s concerns. This includes a Housing Development Study to establish the Objectively Assessed Need for housing in Cheshire East as well as study to determine the alignment of the economic, employment and housing strategy. Considering all of the evidence in relation to demographic trends and economic development needs, the Housing Development Study (Draft 13 May 2015) concluded that the Objectively Assessed Need for housing in Cheshire East is 36,000 dwellings over the 20-year period 2010-30, equivalent to an average of 1,800 dwellings per year. This is an increase of 9,000 dwellings from the 27,000 new dwellings proposed for the Borough in the Submission LPS.
3.32 The Objectively Assessed Housing Needs work was informed by a technical study (called the Alignment of Economic, Employment and Housing Strategy Report) that considered employment projections and economic development plans, Cheshire East’s ability to capture this based on the area’s historic performance, and the availability of employment land and the required infrastructure. The study suggests that an additional 27 ha of employment land are required to support the increased level of housing growth. It concluded that there is a strong case, at a strategic level, to allocate a substantial proportion of additional employment land to the north of the Borough.
3.33 Informed by these further technical studies the Council identified two new options for housing and employment growth alongside the three options
29 [PS A014] Inspector's Announcement at the Close of Hearing Sessions on Friday 3 October 2014 30 [PS A015] Letter from Inspector to Council re Examination Progress 31 [PS B033] Letter from Council to Inspector re Examination Progress 32 [PS A017b] Inspector’s Interim Views, dated 6 November 2014
February 2016 17/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
originally proposed at earlier stages of plan-making. The five growth options identified by the Council are set out in the table below.
Table 3.3: Growth Options (2015) Options Commentary Option 1: 22,000 new Proxy for the 2012 DCLG based household projections dwellings (1,100 dpa) baseline figure of 1,092 (figure 26 of the ORS report) and 351 ha of new Proxy for 1,150 dpa (23,000 dwellings over the Plan employment land over Period) Considered as the low level growth option in the Plan Period submitted Local Plan Strategy Sustainability Integrated Appraisal [SD 003] 351 ha of employment land as proposed in Submission LPS Appendix 1 Option 2: 27,000 Considered as the medium level growth option in dwellings (1,350 dpa) submitted Local Plan Strategy Integrated Appraisal and 351 ha of new [SD 003] employment land over Figure included in the submitted Local Plan Strategy the Plan Period (SD 001 – May 2014) Proxy for 10-year mid-trend migration (2001 – 2011) – 1339 included in ORS report (figure 26 of the ORS report) 351 ha of employment land as proposed in Submission LPS Appendix 1 Option 3: 32,000 Considered as the high level growth option in dwellings (1,600 dpa) submitted Local Plan Strategy Integrated Appraisal and 351 ha of new [SD 003] employment land over 351 ha of employment land as proposed in Submission the Plan Period LPS Appendix 1 Option 4: 36,000 Reflective of 0.7% jobs growth rate dwellings (1,800 dpa) Advanced as the Objective Assessment of Housing and 380 ha of new Need figure in the ORS report employment land over 351 ha of employment land as proposed in Submission the Plan Period LPS and Appendix 1 plus additional 27 ha identified in the further technical work33. This was then rounded up to 380 ha. Option 5: 38,000 Reflective of 0.7% jobs growth rate dwellings (1,900 dpa) Proxy for 1,894 dpa figure included and then and 380 ha of new discounted in the ORS report as the migration levels employment land over necessary to achieve this shortfall would be the Plan Period unprecedented. 351 ha of employment land as proposed in Submission LPS Appendix 1 plus additional 27 ha identified in the further technical work34. This was then rounded up to 380 ha.
33 Cheshire East Council (19 May 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy – Draft Final Report for Technical Workshop, prepared by Ekosgen. 34 Cheshire East Council (19 May 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy – Draft Final Report for Technical Workshop, prepared by Ekosgen.
February 2016 18/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
3.34 Option 1 to 3 propose a similar level of housing growth as options previously considered through earlier stages in plan-making and the SA, in particular at the Issues & Options stage in 2010 Development Strategy and Policy Principles stage in 2013. It should be noted that the provision of employment land proposed through the original low, medium and high growth options (Options 1 to 3) has been amended to reflect what was proposed in the Submission LPS. Options 4 and 5 have arisen as a result of the further technical work undertaken during the suspension of the Examination.
3.35 Enfusion was commissioned in February 2015 to assist the Council to undertake any further SA work required during the suspension of the Examination. As part of the iterative and ongoing SA process, Enfusion undertook an appraisal of the five options above against the full SA Framework. The fresh SA of growth options was informed by the further technical work carried out by the Council, which includes the Housing Development Study draft final report presented as part of the second stakeholder engagement workshop in May 201535. The summary findings of the SA for the five options were presented in Section 3 of the SA Addendum Report (September 2015) [RE B006] and the detailed appraisal matrix provided in Appendix I of the same Report. The SA Addendum Report was submitted to the Inspector alongside the LPS Suggested Revisions and were discussed at the resumed hearing sessions in October 2015.
3.36 A number of the hearing statements submitted and participants at the resumed hearing sessions stated that a growth option based on a 0.9% jobs growth rate should have been considered through the SA process. Following the resumed hearing sessions, the Inspector’s Further Interim Views on the additional evidence were published in December 2015.36 In relation to the SA work, the Inspector stated in Para 80 that because the 0.9% rate was fully considered through the Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy and Housing Development Study, he would have expected to see an option based on that rate considered through the SA work,
3.37 To address the concerns raised by participants at the resumed hearing sessions and the Inspector’s Further Interim Views, the Council has identified an additional 6th growth option based on a 0.9% jobs growth rate to be considered through the SA process. The additional growth option is set out in the table below.
Table 3.4: Additional Growth Option (2016) Options Commentary Option 6: 46,400 Assumes Cheshire East’s jobs growth rate averages dwellings (2,300 dpa) 0.9% p.a. over the Plan period, which, as Ekosgen and 441 hectares of notes in Exam Library report PS E032, is the overall jobs new employment land growth rate projected by Oxford Economics. over the Plan period The employment land requirement for Option 6 was calculated by following Ekosgen's approach (in PS
35 http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/workshop 36 [RE A021] Inspector’s Further Interim Views, dated 11 December 2015
February 2016 19/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
E032), but scaling up the Cambridge Econometrics model projections (Ekosgen’s preferred projections, which involve an overall jobs growth rate of 0.7% p.a.) for each individual sector, so that the weighted average for all sectors combined was 0.9% p.a., rather than 0.7% p.a. (Using Oxford Economics’ projections for individual sectors would result in a lower employment land requirement than 441ha, because of Oxford’s different assumptions: for example, Oxford is much more pessimistic than Cambridge about future jobs change in the B2 Use Class – a class which requires a relatively large quantity of land per FTE employee.) The proposed changes to the Local Plan Strategy (i.e. jobs growth averaging 0.7% p.a.) assume that a large part of the required jobs growth will be achieved through an increase in net inward commuting, with the rest being achieved through increased net inward migration. Even this is projected to result in net inward migration averaging 2,600 p.a. (see ORS report PS E033) – which matches the highest figure reached in any single year since at least 1991. By contrast, Option 6 (and hence the 46,400 dwellings figure) assumes that there is no limit on how far net in-migration can rise to accommodate jobs growth; the resulting Option 6 projection for net inward migration is an average of 3,700 p.a. over the whole Plan period, i.e. over 1,000 more than what has previously been achieved in any single year. However this approach was discounted in the ORS report PS E033, because of the unprecedented net in-migration it implies.
3.38 As part of the iterative and on-going SA process, Enfusion revised the previous appraisal of growth options presented in Appendix I of the SA Addendum Report (Sept 2015) [RE B006], to include consideration of the additional 6th growth option. The summary findings of the revised SA for the six growth options are presented below with the detailed appraisals provided in Appendix I. It is important to note that revised appraisal did not result in any changes being made to the significance or nature of effects previously identified against SA Objectives for Options 1 to 5.
February 2016 20/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Table 3.5: Summary of Revised SA Findings for Growth Options (2016) Options 1 2 3 4 5 6
homes & 351
SA Objective 22,000 homes & 351 ha employment 27,000 homes & 351 ha employment 32,000 ha employment 36,000 homes & 380 ha employment 38,000 homes & 380 ha employment 46,400 homes & 441 ha employment 1. Provide an appropriate quantity and quality of housing to meet the needs of + + + ++ ++ ++ the Borough. This should include a mix of housing types, tenures and affordability. 2. Create sustainable communities that benefit from good access to jobs, services, facilities and sustainable forms + + + ++ ++ ++ of transport, including walking, cycling and public transport. 3. Consider the needs of all sections of the community in order to achieve high + + + ++ ++ ++ levels of equality, diversity and social inclusion. 4. Create an environment that promotes + + + ++ ++ ++ healthy and active lifestyles. 5. Maintain and/or create vibrant rural + - + ? + ? + ? + ? + ? communities. ? ? 6. Create a safe environment to live in / / / / / / and reduce fear of crime. 7. Maintain and enhance community services and amenities to sustain the + ? + ? + ? ++ ? ++ ? ++ ? existing and future community of the Borough. 8. Manage the causes and effects of - ? - ? - ? - - -- ? climate change. 9. Positively address the issues of water quality and quantity and manage flood / / / / / / risk within the Borough. 10. Manage the impacts of development and associated activities to positively / / / /? /? /? address all forms of pollution. 11. Protect and enhance biodiversity, habitats, geodiversity and important geological features; with particular care ? ? ? - ? - ? - to sites designated internationally, nationally, regionally and locally. 12. Protect and enhance the quality, ------integrity and distinctiveness of the area’s
February 2016 21/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Options 1 2 3 4 5 6
homes & 351
SA Objective 22,000 homes & 351 ha employment 27,000 homes & 351 ha employment 32,000 ha employment 36,000 homes & 380 ha employment 38,000 homes & 380 ha employment 46,400 homes & 441 ha employment heritage, landscapes and townscapes, in ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? particular those that are internationally, nationally or locally designated. 13. Minimise energy use, promote energy efficiency and high quality design, and / / / / / / increase the generation of energy from renewable resources. 14. Achieve sustainable waste management through adhering to the / / / / / / principles of the waste hierarchy. 15. Manage mineral extraction and encourage their recycling/re-use to provide a sufficient supply to meet social and economic needs whilst minimising ? ? ? - ? - ? - impacts on the environment and communities and safeguarding resources for future generations. 16. Reduce the consumption of natural resources, protect and enhance green infrastructure and high quality agricultural - ? - ? - ? -- ? -- ? -- land and optimise the re-use of previously developed land, buildings and infrastructure. 17. To promote a sustainable, competitive and low-carbon economy that benefits from a range of innovative + + + ++ ++ ++ and diverse businesses in both urban and rural areas. 18. To maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town and village centres + ? + ? + ? + + + with a balanced provision of retail, leisure, visitor and cultural facilities. 19. Positively manage the Borough's + ? + ? + ? + + + diverse rural economy. 20. Improve access to education and training, and the links between these + + + + + + resources and employment opportunities.
February 2016 22/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
3.39 The Cheshire East Housing Development Study (June 2015) identified the overall need for housing in the Borough over the period 2010-3037. According to the study only options 4 to 6 would meet the identified objectively assessed need of 36,000 dwellings during the life of the Plan. The appraisal therefore found that Options 4 to 6 are more likely to have major long-term positive effects against the housing SA Objective compared to Options 1 to 3. All of the options have potential minor long-term effects against SA Objectives relating to the provision of associated services/facilities
3.40 All of the options are likely to have positive effects on the economy and improve access to employment, as well as improve economic diversity in the urban and rural areas of the Borough. Options 4 to 6 propose a higher quantity of new employment land to support proposed housing growth. This along with the greater provision of housing and associated services/facilities means that Options 4 to 6 are more likely to have a positive effect of significance against this SA Objective compared Option 1 to 3. Option 6 is based on a higher jobs growth rate at 0.9%. While there are uncertainties and assumptions underpinning all of the options, evidence suggests that the level of proposed growth through Option 6, would require a much higher rate of private sector jobs growth than achieved in the past and that sustaining this over the Plan period would be exceptional38. This partly reflects the low levels of future growth projected for the public sector. While ambitious, the evidence suggests that the 0.7% jobs growth rate underpinning Options 4 & 5 is more realistic and likely to be delivered. At a strategic level it is difficult to identify any significant differences between Options 4, 5 & 6 as they are based on a number of assumptions and uncertainties. Overall, it is considered that Options 4 to 6 have a greater likelihood for major long-term positive effects against SA Objective 17 compared to Options 1 to 3. The level of significance of the positive effect identified for Options 1 to 3 increases along with the level of proposed growth.
3.41 Updated evidence in relation to the need39 and balance40 of housing and employment provision indicates that an increased level of growth will be necessary in the northern settlements than previously proposed in the Submission Local Plan. It was therefore predicted that the higher levels of growth proposed through Options 4 to 6 are more likely to result in a greater provision of employment and services/facilities in the north of the Borough. Compared to Options 1 to 3, Options 4 to 6 were therefore considered more likely to result in major long-term positive effects as they are more likely to help meet the housing and employment needs in the north as well as the wider rural areas of the Borough.
3.42 All of the options have the potential to encourage the re-use of previously developed land; however, as the level of proposed growth increases so does
37 [PS E033] Cheshire East Council - Housing Development Study (June 2015), prepared by Opinion Research Services. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 [PS E032] Cheshire East Council - Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy (June 2015), prepared by Ekosgen.
February 2016 23/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
the likelihood that there will be a greater loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land to accommodate development. As the level of proposed growth increases so does the potential loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land. Taking this along with the updated evidence into account (that more development may be needed in the north), the appraisal found that Options 4 to 6 have the potential for permanent major negative effects as there is the potential for a greater loss of Green Belt land in the north of the Borough along with a greater loss of greenfield and agricultural land more widely across the plan area. While Options 1 to 3 are also likely to have permanent negative effects, it is considered that these are likely to be of less significance compared to Options 4 to 6. There is an element of uncertainty for all options until the distribution and precise location of development is known.
3.43 The appraisal found that as the level of growth increases so does the potential significance of negative effects on traffic and therefore greenhouse gas emissions. Option 6 proposes a significantly higher level of growth compared to the other options. It was therefore considered to have the greatest potential to result in residual major negative effects against SA Objective 8 compared to the other options.
3.44 The appraisal found that the nature and significance of effects against SA Objectives relating to biodiversity, landscape and heritage are ultimately dependent on the distribution and precise location of development. Despite this, it was considered that as the level of growth increases so does the likelihood for negative effects against these SA Objectives. Compared to Options 1 to 3, the appraisal found that Options 4 to 6 have the greatest potential for residual minor negative effects against biodiversity, landscape and heritage given the higher level of proposed growth and the potential for a greater level of development in the north of the Borough, which is more sensitive in landscape terms. Option 6 was considered to have the potential for a negative effect of greater significance on the landscape compared to Options 4 & 5, given the significantly higher level of housing growth proposed. Taking this into account, the appraisal also found that Option 6 was also more likely to result in residual negative effects on the historic environment compared to the other options. Ultimately, the nature and significance of the effect on landscape and heritage will be dependent on the location and design/layout of development as well as the sensitivity of receptors.
3.45 Table 3.6 provides an outline of the reasons for selection/rejection of alternatives for the level of growth where relevant. It should be noted that whilst the SA findings are considered by the Council in its selection of options and form part of the evidence supporting the Local Plan, the SA findings are not the sole basis for a decision; other factors, including planning and deliverability, play a key role in the decision-making process.
February 2016 24/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Table 3.6: Summary of Approach to Alternatives Assessment and Selection for Growth Options Strategic Options Reasons for Progressing or Rejecting the Option in Plan Considered and Making Appraised Option 1: 22,000 Option 1 was not progressed because of concerns that it dwellings (1,100 dpa) would not meet the objectively assessed needs for and 351 ha of housing and employment and would not make sufficient employment land provision for growth. It would also not respond to the Inspector’s Interim views, in particular, that the economic strategy is unduly pessimistic and the future housing provision is inadequate to ensure the success of the overall economic, employment and housing strategy. Option 2: 27,000 Option 2 was not progressed because of concerns that it dwellings (1,350 dpa) would not meet the objectively assessed needs for and 351 ha of housing and employment and would not make sufficient employment land provision for growth. It would also not respond to the Inspector’s Interim views in particular that the economic strategy is unduly pessimistic and the future housing provision is inadequate to ensure the success of the overall economic, employment and housing strategy. Option 3: 32,000 Option 3 was not progressed because of concerns that it dwellings (1,600 dpa) would not meet the objectively assessed needs for and 351 ha of housing and employment in the Borough. In addition, it employment land would not provide sufficient workers to meet the projected jobs growth rate in the Borough of 0.7%. Option 4: 36,000 Option 4 is being progressed as the Housing dwellings (1,800 dpa) Requirement for Cheshire East as it meets the objective and 380 ha of assessment of housing need identified by the Housing employment land Development Study 2015. This includes the objectively assessed need for affordable housing and is aligned to the economic objectives of the Council. The migration assumptions reflected in this option match the highest level recorded in any single year since 1991 in Cheshire East and are therefore considered ambitious but achievable. Option 5: 38,000 Option 5 was not progressed as the Housing dwellings (1,900 dpa) Development Study 2015 identified that the year on year and 380 ha of net inward migration levels necessary to achieve this employment land would be significantly higher than anything previously experienced in Cheshire East and are therefore unlikely to be sustained over the whole plan period. Option 6: 46,400 Option 6 (and hence the 46,400 dwellings figure) dwellings (2,300 dpa) assumes that there is no limit on how far net in-migration and 441 hectares of new can rise to accommodate jobs growth; the resulting employment land over Option 6 projection for net inward migration is an the Plan period average of 3,700 p.a. over the whole Plan period, i.e. over 1,000 more than what has previously been achieved in any single year.
Option 6 was not progressed as the Housing Development Study 2015 identified that the year on year
February 2016 25/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
net inward migration levels necessary to achieve this would be significantly higher than anything previously experienced in Cheshire East and are therefore less likely to be sustained over the whole plan period. However this approach was discounted in the ORS report PS E033, because of the unprecedented net in- migration it implies. The NPPF requires local plans to be “aspirational but realistic” (paragraph 154). In this case the sacle of deviation from past trends that would be required every single year is not considered realistic.
3.46 It should be noted that the three phasing options previously considered by the Council in 2013 have not been re-appraised through the SA at this stage. The further technical work carried out by the Council has not resulted in the identification of any new reasonable options for the phasing of growth and while the overall level of housing growth has changed, given the increased overall need, the basis for the three options has not. The SA previously found that the nature and significance of the effects of the options against the SA Framework are ultimately dependent on the location and management of development. While there may be minor differences in terms of the duration of effects (short, medium and long-term), it is considered unlikely that there will be any significant differences between the options overall. It is therefore considered that the findings of the SA for the three options presented in Appendix F of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]41 is still valid.
3.47 Following the Inspector's Interim Views and further technical work the Council reconsidered the phasing of proposed growth as set out in Policy PG 1. It was determined that a consistent level of delivery would better align to the economic strategy set out in the LPS, reflect the principles of sustainable development and national planning policy in significantly boosting housing supply. As a result, the Council is now proposing a consistent level of delivery (Option 1) over the Plan period at an average of 1,800 dwellings per annum (2010 – 2030).
3.48 Table 3.7 provides an outline of the reasons for selection/rejection of alternatives for the phasing of growth. It should be noted that whilst the SA findings are considered by the Council in its selection of options and form part of the evidence supporting the Local Plan, the SA findings are not the sole basis for a decision; other factors, including planning and deliverability, play a key role in the decision-making process.
41 Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal (May 2014) [SD 003]
February 2016 26/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Table 3.7: Summary of Approach to Alternatives Assessment and Selection for the Phasing of Growth Strategic Options Considered and Reasons for Progressing or Rejecting the Option Appraised in Plan Making Option 1: Consistent level of This option has been progressed as it reflects a delivery strong housing demand in the Borough and enables sites to come forward earlier, subject to infrastructure constraints being resolved and market recovery following the recession. It is aligned with the economic strategy and the principles of sustainable development and facilitates the national policy of significantly boosting housing supply. Option 2: Two phase increasing Option rejected. Reflective of paragraph 62 level of delivery and 63 of the Inspector’s Interim Views. This approach may reflect a position when the housing market is gearing up for higher rates of delivery later in the Plan period but could constrain the provision of new housing during the Plan period, particularly when the current backlog also has to be met. To artificially restrict the supply of housing land risks a mismatch with the economic strategy and the principles of sustainable development and could undermine the national policy of significantly boosting housing supply. Option 3: Three phase increasing Option rejected. Reflective of paragraph 62 level of delivery and 63 of the Inspector’s Interim Views. This approach may reflect a position when the housing market is gearing up for higher rates of delivery later in the Plan period but could constrain the provision of new housing during the Plan period, particularly when the current backlog also has to be met. To artificially restrict the supply of housing land risks a mismatch with the economic strategy and the principles of sustainable development and could undermine the national policy of significantly boosting housing supply.
Options for the Spatial Distribution of Growth
3.49 At an early stage in plan-making the Council established a baseline position to look at what would happen if all towns and villages grew in proportion to their existing size. Three alternative options were then developed to consider the effects of focusing different levels of growth in different towns. All three options took their starting point as Crewe being the main focus for development and the key driver for future growth as proposed in 'All Change for Crewe' and the vision for the regeneration of Macclesfield set out in the Macclesfield Economic Masterplan. The three options proposed alternative levels of growth in Crewe, Macclesfield and the Key Service Centres.
February 2016 27/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
3.50 The Issues & Options Paper published in November 2010 proposed three options for the spatial distribution of growth, which were as follows:
. Option 1: Growth in Crewe and Key Service Centres outside of Green Belt . Option 2: Growth in Crewe and Macclesfield and Key Service Centres outside of the Green Belt . Option 3: Growth in Crewe and Macclesfield and Accessible Towns
3.51 All three options proposed low levels of growth in the Local Service Centres and small villages to support the strategy for sustainable development, which focused development towards those settlements with a good range of services and facilities. However, the Council also sought to ensure that the level of growth proposed was sufficient to deliver sufficient affordable housing to meet the needs of the rural areas. To enable an assessment to be undertaken of a more dispersed pattern of development, a variant was proposed that could be applied to any of the three options that considers the impact of distributing higher levels of development to the Local Service Centres and rural villages.
3.52 The table below indicates the approximate proportion of new dwellings that was proposed through each of the four options for each settlement tier.
Table 3.9: Issues & Options Paper Spatial Distribution Options (2010) Distribution of Growth
Options Principal Towns Key Service Centres Local Service Centres Smaller Villages
Option 1: Growth in Crewe and Key Service Centres 46% 44% 7% 3% outside of Green Belt
Option 2: Growth in Crewe and Macclesfield and Key 54% 36% 7% 3% Service Centres outside of the Green Belt
Option 3: Growth in Crewe and Macclesfield and 50% 38% 9% 3% Accessible Towns
Option 4: Variant: Rural Dispersal 46% 24% 17% 13%
3.53 The four spatial distribution options, along with a 'Business as Usual’ option (the continuation of existing local level policy), were appraised by the Council against the SA Framework with the findings presented in the Issues & Options
February 2016 28/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Report (Nov 2010)42 which accompanied the Issues & Options Consultation Paper on public consultation from 8 November to 20 December 2010.
3.54 The SA found that there would be potential sustainability implications of implementing each of the options and that these implications would become clearer as the Options were taken forward and work progressed on the development and implementation of strategic policies and options.
3.55 Options 1 to 4 were progressed to the next stage and further developed following information emerging from the evidence base and feedback received during consultation. Option 5 was not progressed as it was not considered reasonable and appropriate to replicate current patterns of distributing future growth. A summary of the appraisal findings for these options was provided in Section 4 of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]43, with detailed appraisal matrices presented in Appendix E and the reasons for their selection or rejection provided in Table 4.1 of the same Report.
3.56 Following the publication of the Issues & Options Paper (2010) the Council produced a number of draft Town Strategies in 2012, which identified local aspirations for the vision, strategy and potential development options for the Principal Towns and Key Service Centres. A series of SA Reports were produced alongside the draft Town Strategies, which considered the Vision and Objectives for each town as well as the various potential development sites in and around it. The draft Town Strategy documents and SA Reports can be found on the Council's website44.
3.57 The draft Town Strategy work, including accompanying SA work, as well as updated evidence informed the development of an additional three spatial distribution options on top of the four reasonable options previously proposed in the Issues & Options Paper in 2010. The three new spatial options identified were as follows:
. Option 5: A New Settlement . Option 6: Growth reflecting the principles of the Town Strategy documents . Option 7: Hybrid Growth Option (This is a combination of Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 and consists of elements of new settlements, the settlement hierarchy and the principles of the Town Strategy documents.)
3.58 The table below indicates the approximate proportion of new dwellings for each settlement tier that was considered for each of the 7 spatial distribution options.
42 Cheshire East Council (2012) Issues & Options SA Report. Available online: http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/planning/spatial_planning/cheshire_east_local_plan/local_plan_co nsultations/issues_and_options.aspx 43 Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal (May 2014) [SD 003] 44http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/planning/spatial_planning/cheshire_east_local_plan/local_plan_con sultations/local_plan_consultations.aspx
February 2016 29/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Table 3.9: Development Strategy & Policy Principles (2013) Distribution of Growth
Options Principal Towns Key Service Centres Local Service Centres Smaller Villages New Settlement Option 1: Growth in Crewe and Key Service 46% 44% 7% 3% N/A Centres outside of Green Belt Option 2: Growth in Crewe and Macclesfield and 54% 36% 7% 3% N/A Key Service Centres outside of the Green Belt Option 3: Growth in Crewe and Macclesfield and 50% 38% 9% 3% N/A Accessible Towns
Option 4: Variant: Rural Dispersal 46% 24% 17% 13% N/A
Option 5: A New Settlement 40% 46% 5% 5% 5%
Option 6: Growth reflecting the principles of the 39% 42% 16% 3% N/A Town Strategy documents45 Option 7: Hybrid Growth Option (combination of 36% 38% 7% 7% 13% Options 2, 4, 5 and 6)
3.59 The seven options were subject to a fresh appraisal by the Council using updated evidence against the Revised SA Framework (detailed in the Revised SA Scoping Report 2012) with the findings presented in the Development Strategy & Policy Principles SA Report (Jan 2013)46, which accompanied the Development Strategy & Policy Principles on public consultation from 15th January to 26th February 2013.
3.60 The SA found that Options 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 have the potential for positive cumulative effects on SA Objectives relating to crime; energy efficiency and renewable energy; and waste management. It also found that these options had the potential for negative cumulative effects on SA Objectives relating to climate change; water management; biodiversity and geodiversity; and the protection of natural resources and green infrastructure. Option 4 was found to have the potential for positive effects on SA Objectives relating to the
45 The percentage of distribution was calculated by adding the highest level of proposed growth through the draft Town Strategies (10,500 new dwellings for Principle Towns and 11,380 new dwellings for Local Service Centres) and calculating what percentage of development that provided from the preferred overall level of housing growth (27,000 dwellings). It should be noted that there were no documents prepared for the Local Service Centres and Villages; therefore, the percentage distribution for these areas was calculated using the remaining number of dwellings from overall level of housing growth (5,120 new dwellings) and informed by the levels of development set out for these areas in Options 1 to 4. 46 Cheshire East Council (2013) Development Strategy & Policy Principles SA Report. Available online: http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/planning/spatial_planning/cheshire_east_local_plan/local_plan_co nsultations/development_strategy.aspx
February 2016 30/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
provision of an appropriate quantity and quality of housing as well as the protection of vibrant rural communities. It was found to have the potential for similar negative effects against SA Objectives as the other options. Overall, the SA did not identify any significant differentiators between the options at a strategic level against the SA Framework.
3.61 Option 1 and 2 were not progressed because, whilst there were both negative and positive effects forecast in terms of sustainability objectives, they would result in a level of growth in Crewe and Macclesfield that would generate levels of traffic that would cause highway network issues that could not be resolved without levels of investment unlikely to become available during the Plan period. They would also require levels of growth in the southern Key Service Centres that would see those towns lose their individual characters. Option 3 was not progressed as it would also result in a level of growth in Crewe that would generate levels of traffic that would cause highway network issues. It would also result in the loss of large areas of Green Belt to enable the significant growth in the north of the Borough.
3.62 Option 4 was not progressed because, whilst providing additional new housing in rural areas, without equivalent increased employment opportunities, this would be likely to lead to an increase in journeys by private transport to access work as well as services and facilities. A more dispersed pattern of housing growth would also be likely to result in increased demand for relatively costly public services in rural areas, and greater utilities costs.
3.63 Option 5 was not progressed because, whilst potentially having less of an impact on Principal Towns and Key Service Centres than many of the other options, it limits growth in rural communities, which would potentially impact on their vibrancy. Option 6 was not progressed because of the likelihood that the levels of growth supported by local communities would not be sufficient to meet the levels of growth required.
3.64 Option 7 was progressed because it located the majority of new development in and on the edge of the Principal Towns, Key Service Centres and New Settlements, allowing maximum use to be made of existing infrastructure and resources by allowing homes, jobs and facilities to be located close to each other, thus enabling people to be less reliant on travel by car and supporting public transport. It, however, also takes account of other considerations such as the Town Strategy work, known development opportunities, infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints and the characters of different areas. It was therefore considered the option most likely to contribute to sustainable development and was also supported by statutory consultation bodies and other stakeholders. The Option supports key plan objectives but in an amended form, having regard to consultation responses.
3.65 A summary of the appraisal of these options was provided in Section 5 of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]47, with detailed appraisal matrices presented in
47 Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal (May 2014) [SD 003]
February 2016 31/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Appendix F and the reasons for their selection or rejection provided in Table 5.11 of the same Report.
3.66 The Local Plan Strategy and evidence documents, including the Submission SA Report [SD 003], were submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 20 May 2014 for independent examination. Hearings sessions on a range of strategic matters were held from 16th September to 3 October 2014, including the overall development strategy. The inspector deferred the remaining hearing sessions to allow the consideration of the large volume of statements and material submitted in relation to the strategic sites and allocations48. Following the adjournment of the hearing sessions on 3 October 2014 the Inspector informed the Council that he would be providing interim views on the legal compliance and soundness of the submitted plan49.
3.67 The Inspector’s interim views were confirmed on 6 November 201450 and found that on the basis of the evidence submitted so far, he would probably conclude that the submitted Plan is unsound due to shortcomings in the proposed strategy and evidence base, including the economic and housing strategies, the relationship between them and the objective assessment of housing need, the spatial distribution of development and the approach to the Green Belt and Safeguarded Land51. In response to this the Council formally requested that the Inspector suspend the examination for a six- month period to allow additional work to be undertaken to address the issues outlined in his interim views.
3.68 Following the suspension of the Examination the Council has been undertaking a range of technical work to address the Inspector’s concerns set out in his interim views (Nov 2014). This includes an independent study to determine if the approach to spatial distribution set out in Submission LPS Policy PG 6 is justified based on the growth levels in the submitted LPS and against the submitted evidence. It also includes an assessment of whether or not the spatial distribution set out in Policy PG 6 is still appropriate in light of new evidence for housing and employment needs. Some of the key initial outputs of the study were as follows:
. Production of a profile for each of the 24 major settlements identified in the Spatial Distribution Policy (PG6) covering a range of up-to-date information in relation to demographic, housing and employment information. This data has been analysed and key issues identified for consideration through this review. . A review of the existing Local Plan Strategy evidence base which has informed Policy PG6. . A review of the findings/outputs of the other work steams identified above in relation to housing, employment, Green Belt, urban potential and edge of settlement site analysis.
48 [PS A014] Inspector's Announcement at the Close of Hearing Sessions on Friday 3 October 2014 49 [PS A015] Letter from Inspector to Council re Examination Progress 50 [PS B033] Letter from Council to Inspector re Examination Progress 51 [PS A017b] Inspector’s Interim Views, dated 6 November 2014
February 2016 32/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
. A comparative analysis of the 24 settlements at the three higher levels of the settlement hierarchy, using the factors that have influenced spatial distribution as identified by the Inspector, and reflecting on the evidence identified above; along with a consideration of these issues for the other levels of the settlement hierarchy.
3.69 Based on the key findings of the work set out above, the study found that the approach set out in Submission LPS Policy PG 6 is broadly justified based in the context of the previous housing target and set against the constraints and opportunities that were subject to analysis. However, the study notes that the analysis was carried out during a period when new evidence was emerging. In the context of objectively assessed housing needs being higher and additional employment floorspace requirements the study suggests that there would be justification in exploring options that increase housing and employment floorspace growth in the north.
3.70 The findings of this initial work then allowed the study to consider potential options for the distribution of development. The study already established that the approach to the spatial distribution set out in Policy PG 6 is still valid, albeit increased growth may be required in the north of the Borough.
3.71 However, the emerging further technical work prepared following the suspension of the examination has established a need for increased housing and employment provision. The scale of growth that is necessary to deliver this increased housing would mean that the housing targets for each settlement set out in PG 6 would need to be surpassed.
3.72 Taking this into account, the study took the spatial distribution proposed in PG 6 as a ‘starting point’ when considering where the increased housing and employment land should be provided. The options considered for spatial distribution therefore explored how this additional growth could be distributed, being mindful of the Inspector's comments, the outcomes of the study and the vision and objectives of the Plan.
3.73 Five strategic options were identified to help explore the different ways that additional housing and employment could be delivered across the Borough. These options are described in the table below along with the rationale for testing these options and any assumptions and limitations.
Table 3.10: Options for Spatial Distribution (2015) Broad Option Rationale Assumptions and limitations
Option 1: The evidence study has There is a need to deliver a further 7000 dwellings, Policy PG6 demonstrated that PG6 above PG6, in order to meet objectively assessed with is broadly justified. needs. This is an approximate increase of 23.9% proportionate from the number of dwellings proposed in PG6. growth It is considered reasonable to look at A 23.9% growth factor has therefore been whether this pattern of applied across the board using the PG6 housing distribution remains targets as a starting point. valid at higher levels of growth (as indicated as This alternative upholds the same principles as necessary by the new
February 2016 33/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Broad Option Rationale Assumptions and limitations
housing and PG6, and therefore may not significantly redress employment the housing provision to the North. evidence). The overall provision of housing is greater than However, this should be 36000, because existing completions and viewed as a commitments already exceed the housing figures comparator/control for Sandbach. policy off option. Employment provision would be broadly in line with PG6, but with a 27ha uplift.
Option 2: This alternative would There are constraining factors and policy drivers Proportionate distribute housing that have not been factored into this strategic housing proportionately alternative (i.e. this is largely a ‘policy-off’ growth from according to the share theoretical option). 2010 of housing at each settlement at the 2011 The amount of housing at each settlement has Census (used as a proxy been increased by calculating the share of the for the beginning of the dwellings total at 2011 (using Census data), and Plan Period). adding on the same proportion of the additional housing need (approximately 7000 dwellings). It is recognised that this 2011 Census data is the closest estimate to the approach may not be beginning of the plan period (i.e. 2010). entirely balanced in terms of both the rates Further employment land would be largely of growth that would distributed to the Science and Technology occur for each Growth Corridor to meet the additional settlement and the requirement for 27 hectares. The rationale for this consideration of new approach is driven largely by the Alignment of employment floorspace Economic, Employment and Housing Strategy requirements. report 2015.
However, this option provides a comparator to the ‘policy-on’ options that are driven by the Plan vision, constraints and opportunities.
Option 3: There are clear drivers The distribution of housing would seek to provide Economic for growth such as High a balance between housing and local job Strategy-led Growth City, the LEP opportunities. This would mean that places such SEP, the Constellation as Crewe and Knutsford should focus on City Concept and the increasing housing, whilst places such as Northern Science Poynton, Alsager, Middlewich and Sandbach Corridor foci. should focus on employment growth. However, Distributing housing to other factors also need to be taken into account, support employment notably Green Belt and Highways constraints. growth and minimise commuting is a Also important is to consider aspirations for reasonable alternative. economic growth, which means that Crewe would be allocated a significant proportion of the further housing growth to ensure access to
February 2016 34/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Broad Option Rationale Assumptions and limitations
job opportunities that are likely to be generated as the economic focus shifts to the south of the Borough.
Further employment land would be largely distributed to the Science and Technology Growth Corridor to meet the additional requirement for 27 hectares.
Option 4: This approach would Although a constraints-led option would seek to Constraints/im seek to limit the impacts reduce impacts in sensitive areas, there would still pact led of development on be a need to meet housing targets. Therefore, settlements that are some impacts would be unavoidable. sensitive to change due to key constraints such This option makes some assumptions about the as Green Belt and sensitivity of settlements to growth based upon highways. constraints, and the nature of the settlement. This inevitably leads to some areas being ‘weighted’ as more constrained than others. It is important to note that this is not an entirely objective exercise and that some professional judgments have been made here.
In general, those settlements that are surrounded by Greenbelt (of which a substantial proportion of parcels make a significant contribution) and/or important landscape have been considered to be ‘more constrained’. Settlements where highways constraints would be difficult to mitigate have also been viewed as particularly constrained.
Option 5: A balanced approach The distribution of further housing would be Hybrid would seek to meet based upon a consideration of where housing needs across the needs are considered likely to arise, Borough where they development opportunities, strategic aspirations arise. However, there is and constraints. a need to factor in constraints, This approach seeks to achieve economic opportunities, and aspirations, and improve the balance of local economic aspirations. jobs and households. However, constraints are also taken into account, which means in some areas, the economic aspirations may need to be tempered.
The evidence suggests that it is appropriate to provide further housing growth to the northern settlements of Macclesfield, Poynton, Handforth, Wilmslow and Knutsford. This is therefore a key element of this approach, although constraints have been taken into account to limit development where issues may be most acute, such as Macclesfield.
To meet the balance of housing need, and support the economic growth of Crewe and its constellation settlements, a small increase over
February 2016 35/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Broad Option Rationale Assumptions and limitations
PG6 has been assumed.
Further employment land would be largely distributed to the Science and Technology Growth Corridor to meet the additional requirement for 27 hectares. With a commensurate growth in housing in the north assumed,
3.74 To identify the options for delivering the additional housing and employment land, the constraints and opportunities were explored for the Principal Towns, Key Service Centres, Local Service Centres (considered collectively) and the rural areas (also considered collectively). This exercise helped to shape the broad spatial options and determine what level of growth would be appropriate for each settlement under different scenarios. To an extent, this bottom up information also helped to determine what broad strategic options would be appropriate.
3.75 The table below brings together the top-down strategic thinking and the settlement level analysis identifying the level of housing and employment land supply (in hectares) that would be expected to come forward under each of the spatial distribution options.
February 2016 36/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Table 3.11: Options for Spatial Distribution (2015)
Comparators Objectives-led strategic approaches 2011 Option 1: PG6 with Option 2: Proportionate Option 4: Constraints / Option 5: Hybrid Option 6: Recommended Base position (PG6) Option 3 Employment Led Census proportionate growth growth from 2010 Impact led approach approach Hectares of Hectares of Hectares of Hectares of Hectares of Hectares of Hectares of Dwellings employment Dwellings employment Dwellings employment Dwellings employment Dwellings employment Dwellings employment Dwellings employment Dwellings land land land land land land land Crewe 31460 65.01 7000 70 8675 65.01 6813 65.01 8000 70 8650 65.01 8100 65 7700 Macclesfield 24,144 15 3500 20 4337 20 5229 20 4300 18 4100 20 4300 20 4250 Congleton 11981 24 3500 24 4337 24 2595 24 4020 24 4300 24 4020 24 4150 Alsager 5384 35.12 1600 35.12 1983 35.12 1274 35.12 1870 35 1870 35.12 2000 40 2000 Sandbach 8,119 20.03 2200 20.03 2854 20.03 2854 20.03 2956 20 2956 20.03 2956 20 2750 Middlewich 5,920 75.57 1600 75.57 1983 75.57 1282 75.57 1800 75 2000 75.57 1800 75 1950 Nantwich 8,536 3 1900 3 2355 3 2009 3 2220 3 2070 3 2070 3 2050 Handforth (inc NCGV) 3,219 22 2000 22 2479 22 697 22 2187 22 2187 22 2187 22 2200 Wilmslow 10,733 8.07 400 16 496 8.07 2324 11.07 850 8 700 10.07 1000 10 900 Knutsford 6,131 10 650 10 806 15 1328 14 1400 15 750 15 1200 15 950 Poynton 5667 3 200 10 248 15 1227 15 600 14 400 15 800 10 650 Local Service Centres 23223 5 2500 6.2 3100 9 4347 7 3350 7 3500 6.2 3100 7 3500 Rural (inc Alderley 21719 67.83 2000 69 2500 69 4021 69 2500 69 2700 69 2500 69 2950 Park and Wardle) Total 166236 353.63 29050 380.92 36153 380.8 36000 380.8 36053 380 36183 380 36033 380 36000 Unconstrained OAHN / 380 36000 380 36000 380 36000 380 36000 380 36000 380 36000 380 36000 Employment need Balance of housing / -26.37 -6950 0.92 153 0.8 0 0.8 53 0 183 0 33 0 0 employment land need
February 2016 37/52 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
3.76 Enfusion carried out an appraisal of Options 1 to 5 set out in Tables 3.10 and 3.11 above against the full SA Framework. The fresh SA of distribution options was informed by the further technical work carried out by the Council, which includes the Housing Development Study draft final report presented as part of the second stakeholder engagement workshop in May 201552 as well as the emerging findings of the Spatial Distribution Update Report. The further technical work, including the Spatial Distribution Update Report, have now been finalised; however, it should be noted that the changes (which predominantly relate to the addition of paragraphs to provide further justification) made to these reports do not significantly affect the findings of the fresh SA of spatial distribution options. The summary findings of the SA for the five options are presented below with the detailed appraisals provided in Appendix II.
Table 3.12: Summary of SA Findings for Spatial Distribution Options (2015) Options 1 2 3 4 5
Hybrid approach SA Objective PG6 with proportionategrowth Proportionate growth from 2010 Employment led Constraints/ Impact led 1. Provide an appropriate quantity and quality + + ++ + ++ of housing to meet the needs of the Borough. This should include a mix of housing types, tenures and affordability. 2. Create sustainable communities that benefit ++ + ++ ++ ++ from good access to jobs, services, facilities and sustainable forms of transport, including walking, cycling and public transport. 3. Consider the needs of all sections of the + + + + + community in order to achieve high levels of equality, diversity and social inclusion. 4. Create an environment that promotes healthy + + + + + and active lifestyles.
5. Maintain and/or create vibrant rural + + + + + communities.
6. Create a safe environment to live in and / / / / / reduce fear of crime.
52 http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/workshop
February 2016 38/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Options 1 2 3 4 5
Hybrid approach SA Objective PG6 with proportionategrowth Proportionate growth from 2010 Employment led Constraints/ Impact led 7. Maintain and enhance community services and amenities to sustain the existing and future + + + + + community of the Borough. 8. Manage the causes and effects of climate ? ? ? ? ? change. 9. Positively address the issues of water quality and quantity and manage flood risk within the / / / / / Borough. 10. Manage the impacts of development and associated activities to positively address all / / / / / forms of pollution. 11. Protect and enhance biodiversity, habitats, geodiversity and important geological features; - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? with particular care to sites designated internationally, nationally, regionally and locally. 12. Protect and enhance the quality, integrity and distinctiveness of the area’s heritage, ------landscapes and townscapes, in particular those that are internationally, nationally or locally ? ? ? ? ? ? ? designated. 13. Minimise energy use, promote energy efficiency and high quality design, and increase / / / / / the generation of energy from renewable resources. 14. Achieve sustainable waste management through adhering to the principles of the waste / / / / / hierarchy. 15. Manage mineral extraction and encourage their recycling/re-use to provide a sufficient supply to meet social and economic needs ? ? ? ? ? whilst minimising impacts on the environment and communities and safeguarding resources for future generations. 16. Reduce the consumption of natural resources, protect and enhance green infrastructure and high quality agricultural land - - - - - and optimise the re-use of previously developed land, buildings and infrastructure.
February 2016 39/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Options 1 2 3 4 5
Hybrid approach SA Objective PG6 with proportionategrowth Proportionate growth from 2010 Employment led Constraints/ Impact led 17. To promote a sustainable, competitive and low-carbon economy that benefits from a range ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ of innovative and diverse businesses in both urban and rural areas. 18. To maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town and village centres with a + + + + + balanced provision of retail, leisure, visitor and cultural facilities. 19. Positively manage the Borough's diverse rural + + + + + economy. 20. Improve access to education and training, and the links between these resources and + + + + + employment opportunities.
3.77 The appraisal found that at a strategic level it is difficult to highlight any significant differences between the options in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects against the majority of SA Objectives. While there are likely to be differences between the options in terms of the significance of effects for individual settlements these are unlikely to be of significance overall when considered at a strategic plan level. If an option proposes more growth in a particular Key Service Centre compared to the other options then it is likely to have an enhanced positive effect for that settlement against SA Objectives relating to housing, the economy and communities. Conversely, it is also more likely to have negative effects on the natural environment in that area, which includes designated sites. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no major negative effects. Ultimately the nature and significance of effects against the majority of SA Objectives will be dependent on the precise location of development.
3.78 The appraisal found some minor differences between the options against SA Objectives relating to housing, sustainable communities and the landscape. At a strategic level, based on the evidence available, the appraisal found that Options 3 & 5 offer the most balanced approach to the distribution of housing needs across the Borough, helping to address the housing shortage in the north and ensuring that the housing needs in the south are still being met. To reflect this the appraisal found that Options 3 & 5 have the potential for a major long-term positive effects, whereas Options 1, 2 & 4 have the potential
February 2016 40/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
for a minor long-term positive effect against the SA Objective relating to housing.
3.79 The appraisal found that Option 2 was likely to have a reduced positive effect compared to the other options against SA Objective 2 as it proposes a greater proportion of development towards the Local Service Centres and rural villages. Housing in those areas will have poorer access to employment opportunities and services/facilities compared to development in and around the larger Principal Towns and Key Service Centres.
3.80 Taking the plan area as a whole, the appraisal considered that the north of the Borough is more sensitive in landscape terms compared to the south. The presence of the National Park along with a number of large Local Landscape Designations means that options proposing higher levels of growth in this area have the potential for an effect of greater significance than those proposing higher levels of growth in the south. Option 4 proposes the least amount of housing growth in the north of the Borough, while Option 2 proposes the highest. The differences between them are approximately 2,500 dwellings and 3 ha of employment land. Option 1 proposes a similar level of growth to Option 5 and Options 3 & 5 sit in between options 1 & 4 in terms of the overall level of proposed growth in the north. The appraisal found that mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, such as Policies SE 4 and SE 15, and available at the project level should provide suitable mitigation to address significant negative effects for all the options. However, taking a precautionary approach, the appraisal considered that all of the options are likely to result in residual long-term minor negative effects. To reflect the sensitivity of the landscape in the north of the Borough, the appraisal found that there is less uncertainty that Options 2, 3 & 5 will result in residual minor negative effects compared to Options 1 & 4, as they propose a higher level of growth in the north.
3.81 The appraisal predicted that all of the options have the potential to result in the permanent loss of greenfield, agricultural, as well as Green Belt land. Some options are more likely to result in the loss of Green Belt in the north of the Borough while some are more likely to result in Green Belt loss in the south east. The relatively small differences between the options in terms of the delivery make it difficult for the appraisal to justify any significant differences between them against SA Objective 16.
3.82 The findings of the SA for Options 1 to 5, further HRA work and other technical work (including new evidence on urban potential and edge of settlement sites and updated evidence on completions and commitments) informed the decision-making process and resulted in the identification of a 6th preferred option for the spatial distribution of growth. This option is presented alongside Options 1 to 5 in Table 3.10 above.
3.83 Table 3.13 provides an outline of the reasons for selection/rejection of alternatives for the spatial distribution of growth where relevant. It should be noted that whilst the SA findings are considered by the Council in its selection of options and form part of the evidence supporting the Local Plan, the SA
February 2016 41/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
findings are not the sole basis for a decision; other factors, including planning and deliverability, play a key role in the decision-making process.
Table 3.13: Summary of Approach to Alternatives Assessment and Selection for Spatial Distribution Options Strategic Reasons for Progressing or Rejecting the Option in Plan Making Options Considered and Appraised Option 1: This approach would not address the shortage of housing in the PG6 with Key Service Centres to the north, and as such would not address proportionate the Inspectors concerns regarding this issue. growth The evidence suggests that there is a greater role for Knutsford and Poynton as settlements for growth that would not be realised under this option.
There would also be a significant increase in growth in Crewe that would create pressure on highways infrastructure that would be difficult to mitigate without substantial investment in strategic road improvements. The increase in growth to Crewe may also conflict with the desire to create Green Belt / to maintain Green Wedge. Option 2: This option would create a more dispersed pattern of Proportionate development, seeing a substantial increase in the amount of growth from housing allocated to the Local Service Centres and Rural 2010 areas. This is not in-line with the settlement hierarchy which seeks to direct growth to those settlements that have better access to services and facilities.
This approach would also fail to address net in-commuting to Middlewich and Alsager, as the numbers of housing allocated would be lower than PG6, and would not be matched to employment growth in these areas.
This option also fails to take advantage of Congleton as a location for sustainable growth, which is supported by substantial improvements to the highways network.
Although Option 2 would see a significant growth in housing to the north, this would be at a level that would be detrimental to the character of settlement such as Macclesfield, Poynton and Knutsford, and would require substantial loss of Green Belt, which may be difficult to achieve being mindful of the need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for release. Option 3: This option has similarities to the preferred approach, and the Employment led proposed growth in housing for some settlements is broadly the same. This is the case for Macclesfield, Handforth, Wilmslow, Poynton and the Local Service Centres. The rationale for the proposed growth in these areas is detailed in the justification for Option 6.
The distribution of employment is virtually the same as Option 6, with the exception of an additional 5 hectares of employment
February 2016 42/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
land being allocated to Poynton for Option 3 rather than in Alsager for Option 6. It was considered that allocation of 15 hectares of employment Land to Poynton as well as 600 dwellings could be restricted by suitable land opportunities. Therefore, this aspect of the option was considered unsuitable.
With regards to housing distribution, it is considered that Option 3 was broadly suitable with the exception of the targets for Knutsford and Crewe/Nantwich. The targets for these settlements were considerably higher than the preferred option and it is considered that the levels proposed in Crewe and Nantwich could put pressure on an already constrained highways network.
Although Knutsford appears to be an attractive proposition for housing and employment development, the target of 1400 dwellings is considered too high as it could have a more detrimental effect on settlement character, biodiversity, and Green Belt compared to Option 6. Option 4: This option has similarities to the preferred approach, and the Constraints/ proposed growth in housing for some settlements is broadly the Impact led same. This is the case for Macclesfield, Congleton, Alsager, Middlewich, Nantwich, Handforth and the Local Service Centres. The rationale for the proposed growth in these areas is detailed in the justification for Option 6.
With regards to the remaining housing distribution, Option 4 would see less substantial growth in the north compared to Option 6. This would be positive in terms of having a lesser effect on Green Belt compared to the recommended option. However, this would do less to address [presumed] housing need in the north, and as a consequence would require substantial growth in Crewe to meet the overall shortfall in housing need at the district level.
The level of growth in Crewe is of particular concern, as it would place significant pressure on the highways network that would be very difficult to mitigate, and may affect areas that are currently Green Wedge / proposed for Green Belt.
The distribution of employment under Option 4 places more growth to Crewe and Alsager, which means that less growth would occur in the Northern Settlements compared to Option 6. This is contrary to the recommendations in the Ekosgen Report, which states that the majority of the additional 27 ha should be located to the north. Option 5: This option has similarities to the preferred approach, and the Hybrid proposed growth in housing for some settlements is broadly the approach same. This is the case for Alsager, Macclesfield, Handforth and Nantwich. The rationale for the proposed growth in these areas is detailed in the justification for Option 6.
Compared to Option 6 this Option proposes slightly more growth in Crewe, and consequently slightly less growth at the satellite towns of Congleton and Middlewich. This is considered less appropriate than the recommended option, as it puts greater
February 2016 43/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
pressure on the highways network in Crewe, whilst failing to take full advantage of Middlewich and Congleton as sustainable locations for growth.
Option 5 also allocates a slightly higher level of growth to Sandbach, which is more likely to put pressure on an already constrained highways network compared to the Recommended Option 6.
Option 5 allocates more growth to the Key Service Centres in the North, which would lead to more sustainable patterns of growth (in terms of accessibility) compared to Option 6 (which allocates a higher amount to the Local Service Centres and Rural areas. However, this would require the release of a greater amount of Green Belt land in Knutsford, Wilmslow and Poynton. Option 6: This option seeks to address the development needs (for housing Hybrid post SA / and employment) and opportunities at all the towns and HRA settlements, particularly those in the north of the district (para. 75 Inspector’s Interim Views, November 2014 – PS A017b)
As a means of promoting sustainable patterns of development it directs increased housing growth to the Green Belt settlements of Poynton, Knutsford and Wilmslow alongside the bulk of the additional 27 ha of employment land required to meet employment needs (para. 76)
PG6 directs 23% of growth to Macclesfield and northern Key Service Centres with 61% directed to Crewe and the Southern Key Service Centres. Option 6 rebalances this approach to 25% and 57% respectively (a 7% differential on the submitted strategy)
This option reflects further work conducted by the Borough Council to examine the urban potential within settlements and edge of settlement sites and adequately reflects existing commitments and proposals (para. 76-78)
February 2016 44/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
4.0 SA of Proposed Changes to the Local Plan Strategy
Introduction
4.1 The additional work undertaken by the Council to address the Inspector’s interim findings form the basis for the Proposed Changes to the Submission LPS. It is important to ensure that the Proposed Changes are screened through the SA process to determine if they significantly affect the findings of the SA and further appraisal work is required. A screening table was produced to consider all the Proposed Changes proposed by the Council, which includes proposed changes to Policy as well as supporting text. The summary of the findings of this work are presented below with the detail provided in Appendix III of this Addendum Report.
LPS Chapter 8 - Planning for Growth (Policies PG 1 - PG 6)
Policy PG 1 Overall Development Strategy
4.2 The suggested revision to the Policy includes an uplift of land to accommodate the full, objectively assessed housing needs for the Borough from 27,000 to at least 36,000 homes between 2010 and 2030. The revisions also include an increase of 29 ha of new employment to be delivered during the life of the plan as well as the removal of the three phase trajectory for the delivery of development. The screening (Appendix III) determined that the revisions made to this policy are of significance with regard to the SA. To ensure that the Proposed Changes and updated evidence have been taken into account a fresh appraisal of Policy PG 1 has been carried by out by Enfusion against the full SA Framework. The appraisal is presented in Appendix IV of the SA Addendum Report. A summary of the findings is provided below.
4.3 The appraisal found that the policy has the potential for major long-term positive effects on SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing, sustainable communities; community facilities/services and the economy through the provision of 36,000 new dwellings and 380 ha of new employment land up to 2030. This will help to meet the objectively assessed housing and employment needs of the Borough53 and the associated provision of transport and community infrastructure has the potential for indirect minor long-term positive effects for SA Objectives relating to equalities and health. It was also predicted that there is the potential for minor positive effects for rural communities and the vitality and viability of town centres. It should be noted that there is also an element of uncertainty against the number of objectives as the policy does not indicate the distribution of development nor the level of transport or community infrastructure that will be provided.
4.4 The appraisal also found that there is also the potential for negative effects against a number of SA Objectives. Given the level of proposed growth it is
53 Cheshire East Council - Cheshire East Housing Development Study 2015 Report of Findings (June 2015), prepared by Opinion Research Services.
February 2016 45/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
likely that proposed development will exacerbate existing congestion issues on the highways network throughout Cheshire East. Mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level will help to reduce the potential significance of the negative effect but it is predicted that there is still likely to be a minor residual long-term negative effect against SA Objective 8 (climate change). In the longer-term it is likely that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles will reduce as a result of stringent emissions controls on new vehicles via Euro standards but this is uncertain at this stage. Taking this into account it was also considered that there is the potential for minor residual long-term negative effects against SA Objective 10 through increased atmospheric emissions, as there are already 13 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within the Borough.
4.5 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for a residual minor long- term negative effect on SA Objectives relating to biodiversity, landscape/heritage and natural resources. The level of development proposed is predicted to result in the loss of large areas of greenfield land as well as result in the permanent loss of agricultural and Green Belt land surrounding the main towns. It is considered that there is sufficient mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level to ensure that the policy will not have major negative effects against these SA Objectives; however, there is still an element of uncertainty until the precise location of development is known and lower level assessments and studies have been carried out.
Policy PG 2 Settlement Hierarchy
4.6 The screening found that the Proposed Changes seek to provide further clarification and do not significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report [SD 003].
Policy PG 3 Green Belt
4.7 The screening found that the Proposed Changes reflect updated evidence and the inclusion of a new Policy 4a (Strategic Green Gaps). The majority of the policy remains intact and its overall intention is still the same. It is therefore considered that the Proposed Changes do not significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report [SD 003].
Policy PG 4 Safeguarded Land
4.8 The screening found that the Proposed Changes provide further clarification and reflect the further technical work carried out during the suspension of the Examination. The Submission LPS proposed 130 ha of safeguarded land. To reflect updated evidence, the Council is now proposing to increase the overall level of safeguarded land to 200 ha. At this stage the potential revisions to sites identified within Policy PG 4 for safeguarded land are not known. An increase in the overall level of safeguarded land is considered unlikely to significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]. If necessary, it would be more appropriate to reconsider the policy through the SA once Proposed Changes have been proposed with regard to
February 2016 46/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
individual safeguarded sites. Any further revisions to the LPS arising as a result of the Examination, which includes changes to individual safeguarded sites, will be considered through the iterative SA process.
Policy PG 4a New Policy Strategic Green Gaps
4.9 The screening found that the inclusion of a new policy is considered to be of significance with regard to the findings of the previous SA work. To ensure that the new policy is given appropriate consideration an appraisal was carried out by Enfusion against the full SA Framework. The appraisal is presented in Appendix IV of the SA Addendum Report. A summary of the findings is provided below.
4.10 The policy defines strategic green gaps which seek to provide long-term protection against coalescence, protect the setting and separate identity of settlements and retain the existing settlement pattern. The appraisal found that this has the potential for minor positive effects against a number of SA Objectives through protecting the openness of land surrounding settlements and the visual character of the landscape, as well as the retention of greenfield land, agricultural land and green infrastructure. Major long-term positive effects were identified for the landscape as the policy supports the retention of landscape features in between settlements, and supports the separate identities of townscapes. The appraisal also found that there is the potential for major long-term positive effects against SA Objective 16 (natural resources) through restricting development in these areas and therefore the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. The appraisal did not identify the potential for any significant negative effects.
Policy PG 5 Open Countryside
4.11 The screening found that the Proposed Changes seek to provide further clarification and do not significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report [SD 003].
Policy PG 6 Spatial Distribution
4.12 The Proposed Changes take account of updated evidence including the proposed increase in the overall level of growth during the plan period. The screening found that the Proposed Changes for this policy are of significance with regard to the SA. To ensure that the Proposed Changes and updated evidence have been taken into account a fresh appraisal of Policy PG 1 has been carried by out by Enfusion against the full SA Framework. The appraisal is presented in Appendix IV of the SA Addendum Report. A summary of the findings is provided below.
4.13 In line with Policy PG 2 (Settlement Hierarchy) the policy sets out the distribution of the overall level of housing and employment growth during the life of the plan identified in Policy PG 1. The appraisal found that the policy has the potential for major long-term positive effects on SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing, sustainable communities; community facilities/services and the economy through the distribution of 36,000 new
February 2016 47/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
dwellings and 380 ha between the Principal Towns, Key Service Centres, Local Service Centres and other settlements and rural areas. This will help to ensure that the housing and employment needs of communities in and surrounding these areas are being met. Updated evidence indicates that there is a shortage of housing opportunities in the north of the Borough, particularly those suitable for young families in Poynton54. It also suggests that there is high house prices and low affordability of market housing in Knutsford as well as above average levels of overcrowding in Handforth. The provision of 650 new dwellings in Poynton, 950 new dwellings in Knutsford and 2,200 new dwellings in Handforth will help to address these issues.
4.14 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for indirect minor long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives through the associated provision of transport infrastructure and community services/facilities. There is some uncertainty in relation to this as the precise location and overall level of provision is unknown at this stage.
4.15 The significance of the effect of positive effects will vary for each settlement or area depending on the precise location and scale of development along with existing provision in terms of sustainable transport modes and community services/facilities. Improving access to sustainable transport modes as well as the links between rural areas/Local Service Centres and Principal Towns/Key Service Centres will be important in helping to enhance positive effects against SA Objectives.
4.16 The appraisal also found that there is also the potential for negative effects against a number of SA Objectives. Given the level of proposed growth it is likely that proposed development will exacerbate existing congestion issues on the highways network throughout Cheshire East. Mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level will help to reduce the potential significance of the negative effect but it is predicted that there is still likely to be a minor residual long-term negative effect against SA Objective 8 (climate change). In the longer-term it is likely that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles will reduce as a result of stringent emissions controls on new vehicles via Euro standards but this is uncertain at this stage. Taking this into account it was also considered that there is the potential for minor residual long-term negative effects against SA Objective 10 through increased atmospheric emissions, as there are already 13 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within the Borough. There are three AQMAs in both Crewe and Congleton and individual AQMAs in Sandbach, Nantwich, Mere, Disley, Macclesfield and Knutsford. The final AQMA is located on a short stretch of the M6 between junctions 18 and 19. Development proposed in and around these areas could potential increase traffic and therefore atmospheric emissions in the existing AQMAs.
4.17 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for a residual minor long- term negative effect on the SA Objective relating to biodiversity. There are a number of SSSIs within the Borough and some of these are in close proximity
54 Cheshire East Council - Spatial Distribution Update - Draft Final Report (July 2015), prepared by AECOM.
February 2016 48/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
to some of the Key Service Centres including Crewe, Sandbach, Congleton, Knutsford and Macclesfield. There are also a number of SSSIs adjacent to or close to a number of the Local Service Centres. Given the protection afforded to SSSIs through national policy and the mitigation provided through LPS policies, it is considered unlikely that the policy will have significant negative effects on nationally designated sites. LPS Policy SE 3 does not permit any development proposals that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on international or national designations. The HRA of the Proposed Changes, which includes the increase to the overall level of growth and changes to the spatial distribution within this policy, concluded that they are unlikely to result in any significant effects on European sites not already identified and assessed during the HRA process of the LPS strategy to date.
4.18 It is also important to note that there are a number of Local Wildlife sites throughout the Borough, with the north containing a greater concentration of these sites. The majority of these sites lie within the rural areas; however, there are numerous Local Wildlife Sites that are within, adjacent to and in close proximity to the main settlements (Principle Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres). Ultimately, the nature and significance of the effects on biodiversity will be dependent on the precise location of development. The Council should seek to avoid designated areas when identifying site allocations. A key challenge for the Local Plan will be trying to ensure that ecological connectivity and networks are maintained and improved where possible.
4.19 The appraisal also identified that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effects on landscape and heritage (SA Objective 12). A small proportion of the Borough in the north east falls within the Peak District National Park, which is described in the Submission Local Plan as an asset of national, regional and local importance. One of the statutory purposes of the national park designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. There are 9 Local Landscape Designations (LLD) within the Borough, 4 are situated in the south adjacent to the plan boundary and 5 in the north.55 LLDs play an important role in protecting and enhancing landscapes which are of particular value in the context of the local authority area. There are a number of nationally (Scheduled Monument, Registered Park & Garden and Listed Building) and locally designated heritage assets (Conservation Area) within the Borough.
4.20 Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, such as Policies SE 4, SE 7, SE 15, and available at the project level are considered likely to provide suitable mitigation to address significant negative effects. However, taking a precautionary approach, it is still considered likely that all the policy would result in residual long-term minor negative effects on landscape and heritage. Ultimately, the significance of the effect will be dependent on the precise location, scale and design/layout of development.
55 Cheshire East Council (May 2013) Cheshire East: Local Landscape Designations – Draft Report. Prepared by LUC.
February 2016 49/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
4.21 The appraisal also found that the policy has the potential to result in the permanent loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land to accommodate development. However, the nature and significance of the effect against SA Objective 16 is ultimately dependent on the precise location of development. The LPS should seek to avoid allocating development in these areas where possible. At this stage it is difficult to determine the significance of the negative effect as the precise location of development is not known. It is therefore considered that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16, with an element of uncertainty until the precise location of development is known.
LPS Chapter 9 - Planning for Sustainable Development (Policies SD 1 & SD 2)
4.22 The screening found that the Proposed Changes to Policies SD 1 & SD 2 do not significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]. Policy SD 1 now encourages the reuse of existing buildings, which has the potential to enhance positive effects against SA Objectives relating to climate change and the consumption of natural resources; however, this is not considered to be significant.
LPS Chapter 10 - Infrastructure (Policies IN 1 & IN 2)
4.23 The screening found that the Proposed Changes to Policies IN 1 & IN 2 do not significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report [SD 003].
LPS Chapter 11 - Enterprise and Growth (Policies EG 1 - EG 5)
4.24 The screening found that the Proposed Changes to Policies EG 1 & EG 5 do not significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report [SD 003].
LPS Chapter 12 - Stronger Communities (Policies SC 1 - SC 7)
4.25 The screening found that the Proposed Changes to Policies SC 1 & SC 7 do not significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]. The Proposed Changes to Policy SC 3 help to strengthen it by making the requirements for HIA clearer. Policy SC 7 has been strengthened by the inclusion of item x, which ensures that impacts on the historic environment are taken into consideration for any proposals for Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites.
LPS Chapter 13 - Sustainable Environment (Policies SE 1 - SE 15)
4.26 The screening found that the Proposed Changes to Policies SE 1 & SE 15 do not significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]. The Proposed Changes to Policy SE 7 take account of Historic England comments and help to strengthen the policy in relation to SA Objective 12.
February 2016 50/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
LPS Chapter 14 - Connectivity (Policies CO 1 - CO 4)
4.27 The screening found that the Proposed Changes to Policies CO 1 & CO 4 do not significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]. The justification for Policy CO 4 now includes a new paragraph that seeks to ensure that the cross boundary impacts of major development proposals are considered through Transport Assessments.
Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA)
4.28 The Proposed Changes to the policies are not considered to significantly affect the findings of the initial EqIA presented in Appendix I of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]. The proposed increased level of housing and employment development will ensure that the objectively assessed housing and employment needs of the Borough are met. This will have positive effects by helping to ensure that there is suitable homes and job opportunities available for all members of the community. Whilst the Proposed Changes are considered to generally strengthen positive effects with regard to equalities, overall the initial EqIA presented in Appendix I of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] found that the LPS is unlikely to have negative effects on protected characteristics or persons identified under the Equality Act 2010. These conclusions remain valid and relevant for the LPS when considered against the Proposed Changes; a full EqIA is not required.
Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
4.29 The Proposed Changes to the policies are not considered to significantly affect the findings of the HIA presented in Appendix J of the Submission SA Report [SD 003]. The proposed increased level of proposed development will ensure that the housing and employment needs of residents are met. It is likely to increase demand for health and social care services; however, as previously identified through the HIA, LPS policies will ensure that necessary infrastructure is provided to meet needs. The HIA presented in Appendix J of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] found that the LPS is overall likely to have positive effects and concluded that there are unlikely to be any significant adverse health consequences as a result of implementing the Plan. These conclusions remain valid and relevant for the LPS when considered against the Proposed Changes; a full HIA is not required.
Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
4.30 The Proposed Changes to the LPS have also been considered through the HRA process. The HRA screening found that the Proposed Changes are unlikely to result in any significant effects on European sites not already identified and assessed through the previous HRA work for the LPS. It concluded that the LPS contains policies/statements to ensure that strategic sites identified as having the potential to impact on European sites will not be developed without further assessment including HRA, and will only be developed where it can be demonstrated that there is no adverse impact on a European site. Any additional sites, or revisions to existing proposed sites,
February 2016 51/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
required to meet the increased growth, particularly around Knutsford, will need to be screened with regards to potential impacts on European sites.
February 2016 52/53 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
5.0 Summary and Next Steps
5.1 This SA Addendum Report considers the Proposed Changes to LPS Chapters 8 to 14, including policies, in the light of the revised evidence that was submitted to the Inspector at the end of July 2015. The SA Report aims in Section 3 to provide the history of strategic options and alternatives considered and appraised to inform the preparation of the Local Plan Strategy in order to provide clarification. Strategic Options for Growth and Spatial Distribution have been subject to fresh SA and are detailed in Appendices I and II of this Report. The findings of the SA have helped to inform the Council’s decision making process and the development of Proposed Changes.
5.2 The Proposed Changes to Strategic and Development Management Policies have been screened for their significance with regard to SA. Revisions to policies PG 1 and PG 6 as well as the inclusion of a new Policy PG 4a - were considered significant and were subject to further SA (detailed separately in Appendix IV). Other Proposed Changes were considered to be minor amendments and do not significantly change the findings of the previous SA work.
5.3 It should be noted that the Proposed Changes to Local Plan Strategy Sites and Strategic Locations (Chapter 15 of the LPS) are considered through a separate SA Addendum Report (Volume 2). Both Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Reports (Volumes 1 & 2) are available for comment alongside the Proposed Changes and wider technical work from 4 March to 19 April 2016 (provisional dates).
February 2016 53/53 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Appendix I: Revised SA of Growth Options (2016)
Refined Significance Key:
Categories of Significance
Symbol Meaning Sustainability Effect - - Major Problematical and improbable because of known sustainability Negative issues; mitigation likely to be difficult and/or expensive - Minor Potential sustainability issues: mitigation and/or negotiation negative possible + Minor No sustainability constraints and development acceptable positive ++ Major Development encouraged as would resolve existing Positive sustainability problem ? Uncertain Uncertain or Unknown Effects
/ Neutral Neutral effect
- ? It is possible to have two symbols for an SA Objective. For example, an option could have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 (Biodiversity); however, there is an element of uncertainty until lower level assessments have been carried out. - + SA Objective 12 consider more than one topic (landscape and heritage) and as a result the options could have a different effect upon each topic considered.
February 2016 1/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Options 1 2 3 4 5 6
Assessment of Effects
Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus),
permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty 22,000 homes and 351 ha employment 27,000 homes and 351 ha employment 32,000 homes and 351 ha employment 36,000 homes and 380 ha employment 38,000 homes and 380 ha employment 46,400 homes and 441 ha employment 1. Provide an The recent Cheshire East Housing Development Study identified the overall + + + ++ ++ ++ appropriate quantity need for housing in the borough over the period 2010-3056. According to the and quality of study only options 4, 5 & 6 would meet the identified objectively assessed need housing to meet the of 36,000 dwellings during the life of the Plan. Options 4, 5 & 6 are therefore needs of the considered likely to have major long-term positive effects against this SA Borough. This should Objective. Options 4, 5 & 6 are also likely to deliver a greater number of include a mix of affordable homes compared to options 1 to 3. housing types, tenures and Options 1 to 3 would not meet the objectively assessed housing need of the affordability. borough during the life of the Plan, as identified in the Housing Development Study (2015), so are therefore not considered likely to have major positive effects. Despite this, they are still capable of having minor long-term positive effects against this SA Objective through the provision of new dwellings during the life of the Plan. The level of significance of the positive effect identified for the options increases proportionately along with the level of proposed growth. It should be noted that the Housing Development Study suggests that the level of housing growth proposed through Options 5 & 6 would require a significantly higher housebuilding rates compared to current levels57. 2. Create sustainable All of the options have the potential for long-term positive effects against this SA + + + ++ ++ ++ communities that Objective through the delivery of housing and employment and associated benefit from good services/facilities and improvements to sustainable transport modes. The higher access to jobs, the level of growth, the more likely to have a positive effect that is of more services, facilities significance, as there is the potential for a greater provision and therefore
56 PS E033 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Housing Development Study. Prepared by Opinion Research Services. 57 Ibid.
February 2016 2/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 and sustainable improvedNature ofaccessibility the likely sustainability to employment, effect facilities/facilities (including positive/negative, and sustainable short - forms of transport, transport modes.medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), including walking, permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty cycling and public Updated evidence in relation to the need58 and balance59 of housing and transport. employment provision indicates that an increased level of growth will be necessary in the northern settlements than previously proposed in the Submission Local Plan. It is therefore assumed that the higher levels of growth proposed through options 4, 5 & 6 are likely to result in a greater provision of housing and employment as well as associated services/facilities and improvements to sustainable transport modes in the north of the borough. It is further predicted that a higher level of growth is also likely to result in a greater quantity of housing and employment as well as associated infrastructure improvements in the rural areas. Taking this into account, it is considered that options 4, 5 & 6 have a greater likelihood to result in major long-term positive effects compared to the other options, which have the potential for a minor long-term positive effect. Option 6 also has the potential to result in a greater provision of housing and employment as well as associated services/facilities and improvements to sustainable transport modes throughout the entire borough, including the rural areas. The level of significance of the positive effect identified for the options increases proportionately along with the level of proposed growth. 3. Consider the All of the options have the potential for a positive effect on this SA Objective as + + + ++ ++ ++ needs of all sections the provision of housing and employment as well as associated services/ of the community in facilities will help to meet the needs of communities and can help to reduce order to achieve inequalities and social exclusion. The options proposing a higher level of high levels of growth, in particular options 4, 5 & 6 are likely to have a positive effect of equality, diversity greater significance as they will meet the objectively assessed housing needs of and social inclusion. the Borough during the life of the Plan. They are therefore more likely to meet the needs of all sections of the community, whereas the lower options will not provide enough housing to meet needs with a reduced minor positive effect.
58 Ibid. 59 PSE032 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy. Prepared by Ekosgen.
February 2016 3/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 TheNature higher of level the growthlikely sustainability options are effectalso more (including likely to positive/negative, result in development short - within deprivedmedium areas term of the (5- 10Borough years)/long as well term as the (10 rural - 20 areasyears andplus), so they can helppermanent/temporary, to reduce social exclusion secondary, in those cumulative areas; however, and synergistic); at this stage Uncertainty this is uncertain and dependent on the distribution of development. The level of significance of the positive effect identified for the options increases proportionately along with the level of proposed growth. 4. Create an All of the options have the potential for short-term negative effects on human + + + ++ ++ ++ environment that health through the provision of housing and employment. Increased noise, light promotes healthy and air pollution during construction can have impacts on human health. It is and active lifestyles. considered that there is sufficient mitigation provided through Submission Local Plan Policies and available at the project level to ensure that any significant negative effects are addressed with residual long-term neutral effects. Submission Local Plan Policy SE 12 seeks to ensure that all development is located and designed so as not to result in harmful or cumulative impacts on the natural and built environment as a result of pollution. The policy expects developers to minimise pollution arising during both the construction and the life of the development. The policy ensures that development will not be permitted where adequate mitigation cannot be provided.
In line with Submission Local Plan Policy SC 3, all of the options have the potential for positive long-term effects against this SA Objective by ensuring new development provides opportunities for healthy living through the encouragement of walking and cycling, improving access to services, the provision of sufficient open space and other green infrastructure as well as sports facilities. The higher the level of growth the more likely to have a positive effect of significance; therefore, options 4, 5 & 6 are considered to have the potential for major long-term positive effects against this SA Objective whereas options 1 to 3 are considered to have the potential for minor long-term positive effects. The level of significance of the positive effect identified for the options increases proportionately along with the level proposed growth. 5. Maintain and/or At this stage the precise distribution of development is not known. It is likely that + ? + ? + ? + ? + ? + -? create vibrant rural the majority of development will be focussed in and around the existing urban ? communities. areas with a small amount of development in rural areas to help meet the identified need. It is predicted that the higher the level of proposed growth the
February 2016 4/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 greaterNature quantity of the likely of development sustainability that effect is likely (including to occur positive/negative, within the wider ruralshort - areas of themedium borough. term This (5 could-10 years)/long have positive term effects (10 - 20 by years helping plus), to meet the housingpermanent/temporary, needs of rural communities secondary, and cumulative help to support and synergistic); existing facilities Uncertainty and services. However, as the level of growth increases in the rural areas so does the potential to negatively affect the rural environment and character as well as the identity of rural communities. At this stage the potential effects of the options are uncertain as the precise distribution of development and level of growth in rural areas is not known. All of the options are considered to have the potential for a minor long-term positive effect against this SA Objective. However, given the level of growth proposed through Option 6 it also considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect on the rural environment and character. 6. Create a safe None of the Options are likely to have a significant effect against this SA / / / / / / environment to live Objective. In line with Submission Local Plan Policy SE 1, it is assumed that the in and reduce fear design and layout of new development under any of the options could of crime. incorporate Secured by Design principles. 7. Maintain and All of the options have the potential to increase pressure on existing as well as + ? + ? + ? ++ ? ++ ? ++ ? enhance community support or provide new community services/facilities. Overall, all of the options services and are likely to have long term positive effects as they will support the expansion of amenities to sustain existing facilities as well as the provision of new ones. The higher the level the existing and growth, the more likely to have a positive effect that is of more significance, as future community of there is the potential for a greater provision of new community facilities. the Borough. Updated evidence in relation to the need60 and balance61 of housing and employment provision indicates that an increased level of growth will be necessary in the northern settlements than previously proposed in the Submission Local Plan. It is therefore assumed that the higher levels of growth proposed through options 4, 5 & 6 are likely to result in a greater quantity of housing and employment and therefore associated community services/facilities in the north of the borough. It is predicted that options 4, 5 & 6
60 PS E033 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Housing Development Study. Prepared by Opinion Research Services. 61 PSE032 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy. Prepared by Ekosgen.
February 2016 5/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 wouldNature therefo of there likelyprovide sustainability the greatest effect level (including of improvements positive/negative, in terms of short - accessibilitymedium to community term (5 services/facilities-10 years)/long term in the (10 northern - 20 years areas plus), of the borough.permanent/temporary, These 3 options secondary,are also more cumulative likely to result and synergistic);in a greater Uncertaintyquantity of development in the rural areas with the potential for positive effects against this SA objective. Compared to options 4 & 5, option 6 will result is likely to result in a greater quantity of housing and employment and therefore associated community services/facilities across the borough, including the north and rural areas. However, at this stage this is uncertain as the precise distribution and location of development is not known.
All of the options have the potential for a long-term positive effect against this SA Objective, with an element of uncertainty as the precise distribution and location of development as well as level of provision in terms of community services/facilities is not known. The higher level growth options are considered more likely to enhance community services and facilities; therefore, options 4, 5 & 6 have the potential for an enhanced positive effect against this SA Objective. 8. Manage the All of the Options have the potential to negatively affect this SA Objective - ? - ? - ? - - -- ? causes and effects through increased atmospheric pollution (as a result of increased traffic and of climate change. road users) and an increase in energy supply and demand (relating to energy from unsustainable sources both in construction and operation). All of the options have the potential to incorporate energy and efficiency measures as well as renewable or low carbon energy (Submission Local Plan Policy SE 9), which will help to mitigate significant negative effects as a result of increased energy supply and demand.
Evidence suggests that commerce and industry as well as road transport are the main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in the borough.62 At this stage there is little evidence in terms of the potential impacts of these options on the existing highway network, which means that the nature and significance
62 UK local authority and regional carbon dioxide emissions national statistics: 2005-2012. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local- authority-emissions-estimates
February 2016 6/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 of effectsNature of theoptions likely in sustainability relation to traffic effect and (including associated positive/negative, greenhouse gas short - emissions aremedium uncertain term at (5 this-10 stage. years)/long However, term it (10 is predicted - 20 years tha plus),t as the level of permanent/temporary,growth increases so does secondary, the potential cumulative significance and synergistic);of negative Uncertaintyeffects on traffic and therefore greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered that mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that negative effects are not significant for options 1 to 5; however, there is greater uncertainty for the higher levels of growth proposed through options 4 & 5. Option 6 proposes a significantly higher level of growth compared to the other options. It is therefore considered to have the greatest potential to result in residual major negative effects. In the longer-term it is likely that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles will reduce as a result of stringent emissions controls on new vehicles via Euro standards but this is uncertain at this stage.
Overall, it is considered that options 4 & 5 have the greatest potential for a residual short to long-term negative effect against this SA Objective compared to options 1 to 3 given the higher levels of proposed growth, primarily as a result of increased traffic, which is why there is less uncertainty for these options. The likelihood and level of significance of the negative effect identified for options 1 to 3 increases along with the level of proposed growth. Option 6 has the greatest potential for a residual negative effect of significance when compared to the other options given the significantly higher level of growth proposed. 9. Positively address All of the options have the potential to incorporate water efficiency measures / / / / / / the issues of water as part of development. Submission Local Plan Policy SD 2 expects all quality and quantity development to be water efficient and Policy SE 13 ensures that new and manage flood development incorporates water efficiency measures. As the level of growth risk within the increases so does the pressure on existing water resources; however, current Borough. evidence suggests that there are not likely to be any significant issues with regard to water resources in the future63. It is therefore considered that there are no significant differences between the options with regard to water
63 United Utilities (March 2015) Final Water Resources Management Plan.
February 2016 7/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 quantityNature and of the there likely is the sustainability potential for effect a residual (including neutral positive/negative, effect. However, short it - should be notedmedium that term as the (5- level10 years)/long of growth termincreases (10 - so20 doesyears pressure plus), on water resourcespermanent/temporary, and it is uncertain secondary, how the highercumulative levels and of growth synergistic); would Uncertainty affect the modelling that informed United Utilities Water Resource Management Plan.
Submission Local Plan Policy SE 13 requires development to avoid adverse impacts on water quality by ensuring that it includes appropriate sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and Green Infrastructure to store, convey and treat surface water prior to discharge with the aim of achieving a reduction in the existing runoff rate. The policy also states that it is not sustainable to dispose of surface water via the public sewer systems; applicants seeking to drain to the public sewers must demonstrate there are no other more sustainable viable options. Where water infrastructure capacity is an issue, all major development must demonstrate that there is adequate infrastructure in place to serve the development. The policy also ensures that any new development must enhance and protect water quality and comply with the Water Framework Directive to ensure that development does not cause a deterioration in the status of inland waters, unless suitable mitigation measures are in place.
Mitigation provided through Submission Local Plan Policy SE 13 and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects on water quality. All of the options are considered to have the potential for a residual neutral effect against this SA Objective with regard to water quality.
In accordance with the NPPF, Submission Local Plan Policy SE 13 ensures that proposed development must minimise flood risk by ensuring that it follows the sequential approach, is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment, seeks improvements to the surface water drainage network and does not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere. It is considered that suitable mitigation is provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level to ensure that there are no significant negative effects in relation to flooding. Therefore, residual neutral effect for all the options in relation to flooding.
February 2016 8/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Manage the All Natureof the optionsof the likely are likely sustainability to increase effect pollution (including in both positive/negative, the short (construction) short - / / / / ? / ? / ? impacts of and long-termsmedium (operation term (5 and-10 years)/longdecommissioning). term (10 It - is20 considered years plus), that there is development and sufficientpermanent/temporary, mitigation provided secondary, through cumulativeSubmission Localand synergistic); Policies and Uncertainty available associated activities at the project level to ensure that any significant negative effects are to positively address addressed with residual long-term neutral effects. Submission Local Plan Policy all forms of pollution. SE 12 seeks to ensure that all development is located and designed so as not to result in a harmful or cumulative impacts on the natural and built environment as a result of pollution. The policy expects developers to minimise pollution arising during both the construction and the life of the development and development will not be permitted where adequate mitigation cannot be provided.
It should be noted that as the level of growth increases so does the likelihood that there may be residual minor negative effects. To reflect this there is an element of uncertainty against this SA Objective for options 4, 5 & 6. However, at this stage there is no evidence to suggest that there will be a significant difference in terms of the nature and significance of the effect against this SA Objective. 11. Protect and The nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective for the options ? ? ? - ? - ? - enhance are dependent on the precise location of development and sensitivity of biodiversity, habitats, receptors. It is assumed that as the level of growth increases so does the geodiversity and likelihood for potential negative effects on biodiversity and geodiversity. In line important geological with the Submission LPS, it is assumed that the majority of development is likely features; with to be focussed in and around the main settlements which could help to protect particular care to important biodiversity and geodiversity in rural areas to a certain extent; sites designated however, it should be noted that there are also a number of national and local internationally, designations adjacent or in close proximity to the main settlements. The nationally, regionally Council should seek to avoid these designated areas when identifying locations and locally. for growth. A key challenge for the Local Plan will be trying to ensure that ecological connectivity and networks are maintained and improved where possible. The HRA process for the Local Plan will ensure that there are no adverse effects on the integrity of any internationally designated biodiversity sites (Special Conservation Areas, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites).
February 2016 9/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 LocalNature Plan of Policy the likely SE 3 seekssustainability to protect effect and (including enhance positive/negative,areas of high biodiversity short - and geodiversitymedium value. term It (5 also-10 seeksyears)/long to increase term the(10 total- 20 years area plus),of valuable habitatpermanent/temporary, in the borough and secondary, improve ecological cumulative connectivity and synergistic); and networks. Uncertainty The policy does not permit any development proposals that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on international or national designations and only supports development that may have adverse effects on local and regional designations if there are exceptional circumstances. It is considered that there is sufficient mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level to ensure that none of the options will have major negative effects; however, there is still an element of uncertainty until the precise location of development is known and lower level assessments have been carried out.
It is acknowledged that development can have the potential to enhance biodiversity with positive effects; however, this is dependent on a variety of factors including the location of development and opportunities available.
Taking the above into account, it is considered that the higher levels of growth proposed through options 4, 5 & 6 have the greatest potential for negative effects on nationally and locally designated sites surrounding the main settlements. Compared to options 1 to 3, options 4 to 5 have the greatest potential for residual minor long-term negative effects against this SA Objective. Compared to options 4 & 5, it is considered that there is greater potential for residual negative effects against this SA Objective for Option 6 given the higher level of growth proposed. In recognition of this, it is considered that there is less uncertainty for option 6 against this SA Objective. However, it should be noted that there is an element of uncertainty for all options until the distribution and precise location of development is known.
February 2016 10/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Protect and ThisNature SA Objective of the likely considers sustainability two key effectsustainability (including topics positive/negative, and therefore two short - -? ? -? ? -? ? - ? - ? -- -? enhance the quality, symbols aremedium provided term to represent (5-10 years)/long each topic. term The (10 first - 20 symbol years plus),relates to ? integrity and landscapepermanent/temporary, and the second secondary, heritage. cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty distinctiveness of the area’s heritage, Given the level of proposed development all of the options have the potential landscapes and for major long-term negative effects on the landscape. It is assumed that townscapes, in development will be primarily focussed within and around the main settlements particular those that which will help to reduce the significance of the effect to some extent; are internationally, however, this is dependent on the precise location of development, sensitivity nationally or locally of receptors, and effectiveness of mitigation measures. designated. The landscape in the north of the borough is considered to be more sensitive to development with the presence of the Peak District National Park and a number of large Local Landscape Designations64. The Peak District National Park is also situated in the north east of the borough in close proximity to Macclesfield.
Updated evidence in relation to the need65 and balance66 of housing and employment provision indicates that an increased level of growth may be necessary in the northern settlements than previously proposed in the Submission Local Plan. It is therefore predicted that the higher levels of growth proposed through options 4 to 6 have the potential to result in a greater amount of development in the north of the borough, which is considered more sensitive in landscape terms. While Local Plan policies, such as Policy SE 4, are likely to provide suitable mitigation to address significant negative effects this assumption becomes more uncertain for the higher levels of proposed growth, in particular for options 4 and 5.
Taking a precautionary approach, it is therefore considered that there is less
64 Cheshire East Council (May 2013) Local Landscape Designations Draft Report. Prepared by LUC. 65 PS E033 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Housing Development Study. Prepared by Opinion Research Services. 66 PSE032 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy. Prepared by Ekosgen.
February 2016 11/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 uncertaintyNature of thatthe likelythe levels sustainability of growth effect proposed (including in Options positive/negative, 4 to 6 will result short in a - residual negativemedium effects term on(5- the10 years)/long landscape termwhen (10 compared - 20 years to plus), options 1 to 3. Optionpermanent/temporary, 6 will result in the highest secondary, level cumulativeof growth throughout and synergistic); the borough, Uncertainty including in the north. When compared to options 4 & 5, it is considered that option 6 has a greater potential to result in a residual major negative effect on the landscape. However, ultimately the nature and significance of the effects will depend on the distribution and precise location of development.
While it is recognised that impacts on landscape could have negative effects on the setting of heritage assets at this stage it is considered uncertain. The distribution and precise location of the sites will help to determine the potential nature and significance of effects. It should be noted that as the proposed level of growth increases so does the likelihood for residual negative effects. It is considered that suitable mitigation is provided through Local Plan policies, such as Policy SE 7, and available at the project level to ensure that there will not be any major negative effects on heritage as a result of growth proposed through Options 1 to 5. However, given the significantly higher level of growth proposed through option 6 and the potential for a residual major negative effect on the landscape, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect on the historic environment.
Overall, the nature and significance of the effect on landscape and heritage will be dependent on the location and design/layout of development as well as the sensitivity of receptors. 13. Minimise energy In line with Submission Local Plan Policy SE 9, all of the options have the / / / / / / use, promote energy potential to incorporate energy and efficiency measures as well as renewable efficiency and high or low carbon energy. It is therefore considered that all of the Options are likely quality design, and to have a neutral effect against this SA Objective; however, it is recognised that increase the there is still an element of uncertainty which is dependent on implementation. generation of It is considered that there are no significant differences in the nature and energy from significance of sustainability effects between the Options. renewable resources.
February 2016 12/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - 14. Achieve All of the optionsmedium are term likely (5 to-10 increase years)/long waste term in the (10 short - 20 (construction)years plus), and / / / / / / sustainable waste longpermanent/temporary,-term (operation and secondary,decommissioning). cumulative Submission and synergistic); Local Plan Uncertainty Policy SD 1 management seeks the provision of appropriate infrastructure to meet the needs of the local through adhering to community which includes waste. Policy SD 2 expects development to the principles of the minimise waste and Policy SE 1 seeks to ensure that adequate provision of waste hierarchy. waste storage as part of any development.
It is considered that there is sufficient mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level to ensure any significant negative effects are addressed with a neutral residual effect against this SA Objective. The higher the level of growth the more likely to result in increased levels of waste generated. However, once mitigation has been taken into account it is considered that there are no significant differences in the nature and significance of sustainability effects between the options against this SA Objective.
15. Manage mineral All of the options will result in the use of primary aggregates for building and ? ? ? - ? - ? - extraction and infrastructure. The higher the level of growth the greater the quantity of primary encourage their aggregates that are likely to be required and used. Despite this, all of the recycling/re-use to options have the same potential to maximise the use of secondary aggregates provide a sufficient as well as use sustainable construction techniques. supply to meet social and The higher levels of growth also have a greater potential to result in economic needs development within mineral safeguarded areas, which could lead to the whilst minimising sterilisation of mineral resources. To reflect the likelihood that a greater quantity impacts on the of primary aggregates will be used and the greater potential for the sterilisation environment and of mineral resources, it is considered that options 4 to 6 have the potential for a communities and residual minor short to long term negative effect against this SA Objective. In safeguarding recognition that the negative effect is likely to be of less significance for options resources for future 1 to 3 compared to options 4 to 6 they are considered to have an uncertain generations. effect at this stage. Given the significantly higher level of growth proposed through option 6, it is considered that there is less uncertainty with regard to the potential for residual minor negative effects. However, it should be noted that
February 2016 13/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 thereNature is an of element the likely of sustainabilityuncertainty for effect all the (including options untilpositive/negative, the distribution short and - precise locationmedium of development term (5-10 years)/long is known. term (10 - 20 years plus), 16. Reduce the Thepermanent/temporary, use of water and mineral secondary, resources cumulative are addressed and synergistic); against SA ObjectivesUncertainty 9 - ? - ? - ? -- ? -- ? -- consumption of & 15; therefore, the nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective natural resources, will primarily relate to the potential loss of Green Belt, greenfield and protect and agricultural land. enhance green infrastructure and All of the options have the potential to encourage the re-use of previously high quality developed land; however, as the level of proposed growth increases so does agricultural land and the likelihood that there will be a greater loss of Green Belt, greenfield and optimise the re-use agricultural land to accommodate development. It is acknowledged that of previously development has the potential to provide green infrastructure and improve it, developed land, which means that the higher levels of growth could potentially have a greater buildings and potential for enhancement. However, at this stage this is uncertain and it is infrastructure. considered more likely that the higher levels of growth will result in a greater loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land.
Updated evidence in relation to the need67 and balance68 of housing and employment provision indicates that an increased level of growth will be necessary in the northern settlements than previously proposed in the Submission Local Plan. It is therefore assumed that the higher levels of growth proposed through options 4 to 6 are likely to result in a greater loss of Green Belt in the north of the Borough.
Taking the above into account, it is therefore considered that options 4 to 6 have the potential for permanent major negative effects against this SA Objective through the loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land. While Options 1 to 3 are also likely to have permanent negative effects, it is considered that these are likely to be of less significance compared to options 4 to 6. Option 6 is considered to have the potential for a negative effect of
67 PS E033 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Housing Development Study. Prepared by Opinion Research Services. 68 PSE032 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy. Prepared by Ekosgen.
February 2016 14/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 greaterNature significance of the likely compared sustainability to the effect rest (including of the options positive/negative, given the significantly short - higher level mediumof growth. term There (5-10 is anyears)/long element ofterm uncertainty (10 - 20 years for options plus), 1 to 5 until thepermanent/temporary, distribution and precise secondary, location of cumulative development and issynergistic); known. Uncertainty 17. To promote a All of the options are likely to have positive effects on the economy and + + + ++ ++ ++ sustainable, improve access to employment, as well as improve economic diversity in the competitive and urban and rural areas of the borough. low-carbon economy that Options 4 to 6 propose a higher quantity of new employment land to support benefits from a proposed housing growth. This along with the greater provision of housing and range of innovative associated services/facilities means that Options 4 to 6 are more likely to have and diverse a positive effect of significance against this SA Objective compared Option 1 businesses in both to 3. Option 6 is based on a higher jobs growth rate at 0.9%. While there are urban and rural uncertainties and assumptions underpinning all of the options, evidence areas. suggests that the level of proposed growth through Option 6, would require a much higher rate of private sector jobs growth than achieved in the past and that sustaining this over the Plan period would be exceptional69. This partly reflects the low levels of future growth projected for the public sector. While ambitious, the evidence suggests that the 0.7% jobs growth rate underpinning options 4 & 5 is more realistic and likely to be delivered.
At a strategic level it is difficult to identify any significant differences between options 4, 5 & 6 as they are based on a number of assumptions and uncertainties. Overall, it is considered that options 4 to 6 have a greater likelihood for major long-term positive effects against this SA Objective compared to options 1 to 3. The level of significance of the positive effect identified for options 1 to 3 increases along with the level of proposed growth. 18. To maintain and All of the options have the potential for a positive effect against this SA + ? + ? + ? + + + enhance the vitality Objective through the delivery of housing and employment land, which will and viability of town help to support the vitality and viability of town and village centres. It is and village centres assumed that the options proposing higher levels of growth are more likely to with a balanced result in a higher level of development in the rural areas of the borough, which
69 Ibid.
February 2016 15/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 provision of retail, meansNature that of theythe likely are more sustainability likely to support effect (including the vitality positive/negative, and viability of village short - leisure, visitor and centres. medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), cultural facilities. permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty As previously identified, updated evidence in relation to the need70 and balance71 of housing and employment provision indicates that an increased level of growth will be necessary in the northern settlements than previously proposed in the Submission Local Plan. It is therefore assumed that the higher levels of growth proposed through options 4 to 6 are more likely to support the vitality and viability of centres in the north of the borough.
Conversely, the higher the level of growth the greater the provision of services/facilities that could compete with existing centres. It is predicted that Submission Local Plan Policies will ensure that this does not occur. Policy PG 2 seeks development to maintain the vitality and viability of key service centres.
Taking the above into account it is considered that options 4 to 6 are most likely to have a minor long-term positive effect against this SA Objective compared to options 1 to 3. This is reflected with more certainty of effects predicted for options 4 to 6. 19. Positively All of the options are likely to have indirect minor positive effects on this SA + ? + ? + ? + + + manage the Objective through the provision of housing and employment in rural areas. It is Borough's diverse assumed that as the level of housing growth increases so does the potential rural economy. quantity of new housing and employment land that is likely to be delivered within the rural areas of the borough. The significance of positive effects is therefore considered to proportionately increase as the level of housing growth increases.
There is still uncertainty at this stage as the precise distribution and location of development is not known. Taking the above into account it is considered that options 4 to 6 are most likely to have a minor long-term positive effect against
70 PS E033 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Housing Development Study. Prepared by Opinion Research Services. 71 PSE032 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy. Prepared by Ekosgen.
February 2016 16/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 thisNature SA Objective of the likely compared sustainability to options effect 1 to (including 3. This is reflectedpositive/negative, with more short - certainty of mediumeffects predicted term (5-10 for years)/long options 4 to term 6. (10 - 20 years plus), 20. Improve access Allpermanent/temporary, of the options have the secondary, potential to cumulative increase pressure and synergistic); and support Uncertainty existing + + + + + + to education and education and training facilities. Overall, the options are likely to have long training, and the links term positive effects as they will support the expansion of existing facilities as between these well as the provision of new ones. The higher the level of growth the greater resources and the pressure on existing services as well as the greater potential for the employment expansion of existing and provision of new facilities. The higher level growth opportunities. options could help improve accessibility to education and training for rural communities as there would likely be a higher level of growth in these areas. They also have greater potential to improve the links between these facilities and areas of employment through greater improvements to sustainable transport modes. However, at this stage this is uncertain. There are no significant differences between the options against this SA Objective at this stage.
Summary Findings:
The Cheshire East Housing Development Study (June 2015) identified the overall need for housing in the borough over the period 2010-3072. According to the study only options 4 to 6 would meet the identified objectively assessed need of 36,000 dwellings during the life of the Plan. The appraisal therefore found that options 4 to 6 are more likely to have major long-term positive effects against the housing SA Objective compared to options 1 to 3. All of the options have potential minor long-term effects against SA Objectives relating to the provision of associated services/facilities
All of the options are likely to have positive effects on the economy and improve access to employment, as well as improve economic diversity in the urban and rural areas of the borough. Options 4 to 6 propose a higher quantity of new employment land to support proposed housing growth. This along with the greater provision of housing and associated services/facilities means that Options 4 to 6 are more likely to have a positive effect of significance against this SA Objective compared Option 1 to 3. Option 6 is based on a higher jobs growth rate at 0.9%. While there are uncertainties and assumptions underpinning all of the options, evidence suggests that the level of proposed growth through Option 6, would require a much higher rate of private sector jobs growth than achieved in the past and that sustaining this over the Plan period would be exceptional73. This partly reflects the low levels of future growth projected for the public sector. While ambitious, the evidence suggests that the 0.7% jobs growth rate underpinning options 4 & 5 is more realistic and likely to be
72 PS E033 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Housing Development Study. Prepared by Opinion Research Services. 73 PSE032 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy. Prepared by Ekosgen.
February 2016 17/18 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 delivered. At a strategic level it is difficult to identify any significant differences between options 4, 5 & 6 as they are based on a number of assumptions and uncertainties. Overall, it is considered that options 4 to 6 have a greater likelihood for major long-term positive effects against SA Objective 17 compared to options 1 to 3. The level of significance of the positive effect identified for options 1 to 3 increases along with the level of proposed growth.
Updated evidence in relation to the need74 and balance75 of housing and employment provision indicates that an increased level of growth will be necessary in the northern settlements than previously proposed in the Submission Local Plan. It was therefore predicted that the higher levels of growth proposed through options 4 to 6 are more likely to result in a greater provision of employment and services/facilities in the north of the borough. Compared to options 1 to 3, options 4 to 6 were therefore considered more likely to result in major long-term positive effects as they are more likely to help meet the housing and employment needs in the north as well as the wider rural areas of the borough.
All of the options have the potential to encourage the re-use of previously developed land; however, as the level of proposed growth increases so does the likelihood that there will be a greater loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land to accommodate development. As the level of proposed growth increases so does the potential loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land. Taking this along with the updated evidence into account (that more development may be needed in the north), the appraisal found that options 4 to 6 have the potential for permanent major negative effects as there is the potential for a greater loss of Green Belt land in the north of the borough along with a greater loss of greenfield and agricultural land more widely across the plan area. While Options 1 to 3 are also likely to have permanent negative effects, it is considered that these are likely to be of less significance compared to options 4 to 6. There is an element of uncertainty for all options until the distribution and precise location of development is known.
The appraisal found that as the level of growth increases so does the potential significance of negative effects on traffic and therefore greenhouse gas emissions. Option 6 proposes a significantly higher level of growth compared to the other options. It was therefore considered to have the greatest potential to result in residual major negative effects against SA Objective 8 compared to the other options.
The appraisal found that the nature and significance of effects against SA Objectives relating to biodiversity, landscape and heritage are ultimately dependent on the distribution and precise location of development. Despite this, it was considered that as the level of growth increases so does the likelihood for negative effects against these SA Objectives. Compared to options 1 to 3, the appraisal found that options 4 to 6 have the greatest potential for residual minor negative effects against biodiversity, landscape and heritage given the higher level of proposed growth and the potential for a greater level of development in the north of the borough, which is more sensitive in landscape terms. Option 6 was considered to have the potential for a negative effect of greater significance on the landscape compared to options 4 & 5, given the significantly higher level of housing growth proposed. Taking this into account, the appraisal also found that option 6 was also more likely to result in residual negative effects on the historic environment compared to the other options. Ultimately, the nature and significance of the effect on landscape and heritage will be dependent on the location and design/layout of development as well as the sensitivity of receptors.
74 PS E033 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Housing Development Study. Prepared by Opinion Research Services. 75 PSE032 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy. Prepared by Ekosgen.
February 2016 18/18 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Appendix II: Fresh SA of Spatial Distribution Options
The fresh SA of distribution options was informed by the further technical work carried out by the Council, which includes the Housing Development Study draft final report presented as part of the second stakeholder engagement workshop in May 201576 as well as the emerging findings of the Spatial Distribution Update Report. The further technical work, including the Spatial Distribution Update Report, have now been finalised; however, it should be noted that the changes (which predominantly relate to the addition of paragraphs to provide further justification) made to these reports do not significantly affect the findings of the fresh SA of spatial distribution options presented below.
Refined Significance Key: Categories of Significance
Symbol Meaning Sustainability Effect - - Major Problematical and improbable because of known sustainability issues; mitigation Negative likely to be difficult and/or expensive - Minor Potential sustainability issues: mitigation and/or negotiation possible negative + Minor No sustainability constraints and development acceptable positive ++ Major Development encouraged as would resolve existing sustainability problem Positive ? Uncertain Uncertain or Unknown Effects
/ Neutral Neutral effect
- ? It is also possible to have two symbols for an SA Objective. For example, a development could have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 (Biodiversity); however, there is an element of uncertainty until lower level assessments have been carried out. - + SA Objective 12 consider more than one topic (landscape and heritage) and as a result the options could have a different effect upon each topic considered.
76 http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/workshop
July 2015 1/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA Objective Options 1 2 3 4 5
Assessment of Effects
Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary,
cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty PG6 with proportionate growth Proportionate growth from 2010 Employment led Constraints/ Impact led Hybrid Approach 1. Provide an The 5 options propose different alternatives for the spatial distribution of the + + ++ + ++ appropriate quantity additional housing growth (7,000 dwellings) required to meet the updated and quality of objectively assessed housing need identified in the Cheshire East Housing housing to meet the Development Study (Draft 13 May 2015)77. Updated evidence indicates that there needs of the is a shortage of housing opportunities in the north of the borough, particularly those Borough. This should suitable for young families in Poynton78. It also suggests that there is high house include a mix of prices and low affordability of market housing in Knutsford as well as above housing types, average levels of overcrowding in Handforth. tenures and affordability. There is evidence to suggest that there is still a pent up demand for more housing in Nantwich, high demand for affordable housing and shortage of local jobs in Congleton and the shortage of local jobs and strong pattern of out-commuting in Middlewich.
Options 1 and 4 propose a similar balance in terms of the distribution of housing between the south and north of the borough. There are minor differences in the way that this housing growth is distributed between individual settlements in these areas but overall the differences are not significant. Option 4 proposes slightly less housing in Macclesfield (approx. 200 dwellings), Nantwich (approx. 300 dwellings) and Handforth (approx. 300 dwellings) but proposes slightly more housing in Wilmslow (approx. 200 dwellings) and Poynton (approx. 150 dwellings) compared to option 1. Option 4 also proposes slightly more growth in the Local Service Centres (approx. 200 dwellings) and Rural areas (approx. 200 dwellings) compared to option
77 Cheshire East Council (Draft 13 May 2015) Housing Development Study. Prepared by Opinion Research Services. 78 Cheshire East Council (May 2015) Spatial Distribution Support Executive Summary (draft). Prepared by AECOM.
July 2015 2/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
1.
Given the differences outline above, there are likely to be minor differences between these options in terms of the significance of positive effects for individual settlements. In the north of the borough option 2 is more likely to address housing shortage issues in Poynton; however, option 3 is more likely to address the high house prices and low affordability of market housing in Knutsford and overcrowding in Handforth. In the south option 1 is more likely to address the pent up demand for housing in Nantwich given the slightly higher (approx. 300 dwellings) level of growth proposed. However, option 4 is more likely to have enhanced positive effects for Local Service Centres and rural areas given the slightly higher level of proposed growth in those areas. At a strategic level it is difficult to identify any significant differences between these two options against this SA Objective.
Options 3 & 5 propose a similar balance to each other in terms of the distribution of housing between the south and north of the borough. There are minor differences in the way that this housing growth is distributed between individual settlements in these areas but overall the differences are not significant. Option 3 proposes slightly less housing in Wilmslow (approx. 150 dwellings) and Poynton (approx. 200 dwellings) but proposes slightly more housing in Knutsford (approx. 200 dwellings) compared to option 5. Option 3 proposes slightly more growth in the Local Service Centres (approx. 250 dwellings) and they both propose the same level of development in the rural area. As previously stated, there are likely to be minor differences between these options in terms of the significance of positive effects for individual settlements. However, at this strategic level it is difficult to identify any significant differences between these two options against this SA Objective.
Comparing all of the options together, options 1 & 4 propose the least amount of housing in the north of the borough compared to the other options. Option 3 & 5 propose approximately 1,000 more dwellings in the north with option 2 proposing the highest level of housing compared to the other options. At a strategic level, it can therefore be assumed that as the proposed level of growth increases in the north of the borough, so too does the likelihood of a positive effect of greater significance against this SA Objective through better meeting the housing needs of the northern communities.
July 2015 3/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
It is important to note that there are some significant differences between the options in terms of how they distribute growth between individual settlements in the north of the borough. Option 2 proposes significantly less development in Handforth compared to the other options (approx. 1,500 to 1,800 dwellings), so is less likely to address housing needs for this settlement and the above average overcrowding issue. However, it proposes more housing in Wilmslow (approx. 1,300 to 1,800), Macclesfield (approx. 900 to 1,100 dwellings) and Poynton (approx. 400 to 1,000 dwellings). While option 2 might have a reduced positive effect in Handforth there is the potential for enhanced positive effects in Macclesfield, Wilmslow and Poynton against this SA Objective.
Overall in terms of the distribution of housing between the north and south of the borough, options 1 & 4 offer a similar balance to what was previously proposed in the Submission Local Plan. Options 2, 3 & 5 offer a greater distribution of housing in the north of the borough to help address the identified housing shortage in the northern Key Service Centres. At a strategic level, this means that in terms of the provision of housing, options 1 & 4 are likely to have an enhanced positive effect in terms of the provision of housing for Crewe and the Key Service Centres in the south and a reduced positive effect for the Key Service Centres in the north of the borough compared to options 3 & 5. Option 2 is likely to have the positive effect of most significance for Macclesfield and the northern Key Service Centres (except Handforth) and a reduced positive effect for Crewe and the Key Service Centres in the south compared to the other options.
Option 2 is likely to have a positive effect of greater significance for Local Service Centres and rural areas as it proposes a much higher level of growth in those areas compared to the other options.
Overall, it is difficult to highlight any significant differences between the options in terms of the nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective. Options 1 & 4 offer the same balance of housing growth between the north and south as previously proposed in the Submission Local Plan. Option 2 addresses the identified housing shortage in the north but reduces the overall level of housing growth in the south which will make it less likely to meet the needs of Crewe and the Key Service Centres in that area. At a strategic level, based on the evidence available, it appears that options 3 & 5 offer the most balanced approach to the distribution of
July 2015 4/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
housing needs across the borough, helping to address the housing shortage in the north and ensuring that the housing needs in the south are still being met. To reflect this it is considered that options 3 & 5 have the potential for a major long-term positive effects, whereas options 1, 2 & 4 have the potential for a minor long-term positive effect. 2. Create sustainable All of the options are likely to have long-term positive effects against this SA ++ + ++ ++ ++ communities that Objective as they focus the majority of development towards the principle towns benefit from good and Key Service Centres within the borough. Option 2 proposes a greater access to jobs, proportion of development towards the Local Service Centres and rural villages. It is services, facilities therefore considered that option 2 is likely to have a reduced positive effect against and sustainable this SA Objective as housing in those areas will have poorer access to employment forms of transport, opportunities and services/facilities compared to development in and around the including walking, larger Principal Towns and Key Service Centres. It is acknowledged that cycling and public development in the Local Service Centres and rural villages could potentially transport. improve access to services/facilities; however, at this stage the level and type of provision is not known. Option 2 proposes a similar level of employment land provision to the Local Service Centres and rural areas as the other options so is therefore unlikely to significantly improve access to jobs in those areas given the higher levels of housing growth proposed.
Evidence suggests that Knutsford is particularly well served by a range of retail, leisure and culture services and further development here would create communities that were well placed to take advantage of such facilities.79 Taking this into account options 3 & 5 could potentially have an enhanced positive effect compared to options 1 & 4 as they propose a greater level of development in Knutsford.
At a strategic level it is difficult to highlight any significant differences between Options 1, 3, 4 & 5 against this SA Objective. Option 2 is considered to have a reduced positive effect compared to options 1, 3, 4 & 5. 3. Consider the Option 2 is considered most likely to reduce inequalities in the Local Service Centres + + + + + needs of all sections and rural villages as it proposes the greatest amount of development there. It is also of the community in likely to have enhanced positive effects compared to the other options for the
79 Cheshire East Council (May 2015) Spatial Distribution Support Executive Summary (draft). Prepared by AECOM.
July 2015 5/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 order to achieve north of the borough given the overall higher levels of development proposed in high levels of the northern Key Service Centres, particularly Poynton. The exception to this is equality, diversity Handforth, as option 2 proposes a reduced level of growth at this Key Service and social inclusion. Centre compared to the other options. It is also likely to have a reduced positive effect against this SA Objective for the south of the borough as it proposes a reduced amount of growth in that area compared to the other options.
Options 3 & 5 are likely to have enhanced positive effects compared to options 1 & 4 in the north of the borough as they propose a higher level of growth in the northern Key Service Centres. Conversely, they are likely to have a reduced positive effect in the south of the borough as less growth is being directed towards Crewe and the southern Key Service Centres. Options 1, 3, 4 & 5 direct similar levels of growth towards the Local Service Centres and rural villages so there are unlikely to be any significant differences in terms of the nature and significance of effects between the options against this SA Objective for those areas.
Of the 231 Lower Super Output Areas (pre-2011) in Cheshire East, 23 are amongst the 25% most deprived in England. Fourteen of these are in Crewe, three are in Macclesfield and one is in each of Alsager, Congleton, Handforth, Knutsford, Nantwich and Wilmslow. Five of these LSOAs, all in Crewe, are amongst the 10% most deprived in England.80 It could be contended that the options directing the highest levels of growth to these areas could potentially have an enhanced positive effect against this SA Objective as the provision of housing, employment and associated services/facilities and infrastructure improvements could help to reduce inequalities in these areas. However, the precise location of development is not known at this stage, it is therefore difficult to predict how the options will either directly or indirectly affect these areas.
At a strategic level it is difficult to highlight any significant differences between the options in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective. All of the options have the potential for minor short to long-term positive effects against this SA Objective.
80 English Indices of Deprivation 2010. Department of Communities and Local Government.
July 2015 6/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
4. Create an All of the options have the potential to help promote healthy and active lifestyles + + + + + environment that through improving access to housing, employment and services/facilities as well as promotes healthy sustainable transport modes. The higher the level of growth directed towards the and active lifestyles. area the greater likelihood for positive effects against this SA Objective.
As previously stated against other SA Objectives, there are likely to be minor differences between the options in terms of the significance of effects depending on where development is being directed; however, these are unlikely to be of major significance overall. Options that direct more development in the north, such as options 2, 3 & 5 are likely to have enhanced positive effects in that area compared to options 1 & 4. Conversely, options 1 & 4 are likely to have enhanced positive effects in the south compared to options 2, 3 & 5 as a higher level of development is proposed in Crewe and the southern Key Service Centres.
At a strategic level it is difficult to highlight any significant differences between the options in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective. All of the options have the potential for minor short to long-term positive effects against this SA Objective. 5. Maintain and/or All of the options have the potential for minor long-term positive effects against this + + + + + create vibrant rural SA Objective through the provision of employment and housing development in the communities. rural areas of the borough. Options 1, 3, 4 & 5 propose the same level of employment growth and similar levels of housing growth in the rural areas so are not considered likely to have any major differences against this SA Objective in terms of the significance of effects. Option 2 proposes a total of 4,021 new dwellings in the rural area, a difference of around 1,300 to 1,500 more dwellings compared to the other options. This could have enhanced positive effects against this SA Objective compared to the other options by improving the offer of housing as well as infrastructure in rural areas. Despite the potential for an enhanced positive effect, at this stage there is not sufficient evidence to justify a significant difference between the options in terms of the nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective. Potential for a minor long-term positive effect for all the options. 6. Create a safe None of the Options are likely to have a significant effect against this SA Objective. / / / / / environment to live In line with Submission Local Plan Policy SE 1, it is assumed that the design and in and reduce fear layout of new development under any of the options could incorporate Secured by of crime. Design principles.
July 2015 7/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
7. Maintain and Evidence suggests that infrastructure is not considered to be a critical factor in + + + + + enhance community determining the spatial distribution of development.81 All of the options have the services and potential to provide or contribute to additional infrastructure where necessary, amenities to sustain which can be secured through developer contributions and other funding streams the existing and in line with Submission Local Plan Policy IN 2. future community of the Borough. As previously stated against other SA Objectives, there are likely to be minor differences between the options in terms of the significance of effects depending on where development is being directed; however, these are unlikely to be of major significance overall. Options that direct more development in the north, such as options 2, 3 & 5 are likely to have enhanced positive effects in that area compared to options 1 & 4. Conversely, options 1 & 4 are likely to have enhanced positive effects in the south compared to options 2, 3 & 5 as a higher level of development is proposed in Crewe and the southern Key Service Centres.
It is noted that the evidence predicts that the community aspirations for infrastructure are unlikely to be met in Poynton due to the low level of development anticipated in this area.82 It is therefore considered that the options proposing higher levels of growth in that area have the potential for enhanced positive effects against this SA Objective; however, these are unlikely to be of significance overall. Option 2 proposes the highest level of development in Poynton followed by options 5 and 3 respectively.
At a strategic level it is difficult to highlight any significant differences between the options in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective. All of the options have the potential for minor short to long-term positive effects against this SA Objective. 8. Manage the Evidence suggests that commerce and industry as well as road transport are the ? ? ? ? ? causes and effects main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in the borough.83 The distribution of
81 Cheshire East Council (May 2015) Spatial Distribution Support Executive Summary (draft). Prepared by AECOM. 82 Ibid. 83 UK local authority and regional carbon dioxide emissions national statistics: 2005-2012. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local- authority-emissions-estimates
July 2015 8/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 of climate change. housing and employment development is more likely to influence the emissions from road transport rather than from commerce and industry.
Traffic modelling carried out by Atkins relating to the A34 corridor concluded that at differences in the spatial distribution of development in the north of the borough result in marginal differences in traffic flow impacts at key locations within the A34 corridor and on the boundary of the Cheshire East and Stockport authority area.84 The modelling suggests that there will be localised traffic impacts depending on where development is delivered and for the purposes of this appraisal it is considered that this will be the case across the plan area. It should be noted that traffic modelling was also carried out in 2014 to determine how specific development options in Crewe, Leighton West (Crewe), Congleton and Middlewich may impact junction performance.
At a strategic level, it is considered that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the options are likely to have a significantly different effect against this SA Objective. It is considered that mitigation provided through the through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that negative effects are not significant for any of the options; however, at this stage this is uncertain. 9. Positively address Evidence suggests that infrastructure is not considered to be a critical factor in / / / / / the issues of water determining the spatial distribution of development and that there are no significant quality and quantity constraints in terms of flood risk within the borough.85 All of the options have the and manage flood potential to provide or contribute to additional infrastructure where necessary, risk within the which can be secured through developer contributions and other funding streams Borough. in line with Submission Local Plan Policy IN 2.
In accordance with the NPPF, Submission Local Plan Policy SE 13 ensures that proposed development must minimise flood risk by ensuring that it follows the sequential approach, is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment, seeks improvements to the surface water drainage network and does not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere.
84 Technical Note (18 May 2015) Strategic Highways Modelling. Prepared by Atkins. 85 Cheshire East Council (May 2015) Spatial Distribution Support Executive Summary (draft). Prepared by AECOM.
July 2015 9/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Given the available evidence and constraints, it is considered that there are unlikely to be any significant differences between the options against this SA Objective. Potential for a residual neutral effect for all of the options. 10. Manage the The appraisal found there are no significant differences between the options with / / / / / impacts of regard to air quality, as a result of traffic impacts, as well as water quality. development and Submission Local Plan Policy SE 12 seeks to ensure that all development is located associated activities and designed so as not to result in a harmful or cumulative impacts on the natural to positively address and built environment as a result of pollution. The policy expects developers to all forms of pollution. minimise pollution arising during both the construction and the life of the development and development will not be permitted where adequate mitigation cannot be provided.
It is considered that there is sufficient mitigation provided through Submission Local Policies and available at the project level to ensure that any significant negative effects are addressed with residual long-term neutral effects. There are no significant differences between the options against this SA Objective, potential for a residual neutral effect. 11. Protect and Draft findings for the HRA (May 2015) of the spatial distribution options found that for - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? enhance all options the potential adverse effects on European designated sites as identified biodiversity, habitats, in the HRA (Feb 2014) of the Local Plan Strategy would remain the same. The Final geodiversity and HRA Report (Feb 2014) concluded that the existing policies and provisions in the important geological Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy and other plans and strategies should features; with ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified particular care to European sites are avoided. The Draft HRA findings (May 2015) state that Options 1 sites designated & 4 are likely to have the least impact, while options 2 to 5 have the potential for internationally, the greatest impact on due to the levels of growth proposed for Knutsford and nationally, regionally other settlements located in close proximity to European sites e.g. Crewe, Nantwich and locally. and Alsager. The HRA process for the Local Plan should ensure that there are no adverse effects on internationally designated sites for biodiveristy.
There are a number of SSSIs within the borough and some of these are in close proximity to some of the Key Service Centres including Crewe, Sandbach, Congleton, Knutsford and Macclesfield. There are also a number of SSSIs adjacent to or close to a number of the Local Service Centres. The nature and significance of effects will ultimately dependent on the precise location of development. Given the protection afforded to SSSIs through national policy and the mitigation provided
July 2015 10/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
through Local Plan policies, it is considered unlikely that any of the options will have significant negative effects on nationally designated sites. Local Plan Policy SE 3 does not permit any development proposals that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on international or national designations.
While some of the options may have a greater likelihood for negative effects on nationally designated sites by focussing development towards Principle Towns, Key Service Centres or Local Service Centres in close proximity to SSSIs, the mitigation measures provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant adverse effects.
There are a number of Local Wildlife sites throughout the borough, with the north containing a greater concentration of these sites. The majority of these sites lie within the rural areas; however, there are numerous Local Wildlife Sites that are within, adjacent to and in close proximity to the main settlements (Principle Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres).
There are likely to be minor differences between the options in terms of the potential level of significance of effects depending on where development is being directed. The settlements with the highest concentration of Local Wildlife Sites include Congleton, Knutsford, Handforth, and Wilmslow. Options 1, 3, 4 & 5 are therefore more likely to have a negative effect of greater significance than option 2 for the Local Willdlife Sites in and around Congleton as they propose a higher level of growth there. Conversely, option 2 is more likely to have a negative effect of greater significance than options 1, 3, 4 & 5 for the Local Wildlife sites in and around Wilmslow as it proposes more development there. Ultimately, the overall nature and significance of effects will be dependent on the precise location of development.
At a strategic level it is difficult to clearly identify any significant difference between the options in terms of the nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective. Options 1 & 4 propose less growth in the north of the borough and be considered less likely to result in negative effects for designated biodiversity in that area. However, they also propose a greater level of development in the south so are more likely to have negative effects for designated biodiversity there. Options 3 & 5 propose a similar distribution of growth so there are unlikely to be major differences between them in terms of the nature and significance of effects against
July 2015 11/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
this SA Objective. Compared to options 1& 4 they propose a slightly higher level of growth in the north so have a greater likelihood for negative effects on designated biodiversity in the north of the borough, but are less likely to have negative effects on biodiversity in the south given the reduced level of proposed growth in that area. Compared to the other options, option 2 has the greatest potential for negative effects on designated biodiversity in the north of the borough as it proposes the highest level of growth there. It also proposes the least amount of development in the south so is less likely to result in negative effects for designated biodiversity in that area. It should also be noted that option 2 has the greatest potential for negative effects on designated biodiversity within or in close proximity to Local Service Centres and rural villages as it proposes a higher level of growth in those areas compared to the other options.
Ultimately, the nature and significance of the effects will be dependent on the precise location of development. The Council should seek to avoid designated areas when identifying locations for growth. A key challenge for the Local Plan will be trying to ensure that ecological connectivity and networks are maintained and improved where possible.
At this stage, it is considered that there are no significant differences between the options against this SA Objective. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. However, in recognition of the level of proposed growth through the options and resulting loss of greenfield land which will have negative effects on ecological connectivity, it is considered that all of the options have the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effects against this SA Objective. There is an element of uncertainty for all options until the precise location of development is known and further project level studies and assessments have been carried out. 12. Protect and This SA Objective considers two key sustainability topics and therefore two symbols ------enhance the quality, are provided to represent each topic. The first symbol relates to landscape and the ? ? ? ? ? ? ? integrity and second heritage. distinctiveness of the area’s heritage, A small proportion of the borough in the north east falls within the Peak District landscapes and National Park, which is described in the Submission Local Plan as an asset of townscapes, in national, regional and local importance. One of the statutory purposes of the particular those that national park designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife
July 2015 12/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 are internationally, and cultural heritage. nationally or locally designated. There are 9 Local Landscape Designations (LLD) within the borough, 4 are situated in the south adjacent to the plan boundary and 5 in the north.86 LLDs play an important role in protecting and enhancing landscapes which are of particular value in the context of the local authority area.
The Peak District National Park is situated to the east of Macclesfield. There is a LLD (Peak Park Fringe) adjacent to the east of Macclesfield that runs along the entire boundary of the National Park separating it from the rest of the plan area. Development to the east of Macclesfield therefore has the potential for indirect negative impacts on the National Park by affecting its setting as well as direct impacts on the Local Landscape Designation itself. Development to the west and north west of Macclesfield also has the potential for negative effects on the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation.
All of the options have the potential for negative effects on the landscape designations surrounding or in close proximity to Macclesfield. Option 2 proposes approximately 1,000 more dwellings in and around Macclesfield compared to the other options, which propose between 4,100 and 4,300 new dwellings. It therefore has the potential for a negative effect of greater significance on the landscape in this area compared to the other options. Options 1, 3, 4 & 5 all propose a very similar level of growth in and around Macclesfield so there are unlikely to be any major differences between the options in terms of the significance of effects.
The Bollin Valley and Parklands LLD extends from the east of Macclesfield northwards eventually passing between Wilmslow and Handforth. When considered together, all of the options propose similar levels of growth towards the Key Service Centres of Wilmslow and Handforth. Option 4 proposes the least amount of housing growth at 2,887 dwellings and option 5 proposes the most at 3,187 dwellings. Option 1 proposes the highest level of employment land at 38 ha whereas options 2 & 4 propose the lowest at 30.07. Option 4 proposes the least amount of growth in this areas and is therefore likely to have a reduced negative
86 Cheshire East Council (May 2013) Cheshire East: Local Landscape Designations – Draft Report. Prepared by LUC.
July 2015 13/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
effect compared to the other options. However, given the similarities in the level of growth the difference is not considered to be of significance.
There are two LLDs that lie adjacent to Congleton, the Peak Park Fringe LLD to the south east and the Dane Valle LLD to the north west. Options 1, 3, 4 & 5 propose similar levels of development in and around Congleton so there are unlikely to be any significant differences between them in terms of the nature and significance of effects. Option 2 proposes less housing development (approx. 1,500 dwellings) in and around Congleton compared to the other options so is considered likely to have a reduced negative effect on landscape.
There are also two LLDs that lie adjacent to Knutsford, the Rostherne/Tatton Park LLD to the north and the Tabley Hall LLD to the south west. Options 2, 3 & 5 propose similar levels of housing and employment development at Knutsford so there are unlikely to be any significant differences in terms of the nature and significance of effects on the landscape. Options 1 & 4 propose less housing compared to the other options so are considered likely to have a reduced negative effect on the landscape surrounding Knutsford.
Taking the plan area as a whole, the north of the borough is considered to be more sensitive in landscape terms compared to the south. The presence of the National Park along with a number of large LLDs means that options proposing higher levels of growth in this area have the potential for an effect of greater significance than those proposing higher levels of growth in the south.
Options 4 propose the least amount of housing growth in the north of the borough, while option 2 proposes the highest. The differences between them is approximately 2,500 dwellings and 3 ha of employment land. Option 1 proposes a similar level of growth to option 4 and options 3 & 5 sit in between options 1 & 4 in terms of the overall level of proposed growth in the north. Ultimately, the significance of effects will be dependent on the precise location and design/layout of any proposals.
Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, such as Policies SE 4 and SE 15, and available at the project level are considered likely to provide suitable mitigation to address significant negative effects for all the options. However, taking a
July 2015 14/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
precautionary approach, it is still considered likely that all of the options would result in residual long-term minor negative effects. To reflect the sensitivity of the landscape in the north of the borough, it is considered that there is less uncertainty that options 2, 3 & 5 will result in residual minor negative effects compared to options 1 & 4, as they propose a higher level of growth in the north.
The nature and significance of effects on the historic environment are closely linked to impacts on the landscape. There are a number of nationally (Scheduled Monument, Registered Park & Garden and Listed Building) and locally designated heritage assets (Conservation Area) within the borough. As for the landscape, the nature and significance of effects on heritage assets will be dependent on the precise location of development.
At a strategic plan level, it is difficult to identify any significant differences between the options in terms of the nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective. There is the potential for differences between some of the options in terms of the significance of effects at the settlement level, as they propose different levels of growth for some of the Principal Towns and Key Service Centres. Nantwich, Congleton, Knutsford and Macclesfield appear to be more constrained in terms of the presence of heritage assets compared to Crewe, Alsager, Sandbach, Handforth, Wilmslow and Poynton.
Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies, such as Policy SE 7, and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any major negative effects on heritage assets; however, there is an element of uncertainty at this stage until the precise location of development is known. To reflect the findings of the appraisal for landscape, it is considered that there is the potential for residual minor negative effects for all options on the setting of heritage assets. 13. Minimise energy In line with Submission Local Plan Policy SE 9, all of the options have the potential to / / / / / use, promote energy incorporate energy and efficiency measures as well as renewable or low carbon efficiency and high energy. It is therefore considered that all of the Options are likely to have a neutral quality design, and effect against this SA Objective. It is considered that there are no significant increase the differences in the nature and significance of sustainability effects between the generation of Options. energy from renewable
July 2015 15/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 resources.
14. Achieve The spatial distribution of development is not considered likely to have a significant / / / / / sustainable waste effect against this SA Objective. All the Options are considered to have a neutral management effect against this SA Objective. through adhering to the principles of the waste hierarchy. 15. Manage mineral The spatial distribution of growth is most likely to affect this SA Objective through the ? ? ? ? ? extraction and sterilisation of mineral resources as there are a number of mineral safeguarded encourage their areas within the borough. These are spread across the borough, predominantly in recycling/re-use to rural areas; however, there are some safeguarded areas adjacent to the Principal provide a sufficient Towns and Key Service Centres. The nature and significance of the effect will supply to meet ultimately be dependent on the precise location of development. At this stage, it is social and considered that there are no significant differences between the options against economic needs this SA Objective. There is an element of uncertainty for all the options until the whilst minimising precise location of development is known. impacts on the environment and communities and safeguarding resources for future generations. 16. Reduce the The use of water and mineral resources are addressed against SA Objectives 9 & 15; - - - - - consumption of therefore, the nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective will natural resources, primarily relate to the potential loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land. protect and enhance green All of the options have the potential to result in the loss of greenfield and agricultural infrastructure and land. There is best and most versatile agricultural land situated to the south of high quality Crewe, surrounding Congleton as well as within and adjacent to Sandbach. The agricultural land and options proposing higher levels of growth in these areas are therefore more likely to optimise the re-use result in the loos of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, at this stage of previously there is an element of uncertainty as the precise location of development is not developed land, known. buildings and infrastructure. There is also best and most versatile agricultural land situated adjacent to some of
July 2015 16/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
the Local Service Centres as well as in the rural areas. Option 2 proposes the higher level of growth in these areas compared to the other options so it could potentially have a negative effect of greater significance; however, this is again uncertain at this stage as the precise location of development is not known.
Cheshire East has around 400 square kilometres of land designated as Green Belt, located in the northern and south eastern parts of the borough. The options proposing a greater level of development in these areas therefore has the potential for a negative effect of greater significance against this SA Objective compared to other options. Option 2 proposes the highest level of development in the north of the borough so it is most likely to lead to the greatest loss of Green Belt in this area. Options 3 & 5 propose the next highest level of growth in the north followed by options 1 & 4.
The area of the Green Belt in the south of the borough lies to the south east of Congleton and Alsager. Options 1, 3, 4 & 5 propose similar levels of development to Alsager and Congleton so are likely to result in a similar loss of Green Belt. Option 2 proposes less development in these areas so has the potential for a reduced negative effect. Development at the Local Service Centres and rural villages could also lead to the loss of Green Belt Land, with option 2 proposing the greatest level of development in these areas.
It is predicted that all of the options have the potential to result in the permanent loss of greenfield, agricultural as well as Green Belt land. Some options are more likely to result in the loss of Green Belt in the north of the borough while some are more likely to result in Green Belt loss in the south east. The relatively small differences between the options in terms of the delivery makes it difficult to identify any significant differences between them against this SA Objective.
Overall, all of the options have the potential for permanent minor long-term negative effects against this SA Objective. It is recommended that the Council seeks to avoid areas of high quality agricultural land where possible as well as the Green Belt when selecting sites for development. 17. To promote a All of the options provide the same overall level of employment, the differences lie ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ sustainable, in the way it is distributed between the north and south of the borough, as well as competitive and between the individual settlements.
July 2015 17/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 low-carbon economy that Updated evidence in relation to the need87 and balance88 of housing and benefits from a employment provision indicates that an increased level of employment growth will range of innovative be necessary in the northern settlements than previously proposed in the Submission and diverse Local Plan. This is reflected in the proposed options with an increased quantity of businesses in both new employment land now being proposed in the north of the borough. There are urban and rural minor differences between the options in terms of the overall level of growth areas. proposed in the north, with Options 3 & 5 proposing the highest level of new employment land in the north of the borough at approx. 82.07 ha and option 4 proposing the lowest level at approx. 77.07 ha. This is unlikely to result in any significant differences between the options in terms of the nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective.
Options 2 to 4 propose a slightly higher level of provision (from 14 to 15 ha) of employment land in Poynton compared to option 1 (10 ha). As a result, there is the potential for enhanced positive effects for options 2 to 5 as evidence suggests that there is a shortage of employment opportunities in Poynton.
As previously stated against other SA Objectives, there are likely to be minor differences between the options in terms of the significance of effects depending on where development is being directed; however, these are unlikely to be of major significance overall. At a strategic level it is difficult to highlight any significant differences between the options in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective. All of the options have the potential for major long-term positive effects against this SA Objective. 18. To maintain and All of the options have the potential for a positive effect against this SA Objective + + + + + enhance the vitality through directing housing and employment towards Principal Towns, Key Service and viability of town Centres and Local Service Centres. The significance of the positive effect will vary and village centres for each of the options depending on the level of growth proposed in each with a balanced settlement or area. However, these are likely to be minor and are unlikely to be of provision of retail, major significance overall.
87 Cheshire East Council (Draft 13 May 2015) Housing Development Study. Prepared by Opinion Research Services. 88 Cheshire East Council (19 May 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy – Draft Final Report for Technical Workshop. Prepared by Ekosgen.
July 2015 18/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 leisure, visitor and cultural facilities. Option 2 proposes a higher level of growth in the Local Service Centres and rural villages so there is the potential for an enhanced positive effect in these areas. Conversely, it proposes less development in Handforth so is less likely to support the viability and viability of its centre. Options 3 & 5 propose a similar distribution of growth so there are unlikely to be any significant differences and the same can be said for options 1 & 4.
At a strategic level it is difficult to highlight any significant differences between the options in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective. All of the options have the potential for major long-term positive effects against this SA Objective. 19. Positively All of the options propose the same level of new employment land in the rural area + + + + + manage the of the borough (approx. 69 ha), which has the potential for minor long-term positive Borough's diverse effects against this SA Objective. Options 1, 3, 4 & 5 propose a similar level of rural economy. housing growth in the rural areas which range from 2,500 to 2,700 dwellings, whereas option 2 proposes 4,021 new dwellings. The increased level of housing provision could potentially enhance the positive effect for option 2 against this SA Objective; however, at this stage this is uncertain. 20. Improve access It is assumed that each of the options would result in the same pressures and level of + + + + + to education and improvements to education and training facilities. All of the options propose similar training, and the links levels of employment development in Crewe, Macclesfield and Nantwich where between these the major educational assets are located. This includes Manchester Metropolitan resources and University and South Cheshire College in Crewe; Reaseheath College on the employment outskirts of Nantwich and Macclesfield College in Macclesfield. opportunities. Option 2 proposes a greater amount of housing development in Nantwich compared to the other options, which could potentially lead to greater improvements to sustainable transport modes and as well as the links from the College to the rest of the town. Conversely, compared to the other options, option 2 proposes the least amount of housing development in Crewe, which could mean that the improvements to sustainable transport modes and links to major educational assets in Crewe are not as significant as the other options.
At this stage, there is no evidence to suggest that there would be any significant differences between the options against this SA Objective. It is therefore
July 2015 19/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
considered that all of the options have the potential for a minor long-term positive effect against this SA Objective.
Summary Findings:
The appraisal found that at a strategic level it is difficult to highlight any significant differences between the options in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects against the majority of SA Objectives. While there are likely to be differences between the options in terms of the significance of effects for individual settlements these are unlikely to be of significance overall when considered at a strategic plan level. If an option proposes more growth in a particular Key Service Centre compared to the other options then it is likely to have an enhanced positive effect for that settlement against SA Objectives relating to housing, the economy and communities. Conversely, it is also more likely to have negative effects on the natural environment in that area, which includes designated sites. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no major negative effects. Ultimately the nature and significance of effects against the majority of SA Objectives will be dependent on the precise location of development.
The appraisal found some minor differences between the options against SA Objectives relating to housing, sustainable communities and the landscape. At a strategic level, based on the evidence available, the appraisal found that options 3 & 5 offer the most balanced approach to the distribution of housing needs across the borough, helping to address the housing shortage in the north and ensuring that the housing needs in the south are still being met. To reflect this the appraisal found that options 3 & 5 have the potential for a major long-term positive effects, whereas options 1, 2 & 4 have the potential for a minor long-term positive effect against the SA Objective relating to housing.
The appraisal found that option 2 was likely to have a reduced positive effect compared to the other options against SA Objective 2 as it proposes a greater proportion of development towards the Local Service Centres and rural villages. Housing in those areas will have poorer access to employment opportunities and services/facilities compared to development in and around the larger Principal Towns and Key Service Centres.
Taking the plan area as a whole, the appraisal considered that the north of the borough is more sensitive in landscape terms compared to the south. The presence of the National Park along with a number of large LLDs means that options proposing higher levels of growth in this area have the potential for an effect of greater significance than those proposing higher levels of growth in the south. Options 4 propose the least amount of housing growth in the north of the borough, while option 2 proposes the highest. The differences between them is approximately 2,500 dwellings and 3 ha of employment land. Option 1 proposes a similar level of growth to option 4 and options 3 & 5 sit in between options 1 & 4 in terms of the overall level of proposed growth in the north. The appraisal found that mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, such as Policies SE 4 and SE 15, and available at the project level should provide suitable mitigation to address significant negative effects for all the options. However, taking a precautionary approach, the appraisal considered that all of the options are likely to result in residual long-term minor negative effects. To reflect the sensitivity of the landscape in the north of the borough, the appraisal found that there is less uncertainty that options 2, 3 & 5 will result in residual minor negative effects compared to options 1 & 4, as they propose a higher level of growth in the north.
July 2015 20/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
The appraisal predicted that all of the options have the potential to result in the permanent loss of greenfield, agricultural as well as Green Belt land. Some options are more likely to result in the loss of Green Belt in the north of the borough while some are more likely to result in Green Belt loss in the south east. The relatively small differences between the options in terms of the delivery makes it difficult for the appraisal to justify any significant differences between them against SA Objective 16.
July 2015 21/21 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Appendix III: SA/SEA Screening of Proposed Changes
The screening matrix below should be read in conjunction with the Appendix 1 (Annex B) of the Report of Evidence, which sets out the detailed reasons for the suggested revisions along with the Council’s justification. The screening below considers all the suggested revisions proposed by the Council, which includes changes to Policy as well as supporting text.
REF Policy / Chapter / Page Suggested Revision SA/SEA Screening Paragraph SR 1 Figure 1.1 CEC 2 Key Diagram will be updated to reflect updated evidence and the The proposed changes to the Key Local Plan Strategy outcomes of the examination hearing sessions. Diagram have arisen as a result of Key Diagram suggested revisions considered below. SR 2 Introduction - 3 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor change to introductory text, Paragraph 1.11 “The answer from neighbouring local authorities is that they are not in a does not significantly affect the position to assist, however other than High Peak Borough Council, and findings of the Submission SA Report they have not asked Cheshire East Council to accommodate any of their (SD 003). development requirements either”. SR 3 Introduction – 4 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor changes to introductory text, paragraph 1.16 A revised Green Gap policy new area of Green Belt is proposed in the which do not significantly affect the vicinity of Crewe and Nantwich to ensure settlements here do not findings of the Submission SA Report coalesce whilst still leaving appropriate scope for further development in (SD 003). the Plan period and beyond. The exact boundaries of this revised new Green Belt area Gap will be determined through the Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document. SR 4 Introduction – 5 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows The proposed changes to the overall paragraph 1.27 The overall growth proposition is to deliver at least over 36,000 27,000 new level of growth are considered homes by 2030 and around 31,000 20,000 jobs in the longer-term by 2030. against the suggested revisions to These figures represent a pro-growth policy position, that is forecast to Policy PG1 below. see the Borough's population grow by around 40,000 58,100 people. Policies in this Plan will also make sure that the right mix of new homes is provided to meet the needs of a growing workforce and support both current and future employers. This is set within the demographic context that Cheshire East will have a 26 65% increase in over 65s and a 35 134% increase in over 85s by 2021 over the Plan period.
September 2015 1/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SR 5 Introduction – 5 Last sentence will be updated when the number of sites are known Any further revisions to the LPS arising paragraph 1.30 following the outcome of the consideration of sites in the examination as a result of the Examination will be process: considered through the iterative SA process. “There are 31 strategic sites, 9 strategic locations and 6 safeguarded sites proposed in this Plan”. SR 6 Introduction – 6 Sentence will be updated when the number of sites are known following As above. paragraph 1.39 the outcome of the consideration of sites in the examination process:
“In total, the Plan proposes detailed boundary amendments to the Green Belt that exclude an area of less than 1% of the total existing area of Green Belt in the Borough”. SR 8 Introduction – 6 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: The proposed changes to the overall paragraph 1.43 This Plan will provide for at least over 36,000 27,000 new homes by 2030. level of growth are considered This does not mean house building to meet a false target, but a against the suggested revisions to considered approach to meeting the needs of future demographic Policy PG 1 below. changes and to make sure that current and future employers have a skilled, local workforce who can support their growth. SR 9 Duty to Co-operate 37 Suggested revision to bullet points as follows: Minor changes, does not significantly – paragraph 3.5 affect the findings of the Submission Progressive iterations of this Plan have directly addressed specific cross SA Report (SD 003). boundary issues raised by neighbouring authorities and consultees. Full details of the changes / shared understandings are referred to in the Duty to Co-operate Statement and are summarised below:
Reduced development proposed south east of Crewe with less land to be removed from the Green Belt and a revised Green Gap proposed new Green Belt in the Crewe/Nantwich area.
A housing requirement figure that does not adversely impact on neighbouring areas and assists with housing needs in High Peak. SR 10 The Case for 40 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor change to supporting text, Growth – The Government has invited Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) to which do not significantly affect the paragraph 4.4 produce Strategic Economic Plans (SEPs) for their areas as the basis of findings of the Submission SA Report
September 2015 2/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
funding negotiations to drive economic growth. The emerging Cheshire (SD 003). and Warrington SEP includes a number of transformational projects in Cheshire East including High Growth City, which focuses on linking Crewe and Macclesfield by way of Congleton to create a ‘corridor of opportunity'. The sustainable growth aspirations set out in the Local Plan Strategy are a key element in meeting the ambition of a LEP and fulfilling Cheshire East's sub-regional role. SR 11 The Case for 41 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor changes to supporting text, Growth – Furthermore, there are clear demographic challenges in the Borough, which do not significantly affect the paragraph 4.9 with a declining proportion of working age population. The Strategic findings of the Submission SA Report Housing Market Assessment Update (2013) Housing Development Study (SD 003). (2015) identifies that managing demographic change will become an increasingly important issue with the population in Cheshire East of pensionable age and above continuing to grow, from 70,300 83,521 in 2010 to 115,900 124,544 by 2030. SR 12 Vision for Cheshire 47 Suggested revision to 3rd paragraph as follows: The proposed changes to the vision East in 2030 “Well designed new employment and housing development will have do not significantly affect the findings been developed to fully meet local needs in locations that reduce the of the Submission SA Report (SD 003). need to travel”.
SR 13 Vision for Cheshire 47 Suggested revision to 7th paragraph as follows: The proposed changes to the vision East in 2030 “Our many areas of landscape value, sites of nature conservation do not significantly affect the findings importance, characteristic waterways and heritage assets will have been of the Submission SA Report (SD 003). protected from development, conserved and enhanced where possible, through environmental and heritage designations placed on specific assets including valued Green Belt through appropriate development that recognises the importance of both designated and non-designated assets within their setting and safeguarding them for future generations.” SR 14 Strategic Priority 1 51 Suggested revision to Strategic Priority 1 Point 8 as follows: Minor change to strategic priority, “Supporting high quality design and securing improvements to the built which does not significantly affect the and natural environment.” findings of the Submission SA Report (SD 003). SR 15 Strategic Priority 2 51 Suggested revision to Strategic Priority 2 Point 5 as follows: Minor change to strategic priority,
September 2015 3/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
“Ensuring that all new development is well designed, has regard to local which does not significantly affect the character and context and is sustainable and energy efficient” findings of the Submission SA Report (SD 003). SR 16 Planning for 60 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor changes to supporting text, Growth – The NPPF also states that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed which do not significantly affect the paragraph 8.2 needs unless there would be significant adverse impacts or where the findings of the Submission SA Report NPPF indicates development should be restricted. Key evidence of need (SD 003). in relation to the economy includes the Employment Land Review and local business surveys, whilst population forecasts and other key evidence to assess housing need and capacity has come from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2010 and 2013 update, Housing Development Study 2015 and the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2012 and population forecasts. SR 17 Policy PG1 – 60 Suggested revision to Policy as follows: The suggested revisions include a Overall significant increase in the overall level Development 1. Provision will be made for a minimum of 380 300 hectares of land of proposed growth during the life of Strategy for business, general industrial and storage and distribution uses over the the Plan as well as the stepped period 2010 to 2030, to support growth of the local economy. trajectory with regard to the phasing 2. Sufficient land will be provided to accommodate the full, of development. It is considered that objectively assessed needs for the Borough of at least 36,000 27,000 these changes are of significance homes between 2010 and 2030. This will be delivered as follows at an with regard to the SA of Policy CS 1 average of 1,800 net additional dwellings per year. (Overall Development Strategy) presented in Appendix F, Table F.15 in Footnote added to state - The figure of 36,000 homes includes an the Submission SA Report (SD 0003). allowance of 2,180 units of older person’s accommodation; this encompasses both Use Classes C2 and C3. To ensure that the suggested revisions and updated evidence have been o 2010/11(35) to 2014/15 – an average of 1,200 homes each year taken into account a fresh appraisal (6,000 in total); of Policy PG 1 has been carried by out o 2015/16 to 2019/20 – an average of 1,300 homes each year (6,500 by Enfusion against the full SA in total); Framework. The appraisal is o 2020/21 to 2024/25 – an average of 1,400 homes each year (7,000 presented in Appendix IV of the SA in total); Addendum Report. 3.2. 2025/26 to 2029/30 – an average of 1,500 homes each year (7,500 in total) at an average of 1,800 net additional dwellings per year.
September 2015 4/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
3. In addition to meeting the full, objectively assessed needs of Cheshire East, provision will be made for up to 500 homes to assist with meeting the housing needs of High Peak Borough during the period 2020 to 2030. These will be delivered as follows: o 2020/21 to 2029/30 - an average of 50 homes each year (500 in total) SR 18 Planning for 61 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor changes to supporting text, Growth – “The Employment Land Review and the Alignment of Economic, which do not significantly affect the paragraph 8.4 Employment and Housing Strategy report (2015) are is the primary findings of the Submission SA Report sources of evidence related to the requirements for employment land. (SD 003). They It uses a variety of methods to forecast the requirements for new employment land between 2009 and up to 2030. It The Employment Land Review considers the annual average rates of take-up of employment land over the past 25 years, as well as forecasting future demand for employment land using econometric data and population forecasts. It also looks at the annual average amount of employment land lost to other uses over the past 15 years”. Planning for 61 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: The suggested revisions to the overall Growth – level of proposed housing and paragraph 8.5 Using all the available information, and in accordance with the 2004 employment growth have been ODPM Guidance Note on Employment Land Reviews, the study gives a considered through a fresh appraisal range for the amount of employment land that will be required between of Policy PG 1, which is presented in 2009 and 2030. This range is between 278 hectares and 324 hectares, Appendix IV of the SA Addendum which includes a flexibility factor of 30% to reflect Cheshire East's Report. aspirations for employment-led growth. This flexibility factor will allow the employment land supply to be flexible enough to deal with future economic changes, increases in employment land losses or increases in demand. The Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy (AEEHS) report (2015) used updated econometric projections, which pointed to a significantly greater employment growth rate over the Plan period than the Employment Land Review’s econometric projections did. The AEEHS used a methodology that is largely in line with the assumptions and approaches used in the Employment Land Review, but concluded that a
September 2015 5/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
20% flexibility factor was more appropriate, given the use of more optimistic employment forecasts. The AEEHS results suggest that an additional 27 hectares will be required and so the revised Plan proposes sites that deliver employment land totalling 378 hectares. SR 19 Planning for 61 Delete paragraph as follows: Minor change to reflect updated Growth – evidence, which does not significantly paragraph 8.6 “The overall provision set out in the Employment Land Review equates to affect the findings of the Submission an annual provision of between 13.2 hectares and 15.4 hectares. SA Report (SD 003). Extrapolating this across the 20 year plan period gives an overall requirement of between 265 hectares and 308 hectares between 2010 and 2030. The minimum provision of 300 hectares of employment land as set out on Policy PG1 is toward the upper end of this range which is an appropriate figure for a strategy based on jobs-led growth”. SR 20 Table 8.1 61 Amend Figures in table 8.1: As above. “Completions 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2013: 1.6 Employment Land Supply 1st April 2013: 115.5 112.8 Total Completions and Supply: 117.1 114.4 Remaining (minimum): 182.9 185.6 SR 21 Planning for 61 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: The suggested revisions to the overall Growth – level of proposed housing and paragraph 8.8 As a minimum, the The Housing Requirement set out in Policy PG1 employment growth, including responds to the Housing Development Study (2015) and Plan aims to updated evidence, have been meet the full objectively assessed need for an additional 27,000 36,000 considered through a fresh appraisal dwellings that is predicted to arise in Cheshire East over the 2010 – 2030 of Policy PG 1, which is presented in period. The Housing Development Study has used the Department for Appendix IV of the SA Addendum Communities and Local Government (DCLG) 2012-based household Report. projections as a ‘starting point’ and applied a 10-year migration trend. The Study also projected economic activity rates up to 2030 and assumed that there are no further falls in unemployment. It considered the evidence on market signals along with the need for affordable housing and for older people (including C2 bed spaces). It then sought to identify the appropriate balance – between working residents and the number of people working in the Borough – that is necessary to achieve jobs growth of around 31,000 (an This need is based on forecasting work
September 2015 6/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
using the latest Government projections and also factors in the Council’s aspirations for employment led growth, which seeks to deliver additional housing to enable a rate of jobs growth that average of 0.4 0.7 % jobs growth a year). Such a balance requires both migration flows and commuting flows to be sustainable over the Plan period. Given that the aging population of the Borough is reducing the proportion of residents of working age, and the generally low local levels of unemployment, such an increase in jobs would create more in-commuting unless, as is intended, housing is provided at a level to match the employment growth. This level of employment growth – and the expansion in economic output that it is likely to bring – are considered realistically attainable, given the inherent potential of the Borough to attract economic investment. These rates of employment and economic output growth are also consistent with Cheshire East’s previous (and strong) long-term economic performance. Such an approach also accords with the central tenant of the NPPF - the presumption in favour of enabling sustainable development. SR 22 Planning for 61 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: As above. Growth – paragraph 8.9 The DCLG 2012-based household projections (period 2012-2037) were used as the ‘starting point’ for Council has used projections and forecasting as a basis for determining the objectively assessed need for housing. This links in with the draft paragraphs 15 and 16 of the National Planning Practice Guidance which makes it clear for the first time that:
“Household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government should provide the starting point estimate of overall housing need”. (PPG 2015, Paragraph 15)
“The 2012-2037 Household Projections were published on the 27 February 2015, and are the most up to date estimate of future household growth”” (PPG 2015, Paragraph 16) SR 23 Planning for 62 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows As above. Growth –
September 2015 7/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
paragraph 8.10 The Guidance advocates that the latest household projections should be used to calculate overall housing need. Having taken the DCLG 2012- based projections as its ‘starting point’, the Housing Development Study tested alternative migration trends, concluding that a 10-year migration trend best represented long-term change. The Study also projected economic activity rates up to 2030, based on Census data for Cheshire East and Office for Budget Responsibility projections. It assumes that unemployment stays at its March 2015 level and makes allowances for vacancies, second homes and “double-jobbing” (people holding multiple jobs). The Study also considered the latest evidence on market signals (as required by Planning Practice Guidance). In doing so, it used Office for National Statistics area classification data and DCLG Index of Multiple Deprivation data to identify areas with similar demographic and economic characteristics to Cheshire East. The market signals analysis compared Cheshire East to these areas - Cheshire West & Chester, the East Riding of Yorkshire, Wiltshire and North Somerset – and to England. The Study identified that, on the whole, market signals do not indicate any need for an upward adjustment to housing need: house price trends and affordability trends in Cheshire East are close to those for England and are typically in line with those for the comparator areas; average rents and increases in rents are broadly in line with England and the comparator areas; the proportion of households that are overcrowded is lower than in England (and most comparator areas) and rose more slowly during 2001-11 than in most of these other areas; and whilst the rate of development has been relatively low in recent years, it was higher than the England average for 2001-11. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in concealed families over the period 2001 – 11 which the objective assessment of housing need has addressed – and homelessness - by increasing projected household growth by 344 (an average of 17 per annum) over the Plan period (2010-2030). The Study identifies a total affordable housing need of a minimum of 7,100 dwellings (an average of 355 per annum), which is included in objective assessment of housing need of at least 36,000 dwellings. The interim 2011-based subnational household projections are the most recent, but only look as far ahead as 2021. The published projections suggest the total number of households in Cheshire East is expected to
September 2015 8/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
increase annually by an average of around 1,050 over the ten year period i.e. from around 159,600 to 170,000. The Council has undertaken demographic forecasting work based on these interim projections, continuing them forward to 2030 using the same assumptions as the official projections and using the 2021 household formation rates from these official projections. This results in an average annual increase in dwellings of 1,180 over the whole Plan period. Further details of this scenario and others that have been modelled, including the justification for projecting forward the household formation rates, can be found in the Council’s Population Projections and Forecasts background paper (February 2014). SR 24 Planning for 62 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows As above. Growth – paragraph 8.11 The Alignment of Economic, Employment and Housing Strategy Report concluded that net jobs growth of around 31,400 jobs would be ambitious yet realistic for the 20-year period (2010-2030); this represents a jobs growth rate of around 0.7% per annum. This is e scenario that models an annual average jobs growth rate of 0.4% equates to a net average increase of 1,365 dwellings per annum or around 27,300 overall, a labour supply increase of around 17,300 people and an increase of around 14,800 jobs to 2030. This level of employment growth is likely to result in economic output (Gross Value Added, or GVA) expanding by an average of around 2.4% a year (because of the contribution that productivity growth makes to GVA growth). These employment and GVA growth rates are considered realistically attainable, given the inherent potential of the Borough to attract economic investment, and they are also consistent with Cheshire East’s previous (and strong) long-term economic performance; the Council’s Local Plan Strategy and the economic growth vision of the Cheshire & Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership. For example, Office for National Statistics data suggest that, during the eleven years up to the start of the Plan period (i.e. 1999-2010), Cheshire East’s GVA grew by an average of 2.0% a year in real (inflation- adjusted) terms (39)In this context, an economic output expansion of about 2.4% a year is ambitious, but achievable. SR 25 Planning for 62 The Housing Development Study notes that, in meeting any shortfall in As above.
September 2015 9/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Growth – workers over the Plan period, there has to be an appropriate balance paragraph 8.12 between migration flows and commuting flows, to ensure that both are sustainable over the long term. Based on the assumption that net in- migration will average 2,600 per annum over the 20 year Plan period (which is equivalent to the highest level recorded in any single year since 1991 and considerably greater than the 2001-11 average of around 1,700 per annum), net in-commuting would need to increase by an average of 400 commuters per annum over the same period. On this basis, net commuting would rise from 1,400 (at the time of the 2011 Census) to around 9,000 by 2030; to put this in context, the number of jobs located in Cheshire East is projected to rise by around 31,000, from 197,000 to 228,000 over the Plan period, so even in 2030 net commuting would account for less than 5% of the total projected jobs. Considering all of the evidence, the Housing Development Study has concluded that the objectively assessed need for housing in Cheshire East is 36,000 dwellings over the Plan period (2010 – 2030). It is also important to recognise that, as well as yielding extra population and workers, any increase in housing will also help to address market signals and increase the likely provision of affordable housing. The above suggests that the medium growth strategy of providing around an additional 1,350 dwellings per annum, identified in the Council’s Issues and Options Paper, would best match the expected future household growth in Cheshire East and the Council’s economic growth aspirations. SR 26 Planning for 62 The outputs from Housing Development Study modelling work represent As above. Growth – only one of the elements that have been considered by the Council in paragraph 8.13 determining the level of housing growth shown in the Local Plan and considered appropriate for Cheshire East until 2030 its housing requirement. The Council has also considered the findings of the Alignment of Economic, Employment and Housing Strategy Report (2015), Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), the pre-recession levels of house building and other wider policy considerations before determining what the appropriate housing requirement is for Cheshire East. SR 27 Planning for 62 Delete paragraph: As above. Growth – The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2010 and 2013 update
September 2015 10/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
paragraph 8.14 confirms that Cheshire East is a high demand area, and that there is a need to maintain the delivery of a variety of dwelling types and sizes to reflect demand for a range of open market dwellings. SR 28 Planning for 62 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows As above. Growth – paragraph 8.15 The SHMA 2013 update Housing Development Study identifies concludes that Cheshire East is an appropriate geography for planning purposes, over which to assess and meet housing requirements. The study also identifies concludes that Cheshire East comprises several housing two functional sub- market areas that are substantially contained within the Borough. The functional market areas suggested by the data to reflect the former Macclesfield Borough and a second sub-area reflecting the former Crewe and& Nantwich and, Congleton and Macclesfield areas. SR 29 Planning for 62 Delete paragraph: As above. Growth – paragraph 8.16 It also indicates that there is a net annual affordable housing need equivalent to an annual imbalance of 1,401 dwellings over its 5 year time horizon. It is important to state that this is a measure of the imbalance of affordable need relative to supply and is not a target for delivery of additional affordable homes. SR 30 Planning for 63 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows As above. Growth – paragraph 8.17 Around 2,200 sites were considered as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Update 31st March 2012). Of these approximately 1,600 sites were considered suitable for housing during the following 15 years. These 'suitable' sites could potentially provide a total of nearly 50,000 dwellings over the 15 year period, of which about 7,200 homes would be on brownfield sites with a further 4,800 on sites that are a mix of brownfield and greenfield land. This work demonstrates a theoretical capacity for new housing in the Borough. An updated Assessment will accompany the submission of this Plan to examination. In the meantime the Council has produced an updated ‘Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement’ with a base date of 31st December 2013. This has been produced for housing appeal purposes; it includes
September 2015 11/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
planning permissions granted up to that date but not the uncommitted sites included and proposed in this Plan. An updated assessment of housing permissions and commitments has been completed to a base date of 31 March 2015. Nevertheless the research done for the Position Statement This has been used to inform an a interim housing trajectory for the Plan period which does include the envisaged delivery timing of all the sites proposed in the Plan. The trajectory is reproduced in Appendix E. SR 31 Planning for 63 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: As above. Growth – paragraph 8.18 Using an overall housing need target of 36,000 27,000 dwellings for the Borough over the Plan period would equate to an average net increase of around 1,800 1,350 dwellings per annum. Setting this annual level to apply from 2010 would be a significant step change in the housing requirement for the area compared with past policy requirements. However this overall level of housing is considered necessary and appropriate to meet the Council and Government’s growth agenda. In arriving at this total figure, consideration has been given to the capacity of the area to accommodate growth and an appropriate balance has been struck which minimises the impact on the environment, infrastructure and the Green Belt, whilst providing for objectively assessed needs. It is considered that a significantly higher growth strategy for housing, to facilitate even greater economic growth, would be unsustainable in overall terms as it would have an unacceptable impact on the local environment, the intended role of the Green Belt and the cumulative capacity of local infrastructure. SR 32 Planning for 63 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows As above. Growth – paragraph 8.19 The overall basis of the Plan is to enable economic growth in Cheshire East. The local economy suffered, along with the rest of the country, during the recent recession. The annual rate of house building dipped to a low of less than 500 dwellings in 2010/11 compared to the annualised development plan target of 1,150 applicable at the time. This contraction in the house building industry is shown in starker terms if the new annualised average figure of 1,,350 1,800 was to be applied immediately from 2010. Given the post-recession recovery needed by
September 2015 12/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
the house building industry, the historic Plan start date, the necessity to bring forward significant site-releasing infrastructure and the time required for the Plan’s jobs led growth strategy to have effect, it is considered appropriate to have five year stepped up housing target figures. Such an approach should help avoid any diversion of development from the Potteries during the area’s recovery from recession. The proposed first step target of 1,200 dwellings per annum for the 2010-15 period would still exceed the average annual increase in dwellings of 1,180 over the whole Plan period identified from the Government’s projections, as detailed above,and represent an increase over the previous development plan. Successive 100 dwelling per annum step ups for the remaining three 5 year periods represent a realistic, ambitious and progressively increasing delivery of housing. The selection of land for residential development within the site allocations will need to take account of both the overall housing requirement and the need to redress past shortfalls in delivery since 2010. SR 33 Planning for 63 As part of considering options to removing land from the Green Belt, As above. Growth – collaboration working with neighbouring authorities has explored the paragraph 8.20 extent to which such authorities could assist in meeting the Cheshire East’s housing requirements. The outcome of those discussions is that none of these authorities are in such a position. However a request to assist High Peak Council has been received. That authority’s area is highly constrained by land of high landscape value and steep topography even within those parts of the Borough that are not within the Peak District National Park. Cheshire East Council wants to avoid inappropriate development pressure on the National Park, an important tourism destination that is partly within the authority’s own area. The Council also recognises that previous housing restraint policies have probably directed some residential development to High Peak. Associated with this are transport movements in the A6 corridor, which are causing severe traffic congestion that is likely to be further exacerbated by additional development. In view of these synergies between the two authorities’ areas, it is considered appropriate to provide for part of High Peak’s housing requirement in Cheshire East. A modest 500 dwellings in the second half of the Plan period is proposed, an amount considered to be
September 2015 13/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
within the parameters of the medium growth strategy. SR 34 Planning for 64 Amend Figures in table 8.2: As above. Growth – Table 8.2 Housing Net completions 01/04/13 - 31/1203/1413: 497 663 Completions Net completions 01/04/14 – 31/03/15 – 1,236
Planning permissions at 31st December March 2013 2015
Site under construction – 2,291 4,333 Full Planning Permission – 1,806 1,603 Outline planning permission – 2,509 5,262 Subject to S.106 agreement – 2,150 3,924
Total completions and planning permissions – 10,906 15,122
Remaining (including 500 dwellings for High Peak ) – 16,594
Additional footnote added: The Planning Permissions at 31st March 2015 include 4775 dwellings on sites included within Strategic Sites allocations that fall in these categories. The Commitments column in Appendix A excludes any permissions on Strategic Sites to prevent double counting. SR 35 Planning for 66 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor change to the vision, which Growth – Vision for The Key Service Centres will see growth, with high quality homes and does not significantly affect the Key Service business premises provided to meet local needs, where smaller findings of the Submission SA Report Centres independent traders and tourism initiatives will continue to thrive and (SD 003). where all development will contribute to creating a strong sense of place. SR 36 Planning for 66 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows Minor changes to the vision, which do Growth – Vision for In the Local Service Centres, some modest growth in housing and not significantly affect the findings of Local Service employment will have taken place to meet locally arising objectively the Submission SA Report (SD 003). Centres assessed needs, to reduce the level of out-commuting and to secure their continuing vitality. This may require small scale alterations to the Green Belt in some circumstances.
September 2015 14/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SR 37 Planning for 67 Suggested revision to Policy as follows: The suggested revisions seek to Growth – Policy PG provide clarification and do not 2- Settlement Local Service Centres significantly affect the findings of the Hierarchy Submission SA Report (SD 003). In the Local Service Centres, small scale development to meet localised objectively assessed needs and priorities will be supported where they contribute to the creation and maintenance of sustainable communities.
The Local Service Centres are Alderley Edge, Audlem, Bollington, Bunbury, Chelford, Disley, Goostrey, Haslington, Holmes Chapel, Mobberley, Prestbury, Shavington and Wrenbury.
Other Settlements and Rural Areas In the interests of sustainable development and the maintenance of local services, growth and investment in the other settlements should be confined to proportionate development at a scale commensurate with the function and character of the settlement and confined to locations well related to the existing built-up extent of the settlement. small scale infill and the change of use or conversion of existing buildings in order to sustain local services. Affordable housing development of an appropriate scale on the edge of a rural settlement to meet a particular local need may be justified, although It may be appropriate for local needs can also to be met within larger settlements, dependent on location. SR 38 Planning for 67 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor changes to supporting text to Growth – provide further clarification, which do Paragraph 8.34 In the other settlements and rural areas, the Local Plan Strategy not significantly affect the findings of approach is to support an appropriate level of small scale infill the Submission SA Report (SD 003). development that reflects the function and character of individual villages. Small scale growth may be appropriate where it supports the creation of stronger local communities and where a clear local need exists, which is not more appropriately met in a larger nearby settlement. Development will be restricted to locations well related to the built-up extent of these settlements. The identification of such sites will achieved through the allocation of suitable sites and / or the designation of settlement boundaries is addressed as part of the Site Allocations and
September 2015 15/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Development Policies Development Plan Document and / or in Neighbourhood Plans, where these come forward. Elsewhere, in order to reduce unsustainable sporadic development, new housing will be strictly controlled. In the case of Goostrey which adjoins Holmes Chapel, a larger Local Service Centre, it is anticipated that development needs will largely be provided for in Holmes Chapel. SR 39 Planning for 68 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor change to supporting text to Growth – provide further clarification, which Paragraph 8.35 Notwithstanding the above settlement hierarchy, the Local Plan Strategy does not significantly affect the also includes the new North Cheshire Growth Village at Handforth East. findings of the Submission SA Report This new village will be designed to the highest environmental standards, (SD 003). acting as best practice examples for future design and construction. This new village will become a Local Service Centre in the Consideration will be given to its position in the settlement hierarchy once it is built and will embody sustainable development principles including: SR 40 Planning for 68 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor change to supporting text, Growth – which does not significantly affect the Paragraph 8.37 The Local Plan Strategy also includes Other Local Plan Strategy Sites at findings of the Submission SA Report Wardle Employment Improvement Area and Alderley Park Opportunity (SD 003). Site. At Alderley Park Opportunity Site, an unidentified level of residential development may come forward where it is demonstrated to be necessary for the delivery of the life science park, in accordance with Local Plan Strategy Policy SC29. SR 41 Planning for 69 Delete paragraph: Minor change, which is considered in Growth – In addition, a new area of Green Belt will be defined adjacent to Crewe more detail below through the Paragraph 8.42 to prevent it merging with Nantwich and other surrounding settlements. suggested revisions to Policy 3 and the inclusion of new Policy 4a. SR 42 Planning for 69 Point 5 of the Policy will be updated following the consideration of sites The suggested revisions reflect Growth – Policy PG later in the examination process updated evidence and the inclusion 3 – Green Belt of a new Policy 4a (Green Gap). Delete point 7: There have been no changes to the 7. A new area of Green Belt will be designated adjacent to Crewe majority of the policy and it is to prevent its merger with Nantwich and other surrounding settlements. It considered that overall intention of will also link to the existing Green Belt to help maintain the strategic the policy is still the same. It is
September 2015 16/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
openness of the gap between Crewe and the Potteries. The Area of therefore considered that the Search for this new area of Green Belt is shown on Figure 8.2. The detailed suggested revisions do not boundaries of this new area of Green Belt will be defined through the Site significantly affect the findings of the Allocations and Development Policies Document(42). previous appraisal for this Policy (CS 3), presented in Appendix F, Table Delete Footnote 42 F.17, of the Submission SA Report (SD For clarification, the saved Green Gap policy from the Borough of Crewe 003). and Nantwich Local Plan will continue to operate (other than where specific sites are allocated in this Local Plan Strategy) until the detailed The proposed new Policy 4a is boundaries of the new Green Belt are defined in the Site Allocations and considered in further detail below. Development Policies Development Plan Document. SR 43 Planning for 70 As set out in Chapter 4 ‘The Case for Growth’ and Policy PG 1 ‘Overall Minor changes to text, which do not Growth – Development Strategy’, and evidenced through the Strategic Housing significantly affect the findings of the Paragraph 8.43 Market Assessment Update (2013) Housing Development Study (2015), Submission SA Report (SD 003). and the Employment Land Review (2012) and the Alignment of Economic, Employment and Housing Strategy Report (2015) there are significant identified needs for market and affordable housing, as well as for new employment land provision within Cheshire East. SR 44 Planning for 71 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor change to reflect updated Growth – evidence, does not significantly affect Paragraph 8.46 The Green Belt Assessment Update (2015 2013) has considered the the findings of the Submission SA contribution each parcel of Green Belt land adjoining settlement Report (SD 003). boundaries makes to the purposes of the Green Belt. SR 45 Planning for 72 Figure will be updated following the consideration of sites later in the Any further revisions to the LPS arising Growth – Figure 8.1 examination process as a result of the Examination, which includes changes to sites, will be considered through the iterative SA process. SR 46 Planning for 72 Remove paragraph Minor change, does not significantly Growth – Within the proposed area of search for a new Green Belt (shown in Figure affect the findings of the Submission Paragraph 8.51 8.2), there are a number of neighbouring towns and villages fairly close to SA Report (SD 003). each other. As Crewe has grown throughout the 20th Century, erosion of the gaps between Crewe, Nantwich and a number of smaller The proposed new Policy 4a (Green settlements has caused settlements to merge into the urban area in Gap) is considered in further detail
September 2015 17/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
some cases, and very narrow gaps to remain in other cases. below. SR 47 Planning for 73 Figure is to be removed. As above. Growth – Figure 8.2 SR 48 Planning for 73 Delete paragraph: As above. Growth – The identification of Crewe as a spatial priority for growth brings Paragraph 8.52 significant opportunities, but also some threats. As Crewe grows to fulfil its potential it will become increasingly important to maintain the distinctive identity of the other settlements within the area of search and to prevent them merging into a Greater Crewe urban area.
SR 49 Planning for 74 Delete paragraph; As above. Growth – As set out in the 'New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gaps' study, strong Paragraph 8.53 policy protection will be required to maintain the existing gaps between settlements that are at risk of coalescence resulting from the future growth of Crewe SR 50 Planning for 74 Delete paragraph: As above. Growth – The detailed boundaries of the new area of Green Belt will be defined on Paragraph 8.54 the Adopted Policies Map; until that point the Green Gap boundaries, as defined in the saved policy of the Borough of Crewe & Nantwich Replacement Local Plan will remain in force, apart from where specific changes are proposed in this document.
SR 51 Planning for 74 Delete Paragraph: As above. Growth – Paragraph 8.55 The detailed boundaries of the new area of Green Belt, when defined in the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, will need to be compatible with the growth aspirations set out for Crewe in the 'All Change for Crewe' and 'High Growth City' programme. It will be important to ensure that the new Green Belt does not unduly restrict the future growth of Crewe and consideration will need to be given as to how the town might grow in the future. Consequently, there is likely to be the need to safeguard areas of land between the urban area and the inner limit of the Green Belt to meet potential future development needs.
September 2015 18/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SR 52 Planning for 74 Update as follows: As above. Growth – Key Evidence 1. Cheshire East Green Belt Assessment Update 2. New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gaps Study 3. Strategic Housing Market Assessment Alignment of Economic, Employment and Housing Strategy Report 4. Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update Housing Development Study 5. Employment Land Review SR 53 Planning for 74 Point 5 of the Policy will be updated following the consideration of sites Any further revisions to the LPS arising Growth – Policy later in the examination process as a result of the Examination, which PG4 Safeguarded includes changes to potential Land Suggested revision to point 6 as follows: safeguarded sites, will be considered through the iterative SA process. In addition to these areas of Safeguarded Land listed; it may also be necessary to identify additional non-strategic areas of land to be Minor change, does not significantly safeguarded in the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, affect the findings of the Submission which will include around 5 to10 hectares to serve the longer-term SA Report (SD 003). development needs in Poynton. SR 54 Planning for 75 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor change to the supporting text Growth – to provide further clarification, does Paragraph 8.59 The development needs beyond this plan period will be determined not significantly affect the findings of through future reviews of the Local Plan. To ensure that Green Belt the Submission SA Report (SD 003). boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of this Plan period, it is necessary to identify areas of Safeguarded Land. In the absence of guidance on the amount of land that should be Safeguarded, a balance is required that gives confidence on the permanence of the Green Belt boundary whilst minimising the impact on the Green Belt and making the most efficient use of land SR 55 Planning for 75 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: As above. Growth – Paragraph 8.60 Within the South Cheshire Green Belt area, the main settlements of Congleton and Alsager are located adjacent to, but beyond the Green
September 2015 19/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Belt. There is a significant supply of potential non-Green Belt land in these areas and therefore no need to designate Safeguarded Land to ensure permanence of the South Cheshire Green Belt boundary. Within the North Cheshire Green Belt, the main settlements are inset within the Green Belt and do not have the same expansion options on non Green Belt land. It is therefore necessary to include areas of Safeguarded Land to make sure that the North Cheshire Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered again at the end of the plan period. In the absence of guidance on the amount of land that should be Safeguarded, a balance has been struck between the need to ensure the permanence of the Green Belt boundary and the NPPF requirement to make the most efficient use of land. SR 56 Planning for 75 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: As above. Growth – Paragraph 8.61 There will be a number of further options to accommodate future development needs beyond the Plan period, which could include measure such as (not exhaustive):
Recycling of land within the urban areas, including the re-use of under- used employment areas, which will become redundant over the lifetime of the Plan. For example, there may be opportunities around the former mills off London Road in Macclesfield where there could be potential for a new urban village development;
Additional town centre and higher-density development; Channelling development to areas within the inner boundary of the Green Belt (i.e. Greater Manchester and the Potteries conurbations);
Channelling development to areas beyond the outer boundary of the Green Belt. It is anticipated that HS2 will bring extensive jobs and housing to Cheshire East post 2030. The full impact of HS2 on Cheshire East is unclear; however, it is likely that the HS2 project will prove decisive in supporting the case for significant growth and development to the south, in preference to the north of the borough. The likelihood is that this future development will be centred in and around Crewe, Alsager and
September 2015 20/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Congleton.
A number of Local Plans have indicated that a 15 year plan period, followed by 5-10 years' worth of Safeguarded Land will ensure that the Green Belt boundary retains a degree of permanence. As Safeguarded Land is only required in the North Cheshire Green Belt, the development requirement for the northern sub-area in this plan period has been projected forward beyond 2030 to determine the amount of Safeguarded Land required. SR 57 Planning for 75 Suggested Insertion as follows: Minor change to the supporting text Growth – New to provide further clarification, does Paragraph 8.61a Consideration has been given to the likely availability of land beyond not significantly affect the findings of 2030. Whilst it is difficult to identify specific land that may become the Submission SA Report (SD 003). available so far into the future, there is a range of evidence to suggest that there will be a continued and reliable source of recycled and other land for development post 2030. There may also be other further options available to accommodate development including: • Channelling development to locations within the inner Green Belt boundary, with the opportunities arising from the renaissance of our adjacent conurbations; • Channelling development to locations beyond the outer edge of the Green Belt boundary in Cheshire East. It is anticipated that HS2 will prove decisive in supporting the case for significant future growth and development in the southern part of the Borough, centred around Crewe, Alsager, Congleton and Middlewich. As evidenced by the volume of sites submitted through the Local Plan process and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, it is clear that there will continue to be a significant stock of potential development sites in areas beyond the Green Belt post 2030. SR 58 Planning for 75 Suggested Insertion as follows: The Submission LPS proposed 130 ha Growth – New of safeguarded land. To reflect Paragraph 8.61b updated evidence the Council is now Given the desire to protect the countryside and minimise the impact on proposing to increase the overall level the Green Belt, it is appropriate to provide only the minimum amount of safeguarded land to 200 ha. At this Safeguarded Land needed to make sure that Green Belt boundaries do stage the potential revisions to sites
September 2015 21/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
not need to be altered again in the next plan period. Considering the identified within Policy PG 4 for potential options for accommodating development post 2030, it is safeguarded land are not known. At considered that there are grounds for a modest reduction in the this stage an increase in the overall timescale for projecting forward needs, to provide for between 8-10 level of safeguarded land is years of Safeguarded Land. Factors in relation to future housing densities considered unlikely to significantly have also been considered, including an ageing population, increased affect the findings of the previous SA provision of smaller units and enabling higher densities through improved work, which is presented in Appendix urban design. It is considered that there are sufficient grounds for F, Table F.19, of the Submission SA assuming future housing densities of between 30 and 40 dwellings per Report (SD 003). If necessary, it would hectare. A range of scenarios have been tested using the parameters on be more appropriate to reconsider time period for projections and housing densities, which result in a the policy through the SA once requirement of between 155 ha and 244 ha of Safeguarded Land. suggested revisions have been Overdependence on any single influence is not appropriate given the proposed with regard to individual timescales and variables involved, and a mid-point of 200 hectares is safeguarded sites. selected to take account of all factors concerned Any further revisions to the LPS arising as a result of the Examination, which includes changes to individual safeguarded sites, will be considered through the iterative SA process. SR 59 Planning for 75 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor change to the supporting text Growth – to provide further clarification, does Paragraph 8.62 At the end of the Plan period, the continued supply of recycled and not significantly affect the findings of other land for development as well as the other options to the Submission SA Report (SD 003). accommodate development and the use of the identified Safeguarded Land if required, will be sufficient utilisation of the above measures where appropriate, plus the use of the identified safeguarded land if required will be sufficient to ensure that the Green Belt boundary will not need to be reviewed again at this time.
SR 60 Planning for 76 Delete paragraph as follows: As above. Growth – Paragraph 8.63 Additional Safeguarded Land within the new area of Green Belt adjacent to Crewe will be defined in the Site Allocations and Development Policies document, alongside the detailed boundaries of
September 2015 22/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
the new Green Belt. SR 61 Planning for 76 Figure will be updated following the consideration of sites later in the Any further revisions to the LPS arising Growth – Figure 8.3 examination process as a result of the Examination, which includes changes to potential safeguarded sites, will be considered through the iterative SA process. SR 62 Planning for 76 Update as follows: Minor change, does not significantly Growth – Key affect the findings of the Submission Evidence 1. National Planning Policy Framework SA Report (SD 003). 2. Cheshire East Green Belt Assessment Update .3. Safeguarded Land Advice Note SR 63 Planning for 77 Insert text as follows: Minor change, does not significantly Growth – New affect the findings of the Submission Planning for Maintaining and enhancing the character and separate identities of the SA Report (SD 003). Growth – Borough’s towns and villages is a key priority of the Local Plan Strategy. Paragraph 8.63a SR 64 Planning for 77 New Policy proposed as follows: The inclusion of a new policy is Growth – New considered to be of significance with Policy PG4a Strategic Green Gaps regard to the findings of the previous 1. The areas between the following settlements are defined as SA work. To ensure that this is given Strategic Green Gaps: appropriate consideration an i. Willaston / Wistaston / Nantwich / Crewe; appraisal of this new policy has been ii. Willaston / Rope / Shavington / Crewe; carried out by Enfusion against the full iii. Crewe / Shavington / Basford / Weston; and SA Framework, which is presented in iv. Crewe / Haslington. Appendix IV of the SA Addendum Report. 2. These areas are shown on Figure 8.3a. The detailed boundaries of the Strategic Green Gaps will be defined through the Site Allocations and Development Policies document and shown on the Adopted Policies Map.
3. The purposes of Strategic Green Gaps are to: i. Provide long-term protection against coalescence; ii. Protect the setting and separate identity of settlements; and
September 2015 23/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
iii. Retain the existing settlement pattern by maintaining the openness of land.
4. Within Strategic Green Gaps, policy PG 5 (Open Countryside) will apply. In addition, planning permission will not be granted for the construction of new buildings or the change of use of existing buildings of land which would: i. Result in erosion of a physical gap between any of the settlements named in this policy; or ii. Adversely affect the visual character of the landscape.
5. Exceptions to this policy will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that no suitable alternative location is available.
SR 65 Planning for 77 Insert text as follows: The suggested revisions have been Growth – New para considered as part of the appraisal of 8.63b Within the areas to the south, east and west of Crewe, there are a new Policy PG 4a, which is presented number of neighbouring towns and villages in close proximity to each in Appendix IV of the SA Addendum other. As Crewe has grown throughout the 20th Century, erosion of the Report. gaps between Crewe, Nantwich and a number of smaller settlements has caused settlements to merge into the urban area in some cases, and very narrow gaps to remain in other cases. SR 66 Planning for 77 Insert text as follows: As above. Growth – New para 8.63c The identification of Crewe as a spatial priority for growth brings significant opportunities for this area, but also some challenges. As Crewe grows to fulfil its potential it will become increasingly important to maintain the distinctive identity of Nantwich and other nearby settlements and to prevent them from merging into a Greater Crewe urban area. SR 67 Planning for 77 Insert text as follows: As above. Growth – New para 8.63d As set out in the ‘New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gaps’ study, strong and strategic long-term policy protection is required to maintain the
September 2015 24/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
existing gaps between Crewe and Nantwich, and between Crewe and other settlements that are at risk of coalescence resulting from the future growth of Crewe. SR 68 Planning for 77 Insert text as follows: As above. Growth – New para 8.63e The detailed boundaries of the Strategic Green Gaps will be defined through the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and shown on the Adopted Policies Map. Until that time, the Green Gap boundaries, as defined in the saved policy NE.4 of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan will remain in force, apart from where specific changes are proposed in this document through the allocation of Local Plan Strategy sites. SR 69 Planning for Insert new figure as follows: As above. Growth – New Figure 8.3a
September 2015 25/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SR 70 Planning for Insert new paragraph: As above. Growth – New paragraph 8.63f The gaps identified in this policy are considered to be the strategic gaps required to prevent coalescence, primarily arising from the growth of Crewe. The Site Allocations and Development Policies document will consider whether there are further, more localised gaps that require additional policy protection through a Local Green Gaps policy.
SR 71 Planning for Insert new text as follows: As above.
September 2015 26/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Growth – New Key 1. New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gap Study Evidence Section 2. Arup New Green Belt Policy Advice Note SR 72 Planning for 77 Proposed revision to Policy PG5 as follows: Minor changes to the policy that seek Growth – Policy to provide further clarification. The PG5 Open Open Countryside suggested revisions do not Countryside 1. The Open Countryside is defined as the area outside of any significantly affect the findings of the settlement with a defined settlement boundary. Submission SA Report (SD 003). 2. Within the Open Countryside only development that is essential for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation, public infrastructure, essential works undertaken by public service authorities or statutory undertakers, or for other uses appropriate to a rural area will be permitted. 3. Exceptions may be made: i. where there is the opportunity for the limited infilling in villages; the infill of a small gap with one or two dwellings in an otherwise built up frontage elsewhere; limited affordable housing, in accordance with the criteria contained in Policy SC6 ‘Rural Exceptions Housing for Local Needs’ or where the dwelling is exceptional in design and sustainable development terms; ii. for the re-use of existing rural buildings where the building is permanent, substantial and would not require extensive alteration, rebuilding or extension iii. for the replacement of an existing dwelling building by a new dwelling not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces iv. for extensions to existing dwellings where the extension is not disproportionate to the original dwelling v. for development that is essential for the expansion or redevelopment of an existing business v.vi. For development that is essential for the conservation and enhancement of a heritage asset SR 73 Planning for 79 Proposed revision to Policy PG6 as follows: The suggested revisions take account Growth – Policy PG of updated evidence including the 6 Spatial Spatial Distribution of Development proposed increase in the overall level Distribution 1. The Principal Towns are expected to accommodate of growth during the plan period. It is development as shown: considered that the suggested
September 2015 27/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
i. Crewe: in the order of 65 hectares of employment land and 7,700 revisions are of significance with 7,000 new homes; regard to the previous SA of this Policy ii. Macclesfield: in the order of 20 15 hectares of employment land presented in Appendix G, Table G.11, and 3,500 4,250 new homes; of the Submission SA Report (SD 003). 2. The Key Service Centres are expected to accommodate development as shown: To ensure that the suggested revisions i. Alsager: in the order of 35 40 hectares of employment land and and updated evidence have been 1,600 2,000 new homes; taken into account a fresh appraisal ii. Congleton: in the order of 24 hectares of employment land and of Policy PG 6 has been carried by out 3,500 4,150 new homes; by Enfusion against the full SA iii. Handforth (including North Cheshire Growth Village): in the order Framework. The appraisal is of 10 22 hectares of employment land and 150 2,200 new homes; presented in Appendix IV of the SA iv. Knutsford: in the order of 15 10 hectares of employment land and Addendum Report. 650 950 new homes; v. Middlewich: in the order of 75 hectares of employment land and 1,600 1,950 new homes; vi. Nantwich: in the order of 3 hectares of employment land and 1,900 2,050 new homes; vii. Poynton: in the order of 3 10 hectares of employment land and 200 650 new homes; viii. Sandbach: in the order of 20 hectares of employment land and 2,200 2,750 new homes; ix. Wilmslow: in the order of 8 10 hectares of employment land and 400 900 new homes; 3. The New Settlement at North Cheshire Growth Village at Handforth East is expected to accommodate up to 12 hectares of new employment land and 1,850 new homes. 4. The Employment Improvement Area at Wardle is expected to accommodate in the order of 61 hectares of employment land 5.3. The Local Service Centres are expected to accommodate in the order of 5 6 hectares of employment land and 2,500 3,500 new homes. 6.4. The Other Settlements and Rural Areas are expected to accommodate in the order of 69 5 hectares of employment land (figure including the 61 hectare Employment Improvement Area at Wardle) and 2,000 2,950 new homes (including Alderley Park).
September 2015 28/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SR 74 Planning for Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor change, does not significantly Growth – affect the findings of the Submission Paragraph 8.74 The distribution of development between the various towns of the SA Report (SD 003). Borough is informed by the Spatial Distribution Update Report. This has taken into account the following considerations: • Settlement Hierarchy • Various consultation stages including the Town Strategies, Development Strategy and Emerging Policy Principles • Green Belt designations • Known development opportunities including the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment • Infrastructure capacity • Environmental constraints • Broad sustainable distribution of development requirements SR 75 Planning for 80 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows: Minor change, does not significantly Growth – ”and are as amended by the sites detailed in this Local Plan Core affect the findings of the Submission Paragraph 8.76 Strategy document” SA Report (SD 003). SR 76 Planning for 80 Suggested revision to paragraph as follows Minor change, does not significantly Growth – The Housing Development Study Strategic Housing Market Assessment affect the findings of the Submission Paragraph 8.79 (SHMA) suggests that, on the basis of migration and, travel to work and SA Report (SD 003). other data, Cheshire East is an appropriate geography for planning purposes over which to assess and meet housing requirements and comprises two three functional housing sub-market areas: one is focused on the former Macclesfield district and exhibits strong interactions with Greater Manchester market; a the second is focused on the former Crewe & Nantwich and Congleton Nantwich districts and is largely self- contained with migration from North Staffordshire; the third is centred around Congleton, having. and has noticeable market interactions with North Staffordshire and Greater Manchester. SR 77 Planning for 81 Amend title of new settlement: Minor change, does not significantly Growth – Table 8.3 “North Cheshire Growth Village, Handforth East” affect the findings of the Submission SA Report (SD 003).
September 2015 29/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Planning for 80 Amend table The suggested revisions have been Growth – Table 8.3 considered as part of the fresh appraisal of Policy PG 6, which is Table 8.3 Indicative Distribution of Development presented in Appendix IV of the SA Addendum Report.
New Homes Employment Land
Town Average Total 2010 Total 2010 Average each to 2030 to 2030 each year year(44)
Principal Towns
7,700 Crewe 385 350 65ha 3.25ha 7000
Maccles 4,250 213 175 20ha 15ha 1ha 0.75 field 3,500
Key Service Centres
2,000 100 40ha 2ha Alsager 1,600 80 35ha 1.75ha
Conglet 4,150 208 24ha 1.20ha on 3,500 175 Handfort h (includin 2,200 110 22ha 1.1ha g North 150 8 10 0.5ha Cheshire Growth
September 2015 30/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Village)
Knutsfor 950 48 15ha 0.75ha d 650 33 10ha 0.5ha
Middlewi 1,950 98 75ha 3.75ha ch 1,600 80
Nantwic 2,050 103 3ha 0.15ha h 1,900 95
650 33 10ha 0.5ha Poynton 200 10 3ha 0.15ha
Sandba 2750 138 20ha 1.00ha ch 2,200 110
900 45 10ha 0.5ha Wilmslow 400 20 8ha 0.4ha
Other Settlements
Local 3,500 175 6ha 0.3ha Service 2,500 125 5ha 0.25 Centres Other Settleme nts and Rural Areas 2,950 148 69ha 3.45ha (includin 2,000 100 5ha 0.25ha g Wardle Improve ment
September 2015 31/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Area)
SR 78 Planning for 82 Suggested Revision to key evidence as follows: Minor change, does not significantly Growth – Key affect the findings of the Submission Evidence 1. Determining the Settlement Hierarchy SA Report (SD 003). 2. Strategic Housing Market Assessment Housing Development Study 3. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
September 2015 32/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Policy PG 77 Insert a new footnote to Point 1 of Policy PG 5: Amendments Minor change, does not 5 “1. The Open Countryside is defined as the area outside of any settlement with a defined to reflect significantly affect the settlement boundary(1).” discussions at findings of the the hearing Submission SA Report 1. Settlement boundaries will be reviewed and defined through the production of sessions to (SD 003). the Site Allocations and Development Policies DPD and neighbourhood plans. provide clarity Until then, the spatial extent of settlement boundaries are those defined in the on the spatial saved policies and proposals maps of the existing local plans for Crewe and extent of the Nantwich, Macclesfield and Congleton and amended to include sites detailed in open this Local Plan Strategy, except Safeguarded Land. Table 8.X shows settlements countryside with a boundary defined in the saved policies and proposals maps of the existing policy. local plans and where these are amended by sites detailed in this Local Plan Strategy. Paragraph 78 Amend paragraph 8.68: Amendments Minor changes, do not 8.68 “The Spatial extent of Open Countryside is as defined as the area outside of any to reflect significantly affect the settlement with a defined settlement boundary. Settlement boundaries are defined in the discussions at findings of the saved policies of the Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan, the hearing Submission SA Report Congleton Borough Local Plan First Review and the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan; sessions to (SD 003). such areas settlement boundaries will remain unchanged as open countryside, apart provide clarity from where specific changes sites are proposed within this document (except on the spatial safeguarded land), until detailed boundaries are established through the Cheshire East extent of the Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and / or neighbourhood open plans. Table 8.X shows settlements with a defined settlement boundary and any countryside amendments to these settlement boundaries resulting from the allocation of sites in this policy. Local Plan Strategy.”
Insert a new Table after paragraph 8.68:
“ Settlement Local Plan Description Saved Policy Settlement boundary Strategy amended to include
September 2015 33/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Settlement Local Plan Strategy Hierarchy sites Acton Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4 Alderley Local Settlement Macclesfield None Edge Service boundary Borough Local Centre defined by Plan GC1 Green Belt inset boundary Alpraham Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4 Alsager Key Service Town defined Congleton CS14 Radway Green Centre by a Borough Local Brownfield; CS15 settlement Plan PS4 Radway Green zone line Extension Aston Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4 Audlem Local Village with a Borough of None Service defined Crewe and Centre settlement Nantwich Local boundary Plan RES.4 Barbridge Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4
September 2015 34/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Bollington Local Settlement Macclesfield None Service boundary Borough Local Centre defined by Plan GC1 Green Belt inset boundary Brereton Other Village Congleton None Green Settlements defined by a Borough Local and Rural settlement Plan PS5 Areas zone line Bunbury Local Village with a Borough of None Service defined Crewe and Centre settlement Nantwich Local boundary Plan RES.4 Calveley Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4 Chelford Local Settlement Macclesfield None Service boundary Borough Local Centre defined by Plan GC1 Green Belt inset boundary Congleton Key Service Town defined Congleton CS16 Giantswood Centre by a Borough Local Lane South; CS17 settlement Plan PS4 Manchester Road to zone line Macclesfield Road Crewe Principal Town with a Borough of CS1 Basford East; CS2 Town defined Crewe and Basford West; CS3 settlement Nantwich Local Leighton West; CS4 boundary Plan RES.2 Crewe Green; CS5
September 2015 35/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Sydney Road Disley Local Settlement Macclesfield None (including Service boundary Borough Local Newtown) Centre defined by Plan GC1 Green Belt inset boundary Gawswort Other Village Macclesfield None h Settlements washed over Borough Local and Rural by Green Belt Plan GC1 Areas with a defined settlement boundary Goostrey Local Village Congleton None Service defined by a Borough Local Centre settlement Plan PS5 zone line Hankelow Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4 Haslington Local Village with a Borough of None Service defined Crewe and Centre settlement Nantwich Local boundary Plan RES.4 Hassall Other Village Congleton None Green Settlements defined by a Borough Local and Rural settlement Plan PS5 Areas zone line Henbury Other Village Macclesfield None Settlements washed over Borough Local
September 2015 36/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph and Rural by Green Belt Plan GC1 Areas with a defined settlement boundary High Legh Other Settlement Macclesfield None Settlements boundary Borough Local and Rural defined by Plan GC1 Areas Green Belt inset boundary Holmes Local Village Congleton None Chapel Service defined by a Borough Local (including Centre settlement Plan PS5 former zone line Cranage Hall Hospital) Hough Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4 Knutsford Key Service Settlement Macclesfield CS18 North West Centre boundary Borough Local Knutsford defined by Plan GC1 Green Belt inset boundary Lyme Other Village Macclesfield None Green Settlements washed over Borough Local and Rural by Green Belt Plan GC1 Areas with a
September 2015 37/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph defined settlement boundary Macclesfie Principal Settlement Macclesfield CS9 Land East of ld Town boundary Borough Local Fence Avenue; CS10 defined by Plan GC1 Land of Congleton Green Belt Road; CS11 Gaw End inset Lane boundary Middlewic Key Service Town defined Congleton CS20 Glebe Farm h Centre by a Borough Local settlement Plan PS4 zone line Mobberley Local Settlement Macclesfield None Service boundary Borough Local Centre defined by Plan GC1 Green Belt inset boundary Mount Other Village Congleton None Pleasant Settlements defined by a Borough Local and Rural settlement Plan PS5 Areas zone line Mow Cop Other Village Congleton None Settlements defined by a Borough Local and Rural settlement Plan PS5 Areas zone line Nantwich Key Service Town with a Borough of CS21 Kingsley Fields Centre defined Crewe and settlement Nantwich Local boundary Plan RES.2 North Other New No saved CS30 North Cheshire
September 2015 38/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Cheshire Settlements settlement settlement Growth Village Growth and Rural boundary Village Areas Pickmere Other Settlement Macclesfield None Settlements boundary Borough Local and Rural defined by Plan GC1 Areas Green Belt inset boundary Poynton Key Service Settlement Macclesfield None Centre boundary Borough Local defined by Plan GC1 Green Belt inset boundary Prestbury Local Settlement Macclesfield None Service boundary Borough Local Centre defined by Plan GC1 Green Belt inset boundary Rainow Other Settlement Macclesfield None Settlements boundary Borough Local and Rural defined by Plan GC1 Areas Green Belt outer boundary and Peak District National Park boundary Rode Other Village Congleton None
September 2015 39/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Heath Settlements defined by a Borough Local and Rural settlement Plan PS5 Areas zone line Sandbach Key Service Town defined Congleton CS24 Land adjacent (including Centre by a Borough Local to J17 of M6, south former settlement Plan PS4 east of Congleton Hays zone line Road Chemical Complex) Scholar Other Village Congleton None Green Settlements defined by a Borough Local and Rural settlement Plan PS5 Areas zone line Shavington Local Village with a Borough of CS6 The Shavington / Service defined Crewe and Wybunbury Triangle; Centre settlement Nantwich Local CS7 East Shavington boundary Plan RES.4 South Other New No saved CS37 South Cheshire Cheshire Settlements settlement settlement Growth Village Growth and Rural boundary Village Areas Spurstow Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4 Sutton Other Village Macclesfield None Settlements washed over Borough Local and Rural by Green Belt Plan GC1 Areas with a defined settlement boundary
September 2015 40/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Weston Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4 Wilmslow Key Service Settlement Macclesfield CS26 Royal London; and Centres boundary Borough Local CS27 Wilmslow Handforth defined by Plan GC1 Business Park Green Belt inset boundary Winterley Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary / Plan RES.4 / settlement Congleton zone line Borough Local Plan PS5 Worleston Other Village with a Borough of None Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4 Wrenbury Local Village with a Borough of None Service defined Crewe and Centre settlement Nantwich Local boundary Plan RES.4 Wybunbur Other Village with a Borough of None y Settlements defined Crewe and and Rural settlement Nantwich Local Areas boundary Plan RES.4
Policy SD 1 84 Add a new item 16 to Policy SD 1 and renumber existing item 16 and item 17: Encouraging Minor change, with a
September 2015 41/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph “16. Encourage the reuse of existing buildings; and the re-use of potential to enhance 1617. Prioritise the most accessible and sustainable locations.” buildings is positive effects against important in SA Objective relating to supporting the climate change and transition to a the consumption of low carbon natural resources. future as set Change does not out in the NPPF significantly affect the core planning findings of the principles. Submission SA Report (SD 003). Policy IN 1 90 Amend the first sentence of point 1 of Policy IN 1 to read: To remove Minor change, does not “Infrastructure delivery will take place in a phased, co-ordinated manner guided by the uncertainty in significantly affect the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and any additional site specific requirements to support the the findings of the Local Plan Strategy proposals.” interpretation Submission SA Report of the policy (SD 003). Para 10.3 91 Amend Para 10.3 item 3, 6th bullet point to read: To Minor change, does not “Cultural facilities – including libraries, museums and, theatres and heritage” complement significantly affect the the Plan’s findings of the positive Submission SA Report strategy for the (SD 003). conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and to better reflect the vision and strategic priorities. Paragraph 91 Amend paragraph 10.5: To reflect the Minor change, does not
September 2015 42/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph 10.5 “Improved connectivity forms a vital part of the Local Plan Strategy in terms of assisting progress made significantly affect the economic growth and improving the environment. As well as maximising the benefits of on a number findings of the Crewe as a national rail hub, substantial new road infrastructure will be required to open of road Submission SA Report up the east of Cheshire and better connect the M6 with main settlements and schemes, (SD 003). surrounding major roads. At this stage, only corridors of interest or preferred routes for new including the roads are indicated. Detailed alignments will be included in the Site Allocations and Congleton Link Development Policies document”. Road, since the submission of the Local Plan Strategy in May 2014. Paragraph 92 Amend paragraph 10.12: To reflect the Minor change, does not 10.12 “Developer contributions secured through planning obligations will are no longer able to implementatio significantly affect the be pooled from more than five different obligations to deliver the provision of a certain n of changes findings of the project or type of infrastructure from April 2015 or the date of adoption of the CIL to national Submission SA Report Charging Schedule, whichever comes first. This restriction, from Regulation 123 of the CIL guidance. (SD 003). Regulations 2010, is intended to ensure that local planning authorities use CIL instead of planning obligations to secure contributions for infrastructure that serves a wider area than just the specific development site or group of sites” Paragraph 93 Amend paragraph 10.18: To reflect the Minor change, does not 10.18 “Work on the Cheshire East CIL will commence following the Submission stage adoption of Council’s significantly affect the the Local Plan Strategy or sooner if considered appropriate. It is expected that at this approach to findings of the stage, the Council will have a greater understanding of the infrastructure requirements for the Submission SA Report Cheshire East. The examination and adoption of CIL is expected to follow shortly after the establishment (SD 003). Local Plan Strategy adoption” and implementatio n of CIL Policy EG 100 Amend point 5 of policy EG 2: Wording Minor change, does not 2 “Are considered essential to the wider strategic interest of the economic development of amended significantly affect the Cheshire East, as determined by the Council; and or” following findings of the discussions at Submission SA Report
September 2015 43/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph hearing session (SD 003). to clarify that developments that meet one or more of the criteria 1-6 and all of criteria i- iv will be supported. It is not necessary to meet all of criteria 1-6. Policy SC2 112 Amend policy to read: “Policy SC2 To better Minor change, does not Indoor and Outdoor Sport Facilities reflect the significantly affect the In order to provide appropriate indoor and outdoor sports facilities for the communities of aims set out in findings of the Cheshire East, the Council will: Strategic Submission SA Report 1. Protect existing indoor and outdoor sports facilities, unless: Priority 2, for (SD 003). Either: consistency i. They are proven to be surplus to need(55); or with Policy IN1 ii. Improved alternative provision will be created in a location will related to the and SC1 and functional requirements of the relocated use and its existing and future users. to remove And in all cases: uncertainty in i. The proposal would not result in the loss of an area important for its amenity or the contribution to the character of the area in general. interpretation 2. Support new indoor and outdoor sports facilities where: of policy. i. They are readily accessible by public transport, walking and cycling; and ii. The proposed facilities are of a type and scale appropriate to the size of the settlement; and iii. Where they are listed in an action plan in any emerging or subsequently adopted Playing Pitch Strategy or Indoor Sports Strategy, subject to the criteria in the policy. 3. Make sure that major residential developments contribute, through land assembly and
September 2015 44/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph financial contributions, to new or improved sports facilities where development will increase demand and/or there is a recognised shortage. Policy SC 2 112 Insert a new footnote to policy item 1 (ii): For clarity and Minor change, does not “Improved alternative provision(56) will be created in a location well related to the to better significantly affect the functional requirements of the relocated use and its existing and future users. reflect national findings of the ------policy. Submission SA Report 56 Improved alternative provision means a full quantity and quality replacement to (SD 003). accord with paragraph 74 of the NPPF and Sport England policy.” Para 12.15 113 Amend paragraph: For consistency Minor change, does not “any proposal affecting an indoor or outdoor sports facility will be judged in relation to with the significantly affect the any emerging or subsequently adopted Indoor Sports Strategy or Playing Pitch Strategy. proposed findings of the changes to Submission SA Report Policy SC2. (SD 003). Para 12.16 113 Amend first bullet point: For consistency Minor change, does not “The demand and supply factors in relation to the particular indoor or outdoor sports with the significantly affect the being catered for, for example, a combined sports facility catering for local football clubs proposed findings of the in an area which may serve a wider area than the adjacent settlement;” changes to Submission SA Report Policy SC2. (SD 003). Para 12.17 113 Amend paragraph: For consistency Minor change, does not “In terms of the development of appropriate facilities, this will be determined through with the significantly affect the evidence from the Playing Pitch Strategy and Indoor Sports Strategy process, other work proposed findings of the with the community and sports bodies, to determine a particular club or community’s changes to Submission SA Report needs. The Council is expected to introduce the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Policy SC2. (SD 003). the balance between what monies are collected between Section 106 agreements (S106) and CIL will be part of this process. The level of contributions will be determined through the S106 and CIL setting agenda.” Para 12.18 113 Add document to key evidence list: For consistency Minor change, does not “4. Indoor Sports Strategy” with the significantly affect the proposed findings of the changes to Submission SA Report Policy SC2. (SD 003). Policy SC 3 114 Amend Point 2 of Policy SC 3: Wording The change helps to
September 2015 45/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph “2. Requiring Health Impact Assessments Screening or Rapid Impact Assessments as part changes as strengthen the policy of the application process on all major development proposals. This will involve a review discussed at by making the of the possible health impacts of a policy or proposal. Screening should include: the hearing requirements for a HIA i. Who may be affected by the proposal; session to add clearer. The proposed ii. What determinants of health may be affected; clarity to the change does not iii. What further evidence is needed to inform the recommendations. requirements in significantly affect the Screening will determine if a full Health Impact Assessment is required. The Council will relation to findings of the seek and seeking contributions towards new or enhanced health and social care facilities Health Impact Submission SA Report from developers where development results in a shortfall or worsening of provision;” Assessments (SD 003). Policy SC 4 116 Amend Point 2 of Policy SC 4: To reflect the Minor change, does not “To meet needs arising from the increasing longevity of the Borough’s older residents, the Written significantly affect the Council will require developers to demonstrate how their proposal will be capable of Ministerial findings of the meeting, and adapting to, the long term needs of this specific group of people. This Statement Submission SA Report would include the provision of Lifetime Homes and Bungalows a variety of dwelling types made on 25th (SD 003). and other measures to support Health and Wellbeing and independent living through March 2015 new developments that recognise the needs of older people, those with dementia and and change to other vulnerable people; this will include developing dementia-friendly communities. national planning policy which requires local planning authorities not to set any additional local technical standards relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of new
September 2015 46/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph dwellings. Paragraph 117 Amend paragraph 12.33: To reflect the Minor change, does not 12.33 “The Council will work in partnership, with developers and Registered Providers, to provide Written significantly affect the accommodation with a greater range of tenure options that is of good quality and better Ministerial findings of the good design, and meets Lifetime Homes standards, offering longevity and flexibility for the Statement Submission SA Report changing needs of ageing. Appropriate sites to meet this specific housing need will be made on 25th (SD 003). identified within the Strategic Sites of the Local Plan Strategy and the Site Allocations and March 2015 Policies Development Plan Document. The Council may also seek a proportion of the and change to overall housing land target to be developed as bungalows or houses suitable meeting national Lifetime Homes for older person households. planning policy which requires local planning authorities not to set any additional local technical standards relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of new dwellings. Policy SC 5 118 Amend Point 5 of Policy SC 5: To reflect the Minor change, does not “5. Market and affordable homes on sites should be indistinguishable and achieve the Written significantly affect the same high design quality. Affordable homes must also be built to comply with the Homes Ministerial findings of the and Communities Agency's Design and Quality Standards April 2007 and achieve Code Statement Submission SA Report for Sustainable Homes Level 3(60);” made on 25th (SD 003). March 2015
September 2015 47/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Delete footnote 60: and change to “60. If these standards required by the Homes and Communities Agency are varied at national any time in the future then the affordable homes must comply with the revised standards planning required.” policy which requires local planning authorities not to set any additional local technical standards relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of new dwellings. Paragraph 119 Amend the penultimate sentence of paragraph 12.40: To reflect the Minor change, does not 12.40 “Housing that meets the needs of older people will be increasingly important as longevity Written significantly affect the improves; the right kind of Lifetime Homes housing, bungalows or directly supported Ministerial findings of the housing promotes independence and reduces the need to fall back on the care system.” Statement Submission SA Report made on 25th (SD 003). March 2015 and change to national planning policy which requires local planning authorities not to set any
September 2015 48/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph additional local technical standards relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of new dwellings. Paragraph 119 Amend paragraph 12.42: To reflect the Minor change to reflect 12.42 “The Strategic Housing Market Assessment identifies that (based on the Communities and additional updated evidence, Local Government housing needs assessment model presented in the Communities and evidence. does not significantly Local Government Strategic Housing Market Assessment guidance), there is an annual affect the findings of net shortfall of 1,401 affordable homes. Due to the fact that there will not be sufficient the Submission SA supply-side opportunities through which this will be able to be addressed, this is not a Report (SD 003). target for delivery. This does, however, show that there is a clearly identified need for more affordable housing to meet local needs. The Housing Development Study shows that there is the objectively-assessed need for affordable housing shows for a minimum of 7,100 dwellings over the plan period, which equates to an average of 355 dwellings per year. Policy SC 6 121 Amend footnote 64: Wording Minor change, does not “Cheshire East Council has up-to-date Housing Needs Surveys for many rural areas which changes as significantly affect the may be utilised. Where an up-to-date survey does not already exist, the applicant must discussed at findings of the The Survey must be conducted conduct a survey, based on the Cheshire East Council the hearing Submission SA Report model survey, in conjunction with the Parish Council where possible. and should be based session to (SD 003). on the Cheshire EC model survey. clarify the approach to rural housing surveys. Policy SC 7 124 Add a new item 2(x) to policy SC 7: To Proposed change helps
September 2015 49/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph “x. Impact on the historic environment” complement to strengthen the policy the Plan’s in relation to SA positive Objective 12. Minor strategy for the change, does not conservation significantly affect the and findings of the enhancement Submission SA Report of the historic (SD 003). environment in line with national policy. Policy SE 1 127 Amend Footnote 68: To assist Minor change, does not “By local design review or by Places Matter A Supplementary Planning Document will be developers in significantly affect the produced to help define what is considered to constitute ‘larger scale and more complex understanding findings of the developments’ and to set out the options for Design Review to fulfil the requirements of the Council’s Submission SA Report this criteria. expectations (SD 003). Policy SE 1 128 Amend point 4(i) of policy SE 1: To reflect the Minor change, does not “Providing internal and external space standards for living environments as set out in Government’s significantly affect the national best practice standards including Lifetime Homes principles for future new national findings of the adaptability the national technical standards; planning Submission SA Report policy on the (SD 003). setting of technical standards set out in the Written Ministerial Statement (HCWS488) on 25th March 2015 Housing
September 2015 50/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph standards: streamlining the system Para 13.13 129 Reword paragraph 13.13: To improve Minor change, does not “Detailed design policies will be included in the Site Allocations and Development Policies clarity: SPD on significantly affect the document. This detail will be expanded upon by a Design policies will also be Design is likely findings of the supplemented by Supplementary Planning Document(s) on Design.” to be adopted Submission SA Report in part prior to (SD 003). adoption of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document. Policy SE 2 129 Amend Policy SE 2 Point 1 to read: Encouraging Minor change, does not “The Council will encourage the redevelopment / re-use of previously developed land the re-use of significantly affect the and buildings”. buildings is findings of the important in Submission SA Report supporting the (SD 003). transition to a low carbon future as set out in the NPPF core planning principles. Policy SE 3 131 Insert a new footnote to policy heading: To make sure Minor change, does not “Biodiversity and Geodiversity(1) that the significantly affect the existing findings of the identified Submission SA Report 1 The spatial extent of the categories and/or references identified in this policy are those biodiversity (SD 003). and
September 2015 51/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph identified in the maps and diagrams contained in this Local Plan Strategy, the evidence geodiversity base of the Local Plan Strategy and the saved policies and proposals maps of the existing features local plans for Crewe and Nantwich, Macclesfield and Congleton, until reviewed and continue to be updated through the production of a Site Allocations and Development Polices DPD, considered and/or the production of a neighbourhood plan.” through policy prior to a comprehensiv e review through the Site Allocations and Development Policies document, as set out in the Council’s Homework Note number 20. Policy SE 3 131 Amend policy SE 3: Wording Minor change, does not “ changes as significantly affect the 1. Areas of high biodiversity and geodiversity value will be protected and enhanced. discussed at findings of the Enhancement measures will include increasing the total area of valuable habitat the hearing Submission SA Report in the Borough, and linking up existing areas of high value habitat to create session to (SD 003). 'ecological stepping stone sites', ‘wildlife corridors’ and 'Nature Improvements accord with Areas'. Ecological networks and connectivity are vitally important in sustaining sites the NPPF and addressing the impacts of climate change. wording 2. Development proposals which are likely to have a significant may have an regarding the adverse impact on a site with one or more of the following national or impact on SSSIs international designations will not be permitted: and to address i. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) concerns ii. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) related to the
September 2015 52/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph iii. Ramsar Sites use of the iv. Any potential Special Protection Areas (SPAs), candidate Special Areas of phrase Conservation (SACs) or proposed Ramsar sites “exceptional v. Sites of Special Scientific Interest circumstances v. vi Sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse ” effects on European sites, candidate Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites vii. The Peak District National Park viii. National Nature Reserves 3. Development proposals which are likely to have an adverse impact on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a National Nature Reserve or the Peak District National Park fringe will not normally be permitted. 4. 3. Development proposals which are likely to have a significant adverse impact on a site with one or more of the following local or regional designations, habitats or species will not be permitted except in exceptional circumstances where the reasons for the proposed development clearly outweigh the value of the ecological feature adversely affected and there are no appropriate alternatives: i. Local Nature Reserves ii. Sites of Biological Importance (SBI) or Local Wildlife Sites iii. Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGGS) iv. Designated Wildlife Corridors v. Habitats and species within the Cheshire Biodiversity Action Plan vi. Priority habitats and species within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan vii. Habitats and species listed in respect of Section 41 of The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 viii. Legally protected species ix. Areas of Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland x. Nature Improvement Areas 5. 4. All development (including conversions and that on brownfield and greenfield sites) must aim to positively contribute to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity and should not negatively affect these interests. To ensure there are no residual adverse impacts resulting from a proposed
September 2015 53/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph development, where in exceptional circumstances the reasons for the proposed development clearly outweigh the value of the ecological feature adversely affected and there are no appropriate alternatives, the adverse impacts of the development must be proportionately addressed in accordance with the hierarchy of: mitigation, compensation and finally offsetting. When appropriate, conditions will be put in place to make sure appropriate monitoring is undertaken and make sure mitigation, compensation and offsetting is effective. 6. 5. Development proposals that are likely to have a significant impact on a non- designated asset or a site valued by the local community identified in a Neighbourhood Plan or the Site Allocations and Development Policies documents will only be permitted where suitable mitigation and / or compensation is provided to address the adverse impacts of the proposed development.” Policy SE 4 133 Insert a new footnote to policy heading: To make sure Minor change, does not “The Landscape(1) that the significantly affect the existing Areas findings of the of Special Submission SA Report 1 The spatial extent of the categories and/or references identified in this policy are those County Value (SD 003). identified in the maps and diagrams contained in this Local Plan Strategy, the evidence for Landscape base of the Local Plan Strategy and the saved policies and proposals maps of the existing continue to be local plans for Crewe and Nantwich, Macclesfield and Congleton, until reviewed and considered updated through the production of a Site Allocations and Development Polices DPD, through policy and/or the production of a neighbourhood plan.” prior to the definition of Local Landscape Designation Areas through the Site Allocations and Development Policies
September 2015 54/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph document, as set out in the Council’s Homework Note number 20. Policy SE 4 133 Amend Point 3(ii) of Policy SE 4: To correct an Minor change, does not “3 (ii) Proposals for the extensive development of land, making Making suitable provision error in the significantly affect the for better public access to, and enjoyment of, the Local Landscape Designation Areas;” original findings of the wording. Submission SA Report (SD 003). Policy SE 5 135 Amend the first paragraph of policy SE 5: Wording Minor change, does not “Development proposals which are likely to will result in the loss of, or threat to, the changes as significantly affect the continued health and life expectancy of trees, hedgerows or woodlands (including discussed at findings of the veteran trees or ancient semi-natural woodland), that provide a significant contribution to the hearing Submission SA Report the amenity, biodiversity, landscape character or historic character of the surrounding session to align (SD 003). area, will not normally be permitted, except in exceptional circumstances where there with the are clear overriding reasons for allowing the development and there are no suitable requirements alternatives. Where adverse such impacts are unavoidable, such impacts development of the NPPF proposals must satisfactorily demonstrate significant a net environmental gain by and to address appropriate mitigation, compensation or offsetting.” concern over the use of the phrase “exceptional circumstances ” Para 13.34 135 Amend paragraph 13.34: To clarify the Minor change, does not “The National Planning Policy Framework states that ‘planning permission should be approach to significantly affect the refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, the assessment findings of the including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient of trees, as Submission SA Report woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly discussed at (SD 003).
September 2015 55/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph outweigh the loss’. Trees will be assessed in accordance with the Council’s Amenity the hearing Evaluation Checklist for Trees and where appropriate protected by the imposition of Tree session. Preservation Orders (TPOs) to safeguard their amenity value and planning conditions to ensure protection and prevent damage during the development process.” Policy SE 6 137 Insert a new footnote to policy heading: To make sure Minor change, does not “Green Infrastructure(1) that the significantly affect the existing findings of the identified Submission SA Report 1 The spatial extent of the categories and/or references identified in this policy are those green (SD 003). identified in the maps and diagrams contained in this Local Plan Strategy, the evidence infrastructure base of the Local Plan Strategy and the saved policies and proposals maps of the existing features local plans for Crewe and Nantwich, Macclesfield and Congleton, until reviewed and continue to be updated through the production of a Site Allocations and Development Polices DPD, considered and/or the production of a neighbourhood plan.” through policy prior to a comprehensiv e review through the Site Allocations and Development Policies document, as set out in the Council’s Homework Note number 20. Policy SE 6 137 Amend Point 3(iii) of Policy SE 6: Wording Minor change, does not “3. iii. Meres and Mosses Natural Nature Improvement Area and Local Natural Nature changes as significantly affect the Improvement Areas” discussed at findings of the
September 2015 56/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph the hearing Submission SA Report Amend Point 4(iii) of Policy SE 6: session to (SD 003). “4. iii. Provide adequate open space (as outlined in Table 13.1)” correct the term ‘Nature Improvement Area’ and provide a link from the policy to the open space standards. Paragraph 139 Amend paragraph 13.54: Wording Minor change, does not 13.54 “Paragraphs 76 of the National Planning Policy Framework considers Local Green Space changes as significantly affect the designations: “Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able discussed at findings of the to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to them. By the hearing Submission SA Report designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new session (SD 003). development other than in very special circumstances. Identifying land as Local Green resulting from a Space should therefore be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development request to add and complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services. Local clarity to Green Spaces should only be designated when a plan is prepared or reviewed, and be paragraph capable of enduring beyond the end of the plan period. and Paragraph 77 sets out 13.54 when they might not be appropriate: “The Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space. The designation should only be used: where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land. Local Green Space designations proposed in Neighbourhood Plans can be considered at through the Site Allocations stage and Development Policies document.”
September 2015 57/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Policy SE 7 140 Amend Policy SE 7 to read: To improve Proposed changes help ” clarity and to strengthen the policy 1. Cheshire East has an extensive and varied built heritage and historic environment, readability and and take account of described in the justification text to this policy. The character, quality and diversity of to reduce Historic England Cheshire East's the historic environment will be conserved and enhanced. All new uncertainty in comments. Minor development should seek to avoid harm to heritage assets and make a positive the changes, do not contribution to the character of Cheshire East's historic and built environment, interpretation significantly affect the including the setting of assets and where appropriate, the wider historic environment. of policy findings of the 2. Proposals for development shall be assessed and the historic built environment following Submission SA Report actively managed in order to contribute to the significance of heritage values assets discussions with (SD 003). and local distinctiveness. Where a development proposal is likely to affect a English designated heritage asset (including its setting) the significance of the heritage asset, Heritage. including any contribution made by its setting, must be described and reported as Whilst there part of the application. are a number 3. The Council will support development proposals that do not cause harm to, or which of wording better reveal the significance of heritage assets and will seek to avoid or minimise changes conflict between the conservation of a designated heritage asset and any aspect of proposed to a development proposal by: this policy, the A) Designated Heritage Assets meaning and i. Supporting development proposals that do not cause harm to, or which better thrust of the reveal the significance of heritage assets. policy remains i. ii Requiring development proposals that cause harm to, or loss of, a designated as was. heritage asset and its significance, including its setting, to provide a clear and convincing justification as to why that harm is considered acceptable. Where that case cannot be demonstrated, proposals will not be supported. ii. iii Considering the level of harm in relation to the public benefits that may be gained by the proposal. iii. iv The use of appropriate legal agreements or planning obligations to secure the benefits arising from a development proposal where the loss, in whole or in part, of a heritage asset is accepted. B) Non-Designated Assets 4. Requiring that the The impact of a proposal on the significance of a non-designated
September 2015 58/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph heritage asset should be properly considered, as these are often equally valued by local communities. There should be a balanced consideration, weighing the direct and indirect impacts upon the asset and its setting, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss. The presumption should be that heritage assets should be retained and re-used wherever practicable and proposals that cannot demonstrate that the harm will be outweighed by the benefits of the development shall will not be supported. Where loss or harm is outweighed by the benefits of development, appropriate mitigation and compensation measures will be required to ensure that there is no net loss of heritage value. 5 4 In all heritage contexts, For all heritage assets, high quality design should be achieved. It should aim to avoid poorly executed pastiche design solutions and should foster innovation and creativity that is sensitive and enhances to the significance of heritage context assets in terms of architectural design, detailing, scale, massing and use of materials. 6 5 Cheshire East Council will seek to positively manage the historic built environment through engagement with landowners/asset owners and other organisations and by working with communities to ensure that heritage assets are protected, have appropriate viable uses, are maintained to a high standard and are secured and have a sustainable future for the benefit of future generations. Proposals that conserve and enhance assets on the Heritage at Risk register will be encouraged” Para 13.70 143 Add a new paragraph 13.71 following para 13.70 to read: To assist Minor change, does not “13.71 Further guidance on information that is required to be submitted with planning developers in significantly affect the applications that affect the historic environment will be set out in the Site Allocations and understanding findings of the Development Policies document.” the Council’s Submission SA Report expectations (SD 003). following discussions with English Heritage.
September 2015 59/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Paragraph 145 Amend paragraph 13.79: To reflect the Minor change, does not 13.79 “Renewable and low carbon energy has the potential to contribute to the Borough’s Written significantly affect the electricity supply. Assessments of wind speeds, technical and environmental constraints, Ministerial findings of the as well as the potential landscape and visual impact studies of renewable and low Statement Submission SA Report carbon energy development across the Borough, should be used to help identify suitable made on 18th (SD 003). locations appropriate for renewable and low carbon energy development.” June 2015 and associated update to PPG, areas identified as suitable for wind energy development should be allocated in a Local or Neighbourhoo d Plan. The Site Allocations and Development Policies document will identify such areas. Paragraph 145 Amend paragraph 13.80: To reflect the Minor changes, do not 13.80 “Whilst the Council’s evidence based studies makes reference to, and identify identifies Written significantly affect the potential locations suitable for renewable and low carbon technologies, it this does not Ministerial findings of the mean that technologies will automatically be granted consent within the identified areas. Statement Submission SA Report Equally, it should not restrict development for technologies (other than wind turbine made on 18th (SD 003). development) outside of the identified areas, or equally, mean that these technologies June 2015 and will automatically be granted consent within the identified areas, or refused consent if associated
September 2015 60/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph outside the identified areas.” update to PPG, areas identified as suitable for wind energy development should be allocated in a Local or Neighbourhoo d Plan. The Site Allocations and Development Policies document will identify such areas. Paragraph 145 Amend paragraph 13.81: To reflect the Minor change, does not 13.81 “Given the rich and diverse nature of the landscape within the Borough, when planning Written significantly affect the applications are submitted for wind turbines, applicants will need to have completed the Ministerial findings of the Appendix 2 requirements of the Cheshire East Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Statement Submission SA Report Developments study (2013), as part of the application process. The Council will need to made on 18th (SD 003). be satisfied that development will not have a significant adverse impact on the June 2015 and landscape. ” Following the Written Ministerial Statement on 18th June 2015 and associated associated update to Planning Practice Guidance, areas suitable for wind energy development will update to be formally identified in the Site Allocations and Development Policies document. PPG, areas identified as suitable for wind energy development should be
September 2015 61/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph allocated in a Local or Neighbourhoo d Plan. The Site Allocations and Development Policies document will identify such areas. Policy SE 9 146 Amend Policy SE 9 Point 1: To reflect the Minor changes, do not “1. The Council will look favourably upon development that follows the principles of the Written significantly affect the Energy Hierarchy, and seeks to achieve a high rating under schemes such as the Code Ministerial findings of the for Sustainable Homes, BREEAM (for non-residential development), CEEQUAL (for public- Statement Submission SA Report realm development) and Building for Life and/or Lifetime Homes,. For non-residential made on 25th (SD 003). development, this will be especially so where the standard attained exceeds that March 2015 required by the current Building Regulations (or as updated).” and change to national planning policy which requires local planning authorities not to set any additional local technical standards relating to the construction, internal layout or
September 2015 62/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph performance of new dwellings. Policy 149 Amend Policy SE10 bullet point 3 to read: To better Minor changes, do not SE10, “Seek to provide Make appropriate provision for the supply of stocks of permitted silica reflect the significantly affect the bullet sand reserves at each site equivalent to at least 10 years production at each site intention of findings of the point 3 throughout the Plan period, or at least 15 years at sites where significant new investment is NPPF in Submission SA Report required.” respect of a (SD 003). steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals and to make clearer the alignment with NPPF para 146. Para 150 Amend footnote text as follows: To reflect the Minor change, does not 13.98, “Landbanks for industrial minerals are to be calculated according to paragraph 53 of the superseding of significantly affect the (Footnote Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. Calculations will be Technical findings of the 79) based on the average of the previous 10 years’ sales and will have regard to the use and Guidance by Submission SA Report quality of the material (Paragraph 90, Planning Practice Guidance).“ online Planning (SD 003). Practice Guidance (PPG). Figure 13.4 151 Modify map legend text box as follows: To offer a Minor change, does not “Approximate extent of area worked for Silica Sand General area within which Silica better significantly affect the (industrial) Sand resources may be located” description in findings of the response to Submission SA Report industry (SD 003). knowledge on nature of local
September 2015 63/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Silica Sand resources Para 152 Insert new paragraph after paragraph 13.103: To improve Minor change, does not 13.103 “Prior extraction is the process by which a mineral is won from a site prior to non-mineral policy clarity significantly affect the development taking place. This can take place at a number of different scales, which and findings of the would depend on the size of the site, the depth of mineral, the type and quality of the complement Submission SA Report mineral, and the nature of the proposed development. In line with the requirements of the Plan’s (SD 003). the NPPF, the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Document will Set positive out policies to encourage the prior extraction of minerals, where practicable and attitude to environmentally feasible, if it is necessary for non-mineral development to take place.” securing the supply and extraction of Minerals following discussions at the hearing session Para 152 Amend final sentence of paragraph 13.109 to read: To align more Minor change, does not 13.109 “The most appropriate form of afteruse restoration schemes to deliver the potential for closely with significantly affect the beneficial afteruses will be determined on a site-by-site basis.” Policy SE 10, findings of the bullet point 11. Submission SA Report (SD 003). Para 153 Amend key evidence list: To correct the Minor change, does not 13.111 “4. Local Aggregate Assessment (Draft) 2013, Cheshire East Council” status of the significantly affect the evidence. findings of the Submission SA Report (SD 003). Para 154 Amend footnote 84 to paragraph 13.115: To reflect the Minor change, does not 13.115 “84. The National Planning Policy Framework does not contain specific waste policies. publication of significantly affect the Updated national waste planning policy, when finalised, will be has been published as the Waste findings of the part of the Waste Management Plan for England, replacing the existing national waste Management Submission SA Report planning policy contained in Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10): Planning for Plan for (SD 003).
September 2015 64/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph Sustainable Waste Management.” England. Policy SE 155 Amend the key evidence list for Policy SE 11: To improve Minor change, does not 11 Key “ clarity and significantly affect the Evidence 1. Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester Councils – Waste Needs Assessment ensure that the findings of the Report, Urban Mines (2011) Plan is Submission SA Report 2. Cheshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2007-2020, Cheshire Waste positively (SD 003). Partnership aligned with 3. Cheshire East Council Municipal Waste Management Strategy to 2030 the National 4. National Planning Policy for Waste” Planning Policy for Waste. Policy SE 158 Reword point 6 of Policy SE 13 to read: To add clarity Minor change, does not 13 “New development enhances and protects surface and ground water quality and and reduce significantly affect the complies with the Water Framework Directive in ensuring that development does not uncertainty in findings of the cause deterioration in the status of inland waters, unless suitable mitigation measures are the Submission SA Report in place; and” interpretation (SD 003). of policy. Policy SE 161 Addition of a new point 3 to Policy SE 14: To add clarity Proposed change helps 14 “3. Proposals should consider their impact on those elements that contribute to the to point 1(ii) of to strengthen the policy potential outstanding universal value of Jodrell Bank.” the policy and and reflects discussions to reduce with English Heritage. uncertainty in Minor change, does not the significantly affect the interpretation findings of the of policy Submission SA Report following (SD 003). discussions with English Heritage. Para 161 Re-word paragraph 13.158 to read: To assist Minor change, does not 13.158 “The Council is currently considering providing will provide further detailed policy and developers in significantly affect the advice within the Site Allocations and Development Policies document.” understanding findings of the the Council’s Submission SA Report
September 2015 65/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph expectations (SD 003). following discussions with English Heritage. Policy SE 162 Amend footnote 86 to Policy SE 15: To reflect Minor change, does not 15 “86 As identified within the Local Landscape Designation Document (May 2013) as the discussions at significantly affect the ‘Peak Park Fringe’ and shown in Figure 13.5” the hearing findings of the sessions and Submission SA Report clarify the (SD 003). spatial extent of the Peak Park Fringe. Paragraph 163 Insert a new Figure 13.5: To reflect Minor change, does not 13.164 “ discussions at significantly affect the the hearing findings of the Figure 13.5: Peak District National Park Fringe sessions and Submission SA Report clarify the (SD 003). spatial extent of the Peak Park Fringe. Footnote 163 Amend footnote 86 as follows: For clarity, Minor change, does not 86 to “As identified within the Local Landscape Designation Document (May 2013) as the ‘Peak indicating significantly affect the Policy SE Park Fringe’. The mapped extent of the Peak Park Fringe will be shown in the Site where the findings of the 15 Allocations and Development Polices Document.” geographical Submission SA Report extent of the (SD 003). policy will apply Policy CO 166 Amend Policy CO 1 Point 1: To improve the Minor changes, do not 1 “1. Reduce the need to travel by: clarity of the significantly affect the i. Guiding development to sustainable and accessible locations or locations that Policy findings of the
September 2015 66/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph can be made sustainable and accessible; Submission SA Report ii. Ensuring development gives priority to walking, cycling and public transport within (SD 003). its design; iii. Encouraging more flexible working patterns and home working; iv. Supporting improvements to communication technology for business, education, shopping and leisure purposes; and v. Supporting measures that reduce the level of trips made by single occupancy vehicles; and”
Amend Policy CO 1 Point 2: “2. Improve pedestrian facilities so that walking is attractive for shorter journeys(87) including: i. Supporting the priority of pedestrians at the top of the road user hierarchy and making sure that in settlements, town centres and residential areas, the public realm environment reflects this priority; ii. Supporting safe and secure access for mobility and visually impaired persons including mobility scooter users and parents with pushchairs; iii. Creating safe and secure footways and paths linking with public transport and other services; iv. Ensuring new developments are convenient, safe and pleasant to access on foot; and v. Supporting work to improve canal towpaths and Public Rights of Way where they can provide key linkages from developments to local facilities; vi. Supporting measures that introduce safe routes to schools, and vii. Ensuring a selective and ongoing review of speed limits, as appropriate.”
Amend Policy CO 1 Point 4 first sentence: “4. Improve public transport integration, facilities, capacity, service levels, access for all users and reliability(89) including:…” Paragraph 168 Amend paragraph 14.12: To improve the Minor changes, do not 14.12 ““An effective freight network is essential for delivering sustainable economic growth. clarity of the significantly affect the However, the transportation of freight on roads through existing residential areas would Paragraph findings of the
September 2015 67/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph not be considered appropriate.” Submission SA Report (SD 003). Policy CO 169 Amend Policy CO 2 Point 2(v): To reflect DfT Minor changes, do not 2 “v. Supporting the improvement of national motorway network facilities, where Circular significantly affect the appropriate and supported by the Highways Agency” 02/2013 and findings of the the Ministerial Submission SA Report Amend Policy CO 2 Point 2(vii): Written (SD 003). “vii. For residential and non-residential development, where there is clear and compelling Statement justification that is it necessary to manage the road network, proposals should adhere made on 25th adhering to the current adopted Cheshire East Council Parking Standards for Cars and March 2015 Bicycles set out in Appendix C (Parking Standards). and associated update to NPPF ¶39 which requires that local parking standards only be imposed where there is clear and compelling justification that it is necessary to manage the local road network. Paragraph 171 Amend paragraph 14.24: To reflect the Minor changes, do not 14.24 The Council will seek to ensure that development includes adequate parking provision for Ministerial significantly affect the cars and bicycles. It will also seek to ensure that development includes adequate car Written findings of the
September 2015 68/69 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Policy / Pg Modification Reason SA/SEA Screening Chapter / Paragraph parking provision where there is clear and compelling justification that is it necessary to Statement Submission SA Report manage the road network. This Provision should be based on the car parking standards made on 25th (SD 003). set out in Appendix C. March 2015 and associated update to NPPF ¶39 which requires that local parking standards only be imposed where there is clear and compelling justification that it is necessary to manage the local road network. Paragraph 173 Insert a new paragraph after paragraph 14.34: To reflect Duty Proposed change helps 14.34 “Where there are major development proposals close to the Council’s boundary, the To Co-operate to strengthen the Plan Council will ensure that the cross border impacts are considered as part of the Transport discussions with by highlighting the Assessment and liaise with the neighbouring transport authority”. Staffordshire need to consider County potential cross Council boundary impacts. Minor change, does not significantly affect the findings of the Submission SA Report (SD 003).
September 2015 69/69 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Appendix IV: SA of Significant Revisions
The SA of significant revisions was informed by the further technical work carried out by the Council, which includes the Housing Development Study draft final report presented as part of the second stakeholder engagement workshop in May 201589 as well as the emerging findings of the Spatial Distribution Update Report. The further technical work, including the Spatial Distribution Update Report, have now been finalised; however, it should be noted that the changes (which predominantly relate to the addition of paragraphs to provide further justification) made to these reports do not significantly affect the findings of the SA of significant revisions presented below.
Refined Significance Key: Categories of Significance
Symbol Meaning Sustainability Effect - - Major Problematical and improbable because of known sustainability issues; mitigation Negative likely to be difficult and/or expensive - Minor Potential sustainability issues: mitigation and/or negotiation possible negative + Minor No sustainability constraints and development acceptable positive ++ Major Development encouraged as would resolve existing sustainability problem Positive ? Uncertain Uncertain or Unknown Effects
/ Neutral Neutral effect
- ? It is possible to have two symbols for an SA Objective. For example, a development could have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 (Biodiversity); however, there is an element of uncertainty until lower level assessments have been carried out. - + SA Objective 12 consider more than one topic (landscape and heritage) and as a result the policy could have a different effect upon each topic considered.
89 http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/workshop
July 2015 1/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Fresh SA of Policy PG 1 (Overall Development Strategy)
SA Objective Assessment of Effects
Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty 1. Provide an appropriate quantity and quality The policy has the potential for major long-term positive effects against this SA ++ of housing to meet the needs of the Borough. Objective through the provision of 36,000 new dwellings up to 2030, which will meet This should include a mix of housing types, the objectively assessed housing need for the Borough90. In line with Submission Local tenures and affordability. Plan Policy SC 4 and SC 5, it is predicted that affordable homes and a mix of housing tenures, types and sizes will be provided. 2. Create sustainable communities that benefit The provision of 36,000 new dwellings and 380 ha of new employment land will ++ from good access to jobs, services, facilities improve accessibility for communities in the Borough to housing and employment. At and sustainable forms of transport, including this stage, the level of provision and improvements to services/facilities and walking, cycling and public transport. sustainable transport is not known; however, it is predicted that this is likely to be significant. Overall, there is the potential for a major long-term positive effect against this SA Objective. 3. Consider the needs of all sections of the The provision of 36,000 new dwellings and 380 ha of new employment land is likely to + ? community in order to achieve high levels of have indirect long-term positive effects on equality and social exclusion through equality, diversity and social inclusion. improving access to housing and employment as well as associated services/facilities and improvements to transport infrastructure. There is an element of uncertainty at this stage with regard to the level of provision community infrastructure as well as the distribution of development. 4. Create an environment that promotes The delivery of a significant quantity of new dwellings and employment land during + ? healthy and active lifestyles. the life of the Plan is likely to result in the provision of new recreational areas as well as improvements to walking and cycling routes. It also has the potential to improve accessibility to housing and employment as well as services/facilities which could help to encourage walking and cycling and therefore healthier lifestyles. Potential for indirect long-term positive effects against this SA Objective. The significance of the effect at this stage is not known and will depend on the level of provision and improvements to community and sustainable transport infrastructure.
90 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Cheshire East Housing Development Study 2015 - Report of Findings. Prepared by Opinion Research Services.
July 2015 2/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
5. Maintain and/or create vibrant rural While the policy does not indicate how the housing and employment land will be + ? communities. distributed, it is assumed that in line with Submission LPS Policy PG 6 a sufficient quantity of development will be directed to rural areas to help meet the needs of rural communities. The provision of housing and employment in the rural areas has the potential to help maintain rural communities and support or improve existing services/facilities. Overall it is considered that this policy will have a long-term positive effect against this SA Objective; however, the significance of the effect at this stage is unknown. 6. Create a safe environment to live in and In line with Submission LPS Policy SE 1, it is assumed that the design and layout of new / ? reduce fear of crime. development proposed through the policy could incorporate Secured by Design principles. Potential for a residual neutral effect; however, there is also an element of uncertainty at this strategic level. 7. Maintain and enhance community services The level of growth proposed in the policy has the potential to increase pressure on ++ ? and amenities to sustain the existing and future existing as well as support or provide new community services/facilities. Overall, the community of the Borough. policy is considered likely to have major long term positive effects as it will support the expansion of existing facilities as well as the provision of new ones. There is also an element of uncertainty as the level of provision in terms of community services/facilities is not known; however, given the level of proposed growth it is predicted to be of significance. 8. Manage the causes and effects of climate The policy has the potential to negatively affect this SA Objective through increased - ? change. atmospheric pollution (as a result of increased traffic and road users) and an increase in energy supply and demand (relating to energy from unsustainable sources both in construction and operation). Development has the potential to incorporate energy and efficiency measures as well as renewable or low carbon energy (Submission Local Plan Policy SE 9), which will help to mitigate significant negative effects as a result of increased energy supply and demand.
July 2015 3/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Evidence suggests that commerce and industry as well as road transport are the main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in the borough.91 The Spatial Distribution Update Report92 (July 2015) summarised the findings of highway modelling carried out by the Council. It concluded that there are existing congestion issues on the highways network throughout Cheshire East and that these would be exacerbated wherever development occurs. The main issues relate to increased pressure on junctions along the key routes into town centres and linking to the strategic road network (for example at Junction 16 and 17 if the M6). It concludes that despite mitigation measures being implemented, it is likely that increased development in both the north and the south of the Borough could have local and wider implications for the highways network. It should be noted that detailed traffic modelling has not be undertaken for all the Key Service Centres and for any of the Local Service Centres or other settlements/ rural areas.
Taking the above into account, along with the mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level, it is considered that there is the potential for residual minor medium to long-term negative effects against this SA Objective, with an element of uncertainty in recognition of the gaps with regard to detailed modelling. In the longer-term it is likely that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles will reduce as a result of stringent emissions controls on new vehicles via Euro standards but this is uncertain at this stage. 9. Positively address the issues of water quality Submission LPS Policy SD 2 expects all development to be water efficient and Policy / ? and quantity and manage flood risk within the SE 13 ensures that new development incorporates water efficiency measures. It is Borough. therefore assumed that there is the potential to incorporate water efficiency measures as part of development proposed through this policy.
Taking this into account along with current evidence that suggests that there are not likely to be any significant issues with regard to water resources in the future93, it is considered that the policy will have a residual neutral effect in relation to water
91 UK local authority and regional carbon dioxide emissions national statistics: 2005-2012. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local- authority-emissions-estimates 92 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Spatial Distribution Update - Draft Final Report. Prepared by AECOM. 93 United Utilities (March 2015) Final Water Resources Management Plan.
July 2015 4/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
resources. However, in recognition of the potential for changes to arise in the future there is also an element of uncertainty.
Submission LPS Policy SE 13 requires development to avoid adverse impacts on water quality by ensuring that it includes appropriate sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and Green Infrastructure to store, convey and treat surface water prior to discharge with the aim of achieving a reduction in the existing runoff rate. The policy also states that it is not sustainable to dispose of surface water via the public sewer systems; applicants seeking to drain to the public sewers must demonstrate there are no other more sustainable viable options. Where water infrastructure capacity is an issue, all major development must demonstrate that there is adequate infrastructure in place to serve the development. The policy also ensures that any new development must enhance and protect water quality and comply with the Water Framework Directive to ensure that development does not cause a deterioration in the status of inland waters, unless suitable mitigation measures are in place.
Mitigation provided through Submission Local Plan Policy SE 13 and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects on water quality as a result of development proposed and there is no evidence to suggest that there is a particular issue with regard to Wastewater Treatment Capacity. Potential for a residual neutral effect against this SA Objective with regard to water quality.
In accordance with the NPPF, Submission LPS Policy SE 13 ensures that proposed development must minimise flood risk by ensuring that it follows the sequential approach, is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment, seeks improvements to the surface water drainage network and does not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere. It is considered that suitable mitigation is provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level to ensure that there are no significant negative effects in relation to flooding. Therefore, residual neutral effect in relation to flooding. 10. Manage the impacts of development and Development proposed is likely to increase pollution in both the short (construction) - ? associated activities to positively address all and long-term (operation and decommissioning). It is considered that there is forms of pollution. sufficient mitigation provided through Submission LPS Policies and available at the project level to ensure that any significant negative effects are addressed with residual long-term neutral effects. Submission Local Plan Policy SE 12 seeks to ensure that all development is located and designed so as not to result in a harmful or cumulative impacts on the natural and built environment as a result of pollution. The
July 2015 5/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
policy expects developers to minimise pollution arising during both the construction and the life of the development and development will not be permitted where adequate mitigation cannot be provided.
There are 13 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within the Borough where national air quality objectives are not being met94. Given that air quality is an existing issue within the Borough and it is predicted that there will be residual negative effects with regard to traffic (SA Objective 8), it is considered that there is also the potential for residual minor long-term negative effect against this SA Objective through increased atmospheric emissions. Improving access to sustainable transport modes as well as the links between rural areas/Local Service Centres and Principal Towns/Key Service Centres will be important in helping to reduce the significance of the residual negative effect. 11. Protect and enhance biodiversity, habitats, The provision of 36,000 new dwellings and 380 ha of new employment land during the - ? geodiversity and important geological features; life of the Plan has the potential for major negative effects on biodiversity. However, with particular care to sites designated ultimately the nature and significance of the effects against this SA Objective are internationally, nationally, regionally and dependent on the distribution and precise location of development as well as its locally. implementation.
Local Plan Policy SE 3 seeks to protect and enhance areas of high biodiversity and geodiversity value. It also seeks to increase the total area of valuable habitat in the borough and improve ecological connectivity and networks. The policy does not permit any development proposals that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on international or national designations and only supports development that may have adverse effects on local and regional designations if there are exceptional circumstances. It is considered that there is sufficient mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level to ensure that the policy will not have major negative effects; however, there is still an element of uncertainty until the precise location of development is known and lower level assessments and studies have been carried out.
It is acknowledged that development can have the potential to enhance biodiversity with positive effects; however, this is dependent on a variety of factors
94 http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/environment/environmental_health/local_air_quality/review_and_assessment/aqma_area_maps.aspx
July 2015 6/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
including the location of development and opportunities available.
A key challenge for the Local Plan will be trying to ensure that ecological connectivity and networks are maintained and improved where possible. Despite the mitigation provided through LPS Policies, overall it is considered that given the significant level of growth proposed, there is the potential for residual minor long-term negative effects against this SA Objective.
The HRA of the suggested revisions, which includes the increase to the overall level of growth, concluded that they are unlikely to result in any significant effects on European sites not already identified and assessed during the HRA process of the LPS strategy to date. 12. Protect and enhance the quality, integrity This SA Objective considers two key sustainability topics and therefore two symbols -? -? and distinctiveness of the area’s heritage, are provided to represent each topic. The first symbol relates to landscape and the landscapes and townscapes, in particular second heritage. those that are internationally, nationally or locally designated. Given the level of proposed development the policy has the potential for major long- term negative effects on the landscape. In line with Submission LPS Policy PG 6, It is assumed that development will be primarily focussed within and around the main settlements which will help to reduce the significance of the effect to some extent; however, this is dependent on the precise location of development, sensitivity of receptors, and effectiveness of mitigation measures. While LPS policies, such as Policy SE 4, are likely to provide suitable mitigation to address significant negative effects there is still an element of uncertainty until the precise location of development is known.
Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, such as Policies SE 4 and SE 15, and available at the project level are considered likely to provide suitable mitigation to address significant negative effects. However, taking a precautionary approach, it is still considered likely that the policy could result in residual long-term minor negative effects on the landscape. Ultimately, the significance of the effect will be dependent on the precise location, scale and design/layout of development.
While it is recognised that impacts on landscape could have negative effects on the setting of heritage assets at this stage it is considered uncertain. The distribution and precise location of the sites will help to determine the potential nature and
July 2015 7/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
significance of effects. It is considered that suitable mitigation is provided through Local Plan policies, such as Policy SE 7, and available at the project level to ensure that there will not be any major negative effects on heritage.
Overall, the nature and significance of the effect on landscape and heritage will be dependent on the location and design/layout of development as well as the sensitivity of receptors.
13. Minimise energy use, promote energy In line with Submission Local Plan Policy SE 9, proposed development has the / ? efficiency and high quality design, and potential to incorporate energy and efficiency measures as well as renewable or low increase the generation of energy from carbon energy. It is therefore considered that the policy is likely to have a neutral renewable resources. effect against this SA Objective; however, it is recognised that there is still an element of uncertainty which is dependent on implementation. 14. Achieve sustainable waste management Development proposed in the policy will increase waste in the short (construction) / through adhering to the principles of the waste and long-term (operation and decommissioning). Submission LPS Policy SD 1 seeks hierarchy. the provision of appropriate infrastructure to meet the needs of the local community which includes waste. Policy SD 2 expects development to minimise waste and Policy SE 1 seeks to ensure that adequate provision of waste storage as part of any development.
It is considered that there is sufficient mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level to ensure any significant negative effects are addressed with a neutral residual effect against this SA Objective. 15. Manage mineral extraction and encourage Development proposed through the policy will result in the use of primary aggregates ? their recycling/re-use to provide a sufficient for building and infrastructure; however, there is the potential to maximise the use of supply to meet social and economic needs secondary aggregates as well as use sustainable construction techniques where whilst minimising impacts on the environment possible. and communities and safeguarding resources for future generations. There is also the potential for the policy to result in development within mineral safeguarded areas, which could lead to the sterilisation of mineral resources. However, the nature and significance of the effect is ultimately dependent on the precise location of development. At this stage, the nature and significance of the effects is considered uncertain.
July 2015 8/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
16. Reduce the consumption of natural The use of water and mineral resources are addressed against SA Objectives 9 & 15; - ? resources, protect and enhance green therefore, the nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective will infrastructure and high quality agricultural land primarily relate to the potential loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land. and optimise the re-use of previously developed land, buildings and infrastructure. The policy has the potential to result in the permanent loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land to accommodate development. However, the nature and significance of the effect against this SA Objective is ultimately dependent on the precise location of development. It is acknowledged that development has the potential to provide green infrastructure and improve it; however, at this stage this is uncertain and it is considered more likely that the policy will result in the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and is predicted to result in the loss of Green Belt land.
At this stage it is difficult to determine the significance of the negative effect as the precise location of development is not known. It is therefore considered that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against this SA Objective, with an element of uncertainty until the precise location of development is known. 17. To promote a sustainable, competitive and The provision of 380 ha of new employment land will help to improve access to jobs ++ ? low-carbon economy that benefits from a as well as promote economic diversity in the urban and rural areas of the borough. range of innovative and diverse businesses in However, there is an element of uncertainty as the precise location and type of both urban and rural areas. employment is not known at this stage. In terms of promoting a low-carbon economy, this is dependent on a number of factors, including where the employment land is focused and how it is delivered alongside improvements to community and transport infrastructure. Potential for a major long-term positive effect, with an element of uncertainty. 18. To maintain and enhance the vitality and The policy has the potential for a positive effect against this SA Objective through the + ? viability of town and village centres with a delivery of housing and employment, which will help to support the vitality and balanced provision of retail, leisure, visitor and viability of town and village centres. In line with Submission LPS Policy PG 6, It is cultural facilities. assumed that development will be primarily focussed within and around the main settlements. There are a number of uncertainties at this stage including the precise location of development as well as the level provision in terms of retail, leisure, visitor and cultural facilities. Overall, it is considered that the policy will have minor long- term positive effects. 19. Positively manage the Borough's diverse While the policy does not indicate how the housing and employment land will be + ? rural economy. distributed, it is assumed that in line with Submission LPS Policy PG 6 a sufficient quantity of development will be directed to rural areas to help meet the needs of
July 2015 9/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
rural communities. The provision of employment in the rural areas has the potential to help maintain rural communities and support or improve existing services/facilities. As the policy does not specify the exact quantity of employment land to be provided in the rural areas there is an element of uncertainty; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a minor long-term positive effect against this SA Objective. 20. Improve access to education and training, The policy has the potential to increase pressure on existing as well as support existing + ? and the links between these resources and education and training facilities. Overall, it is considered that proposed development employment opportunities. is likely to have long term positive effects as it will support the expansion of existing facilities as well as the provision of new ones. The policy also has the potential to help improve the links between these facilities and areas of employment through associated improvements to sustainable transport modes; however, at this stage this is uncertain.
Summary Findings:
The appraisal found that the policy has the potential for major long-term positive effects on SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing, sustainable communities; community facilities/services and the economy through the provision of 36,000 new dwellings and 380 ha of new employment land up to 2030. This will help to meet the objectively assessed housing and employment needs of the Borough95 and the associated provision of transport and community infrastructure has the potential for indirect minor long-term positive effects for SA Objectives relating to equalities and health. It was also predicted that there is the potential for minor positive effects for rural communities and the vitality and viability of town centres. It should be noted that there is also an element of uncertainty against the number of objectives as the policy does not indicate the distribution of development nor the level of transport or community infrastructure that will be provided.
The appraisal also found that there is also the potential for negative effects against a number of SA Objectives. Given the level of proposed growth it is likely that proposed development will exacerbate existing congestion issues on the highways network throughout Cheshire East. Mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level will help to reduce the potential significance of the negative effect but it is predicted that there is still likely to be a minor residual long-term negative effect against SA Objective 8 (climate change). In the longer- term it is likely that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles will reduce as a result of stringent emissions controls on new vehicles via Euro standards but this is uncertain at this stage. Taking this into account it was also considered that there is the potential for minor residual long-term negative effects against SA Objective 10 through increased atmospheric emissions, as there are already 13 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within the Borough.
The appraisal also found that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect on SA Objectives relating to biodiversity,
95 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Cheshire East Housing Development Study 2015 - Report of Findings. Prepared by Opinion Research Services.
July 2015 10/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 landscape/heritage and natural resources. The level of development proposed is predicted to result in the loss of large areas of greenfield land as well as result in the permanent loss of agricultural and Green Belt land surrounding the main towns. It is considered that there is sufficient mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level to ensure that the policy will not have major negative effects against these SA Objectives; however, there is still an element of uncertainty until the precise location of development is known and lower level assessments and studies have been carried out.
July 2015 11/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
SA of New Policy PG 4a (Green Gap)
SA Objective Assessment of Effects
Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty 1. Provide an appropriate quantity and quality The policy does not propose housing development, it defines strategic green gaps / of housing to meet the needs of the Borough. that seek to provide long-term protection against coalescence, protect the setting This should include a mix of housing types, and separate identity of settlements and retain the existing settlement pattern. This tenures and affordability. could have negative effects against this SA Objective in the long-term as the policy seeks to restrict housing development within these areas. However, this is uncertain at this stage and negative effects are more likely to arise after the plan period if there is not sufficient land to accommodate further housing development. At this stage it is assumed that there is sufficient land available to meet the Objectively Assessed Housing Need for the Borough during the life of the plan. Potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 1. 2. Create sustainable communities that benefit The policy seeks to protect settlements against coalescence as well as the existing + ? from good access to jobs, services, facilities settlement pattern. This could help to contain growth within and adjacent to existing and sustainable forms of transport, including settlements where the majority of services and facilities, transport hubs, and walking, cycling and public transport. employment opportunities are located, supporting development that is more accessible to these resources than would otherwise be if located in open countryside. Potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 2 with an element of uncertainty at this stage.
3. Consider the needs of all sections of the The policy does not propose development and is unlikely to lead to any significant / community in order to achieve high levels of negative or positive effects on equality, diversity or social inclusion. Potential for a equality, diversity and social inclusion. neutral effect against SA Objective 3.
4. Create an environment that promotes The policy restricts development within identified Strategic Green Gaps, seeking to + healthy and active lifestyles. maintain the openness of land surrounding the identified settlements. This supports easy access to open countryside and recreational opportunities for urban fringe areas with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 4.
July 2015 12/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
5. Maintain and/or create vibrant rural The policy identifies Strategic Green Gaps to provide long-term protection against + communities. coalescence and protect the setting and separate identity of settlements, as well as the openness of the surrounding land and visual character of the landscape. This has the potential for minor long-term positive effects against this SA Objective as it will help to protect and maintain rural communities within these areas.
6. Create a safe environment to live in and The policy does not propose development and is unlikely to lead to any significant / reduce fear of crime. negative or positive effects on safety or the fear of crime. Potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 6.
7. Maintain and enhance community services The policy does not propose development and is unlikely to lead to any significant + ? and amenities to sustain the existing and future negative or positive effects on community services. The policy restricts development community of the Borough. within identified Strategic Green Gaps and therefore supports contained settlements and development within existing settlements which can support the delivery of localised infrastructure. Potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 7; however, there is also an element of uncertainty.
8. Manage the causes and effects of climate The policy does not propose development; it restricts development within identified + ? change. Strategic Green Gaps. As such it is unlikely to contribute to the causes of climate change. The policy could potentially support the management of the effects of climate change through the retention of permeable greenfield land and green infrastructure providing biodiversity, carbon sinks and cooling effects (e.g. tree shade). Potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 8; however, there is also an element of uncertainty. 9. Positively address the issues of water quality The policy does not propose development, it restricts development within identified / and quantity and manage flood risk within the Strategic Green Gaps and as such is unlikely to lead to any significant negative Borough. effects on water resources, quality or flood risk. Potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 9. 10. Manage the impacts of development and The policy does not propose development, it restricts development within identified / associated activities to positively address all Strategic Green Gaps and as such is unlikely to lead to any significant negative forms of pollution. effects as a result of pollution. Potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 10.
11. Protect and enhance biodiversity, habitats, The policy restricts development within identified Strategic Green Gaps and therefore +
July 2015 13/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 geodiversity and important geological features; indirectly protects the habitats and species within these areas as well as the retention with particular care to sites designated of green infrastructure. Potential for a long-term minor positive effect against SA internationally, nationally, regionally and Objective 11. locally. 12. Protect and enhance the quality, integrity This SA Objective considers two key sustainability topics and therefore two symbols + + and distinctiveness of the area’s heritage, are provided to represent each topic. The first symbol relates to landscape and the + landscapes and townscapes, in particular second heritage. those that are internationally, nationally or locally designated. The policy protects existing settlement patterns by maintaining the openness of land, and protects against coalescence in the long-term. This supports the retention of landscape features in between settlements, and supports the separate identities of townscapes. The policy also protects the visual character of the landscape contained within the defined Strategic Green Gaps. The policy is considered to have the potential for major long-term positive effects on the landscape.
The policy restricts new development within Strategic Green Gaps and as such is unlikely to lead to any significant negative effects on designated heritage assets or their settings. The policy allows for exceptions which includes an exception for development that is essential for the conservation and enhancement of a heritage asset, this supports designated heritage assets in rural areas or open countryside and has the potential for minor long-term positive effects. 13. Minimise energy use, promote energy The policy is unlikely to lead to any significant negative effects on energy efficiency / efficiency and high quality design, and and design. Potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 13. increase the generation of energy from renewable resources.
14. Achieve sustainable waste management The policy is unlikely to lead to any significant negative effects on waste / through adhering to the principles of the waste management. Potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 14. hierarchy.
15. Manage mineral extraction and encourage There is an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel north east of Weston as well as the ? their recycling/re-use to provide a sufficient Clayhangar Hall Farm Preferred Site just north west of Haslington which could be supply to meet social and economic needs affected by this policy. At this stage the nature and significance of effects is
July 2015 14/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 whilst minimising impacts on the environment uncertain as the precise boundaries for the Strategic Green Gaps are not known. and communities and safeguarding resources for future generations.
16. Reduce the consumption of natural The policy restricts development within identified rural locations between settlements. ++ resources, protect and enhance green It is likely therefore that the policy will contribute to protecting agricultural land and infrastructure and high quality agricultural land green infrastructure in Strategic Green Gaps, and contribute to promoting and optimise the re-use of previously development within existing settlements where previously developed land is most developed land, buildings and infrastructure. predominantly located. The policy also allows for exceptions, which include the reuse / regeneration of existing buildings in Strategic Green Gaps. It is considered therefore that the policy has the potential for major long-term positive effects against SA Objective 16. 17. To promote a sustainable, competitive and The policy supports a low-carbon economy by contributing to the containment of + low-carbon economy that benefits from a certain settlements. Contained settlements can promote local economies and range of innovative and diverse businesses in contribute to reducing the need to travel to access employment. Though the policy both urban and rural areas. restricts development in identified Strategic Green Gaps, there is an exception for development that is essential for the expansion or redevelopment of an existing business. It is considered that the policy has the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17.
18. To maintain and enhance the vitality and The policy provides long-term protection against coalescence and protects the + ? viability of town and village centres with a setting and separate identity of settlements. This has the potential for minor long-term balanced provision of retail, leisure, visitor and positive effects against this SA Objective; however, there is also an element of cultural facilities. uncertainty at this stage.
19. Positively manage the Borough's diverse The policy restricts development within identified Strategic Green Gaps located in / rural economy. rural areas or countryside between settlements, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 19. However the policy does allow for exceptions (identified within Policy PG5) which includes an exception for development that is essential for the expansion or redevelopment of an existing business, which contributes to reducing the extent of the negative effects. It is therefore considered that there is the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 19. 20. Improve access to education and training, The policy seeks to protect settlements against coalescence. This in turn supports + ? and the links between these resources and contained growth within existing settlements where the majority of services and
July 2015 15/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 employment opportunities. facilities, including educational and training facilities are located, supporting development that is more accessible to these resources than would otherwise be if located in open countryside. Potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 20; however, there is also an element of uncertainty as the precise location of development is not known.
Summary Findings:
The policy defines strategic green gaps which seek to provide long-term protection against coalescence, protect the setting and separate identity of settlements and retain the existing settlement pattern. The appraisal found that this has the potential for minor positive effects against a number of SA Objectives through protecting the openness of land surrounding settlements in these areas and the visual character of the landscape, as well as the retention of greenfield land, agricultural land and green infrastructure. Major long-term positive effects were identified for the landscape as the policy supports the retention of landscape features in between settlements, and supports the separate identities of townscapes. The appraisal also found that there is the potential for major long-term positive effects against SA Objective 16 (natural resources) through restricting development in these areas and therefore the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. The appraisal did not identify the potential for any significant negative effects.
July 2015 16/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Fresh SA of Policy PG 6 (Spatial Distribution of Development)
SA Objective Assessment of Effects
Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty 1. Provide an appropriate quantity and quality In line with Policy PG 2 (Settlement Hierarchy) the policy sets out the distribution of the ++ of housing to meet the needs of the Borough. overall level of housing and employment growth during the life of the plan identified This should include a mix of housing types, in Policy PG 1. The policy has the potential for major long-term positive effects tenures and affordability. against this SA Objective by enabling the distribution of housing development to meet the needs of the Borough. In line with Submission Local Plan Policy SC 4 and SC 5, it is predicted that affordable homes and a mix of housing tenures, types and sizes will be provided.
Updated evidence indicates that there is a shortage of housing opportunities in the north of the borough, particularly those suitable for young families in Poynton96. It also suggests that there is high house prices and low affordability of market housing in Knutsford as well as above average levels of overcrowding in Handforth. The provision of 650 new dwellings in Poynton, 950 new dwellings in Knutsford and 2,200 new dwellings in Handforth will help to address these issues. 2. Create sustainable communities that benefit In line with Policy PG 2 the majority of development is directed towards the Principal ++ from good access to jobs, services, facilities Towns and Key Service Centres. This will assist in creating sustainable communities by and sustainable forms of transport, including focussing development in those areas that benefit from the greatest level of existing walking, cycling and public transport. infrastructure as well as employment opportunities and other community facilities and services. The policy also seeks to direct an appropriate level of development towards Local Service Centres and other settlements and rural areas, which will help to meet the needs of communities in those areas. The significance of the effect for each of the individual settlements will vary depending on the level of development proposed as well as the existing level of jobs, services, facilities and sustainable forms of transport that are available.
96 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Spatial Distribution Update - Draft Final Report. Prepared by AECOM.
July 2015 17/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Evidence suggests that Knutsford is particularly well served by a range of retail, leisure and culture services and further development here would create communities that were well placed to take advantage of such facilities.97
At this stage, the level of provision and improvements to services/facilities and sustainable transport is not known; however, it is assumed that this is likely to be significant. Overall, there is the potential for a major long-term positive effect against this SA Objective. 3. Consider the needs of all sections of the The policy is likely to have indirect long-term positive effects on equality and social + ? community in order to achieve high levels of exclusion through improving access to housing and employment as well as equality, diversity and social inclusion. associated services/facilities, which includes improvements to transport infrastructure. The significance of the effect for each of the individual settlements will vary depending on existing issues relating to deprivation and the overall level of development proposed. Ultimately the significance of the effect is dependent on the precise location of development as well as the level of improvements to infrastructure as well as facilities/services. Potential for minor long-term positive effect with an element of uncertainty. 4. Create an environment that promotes The policy has the potential to help promote healthy and active lifestyles in the + ? healthy and active lifestyles. Borough by improving access to housing, employment as well as associated services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. Development is predicted to result in the provision of new recreational areas as well as improvements to walking and cycling routes; however, the level and precise location of this provision is not clear at this stage. The significance of the effect will differ for individual settlements depending on the precise location of development and level of provision as well as opportunities to connect to and utilise existing sustainable transport infrastructure.
Overall, it is considered that the policy has the potential for indirect minor positive effects against this SA Objective, with an element of uncertainty as the significance of the effect at this stage is dependent on the level of provision and improvements to community and sustainable transport infrastructure. 5. Maintain and/or create vibrant rural The policy seeks to deliver 69 ha of new employment land and 2,950 new dwellings in + communities. smaller settlements and rural areas. This has the potential to help maintain rural
97 Ibid.
July 2015 18/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
communities and support or improve existing services/facilities. Overall it is considered that this policy will have a long-term positive effect against this SA Objective. It should be noted that there is also the potential for negative effects if too much development is directed towards a particular rural settlement; however, in line with LPS Policy PG 2, this should not occur as development in these areas will be confined to small scale infill. 6. Create a safe environment to live in and In line with Submission LPS Policy SE 1, it is assumed that the design and layout of new / ? reduce fear of crime. development proposed through the policy could incorporate Secured by Design principles. Potential for a residual neutral effect; however, there is also an element of uncertainty at this strategic level. 7. Maintain and enhance community services The policy has the potential to increase pressure on existing as well as support or ++ and amenities to sustain the existing and future provide new community services/facilities in the Principal Towns, Key Service Centres, community of the Borough. Local Service Centres and rural areas. Overall, the policy is considered likely to have major long term positive effects as it will support the expansion of existing facilities as well as the provision of new ones in these settlements. There is also an element of uncertainty as the level of provision in terms of community services/facilities is not known; however, given the level of proposed growth it is predicted to be of significance. The significance of the positive effect is likely to differ for each settlement and will be dependent on the precise location of development and provision of new community services/facilities.
It should be noted that the Spatial Distribution Update Report98 (July 2015) concluded that although there are spatial variations in the existing capacity of essential services such as schools and health facilities, there are no major issues identified for any one settlement. 8. Manage the causes and effects of climate The policy has the potential to negatively affect this SA Objective through increased - ? change. atmospheric pollution (as a result of increased traffic and road users) and an increase in energy supply and demand (relating to energy from unsustainable sources both in construction and operation). Development has the potential to incorporate energy and efficiency measures as well as renewable or low carbon energy (Submission Local Plan Policy SE 9), which will help to mitigate significant negative effects as a result of increased energy supply and demand.
98 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Spatial Distribution Update - Draft Final Report. Prepared by AECOM.
July 2015 19/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Evidence suggests that commerce and industry as well as road transport are the main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in the borough.99 The Spatial Distribution Update Report100 (July 2015) summarised the findings of highway modelling carried out by the Council. It concluded that there are existing congestion issues on the highways network throughout Cheshire East and that these would be exacerbated wherever development occurs. The main issues relate to increased pressure on junctions along the key routes into town centres and linking to the strategic road network (for example at Junction 16 and 17 if the M6). It concludes that despite mitigation measures being implemented, it is likely that increased development in both the north and the south of the Borough could have local and wider implications for the highways network. It should be noted that detailed traffic modelling has not be undertaken for all the Key Service Centres and for any of the Local Service Centres or other settlements/ rural areas.
Ultimately the significance of the effect will be dependent on the precise location of development and extent of mitigation measures provided. Taking the above into account, along with the mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level, it is considered that there is the potential for residual minor medium to long-term negative effects against this SA Objective, with an element of uncertainty in recognition of the gaps with regard to detailed modelling. In the longer-term it is likely that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles will reduce as a result of stringent emissions controls on new vehicles via Euro standards but this is uncertain at this stage. 9. Positively address the issues of water quality Submission LPS Policy SD 2 expects all development to be water efficient and Policy / ? and quantity and manage flood risk within the SE 13 ensures that new development incorporates water efficiency measures. It is Borough. therefore assumed that there is the potential to incorporate water efficiency measures as part of development proposed through this policy.
99 UK local authority and regional carbon dioxide emissions national statistics: 2005-2012. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local- authority-emissions-estimates 100 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Spatial Distribution Update - Draft Final Report. Prepared by AECOM.
July 2015 20/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Taking this into account along with current evidence that suggests that there are not likely to be any significant issues with regard to water resources in the future101, it is considered that the policy will have a residual neutral effect in relation to water resources. However, in recognition of the potential for changes to arise in the future there is also an element of uncertainty.
Submission LPS Policy SE 13 requires development to avoid adverse impacts on water quality by ensuring that it includes appropriate sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and Green Infrastructure to store, convey and treat surface water prior to discharge with the aim of achieving a reduction in the existing runoff rate. The policy also states that it is not sustainable to dispose of surface water via the public sewer systems; applicants seeking to drain to the public sewers must demonstrate there are no other more sustainable viable options. Where water infrastructure capacity is an issue, all major development must demonstrate that there is adequate infrastructure in place to serve the development. The policy also ensures that any new development must enhance and protect water quality and comply with the Water Framework Directive to ensure that development does not cause a deterioration in the status of inland waters, unless suitable mitigation measures are in place.
Mitigation provided through Submission Local Plan Policy SE 13 and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects on water quality as a result of development proposed and there is no evidence to suggest that there is a particular issue with regard to Wastewater Treatment Capacity. Potential for a residual neutral effect against this SA Objective with regard to water quality.
In accordance with the NPPF, Submission LPS Policy SE 13 ensures that proposed development must minimise flood risk by ensuring that it follows the sequential approach, is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment, seeks improvements to the surface water drainage network and does not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere. It is considered that suitable mitigation is provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level to ensure that there are no significant negative effects in relation to flooding. Therefore, residual neutral effect in relation to flooding.
101 United Utilities (March 2015) Final Water Resources Management Plan.
July 2015 21/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
10. Manage the impacts of development and Development proposed is likely to increase pollution in both the short (construction) - ? associated activities to positively address all and long-term (operation and decommissioning). It is considered that there is forms of pollution. sufficient mitigation provided through Submission LPS Policies and available at the project level to ensure that any significant negative effects are addressed with residual long-term neutral effects. Submission Local Plan Policy SE 12 seeks to ensure that all development is located and designed so as not to result in a harmful or cumulative impacts on the natural and built environment as a result of pollution. The policy expects developers to minimise pollution arising during both the construction and the life of the development and development will not be permitted where adequate mitigation cannot be provided.
There are 13 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within the Borough where national air quality objectives are not being met102. There are three AQMAs in both Crewe and Congleton and individual AQMAs in Sandbach, Nantwich, Mere, Disley, Macclesfield and Knutsford. The final AQMA is located on a short stretch of the M6 between junctions 18 and 19. Development proposed in and around these areas could potential increase traffic and therefore atmospheric emissions in the existing AQMAs. There is also the potential for increased traffic and atmospheric emissions to result in the requirement to designate more areas as AQMAs. Given that air quality is an existing issue within the Borough and it is predicted that there will be residual negative effects with regard to traffic (SA Objective 8), it is considered that there is also the potential for residual minor long-term negative effect against this SA Objective through increased atmospheric emissions. Improving access to sustainable transport modes as well as the links between rural areas/Local Service Centres and Principal Towns/Key Service Centres will be important in helping to reduce the significance of the residual negative effect. 11. Protect and enhance biodiversity, habitats, The HRA of the suggested revisions, which includes the increase to the overall level of - ? geodiversity and important geological features; growth and changes to the spatial distribution within this policy, concluded that they with particular care to sites designated are unlikely to result in any significant effects on European sites not already identified internationally, nationally, regionally and and assessed during the HRA process of the LPS strategy to date. The Final HRA locally. Report (Feb 2014) concluded that the existing policies and provisions in the Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are
102 http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/environment/environmental_health/local_air_quality/review_and_assessment/aqma_area_maps.aspx
July 2015 22/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
avoided.
There are a number of SSSIs within the borough and some of these are in close proximity to some of the Key Service Centres including Crewe, Sandbach, Congleton, Knutsford and Macclesfield. There are also a number of SSSIs adjacent to or close to a number of the Local Service Centres. The nature and significance of effects will ultimately dependent on the precise location of development. Given the protection afforded to SSSIs through national policy and the mitigation provided through LPS policies, it is considered unlikely that the policy will have significant negative effects on nationally designated sites. LPS Policy SE 3 does not permit any development proposals that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on international or national designations.
There are a number of Local Wildlife sites throughout the Borough, with the north containing a greater concentration of these sites. The majority of these sites lie within the rural areas; however, there are numerous Local Wildlife Sites that are within, adjacent to and in close proximity to the main settlements (Principle Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres). The policy directs development to some of these areas; however, the precise location of development is not known.
Ultimately, the nature and significance of the effects will be dependent on the precise location of development. The Council should seek to avoid designated areas when identifying site allocations. A key challenge for the Local Plan will be trying to ensure that ecological connectivity and networks are maintained and improved where possible. 12. Protect and enhance the quality, integrity This SA Objective considers two key sustainability topics and therefore two symbols - - and distinctiveness of the area’s heritage, are provided to represent each topic. The first symbol relates to landscape and the ? ? landscapes and townscapes, in particular second heritage. those that are internationally, nationally or locally designated. A small proportion of the borough in the north east falls within the Peak District National Park, which is described in the Submission Local Plan as an asset of national, regional and local importance. One of the statutory purposes of the national park designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural
July 2015 23/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
heritage. There are 9 Local Landscape Designations (LLD) within the borough, 4 are situated in the south adjacent to the plan boundary and 5 in the north.103 LLDs play an important role in protecting and enhancing landscapes which are of particular value in the context of the local authority area.
The Peak District National Park is situated to the east of Macclesfield. There is a LLD (Peak Park Fringe) adjacent to the east of Macclesfield that runs along the entire boundary of the National Park separating it from the rest of the plan area. Development to the east of Macclesfield therefore has the potential for indirect negative impacts on the National Park by affecting its setting as well as direct impacts on the Local Landscape Designation itself. Development to the west and north west of Macclesfield also has the potential for negative effects on the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation.
There are two LLDs that lie adjacent to Congleton, the Peak Park Fringe LLD to the south east and the Dane Valle LLD to the north west. There are also two LLDs that lie adjacent to Knutsford, the Rostherne/Tatton Park LLD to the north and the Tabley Hall LLD to the south west.
Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, such as Policies SE 4 and SE 15, and available at the project level are considered likely to provide suitable mitigation to address significant negative effects. However, taking a precautionary approach, it is still considered likely that the policy would result in residual long-term minor negative effects. Ultimately, the significance of the effect will be dependent on the precise location, scale and design/layout of development.
The nature and significance of effects on the historic environment are closely linked to impacts on the landscape. There are a number of nationally (Scheduled Monument, Registered Park & Garden and Listed Building) and locally designated heritage assets (Conservation Area) within the borough. As for the landscape, the nature and significance of effects on heritage assets will be dependent on the precise location of development.
103 Cheshire East Council (May 2013) Cheshire East: Local Landscape Designations – Draft Report. Prepared by LUC.
July 2015 24/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies, such as Policy SE 7, and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any major negative effects on heritage assets; however, there is an element of uncertainty at this stage until the precise location of development is known. To reflect the findings of the appraisal for landscape, it is considered that there is the potential for residual minor negative effects for this policy on the setting of heritage assets.
13. Minimise energy use, promote energy In line with Submission Local Plan Policy SE 9, proposed development has the / ? efficiency and high quality design, and potential to incorporate energy and efficiency measures as well as renewable or low increase the generation of energy from carbon energy. It is therefore considered that the policy is likely to have a neutral renewable resources. effect against this SA Objective; however, it is recognised that there is still an element of uncertainty which is dependent on implementation. 14. Achieve sustainable waste management Development proposed in the policy will increase waste in the short (construction) / through adhering to the principles of the waste and long-term (operation and decommissioning). Submission LPS Policy SD 1 seeks hierarchy. the provision of appropriate infrastructure to meet the needs of the local community which includes waste. Policy SD 2 expects development to minimise waste and Policy SE 1 seeks to ensure that adequate provision of waste storage as part of any development.
It is considered that there is sufficient mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level to ensure any significant negative effects are addressed with a neutral residual effect against this SA Objective. 15. Manage mineral extraction and encourage Development proposed through the policy will result in the use of primary aggregates ? their recycling/re-use to provide a sufficient for building and infrastructure; however, there is the potential to maximise the use of supply to meet social and economic needs secondary aggregates as well as use sustainable construction techniques where whilst minimising impacts on the environment possible. and communities and safeguarding resources for future generations. The spatial distribution of growth proposed though this policy is most likely to affect this SA Objective through the sterilisation of mineral resources as there are a number of mineral safeguarded areas within the Borough. These are spread across Cheshire East, predominantly in rural areas; however, there are some safeguarded areas adjacent to the Principal Towns and Key Service Centres. The nature and significance of the effect will ultimately be dependent on the precise location of development. At this stage, it is considered that there is an uncertain effect until the precise location of development is known. 16. Reduce the consumption of natural The use of water and mineral resources are addressed against SA Objectives 9 & 15; - ?
July 2015 25/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 resources, protect and enhance green therefore, the nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective will infrastructure and high quality agricultural land primarily relate to the potential loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land. and optimise the re-use of previously developed land, buildings and infrastructure. The policy has the potential to result in the permanent loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land to accommodate development. However, the nature and significance of the effect against this SA Objective is ultimately dependent on the precise location of development. It is acknowledged that development has the potential to provide green infrastructure and improve it; however, at this stage this is uncertain and it is considered more likely that the policy will result in the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and is predicted to result in the loss of Green Belt land.
There is best and most versatile agricultural land situated to the south of Crewe, surrounding Congleton as well as within and adjacent to Sandbach. There is also best and most versatile agricultural land situated adjacent to some of the Local Service Centres as well as in the rural areas. The LPS should seek to avoid allocating development in these areas where possible.
Cheshire East has around 400 square kilometres of land designated as Green Belt, located in the northern and south eastern parts of the borough. The area of the Green Belt in the south of the borough lies to the south east of Congleton and Alsager.
At this stage it is difficult to determine the significance of the negative effect as the precise location of development is not known. It is therefore considered that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against this SA Objective, with an element of uncertainty until the precise location of development is known. 17. To promote a sustainable, competitive and The proposed distribution of 380 ha of new employment land will help to improve ++ ? low-carbon economy that benefits from a access to jobs as well as promote economic diversity in the urban and rural areas of range of innovative and diverse businesses in the borough.
July 2015 26/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 both urban and rural areas. Updated evidence in relation to the need104 and balance105 of housing and employment provision indicates that an increased level of employment growth will is necessary in the northern settlements than previously proposed in the Submission LPS. This policy reflects the updated evidence and seeks to address this issue.
There is an element of uncertainty as the precise location and type of employment is not known at this stage. In terms of promoting a low-carbon economy, this is dependent on a number of factors, including where the employment land is focused and how it is delivered alongside improvements to community and transport infrastructure. Potential for a major long-term positive effect, with an element of uncertainty. 18. To maintain and enhance the vitality and The policy has the potential for a positive effect against this SA Objective by directing + ? viability of town and village centres with a new housing and employment in line with Policy PG 2, which will help to support the balanced provision of retail, leisure, visitor and vitality and viability of the towns and village centres. The significance of the positive cultural facilities. effect will vary for each of the settlements depending on the level of growth proposed there and associated provision of services/facilities. There are a number of uncertainties at this stage including the precise location of development as well as the level provision in terms of retail, leisure, visitor and cultural facilities. Overall, it is considered that the policy will have minor long-term positive effects. 19. Positively manage the Borough's diverse The provision of 69 ha of new employment land in the other settlements and rural + rural economy. areas has the potential for a long-term positive effect against this SA Objective. It should be noted that the majority of new employment land (61 ha) will be provided at the Employment Improvement Area at Wardle. This means that 8 ha of employment land will be distributed throughout the other settlements and rural areas. It is considered that if a greater proportion of the new employment land was being distributed through the other settlements and rural area there would be a greater likelihood for significant positive effects against this SA Objective. Potential for a minor long-term positive effect. 20. Improve access to education and training, The policy has the potential to increase pressure on existing as well as support existing + ? and the links between these resources and education and training facilities in the Principal Towns, Key Service Centres, Local employment opportunities. Service Centres and rural areas. Overall, it is considered that proposed development is likely to have long term positive effects as it will support the expansion of existing
104 Cheshire East Council (June 2015) Cheshire East Housing Development Study 2015 - Report of Findings. Prepared by Opinion Research Services. 105 Cheshire East Council (May 2015) Alignment of Economic, Employment & Housing Strategy – Draft Final Report for Technical Workshop. Prepared by Ekosgen.
July 2015 27/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1
facilities as well as the provision of new ones. The policy also has the potential to help improve the links between these facilities and areas of employment through associated improvements to sustainable transport modes; however, at this stage this is uncertain.
Improving access to sustainable transport modes as well as the links between rural areas/Local Service Centres and Principal Towns/Key Service Centres will be important in helping to enhance positive effects.
Summary Findings:
In line with Policy PG 2 (Settlement Hierarchy) the policy sets out the distribution of the overall level of housing and employment growth during the life of the plan identified in Policy PG 1. The appraisal found that the policy has the potential for major long-term positive effects on SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing, sustainable communities; community facilities/services and the economy through the distribution of 36,000 new dwellings and 380 ha between the Principal Towns, Key Service Centres, Local Service Centres and other settlements and rural areas. This will help to ensure that the housing and employment needs of communities in and surrounding these areas are being met. Updated evidence indicates that there is a shortage of housing opportunities in the north of the borough, particularly those suitable for young families in Poynton106. It also suggests that there is high house prices and low affordability of market housing in Knutsford as well as above average levels of overcrowding in Handforth. The provision of 650 new dwellings in Poynton, 950 new dwellings in Knutsford and 2,200 new dwellings in Handforth will help to address these issues.
The appraisal also found that there is the potential for indirect minor long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives through the associated provision of transport infrastructure and community services/facilities. There is some uncertainty in relation to this as the precise location and overall level of provision is unknown at this stage.
The significance of the effect of positive effects will vary for each settlement or area depending on the precise location and scale of development along with existing provision in terms of sustainable transport modes and community services/facilities. Improving access to sustainable transport modes as well as the links between rural areas/Local Service Centres and Principal Towns/Key Service Centres will be important in helping to enhance positive effects against SA Objectives.
The appraisal also found that there is also the potential for negative effects against a number of SA Objectives. Given the level of proposed growth it is likely that proposed development will exacerbate existing congestion issues on the highways network throughout Cheshire East. Mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level will help to reduce the potential significance of the negative effect
106 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Spatial Distribution Update - Draft Final Report. Prepared by AECOM.
July 2015 28/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 but it is predicted that there is still likely to be a minor residual long-term negative effect against SA Objective 8 (climate change). In the longer- term it is likely that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles will reduce as a result of stringent emissions controls on new vehicles via Euro standards but this is uncertain at this stage. Taking this into account it was also considered that there is the potential for minor residual long-term negative effects against SA Objective 10 through increased atmospheric emissions, as there are already 13 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within the Borough. There are three AQMAs in both Crewe and Congleton and individual AQMAs in Sandbach, Nantwich, Mere, Disley, Macclesfield and Knutsford. The final AQMA is located on a short stretch of the M6 between junctions 18 and 19. Development proposed in and around these areas could potential increase traffic and therefore atmospheric emissions in the existing AQMAs.
The appraisal also found that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect on the SA Objective relating to biodiversity. There are a number of SSSIs within the borough and some of these are in close proximity to some of the Key Service Centres including Crewe, Sandbach, Congleton, Knutsford and Macclesfield. There are also a number of SSSIs adjacent to or close to a number of the Local Service Centres. Given the protection afforded to SSSIs through national policy and the mitigation provided through LPS policies, it is considered unlikely that the policy will have significant negative effects on nationally designated sites. LPS Policy SE 3 does not permit any development proposals that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on international or national designations. The HRA of the suggested revisions, which includes the increase to the overall level of growth and changes to the spatial distribution within this policy, concluded that they are unlikely to result in any significant effects on European sites not already identified and assessed during the HRA process of the LPS strategy to date.
It is also important to note that there are a number of Local Wildlife sites throughout the Borough, with the north containing a greater concentration of these sites. The majority of these sites lie within the rural areas; however, there are numerous Local Wildlife Sites that are within, adjacent to and in close proximity to the main settlements (Principle Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres). Ultimately, the nature and significance of the effects on biodiversity will be dependent on the precise location of development. The Council should seek to avoid designated areas when identifying site allocations. A key challenge for the Local Plan will be trying to ensure that ecological connectivity and networks are maintained and improved where possible.
The appraisal also identified that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effects on landscape and heritage (SA Objective 12). A small proportion of the borough in the north east falls within the Peak District National Park, which is described in the Submission Local Plan as an asset of national, regional and local importance. One of the statutory purposes of the national park designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. There are 9 Local Landscape Designations (LLD) within the borough, 4 are situated in the south adjacent to the plan boundary and 5 in the north.107 LLDs play an important role in protecting and enhancing landscapes which are of particular value in the context of the local authority area. There are a number of nationally (Scheduled Monument, Registered Park & Garden and Listed Building) and locally designated heritage assets (Conservation Area) within the Borough.
Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, such as Policies SE 4, SE 7, SE 15, and available at the project level are considered likely to
107 Cheshire East Council (May 2013) Cheshire East: Local Landscape Designations – Draft Report. Prepared by LUC.
July 2015 29/30 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Suggested Revisions to Strategic & DM Policies Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 1 provide suitable mitigation to address significant negative effects. However, taking a precautionary approach, it is still considered likely that all the policy would result in residual long-term minor negative effects on landscape and heritage. Ultimately, the significance of the effect will be dependent on the precise location, scale and design/layout of development.
The appraisal also found that the policy has the potential to result in the permanent loss of Green Belt, greenfield and agricultural land to accommodate development. However, the nature and significance of the effect against SA Objective 16 is ultimately dependent on the precise location of development. The LPS should seek to avoid allocating development in these areas where possible. At this stage it is difficult to determine the significance of the negative effect as the precise location of development is not known. It is therefore considered that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16, with an element of uncertainty until the precise location of development is known.
July 2015 30/30 Enfusion
Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes for Local Plan Strategy Sites and Strategic Location
Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
February 2016
Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes for Local Plan Strategy Sites and Strategic Locations
Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
February 2016
Treenwood House Rowden Lane Bradford on Avon BA15 2AU t: 01225 867112 www.enfusion.co.uk
Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Sustainability (Integrated Appraisal) Addendum Report Volume 2
Contents Page Numbers 1.0 Introduction 5 Background 5 Purpose and Structure of this SA Addendum Report 8
2.0 SA Method 10 Introduction 10 Approach and Method 10 Accessibility Assessment 33
3.0 SA of Alternatives 35 Introduction 35 Assessment of Alternatives in SA/SEA 35 Assessment of Options in Plan-Making 38 SA Findings and Reasons for Selecting/Rejecting Alternatives in 39 the Local Plan Strategy
4.0 SA of Proposed Changes to Site Allocation Policies (Chapter 15) 88 Introduction 88 SA of Proposed Changes to Site Allocation Policies 88 Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) 111 Health Impact Assessment (HIA) 111 Habitats Regulations Assessment 111
5.0 Summary and Next Steps 113
Tables:
1.1 Local Plan Strategy and SA published documents to date 5 2.1: Refined SA Framework for the Fresh SA of Reasonable Site Options 12 2.2: Refined Significance Key 32 3.1: Summary of Options for the Distribution of Safeguarded Land 39 3.2: Summary of SA Findings for Safeguarded Land Distribution Options 40 3.3: Summary of Approach to Alternatives Assessment and Selection for 42 Safeguarded Land Distribution Options
Figures:
3.1: Hierarchy of Alternatives in SA/SEA and Options in Plan-Making 36 3.2: Key Stages in the Site Selection Process 46
Appendices (Available separately)
I SA of Distribution Options for Safeguarded Land II Accessibility Assessment
February 2016 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
III Fresh SA of Site Options IV Reasons for the Progression or Rejection of Site Options in Plan- Making
February 2016 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
1.0 Introduction
Background
1.1 Cheshire East Council (CEC) has been undertaking Sustainability Appraisal (SA) incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) since 2009 to inform the preparation of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (LPS). The SA and LPS progress to date may be summarised as follows:
Table 1.1: Local Plan Strategy and SA published documents to date Local Plan Strategy Documents & SA Documents & Consultation Consultation
SA Scoping Report (April 2009) Prepared by CEC Public consultation 27 April to 1 June 2009 Evidence gathering and consultation exercises SA Scoping Report (Sept 2009) Prepared by CEC Incorporated changes as a result of previous consultation
SA Report (Nov 2010) Issues and Options Paper Prepared by CEC Public consultation 8 November to Public consultation 8 November to 20 20 December 2010 December 2010
Revised Scoping Report (March 2012) Considering representations on Issues Prepared by CEC and Options and developing policies Public consultation 2 March to 10 April 2012
Revised Scoping Report (Sept 2012) Prepared by CEC
Incorporated changes as a result of previous consultation
Draft Alsager TS SA Report (originally published March 2012 then revised in Aug 2012) Draft Congleton TS SA Report (March 2012) Draft Middlewich TS SA Report (originally Town Strategy Phase 1 Consultations published March 2012 then revised in Aug (Alsager, Congleton, Middlewich 2012) and Sandbach) Draft Sandbach TS SA Report (originally 2 March and 2 April 2012 published March 2012 then revised in Aug 2012) All reports prepared by CEC Public consultation 2 March and 2 April 2012
Town Strategy Phase 2 Consultation Draft Wilmslow TS SA Report (Wilmslow) Prepared by CEC 1 April 2012 until 31 May 2012 Public consultation 3 May to 31 May 2012
Town Strategy Phase 3 Consultations Draft Crewe, Macclesfield, Nantwich, (Crewe, Macclesfield, Nantwich, Knutsford, Poynton, and Handforth TS SA Knutsford, Poynton, and Handforth) Reports
February 2016 5/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
31 August and 1 October 2012 All reports prepared by CEC Public consultation 31 August and 1 October 2012
Development Strategy and Policy SA Report (Jan 2013) Principles Prepared by CEC Public consultation 15 January to 26 Public consultation 15 January to 26 February February 2013 2013
Possible Additional Sites Consultation Purpose was to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on possible additional sites without any analysis or judgment from the Council 3 to 30 May 2013
Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Report (Nov 2013) Pre-Submission Local Plan Core Prepared by CEC with specialist independent Strategy advice from Enfusion 5 November to 16 December 2013 Public consultation 5 November to 16 December 2013
Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Report Local Plan Strategy Submission (March 2014) Version Prepared by CEC with specialist independent 14 March to 25 April 2014 advice from Enfusion Public consultation 14 March to 25 April 2014
Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Report (May 2014) Local Plan Strategy Submission Prepared by CEC with specialist independent Submitted to the Secretary of State advice from Enfusion 20 May 2014 Submitted to the Secretary of State 20 May 2014 to accompany the Local Plan Strategy
Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal including suggested revisions to Addendum Report (July 2015) Chapter 8 of the LPS (Planning for Prepared by Enfusion Growth) Appendix 11 of the LPS Cabinet Report Submitted to the Inspector 31 July Submitted to the Inspector 31 July 2015 2015
Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Local Plan Suggested Revisions Addendum Report (September 2015) Submitted to the Inspector Prepared by Enfusion September 2015 Submitted to the Inspector September 2015
Local Plan Proposed Changes for Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Strategic and Development Addendum Report Volume 1 (February 2016) Management Policies Prepared by Enfusion Public consultation 4 March to 19 Public consultation 4 March to 19 April 2016 April 2016 (provisional dates) (provisional dates)
Local Plan Proposed Changes for Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal
February 2016 6/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Local Plan Strategy Sites and Addendum Report Volume 2 (February 2016) Strategic Locations Prepared by Enfusion Public consultation 4 March to 19 Public consultation 4 March to 19 April 2016 April 2016 (provisional dates) (provisional dates)
1.2 The LPS and all associated documents, including the SA Report, were submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 20 May 2014 for independent examination. Hearing sessions were held from 16 September to 3 October 2014 with the Inspector deferring the remaining sessions to allow the consideration of the large volume of statements and material submitted in relation to the strategic sites and allocations1. Following the adjournment of the hearing sessions on 3 October 2014 the Inspector informed the Council that he would be providing interim views on the legal compliance and soundness of the submitted plan2.
1.3 The Inspector’s interim views were confirmed on 6 November 20143 and found that on the basis of the evidence submitted so far, he would probably conclude that the submitted Plan was unsound due to shortcomings in the proposed strategy and evidence base, including the economic and housing strategies, the relationship between them and the objective assessment of housing need, the spatial distribution of development and the approach to the Green Belt and Safeguarded Land4. In response to this, the Council formally requested that the Inspector suspend the examination for a six- month period to allow additional work to be undertaken to address the issues outlined in his interim views.
1.4 Following the suspension of the Examination the Council has undertaken a range of further technical work to address the Inspector’s concerns, which includes work on the overall level of housing and employment growth, spatial distribution of development and sites. In February 2015 the Council commissioned Enfusion Ltd to provide specialist, independent services to undertake any further SA work required during the suspension of the Examination.
1.5 The further technical evidence produced by the Council and further SA work carried out during the suspension have informed the development of Proposed Changes to the LPS. The Council submitted the further evidence and draft suggested revisions to the Inspector for the Planning for Growth policies (Chapter 8) on 31 July 2015 and this was accompanied by a SA Addendum Report (July 2015) [PS E042]. The information submitted also comprised further evidence in relation to sites in support of the LPS; this included a Site Selection Methodology (SSM) flow diagram [PS E040] and the completion of additional work, including the Urban Potential Assessment (UPA) and Edge of Settlement Assessment (ESA) [PS E039].
1 [PS A014] Inspector's Announcement at the Close of Hearing Sessions on Friday 3 October 2014 2 [PS A015] Letter from Inspector to Council re Examination Progress 3 [PS B033] Letter from Council to Inspector re Examination Progress 4 [PS A017b] Inspector’s Interim Views
February 2016 7/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
1.6 Following receipt of the further evidence the Inspector confirmed that he was prepared to formally resume the Examination in August 20155. The Council submitted further draft suggested revisions to the Inspector for the remaining strategic and development management policies (Chapters 9 to 14) in September 2015. The previous SA Addendum Report published in July 2015 was updated to include consideration of the further draft suggested revisions to policies in Chapters 9 to 14. The updated SA Addendum Report (September 2015) [RE B006] was submitted to the Inspector alongside the draft suggested revisions in September 2015.
1.7 Resumed hearing sessions were held between 21 and 30 October 2015 to review the additional evidence produced during the suspension, which included discussion on the UPA, ESA and SSM (Matter 5). The Inspector’s Further Interim Views on the additional evidence were published in December 20156, which found that the nature, scope and approach of the additional evidence has largely met the concerns set out in his earlier Interim Views (Nov 2014).
1.8 Since the resumed hearing sessions in October 2015, the Council has continued to progress the further evidence in relation to sites, which includes the SSM. The Council’s proposed site selection process and method is explained in further detail within the Site Selection Report (Feb 2016)7. This SA Addendum Report considers potential site options and Proposed Changes to sites and strategic location policies in the LPS.
1.9 It should be noted that the further SA work carried out during the suspension of the Examination is presented in two separate Volumes: . Volume 1 (available separately) - considers the further technical work and Proposed Changes to the Strategic and Development Management Policies (Chapters 8 to 14) in the LPS. . Volume 2 (this Report) considers the further technical work and Proposed Changes to Sites and Strategic Location Policies (Chapter 15) in the LPS.
1.10 Both Volumes are available for comment alongside the Proposed Changes to the LPS.
Purpose and Structure of this SA Addendum Report
1.11 The purpose of this SA Addendum Report (Volume 2) is to clearly set out the method and findings of any further SA work carried out in relation site options as well Proposed Changes to site and strategic location policies (Chapter 15) in the LPS. Following this introductory Section 1, this report is structured into four further sections:
5 [PS A037] Letter from Inspector to Council re Resumption of Examination 6 [RE A021 Inspector’s Further Interim Views December 2015: http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/sub1 7 CEC (Feb 2016) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Site Selection Report: http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/library
February 2016 8/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. Section 2 explains the approach taken and details the methods used for any further SA work; . Section 3 sets out the history of the SA of alternatives and options assessment to date for sites. It provides a summary of the findings of the fresh and independent appraisal of site options and sets out the reasons for their selection or rejection in plan-making; . Section 4 considers the proposed changes to the Local Plan Strategy and how these affect the findings of the previous SA work; and . Section 5 sets out the overall summary findings and next steps for the Local Plan Strategy and the SA.
February 2016 9/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
2.0 SA Method
Introduction
2.1 Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment is an iterative and ongoing process that aims to provide a high level of protection for the environment and to promote sustainable development for plan- making. The SA evaluates the likely significant effects of the plan, including reasonable alternatives, and taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan. The role of SA is to inform the Council as the planning authority; the SA findings do not form the sole basis for decision- making - this is informed also by other studies, feasibility and feedback from consultation. There is a tiering of appraisal/assessment processes (see also later Figure 3.1) that align with the hierarchy of plans - from international, national and through to local. This tiering is acknowledged by the NPPF (2012) in paragraph 167 that states that “Assessments should be proportionate and should not repeat policy assessment that has already been undertaken.” SEA sets the context for subsequent project level studies during Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for major development projects.
2.2 It should be noted that it is not always possible to accurately predict sustainability effects when considering plans at a strategic scale. Impacts on biodiversity and cultural heritage, for example, will depend on more detailed information and studies at a site-level. Whilst climate change science is becoming more accurate, it is difficult to predict impacts likely to result from climate change, including cumulative and synergistic effects.
2.3 The method and approach for the SA was previously reported in Sections 2 and 3 of the SA Report [SD 003] submitted alongside the LPS to the Secretary of State for Examination in May 20148. This explained the scoping of the SA Framework of objectives and decision-aiding questions, how they developed and were amended to reflect updated evidence, and how they were used for the appraisal of the emerging plan at different stages.
2.4 In February 2015, the Council commissioned Enfusion Ltd to provide specialist, independent services to undertake any further SA work required during the suspension of the Examination. This section sets out the method and approach for the additional SA work in relation to site options and policies that has been carried out during the suspension period of the LPS.
Approach and Method
2.5 To take account of the further technical work carried out by the Council, which includes Urban Potential Assessment (UPA) and Edge of Settlement Assessment (ESA), as well as representations received on the SA process and at the examination hearing - it was considered appropriate to undertake a
8 Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal (May 2014) [SD 003]
February 2016 10/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
fresh SA of all reasonable site options to help inform the Council’s further consideration of sites during the suspension of the Examination. A fresh SA of all reasonable site options ensures that the updated evidence is reflected and that an independent and consistent appraisal of all reasonable site options has been carried out.
2.6 The SA Framework presented in Section 3 (Table 3.2) of the Submission SA Report [SD 003], continued to form the basis for the fresh SA of site options carried out during the suspension of the Examination. Enfusion worked closely with the Council in 2015 to develop standards and thresholds to determine the nature and significance of effects for site options against the SA Framework. The refined SA Framework ensures that a consistent appraisal has been carried out for all reasonable site options and that the justification for the nature and significance of effects is as clear as possible for the reader. Any assumptions/ uncertainties or standards/ thresholds used to determine the nature and significance of effects against SA Objectives for the fresh SA of reasonable site options are presented in Table 2.1 below.
February 2016 11/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Table 2.1: Refined SA Framework for the Fresh SA of Reasonable Site Options SA Framework Fresh SA of Reasonable Site Options SA Objective Appraisal Rationale Significance criteria, including any assumptions, uncertainties standards and thresholds for SA 1 Provide an Will it provide an SA Objective 1 primarily relates to the provision Site option has the potential to appropriate appropriate quantity of an appropriate quantity and quality of ++ accommodate a significant quantity and and quality of housing? housing to meet the needs of the Borough. It is level of residential development quality of housing Will it provide an assumed that development at any of the sites (equal to or more than 500 to meet the needs appropriate mix of could be delivered to a high quality in dwellings). of the Borough. This housing types and accordance with Local Plan Policy SE 1 should include a tenures? (Design). Site option has the potential to + mix of housing Will it deliver sufficient accommodate residential types, tenures and affordable and low cost It also assumed that development at any of development (less than 500 affordability. housing? the sites could provide an appropriate mix of dwellings). housing types and tenures in accordance with Local Plan Policy SC 4 as well as meet the If no housing is being proposed affordable housing requirements set out in / as part of development, as it is Policy SC 5. an employment site, then it is considered to have a neutral The nature and significance of the effect effect against this SA Objective. against this SA Objective will relate to the potential capacity of the site to accommodate ? Capacity of the site to residential development. accommodate residential development is unknown.
- Not applicable.
-- Not applicable.
February 2016 12/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
2 Create sustainable Will it provide good In line with Local Plan policies IN 1 & 2, it is ++ The site meets the minimum communities that opportunities to access assumed that any proposal for development distance standard for all benefit from good facilities and services? can make appropriate and timely provision for services/ facilities considered
access to jobs, Will it provide good necessary supporting infrastructure, including within the Accessibility services, facilities opportunities to access health, green infrastructure and other Assessment. and sustainable various forms of public community facilities and services. + The site meets the majority forms of transport, transport? (equal to or more than 11) of including walking, Will it provide good Informed by the Accessibility Assessment, the minimum distance standards for cycling and public opportunities to access nature and significance of the effect against services/ facilities considered transport. open space? this SA Objective will relate to the distance of within the Accessibility Will it provide good the site from existing services/ facilities. Assessment. opportunities to access jobs? / A neutral effect is not considered possible.
? An uncertain effect is not considered possible.
- The site fails the majority (equal or more than 11) of minimum distance standards for
services/facilities considered within the Accessibility Assessment. -- The site fails to meet the minimum distance standard for all services/facilities considered within the Accessibility Assessment.
February 2016 13/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3 Consider the needs Will it increase equality? This SA Objective is linked to a number of N/A Not applicable. of all sections of Will it increase social topics/ issues that are already being the community in inclusion? considered against other SA Objectives, such order to achieve Will it create a cohesive as accessibility to services and facilities (SA high levels of community? Objective 2) and provision of housing (SA equality, diversity Will it reduce poverty? Objective 1). and social Will it address issues of inclusion. the ageing population? It is therefore considered that this SA Objective Will it result in a better should be scoped out from the appraisal of site quality of life for all? options. 4 Create an Will it improve human This SA Objective addresses two separate issues ++ A major positive effect is not environment that health? relating to health, the first being conflicting considered possible. promotes healthy Will it reduce the number neighbouring land uses and the second
and active of long term illnesses? accessibility to existing pedestrian routes. lifestyles. Will it reduce smoking, + Development at the site could alcohol use and obesity? 4 a) It is assumed that development at any of address an existing amenity Will it create a healthy the site options has the potential for short-term issue for neighbouring land uses.
environment with good minor negative effects arising during the opportunities to access construction phase, and that suitable / Development at the site is not facilities that encourage mitigation exists to ensure that these do not likely to be affected by any an active lifestyle? result in significant long-term negative effects conflicting neighbouring land
on health and well-being. uses, or could affect the amenity of a sensitive It is assumed that there is the potential for neighbouring land use. development at all the site options to have Potential for a residual neutral indirect long-term positive effects on health effect if there is suitable through the provision of housing or mitigation available to address employment by helping to meet the needs of minor negative effects. the Plan area. An element of uncertainty exists
? until more detailed site level assessments have been undertaken. - Development at the site could potentially be affected by
February 2016 14/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
neighbouring land uses and/or could affect the amenity of a sensitive neighbouring land use. -- Development at the site could potentially be significantly affected by neighbouring land
uses and/or could significantly affect the amenity a sensitive neighbouring land use. This SA Objective addresses two separate ++ The site is within 200m of a issues, the first related to conflicting promoted footpath and 1km of neighbouring land uses and the second a promoted cycling route and/
accessibility to existing pedestrian routes or provides an opportunity to (promoted walking and cycling routes). enhance the pedestrian network that could not be 4 b) In line with Local Plan Policies IN 1 & 2, it is delivered through an assumed that any proposal for development alternative site. can make appropriate and timely provision for + The site is within 200m of a necessary supporting infrastructure, including promoted footpath or 1km of a health facilities and services as well as promoted cycling route. improvements to walking and cycling routes.
/ A neutral effect is not The nature and significance of the effects considered possible. against this SA Objective will primarily relate to access to promoted walking and cycling routes. These are considered to be of greater ? There is some uncertainty with significance than Public Rights of Way. regard to accessibility to
promoted walking/cycling
routes. - The site is not within 200m of a promoted footpath or 1km of a promoted cycling route;
however, there are potential
February 2016 15/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
barriers to movement (i.e. steep topography). -- The site is not within 200m of a promoted footpath and 1km of a promoted cycling route.
5 Maintain and/or Will it contribute to a This SA Objective is linked to a number of N/A Not applicable. create vibrant rural vibrant rural community? topics/ issues that are already being communities. Will it make sure that the considered against other SA Objectives, such rural environment - built as accessibility to services and facilities (SA and natural, is Objective 2) as well as the provision of housing maintained or (SA Objective 1) and employment (SA enhanced? Objective 17). Will it create a cohesive rural community? It is therefore considered that this SA Objective should be scoped out from the appraisal of site options. 6 Create a safe Will it promote design It is assumed that the design and layout of N/A Not applicable. environment to live that discourages crime development at any of the site options could in and reduce fear and anti-social incorporate Secured by Design Standards, in of crime. behaviour? line with Local Plan Policy SE 1. Will it promote the safety of the community? It is therefore considered that this SA Objective will not help to differentiate between potential site options and should be scoped out from the appraisal of site options. 7 Maintain and Will it maintain or In line with Local Plan policies IN 1 & 2, it is N/A Not applicable. enhance enhance necessary assumed that any proposal for development community services infrastructure? can make appropriate and timely provision for and amenities to Will it maintain or necessary supporting community infrastructure, sustain the existing enhance necessary including health, green infrastructure and other and future services and facilities? facilities and services. community of the Will it increase the Borough. accessibility of the Access to existing facilities and services is
February 2016 16/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
countryside? addressed against SA Objective 2. Will it provide the infrastructure to support Given the above, It is therefore considered that the existing community? this SA Objective should be scoped out from Will it provide the the appraisal of site options. infrastructure to support the future community - considering cumulative impacts? 8 Manage the Will it reduce emissions of It is assumed that any proposal for ++ Evidence suggests that causes and effects greenhouse gases - in development can incorporate climate change development at the site has the of climate change. particular carbon adaptation measures as well as water potential to significantly reduce
dioxide and methane? efficiency measures. levels of traffic in an area that is Will it reduce the heat experiencing congestion issues. island effect? Development at the sites are most likely to + Evidence suggests that Will it increase resilience increase the level of greenhouse gas emissions development at the site has the to extreme weather in the Borough through an increase in vehicular potential to reduce levels of events and longer term traffic. traffic. rising temperatures? Will it prevent or mitigate It is therefore considered that the nature and / Whilst development at the site flooding or rising sea significance of the effect against this SA has the potential to increase levels? Objective should relate to the potential traffic traffic, there is suitable
Will it encourage the impacts of development at the site options. mitigation available to reduce efficient use of water? negative effects with the At a strategic level it is difficult to predict the potential for a residual neutral nature and significance of effects as a result of effect. development at the site options. Strategic ? An element of uncertainty exists traffic modelling has been carried out by the for all sites until more detailed Council in Crewe and Alsager as well as for the lower level surveys and distribution of growth in the north of the assessments have been carried Borough but this does not necessarily indicate out. the potential impacts of development at
individual site options.
While it is acknowledged that the traffic - Development at the site has the
February 2016 17/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
impacts of development are dependent on a potential to increase traffic in number of factors, including the capacity of the surrounding road network.
the surrounding road network, this information Mitigation possible, residual is often not available at a strategic level for the minor negative effect. majority of individual site options. -- Development is likely to
increase the levels of traffic in To address these data gaps and ensure that a an area that is already consistent comparative appraisal is carried out experiencing congestion issues. the nature and significance of effects against Mitigation difficult and/or this SA Objective are initially based on the expensive, residual major assumption that a site option that is able to negative effect. accommodate equal to or greater than 500 dwellings or 5 ha of employment land has greater potential for a negative effect against this SA Objective than site options that can accommodate less than 500 dwellings or 5 ha of employment land. The threshold of 500 dwellings and 5 ha of employment land was selected as this was used against SA Objectives 1 and 17a to determine an effect of major significance in terms of the provision of housing and employment.
Available evidence, including traffic modelling, further detail through existing planning applications and input from Council Officers will also inform the judgements made in terms of the nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective.
It assumed that appropriate access can be provided for any of the site options; however, if the evidence suggests that access may be a significant issue then this will be noted within
February 2016 18/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
the summary appraisal narrative.
Flood risk is addressed against SA Objective 9. 9 Positively address Will it encourage the It is assumed that development at any of the ++ The site option is not located the issues of water efficient use of water? sites can incorporate water efficiency within an area of flood risk and quality and Will it encourage water measures and that any proposal can make there is evidence that
quantity and efficient design and appropriate and timely provision for necessary development could offer an manage flood risk layout of supporting infrastructure, including waste water opportunity to potentially within the Borough. schemes/buildings? treatment. reduce flood risk. Will it encourage the re- + The site option is not located use and recycling of The nature and significance of effects against within an area of flood risk. water, for example grey this SA Objective will therefore relate to if a site water and/or rain water option is within an area of flood risk or has the harvesting? potential to reduce flood risk. / The site is partially within an Will it maintain and areas of high flood risk but improve the quality of It is assumed that development at any of the development can avoid this ground and surface site options has the potential to incorporate area/suitable mitigation is waters? Sustainable Drainage in some form. available resulting in a residual Will it prevent loss and neutral effect. encourage additional provision of permeable ? There is an element of surfaces? uncertainty until more detailed Will it minimise risk to lower level surveys and
people, property and assessments have been carried ecosystems from out. flooding? - The site is partially within an Will it prevent area of high flood risk (Flood development of the Zone 2 or 3), or at risk of surface flood plain? water flooding in parts of the site. The areas of flood risk would be difficult to avoid and mitigation is likely to be expensive/ difficult. -- The site is wholly within an area
February 2016 19/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
of high flood risk (Flood Zone 2 or 3) or at risk of surface water
flooding across the entire site. 10 Manage the Will it positively It is assumed that development at any of the ++ Development has the potential impacts of contribute to the site options can ensure that there are no to significantly reduce emissions development and management of air significant effects with regard to water within an area that is
associated pollution? pollution, once the mitigation provided designated as an AQMA or that activities to Will it positively through Local Plan Policy SE 13 (Flood Risk & experiences congestion issues. positively address contribute to the Water Management) and available at the + Development has the potential all forms of management of water project level is taken into account. It is to reduce emissions within an pollution. pollution? therefore not considered likely to be a key area that is designated as an Will it positively differentiator between the site options so will AQMA or that experiences contribute to the not influence the nature or significance of congestion issues. management of effects against this SA Objective. contaminated / Whilst development at the site land/make sure The appraisal commentary will note if a site has the potential to increase additional option is known to be, or has the potential to emissions, there is suitable
contamination does not be contaminated. It is considered that there mitigation available to reduce occur? will be sufficient mitigation provided through negative effects with the Will it encourage positive Local Plan Policy SE 12 (Pollution, Land potential for a residual neutral remediation of sites? Contamination & Land Instability) and effect. available at the project level to ensure that there will be no significant issues with regard to ? An element of uncertainty exists contaminated land. It is therefore not until more detailed lower level considered likely to be a key differentiator surveys and assessments have between the site options so will not influence been carried out. the nature or significance of effects against this SA Objective. - Development is likely to increase the levels of emissions There are 12 Air Quality Management Areas in an area that is designated as
declared within the Borough. It is therefore an AQMA or already considered that the nature and significance of experiences congestion issues. the effect against this SA Objective should Mitigation possible, potential for focus on air quality in particular any declared a residual minor negative AQMAs, which will be closely linked to the effect.
February 2016 20/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
findings of the SA against SA Objective 8, i.e. -- Development is likely to traffic impacts. increase the levels of emissions in an area that is designated as
The nature and significance of effects are an AQMA or already closely linked to those against SA Objective 8, experiences congestion issues. which considers the potential traffic impacts of Mitigation difficult and/or development at the site options. The findings expensive. of the appraisal against SA Objective along with the proximity to existing AQMAs will inform the judgements made against this SA Objective. 11 Protect and Will it protect or The nature and significance of effects against ++ Development will deliver enhance enhance biodiversity? this SA Objective will primarily relate to biodiversity gains, or improve biodiversity, Will it protect and potential effects on designated biodiversity. green corridors / connections to
habitats, minimise the strategic GI, or development geodiversity and fragmentation or cause Is the site within, adjacent to, or in close will address a significant existing important enhancement of proximity (200m) to any internationally (SAC, sustainability issue relating to geological habitats? SPA or Ramsar site) or nationally designated biodiversity. features; with Will it help protect any biodiversity (SSSIs, NNRs)? + Development will not lead to particular care to species at risk? the loss of an important habitat, sites designated Will it protect or Is there evidence of European Protected species, trees and hedgerows internationally, enhance geodiversity Species or Habitats on the site? or lead to fragmentation of nationally, and geological sites and green corridors and there are regionally and features? Is the site within, adjacent to, or in close potential opportunities to locally. Will it protect or proximity (200m) to any biodiversity sites enhance biodiversity. enhance internationally, designated as being of local importance nationally, regionally or (Local Wildlife Site, Local Nature Reserve)? / Development at the site is not locally designated sites likely to have negative effects or species? It is recognised that when considering the on any nationally or locally
potential for effects on designated biodiversity, designated biodiversity or distance in itself is not a definitive guide to the contribute towards a severance likelihood or severity of an impact. The of green and blue infrastructure appraisal commentary will try to note any key or impede the migration of environmental pathways that could result in biodiversity. Potential for a development potentially having a negative neutral effect.
February 2016 21/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
effect on designated biodiversity that may be some distance away. or
The capacity of the site to accommodate Development at the site has the housing and employment development will potential for negative effects on also influence the judgements made in terms sites designated as being of of the nature and significance of effects local importance. Mitigation against this SA Objective. possible, potential for a residual neutral effect. Development at Are there opportunities to enhance the site does not contribute to biodiversity? Possibly improve connectivity, the severance of green or blue green/blue infrastructure or enhance an infrastructure or impede the important habitat? migration of biodiversity. ? Element of uncertainty exists until more detailed lower level surveys and assessments have
been carried out. - Development at the site has the potential for negative effects on sites designated as being of
local importance. Mitigation difficult and / or expensive, potential for a minor residual negative effect. or Development at the site has the potential for negative effects on internationally or nationally (SSSI, NNR) designated sites and / or European protected species or habitats. Mitigation possible, potential for a minor residual negative effect. -- Development at the site has the
February 2016 22/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
potential for negative effects on internationally (European site) or
nationally (SSSI, NNR) designated sites and / or European protected species or habitats. Mitigation difficult and / or expensive, potential for a major residual negative effect. 12 Protect and Will it protect or This SA Objective addresses two separate but ++ Development is likely to have a enhance the enhance the closely linked issues, the first relating to the major positive effect on the quality, integrity landscape? historic environment and the second the significance of the heritage
and distinctiveness Will it protect or landscape/ townscape. asset / historic environment. of the area’s enhance the + Development has the potential heritage, townscape? 12 a) The nature and significance of the effects for minor positive effects as it landscapes and Will it complement the in this instance will relate to designated may secure appropriate new townscapes, in existing built and natural heritage assets (Scheduled Monuments, Listed uses for unused Listed Buildings; particular those environment, ensuring Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks enhance the setting of or that are that the area remains and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and Areas access / signage to designated internationally, distinctive? of Archaeological Potential & Importance) and assets. nationally or locally Will it protect or their setting. Any important non-designated designated. enhance the areas heritage assets will be noted within the / Development will have no internationally, nationally appraisal commentary. significant effect. This may be or locally designated because there are no heritage
heritage assets and their Are there any designated heritage assets or assets within the influence of setting? their setting, which could be affected within or proposed development or that adjacent to the site? mitigation measures are considered sufficient to address Are there any opportunities to enhance culture potential negative effects with or heritage assets, such as: securing the potential for a residual appropriate new uses for unused Listed neutral effect. Buildings; the removal of an eyesore could ? Element of uncertainty for all have a positive effect on the setting of sites until more detailed lower designated assets; improved access and level surveys and assessments signage? have been carried out.
February 2016 23/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
- Development lies within an Need to consider the nature and significance Area of Archaeological of the effects identified against the other topic Potential or Importance or has
considered under this SA Objective the potential for a minor (landscape) in terms of the setting of negative effect on a designated heritage assets. Conservation Area, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, The capacity of the site to accommodate Registered Historic Parks and housing and employment development will Gardens and/or their setting. also influence the judgements made in terms Even once avoidance and of the nature and significance of effects mitigation measures have been against this SA Objective. considered there is still the potential for a residual minor It is considered that there is an element of negative effect. uncertainty for all sites until more detailed lower -- Development has the potential level surveys and assessments have been for a major residual negative carried out. effect on a Conservation Area,
Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Registered Historic Parks and Gardens and/or their setting. Mitigation difficult and/or expensive. This SA Objective addresses two separate but ++ Development significantly closely linked issues, the first relating to the enhances the landscape or historic environment and the second the removes a significant eyesore
landscape/ townscape. and/or would regenerate previously developed land and 12 b) The nature and significance of the effects buildings (PDL) that is currently against this SA Objective will relate to the having a major negative effect location of the site (is it within a local on the landscape/ townscape. landscape designation) and the land type + Development would remove an (greenfield, brownfield or a mix). eyesore, or enhance the
landscape and/or would If the site does not fall within a local landscape regenerate PDL that is currently
February 2016 24/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
designation, then it is assumed that having a minor negative effect development on a greenfield site has the on the landscape/ townscape. potential for a minor negative effect (as there / A neutral effect is not would be development in a previously considered possible. undeveloped area) and development on a brownfield site has the potential for a minor positive effect (as it could result in the ? Element of uncertainty exists regeneration of the site). until more detailed lower level
assessments have been carried The capacity of the site to accommodate out. The site is not situated housing and employment development will within a local landscape also influence the judgements made in terms designation and contains a mix of the nature and significance of effects of both greenfield and against this SA Objective. brownfield land.
It is considered that there is an element of uncertainty for all sites until more detailed lower - The site partially falls within a level surveys and assessments have been local landscape designation or carried out through planning applications. the majority of the site is
greenfield land. It is assumed that any trees protected by Tree -- The site option entirely falls Preservation Orders within a site option will be within a local landscape retained, unless there is evidence to suggest designation. that this is not the case.
February 2016 25/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
13 Minimise energy Will it encourage the It is assumed that development at any of the N/A Not applicable. use, promote efficient use of energy? sites could incorporate energy efficiency and energy efficiency Will it result in energy on-site renewable and low carbon and high quality efficient development? technologies in accordance with national design, and Will it result in the high policy. Smaller scale development could increase the quality design and potentially offer less choice of on-site generation of layout of development? renewable and low carbon technologies than energy from Will it promote and for larger site options. However, this does not renewable encourage the use of mean that smaller developments could not resources. renewable energy? abate carbon emissions off-site. Will it incorporate renewable energy It is also assumed that development at any of technologies? the sites could have a high quality design and layout in accordance with Local Plan Policy SE 1 (Design).
It is therefore considered that this SA Objective will not help to differentiate between potential site options and should be scoped out from the appraisal of site options. 14 Achieve Will it make sure of the It is assumed that development at any of the N/A Not applicable. sustainable waste treatment of waste with site options could promote the waste hierarchy management regard to the principles by ensuring sustainable construction and self- through adhering of waste hierarchy? sufficiency in waste management. to the principles of Will it encourage the waste sustainable methods of It is therefore determined that this SA Objective hierarchy. construction and use? will not help to differentiate between potential Will it result in sites and should be scoped out from the appropriately designed appraisal of site options. waste management facilitates? Will it encourage the disposal of waste as close to point of origin as possible?
February 2016 26/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
15 Manage mineral Will it encourage the It is assumed that development at any of the ++ A major positive effect is not extraction and reuse and/or recycling sites could promote sustainable construction considered possible. encourage their of minerals? techniques and make adequate provision for
recycling/re-use to Will it protect nationally, the storage and recycling of building materials. provide a sufficient regionally and locally However, it is considered that the + Proposal at this site could result supply to meet important mineral redevelopment of previously developed land in the redevelopment of social and resources? offers greater potential for the use of on-site previously developed land and
economic needs Will it allow for the recycled materials. therefore has the potential to whilst minimising delivery of a sufficient result in the use of on-site impacts on the supply of minerals? It is therefore considered that the nature and recycled materials. environment and Will it balance the need significance of the effects on this SA Objective / The site is not within or adjacent communities and to deliver minerals with will primarily relate the sterilisation of mineral to an area allocated/ safeguarding social and resources. safeguarded for minerals. resources for future environmental issues? generations. ? An element of uncertainty exists until more detailed lower level surveys and assessment have
been carried out through planning applications. - The site is partially within or adjacent to an area allocated/ safeguarded for minerals.
-- The site is entirely within an area allocated/ safeguarded for minerals.
16 Reduce the Will it reduce the use or The nature and significance of the effect will ++ The site is entirely brownfield consumption of result in efficient relate to the land type and potential loss of and will not result in the loss of natural resources, consumption of natural best and most versatile agricultural land. any agricultural land.
protect and resources? enhance green Will it allow the creation The appraisal commentary will, where possible, + The majority of the site is infrastructure and of natural resources? note if a site only contains a small proportion of brownfield land and will not
February 2016 27/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
high quality Will it protect, enhance, best and most versatile agricultural land and result in the loss of best and agricultural land create or connect green development could therefore avoid it. most versatile agricultural land. and optimise the infrastructure assets? / A neutral effect is not re-use of previously Will it make sure of the considered possible. developed land, protection or enhanced buildings and use of the best quality infrastructure. agricultural land. ? An element of uncertainty exists Will it encourage the re- for all sites until more detailed use of previously lower level surveys and developed land, assessment have been carried buildings and out through planning infrastructure? applications. - The majority of the site is greenfield and does not contain any best and most
versatile agricultural land. -- The entire site is greenfield and contains best and most versatile land.
17 To promote a Will it result in sustainable This SA Objective addresses two separate issues ++ Potential for the site option to sustainable, economic growth? relating to the economy, the first being the accommodate a strategic level competitive and Will it contribute to the capacity of the site to accommodate of employment development
low-carbon achievement of a employment land, and the potential loss of (equal to or more than 5ha). economy that competitive, low-carbon existing employment. + Potential for the site option to benefits from a economy? accommodate employment range of innovative Will it allow a diverse 17 a) The nature and significance of the effects development (less than 5ha). and diverse range of business types? in this instance will relate to the capacity of the businesses in both Will it positively effect site to accommodate employment land, and / If no employment land is being urban and rural both the urban and rural the potential for development to lead to the proposed as part of areas. economy? loss of existing employment. development, as it is a housing
site, then it is considered to
February 2016 28/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
For the purposes of this appraisal, the loss of have a neutral effect against agricultural land is not considered of this SA Objective. significance for the economy at a borough ? Capacity of the site to level, as current evidence suggests that the accommodate employment sectors share of the Borough’s GVA was 2% in development is unknown. 2010 and is predicted to decline to 1.7% by 20259. - Development at the site may
restrict other employment
development.
-- Development at the site may
prevent other employment
development and lead to the
loss of existing employment. This SA Objective addresses two separate issues ++ The site is within 500m of an relating to the economy, the second being existing strategic employment accessibility to existing strategic employment area.
areas. + The site is within 500m of an The provision of employment or potential loss of existing employment area. existing employment is addressed above.
17 b) The nature and significance of the effect / A neutral effect is not in this instance will primarily relate to the considered possible. distance of the site option from existing
employment areas, which include strategic employment areas, employment areas ? An uncertain effect is not identified through the employment land review considered possible. (2012) and Town Centres.
9 Projections from the Cheshire & Warrington Econometric Model's (CWEM) 2012-based Subnational Population Projections Scenario.
February 2016 29/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
- The site is between 500 and 1,000m from any existing employment areas.
-- The site is over 1,000m from any existing employment areas.
18 To maintain and Will it enhance the This SA Objective is linked to a number of N/A Not applicable. enhance the viability and vitality of topics/ issues that are already being vitality and viability town centres? considered against other SA Objectives, such of town and village Will it enhance the as accessibility to services and facilities (SA centres with a viability and vitality of Objective 2) as well as the provision of housing balanced provision village centres? (SA Objective 1) and employment (SA of retail, leisure, Will it create a balanced Objective 17). visitor and cultural provision of retail, leisure, facilities. visitor and cultural It is therefore considered that this SA Objective facilities? should be scoped out from the appraisal of site options. 19 Positively manage Will it contribute to the The potential of site options to provide new N/A Not applicable. the Borough's achievement of a employment land and potential effects on diverse rural diverse rural economy? existing employment are already considered economy. against SA Objective 17. It is therefore considered that this SA Objective should be scoped out from the appraisal of site options. 20 Improve access to Will it increase access to It is assumed that any proposal for N/A Not applicable. education and education and training development can make appropriate and training, and the opportunities? timely provision for necessary supporting links between these Will it increase access to infrastructure, including education and other resources and jobs and employment community facilities and services. employment opportunities? opportunities. Access to existing services/facilities, including
February 2016 30/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
primary and secondary schools as well as jobs, is addressed against SA Objective 2.
It is therefore considered that this SA Objective should be scoped out from the appraisal of site options. 21 21) The NPPF states in Para 79 that the ++ A major positive effect is not fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to considered possible. prevent urban sprawl by keeping land
permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their + The site is not within the Green permanence. Belt.
Given the importance of the Green Belt within the Borough, particularly to the north, it is / A neutral effect is not considered that it should be clearly considered possible. represented and considered within the
appraisal for site options. ? An uncertain effect is not The nature and significance of the effect will considered possible. be determined by whether a site option is
within or outside the Green Belt. - The site is partially within the Green Belt.
-- The site is entirely within the Green Belt.
February 2016 31/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
2.7 For continuity, the significance criteria presented in Table 2.2 of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] were also used. However, it should be noted that minor amendments to the significance key were made in order to make the identified sustainability effects of the LPS clearer. The refined significance key used by Enfusion is presented in the table below.
Table 2.2: Refined Significance Key Categories of Significance Symbol Meaning Sustainability Effect Major Problematical and improbable because of known sustainability - - Negative issues; mitigation likely to be difficult and/or expensive Minor Potential sustainability issues: mitigation and/or negotiation - negative possible + Minor No sustainability constraints and development acceptable positive Major Development encouraged as would resolve existing ++ Positive sustainability problem
? Uncertain Uncertain or Unknown Effects
/ Neutral Neutral effect
It is also possible to have two symbols for an SA Objective. For example, a - ? development could have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 (Biodiversity); however, there is an element of uncertainty until lower level assessments have been carried out. SA Objective 4, 12 & 17 consider more than one topic and as a result the development at a site could have a different effect upon each topic considered. For example, against SA Objective 4 a site option might be in - + close proximity to a sewage/ waste water treatment works which could have issues with regard to odour and therefore negative effects on health. There could also be existing walking/cycling routes adjacent to the site which could have positive effects on health.
2.8 All reasonable site options identified through the Council’s Site Selection Method (SSM) were considered by Enfusion against the full SA Framework presented in Table 2.1. An individual appraisal matrix was produced for each reasonable site option and significance criteria (see Table 2.2 above) identified against each SA Objective. An appraisal commentary was provided to ensure that all likely significant effects were clearly explained and where appropriate, recommendations for enhancement and mitigation were made. Professional judgement was used where necessary and the appraisal was informed by wider evidence, including the Accessibility Assessment, further technical work carried out by the Council and the wider LPS evidence base. The appraisal took into account potential mitigation available and the significance criteria or ‘symbols’ reflect this within the detailed appraisal matrices.
February 2016 32/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
2.9 SA is informed by the best available information and data. However, data gaps and uncertainties exist and it is not always possible to accurately predict effects at a strategic level. For example, specific significance of effects on biodiversity, heritage assets, or changes to local level traffic flows may depend on more detailed studies and assessments that are more appropriately undertaken at the next stage of planning - at the project or site level. Climate change impacts are difficult to predict as the effects are most likely to be the result of changes at a cumulative and regional or national level.
2.10 As part of the iterative and ongoing SA process, the appraisals were regularly revised and updated to reflect the development and refinement of options through plan-making and emerging evidence during the suspension of the Examination. Detailed SA matrices for site options are provided in Appendix III of this SA Addendum Report and summary findings are set out in Section 3. The reasons for the selection or rejection of site options through plan-making are provided in Appendix IV.
Accessibility Assessment
2.11 Accessibility Assessments were previously produced by the Council and were presented as part of the SA Documents. Alongside the wider SA work during the suspension of the Examination, the Council also commissioned Enfusion to undertake a fresh Accessibility Assessment for all reasonable site options.
2.12 The Accessibility Assessment provides a high level strategic consideration of the proximity of site options to a range of local amenities, transport facilities and open space (hereafter referred to as ‘features’). The assessment was carried out using GIS software (ArcMap) and based on the most current information/shapefiles available to the Council. Draft assessments were reviewed by CEC Officers who were able to identify gaps or missing features which were then incorporated into the assessment.
2.13 For consistency, the same standards were used as previously by the Council. It should be noted that the previous accessibility assessment (undertaken by the Council) included the individual consideration of Playground / Amenity Areas. This information is now contained under the Children’s Playspace feature to avoid duplication in the assessment. Measurements were calculated using buffers that extended from the boundary of the sites, which then allowed the identification of features that fell within or outside those buffers. It could then be determined if a site option does or does not meet the minimum standards for distance to those features. The findings of the Accessibility Assessment are presented in a matrix within Appendix II of this Report and informed the fresh SA of site options. For further details on how the Accessibility Assessment informed the SA, please refer to Section 2 of this Report, in particular Table 2.1.
2.14 It is important to note that the Accessibility Assessment does not take into account any potential on-site provisions or alterations to service / facility provision that may result from development at a site. It should also be noted that buffers do not always represent an accurate reflection of real world
February 2016 33/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
accessibility, and do not consider the condition of access routes to the identified features. The assessment was carried out using the most current information/map layers available; however, it is recognised that these can often be out of date. As part of the iterative and ongoing SA process, the Accessibility Assessment will be updated to reflect any updated or new evidence. It should also be noted that the Council expects any site specific proposals to undertake their own Accessibility Assessment in line with Policy SD 2 of the LPS.
SA of Distribution Options for Safeguarded Land
2.15 Following further technical work during the suspension of the Examination in relation to the objectively assessed housing need, housing and employment strategies and spatial distribution of development, it was considered necessary to consider options through the SA for the distribution of safeguarded land.
2.16 The four distribution options identified by the Council were subject to independent SA by Enfusion against the SA Framework presented in Section 3, Table 3.2 of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] and using the key presented in Table 2.2 above. A comparative appraisal of the alternatives was carried out using the baseline information (presented in Appendix C of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] and any available updated evidence, together with professional judgment where appropriate.
2.17 The nature of the likely sustainability effects (including positive/negative, duration, permanent/ temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic) were described in the appraisal commentary, together with any assumptions or uncertainties. The appraisal took into account the mitigation that is provided by various policies in the LPS and the symbols reflect this within the detailed appraisal matrix. Where relevant, the SA made suggestions and recommendations to mitigate negative effects or promote opportunities for enhancement. The findings of the appraisal are summarised in Section 3 of this SA Addendum Report with the detailed appraisal matrices presented in Appendix I.
SA of Proposed Changes
2.18 The Council is proposing a number of revisions to the sites and strategic locations proposed within the Submission LPS based on the findings of the further technical work, including further SA work, carried out during the suspension of the Examination. To take account of the further technical work a fresh and independent appraisal of all site options has been carried out. The findings of the appraisal for the sites proposed through the Proposed Changes are set out in Section 4. This includes consideration of any potential changes (boundary or capacity) to the site options since the appraisal was carried out as well as the mitigation provided through site policies and potential cumulative effects for settlements.
February 2016 34/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.0 SA of Alternatives
Introduction
3.1 The development of plan-making options and the SA/SEAs of alternatives have been on-going throughout the production of the LPS and its accompanying SA. This section sets out the history of the SA of alternatives and options assessment to date. It summarises how options have been identified, assessed and progressed through different stages of plan-making; it summarises and refers to SAs that have been undertaken and outlines how the findings of these SAs have influenced different stages of the LPS. This section also sets out the reasons why alternatives have been rejected or selected.
Assessment of Alternatives in SA/SEA
3.2 The EU SEA Directive10 requires assessment of the likely significant effects of implementing the plan and “reasonable alternatives” taking into account “the objectives and geographical scope” of the plan and the reasons for selecting alternatives should be outlined in the Report. The Directive does not specifically define the term “reasonable alternative”; however, UK SA/SEA guidance11 advises that it is should be taken to mean “realistic and relevant” i.e. deliverable and within the timescale of the plan. This approach has been confirmed in recent case law12 - an option which does not achieve the objectives of the plan is not a reasonable alternative.
3.3 Extant SEA guidance13 sets out an approach and methods for developing and assessment of alternatives. This includes acknowledgement of a hierarchy of alternatives that are relevant and proportionate to the tiering of plan-making. Alternatives considered at the early stages of plan-making need not be elaborated in too much detail so that the “big issues” are kept clear; only the main differences between alternatives need to be documented i.e. the assessment should be proportionate to the level and scope of decision-making for the plan preparation. This is confirmed by the NPPF that requires that assessments should be proportionate (paragraph 167). The hierarchy of alternatives may be summarised in the following diagram:
10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm 11 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strategic-environmental-assessment-directive- guidance 12 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/776.html 13 http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=152450
February 2016 35/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Figure 3.1: Hierarchy of Alternatives in SA/SEA and Options in Plan-Making
Need What development is necessary?
Process How should it be done?
Location Where should it go?
Timing & Implementation When, what form & sequence?
3.4 Case law in England has clarified and provided further guidance for current practice on how alternatives should be considered in SA/SEA of spatial and land use plans. The decision of the High Court in Save Historic Newmarket Ltd v Forest Heath DC14 confirmed that the reasons for selecting or rejecting alternatives should be explained, and that the public should have an effective opportunity to comment on appraisal of alternatives; moreover, the SA report accompanying the draft plan must refer to, summarise or repeat the reasons that had been given in earlier iterations of the plan and SA, and these must still be valid.
3.5 In Heard v Broadland DC15, the High Court applied the proper approach identified in the Forest Heath case and held that, although not an explicit requirement in the EU SEA Directive, alternatives should be appraised to the same level as the preferred option; the final SA Report must outline the reasons why various alternatives previously considered are still not as good as the proposals now being put forward in the plan, and must summarise the reasons for rejecting any reasonable alternatives - and that those reasons are still valid. In Cogent Land LLP v Rochford DC16 the High Court found that the
14 Save Historic Newmarket Ltd v Forest Heath DC [2011] EWHC 606 (Admin) 15 Heard v Broadland DC [2012] EWHC 344 (Admin) 16 Cogent Land LLP v Rochford DC [2012] EWHC 2542 (Admin)
February 2016 36/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
local planning authority had explained adequately how it had carried out the comparative assessment of competing alternative sites and that any shortcomings in the early process had been resolved by the publication of an SA Addendum Report. The Court of Appeal has recently endorsed the High Court's decision in the Cogent Land case and Singh, J's conclusion on the issue of principle that defects at an earlier stage of the SA/SEA process can, in principle, be cured at a later stage in the plan making process.17
3.6 In Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v Wealden DC18, Sales, J held the choice of alternatives for environmental assessment is a matter of planning judgment and that the planning authority has a substantial area of discretion as to the extent of the inquiries which need to be carried out to identify the reasonable alternatives which should then be examined in greater detail.
3.7 In Friends of the Earth v Welsh Ministers (March, 2015)19 the High Court confirmed that the plan-making authority is the primary decision-maker responsible for identifying what is to be regarded as a "reasonable alternative" to the implementation of a plan or programme likely to have significant effects on the environment, acknowledging that neither the SEA Directive or the Environmental Assessment Regulations 2004 define "reasonable alternatives". However, noting that Article 5(1) of the Directive requires an environmental report to identify, describe and evaluate all, and not merely a selection, of the alternatives capable of meeting the plan objectives, Hickinbottom, J identified a number propositions concerning "reasonable alternatives" derived from existing case law.20
3.8 Having carefully analysed those authorities, the High Court held that "an option other than the preferred option that is capable of meeting the objectives of the relevant plan, as determined by the relevant decision- maker, is the truest and most helpful formulation".21 The Court also held, however, that an option which the decision-maker considered "viable … having regard to the full planning context", was also a helpful and appropriate way to characterise "reasonable alternatives".22 It was primarily for the decision-maker to identify objectives, give each appropriate weight, and determine whether they were met by a particular option. If a particular plan was incapable of meeting the identified objectives such that in practice it would never be pursued, there was no point in subjecting it to an environmental assessment.
17 No Adastral New Town v Suffolk Coastal DC [2015] EWCA Civ 88, at paras. [48] to [53], per Richards, LJ (delivering the sole judgment in which remainder of the Court agreed) 18 [2014] EWHC 406 (Admin) 19 [2015] EWHC 776 (Admin) 20 ibid., at [88], per Hickinbottom, J 21 ibid., at [105], applying the decision of the High Court in R (Buckingham CC v Secretary of State for Transport [2013] EWHC 481 (Admin), particularly at [160]- [165], per Ouseley, J 22 ibid., at [105], applying the decision of the High Court in Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v Wealden DC [2014] EWHC 406 (Admin), at [100], per Sales, J
February 2016 37/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.9 On 9 July 2015, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of Sales, J on the grounds that the local planning authority had adopted the impugned policy in breach of the duty under Regulation 12 of the Environmental Assessment Regulations23 relating to the assessment of reasonable alternatives. It is important to note that the Court of Appeal confirmed the Sales, J’s analysis that the identification of reasonable alternatives is a matter of evaluative assessment for the local planning authority, subject to review by the court on normal public law principles, including Wednesbury unreasonableness.24 However, the Court of Appeal also held that, in order make a lawful assessment, a local planning authority does at least have to apply its mind to the question of reasonable alternatives. On the particular facts of the Ashdown Forest case, the Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence that the local planning authority gave any consideration to the question of reasonable alternatives to the 7km zone excluding new housing development in the vicinity of the Ashdown Forest SPA.
Assessment of Options in Plan-Making
3.10 Development planning issues, such as how much, what kind of development and where, are considered within the requirements of legislation and policy together with the characteristics of the plan area and the views of its communities. Potential options for resolving such issues are identified by the Councils through various studies, such as population projections and housing need, community strategies, infrastructure capacities, and environmental constraints analysis - and through consultation with the regulators, the public, businesses, service providers, and the voluntary sector.
3.11 At the earlier and higher levels of strategic planning, options assessment is proportionate and may have a criteria-based approach and/or expert judgment; the focus is on the key differences between possibilities for scale, distribution and quality of development. At this early stage, the options presented may constitute a range of potential measures (which could variously and/or collectively constitute a policy) rather than a clear spatial expression of quantity and quality. Each option is not mutually exclusive and elements of each may be further developed into a preferred option. As a plan evolves, there may be further consideration of options that have developed by taking the preferred elements from earlier options. Thus the options for plan-making change and develop as responses from consultation are considered and further studies are undertaken.
3.12 At the later and lower levels of development planning for site allocations, options assessment tends to be more specific, often focused on criteria and thresholds, such as land availability, accessibility to services and impacts on local landscape, and particularly informed by technical studies such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), the Strategic Housing Land
23 The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1633) 24 Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v Wealden DC [2015] EWCA Civ 681, at para. [42], per Richards, LJ (delivering the sole judgment of the Court of Appeal)
February 2016 38/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Availability Assessment (SHLAA), and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). There is a hierarchy of options assessment with sites that are not viable or deliverable or might have adverse effects on protected environmental assets rejected at an early stage.
3.13 The role of the SA is to inform a Council in their selection and assessment of options; SA is undertaken of those reasonable alternatives (options) identified through the plan-making process. The findings of the SA can help with refining and further developing these options in an iterative and ongoing way. The SA findings do not form the sole basis for decision making - this is informed also from planning and other studies, feasibility, and consultation feedback.
SA Findings and Reasons for Selecting/Rejecting Alternatives in the Local Plan Strategy
Distribution Options for Safeguarded Land
3.14 The Council identified four options for the distribution of Safeguarded Land to settlements inset within the North Cheshire Green Belt. These are as follows: 1. Provision of all 200ha in the Principal Town of Macclesfield; 2. Provision of Safeguarded Land distributed proportionately by settlement, based on the Revised Spatial Distribution of Development (RSDD) as proposed through the Spatial Distribution Update Report (SDUR) [PS E035] and the Council’s Proposed Changes to Policy PG 6 (Spatial Distribution of Development) [PS E041]; 3. Provision of Safeguarded Land distributed proportionately by settlement based on the resident population; and 4. A hybrid approach based on options 2 and 3 above.
3.15 The Table below shows the distribution of Safeguarded Land under each of the four options considered through the SA.
Table 3.1: Summary of Options for the Distribution of Safeguarded Land Settlement Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Macclesfield 200 ha 75 ha 81 ha 95 ha
Handforth Including North - 45 ha 10 ha 10 ha Cheshire Growth Village
Knutsford - 21 ha 20 ha 28 ha
Poynton - 16 ha 20 ha 19 ha
Wilmslow - 19 ha 37 ha 24 ha
Local Service Centres - 24 ha 32 ha 24 ha
Total 200 ha 200 ha 200 ha 200 ha
February 2016 39/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.16 Enfusion carried out an independent appraisal of the four options against the full SA Framework. A summary of the findings is provided below with the detailed appraisal matrix available in Appendix I.
Table 3.2: Summary of SA Findings for Safeguarded Land Distribution Options Options SA Objective 1 2 3 4
1. Provide an appropriate quantity and quality of housing to meet the needs of the Borough. + ++ ++ ++ This should include a mix of housing types, tenures and affordability.
2. Create sustainable communities that benefit from good access to jobs, services, facilities and + ++ ++ ++ sustainable forms of transport, including walking, cycling and public transport.
3. Consider the needs of all sections of the community in order to achieve high levels of + ++ ++ ++ equality, diversity and social inclusion.
4. Create an environment that promotes healthy + ++ ++ ++ and active lifestyles.
5. Maintain and/or create vibrant rural / / / / communities.
6. Create a safe environment to live in and / / / / reduce fear of crime.
7. Maintain and enhance community services and amenities to sustain the existing and future + ++ ++ ++ community of the Borough.
8. Manage the causes and effects of climate - ? ? ? ? change.
9. Positively address the issues of water quality and quantity and manage flood risk within the / / / / Borough.
10. Manage the impacts of development and associated activities to positively address all - ? / / / forms of pollution.
11. Protect and enhance biodiversity, habitats, geodiversity and important geological features; ? ? ? ? with particular care to sites designated internationally, nationally, regionally and locally.
12. Protect and enhance the quality, integrity and distinctiveness of the area’s heritage, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? landscapes and townscapes, in particular those
February 2016 40/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Options SA Objective 1 2 3 4
that are internationally, nationally or locally designated.
13. Minimise energy use, promote energy efficiency and high quality design, and increase / / / / the generation of energy from renewable resources.
14. Achieve sustainable waste management through adhering to the principles of the waste / / / / hierarchy.
15. Manage mineral extraction and encourage their recycling/re-use to provide a sufficient supply to meet social and economic needs ? ? ? ? whilst minimising impacts on the environment and communities and safeguarding resources for future generations.
16. Reduce the consumption of natural resources, protect and enhance green infrastructure and high quality agricultural land ? ? ? ? and optimise the re-use of previously developed land, buildings and infrastructure.
17. To promote a sustainable, competitive and low-carbon economy that benefits from a range + ++ ++ ++ of innovative and diverse businesses in both urban and rural areas.
18. To maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town and village centres with a + ++ ++ ++ balanced provision of retail, leisure, visitor and cultural facilities.
19. Positively manage the Borough's diverse rural ? ? ? ? economy.
20. Improve access to education and training, and the links between these resources and + ++ ++ ++ employment opportunities.
3.17 All of the options propose the same overall total of safeguarded land. The appraisal found that Options 2 to 4 have the potential for enhanced positive effects compared to Option 1 against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing, employment and infrastructure, as the distribution of safeguarded land better reflects the future development requirements of the settlements. While there are some minor differences between Options 2 to 4 in terms of how the land is distributed between individual settlements, at a strategic level, it is difficult to identify any significant differences between
February 2016 41/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
them in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects. The key difference between Options 2 to 4 is that Option 2 proposes a higher level of safeguarded land in Handforth. This is a result of the underlying assumption that the current distribution of development proposed within the LPS will continue into the future, which is that Handforth will assist to meet the development needs of other settlements. Options 3 & 4 do not follow that underlying assumption and therefore offer a more balanced approach to the distribution of safeguarded land that perhaps better reflects the future development requirements of the settlements.
3.18 The appraisal also found that the nature and significance of effects against a number of SA Objectives are uncertain. Ultimately, they are dependent on the precise location of development and sensitivity of receptors. Option 1 has a greater likelihood for negative effects on the landscape, heritage and biodiversity within and surrounding Macclesfield. However, it also less likely to have significant effects on these issues for the wider settlements. It is considered that Option 1 has the greatest potential for a residual negative effect on SA Objectives relating to traffic and air quality as all of the safeguarded land is directed towards one settlement.
3.19 Table 3.3 provides an outline of the reasons for selection/rejection of alternatives for the distribution of safeguarded land where relevant. It should be noted that whilst the SA findings are considered by the Council in its selection of options and form part of the evidence supporting the Local Plan, the SA findings are not the sole basis for a decision; other factors, including planning and deliverability, play a key role in the decision-making process.
Table 3.3: Summary of Approach to Alternatives Assessment and Selection for Safeguarded Land Distribution Options Strategic Options Reasons for Progressing or Rejecting the Option in Plan Considered and Making Appraised
This option would not allow for sustainable patterns of development in the future, as required by NPPF. The lack of provision in any of the other settlements may well Option 1: Provision of all compromise the intended permanence of the Green Belt Safeguarded Land in boundary due to their inability to accommodate the Principal Town of development requirements in the next plan period. Macclesfield Option 1 is discounted from further consideration as it is unlikely to give the same degree of permanence to the Green Belt as other options which distribute Safeguarded Land to different settlements.
Option 2: Provision of The current plan’s proposed spatial distribution takes full Safeguarded Land account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of distributed development. By using this distribution for providing proportionately by Safeguarded Land to meet potential future development settlement, based on requirements, these sustainable patterns of development the Revised Spatial are likely to continue in the future. However, the current Distribution of plan’s proposed spatial distribution seeks to provide a new Development settlement (the North Cheshire Growth Village) at
February 2016 42/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Handforth East to assist in meeting some of the needs of other settlements inset within the Green Belt. By using this spatial distribution as a basis for providing Safeguarded Land, there would be an assumption that this assistance with meeting needs of other settlements would continue into the next plan period. This may not be an appropriate assumption to make at this point in time for a future plan period. Option 2 is rejected as it skews the amount of Safeguarded Land to be distributed to Handforth (45 ha), as it makes the assumption that this area would continue to assist in meeting some of the needs of other towns in future plans.
Option 3: Provision of Option 3 could be considered a reasonable approach, Safeguarded but is not preferred over option 2 as it does not specifically distributed consider the development requirements of each proportionately by settlement or sustainable patterns of development. settlement based on
population
Option 4 is chosen as the preferred option for the distribution of Safeguarded Land as it enables the continuation of sustainable patterns of development set Option 4: Hybrid out in the current spatial distribution but redistributes part Approach Based on of the additional land directed to Handforth under option Options 2 and 3 2 so as not to assume that Handforth will continue to assist in meeting development needs of other settlements in future plan periods.
Site Options
3.20 The Council has considered a range of different site options throughout the development of the LPS and its accompanying SA. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), along with other LPS evidence, informed the Council’s initial identification of reasonable strategic site options in 2012, during the preparation of the Development Strategy and Policy Principles Documents. At that stage to be considered a strategic and reasonable alternative the options needed to be in strategic locations that could contribute to providing balanced communities, where there are housing and job opportunities, supported by key infrastructure and a range of services. All reasonable site options were appraised by the Council against the full SA Framework with the findings presented in a SA Report (January 2013) that accompanied the Development Strategy and Policy Principles on public consultation from 15 January to 26 February 2013.
3.21 Responses received to the Development Strategy consultation revealed a number of possible strategic sites that developers and landowners considered suitable for inclusion in the LPS. In addition, other strategic sites were brought to the attention of the Council as the plan-making process was progressed. This resulted in a consultation on 'Possible Additional Sites Proposed by Developers and Land Interests', which was held in May 2013. All of the
February 2016 43/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
additional sites were appraised by the Council against the full SA Framework with the findings presented in the Pre-Submission SA Report (Nov 2013), which accompanied the possible additional sites on public consultation from 05 November to 16 December 2013.
3.22 As a result of both the Development Strategy and Policy Principles consultation and the Possible Additional Sites consultation, several changes were made to the Plan. This included changes to the preferred sites proposed in the Development Strategy document, which comprised amendments to site boundaries as well as the creation of Strategic Locations. These changes were screened to determine if they were of significance with regard to the SA and further appraisal work was needed. Where necessary, revisions were made to the appraisals to take account of the proposed changes as well as the consultation responses received. The screening matrix was presented in Appendix G and revised appraisals in Appendix F of the Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Report (Nov 2013), which accompanied the Pre-Submission Core Strategy and Non-Preferred Sites on public consultation from 05 November to 16 December 2013. The reasons for the selection or rejection of site options were also provided in Sections 5 and 6 of the same SA Report.
3.23 As a result of both the Pre-Submission Core Strategy consultation and the Pre- Submission Core Strategy Non-Preferred Sites consultation, several changes were made to the Plan. These included changes to the sites proposed in the Pre-Submission Core Strategy, which comprised amendments to site boundaries, the number of dwellings to be accommodated as well as the addition of part of a previously non-preferred site. These changes were screened to determine if they were of significance with regard to the SA and further appraisal work was needed. As part of this screening work, constraints and accessibility were reconsidered and the detailed appraisal for sites reviewed where there was a significant change to the boundary or capacity of a site. The screening concluded that the changes to sites did not significantly affect the findings of the previous SA work. A summary of the screening findings was presented in Section 7 and detailed matrix provided in Appendix H of the Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Report (March 2014), which accompanied the Submission LPS on public consultation from 14 March to 25 April 2014.
3.24 The Local Plan Strategy and evidence documents, including the Submission SA Report [SD 003], were submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 20 May 2014 for independent Examination. Hearings sessions on a range of strategic matters were held from 16 September to 3 October 2014, including the overall development strategy. The inspector deferred the remaining hearing sessions to allow the consideration of the large volume of statements and material submitted in relation to the strategic sites and allocations25. Following the adjournment of the hearing sessions on 3 October 2014 the Inspector informed the Council
25 [PS A014] Inspector's Announcement at the Close of Hearing Sessions on Friday 3 October 2014
February 2016 44/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
that he would be providing interim views on the legal compliance and soundness of the submitted plan26.
3.25 The Inspector’s Interim Views were confirmed on 6 November 201427 and found that on the basis of the evidence submitted so far, he would probably conclude that the submitted Plan is unsound due to shortcomings in the proposed strategy and evidence base, including the economic and housing strategies, the relationship between them and the objective assessment of housing need, the spatial distribution of development and the approach to the Green Belt and Safeguarded Land28. In response to this the Council formally requested that the Inspector suspend the examination for a six- month period to allow additional work to be undertaken to address the issues outlined in his interim views.
3.26 Following the suspension of the Examination the Council has undertaken a range of technical work to address the Inspector’s concerns. This included a Housing Development Study to establish the Objectively Assessed Need for housing in Cheshire East as well as study to determine the alignment of the economic, employment and housing strategy. Considering all of the evidence in relation to demographic trends and economic development needs, the Housing Development Study (June 2015) concluded that the Objectively Assessed Need for housing in Cheshire East is 36,000 dwellings over the 20-year period 2010-30, equivalent to an average of 1,800 dwellings per year. This is an uplift of 9,000 dwellings from the 27,000 new dwellings proposed for the Borough in the Submission LPS.
3.27 Additional evidence with regards to sites was also produced by the Council during the period November 2014 - July 2015 in support of the LPS; this included a Site Selection Methodology (SSM) flow diagram [PS E040] and the completion of additional work, including the Urban Potential Assessment (UPA) and Edge of Settlement Assessment (ESA) [PS E039]. On 31 July 2015, CEC requested the Inspector to formally resume the Examination. Resumed hearing sessions were held between 21 and 30 October 2015 to review the additional evidence produced during the suspension, which included discussion on the UPA, ESA and SSM (Matter 5).
3.28 Following the resumed hearing sessions, the Inspector’s Further Interim Views on the additional evidence were published in December 2015.29 The Inspector found that the nature, scope and approach of the additional evidence has largely met the concerns set out in his earlier Interim Views (Nov 2014). In relation to the further site options work, his views included: . paragraph 58 ‘…CEC seems to have adopted a reasonable and balanced approach to the UPA’
26 [PS A015] Letter from Inspector to Council re Examination Progress 27 [PS B033] Letter from Council to Inspector re Examination Progress 28 [PS A017b] Inspector’s Interim Views, dated 6 November 2014 29 [RE A021] Inspector’s Further Interim Views December 2015
February 2016 45/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. paragraph 59 ‘Given the comprehensive, objective and consistent nature of the ESA, it will form a key input into the site-selection process.’ . Paragraph 60 ‘CEC has developed a 10 stage site-selection process to ensure the selection of strategic and other site allocations is undertaken in an objective, consistent and comprehensive way (SSM)’ . Paragraph 61, regarding the SSM, ‘CEC’s hearing statements provide more detail and much of this information could be usefully added to the methodology, to ensure a more precise, consistent and transparent approach.’
3.29 The Council has continued to progress the further technical work in relation to sites, which includes the SSM. The proposed site selection process and method and its link to the SA process is explained in detail within the Site Selection Report (Feb 2016)30. The SSM involves a number of key stages and these are set out in the Figure below.
Figure 3.2:
30 CEC (Feb 2016) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Site Selection Report: http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/library
February 2016 46/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.30 As illustrated in Figure 3.2 above, all remaining site options following the Stage 3 ‘site sift’ were taken forward for consideration through the SA and HRA process.
3.31 Enfusion undertook a fresh independent appraisal of all reasonable site options, identified through the Council’s SSM, against the full SA Framework using updated evidence where available. Please refer to Section 2 of this Report for the approach and method used to appraise site options through the SA. The summary findings of the fresh SA for the site options are presented below with the detailed appraisals provided in Appendix III. The summary findings should be read in-conjunction with the detailed appraisal matrices provided in Appendix VI as well as the SA Framework presented in Table 2.1, which sets out the standards and thresholds used as well as any assumptions that have been made. It should be noted that like the SA, the Council’s site selection process has been an iterative and on-going process. The appraisals of site options were regularly revised and updated to reflect the development and refinement of options through plan-making and in line with emerging evidence during the suspension of the Examination. The findings of the fresh appraisal have informed and influenced the Council’s site selection process.
Alsager Site Options
3.32 Alsager is classified as a Key Service Centre in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 11,80031. The town is close to the boundary of the Borough and therefore has links both within the Borough to the nearby towns of Crewe and Sandbach but also externally to the Potteries conurbation.
3.33 The Council identified 11 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development within and around Alsager: . PSS300: Twyfords and Cardway (CS 12) . PSS301: Former MMU Campus (CS 13) . PSS302: Radway Green (CS 14) . PSS303: Radway Green Extension (CS 15) . PSS304: White Moss Quarry (SL 5) . PSS305: Fannys Croft (1536) . PSS306: Land North of Heath End Farm (1786) . PSS307: Former MMU Extension (1786) . PSS308: Radway Green North (1870) (capacity options PSS308a and PSS308b) . PSS309: Sandbach Road North, Alsager (Phase 1) (2133) . PSS310: Land at Close Lane (3126)
31 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 47/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.34 Alsager has central area services and facilities, and as would be expected, the site options that lay furthest from the town centre or central area have the poorest access to these existing facilities and services. The Accessibility Assessment, presented in Appendix II, found that site options around Radway Green (including White Moss Quarry) (PSS302, PSS303 and PSS304) in the south west and the land North of Heath End Farm (PSS306) in the north of the settlement fail to meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of existing services and facilities, with the potential for negative effects of greater significance on promoting sustainable access and travel than the remaining site options within Alsager.
3.35 Sites located more centrally (PSS300 Twyfords and Cardway, PSS305 Fanny’s Croft and PSS309 Sandbach Road North) present more sustainable options in terms of access to existing services and facilities, with the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 2. The sites located in and around the MMU campus (PSS301, PSS307 and PSS310) are within reasonable walking distance to the majority of services; however, development that improves access to a convenience store or supermarket, a post office, pharmacy, medical centre and community centre could significantly improve accessibility within this area of the settlement.
3.36 The Council has identified the potential for the delivery of employment land at PSS300, PSS302, PSS303 and predominantly employment land. Employment development is therefore directed towards existing employment areas (Radway Green Business Park and Twyfords and Cardway), with the potential for major positive effects. This is likely to increase travel between the central area and south west of the settlement as employment opportunities increase in this area, and it will be important to support sustainable transport corridors between these locations, particularly along the B5077 (Crewe Road).
3.37 The majority of the site options are located within reasonable walking distance of an employment area. Significant positive effects were identified for those sites proposing development within existing employment areas (Radway Green; PSS302, PSS303, PSS304 and PSS308), and minor positive effects were identified for the sites at Twyfords and Cardway (PSS300) and Fanny’s Croft (PSS305). The remaining sites are considered beyond reasonable walking distance to existing employment opportunities, with significant negative effects identified at the sites far north / north west of the settlement (PSS306 Land North of Heath End Farm, PSS307 the MMU extension, and PSS310 Land at Close Lane).
3.38 There are no promoted footpaths within the settlement, and as such none of the site options are located within reasonable walking distance (200m) of them. All of the site options however are located within 500m of Public Rights of Way, although these are considered of less significance compared to promoted routes. Two cycle routes intersect the settlement; National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 70 and the Salt Ride, and all of the site options are located within 1km access to these. NCN Route 70 provides north east and south west connections and the Salt Ride connects Alsager with Sandbach and north east Crewe.
February 2016 48/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.39 The sites at Radway Green (PSS302, PSS303 and PSS308) and the Twyfords and Cardway site (PSS300) are considered to have the greatest potential for negative effects on traffic and air quality (SA Objective 8 & 10) given the higher capacity of these sites to accommodate development. Given the capacity of the remaining sites it is considered that mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure a residual neutral effect. It should also be noted that there are no existing AQMAs within Alsager. All of the site options apart from the land at Close Lane (PSS310), are located close to sensitive junctions identified in the traffic modelling report for Alsager32. The cumulative effect of development at a number of the sites at this stage is unknown and there is the potential for significant negative effects unless appropriate mitigation is provided.
3.40 Flood risk areas are located south of the settlement and along the north east of the settlement. The SA found that site options south of Crewe Road (PSS302, PSS305 and PSS308) contain areas of flood risk, as well as Sandbach Road North (PSS309). It is considered that any development can avoid areas of flood risk on site and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9 for most of these sites. In recognition of this the SA found that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 9.
3.41 Taking mitigation into account the SA found that there is unlikely to be any significant negative effects as a result of development at any of the site options on biodiversity. It should be noted however that the site option at White Moss Quarry (PSS304) partially contains White Moss Local Wildlife Site (LWS). While development could be avoided in this area and suitable mitigation is available to ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects, the SA found that there is the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 given the presence of the LWS. It should be noted that avoiding the LWS could significantly reduce the developable area of this site. It is important to note that the HRA process for the Local Plan has screened the potential site options and determined that there will be no likely significant effects on European sites, subject to the inclusion of additional wording with the Plan.
3.42 Taking mitigation into account the SA found that there is unlikely to be any significant negative effects as a result of development at any of the site options on heritage. The central sites (PSS300 Twyfords and Cardway, and PSS305 Fanny’s Croft) are located just outside of Alsager Conservation Area and as such any proposal for development will require sensitive and responsive design. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Strategy Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development does not have significant negative effects on the setting of designated heritage assets
32 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 49/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a. It should be noted that compared to the other options, the SA found that development at Twyfords and Cardway (PSS300) has the potential for a minor positive effect on heritage through the redevelopment of previously developed land, which could help to improve the setting of the Alsager Conservation Area.
3.43 None of the site options are located within a locally designated landscape area. The SA found that development at Twyfords and Cardway (PSS300), the former MMU Campus (PSS301) and Radway Green (PSS302) could have positive effects on landscape (SA Objective 12b) through the regeneration of previously developed land. Development at the other site options would result in the loss of greenfield land with the potential for a residual minor negative effect on the landscape through the introduction of development in a previously undeveloped area. It is important to note that Radway Green Extension (PSS303) and Fanny’s Croft (PSS305) would result in the loss of Green Belt. The Green Belt designation contributes to avoiding the coalescence of Alsager with surrounding settlements, including Kidsgrove, just south east of Alsager. However, development at these sites will not directly result in coalescence. The cumulative effects of releasing land south of the B5077 (Crewe Road) however should be given further consideration.
3.44 A band of mineral resources exists in the south of the settlement. The SA found that development at site options in this area (PSS302, PSS303, PSS304 and PSS305) could potentially hinder future access to and use of mineral resources given the presence of safeguards areas or potential areas of search. It should be noted that the Radway Green Extension (PSS303) is located wholly within a mineral resource area with the potential for negative effects of greater significance. The SA also found that development at White Moss Quarry (PSS304) and Sandbach Rd North (PSS309) could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2) with the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. Site options PSS303, PSS305, PSS306, PSS307 and PSS308 all contain greenfield as well as some agricultural land with the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16; however, there is also an element of uncertainty at this stage as the quality of agricultural land is not yet known.
3.45 The greatest constraint for development in and around Alsager is achieving sustainable access to the existing services, facilities and employment opportunities within the settlement. This could be supported by sustainable transport connections to the wider services and facilities available in Crewe just to the west of the settlement. Growth in the south and east of the settlement is also restricted by designated Green Belt land. Compared to some of the other settlements, development opportunities in Alsager are less restricted by constraints relating to the landscape, biodiversity and historic environment, given that there are no local landscape designations, or national/ European biodiversity designations and relatively few designated heritage assets.
February 2016 50/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Congleton Site Options
3.46 Congleton is classified as a Key Service Centre in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 26,70033. It is a historic mill town that lies on the River Dane which runs to the north of the town. The Council identified 15 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development around Congleton: . PSS400: Back Lane / Radnor Park (SL 6) . PSS401: Congleton Business Park Extension (SL 7) . PSS402: Giantswood Lane to Manchester Road (SL 8) . PSS403: Giantswood Lane South (CS 16) . PSS404: Manchester Road to Macclesfield Road (CS 17) . PSS405: North of Lamberts Lane (1789) . PSS406: Sandbach Road / Padgbury Lane (1789) . PSS407: Padgbury Lane (2545 & 2546) . PSS408: Bent Farm, Bent Lane (2834) . PSS409: Sandbach Road / Sandy Lane (2834) . PSS410: Sandbach Road (2906) . PSS411: Tall Ash Farm (3159) . PSS412: Tall Ash Farm (3225) . PSS413: Land East of Moss Lane . PSS414: Land West of Chelford Road
3.47 The site options are all located on the outskirts of the settlement area, either adjacent to the settlement edge or slightly removed from it. As would be expected, the majority of existing facilities and services are located within the town centre. The Accessibility Assessment, presented in Appendix II, found that the site options at Giantswood Lane to Manchester Road (PSS402), Sandbach Rd, Sandy Lane (PSS409) and West of Chelford Rd (PSS414) fail to meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of existing services and facilities. These options are therefore considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2, and are located in the north and north-west of the settlement.
3.48 While the remaining options meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities, with the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 2, it should be noted that the site options at Congleton Business Park (PSS401), North of Lamberts Lane (PSS405), and at Tall Ash Farm (PSS411) are the closest to the existing facilities and services provided in the town centre. Development that improves access to rail facilities, a secondary school, a supermarket and a medical centre could significantly enhance the positive effects identified for these sites. Some of the larger sites (particularly those located north of the settlement) have the potential to provide new
33 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 51/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
facilities and services as part of development, which could help to address some of the accessibility issues identified; however, the precise nature and level of provision is uncertain at this stage.
3.49 The majority of the site options in the north and north-west of the town (PSS400, PSS401, PSS402, PSS414), are within 500m of an existing strategic employment area (either Radnor Park Trading Estate or Congleton Business Park) with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b. The site options to the west of the town (PSS406, PSS407, PSS408, PSS409 and PSS410) were identified as being over 1km from any existing employment areas of significance. These site options were found by the SA to have the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b. The remainder of the site options are all located within 500m of a smaller existing employment area with the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 17b. The findings in the accessibility assessment highlight that improvements to access to services, facilities and employment opportunities in the west particularly but also in the north of the settlement will be required to accommodate further growth in these areas.
3.50 There are no promoted footpaths within the settlement, and as such none of the site options are located within reasonable walking distance (200m) of them. All of the site options however are located within 500m of Public Rights of Way, although these are considered to be of less significance than promoted routes. There are numerous cycle routes that intersect the settlement, providing connections largely to Macclesfield and the north of the Borough, and all of the site options are located within 1km of these connections with the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 4b.
3.51 Site options PSS400, PSS401, PSS405 and PSS408 are considered to have the greatest potential for negative effects on traffic and air quality (SA Objective 8 & 10) given the higher capacity of these sites to accommodate development. Development at any of the site options could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. The SA found that mitigation provided through Local Plan Strategy policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects on traffic and air quality but there are a number of uncertainties at this stage. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that traffic and air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
3.52 The River Dane is the primary source of flood risk in the settlement, and the sites identified in the SA as intersecting this river are PSS400, PSS401, PSS406, PSS407, PSS408 and PSS410. It is considered that mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9 for these sites options. However, at site option PSS401 mitigation is expected to more difficult and/or expensive as the flood risk area significantly reduces the developable area of the site.
February 2016 52/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.53 Taking mitigation into account the SA found that there is unlikely to be any significant negative effects on biodiversity as a result of development at any of the site options. A number of site options are located within 200m of locally designated Wildlife Sites or Nature Reserves; however, mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level will ensure that any residual effects are neutral. The sites at Radnor Park (PSS400) and Congleton Business Park (PSS401) partially contain the River Dane Local Wildlife Site. It is assumed that development will avoid the loss of locally designated areas and provide suitable buffers, however to reflect the presence of locally designated biodiversity on site the SA has identified the potential for minor negative effects against SA Objective 11 for these sites. It is important to note that the HRA process for the Local Plan has screened all the potential site options and determined that there will be no likely significant effects on European sites.
3.54 For the majority of site options the SA found that there would not be any significant negative effects on heritage once mitigation has been taken into account. It was considered that development at Bent Farm (PSS408) and Tall Ash Farm (PSS411 and PSS412) could have the potential for residual minor negative effects on heritage as they could affect the setting of a Scheduled Monument (Roman Camp at Bent Farm) and the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area. While there is the potential for major negative effects it is considered that development could avoid the designated assets and ensure that appropriate mitigation is provided, which includes buffers and screening.
3.55 There are no designated heritage assets within site option PSS405 (North of Lamberts Lane); however, it lies just outside of the Congleton Conservation Area and Congleton Area of Archaeological Potential. The Council’s assessment of potential sites34 identifies that the infrastructure improvements that would be required as a result of development at this site could potentially have significant effects on the designated heritage assets. It should be noted that parts of this site option have already received planning permission at appeal, and a further appeal into development of the entire site was allowed in December 2015 (Ref: 13/3517C35). The Council’s landscape architect commented on the refused application of the site to state that the Cheshire Historic Landscape Character Assessment (HLC) identifies the area as forming part of the Medieval Town Fields of Congleton, which represent a distinctive style of medieval enclosure that relate to the medieval open field arable landscape. As part of the remaining Town Fields of Congleton the site has an important historic association with medieval Congleton that hasn’t been fully identified or considered in the assessments submitted alongside the planning application36. Based on this evidence, the
34 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 35 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/3517C 36 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/3517C
February 2016 53/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA found that development at site SA18 has the potential for a residual major negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
3.56 The SA found that development at all of the site options would at least result in the loss of greenfield land, with the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect on the landscape (SA Objective 12b). It is important to note that as the scale of proposed development reduces so does the potential significance of negative effects. Compared to the other site options, development at site PSS401 is considered to have the greatest potential for major negative effects on the landscape as it lies predominantly within the Dane Valley Local Landscape Designation. Site option PSS400 lies partially within this Local Landscape Designation so is considered likely to have a negative effect of less significance compared to development at site option PSS401. There is Green Belt land to the east and south of the settlement, however none of the Congleton site options are located within the Green Belt.
3.57 The SA found that development at site options PSS400, PSS401, PSS403, PSS404, PSS405, PSS406, PSS407 and PSS408 could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a) with the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. The remaining site options all contain greenfield as well as some agricultural land with the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16; however, there is also an element of uncertainty at this stage as the quality of agricultural land is not yet known. It was also identified that development at site options PSS402, PSS408 and PSS413 could potentially hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
3.58 Development within Congleton is restricted by the Green Belt designation in the south and east of the settlement. The SA has identified that the north of the settlement is subject to a number of key constraints, which includes relatively poor access to existing facilities and services. It is therefore recommended that development in the north and west of the settlement is supported where possible with the provision of new local services and facilities. The northern area also contains a sensitive landscape area (Dane Valley Local Landscape Designation), flood risk areas and a Local Wildlife Site around the River Dane, mineral resources and best and most versatile agricultural land.
Crewe Site Options
3.59 Crewe is classed as a Principal Town in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 75,00037. The town is a key focus for access to facilities and services for the surrounding Local Service Centres and wider rural area. The Council identified 32 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development within and surrounding Crewe:
37 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 54/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. PSS100: Basford East (CS 1) . PSS101: Basford West (CS 2) . PSS102: Leighton West (CS 3) . PSS103: Crewe Green (CS 4) . PSS104: Sydney Road (CS 5) . PSS105: Shavington / Wybunbury Triangle (CS 6) . PSS106: East Shavington (CS 7) . PSS107: South Cheshire Growth Village, South East Crewe (CS 37) . PSS108: Central Crewe (SL 1) . PSS109: Leighton, Crewe (SL 2) . PSS110: Broughton Road (smaller part) (2043) . PSS111: Broughton Road (larger site) (2043) . PSS112: Sydney Road (3092) . PSS113: Land South of Gresty Lane (3116) . PSS114: Land off Eastern Road (3156) . PSS115: Land South of Park Road (986) . PSS116: Gresty Green (3557) . PSS117: Land North of Moorfields (3134) . PSS118: South Cheshire Growth Village Extension 1 (2454) . PSS119: South Cheshire Growth Village Extension 2 (2454) . PSS120: South West Crewe (3109) . PSS121: Church Lane, Wistaston (2151) . PSS122: Wistaston Village (2325) . PSS123: North of Wistaston Green Road (993) . PSS124: Sydney Road North (3092) . PSS125: University Way . PSS126: Marshfield Bank Farm, Middlewich Rd . PSS127: Wood Farm, Middlewich Rd . PSS128: Groby Rd . PSS129: North of Crewe Green 1 (1782) . PSS130: North of Crewe Green 2 (3500)
3.60 It should be noted that option PSS108 (Central Crewe) is a strategic area for potential development rather than an individual site with a defined development boundary.
3.61 The Accessibility Assessment, presented in Appendix II, found that site options PSS107, PSS114, PSS118, PSS119, PSS123, PSS125, PSS126, PSS127 and PSS128 fail to meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of existing services and facilities. These options were therefore considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. These sites are largely based around the south and south west of the settlement (apart from PSS128). While the other site options meet the minimum standards for access
February 2016 55/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
to the majority of services and facilities, with the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 2, it should be noted that the strategic area of central Crewe (PSS108) meets the minimum standards for access to all existing facilities and services considered, which is not surprising as the area contains the town centre. Some of the larger sites have the potential to provide new facilities and services as part of development, which would help to address some of the accessibility issues identified, particularly in the south; however, this is uncertain at this stage.
3.62 There are a number of sites that rely on the existing facilities and services provided by smaller settlements, such as those surrounding Willaston (PSS114, PSS115, and PSS117) and East Shavington (PSS105 and PSS106). There are also a number of site options completely removed from existing settlements, which will essentially result in a new village (South Cheshire Growth Village PSS107, PSS118 and PSS119). While development at these site options may be able to provide new or enhance existing facilities and services, it is predicted that future residents are still likely travel into Crewe to access the greater range of facilities and services on offer.
3.63 The SA did not identify any conflicting adjacent land uses for any of the site options apart from PSS102. Development at this site option, particularly during construction phases, could negatively affect the amenity of the neighbouring Leighton Hospital, with the potential for minor short-term negative effects against SA Objective 4a.
3.64 There are four strategic employment areas within Crewe; Bentley Motors, Weston Road, Crewe Gates and Crewe Business Park. Site options PSS100, PSS102, PSS103, PSS108 and PSS125 are located within 500m of these areas and were therefore found to have the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b. Site options PSS101, PSS107, PSS110, PSS113, PSS116, PSS117 and PSS122 are within 500m of an existing non-strategic employment site so were found to have a slightly reduced positive effect against SA Objective 17b compared to those options near to strategic employment areas. The remaining site options were all over 500m from any existing employment areas of significance, with site options PSS105, PSS114, PSS115, PSS119, PSS123, and PSS128 being the furthest away and having the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b. It is important to note that some of these sites have the potential to provide employment opportunities as part of development and this should play a consideration in the decision-making process.
3.65 Promoted footpaths surround the settlement and there are numerous cycle paths in and around Crewe. National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 74 runs east-west centrally through Crewe creating a sustainable transport corridor from the settlement edges to central Crewe. The majority of the site options are located within 200m of a promoted footpath or within 1km of a promoted cycle route with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 4b. Site option PSS107 was found to be within these distances to both promoted footpaths and promoted cycle routes with the potential for a major positive effect. The SA found that site options PSS102, PSS104, PSS105, PSS109, PSS110, PSS112, PSS116, PSS124, PSS126, and PSS127 are not within
February 2016 56/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
200m of a promoted footpath or 1km of a promoted cycle route with the potential for negative effects against SA Objective 4b. It should be noted that all of the site options are within 500m of PRoW except for Wood Farm (PSS127), which is located within 800m of PRoW; however, for the purposes of the SA PRoW are considered to be of less significance when compared to promoted routes.
3.66 Site options PSS111, PSS122, PSS124 and PSS130 are considered to have the greatest potential for negative effects on traffic and air quality (SA Objective 8 & 10) given the higher capacity of these sites to accommodate development. It should be noted that PSS102, PSS103, PSS104, PSS108, PSS110, PSS111, PSS112, PSS122, PSS124, PSS125, and PSS129 are all close to junctions that are identified as being sensitive in the traffic modelling report for Crewe38. It should also be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. At this stage, it is considered that mitigation provided through Local Plan Strategy policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects on traffic and air quality as a result of development being delivered at individual sites. However, the cumulative effect of development at a number of the sites at this stage is unknown and there is the potential for significant negative effects unless appropriate mitigation is provided. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
3.67 There are a number of site options that are located partially within and/or adjacent to a flood risk area. However, it is considered that mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects in relation to flood risk at any of the site options.
3.68 Taking mitigation into account the SA found that there is unlikely to be any significant negative effects on biodiversity as a result of development at any of the site options. A number of site options are located within 200m of locally designated Wildlife Sites or Nature Reserves; however, mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level will ensure that any residual effects are neutral against SA Objective 11. The SA found that there is the potential for residual minor negative effects on biodiversity as a result of development at site options PSS100 (Basford Brook is designated as a Local Wildlife Site and it runs through the site option) and PSS111 (which is adjacent to Sandbach Flashes SSSI). It will be important for development at any of the potential site options to avoid sensitive areas and seek to retain and enhance habitat connectivity wherever possible. It is important to note that the HRA process for the Local Plan has screened all the potential site options and
38 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 57/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
determined that there will be no likely significant effects on European sites, subject to the inclusion of additional wording with the Plan.
3.69 There are two Conservation Areas (Crewe Green and Weston) which lie on the outskirts of the urban area. Taking mitigation into account the SA found that development would not have significant negative effects on heritage at the majority of the site options. However, Historic England requested further information over the development of PSS118 and PSS119 as there is the potential for a major negative effect on the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings. The SA therefore found that there is the potential for a residual major negative effect as a result of development at these site options. The SA found that site options PSS100, PSS107, PSS120, PSS122, PSS126, PSS127 and PSS130 either contain or are in close proximity to designated heritage assets that could have impacts on their setting. However, mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that these negative effects are not significant, with the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12a. The SA noted that there is the potential for cumulative negative effects on Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden as a result of development at site options PSS100, PSS107, PSS118, PSS119 and PSS125.
3.70 Development within strategic site option PSS108 could regenerate areas of previously developed land, with the potential for a minor positive effect on land and soils, and the townscape setting; however, this remains uncertain until the precise location of individual developments is known. The rest of the site options are considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect on landscape through the loss of greenfield land. It should be noted that the potential for significant negative effects increases as the level of proposed growth increases. Therefore, a site option with the capacity to deliver 4,000 new dwellings, such as PSS122, is likely to have a negative effect of greater significance compared to a site option, such as PSS117, that could only accommodate 170 dwellings. The level of mitigation required is also likely to increase; however, the nature and significance of effects will ultimately be dependent on the precise scale and layout/design of development. It should be noted that there is Green Belt land to the south east of the settlement and South Cheshire Growth Village (PSS107) is the only site located within this designated area.
3.71 The SA found that development at 12 of the 32 Crewe site options has the potential for major long-term negative effects against SA Objective 16 through the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). Evidence suggests that while site options PSS102, PSS104, PSS109 and PSS123 would result in the loss of agricultural land, this would not be best and most versatile. Development at site option PSS108 could regenerate areas of previously developed land with the potential for positive effects against SA Objective 16. The remaining site options all contain greenfield as well as some agricultural land with the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16; however, there is also an element of uncertainty at this stage as the quality of agricultural land is not yet known. The SA also found that development at site options PSS107, PSS118 and PSS119 could potentially hinder future access to and use of
February 2016 58/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
3.72 As a Principal Town Crewe is a focus for growth; however, the SA has identified a number of constraints, which are largely concentrated to the south of the settlement. These include relatively poor access to existing services and facilities, the presence of best and most versatile agricultural land, and the presence of designated heritage assets, including Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden. It is recommended that any development in the south of the settlement is supported with new service and facility provisions. It will be also important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
Handforth Site Options
3.73 Handforth is classified as a Key Service Centre in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 6,60039. The town is located in the north of Cheshire and shares services and facilities with the adjoining settlement of Wilmslow. Handforth is also very close to the Greater Manchester conurbation and is separated from Heald Green and Cheadle Hulme by a narrow gap.
3.74 The Council identified 6 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development within and around Handforth: . PSS500: North Cheshire Growth Village (CS 30) . PSS501: North Cheshire Growth Village (Safeguarded) (CS 34) . PSS502: Land at Handforth East (1452) . PSS503: Land South of Beech Farm, Handforth (1452) . PSS504: Land to the West of Clay Lane, Handforth (2822) . PSS505: Land at Clay Lane & Sagars Road
3.75 The Handforth site options are all located on the outskirts of the urban area, adjoining the settlement edge; however, they all meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II) and therefore have the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 2. Compared to the other site options, site option PSS505, and the western section of PSS500, have more easily accessible routes to the services and facilities on offer in Handforth’s central area. Considering the size of the potential allocation at PSS500 it is considered that development at this site could also include new service and facilities provisions in the east of the settlement, supporting existing and future residents in this area. It should be noted that in line with Local Plan policies IN 1 & 2, the SA assumed that any proposal for development can make appropriate and timely provision for necessary supporting infrastructure,
39 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 59/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
including health, green infrastructure and other community facilities and services.
3.76 All of the site options are located over 200m from a promoted footpath and over 1km from a promoted cycle route. The site options are however all located within 500m of a PRoW, but for the purposes of the SA these are considered to be as significant as promoted routes. As such, all of the site options are considered to have the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 4b. Development at any of the Handforth site options should seek to create attractive and safe footpaths and cycle paths that connect with the central area.
3.77 The majority of the Handforth site options are not located within 500m of an existing employment area, with the potential for negative effects against SA Objective 17b. PSS500 is located in the east of the settlement and can contribute to improved access to employment in this area of the settlement.
3.78 Site options PSS500, PSS501, PSS502 and PSS504 were considered to have the greatest potential for negative effects on traffic and air quality (SA Objective 8 & 10) compared to site options PSS503 and PSS505, given the higher capacity of the sites to accommodate development. The SA found that mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects on traffic and air quality but there are a number of uncertainties at this stage. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Handforth are considered and addressed to ensure that traffic and air quality issues do not deteriorate and ideally improve.
3.79 Only one of the site options, PSS501, which is safeguarded land, is located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area. It is considered that any proposed development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9. However the safeguarding of this site should be considered alongside climate change projections that the extent of flood risk is likely to increase in the future40.
3.80 All of the Handforth site options, except for PSS503 are located either adjacent to, or within close proximity (around 200m) to designated Local Wildlife Sites. Evidence suggests that site option PSS500 is also likely to contain Protected Species (Great Crested Newt). It is considered that mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including where appropriate a buffer between development and the wildlife site, should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. The site
40 UKCP09: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69257/pb13274- uk-climate-projections-090617.pdf
February 2016 60/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
options are therefore considered to have the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
3.81 Site options PSS500 and PSS504 contain a Listed Building within their development boundaries. Whilst it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the building itself, there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Compared to the other site options these two sites are considered to have the greatest potential for negative effects on heritage.
3.82 None of the Handforth site options will involve the regeneration of previously developed land, and as such all site options are considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect on land and soils, and the landscape/ townscape setting through the loss of greenfield land. None of the site options are located within a locally designated landscape area, and none are located within or adjacent to a mineral resource area either. None of the site options are known to contain best and most versatile agricultural land; however, the precise quality of agricultural land is not known at this stage so there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. Site option PSS500 would involve the largest loss of greenfield land at over 100ha and is therefore likely to have a negative effect of greater significance compared to the other site options.
3.83 The settlement is surrounded by Green Belt land and is located on the edge of the Cheshire East administrative boundary. All of the Handforth site options lie within the Green Belt with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 21, again as site option PSS500 is the largest site it is considered to have a negative effect of greater significance than the rest of the site options. All of the site options located east of the settlement (PSS500, PSS501, PSS502, and PSS503) are likely to contribute to the coalescence of Handforth and Bramhall. Site option PSS500 would extend the urban area to the Cheshire East Administrative Boundary. Development at site options PSS504 and PSS505 are located west of the settlement and site options PSS504 would extend the urban area further towards the Cheshire East administrative boundary in the west.
3.84 The constraints for development, over and above those that apply to all site options in Handforth (i.e. Green Belt and greenfield land), largely exist in the south and central area of the settlement in relation to flood risk and locally designated biodiversity sites. The site options located in the north east and north west of the settlement are free from flood risk and designated biodiversity; however, development in this area extends the urban area towards the Cheshire East Administrative Boundary and is more likely to result in coalescence and cross-boundary effects. The largest site option in Handforth, PSS500, would contribute to coalescence; however, development at this site also offers the benefits of improved accessibility in the west of the settlement through potential new services, facilities and employment provisions on site. The size of site option PSS500 however will significantly increase the size of the settlement on the whole, and significantly change the landscape west of the settlement.
February 2016 61/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Knutsford Site Options
3.85 Knutsford is classified as a Key Service Centre in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 13,20041. It has a substantial proportion of services and facilities that support a winder hinterland covering a number of smaller nearby settlements. The Council has identified 11 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development within and around Knutsford: . PSS600: Parkgate Extension (CS 19) . PSS601: Land between Northwich Road and Tabley Road (2530 & CS 18 West) . PSS602: Land between Manchester Road and Tabley Road (CS 33 & 2530) . PSS603: Potential Extension to CS18 Land East of Manchester Road (2623, CS 18 East & CS 33 East) . PSS604: Land North of Northwich Road (CS 18 West) . PSS605: Land East of Manchester Rd & West of Mereheath Lane (CS 18 East / CS 35) . PSS606: Land West of Parkgate (2623) . PSS607: Land South of Longridge (3455) . PSS608: Land adjacent to Booths Hall (1598) . PSS609: Land West of Toft Road (3202) . PSS610: Land East of Toft Road (3594 / 2655)
3.86 The Accessibility Assessment, presented in Appendix II, found that all of the Knutsford site options meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of existing services and facilities, with the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 2. The sites located in the south of the settlement (PSS609 and PSS610) fail to meet the minimum standards for access to more services and facilities than the other site options, and given the size of these sites, they are unlikely to provide any significant improvement to provisions in this area; however, it should be noted that this is uncertain at this stage.
3.87 The Knutsford site options are all located on the outskirts of the urban area, adjoining the settlement edge. None of the site options are located within 200m of a promoted footpath or within 1km of a promoted cycle route; however, they are all within 500m of PRoW. For the purposes of the SA, PRoW are considered to be of less significance than promoted routes. As such, all of the site options are considered to have the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 4b. Development at any of the Knutsford site options should seek to create attractive and safe footpaths and cycle paths that connect with the central area.
3.88 The site options located in the north east of the settlement (PSS600, PSS606, PSS607 and PSS608) are all located within 500m of a strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b. Site options PSS603 and PSS605 in the north west of the settlement are within
41 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 62/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
500m of a smaller employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b. The rest of the site options located in the north-west, west and south of the settlement are between 500m and 1km from employment sites with the potential for minor negative effects. Although site option PSS602 is between 500m and 1km of existing employment, this should be considered alongside the provision of 4.5ha of employment land on site, which has the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 17a. Site options PSS600, PSS602, PSS603, PSS605 and PSS606 all seek to provide employment land with the potential for positive effects against SA Objective 17a. However, employment development at site options PSS602, PSS603 and PSS605 would increase access to employment in the north-west of the settlement which could have positive effects of greater significance for both new and existing residential development as residents currently travel further to access strategic employment areas.
3.89 Site options PSS600, PSS601, PSS602 and PSS603 were considered to have the greatest potential for negative effects on traffic and air quality (SA Objective 8 & 10) compared to the other site options, given the higher capacity of these sites to accommodate development. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. The SA found that mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects on traffic and air quality but there are a number of uncertainties at this stage. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
3.90 There is an area of flood risk east of the settlement and site options PSS600, PSS606 and PSS607 are located partially within/ adjacent to this. It is considered that development can avoid areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect for these sites options. The remaining site options however present lower flood risk development opportunities.
3.91 All of the Knutsford site options except for PSS602, PSS609 and PSS610 are located either adjacent to or in close proximity (around 200m) to locally designated Wildlife Sites. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including where appropriate a buffer between development and the wildlife site, should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. These site options are therefore considered to have the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
3.92 Site option PSS606 is located adjacent to the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar Site, Tatton Meres SSSI and Shawheath Plantation and Dog Wood Local Wildlife Site. The HRA process for the Local Plan has screened this proposed site and determined that there will be no likely significant effects on the European site subject to the inclusion of additional wording within the Plan. Mitigation provided through the Local Plan (such as Policy SE 3) should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects on
February 2016 63/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
the SSSI and LWS, however given the proximity of European and nationally designated sites, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect.
3.93 Site option PSS608 is adjacent to and contains a small part of Booths Mere Local Wildlife Site, the site also contains Ancient Woodland and protected trees. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11.
3.94 The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
3.95 The settlement contains 4 Conservation Areas and Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden, and all of the site options except PSS607 are located in close proximity to one of these. It is considered that for the majority of the site options there is sufficient mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level to ensure that there will be no significant negative effects; however, development at these sites is likely to affect the heritage setting, with the potential for a residual minor negative effect. PSS607 presents the site option with the least heritage constraints.
3.96 Site option PSS601 lies just outside of the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area but also contains two Listed Buildings. Given the capacity of the site to accommodate 520 new dwellings, it is considered that development has the potential for negative effects on the setting of these designated heritage assets. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect on heritage.
3.97 Site option PSS608 is located in close proximity to not only Legh Road Conservation Area but also a Scheduled Monument, and site option PSS610 is located within Legh Road Conservation Area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is still the potential to affect the setting of the Conservation Area at these site options and the setting of the Scheduled Monument at site option PSS608, with the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
3.98 None of the Knutsford site options will involve the regeneration of previously developed land, and as such all site options are considered to have the
February 2016 64/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
potential for a minor negative effect on land and soils, and the landscape / townscape setting through the loss of greenfield land. Site options PSS600, PSS602, PSS603, PSS605 and PSS606 are located within the Tatton and Rostherene Local Landscape Designation, and development at these sites has the potential to significantly affect the landscape; with the potential for major long-term negative effects against SA Objective 12b. All of the site options contain some agricultural land with the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16; however, at this stage there is also an element of uncertainty as the quality of agricultural land is not yet known.
3.99 The settlement is surrounded by Green Belt land and all of the Knutsford site options except for PSS600 are located within it, with the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. Development at any of these sites however is not likely to lead to the coalescence of Knutsford and nearby settlements.
3.100 The SA found that development at site options PSS602, PSS603 and PSS605 could potentially hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
3.101 The settlement of Knutsford has significant development constraints largely relating to designated heritage assets and biodiversity from European level designations through to local designations. Site options PSS609 and PSS610 are located in the south of the settlement, and along with significant heritage constraints, have the poorest access to existing services, facilities and employment opportunities. Given the size of these sites, they are also unlikely to provide any significant improvements in terms of access to facilities and services. Although development in the north-west of the settlement is likely to have heritage and natural resource constraints, it could improve accessibility through new onsite provisions of employment land and services /facilities.
Macclesfield Site Options
3.102 Macclesfield is classed as a Principal Town in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 52,60042. The town is a key focus for access to facilities and services for the surrounding Local Service Centres and wider rural area. The Council identified 19 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development within and surrounding Macclesfield: . PSS200: Central Macclesfield (SL 4) . PSS201: South Macclesfield Development Area (CS 8) . PSS202: Fence Avenue (CS 9) . PSS203: Land at Congleton Road (CS 10) . PSS204: South West Macclesfield Development Area (2177, CS 10 & CS 32)
42 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 65/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. PSS205: Land at Congleton Road and South West Macclesfield (part) (CS 10 & CS 32) . PSS206: Gaw End Lane (CS 11) . PSS207: Gaw End Lane (2357, CS 11 & CS 32) . PSS208: Gaw End Lane and Lyme Green (part) (CS11 & CS 32) . PSS209: Part of Land between Chelford Road and Whirley Road (2405) . PSS210: Land between Chelford Road and Whirley Road (2405, 3565) . PSS211: Land north of Birtles Road (3565) . PSS212: Land west of Priory Lane (3566) . PSS213: Land to the east of London Road (2124) . PSS214: Lark Hall (52) . PSS215: Land between Gawsworth Rd and Pexhill Rd (2177, CS 32 remainder) . PSS216: Pexhill Rd to Chelford Rd Site A (2177) . PSS217: Pexhill Rd to Chelford Rd Site B (2177) . PSS218: Land North of Prestbury Road
3.103 It should be noted that option PSS200 (Central Macclesfield) is a strategic area for potential development rather than an individual site with a defined development boundary.
3.104 The Accessibility Assessment, presented in Appendix II, found that all of the site options meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities, with the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 2. It should be noted that the strategic area of central Macclesfield (PSS200) meets the minimum standards for access to all existing facilities and services considered, which is not surprising as the area contains the town centre. Compared to the remaining site options, PSS2202 and PSS218 are the closest to the town centre and the facilities and services on offer there. Some of the larger sites have the potential to provide new facilities and services as part of development, which could help to improve accessibility; particularly in the south west of the settlement. Some of the site options located south of the settlement (PSS206, PSS207, PSS208) are identified within the Accessibility Assessment as having the poorest access to existing services and facilities compared to the other Macclesfield site options. Given the size of these options however, it is unlikely that development will provide any significant improvements in terms of access to services/facilities but this is uncertain at this stage.
3.105 There is one strategic employment area within Macclesfield, which is Hurdsfield Industrial Estate. Site options PSS200 and PSS202 are located within 500m of this area and have the potential for major positive effects against SA Objective 17b. There is the potential for a minor positive effect for site option PSS201, PSS206, PSS207, PSS208, PSS210, PSS213, PSS214, and PSS217 as they are within 500m of existing smaller employment opportunities that are of significance.
February 2016 66/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.106 Site options PSS204, PSS209, and PSS216 are within 1km of existing employment opportunities with the remaining site options PSS203, PSS205, PSS211, PSS212, PSS215 and PSS218 all over 1km from any employment opportunities of significance. The sites located over 1km from existing employment are located within the south-west and north-west of the settlement and have the potential for negative effects against SA Objective 17b of the greatest significance; however, for site options PSS203 and PSS205 this should be considered alongside the proposed delivery of 5ha and 10ha respectively of employment land, which has the potential for positive effects against SA Objective 17a. Site options PSS201, PSS204 and PSS213 also have the potential to accommodate new employment land which can support improved accessibility to employment in the south and south-west of the settlement.
3.107 All of the site options are located within 200m of a promoted footpath or within 1km of a promoted cycle route with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 4b. All of the site options are also within 500m of a PRoW. Central Macclesfield (PSS200) was found to be within these distances to both promoted footpaths and promoted cycle routes with the potential for a positive effect of the greatest significance.
3.108 Nine out of the 19 site options were considered to have the potential for negative effects on traffic and air quality (SA Objective 8 & 10) given the higher capacity of these sites to accommodate development. The largest of these sites is PSS204; although this site has the potential for negative effects pf greatest significance on traffic, given its size it is also considered to have the potential to deliver significant infrastructure improvements; however, this is uncertain at this stage. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road, and of all the site options; PSS200 and PSS213 are located in the closest proximity to this area. At this stage, it is considered that mitigation provided through Local Plan Strategy policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects on traffic and air quality as a result of development being delivered at individual sites. However, the cumulative effect of development at a number of the sites at this stage is unknown and there is the potential for significant negative effects unless appropriate mitigation is provided. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
3.109 Site options PSS202, PSS209, PSS213 and PSS218 are located partially within and/or adjacent to a flood risk area, and site options PSS210 is highly susceptible to surface water flooding. The SA found that mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level will ensure that there will be no significant negative effects in relation to flood risk at these site options, with the potential for a residual neutral effect. An element of uncertainty was identified in relation to site option PSS200 as the precise location of individual developments is not yet known.
3.110 Taking mitigation into account the SA found that there is unlikely to be any significant negative effects on biodiversity as a result of development at any
February 2016 67/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
of the site options. A number of site options are located within 200m of locally designated Wildlife Sites or Nature Reserves; however, mitigation provided through Local Plan Strategy policies and available at the project level will ensure that any residual effects are neutral against SA Objective 11. The SA found that there is the potential for residual minor negative effects on biodiversity as a result of development at site options PSS204, PSS207, PSS208, PSS216, and PSS217 as they either contain locally important designated sites or are in close proximity to a nationally designated site. It will be important for development at any of the potential site options to avoid designated or sensitive areas and seek to retain and enhance habitat connectivity wherever possible. It is important to note that the HRA process for the Local Plan has screened all the potential site options and determined that there will be no likely significant effects on European sites.
3.111 The settlement contains numerous designated heritage assets, particularly around the central are; however, once mitigation is taken into account, the SA found that development would not have significant negative effects on heritage at any of the site options. The SA found that nine out of the 19 site options (PSS200, PSS201, PSS202, PSS206, PSS207, PSS208, PSS213, PSS214 and PSS218) either contain or are in close proximity to designated heritage assets that could be affected by the level of proposed development, in particular their setting. However, mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that these negative effects are not significant, with the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area as a result of development at a number of these site options. PSS200 is a strategic area that contains numerous designated heritage assets including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Areas of Archaeological Potential. The nature and significance of effects against SA Objective 12a are ultimately dependent on the precise location of individual developments within this strategic area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Until the precise location of development is known it is considered the nature and significance of the effect of development on heritage within PSS200 is uncertain.
3.112 Development at PSS200 could regenerate areas of previously developed land, with the potential for minor positive effects on land and soils, and the townscape setting. However, there is an element of uncertainty as the precise location of development is not known. It should be noted that site option PSS212 contains a small proportion of brownfield land but that the majority of the site is greenfield. The rest of the site options are considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect on landscape through the loss of greenfield land.
3.113 The SA found that site options to the east of the town, which include PSS202, PSS213 and PSS214, are all located predominantly within the Peak Park Fringe Local Landscape Designation. Site option PSS218 is also located within the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation. Development within these site options has the potential to remove the areas connection
February 2016 68/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
with the designated landscape area. This may be particularly important in the Peak Park Fringe as this sits adjacent to the Peak District National Park and development in this area therefore has the potential to affect the setting of a nationally designated landscape. Taking this into account, the SA found that development at these site options has the potential for major long-term negative effects against SA Objective 12b. Macclesfield is also surrounded by Green Belt land, which means that development at the majority of site options will result in the loss of Green Belt. Only two of the site options are not in the Green Belt and these are PSS200 and PSS201, with the potential for a positive effect against SA Objective 21.
3.114 The SA found that development at site options PSS203, PSS204, PSS205, PSS215, PSS216 and PSS217 has the potential for permanent major negative effects against SA Objective 16 through the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). Site option PSS200 has the potential for a positive effect as there is likely to be development on brownfield land. Evidence suggests that the remaining site options would result in the loss of agricultural land; however, it is known that at site options PSS207 and PSS208 this would not be best and most versatile. There is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16 for the remaining site options as the agricultural land quality at this stage is not known. The SA also found that development at site options PSS203, PSS204, PSS205, PSS209, PSS210, PSS215, PSS216 and PSS217 could potentially hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
3.115 As a Principal Town Macclesfield is a focus for growth; however, the SA has identified a number of key constraints, which are largely concentrated in the central and eastern areas of the settlement in the form of a large number of designated heritage assets, as well as designated biodiversity and an area of flood risk that runs centrally north-south through the settlement. Development is also constrained by sensitive landscape areas in the east and north of the settlement. There is poorer accessibility to existing services and facilities within the south of the settlement, and it is unlikely that development of site options will deliver significant infrastructure and transport improvements given their size; however, this is uncertain at this stage. The land south-west of the settlement (north-west of the A536) is largely best and most versatile agricultural land which could be permanently lost to development. However, new provisions within development in this area also has the potential to improve access to services, facilities and employment opportunities for new and existing residents. It will also be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
February 2016 69/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Middlewich Site Options
3.116 Middlewich is classified as a Key Service Centre in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 13,70043. The market town is north of Crewe and has a boundary with Cheshire West and Chester. The Council identified 6 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development within and around Middlewich: . PSS700: Glebe Farm (CS 20) . PSS701: Brooks Lane (SL 9) . PSS702: Midpoint 18 Extension (SL 10) (PSS702a & PSS702b) . PSS703: Land off Warmingham Lane (2134) . PSS704: Land off Sutton Lane (3153) . PSS705: Cledford Lagoons (922)
3.117 The majority of the Middlewich site options are located on the southern outskirts of the urban area, adjoining the settlement edge, apart from site options PSS701 and PSS705 which are located more centrally. Site option PSS702 (a & b) fails to meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II) and therefore has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. Further to this, the site is disconnected from the main urban area by large areas of strategic employment land and the site has less direct routes to access the central area.
3.118 All of the site options are located within 1km of a promoted cycle route, with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 4b. It should be noted that all of the site options are within 500m of PRoW; however, for the purposes of the SA these are considered to be of less significance than promoted routes. New development within Middlewich should seek to create attractive and safe pedestrian routes that seek to encourage walking.
3.119 Given the size and potential capacity of site options PSS700, PSS702 (a & b) and PSS705, development at these sites is considered to have the potential for minor negative effects on traffic and quality. When considering the accessibility findings for the sites, this is considered to be of greater significance at site option PSS702 which is located further from the settlements services and facilities. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Middlewich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
3.120 Development at site option PSS701 could result in the loss of existing employment land with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17a. Site options PSS700, PSS703 and PSS704 have the potential for minor to major negative effects against SA Objective 17b due to their distance from existing employment areas, this is of greatest significance with regard to site option PSS703. Site options PSS701, PSS702 (a & b) and PSS705
43 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 70/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
are located within 500m of a strategic employment area with the potential for major positive effects against SA Objective 17b. Site option PSS702 also seeks to provide new employment land adjacent to an existing strategic employment area.
3.121 Site options PSS701 and PSS702 (a & b) are located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area. It is considered that development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
3.122 Site options PSS701 and PSS703 are located adjacent to designated Local Wildlife Sites. Site option PSS702 is also known to support Protected Species. It is considered that mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including where appropriate a buffer between development and the wildlife site; safeguarding of watercourses; and provision of ecological mitigation areas; should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. The site options are therefore considered to have the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The entirety of site option PSS705 contains Cledford Lime Beds Local Wildlife Site and development could result in the direct loss of a local biodiversity site, with the potential for a minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 11.
3.123 The SA found that site option PSS704 is located adjacent to a Listed Building. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects, with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a. Site option PSS700 is located adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal, Kent Green Conservation Area and Listed Rumps Lock, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects; however, there is still the potential for negative effects on the setting of the heritage assets. It is considered therefore that development at this site has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
3.124 Site option PSS701 is bounded by the Trent and Mersey Canal to the west, and therefore includes the associated Conservation Area, as well as a number Grade II Listed Buildings, a Scheduled Monument and an Area of Archaeological Potential. While development could avoid the Scheduled Monument and ensure that appropriate buffers are in place, it is considered that there is the potential for a major long-term negative effect on the setting of the Scheduled Monument. The Monument is currently enclosed and land locked by established commercial development, regeneration at the site therefore also has the potential for positive effects. Site level archaeological assessments will also be required. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects, however the overall effect remains uncertain at this stage.
3.125 Site option PSS705 partially contains the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area; mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the
February 2016 71/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
project level should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; however, development at the site has the potential for negative effects on the landscape through the loss of greenfield land, and it is therefore considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect on the setting of the Conservation Area.
3.126 Development at site option PSS701 will regenerate areas of previously developed land, with the potential for a major positive effect on land and soils and the landscape/ townscape setting. The rest of the site options are considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect on land and soils, and the landscape/ townscape setting through the loss of greenfield land, although it should be noted that none of the site options are located within a locally designated landscape area. As site options PSS702 and PSS705 are relatively large sites these are considered to have the potential for negative effects of greater significance against landscape and soils compared to the other site options.
3.127 At this stage none of the site options are known to contain best and most versatile agricultural land. Development at site option PSS701 would result in the regeneration of previously developed land, and evidence suggests that the land at site options PSS700 and PSS705 is not best and most versatile. The remaining site options contain some agricultural land with the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16; however, at this stage there is also an element of uncertainty as the quality of agricultural land is not yet known. None of the site options are located within designated Green Belt land.
3.128 The central site options (PSS701 and PSS705) offer good access to the central area; however, these sites have significant heritage and biodiversity constraints in comparison to the other site options for this settlement. The site options located in the south west of the settlement (PSS700, PSS703 and PSS704) are considered to be less constrained by designated heritage, biodiversity and flood risk; however, these sites have poor access to the services and facilities on offer in the central area in comparison to the other Middlewich site options. Development at site option PSS702 would increase the availability of employment within the settlement
Nantwich Site Options
3.129 Nantwich is classified as a Key Service Centre in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 18,20044. The historic market town lies in the west of Cheshire East, to the south west of Crewe. The Council identified 7 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development within and around Nantwich: . PSS800: Kingsley Fields (CS 21) . PSS801: Stapeley Water Gardens (CS 22) . PSS802: Snow Hill (CS 23)
44 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 72/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. PSS803: South of Nantwich (3135) . PSS804: South of Nantwich (northern section) (3135) . PSS805: Broad Lane (1792) . PSS806: South Nantwich and Broad Lane (combined) (3135, 1792)
3.130 Most of the Nantwich site options are located on the outskirts of the urban area, apart from PSS802 which is located within the urban area. All of the site options meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II) and therefore have the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 2. Site options PSS800 and PSS802 have the potential for a major positive effect as they are located within the minimum access standards for all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment.
3.131 Most of the site options are located within 200m of a promoted footpath or 1km of a promoted cycle route, with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 4b. The SA found that site options PSS800 and PSS802 are located within the specified distances for both promoted footpaths and cycle routes with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 4b. Site option PSS805 however is not located within the specified distances for either promoted footpaths or promoted cycle routes. As such it is considered that there is the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 4b at this site. It should be noted that all of the site options are within 500m to a PRoW; however, these are deemed less significant in terms of encouraging walking and cycling.
3.132 There is an AQMA along Hospital Street/ the A534 in Nantwich and it will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Nantwich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A534 (Hospital Street) do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve. Given the potential development capacity at site options PSS800, PSS803, PSS805 and PSS806, the SA found that these options are considered to have the potential for minor negative effects on traffic and air quality. As site options PSS800 and PSS806 are the largest sites, they are considered to have the greatest potential for negative effects of significance compared to site options PSS803 and PSS805.
3.133 There are no strategic employment areas within Nantwich. Site options PSS800, PSS802, PSS803, PSS805 and PSS806 are located within 500m of a non- strategic employment site with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b. Compared to the other site options, PSS801 and PSS804 are located further from existing employment, with the potential for a minor negative effect. Site options PSS800, PSS803, PSS804 and PSS806 seek to provide new employment areas as well with the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 17a, and at site option PSS804 this can mitigate the negative effects identified against SA Objective 17b to some extent.
3.134 Site option PSS800 is located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area. It is considered that development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level
February 2016 73/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
3.135 Site option PSS802 contains a large area of flood risk, and mitigation is deemed difficult and/ or expensive; therefore, it is considered that development at this site has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 9.
3.136 None of the Nantwich site options are identified as having the potential for negative effects on biodiversity (SA Objective 11). The SA identified that site option PSS800 may contain Protected Species and site options PSS803, PSS804 and PSS806 contain part of a Great Crested Newt mitigation area; however, it is considered that suitable mitigation is provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level to ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Nantwich could have potential impacts on the Wybunbury Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and West Midland Mosses SAC and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
3.137 Site option PSS800 is largely enclosed by designated heritage assets, including a Registered Battlefield adjacent to the site in the west which adjoins Dorford Hall Registered Park and Garden. There is also a large Area of Archaeological Potential partially within the site and stretching south of the site which also contains Nantwich Conservation Area. The Reaseheath Conservation Area partially falls within the site and stretches to the north. A Heritage Assessment (2012) informed the Environmental Statement (ES) (2013) that accompanied the submission of the planning application45 for this site. The ES concluded that there would be no significant effects on any heritage assets but that there is the potential for slight to moderate adverse effects. English Heritage (now Historic England) commented on the planning application and stated that they consider that the impact of development on the battlefield is unlikely to be substantial, providing that the mitigation measures suggested in the ES, such as the retention of historic hedgerows within and around the development site, are confirmed.
3.138 Site option PSS802 is located within an Area of Archaeological Potential and within Nantwich Conservation Area, the site also contains numerous Listed Buildings including the Grade II Listed Nantwich Bridge. It is predicted that any proposal for development will avoid the heritage assets and provide appropriate mitigation to ensure that there are no significant negative effects. The redevelopment and regeneration of the areas of previously developed land could have positive effects on heritage by improving the
45 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/2471N&query=e484142b-f8cf- 4bca-88ec-10535cfdcd85
February 2016 74/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
townscape as well as access and signage to assets where possible. It is considered therefore that there is the potential for a minor long-term positive effect, with an element of uncertainty as the nature and significance of the effect will ultimately be dependent on the final layout and design of development.
3.139 Development at site options PSS801 and PSS802 will involve the regeneration of previously developed land, and as such is considered to have the potential for a minor positive effect on land and soils, and the landscape/ townscape setting. The remaining site options are considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect on land and soils, and the landscape/ townscape setting through the loss of greenfield land. Development at site options PSS800, PSS804 and PSS806 could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a), with the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. Development at the remaining site options could result in the loss of some agricultural land with the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16; however, at this stage there is also an element of uncertainty as the quality of agricultural land is not yet known. None of the site options are located within a locally designated landscape area, none are located within or adjacent to a mineral resource area and none of the site options are located within designated Green Belt land.
3.140 There are significant development constraints within Nantwich, particularly in the form of designated heritage assets. These are largely located in the north-west and central area of the settlement and the site options located within these areas are also subject to flood risk constraints. It should be noted that mitigation for flood risk at site option PSS802 may be difficult and/ or expensive to achieve. Sites in the south of the settlement are less likely to affect a designated heritage setting; however, these sites may need to provide new services, facilities and employment opportunities to accommodate growth in this area, in particular new medical and leisure facilities are required in the south of the settlement (as identified in the Accessibility Assessment). Development at site option PSS804 could deliver new employment provisions within this area.
Poynton Site Options
3.141 Poynton is classified as a Key Service Centre in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 12,80046. The settlement borders Stockport to the north and west, and the Peak District National Park lies to the east. The 2012 Draft Poynton Town Strategy identifies that Poynton is a small town with a village feel, and its rural setting makes it distinct from the nearby Greater Manchester conurbation
3.142 The Council identified 8 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development within and around Poynton:
46 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 75/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. PSS900: Land at Woodford Aerodrome (2433) . PSS901: Land off Waterloo Road (2621) . PSS902: Land at Sprink Farm (2629) . PSS903: Land West of Poynton (2821) . PSS904: Land North of Hazelbadge Road (2821) . PSS905: Land North of Hazelbadge Road (southern area) (2821) . PSS906: Land to the South of Chester Road (2866) . PSS907: Adlington Business Park Extension
3.143 The Poynton site options are all located on the outskirts of the urban area, adjoining the settlement edge, however they all, except for site options PSS906 and PSS907, meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II) with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 2. Site options PSS906 and PSS907 fail to meet the minimum standards for access to a significant number of local amenities, and given the size of the sites, they are considered unlikely to provide any significant accessibility improvements with development; however, this is uncertain at this stage.
3.144 All of the site options, except for PSS901, are located over 200m of a promoted footpath and over 1km of a promoted cycle route, with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 4b. Site option PSS901 is located within 200m of promoted walking routes and therefore presents a greater opportunity to promote walking & cycling. It should be noted that all the site options are within 500m of PRoW; however, for the purposes of the SA these are considered to be of less significance compared to promoted routes.
3.145 There are no strategic employment areas within Poynton; however, site options PSS900, PSS903, PSS904, PSS905 and PSS907 are located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 17b. The remaining site options (PSS901, PSS902 and PSS906) are located over 1km from existing employment areas with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b, and none of these site options propose any new employment land. Site option PSS607 proposes employment land in the existing Adlington Business Park area with the potential for major positive effects against SA Objective 17a.
3.146 Site options PSS900, PSS901, PSS903, PSS904 and PSS907 were considered to have the greatest potential for negative effects on traffic and air quality (SA Objective 8 & 10) compared to the other three site options, given the higher capacity of these sites to accommodate development. The SA found that mitigation provided through Local Plan Strategy policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects on traffic and air quality but there are a number of uncertainties at this stage. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Poynton are considered and addressed to ensure that traffic and air quality issues do not deteriorate and ideally improve.
February 2016 76/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.147 Site options PSS902, PSS904, PSS905 and PSS907 are located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area. It is considered that development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9. Site options PSS900 and PSS903 both contain a large area of flood risk on site. Given the size of the area of flood risk on site it is considered that mitigation may be difficult and/ or expensive, development at these site options therefore has the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 9. The remaining site options (PSS901 & PSS906) present lower flood risk development opportunities.
3.148 The SA found that PSS900, PSS901, PSS904 and PSS905 are located either adjacent to or in close proximity to (around 200m) a Local Wildlife Site or Local Nature Reserve where mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect.
3.149 Site option PSS903 contains Wigwam Wood Local Wildlife Site. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of locally designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution. Site options PSS902, PSS906 and PSS907 are unlikely to affect designated biodiversity within the settlement.
3.150 Site options PSS903 and PSS904 both contain a Listed Building. Whilst it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the buildings, there is still the potential for a negative effect on their setting. Compared to the other site options development at these two sites has the greatest potential for negative effects on heritage. However, it is also important to note that development at site option PSS903 could have positive effects through the re-use of a derelict Listed Building. Site option PSS907 is located adjacent to three Grade II Listed Buildings. Mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects; however, given the capacity of the site and nature of development it is considered that there is the potential to affect the setting of the designated assets, with the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect.
3.151 All of the site options are considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect on the landscape/ townscape setting through the loss of greenfield land. While there is some brownfield land present at site option PSS900, the redevelopment of the flat runway to provide housing is considered to have the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. It should be noted that none of the site options are located within a locally designated landscape area. As the largest site, site option PSS903 has the potential for a negative effect of greater significance on the landscape. Apart from site option PSS900 the
February 2016 77/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
remaining site options are likely to result in the loss of agricultural land with the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16; however, at this stage there is also an element of uncertainty as the quality of agricultural land is not yet known.
3.152 Site options PSS900 and PSS903 are located partially within or adjacent to a mineral resource area, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15. All of the site options are located within designated Green Belt land with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 21. As the largest site, site option PSS903 has the potential for a negative effect of greater significance on land and soils.
3.153 All of the site options within Poynton are subject to the constraint of designated Green Belt land. The majority of the sites will need to provide mitigation in order to prevent negative effects arising in relation to flood risk and local biodiversity. Site options PSS906 and PSS907 are located in the west of the settlement and are less constrained by flood risk and local biodiversity compared to the other options; however, they have poor access to existing services and facilities available in the settlement.
Sandbach Site Options
3.154 Sandbach is classified as a Key Service Centre in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 18,20047. The town is located within the central area of Cheshire East, with close links to towns such as Crewe, Middlewich, Congleton and Alsager. The Council identified 10 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development within and around Sandbach: . PSS1001: Land adjacent to J17 of M6, South East of Congleton Road (CS 24) (PSS1001a & PSS1001b) . PSS1002: Land between Abbey Road and Park Lane (Phase 2) (2136) . PSS1003: Land South of Abbeyfields House, Park Lane, Hind Heath Rd (Phase 3) (2137) . PSS1004: Land adjacent to Senderfield Lane (3184) . PSS1005: Land East of Cooksmere Lane (2491) . PSS1006: Land at rear of Park Lane and Crewe Road (2402) . PSS1007: Land South West of A533 (2462) . PSS1008: Land North of Marsh Green Road and East and West of Cookesmere Lane (2491) . PSS1009: Land South of Old Mill Road / Hounding Lane (2462, 3144) . PSS1010: Yeowood Farm, Elton Road (1992)
3.155 The Sandbach site options are located within the urban area and on the settlement edge. All the site options meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II) and therefore have the potential for a minor positive
47 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 78/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
effect against SA Objective 2. However, of these sites PSS1004 and PSS1010 fail to meet the minimum standards for access to more local amenities than the other options. The SA found that site option PSS1006 has the potential for major positive effects as the site meets the minimum standards for access to all of the services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment.
3.156 All of the site options are located within 200m of a promoted footpath or 1km of a promoted cycle route, with the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 4b. At PSS1003 and PSS1006 the site options are both located within the specified distances for both promoted footpaths and promoted cycle routes with the potential for positive effects of greater significance. It should be noted that all of the site options are within 500m of a PRoW; however, for the purposes of the SA these are considered to be of less significance when compared to promoted routes.
3.157 Site options PSS1002 and PSS1010 are located within 500m of a strategic employment area with the potential for major positive effects against SA Objective 17b. Site option PSS1009 is located within 500m of a smaller employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b. The rest of the site options are located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area of significance, with the potential for minor negative effects against SA Objective 17b. However, for site option PSS1001 (a & b) this needs to be considered alongside the provision of around 20ha of employment land, which has the potential for major positive effects against SA Objective 17a.
3.158 Site options PSS1005, PSS1007, PSS1008 and PSS1010 were considered to have the greatest potential for negative effects on traffic and air quality (SA Objective 8 & 10) compared to the other site options, given the higher capacity of these sites to accommodate development. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A5022/ A534, and site option PSS1001 (a & b) is located in close proximity to this designated area. The SA found that mitigation provided through Local Plan Strategy policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects on traffic and air quality but there are a number of uncertainties at this stage. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022/ A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
3.159 Site options PSS1001 (a & b), PSS1005, PSS1008 and PSS1009 are located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area. It is considered that development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
3.160 The SA found that site options PSS1002, PSS1003, PSS1004, PSS1006 and PSS1010 are located either adjacent to or in close proximity to (within 200m) a Local Wildlife Site where mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect.
February 2016 79/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.161 Site option PSS1001 (a & b) contains Arclid Brook Valley West Local Wildlife Site in the north east of the site. Development could avoid the designated areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11.
3.162 Site options PSS1002, PSS1003, PSS1004, PSS1006, PSS1007, PSS1009 and PSS1010 are located adjacent or in close proximity to designated heritage assets (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) in areas where is it considered that mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
3.163 None of the Sandbach site options will involve the regeneration of previously developed land, and as such all site options are considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect on land and soils, and the landscape/ townscape setting through the loss of greenfield land. None of the site options are located within a locally designated landscape area, and none of the site options are located within a minerals resource area. As site options PSS1005 and PSS1008 are relatively large sites, these are considered to have the potential for negative effects of greater significance in relation to the landscape and soils than the remaining site options.
3.164 Development at site options PSS1001 (a & b), PSS1002, PSS1003, PSS1009 and PSS1010 could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a) with the potential for a major permanent negative effect against SA Objective 16. Given the size of site options PSS1001 (a & b) and PSS1010, development at these sites are also considered to have the potential for a negative effect of greater significance. The remaining site options are likely to result in the loss of agricultural land with the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16; however, at this stage there is also an element of uncertainty as the quality of agricultural land is not yet known. None of the site options are located within designated Green Belt land.
3.165 All of the Sandbach site options have good access to the existing services and facilities as well as promoted walking or cycling routes within and around the settlement. Compared to the other site options, PSS1006 has access to all of the identified services and facilities within the Accessibility Assessment and both promoted walking and cycling routes with the potential for a major positive effects against SA Objectives 2 and 4b. The majority of the site options have poor access to existing employment areas; however, site options PSS1002 and PSS1010 are located within 500m of a strategic employment area with the potential for major positive effects against SA Objective 17b. Although site option PSS1001 (a & b) has poor access to existing employment areas, the site is proposed to accommodate 20ha of employment land with the potential for major positive effects against SA Objective 17a. Many of the site options will need to provide mitigation in
February 2016 80/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
order to avoid negative effects arising on the topics of flood risk, local biodiversity and designated heritage assets and their settings. Although the settlement is not subject to Green Belt constraints, development at seven out of the 10 site options will result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.
Wilmslow Site Options
3.166 Wilmslow is classified as a Key Service Centre in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version and has a population of 24,20048. The town is situated in the north of the Borough in the valleys of the Rivers Bollin and Dean, and adjoins Handforth in the north. The Council has identified 10 reasonable site options that could potentially accommodate development within and around Wilmslow: . PSS1100: Adlington Road (CS 25) . PSS1101: Land at Royal London (CS 26, 2902) . PSS1102: Wilmslow Business Park (CS 27) . PSS1103: Prestbury Road (safeguarded) (CS 35) . PSS1104: Little Stanneylands (2846) . PSS1105: Land South of Prestbury Road (1066 & 1068) . PSS1106: Land at Dean Row Road (1645, 2517 & 3155) . PSS1107: Heathfield Farm, Dean Row (2517) . PSS1108: Land at Upcast Lane / Clumber Lane (429, 2595) . PSS1109: Land North of Moor Lane (429, 3568)
3.167 The Wilmslow site options are all located on the outskirts of the urban area, adjoining the settlement edge. All of the site options meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II) with potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 2. Site option PSS1101 is located west of the A34 and closer to the central urban area with an easily accessible, direct route to the main services and facilities in the town. The site options located in the north-east and south-west of the settlement however, fail to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of local amenities, and it is recommended that development in these areas provide contributions towards education and leisure facilities. It should also be noted that at site option PSS1102 the site is surrounded by an existing railway line and A-Road.
3.168 None of the site options are located within 200m of a promoted footpath or within 1km of a promoted cycle route, with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 4b. However, it should be noted that all of the site options are within 500m of a PRoW; however, for the purposes of the SA these are considered to be of less significance compared to promoted routes.
48 Office for National Statistics Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates, 2013
February 2016 81/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.169 All of the Wilmslow site options, except PSS1104, are located over 500m from an existing employment area of significance, with the potential for minor to major negative effects against SA Objective 17b. However, for site options PSS1101, PSS1102 and PSS1103 this needs to be considered alongside the provision of employment land on site, which has the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objective 17a. Poor access to existing employment is an issue for site options in the north-east and south-west of the settlement.
3.170 Site options PSS1103 and PSS1105 is considered to have the greatest potential for negative effects on traffic and air quality (SA Objective 8 & 10) compared to the other site options, given the higher capacity of these sites to accommodate development. However, it should be noted that PSS1107 and PSS1108 only propose levels of growth that are slightly lower. The SA found that mitigation provided through Local Plan Strategy policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects on traffic and air quality but there are a number of uncertainties at this stage. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that traffic and air quality issues do not deteriorate and ideally improves.
3.171 Site options PSS1101, PSS1102 and PSS1104 are located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area. It is considered that development can avoid areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect for these sites options.
3.172 Site options PSS1100, PSS1104, PSS1108 and PSS1109 are located either adjacent to or in close proximity (around 200m) to locally designated Wildlife Sites. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including where appropriate a buffer between development and the wildlife site, should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. These site options are therefore considered to have the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
3.173 Site option PSS1101 contains two Listed Buildings and is adjacent to another. While it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the building itself and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on their setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
3.174 Site option PSS1104 is adjacent to two Listed Buildings, and while it is predicted that any proposal will provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on setting. The site is also located within the Lower Bollin River Valley Local Landscape Designation. Development at this site therefore has the potential for impacts on both heritage and landscape with the potential for minor long-term residual negative effects.
February 2016 82/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.175 None of the site options will regenerate significant areas of previously developed land. As such, the Wilmslow site options are all considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect on land and soils, and landscape/ townscape through the loss of greenfield land. The site options are all likely to result in the loss of agricultural land with the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16; however, at this stage there is also an element of uncertainty as the quality of agricultural land is not yet known. None of the site options are located within or adjacent to a minerals resource area. Site option PSS1104 is located within the Lower Bolling River Valley Local Landscape Designation, and it is considered that development at this site has the potential for a major negative effect on the landscape setting.
3.176 The settlement is surrounded by Green Belt land and all of the Wilmslow site options except for PSS1100 are located within it, with the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. Development at site option PSS1104 would also extend the urban area towards the River Dean and the adjoining settlement of Handforth.
3.177 The SA has identified some significant constraints for development within Wilmslow. In particular, these relate to accessibility and the promotion of sustainable transport modes. Any development within Wilmslow should seek to improve pedestrian and cycle route connections, particularly routes towards and within the central area and key employment areas. Development in the north-east and south-west in particular should seek to improve access to local amenities and employment options.
SA of Freestanding Site Options
3.178 The freestanding sites listed below are not located within an existing settlement area. The Council has identified four freestanding locations that could potentially accommodate development: . PSS1200: Alderley Park Opportunity Site (CS 29) (PSS1200a and PSS1200b) . PSS1201: Cheshire Gateway Site (3425) (PSS1201, PSS1201a and PSS1201b) . PSS1202: Gorsty Hill / Wychwood Village (1134) . PSS1203: Wardle Employment Improvement Area (CS 28)
3.179 The appraisal found that development at PSS1200 has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2 as it fails to meet the minimum standards for access to the majority and services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II). It is recommended that development seeks to enhance access to services and facilities in this area. The site is not located within 200m of a promoted footpath or within 1km of a promoted cycle route, with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 4b. However, it should be noted that the site is within 500m of a PRoW; however, for the purposes of the SA PRoW are considered to be of less significance compared to promoted routes.
3.180 The site could accommodate housing or employment or mixed use development, which has the potential for positive effects against either SA
February 2016 83/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Objective 1 or 17a. It should be noted that the site is located within 500m of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for major positive effects against SA Objective 17b.
3.181 Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34, and increase levels of traffic flow between Wilmslow, Alderley Edge, Macclesfield and the development site, though the site is not located in close proximity to an AQMA. Mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, as the scale of potential intensification is unknown at this stage, the overall effects against SA Objective 8 and 10 remain uncertain.
3.182 The site contains Radnor Mere and Woods LWS and is known to contain protected species. It is considered that development could avoid the locally designated site and mitigation provided through the Local Plan should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects; however, at this stage to reflect the presence of the LWS it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11.
3.183 The site also contains designated heritage assets, is located close to a Conservation Area and is located within a locally designated landscape area. It is therefore considered that development at this site has the potential for a residual minor negative effect on the setting of designated heritage assets, and the potential for a major negative effect on the landscape setting. These effects could be mitigated to some degree if development is directed to areas of previously developed land and minimises the loss of greenfield land on site.
3.184 The site also lies in an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel and within the Green Belt, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15 and a major negative effect against SA Objective 21.
3.185 The appraisal found that site option PSS1201 also has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2 as it fails to meet the minimum standards for access to the majority and services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II). It is recommended that development seeks to enhance access to services and facilities in this area. The site is not located within 200m of a promoted footpath or within 1km of a promoted cycle route, with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 4b. However, it should be noted that the site is within 500m of a PRoW; however, for the purposes of the SA, PRoW are considered to be of less significance compared to promoted routes.
3.186 The site proposes employment development which has the potential for positive effects against SA Objective 17a. It is not currently located within 500m of an existing employment area, and as such employment development in this area could improve accessibility to local job opportunities for surrounding communities.
February 2016 84/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
3.187 Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M56, A556 & A56. The site is bisected by the A556 which is designated as an AQMA. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10.
3.188 The site contains Yarwood Heath Covert Local Wildlife Site and is located within 200m of Greys Gorse Local Wildlife Site. It is considered that development could avoid the local designations and mitigation provided through the LPS should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects; however, at this stage to reflect the presence of the local designation on site it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11. The site is also in relatively close proximity to the Rostherne Mere Ramsar Site in the south; however, the Habitats Regulations Assessment process for the LPS found that there would not be any adverse effects on the integrity of the site subject to the inclusion of further mitigation measures.
3.189 The appraisal did not identify the potential for any significant effects on the historic environment. Development at site option PSS1201 would result in the loss of greenfield land with the potential for the permanent loss of areas of best and most versatile agricultural land (identified by the Council49, the precise Grade is not stated, but the site is believed to consist of Grades 1-3a). The appraisal therefore found that there is the potential for a minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b and a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site also lies entirely within the Green Belt, with the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
3.190 The appraisal found that development at PSS1202 has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2 as it fails to meet the minimum standards for access to the majority and services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II). It identified that the site is located within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 4.
3.191 The site proposes both housing and employment development which has the potential for positive effects against SA Objectives 1 and 17a. It is not located within 500m of an existing employment area, and as such the provision of further employment in this area could increase access to local job opportunities for surrounding communities.
3.192 As for the other options, development at site option PSS1202 could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500, and there
49 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 85/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
are 3 AQMAs within Crewe which is located north of the site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Crewe and at this location are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues within Crewe do not deteriorate further, and ultimately improve.
3.193 The site is located within 200m of the Basford Brook LWS and the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar Site and Black Firs and Cranberry Bog SSSI. Mitigation provided through the Local Plan, including Policy SE 3, and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers, should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects. The appraisal noted that NE have commented on the current planning application for the site and do not have any objections50. Given available evidence it is considered that there is suitable mitigation to ensure that there will be no significant negative effects on biodiversity, potential for a residual neutral effect.
3.194 The appraisal did not identify any likelihood for significant effects on the historic environment. However, the it found that development would result in the loss of greenfield land as well as the potential for the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). It concluded that there is the potential for a minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b and a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. Site option PSS1202 also partially contains an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel and development therefore has the potential for a minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 15.
3.195 As for the other options, the appraisal found that site option PSS1203 has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2 as it fails to meet the minimum standards for access to the majority and services and facilities identified within the Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II). The site is not located within 200m of a promoted footpath or within 1km of a promoted cycle route, with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 4b. It is within 500m of a PRoW; however, for the purposes of the SA PRoW are considered to be of less significance compared to promoted routes.
3.196 The appraisal found that there is the potential for positive effects against SA Objective 17a through the intensification of an existing employment area. As for the other options, development at this site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A51. The appraisal notes that there are no AQMAs in close proximity to the site. It concluded that mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, there is
50 Ibid.
February 2016 86/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10.
3.197 The site is located adjacent to the Wardle Canal Banks Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and Site of Biological Interest (SBI). The appraisal found that the mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level (including appropriate buffers) should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
3.198 While site option PSS1203 is located adjacent to a Listed Building, the appraisal considered that there is suitable mitigation available to ensure that there not be any significant effects, with a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12. More detailed project level assessments have found that there is unlikely to be any direct or indirect adverse effects on designated heritage assets or their settings as a result of development at the site.51
3.199 Development at this site would result in the loss of greenfield land and agricultural land, with the potential for minor long-term negative effects against SA Objectives 12b and 16. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. The appraisal noted that there are small areas of previously developed land on site which could contribute to the re-use of recycled materials with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 15.
Reasons for the Progression or Rejection of Reasonable Site Options
3.200 Appendix IV provides an outline of the reasons for progression or rejection of reasonable alternatives for sites in plan-making where relevant. It should be noted that whilst the SA findings are considered by the Council in its selection of options and form part of the evidence supporting the Proposed Changes to the LPS, the SA findings are not the sole basis for a decision; other factors, including planning and deliverability, play a key role in the decision-making process. For further information on the Council’s site selection process, including how it relates to the SA process, please refer to the Site Selection Report (Feb 2016)52.
51 Ibid. 52 CEC (Feb 2016) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Site Selection Report: http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/library
February 2016 87/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
4.0 SA of Proposed Changes to Site Allocation Policies (Chapter 15)
Introduction
4.1 As demonstrated in Section 3 of this Report, all reasonable site options have been subject to a fresh and independent appraisal against the full SA Framework. This work has informed the Council’s site selection process and the Proposed Changes to the site and strategic location policies within Chapter 15 of the LPS. The Proposed Changes include changes to sites allocations previously proposed in the Submission Local Plan as well as a number of additional sites to help accommodate the uplift in the housing and employment land requirement identified through the further technical work during the suspension of the Examination.
4.2 A summary of the appraisal findings for the preferred sites is provided below and structured according to settlement. Any changes to the sites, such as boundary changes, have been considered to determine if they significantly affect the findings of the fresh appraisal of site options presented in Appendix III. Where relevant, specific site policies, or aspects of them, have been highlighted where they provide a particular opportunity or mitigation measure to address an identified sustainability issue.
SA of Proposed Changes to Site Allocation Policies
Alsager
4.3 The Proposed Changes to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Alsager: . Site CS 12: Twyfords and Cardway (PSS300) . Site CS 13: Former Manchester Metropolitan University Campus (PSS301) . Site CS 14: Radway Green Brownfield (PSS302) . Site CS 15: Radway Green Extension (PSS303) . Site CS 42: White Moss Quarry (PSS304) . Site CS 43: Radway Green North (PSS308b)
4.4 It should be noted that there have been no changes to the sites since they were considered through the fresh appraisal. The appraisal found that development at the proposed sites has the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with regard to positive effects and generally enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below: . Delivery of a new local centre at site CS 42, which will help to improve access to services/facilities for the surrounding communities. . Development of a new sports and leisure hub at site CS 13, which will help to improve access to leisure facilities for the surrounding communities.
February 2016 88/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. All of the sites are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. The majority of the sites are also expected to provide or contribute to appropriate retail provisions, community infrastructure, educational facilities and health infrastructure.
4.5 It is also noted that there is the potential for minor positive effects on the historic environment, as the regeneration of previously developed land at site CS 12 could improve the setting of Alsager Conservation Area. There is also the potential for positive effects on the prudent use of land through the regeneration of previously developed land at sites CS 12, CS 13 and CS 14.
4.6 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to biodiversity, landscape, heritage, flood risk, the prudent use of land, and traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites: . Development at all of the sites have the potential to exacerbate capacity constraints at key sensitive junctions as identified in traffic modelling53. . Site CS 43 contains an area of flood risk that bisects the centre of the site. . Development at site allocation CS 42 has the potential for a residual minor negative effect on local biodiversity (White Moss LWS). . Development at site allocation CS 12 has the potential to affect the setting of Alsager Conservation Area. . Development at sites CS 15, CS 42 and CS 43 will result in the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. This is known to be best and most versatile agricultural land at site CS 42 (Grade 2), however further site level assessment is required at sites CS 15 and CS 43 to determine the soil quality. . Site CS 15 is also located wholly within the Green Belt. . Development at sites CS 14, CS 15 and CS 42 have the potential to hinder future access to / use of mineral resources.
4.7 Mitigation provided through the site policies and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . Development at all of the sites are expected to contribute to highways and infrastructure improvements to accommodate an increased road capacity and are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. . Site specific policy CS 43 requires a site level flood risk assessment and Sequential and Exception testing for development proposed in flood risk areas. The policy also requires that development provides sustainable drainage systems.
53 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 89/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. Site specific policy CS 42 requires the protection and enhancement of the designated LWS, as well as new wildlife habitat creation, new tree / hedgerow screening, and increased connectivity of green spaces. . Proposed Changes include additional text to protect and enhance the integrity of European and nationally designated biodiversity in line with HRA recommendations, and site specific policies require site level HRA where appropriate. . Site specific policy CS 12 seeks appropriate archaeological investigation in relation to the nearby designated heritage assets. . All of the site specific policies for Alsager seek high quality design that complements the landscape setting. . All development must incorporate Green Infrastructure.
4.8 Further to the policy mitigation already provided, it is recommended that policy CS 12 could include a requirement for high-quality design that complements, and seeks to improve the setting of Alsager Conservation Area.
4.9 The mitigation provided through the site policies should ensure that there will be no major negative effects as a result of proposed development at the individual sites. Despite the mitigation provided there is still likely to be cumulative residual minor negative effects on SA Objectives relating to the landscape, traffic and the loss of agricultural and greenfield land. However, development is also likely to have major positive cumulative effects for the residents of Alsager through improved accessibility to housing, employment, facilities/services as well as public transport, and an enhanced green infrastructure network.
Congleton
4.10 The Proposed Changes to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Congleton: . Site CS 16: Giantswood Lane South (PSS403) . Site CS 17: Manchester Road to Macclesfield Road (PSS404) . Site CS 44: Back Lane / Radnor Park (PSS400) . Site CS 45: Congleton Business Park Extension (PSS401) . Site CS 46: Giantswood Lane to Manchester Road (PSS402) . Site CS 47: Tall Ash Farm (PSS412) . Site CS 48: North of Lamberts Lane (PSS405)
4.11 It should be noted that there has been a minor boundary change to Site CS 47 (PSS412). This change is not considered to significantly affect the findings of the fresh appraisal of site options presented in Appendix III.
4.12 The appraisal found that development at the proposed sites has the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with regard to positive effects and generally
February 2016 90/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below: . New retail facilities at sites CS 17, CS 44, CS 45, and CS 46, which will help to improve access to services/facilities for the surrounding communities. . Development of new children’s play areas at sites CS 44, CS 45 and CS 46, which will help to improve access to children’s leisure and play facilities for the surrounding communities. . All of the sites are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. The majority of the sites are also expected to provide or contribute to appropriate educational facilities and health infrastructure.
4.13 There is also the potential for cumulative positive effects as the allocations support the delivery of the new Congleton Link Road, which can significantly improve accessibility and traffic flows in the north of the settlement.
4.14 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to biodiversity, landscape, heritage, flood risk, the prudent use of land, and traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites: . Development at all of the sites have the potential to increase traffic on the existing highway network, particularly at sites CS 44, CS 45 and CS 48. . Development at sites CS 44 and CS 45 has the potential for impacts on locally designated biodiversity (LWSs). . Site CS 48 lies just outside of the Congleton Conservation Area and Congleton Area of Archaeological Potential. The Council’s assessment of potential sites54 identifies that the infrastructure improvements that would be required as a result of development at this site could potentially have significant effects on the designated heritage assets. . Development at all of the sites will result in the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. This is known to be best and most versatile agricultural land at sites CS 16, CS 17, CS 44, CS 45 and CS 48; however, further site level assessment is required at sites CS 46 and CS 47 to determine the soil quality. . Development at site CS 46 also has the potential to hinder future access to/ use of mineral resources.
4.15 Mitigation provided through the site policies and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include:
54 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 91/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. Development at all of the sites are expected to contribute to highways and infrastructure improvements, including the Congleton Link Road, to accommodate an increased road capacity and are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. . Policy CS 45 directs development away from the functional floodplain and requires sustainable drainage systems. . Policies CS 44 and CS 45 requires the protection and enhancement of the designated LWS and supporting woodland, as well as increased connectivity of green spaces. . Policy CS 47 requires contributions towards improvements to the Macclesfield Canal Towpath, which could enhance the setting of the Conservation Area. . Site specific policy CS 48 requires a desk based archaeological assessment to support understanding of the historic environment at this site. . All of the site specific policies for Congleton seek high quality design that complements the landscape setting. . All development must incorporate Green Infrastructure.
4.16 The mitigation provided through the policies should ensure that there will be no major negative effects as a result of proposed development. Despite the mitigation provided there is still likely to be cumulative residual minor negative effects on SA Objectives relating to the landscape, traffic, and the loss of agricultural and greenfield land. However, development is also likely to have major positive cumulative effects for the residents of Congleton through improved accessibility to housing, employment, facilities/services as well as public transport, and an enhanced green infrastructure network.
Crewe
4.17 The Proposed Changes to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Crewe: . Strategic Location SL 1: Central Crewe (PSS108) . Site CS 1: Basford East (PSS100) . Site CS 2: Basford West (PSS101) . Site CS 3: Leighton West (PSS102) . Site CS 4: Crewe Green (PSS103) . Site CS 5: Sydney Road (PSS104 in part & PSS112 in part) . Site CS 6: The Shavington / Wybunbury Triangle (PSS105) . Site CS 7: East Shavington (PSS106) . Site CS 37: South Cheshire Growth Village (PSS107) . Site CS 38: Leighton (PSS109) . Site CS 39: Broughton Road (PSS110)
4.18 All reasonable site options within and surrounding Crewe were subject to a fresh and independent appraisal against the full SA Framework. This includes site allocations proposed through the Proposed Changes above. A summary
February 2016 92/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
of the SA findings for site options is presented in Section 3 of this Report with the detailed appraisal matrices available in Appendix III. It should be noted that since they were subject to a fresh appraisal a number of minor changes have been made to the sites listed above. This includes minor boundary changes to site CS 7 (PSS106) and site CS38 PSS109) as well as the amalgamation of two site options (in part) to form site CS 5 (PSS104 & PSS112). These changes are not considered to significantly affect the findings of the fresh appraisal of site options presented in Appendix III. A summary of the SA findings for the proposed sites is provided below along with a consideration of the site specific policies themselves.
4.19 The appraisal found that development at the proposed sites has the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with regard to positive effects and generally enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below: . The regeneration of Crewe Town Centre (Strategic Location SL 1), which includes the provision of new and improved commercial, retail and leisure developments, enhanced cultural offer, student accommodation, improvements to the public realm, pedestrian links as well as the railway station will have a long-term positive effect for current and future residents of the Town. . Delivery of new local centres as part of development at sites CS 1, CS 2, CS 3 & CS 37 will help to improve access to services/facilities for existing and future residents. . Policy CS 3 seeks the provision of a science/energy park, including the delivery of a key site for the development of an automotive research, development and supply hub, working in partnership with Bentley Motors. There is also the potential to include a geothermal plant and district heating hub. . Development at site CS 3 will deliver significant improvements to hospital provisions, which is considered to have the potential for significant Borough-wide positive effects on health. It will also provide a new bus interchange for the hospital and nearby residential areas. . All of the sites are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links.
4.20 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to biodiversity, landscape, heritage, the prudent use of land, traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites:
February 2016 93/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. Development at sites CS 3, CS 4, CS 5, CS 39 and SL1 has the potential to exacerbate capacity constraints at key sensitive junctions as identified in traffic modelling55. . Development at site allocation CS 1 has the potential for a residual minor negative effect on local biodiversity around Basford Brook. . Development at site allocations CS 1 and CS 37 have the potential to affect the setting of Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden. . Development at all of the sites, except for Strategic Location SL 1 (Central Crewe) will result in the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. Development at sites CS 1, CS 2, CS 6, CS 7, and CS 37 have the potential to result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. . Development at site CS 3 could have negative effects on the neighbouring hospital in the short-term during construction.
4.21 Mitigation provided through the site policies and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . Development at all of the sites are expected to contribute to highways and infrastructure improvements to accommodate an increased road capacity and are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. . Site specific policy CS 1 requires the protection and enhancement of Basford Brook, as well as the retention where possible of important hedgerows that contribute to the habitat value of the site. . Proposed Changes include additional text to protect and enhance the integrity of European and nationally designated biodiversity in line with HRA recommendations, and site specific policies require site level HRA where appropriate. . Site specific policies CS 1 and CS 37 consider the cumulative effect of development on Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden and seek to minimise the effects through appropriate buffers and screening, as well as avoiding the loss of designated land. . All of the site specific policies for Crewe seek high quality design that complements the landscape setting. . All development must incorporate Green Infrastructure.
4.22 Further to the policy mitigation already provided, it is recommended that policy CS 3 could include a requirement for any proposal to be accompanied by a construction management plan that seeks to minimise potential impacts on the adjacent hospital during construction.
4.23 The mitigation provided through the policies should ensure that there will be no major negative effects as a result of proposed development at individual
55 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 94/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
sites. However, there is still likely to be residual cumulative negative effects on SA Objectives relating to the landscape, traffic as well as the loss of agricultural and greenfield land. Overall, proposed development is likely to have major positive cumulative effects for the residents of Crewe, as well as the surrounding smaller settlements, through improved accessibility to housing, employment, facilities/services as well as public transport.
Handforth
4.24 The Proposed Changes to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Handforth: . CS 30: North Cheshire Growth Village, Handforth East (PSS500) . CS 34: North Cheshire Growth Village Extension (PSS501) Safeguarded . CS 49: Land between Clay Lane and Sagars Road (PSS505)
4.25 It should be noted that since they were subject to a fresh appraisal a number of minor changes have been made to the sites listed above. This includes minor boundary changes to Site CS 30 (PSS500) and Site CS34 (PSS501). These changes are not considered to significantly affect the findings of the fresh appraisal of site options presented in Appendix III.
4.26 The appraisal found that development at the proposed sites has the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with regard to positive effects and generally enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below: . Delivery of a new local centre and educational facilities at site CS 30, which will help to improve access to services/facilities for the surrounding communities. . Development at sites CS 30 and CS 49 are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. Site CS 49 is also expected to contribute to educational facilities and health infrastructure.
4.27 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to landscape, heritage, the prudent use of land, and traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites: . Development at all of the sites have the potential to increase traffic on the roads. . Site CS 30 contains a Listed Building and development at the site has the potential to negatively affect the setting of the designated heritage asset. . Development at all of the sites will result in the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. The precise grade of agricultural land quality is unknown at this stage and further site level assessment is required. . All of the sites are located within the Green Belt.
February 2016 95/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
4.28 Mitigation provided through the site policies and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . Development at all of the sites are expected to contribute to highways and infrastructure improvements to accommodate an increased road capacity and are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. . Site specific policy CS 30 requires the preservation and refurbishment of the Listed Building, and high quality design that reflects and respects the character of the Listed Building on site and desk based archaeological assessment. . All of the site specific policies for allocated development in Handforth seek high quality design that complements the landscape setting. . All development must incorporate Green Infrastructure.
4.29 It should be noted that sites CS 34 is safeguarded for future development; therefore, the identified effects are unlikely to arise during the life of the LPS. The mitigation provided through the policies should ensure that there will be no major negative effects as a result of proposed development considered above. Despite the mitigation provided there is still likely to be cumulative residual minor negative effects on SA Objectives relating to the landscape, traffic, and the loss of agricultural and greenfield land. However, development is also likely to have major positive cumulative effects for the residents of Handforth through improved accessibility to housing, employment, facilities/services as well as public transport, and an enhanced green infrastructure network.
Knutsford
4.30 The Proposed Changes to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Knutsford: . Site CS 18: North West Knutsford (PSS602 in part, PSS604 and PSS605) . Site CS 19: Parkgate Extension (PSS600) . Site CS 33: Land North of Tabley Road (PSS602 in part) Safeguarded . Site CS 50: Land South of Longridge (PSS607 in part) . Site CS 51: Land South of Longridge (PSS607 in part) Safeguarded . Site CS 52: Land adjacent to Booths Hall (PSS608) Safeguarded . Site CS 53: Land South of Tabley Road (PSS601 in part) Safeguarded
4.31 It should be noted that since they were subject to a fresh appraisal a number of minor changes have been made to the site options that underpin the allocations listed above. This includes the progression of a particular portion of a site option or minor boundary change to the options that comprise sites CS 18, CS 33, CS 50, CS51 and CS 53. These changes are not considered to significantly affect the findings of the fresh appraisal of site options presented in Appendix III.
February 2016 96/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
4.32 The appraisal found that the proposed sites have the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with regard to positive effects and generally enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below: . Delivery of a sports and leisure facilities and appropriate retail at site CS 18, which will help to improve access to services/facilities for the surrounding communities. . All of the sites are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. . The sites allocated for development are also expected to provide or contribute to appropriate educational facilities and health infrastructure. This includes community facilities at site CS 18.
4.33 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to biodiversity, landscape, heritage, the prudent use of land, and traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites: . Development at all of the sites have the potential to increase traffic on the roads, particularly at sites CS 18, CS 19 and CS 33 given the higher capacity of these sites to accommodate development. . Development at site allocation CS 52 has the potential for a residual minor negative effect on local biodiversity (Booths Mere LWS). . Development at all sites, except for CS 50 and CS 51, has the potential to affect the setting of designated heritage assets, particularly at site CS 53 which contains Listed Buildings and is located just outside of a Conservation Area, and at site CS 52 which is in close proximity to both a Conservation Area and Scheduled Monument. . Development at all sites will result in the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. The specific grade of agricultural land is unknown at this stage and requires further site level assessment. . Sites CS 18, CS 19 and CS 33 are located within a Local Landscape Designation area. . All of the sites except for site CS 19 are located within the Green Belt. . Development at sites CS 18 and CS 33 also have the potential to hinder future access to/ use of mineral resources.
4.34 Mitigation provided through the site policies and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . Development at all sites is expected to contribute to highways and infrastructure improvements to accommodate an increased road capacity and are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links.
February 2016 97/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. Proposed Changes include additional text to protect and enhance the integrity of European and nationally designated biodiversity in line with HRA recommendations, and site specific policies require site level HRA where appropriate. . Policy CS 18 seeks to protect and enhance Tatton Park. Both policies CS 18 and CS 19 require high quality design that respects the setting of nearby designated heritage assets and landscapes. Site specific policy further requires an archaeological pre-determination evaluation as well as a desk based assessment. . All of the site policies for development in Knutsford seek high quality design that complements the landscape setting. A Landscape Character Assessment is expected to accompany development proposals for sites CS 18 and CS 19, and site CS 50 is expected to provide a landscape buffer. . All development must incorporate Green Infrastructure.
4.35 It should be noted that sites CS 33, CS 51, CS 52 and CS 53 are safeguarded for future development; therefore, the identified effects are unlikely to arise during the life of the LPS. The mitigation provided through the policies should ensure that there will be no major negative effects as a result of proposed development. Despite the mitigation provided there is still likely to be cumulative residual minor negative effects on SA Objectives relating to the landscape, traffic, mineral resources and the loss of agricultural and greenfield land. However, development is also likely to have major positive cumulative effects for the residents of Knutsford through improved accessibility to housing, employment, facilities/services as well as public transport, and an enhanced green infrastructure network.
Macclesfield
4.36 The suggested revisions to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Macclesfield: . Strategic Location SL 4: Central Macclesfield (PSS200) . Site CS 8: South Macclesfield Development Area (PSS201) . Site CS 9: Land East of Fence Avenue (PSS202) . Site CS 10: Land at Congleton Road (PSS203) . Site CS 11: Gaw End Lane (PSS208) . Site CS 32: South West Macclesfield (PSS204 in part and PSS215 in part) Safeguarded . Site CS 40: Land South of Chelford Road (PSS216) . Site CS 41: Land between Chelford Road and Whirley Road (PSS209)
4.37 It should be noted that since they were subject to a fresh appraisal a number a minor changes have been made to the sites listed above. This includes minor boundary changes to sites CS 7 (PSS106), CS 10 (PSS203) and CS 11 (PSS208) as well as the amalgamation of site options to form site CS 32 (PSS204 & PSS215). These changes are not considered to significantly affect the findings of the fresh appraisal of site options presented in Appendix III.
February 2016 98/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
4.38 The appraisal found that development at the proposed sites has the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with regard to positive effects and generally enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below: . The regeneration of Macclesfield Town Centre (Strategic Location SL 4), which includes the provision of new and improved commercial, retail and leisure developments, enhanced cultural offer, improvements to the public realm and pedestrian links will have a long-term positive effect for current and future residents of the Town. . Delivery of a new Class A1 superstore and health club/ gym as part of development at Site CS 8 will help to address existing accessibility issues in the south of the Town identified through the Accessibility Assessment and SA. . Development at site CS 10 is expected to improve pedestrian links to site CS 8 and provide a strategic south west green route around the town with long-term positive effects against SA Objectives relating to accessibility, sustainable transport modes and health. It is noted that there is no similar recommendation for development at site CS 8. It is recommended that development at site CS 8 is also expected to provide improved pedestrian links to sites CS 10 and CS 11 and contribute to the strategic south west green route. Development at site CS 9 also provides an opportunity to enhance the usability of the canal and connectivity of the site. . Development at all of the sites will be expected to provide on-site or contribute towards local facilities/services and transport infrastructure.
4.39 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to biodiversity, landscape, heritage, the prudent use of land, traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites: . Site CS 8 is in close proximity to the Danes Moss landfill site and household recycling centre (to the south of the site). As a result, the appraisal found that there is the potential for negative effects on health as a result of odour from the landfill as well as the potential for contaminated land to be present. . Site CS 8 is located within 200m of the Danes Moss SSSI and Macclesfield Canal, Gawsworth and Sutton Local Wildlife Site. . Site CS 11 is located adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Gawsworth and Sutton Local Wildlife Site, and these habitats connect with Danes Moss Local Wildlife Site and Danes Moss SSSI. . Sites CS 32 & CS 40 contain parts of Cockwood Local Wildlife Site. . Site CS 8 is in close proximity to the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area. . Site CS 9 is largely surrounded by designated heritage assets. It contains a Listed Building and is located partially within and adjacent to the Buxton Road Conservation Area and adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal
February 2016 99/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Conservation Area. It is also located predominantly within the Peak Park Fringe Local Landscape Designation. . Site CS 11 is surrounded by Listed Buildings and adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area. . Development at sites CS 9, CS 32, CS 40 could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. . Development at sites CS 9, CS 11, CS 32, CS 40 & CS 41 will result in the loss of Green Belt land. . CS 10, CS 32, CS 40 & CS 41 are located partially within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel and development therefore has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources. . Site CS 41 is highly susceptible to surface water flooding.
4.40 The SA findings indicate that cumulatively, there is the potential for development at the sites to have negative effects on traffic and air quality within the Town as well as on some Local Wildlife Sites and a number of designated heritage assets, in particular the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area. Mitigation provided through the site policies and suggested revisions, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . Development at all of the sites are expected to contribute to highways and infrastructure improvements to accommodate an increased road capacity and are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. This includes the delivery of a link road between Congleton Road and London Road as part of development at site CS 8 as well as a new road junction to Chelford Road as part of development at CS 40. . Site specific policies CS 8 and CS 11 ensure that the sites will only be developed if it can be demonstrated that there is no significant harm on the Danes Moss SSSI. Ecological assessments are also required for Sites CS 8, CS 9, CS 10, CS 11 and CS 40. Policies CS 10 and CS 40 and also require that any proposals must avoid impacts on Local Wildlife Sites. . Site specific policy CS 8 requires a minimum of a Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment for contaminated land. . Site specific policy CS 9 seeks to minimise impacts on the Conservation Area and Landscape Designation Area through the incorporation of GI and retention of open space adjacent to the canal. It also seeks to protect the setting of the Church of Holy Trinity. Policy CS 11 requires development to be sensitive to the Conservation Area and seeks the retention of open space on the western edge of the site. . All of the site specific policies for Macclesfield seek high quality design that complements the landscape setting. . All development must incorporate Green Infrastructure.
4.41 Further to the policy mitigation already provided, it is recommended that policy CS 8 includes a requirement for any proposal to consider potential
February 2016 100/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
impacts (odour and noise) from the waste recycling plant and Dane Moss Landfill Site in the south. However, it is noted that the policy states that the north/ north east of the site is most suitable for residential development which will help to reduce potential impacts.
4.42 Despite the mitigation provided there is still likely to be cumulative residual minor negative effects on SA Objectives relating to the landscape, traffic as well as the loss of agricultural and greenfield land. However, development is also likely to have major positive cumulative effects for the residents of Macclesfield through improved accessibility to housing, employment, facilities/services as well as public transport.
Middlewich
4.43 The Proposed Changes to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Middlewich: . Site CS 20: Glebe Farm (PSS700) . Site CS 54: Brooks Lane (PSS701) . Site CS 55: Land off Warmingham Lane West Phase II (PSS703) . Site CS 56: Midpoint 18 (PSS702)
4.44 It should be noted that the boundary of site CS 56 has been extended to include committed development and an existing area. This does not significantly affect the findings of the fresh appraisal of site options presented in Appendix III.
4.45 The appraisal found that the sites allocated for development have the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with regard to positive effects and generally enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below: . Delivery of leisure and community facilities as well as a marina as part of development at site CS 54, which will help to improve access to facilities for the surrounding communities and contribute to improved health and wellbeing. . As part of development at Site CS 54 and CS 56 provision is being made for land to deliver a new railway station including lineside infrastructure, access and parking. . Delivery of appropriate retail at site CS 54 will contribute to improved access to local services for the surrounding communities. . Delivery of land to support future rail provisions, which has the potential for long-term positive effects for the surrounding communities through increased access to sustainable modes of public transport. . All of the sites are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. They are also expected to contribute towards educational facilities and health infrastructure.
February 2016 101/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
4.46 There is also the potential for cumulative long-term positive effects as sites CS 20, CS 55 and CS 56 support the delivery of the new Middlewich Eastern Bypass, which can significantly improve accessibility from existing and new development in the south of the settlement to existing strategic employment areas in the east of the settlement. Development at site CS 54 would also regenerate previously developed land with the potential for positive effects on landscapes and the prudent use of land.
4.47 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to landscape, heritage, the prudent use of land, and traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites: . Development at all of the sites have the potential to increase traffic on the roads, particularly at sites CS 20 and CS 56 given the higher capacities of these sites to accommodate development. Site CS 56 is currently segregated from existing services and facilities by the railway line and as such the effects are noted as of more significance in the SA; however, this needs to be considered alongside the delivery of new services and facilities and the Middlewich Eastern Bypass which will contribute to improved accessibility in the south. . Development at site CS 20 has the potential for a residual minor negative effect on the historic environment as development could affect the canal setting and Conservation Area. . Development at site CS 54 has the potential for a major long-term negative effect on the historic environment as the site is bound by the Trent and Mersey Canal to the west, and therefore includes the associated Conservation Area, as well as a number of Grade II Listed Buildings, a Scheduled Monument and an Area of Archaeological Potential. It also recognised however that there is the potential for positive effects on the Scheduled Monument which is currently land locked. . Development at all sites except CS 54 will result in the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At site CS 20 it is known that this is not best and most versatile agricultural land; however, it should be noted that the precise grade of agricultural land at sites CS55 and CS 56 is not known at this stage.
4.48 Mitigation provided through the site policies and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . Development at all of the sites are expected to contribute to highways and infrastructure improvements to accommodate an increased road capacity and are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. . Policy CS 20 requires high standard development that positively impacts upon the historic environment as well as a desk based archaeological assessment.
February 2016 102/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. Policy CS 54 requires a master-plan approach to development that considers the constraints of the historic environment, high quality design and enhancements to the Trent and Mersey Canal corridor, and pre- determination desk based archaeological assessment and heritage impact assessment. . All sites are expected to deliver high quality design that complements the landscape setting. . All development must incorporate Green Infrastructure.
4.49 The mitigation provided through the policies should ensure that there will be no major negative effects as a result of proposed development. Despite the mitigation provided there is still likely to be cumulative residual minor negative effects on SA Objectives relating to traffic and the loss of agricultural and greenfield land. However, development is also likely to have major positive cumulative effects for the residents of Middlewich through improved accessibility to housing, employment, facilities/services as well as public transport and a new road link, and an enhanced green infrastructure network.
Nantwich
4.50 The Proposed Changes to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Nantwich: . Site CS 21: Kingsley Fields (PSS800) . Site CS 23: Snow Hill (PSS802)
4.51 It should be noted that since they were subject to a fresh appraisal there has been a minor boundary change to Site CS 21 (PSS800). This change is not considered to significantly affect the findings of the fresh appraisal of site options presented in Appendix III.
4.52 The appraisal found that the sites allocated for development have the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with regard to positive effects and generally enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below: . Delivery of a new mixed-use local centre at site CS 21 as well as retail, sports and leisure facilities and bars and cafes at site CS 23. This will help to improve access to services and facilities for the surrounding communities, and contribute to improved health and wellbeing. . Both of the sites are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. They are also expected to contribute towards educational facilities and health infrastructure, with the potential for a new primary school at site CS 21.
4.53 Development at site CS 23 would also regenerate previously developed land with the potential for positive effects on townscape / landscape, the historic environment and the prudent use of land.
February 2016 103/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
4.54 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to landscape, flood risk, the prudent use of land, and traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites: . Development at all of the sites have the potential to increase traffic on the roads, particularly at sites CS 21 given the higher capacity of the sites to accommodate development. . Site CS 23 contains an area of flood risk. . Development at site CS 21 could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.
4.55 Mitigation provided through the site policies and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . Development at all of the sites are expected to contribute to highways and infrastructure improvements to accommodate an increased road capacity and are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links. . Policy CS 23 requires retention of the flood plain and directs development away from this area on site. It also requires further flood mitigation where necessary. . Policy CS 21 requires development to consider opportunities to increase the understanding and appreciation of designated heritage assets and their settings and requires desk based archaeological assessment. The policy further requires that the design incorporates any non-designated heritage assets on site. . Both sites are expected to deliver high quality design that complements the landscape setting. . Both development must incorporate Green Infrastructure.
4.56 The mitigation provided through the policies should ensure that there will be no major negative effects as a result of proposed development. Despite the mitigation provided there is still likely to be cumulative residual minor negative effects on SA Objectives relating to traffic and the loss of agricultural and greenfield land. However, development is also likely to have major positive cumulative effects for the residents of Nantwich through improved accessibility to housing, employment, facilities/services as well as public transport and a new road link, and an enhanced green infrastructure network.
Poynton
4.57 The Proposed Changes to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Poynton: . Site CS 57: Land adjacent to Hazelbadge Road (PSS905) . Site CS 58: Land at Sprink Farm (PSS902)
February 2016 104/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. Site CS 59: Land South of Chester Road (PSS906) . CS 60: Adlington Business Park (PSS907) . Site CS 65: Woodford Aerodrome (PSS900) Safeguarded
4.58 It should be noted that there have been no changes to the sites, or underlying site options, since they were considered through the fresh appraisal. The appraisal found that development at the proposed sites has the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with regard to positive effects and generally enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below:
. Development at the sites will contribute to existing, and the provision of new, public transport links to the town centre and railway station. . Development at the sites will contribute to health infrastructure and education provision. . Development at site CS 57 will result in improvements to Hazelbadge Road and its junction with Chester Road, including provision of improved turning/parking facilities linked to Lower Park School.
4.59 The Accessibility Assessment (Appendix II) identified that a number of the proposed sites fail or significantly fail to meet the minimum standards for accessibility to a convenience store. There could be an opportunity for development at all the sites to contribute to the provision local convenience stores to try and address this issue.
4.60 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to biodiversity, landscape, heritage, the prudent use of land, traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites: . None of the sites are within minimum distances to promoted footpaths and cycle routes. . Development at all of the sites have the potential to increase traffic on the roads. . The boundaries of sites CS, 57, CS 58 & CS 60 fall within flood risk areas. A large proportion of site CS 65 lies within a flood risk area. . Site CS 57 is also located in close proximity to the Wigwam Wood Local Wildlife Site. . Site CS 60 is adjacent to three Listed Buildings. . Site CS 65 is partially within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources. . Development at sites CS 56, CS 57, CS 59, CS 60 & CS 65 will result in the loss of Green Belt land.
4.61 Mitigation provided through the site policies and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative
February 2016 105/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . Detailed site-specific flood risk assessment is required for any development at sites CS 57, CS 58. In the future it is assumed that a similar requirement will be sought for any proposals for development at sites CS 60 & CS 65. . The inclusion of appropriate noise mitigation along the south western boundary of site CS 57. . Any application for development at sites CS 57, CS 58 & CS 59 will be supported by a full ecological appraisal. It should be noted that policies CS 58 & CS 59 also require that any woodland, stream, priority habitats or habitats of Local Wildlife Quality should be retained and buffered by areas of open space/ habitat creation. . Development at all of the sites are expected to contribute to highways and infrastructure improvements to accommodate an increased road capacity and are expected to provide, and enhance existing, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links.
4.62 It should be noted that site CS 65 is safeguarded for future development; therefore, the identified effects are unlikely to arise during the life of the LPS. Overall, development at the proposed sites will have long-term positive effects for the current and future residents of the Town. There are a number of potential issues for the individual sites but it is considered that there is suitable mitigation available to ensure that these are not significant. Given the scale of proposed development, it is unlikely that there will be any major negative cumulative effects.
Sandbach
4.63 The Proposed Changes to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Sandbach: . Site CS 24: Land adjacent to J17 of M6, South East of Congleton Road (PSS1001)
4.64 It should be noted that there have been no changes to the site since it was considered through the fresh appraisal. The appraisal found that the site has the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. Particularly as the site specific policy proposes the following: . Delivery of appropriate retail and leisure facilities which will enhance access to services and facilities for the surrounding communities. . Contributions and enhancement to existing highways, public transport, pedestrian and cycle links, and educational facilities and health infrastructure.
4.65 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at the site to have negative effects against SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to biodiversity and the prudent use of land. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the site:
February 2016 106/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. The site partially contains Arclid Brook Valley West LWS. . Development at the site could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.
4.66 Mitigation provided through the site policy and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policy contains a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . Development at the site is expected to contribute to highways and infrastructure improvements to junction 17 of the M6 motorway and the junctions on the A534 Old Mill Road corridor. . Development at the site is expected to make provision for improved access off Old Mill Road and a new bridge across the Brook to access the employment land beyond. . Development at the site is required to protect and enhance the wildlife corridor and LWS as well as important hedgerows on site. . Development at the site is required to consider the 'Cheshire East Green Space Strategy 2011' and include the creation of improved access to green corridors whilst protecting and enhancing the Site of Biological Importance, watercourse and wildlife corridor already on site
4.67 The mitigation provided through the site specific and wider LPS policies should ensure that there will be no major negative effects as a result of proposed development. Overall, the development will positive effects for the settlement by improving accessibility to housing and employment as well as associated local services/facilities.
Wilmslow
4.68 The Proposed Changes to the LPS allocate the following sites for development within Wilmslow: . Site CS 26: Royal London incl. land to the West of Alderley Road (PSS1101) . Site CS 27: Wilmslow Business Park (PSS1102) . Site CS 36: Land at Upcast Lane / Cumber Lane (PSS1108) . Site CS 61: Land at Little Stanneylands (PSS1104) . Site CS 62: Heathfield Farm (PSS1107 in part) . Site CS 63: Land at Heathfield Farm (PSS1107 in part) Safeguarded
4.69 It should be noted that since they were subject to a fresh appraisal a number of minor changes have been made to the sites listed above. This includes a minor boundary change to site CS63 (PSS107). This change is not considered to significantly affect the findings of the fresh appraisal of site options presented in Appendix III.
4.70 The appraisal found that development at the proposed sites has the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with regard to positive effects and generally
February 2016 107/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below: . Policy CS 26 requires the incorporation of GI and the provision of public open space at the southern end of the land west of Alderley Road as well as the provision of at least 1 ha of land set aside for use as school playing fields within the site in addition to the areas marked as open space on the map, as well as an appropriate level of amenity open space and children's play space. This will help to address an existing accessibility issue in the south of the Town identified through the Accessibility Assessment and SA. . Delivery of new employment land at Sites CS 26 & CS 27 will address an existing accessibility issue in the south of the Town and have major long- term positive effects for the surrounding communities. . Development at site CS 61 will provide a new pedestrian and cycle bridge across the River Dean and improvement of public access along the river valley.
4.71 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to biodiversity, landscape, heritage, the prudent use of land, traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites: . None of the sites are within minimum distances to promoted footpaths and cycle routes. . Development at all of the sites have the potential to increase traffic on the roads. . Site CS 26 is situated adjacent to the railway line with potential issues for amenity of future residents. . The southern area of site CS 26 is located within a flood risk area. . Site CS 26 contains two Listed Buildings. . There is potential for contamination at site CS 27 from a licensed inert landfill site following construction of the A34. . Site CS 36 is over 1km from any existing employment areas of significance. . Site CS 36 & CS 61 are adjacent to Local Wildlife Sites. . Site CS 61 falls within a Local Landscape Designation and there are two Listed Buildings adjacent to its boundary. The appraisal noted that Historic England has requested that the Council undertakes a heritage impact assessment in relation to this site in order to identify the value of it in relation to the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets. . Development at sites CS 26, CS 27, CS 36, CS 61, CS 62 & CS 63 will result in the loss of Green Belt land.
4.72 Mitigation provided through the site policies and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . All the policies seek the provision of new or enhanced pedestrian links to the wider area, which includes the train station for some sites. Policy CS 26
February 2016 108/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
also proposes the delivery of a new pedestrian and cycle bridge across the River Dean as part of development. . Detailed site-specific flood risk assessment is required for any development at site CS 26. . Site specific policy CS 27 requires a minimum of a Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment for contaminated land. . Any development at site CS 26 must have respect for the setting of the listed buildings on site, including Fulshaw Hall. . Any development at site CS 61 must be of a high quality design which reflects and respects the character of the area. It must also provide a comprehensive landscaping scheme and have respect for the setting of listed buildings adjacent to the site. . New development at site CS61 will be expected to respect any existing ecological constraints on site and where necessary provide appropriate mitigation. . All development must incorporate Green Infrastructure.
4.73 There is no reference within Policy CS 26 with regard to the potential impacts of the railway line on development and future residents. However, it should be noted that the policy does focus development away from the railway line in the east towards the existing campus in the west of the site, which should ensure that there are no significant effects. It should be noted that site CS 36 is safeguarded for future development; therefore, the identified effects are unlikely to arise during the life of the LPS. In the future, the provision of some employment at site CS 36 or improvements to the pedestrian links between that site and the employment being provided at sites CS 26 and CS 27 would help to address an existing accessibility issue.
4.74 Despite the mitigation provided there is still likely to be cumulative residual minor negative effects on SA Objectives relating to the landscape, traffic as well as the loss of agricultural and greenfield land. However, development is also likely to have major positive cumulative effects for residents through improved accessibility to housing, employment, facilities/services as well as public transport.
Other Sites
4.75 The Proposed Changes to the LPS also allocate the following other sites for development: . CS 28: Wardle Employment Improvement Area (PSS1203) . CS 29: Alderley Park Opportunity Site (PSS1200a and PSS1200b) . CS 64: Cheshire Gateway (PSS1201b) Safeguarded
4.76 It should be noted that there have been no changes to the sites since they were considered through the fresh appraisal. The appraisal found that development at the proposed sites has the potential for long-term positive effects against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing and employment as well as accessibility to services/facilities and sustainable transport modes. The site specific policies help to provide more certainty with
February 2016 109/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
regard to positive effects and generally enhance the potential benefits identified through the appraisal. Some of these benefits and opportunities are highlighted below: . Policy CS 28 supports any proposal that seeks to enhance the appearance, access (off the A51) and landscape character of the area. . The provision of a pedestrian crossing across the A51 to serve the village of Alpraham as part of development at site CS 28. . The provision of electric vehicle infrastructure as part of development at site CS 28. . Policy CS 29 proposes the delivery of housing alongside the creation of a life science park with a focus on human health science research and development, technologies, and processes.
4.77 The appraisal also found that there is the potential for development at these sites to have negative effects against a number of SA Objectives, in particular, those relating to biodiversity, landscape, heritage, the prudent use of land, traffic and air quality. The appraisal identified the following key issues for the sites: . All of the sites fail or significantly fail to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of facilities/services. . Site CS 28 is adjacent to the Wardle Canal Banks Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and Site of Biological Interest (SBI) as well as a Listed Building. . Site CS 29 contains Radnor Mere and Woods Local Wildlife Site and is also known to contain protected species. . Site CS 29 is adjacent to the Nether Alderley Conservation Area at the northern border of the site, and contains Listed Buildings. It is also entirely within the Bollin Valley and Parklands local landscape designation. . The north eastern boundary of site CS 64 is adjacent to a flood risk area. . Development at sites CS 29 & CS 69 will result in the loss of Green Belt land. . Site CS 69 contains Yarwood Heath Covert Local Wildlife Site and it is also in close proximity to the Rostherne Mere Ramsar Site in the south. . Development at site CS 69 could result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.
4.78 Mitigation provided through the site policies and Proposed Changes, which includes wider LPS policies, should ensure that there are no major negative effects. The site policies contain a range of mitigation measures that will help to address the issues identified through the appraisal above, these include: . The provision of GI at site CS 28 to include the creation of buffer zone between development and the canal as well as landscaped screening to reduce the visual impact of any development. . The requirement for a Travel Plan and a desk based archaeological assessment to accompany any proposal for development at site CS 28. . Development at site CS 29 will be restricted to previously developed land unless very special circumstances are demonstrated or an equivalent amount of previously developed land on the site is restored to greenfield status.
February 2016 110/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
. Development at site CS 29 shall preserve or enhance the significance of Listed Buildings, the Conservation Area and other heritage and landscape assets on and around the site.
4.79 It should be noted that site CS 64 is safeguarded for future development; therefore, the identified effects are unlikely to arise during the life of the LPS. The mitigation provided through the policies should ensure that there will be no major negative effects as a result of proposed development. Despite the mitigation provided there is still likely to be cumulative residual minor negative effects on SA Objectives relating to the landscape, traffic as well as the loss of agricultural and greenfield land. However, overall the proposed developments are likely to have major positive cumulative effects for the Borough.
Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA)
4.80 The Proposed Changes to the site policies are not considered to significantly affect the findings of the initial EqIA presented in Appendix I of the Submission SA Report (SD003). The proposed changes including additional sites seek to accommodate the increased level of housing and employment development necessary to meet identified needs. This will have positive effects by helping to ensure that there is suitable homes and job opportunities available for all members of the community. Whilst the Proposed Changes are considered to generally strengthen positive effects with regard to equalities, overall the initial EqIA presented in Appendix I of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] found that the LPS is unlikely to have negative effects on protected characteristics or persons identified under the Equality Act 2010. These conclusions remain valid and relevant for the LPS when considered against the Proposed Changes; a full EqIA is not required.
Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
4.81 The Proposed Changes to the site policies are not considered to significantly affect the findings of the HIA presented in Appendix J of the Submission SA Report (SD003). The proposed changes and additional sites will ensure that the housing and employment needs of residents are met. The site allocation policies seek the provision of or contributions to health infrastructure where necessary. The HIA presented in Appendix J of the Submission SA Report [SD 003] found that the LPS is overall likely to have positive effects and concluded that there are unlikely to be any significant adverse health consequences as a result of implementing the Plan. These conclusions remain valid and relevant for the LPS when considered against the Proposed Changes; a full HIA is not required.
Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
4.82 The Proposed Changes to site allocation policies have also been considered through the HRA process. The HRA Addendum Report (Feb 2016) did not identify any additional significant effects to those already determined and assessed within the previous HRA work for the LPS. It concludes that, “The existing policies and provisions in the Local Plan Strategy should ensure that
February 2016 111/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided. However, as the Local Plan Strategy is a high level, strategic plan, this means that it is difficult to devise more specific mitigation measures as the precise nature, scale, timing and location/layout of development is not known. Therefore, the site policies state that sites will only be developed where it can be demonstrated that there is no adverse impact on European sites”.
February 2016 112/113 Enfusion Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
5.0 Summary and Next Steps
5.1 This SA Addendum Report (Volume 2) considers the Proposed Changes to site allocation policies proposed within LPS Chapter 15, in light of further work carried out on the site selection process during the suspension of the Examination. It also sets out the findings of the fresh SA of site options, which informed the Council’s site selection process and Proposed Changes.
5.2 Strategic options for the distribution of safeguarded land have been subject to SA with the findings presented in Appendix I of this Report. The detailed appraisal matrices for the fresh SA of site options are presented in Appendix III and were informed by an Accessibility Assessment, which is included in Appendix II. The reasons for the progression or rejection of site options in plan- making are provided in Appendix IV.
5.3 The Proposed Changes to Chapter 15 of the LPS were screened and the likely significant effects of preferred sites set out in Section 4 of this Report. This included the consideration of opportunities and potential mitigation measures provided through site policies as well as the potential cumulative effects of proposed development. Overall, the proposed development was considered likely to have major positive cumulative effects for the Borough by helping to meet the identified needs of communities. However, the SA also identified the potential for cumulative negative effects in relation to traffic and air quality, the landscape, as well as the loss of greenfield and agricultural land.
5.4 The further SA work has formed an integral part of the further work carried out during the suspension of the Examination. The fresh SA of site options and Accessibility Assessment have informed the Council’s site selection process and the development of Proposed Changes.
5.5 It should be noted that the Proposed Changes to Local Plan Strategy Strategic and Development Management Policies (Chapters 8 to 14 of the LPS) are considered through a separate SA Addendum Report (Volume 1). Both Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Reports (Volumes 1 & 2) are available for comment alongside the Proposed Changes and wider technical work from 4 March to 19 April 2016 (provisional dates).
February 2016 113/113 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Appendix I: SA of Distribution Options for Safeguarded Land
Refined Significance Key:
Categories of Significance
Symbol Meaning Sustainability Effect - - Major Problematical and improbable because of known sustainability Negative issues; mitigation likely to be difficult and/or expensive - Minor Potential sustainability issues: mitigation and/or negotiation negative possible + Minor No sustainability constraints and development acceptable positive ++ Major Development encouraged as would resolve existing Positive sustainability problem ? Uncertain Uncertain or Unknown Effects
/ Neutral Neutral effect
- ? It is possible to have two symbols for an SA Objective. For example, an option could have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 (Biodiversity); however, there is an element of uncertainty at this stage. - + SA Objective 12 consider more than one topic (landscape and heritage) and as a result the options could have a different effect upon each topic considered.
February 2016 1/10 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The Council identified four options for the distribution of Safeguarded Land to settlements inset within the North Cheshire Green Belt. These are as follows: 5. Provision of all 200ha in the Principal Town of Macclesfield; 6. Provision of Safeguarded Land distributed proportionately by settlement, based on the Revised Spatial Distribution of Development (RSDD) as proposed through the Spatial Distribution Update Report (SDUR) [PS E035] and the Council’s suggested revisions to Policy PG 6 (Spatial Distribution of Development) [PS E041]; 7. Provision of Safeguarded Land distributed proportionately by settlement based on the resident population; and 8. A hybrid approach based on options 2 and 3 above.
The Table below shows the distribution of Safeguarded Land under each of the four options considered through the SA.
Summary of Options for the Distribution of Safeguarded Land Settlement Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Macclesfield 200 ha 75 ha 81 ha 95 ha Handforth Including North - 45 ha 10 ha 10 ha Cheshire Growth Village Knutsford - 21 ha 20 ha 28 ha Poynton - 16 ha 20 ha 19 ha Wilmslow - 19 ha 37 ha 24 ha Local Service Centres - 24 ha 32 ha 24 ha Total 200 ha 200 ha 200 ha 200 ha
February 2016 2/10 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty 1. Provide an The same overall total of safeguarded land is being proposed through all the options; + ++ ++ ++ appropriate quantity therefore, they will all have a long-term positive effect against this SA Objective by and quality of helping to ensure that there is a sufficient level of safeguarded land to meet future needs. housing to meet the In terms of distribution, Options 2 to 4 are more likely to have long-term positive effects for needs of the a wider area of the borough as safeguarded land is distributed between settlements. Borough. This should Option 1 focuses all of the safeguarded land towards Macclesfield and is therefore include a mix of considered likely to have a positive long-term effect of less significance compared to housing types, Options 2 to 4, as the future needs of the wider borough are less likely to be met. While tenures and there are some minor differences between Options 2 to 4 in terms of how the land is affordability. distributed between individual settlements, at a strategic level, it is difficult to identify any significant differences between them in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects. The key difference between Options 2 to 4 is that Option 2 proposes a higher level of safeguarded land in Handforth. This is a result of the underlying assumption that the current distribution of development proposed within the LPS will continue into the future, which is that Handforth will assist to meet the development needs of other settlements. Options 3 & 4 do not follow that underlying assumption and therefore offer a more balanced approach to the distribution of safeguarded land that perhaps better reflects the future development requirements of the settlements. 2. Create sustainable As for SA Objective 1, all of the options have the potential for a long-term positive effect + ++ ++ ++ communities that against this SA Objective by helping to ensure that there is a sufficient level of benefit from good safeguarded land to meet future needs. Options 2 to 4 are likely to have enhanced access to jobs, positive effects against this SA Objective compared to Option 1 as the safeguarded land services, facilities is distributed between settlements allowing for improved accessibility to jobs, services, and sustainable facilities and transport over a wider area. As stated previously, Option 2 proposes a higher forms of transport, level of safeguarded land in Handforth that may not be required in the future. Options 3 including walking, & 4 offer a more balanced approach to the distribution of safeguarded land that perhaps cycling and public better reflects the future development and associated infrastructure requirements of the transport. settlements and communities.
February 2016 3/10 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty 3. Consider the Taken account of the findings of the SA against Objectives 1 and 2, it is considered likely + ++ ++ ++ needs of all sections that Options 2 to 4 will have an enhanced positive effect against this SA Objective of the community in compared to Option 1. Options 2 to 4 offer a better opportunity meet the future needs of order to achieve wider communities and reduce inequalities over a larger area of the borough. high levels of equality, diversity and social inclusion. 4. Create an All of the options have the potential to help promote healthy and active lifestyles through + ++ ++ ++ environment that improving access to future housing, employment and services/facilities as well as promotes healthy sustainable transport modes. The higher the level of safeguarded land directed towards a and active lifestyles. settlement the greater likelihood for positive effects against this SA Objective for the communities in that area. Options 2 to 4 are likely to have enhanced positive effects compared to Option 1 as the future needs of the settlements will be met and the potential health benefits will be spread over a wider area of the borough. Focussing a large proportion of future development at Macclesfield could have potential negative effects for the amenity of existing communities. 5. Maintain and/or No safeguarded land is directed towards the rural areas. No significant difference / / / / create vibrant rural between the options against this SA Objective. However, it should be noted that communities. focussing future development towards Macclesfield could negative affect rural communities surrounding the settlement. However, at this stage this is uncertain. 6. Create a safe None of the Options are likely to have a significant effect against this SA Objective. In line / / / / environment to live with Submission Local Plan Policy SE 1, it is assumed that the design and layout of any in and reduce fear future development under any of the options could incorporate Secured by Design of crime. principles. 7. Maintain and Evidence suggests that infrastructure is not considered to be a critical factor in + ++ ++ ++ enhance community determining the current spatial distribution of development.56 However, it is services and acknowledged that this may change in the future. Options 2 to 4 are more likely to
56 Cheshire East Council (Aug 2015) Spatial Distribution Support Executive Summary. Prepared by AECOM.
February 2016 4/10 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty amenities to sustain provide infrastructure to support a wider number of current and future communities. It is the existing and therefore considered that they have the potential for an enhanced positive effect future community of compared to Option 1. the Borough. 8. Manage the Evidence suggests that commerce and industry as well as road transport are the main - ? ? ? ? causes and effects contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in the borough57; however, this may change in of climate change. the future. The distribution of future housing and employment development is more likely to influence the emissions from road transport rather than from commerce and industry. While all of the options are likely to have negative effects against this SA Objective as a result of increased traffic in the future for settlements, it is considered that option 1 has the greatest potential for a negative effect given that all the safeguarded land is directed towards one area. 9. Positively address Evidence suggests that infrastructure is not considered to be a critical factor in / / / / the issues of water determining the spatial distribution of development and that there are no significant quality and quantity constraints in terms of flood risk within the borough.58 All of the options have the potential and manage flood to provide or contribute to additional infrastructure where necessary, which can be risk within the secured through developer contributions and other funding streams in line with Submission Borough. Local Plan Policy IN 2.
In accordance with the NPPF, Submission Local Plan Policy SE 13 ensures that proposed development must minimise flood risk by ensuring that it follows the sequential approach, is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment, seeks improvements to the surface water drainage network and does not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere.
Given the available evidence and constraints, it is considered that there are unlikely to be
57 UK local authority and regional carbon dioxide emissions national statistics: 2005-2012. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local- authority-emissions-estimates 58 Cheshire East Council (May 2015) Spatial Distribution Support Executive Summary (draft). Prepared by AECOM.
February 2016 5/10 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty any significant differences between the options against this SA Objective. Potential for a residual neutral effect for all of the options. 10. Manage the While all of the options propose the same overall total of safeguarded land, Option 1 - ? / / / impacts of focuses this all towards one settlement. Compared to the other options, 1 has greatest development and potential for a residual negative effect against this SA Objective given the concentration associated activities of future development towards Macclesfield. While it is likely that suitable mitigation will to positively address be available to address potential negative effects at this stage this is uncertain. all forms of pollution. 11. Protect and The nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective for the options are ? ? ? ? enhance ultimately dependent on the precise location of development and sensitivity of receptors. biodiversity, habitats, Option 1 has a greater likelihood for negative effects on important biodiversity geodiversity and surrounding Macclesfield; however, it is also less likely to have negative effects on important geological important biodiversity surrounding the other settlements. At this stage the potential effects features; with are considered uncertain for all the options. particular care to sites designated internationally, nationally, regionally and locally. 12. Protect and This SA Objective considers two key sustainability topics and therefore two symbols are ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? enhance the quality, provided to represent each topic. The first symbol relates to landscape and the second integrity and heritage. distinctiveness of the area’s heritage, The nature and significance of effects against this SA Objective for the options are landscapes and ultimately dependent on the precise location of development and sensitivity of receptors. townscapes, in Option 1 has a greater likelihood for negative effects on the landscape and designated particular those that heritage within and around Macclesfield; however, it is also less likely to have negative are internationally, effects on the landscape and heritage surrounding the other settlements. If the majority nationally or locally of the safeguarded land was focussed to the east of Macclesfield then this could have designated. major negative effects on the landscape, given the proximity of the National Park and presence of the Local Landscape Designation. At this stage the potential effects are
February 2016 6/10 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty considered uncertain for all the options.
13. Minimise energy In line with Submission Local Plan Policy SE 9, all of the options have the potential to / / / / use, promote energy incorporate energy and efficiency measures as well as renewable or low carbon energy. efficiency and high It is therefore considered that all of the Options are likely to have a neutral effect against quality design, and this SA Objective. It is considered that there are no significant differences in the nature increase the and significance of sustainability effects between the Options. generation of energy from renewable resources. 14. Achieve The distribution of safeguarded land is not considered likely to have a significant effect / / / / sustainable waste against this SA Objective. All the Options are considered to have a neutral effect against management this SA Objective. through adhering to the principles of the waste hierarchy. 15. Manage mineral The spatial distribution of growth is most likely to affect this SA Objective through the ? ? ? ? extraction and sterilisation of mineral resources as there are a number of mineral safeguarded areas encourage their within the north of the borough. The nature and significance of the effect will ultimately recycling/re-use to be dependent on the precise location of development. At this stage, it is considered that provide a sufficient there are no significant differences between the options against this SA Objective. There supply to meet is an element of uncertainty for all the options until the precise location of development is social and known. economic needs whilst minimising
February 2016 7/10 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty impacts on the environment and communities and safeguarding resources for future generations. 16. Reduce the There is not likely to be any significant differences between the options against this SA ? ? ? ? consumption of Objective. There are a number of uncertainties in terms of the potential nature and natural resources, significance of effects as the precise location of development is not known and there are protect and data gaps in relation to agricultural land quality. enhance green infrastructure and high quality agricultural land and optimise the re-use of previously developed land, buildings and infrastructure. 17. To promote a The same overall total of safeguarded land is being proposed through all the options; + ++ ++ ++ sustainable, therefore, they will all have a long-term positive effect against this SA Objective by competitive and helping to ensure that there is a sufficient level of safeguarded land to meet future needs. low-carbon Similar to the findings against SA Objective 1, in terms of distribution, Options 2 to 4 are economy that more likely to have long-term positive effects for a wider area of the borough as benefits from a safeguarded land is distributed between settlements. Option 1 focuses all of the range of innovative safeguarded land towards Macclesfield and is therefore considered likely to have a and diverse positive long-term effect of less significance compared to Options 2 to 4, as the future businesses in both needs of the wider borough are less likely to be met. While there are some minor urban and rural differences between Options 2 to 4 in terms of how the land is distributed between areas. individual settlements, at a strategic level, it is difficult to identify any significant differences between them in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects.
February 2016 8/10 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA Objective Assessment of Effects Options 1 2 3 4 Nature of the likely sustainability effect (including positive/negative, short - medium term (5-10 years)/long term (10 - 20 years plus), permanent/temporary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic); Uncertainty 18. To maintain and Options 2 to 4 are considered to have a greater potential for enhanced positive effects + ++ ++ ++ enhance the vitality against this SA Objective, compared to Option 1, as the distribution of safeguarded land and viability of town under those options better reflects the future development requirements of the and village centres settlements. with a balanced provision of retail, leisure, visitor and cultural facilities. 19. Positively No safeguarded land is directed towards the rural areas. No significant difference ? ? ? ? manage the between the options against this SA Objective. However, it should be noted that Options Borough's diverse 2 to 4 are more likely to benefit a wider area and could therefore be assumed more likely rural economy. to have positive effects for the wider rural area; however, at this stage this is uncertain.
20. Improve access Options 2 to 4 are considered to have a greater potential for enhanced positive effects + ++ ++ ++ to education and against this SA Objective, compared to Option 1, as the distribution of safeguarded land training, and the links under those options better reflects the future development requirements of the between these settlements. resources and employment opportunities.
Summary Findings:
All of the options propose the same overall total of safeguarded land. The appraisal found that Options 2 to 4 have the potential for enhanced positive effects compared to Option 1 against a number of SA Objectives relating to the provision of housing, employment and infrastructure, as the distribution of safeguarded land better reflects the future development requirements of the settlements. While there are some minor differences between Options 2 to 4 in terms of how the land is distributed between individual settlements, at a strategic level, it is difficult to identify any significant differences between them in terms of the overall nature and significance of effects. The key difference between Options 2 to 4 is that Option 2 proposes a higher level of safeguarded land in Handforth. This is a result of the underlying assumption that the current distribution of development proposed within the LPS will continue into the future, which is that Handforth will assist to meet the development needs of other settlements. Options 3
February 2016 9/10 Enfusion Appendix I Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
& 4 do not follow that underlying assumption and therefore offer a more balanced approach to the distribution of safeguarded land that perhaps better reflects the future development requirements of the settlements.
The appraisal also found that the nature and significance of effects against a number of SA Objectives are uncertain. Ultimately, they are dependent on the precise location of development and sensitivity of receptors. Option 1 has a greater likelihood for negative effects on the landscape, heritage and biodiversity within and surrounding Macclesfield. However, it also less likely to have significant effects on these issues for the wider settlements. It is considered that Option 1 has the greatest potential for a residual negative effect on SA Objectives relating to traffic and air quality as all of the safeguarded land is directed towards one settlement.
February 2016 10/10 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Appendix II: Accessibility Assessment
Key:
Meets minimum standard (within 300m, 400m, 500m, 1000m or 2000m accordingly, depending on the feature) Less than 60% failure for minimum standard of 300m, 400m and 500m Fails to meet minimum standard Less than 50% failure for minimum standard of 1,000m and 2,000m Greater than 60% failure for minimum standard of 300m, 400m and 500m Significant failure to meet minimum standard Greater than 50% failure for minimum standard of 1,000m and 2,000m
February 2016 1/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Crewe
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post or Garden (1000m) Garden or PRoW (500m) PRoW -
- Store (500m) Store
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
LPS/
Site SUB
Ref No. Site address PSS100 CS 1 Basford East N/A
PSS101 CS 2 Basford West N/A
PSS102 CS 3 Leighton West N/A
PSS103 CS 4 Crewe Green N/A
PSS104 CS 5 Sydney Road N/A
PSS105 CS 6 Shavington/ Wybunbury Triangle N/A
PSS106 CS 7 East Shavington N/A
PSS107 CS 37 South Cheshire N/A Growth Village PSS108 SL 1 Central Crewe N/A
PSS109 SL 2 Leighton N/A
PSS110 2043 Broughton Road N/A (smaller part)
February 2016 2/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post or Garden (1000m) Garden or PRoW (500m) PRoW -
- Store (500m) Store
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
LPS/
Site SUB
Ref No. Site address PSS111 2043 Broughton Road N/A (large site) PSS112 3092 Sydney Road (CS 5 N/A ext) PSS113 3116 Land south of Gresty N/A Lane PSS114 3156 Land off Eastern N/A Road PSS115 986 Land south of Park N/A Road PSS116 3557 Gresty Green N/A
PSS117 3134 Land north of N/A Moorfields PSS118 2454 South Cheshire N/A Growth Village ext 1 PSS119 2454 South Cheshire N/A Growth Village ext 2 PSS120 3109 South West Crewe N/A
PSS121 2151 Church Lane, N/A Wistaston PSS122 2325 Wistaston Village N/A
PSS123 993 North of Wistaston N/A February 2016 3/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post or Garden (1000m) Garden or PRoW (500m) PRoW -
- Store (500m) Store
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
LPS/
Site SUB
Ref No. Site address Green Road PSS124 3092 Sydney Road North N/A
PSS125 Land to the east of N/A University Way PSS126 Marshfield Bank N/A Farm, Middlewich Rd PSS127 Wood Farm, N/A Middlewich Road PSS128 Land off Groby N/A Road PSS129 1782 North of Crewe N/A Green 1 PSS130 3500 North of Crewe N/A Green 2 SA37 3023 Bombadier, West N/A Street
February 2016 4/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Macclesfield
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1 House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban 000m)
Site LPS/SUB
Ref No. Site address PSS200 SL 4 Central N/A Macclesfield PSS201 CS 8 S. Macclesfield N/A Dev. Area PSS202 CS 9 Land East of N/A Fence Avenue PSS203 CS 10 Land at N/A Congleton Road PSS204 2177 (CS SW. Macclesfield N/A 10, CS 32 Dev. Area PSS205 CS 10 (CS Congleton Road N/A 32 part) SWMDA part PSS206 CS 11 Gaw End Lane N/A
PSS207 2357 (CS Gaw End Lane N/A 11, CS 32) and Lyme Green PSS208 CS 11 (CS Gaw End Ln, N/A 32 part) Lyme Green part PSS209 2405 Land Between Chelford Rd & N/A Whirley Rd PSS210 2405 & Land Between N/A 3565 Chelford Rd and February 2016 5/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1 House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban 000m)
Site LPS/SUB
Ref No. Site address Whirley Rd PSS211 3565 Land to the North of Birtles N/A Rd PSS212 3566 Land to the West N/A of Priory Lane PSS213 2124 East of London N/A Road PSS214 52 Lark Hall N/A
PSS215 2177 Land between Gawsworth Rd N/A and Pexhill Rd PSS216 2177 Pexhill Rd to Chelford Rd Site N/A A PSS217 2177 Pexhill Road to Chelford Road N/A Site B PSS218 Land to North of N/A Prestbury Road SA66 CS 31 Lyme Green (S) N/A (safeguarded) SA67 CS 32 SW Maccs. N/A (safeguarded)
February 2016 6/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1 House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban 000m)
Site LPS/SUB
Ref No. Site address SA75 1558 Land at Fence N/A Avenue
February 2016 7/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Alsager
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000 Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW Facilities (500m) Facilities - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
m)
Site LPS/SUB
Ref No. Site address PSS300 CS 12 Twyfords and N/A Cardway PSS301 CS 13 Former MMU N/A Campus PSS302 CS 14 Radway Green N/A Brownfield PSS303 CS 15 Radway Green N/A Extension PSS304 SL 5 White Moss N/A Quarry PSS305 1536 Fannys Croft N/A
PSS306 1786 Land north of N/A Heath End Farm PSS307 1786 MMU Extension N/A
PSS308 1870 Radway Green N/A North PSS309 2133 Sandbach N/A Road North PSS310 3126 Land at Close N/A Lane
February 2016 8/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Congleton
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000 Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW Facilities (500m) Facilities - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
m)
Site LPS/SUB
Ref No. Site address PSS400 SL 6 Back Lane/ N/A Radnor Park PSS401 SL 7 Congleton N/A Business Park PSS402 SL 8 Giantswood N/A Lane PSS403 CS 16 Giantswood N/A Lane PSS404 CS 17 Manchester Rd to Macclesfield N/A Rd PSS405 1789 North of N/A Lamberts Lane PSS406 1789 Sandbach Rd/ N/A Padgbury Lane PSS407 2706 Padgbury Lane N/A
PSS408 2834 Bent Farm, N/A Bent Lane PSS409 2834 Sandbach Road/ Sandy N/A Lane PSS410 2906 Sandbach N/A February 2016 9/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000 Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW Facilities (500m) Facilities - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
m)
Site LPS/SUB
Ref No. Site address Road PSS411 3159 Tall Ash Farm 2 N/A
PSS412 3225 Tall Ash Farm 1 N/A
PSS413 Land east of N/A Moss Lane PSS414 Land west of N/A Chelford Road SA24 1993 Back Lane N/A (southern site) SA24 1993 Back Lane N/A (northern site)
February 2016 10/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Handforth
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000 Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW Facilities (500m) Facilities - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
m)
Site LPS/SUB
Ref No. Site address PSS500 CS 30 North Cheshire N/A Growth Village PSS501 CS 34 (Safeguarded) North Cheshire N/A Growth Village PSS502 1452 Land at N/A Handforth East PSS503 1452 Beech Farm N/A
PSS504 2822 Land west of N/A Clay Lane PSS505 Land between Clay Lane and N/A Sagars Road
February 2016 11/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Knutsford
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilitie Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW Playspace (500m) Playspace - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban s (1000m) s
LPS/
Site SUB
Ref No. Site address PSS600 CS 19 Parkgate Extension N/A
PSS601 CS 18 Land Between 2530 Northwich Road N/A and Tabley Road PSS602 CS 33 Land Between 2530 Manchester Road N/A and Tabley Road (CS33 West) PSS603 CS 18 Potential Extension 2623 to CS 18 Land East N/A of Manchester Road PSS604 CS 18 Land North of West Northwich Road N/A (CS18 West) PSS605 CS 18 East of Manchester East Rd N/A CS 35 PSS606 2623 Land to the West of N/A Parkgate Lane PSS607 3455 Land South of N/A Longridge
February 2016 12/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilitie Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW Playspace (500m) Playspace - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban s (1000m) s
LPS/
Site SUB
Ref No. Site address PSS608 1598 Land Adjacent to N/A Booths Hall PSS609 3202 Land west of Toft N/A Road PSS610 2594 Land north east of N/A 2655 Toft Road
February 2016 13/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Middlewich
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
LPS/SUB
Site Ref No. Site address PSS700 CS 20 Glebe Farm N/A
PSS701 SL 9 Brooks Lane N/A
PSS702 SL 10 Midpoint 18 N/A Extension PSS703 2134 Land off Warmingham N/A Lane PSS704 3153 Land off Sutton N/A Lane PSS705 922 Cledford N/A Lagoons SA82 1661 Midpoint 18 N/A Extension
February 2016 14/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Nantwich
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1 House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban 000m)
LPS/
SUB
Site Ref No. Site address PSS800 CS 21 Kingsley Fields N/A
PSS801 CS 22 Stapeley Water N/A Gardens PSS802 CS 23 Snow Hill N/A
PSS803 3135 South Nantwich N/A
PSS804 3135 South Nantwich N/A (Northern area) PSS805 1792 Broad Lane N/A
PSS806 3135 South Nantwich N/A 1792 and Broad Lane
February 2016 15/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Poynton
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisur Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post e Facilities (1000m) e Facilities PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
LPS/SUB
Site Ref No. Site address PSS900 2433 Land at Woodford N/A Aerodrome PSS901 2621 Land off N/A Waterloo Road PSS902 2629 Land at Sprink N/A Farm PSS903 2821 Land West of N/A Poynton PSS904 2821 North of Hazelbadge N/A Road PSS905 2821 North of Hazelbadge N/A Rd (southern area) PSS906 2866 Land south of N/A Chester Road PSS907 Adlington N/A Business Pk Ext.
February 2016 16/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Sandbach
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisu Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post re Facilities (1000m) re Facilities PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
LPS/SUB
Site Ref No. Site address PSS1001 CS 24 Land adjacent to J17 of M6, south east of N/A Congleton Road PSS1002 2136 Land between Abbey Road & N/A Park Lane (Phase 2) PSS1003 2137 South of Abbeyfields Hse, Park Ln. N/A Hindheath (Phase 3) PSS1004 3184 Land adj. to Senderfield Lane, south of N/A Hind Heath Road PSS1005 2491 Land east of Cookesmere N/A Lane PSS1006 2402 Land rear of N/A February 2016 17/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisu Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post re Facilities (1000m) re Facilities PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
LPS/SUB
Site Ref No. Site address Park Lane & Crewe Road PSS1007 2462 Land to south N/A west of A533 PSS1008 2491 Land west of Cookesmere Lane & north N/A of Marsh Green Road PSS1009 2462 Land south of 3144 Old Mill Road/ N/A Houndings Lane PSS1010 1992 Yeowood farm, Elton N/A Road SA100 2462 Land South of N/A A533 (S) SA102 2462 Land off the Hill N/A / Manor Rd
February 2016 18/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Wilmslow
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
LPS/SUB
Site Ref No. Site address PSS1100 CS 25 Adlington N/A Road PSS1101 CS 26 Royal London N/A 2902 PSS1102 CS 27 Wilmslow N/A Business Park PSS1103 CS 35 Prestbury Road N/A
PSS1104 2846 Little N/A Stanneylands PSS1105 1066 Land south of N/A 1068 Prestbury Road PSS1106 2517 Land at Dean 3155 Row Road N/A 1645 PSS1107 2517 Heathfield Farm, Dean N/A Row PSS1108 2595 Land off 429 Upcast Lane and Cumber N/A Lane
February 2016 19/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace (500m) greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
LPS/SUB
Site Ref No. Site address PSS1109 3568 Land north of N/A 429 Moor Lane
February 2016 20/21 Enfusion Appendix II Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Freestanding Sites
Open Space Local Amenities Transport Facilities Transport Node Transport Outdoor Sports Facilities (500m) Facilities Sports Outdoor Transport Node Transport Amenity greenspace greenspace Amenity Children's Playspace (500m) Playspace Children's Community Centre (1000m) Centre Community Child Care Facility (1000m) Facility Care Child Secondary School (1000m) School Secondary Convenience Store (500m) Store Convenience Leisure Facilities (1000m) Facilities Leisure Medical Centre (1000m) Centre Medical Park or Garden (1000m) Garden or Park Railway Station (2000m) Station Railway Primary School (1000m) School Primary Public House (1000m) House Public Supermarket (1000m) Supermarket Bank or ATM (1000m) Bank or Post Office (1000m) Office Post Pharmacy (1000m) Pharmacy Bus Stop (500m) Bus Post Box (500m) Box Post PRoW (500m) PRoW - -
Centre (300m) Centre Urban (400m) Urban
(500m)
LPS/SUB
Site Ref No. Site address PSS1200 CS 29 Alderley Park N/A
PSS1201 3425 Cheshire N/A Gateway Site PSS1201 Cheshire a Gateway N/A western parcel PSS1201 Cheshire b Gateway N/A eastern parcel PSS1202 1134 Gorstyhill N/A
PSS1203 CS 28 Wardle Employment N/A Improvement Area
February 2016 21/21 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Appendix III: Fresh SA of Site Options
Refined Significance Key:
Categories of Significance
Symbol Meaning Sustainability Effect - - Major Problematical and improbable because of known sustainability Negative issues; mitigation likely to be difficult and/or expensive - Minor Potential sustainability issues: mitigation and/or negotiation negative possible + Minor No sustainability constraints and development acceptable positive ++ Major Development encouraged as would resolve existing Positive sustainability problem ? Uncertain Uncertain or Unknown Effects
/ Neutral Neutral effect
- ? It is also possible to have two symbols for an SA Objective. For example, a development could have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 (Biodiversity); however, there is an element of uncertainty until lower level assessments have been carried out. - + SA Objective 4, 12 & 17 consider more than one topic and as a result the development at a site could have a different effect upon each topic considered. For example, against SA Objective 4 a site option might be in close proximity to a sewage/ waste water treatment works which could have issues with regard to odour and therefore negative effects on health. There could also be existing walking/cycling routes adjacent to the site which could have positive effects on health.
February 2016 1 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Alsager Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS300: Twyfords and Cardway (CS 12) ++ + / + - + - / ? + ++ + ++ / + + (previously SA4) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 550 new dwellings and to deliver a small amount of employment and retail development to meet local needs (around 0.3ha).
While there are existing office buildings on site, the Local Plan Strategy for this site states that this would be retained; therefore, a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 17a. The site meets the minimum standards for access to nearly all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and development could therefore contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Any proposal for development at the site that seeks to improve access to secondary educational facilities (which is the only facility currently beyond the minimum distance standards) could enhance the effects and lead to a major positive effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b. The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site includes part of a dismantled railway line, as it is disused there is the potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 4a. If the railway line were brought back into use then this could have negative effects on amenity and health for residents.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs in Alsager. The site is located adjacent to the Linley Lane / Crewe Rd junction, and close to the Sandbach Rd / Crewe Rd / Lawton Rd junction; both of which are identified as key sensitive junctions within the traffic modelling report for Alsager59. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The Local Plan Strategy identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
59 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 2 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity, and it is assumed any proposal for development will seek to retain existing trees on site protected by Tree Preservation Orders. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest. Any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as existing hedgerows and trees within and adjacent to the site.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site lies just outside of the Alsager Conservation Area and there is a non- designated heritage asset to the north east of the site. It is considered that the mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not significantly affect the Conservation Area and non-designated heritage assets.
The site is situated within the settlement and not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. Development at the site could regenerate previously developed land including redundant industrial buildings, with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objectives 12b and 16, and a minor positive effect against SA Objective 15 through the potential use of on-site recycled materials. The regeneration of brownfield land including redundant industrial buildings has the potential for a minor long-term positive effect on heritage (SA Objective 12a).
February 2016 3 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS301: Former MMU Campus (CS 13) + + / + / + / / ? / + + + / - + (previously SA1) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 350 new dwellings and to deliver a small amount of retail development to meet local needs and a sport and leisure hub.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and could therefore contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. A proposal for development that seeks to improve access to a convenience store, post office and/or pharmacy could increase the significance of these positive effects. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths; however, it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way, and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 4b. The site is between 500m and 1000m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network; however, there are no AQMAs within Alsager. The site is located close to the Hassell Rd / Crewe Rd junction which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Alsager60. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest. Any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as existing hedgerows and trees within the site.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. It should be noted that the Local Plan Strategy suggests that recording of WWII buildings at the site may be required. The site is not located within a locally designated landscape area; it is predominantly within the urban area, though a smaller part of the site is of Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type. The site is predominantly previously developed land; development therefore
60 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 4 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 has the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 12b, and a minor positive effect against SA Objective 15 through the potential use of on-site recycled materials.
February 2016 5 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS302: Radway Green Brownfield (CS 14) / - / + - + - / ? / ++ - ++ ++ ++ + (previously SA2) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to deliver around 10ha of employment land within an established employment area.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b. However, this needs to be considered alongside the potential provision of 10 ha of employment land which has the potential for major long-term positive effects against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network; however, there are no AQMAs in Alsager. The site is located close to the Close Lane/ Crewe Road junction which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Alsager61. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The Local Plan Strategy identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
The site is located just over 200m from White Moss Local Wildlife Site; however mitigation provided through the Local Plan Policies, such as SE 3, and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and improve habitats, such as the existing mature trees in the north-eastern boundaries of the site. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
61 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 6 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The Local Plan Strategy notes that an archaeological desk based assessment may be required in regards to any undesignated heritage assets.
The site is not located within a locally designated landscape area, it is predominantly within an industrial area, though a smaller part of the site is of Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type. The site is entirely previously developed land that is largely redundant; development therefore has the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 12b. Though development at the site could achieve a minor positive effect against SA Objective 15 through the potential use of on-site recycled materials, this is negated as the site lies partially within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore has the potential to hinder the future access to and use of mineral resources with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 7 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS303: Radway Green Extension (CS 15) / - / + - + - / ? / - -- - ? ++ ++ -- (previously SA3) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to deliver around 25ha of employment land.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500 from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b. However, this needs to be considered alongside the provision of 25 ha of employment land which has the potential for a major long-term positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs in Alsager. The site is located close to the Close Lane / Crewe Road junction which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Alsager62. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as the ponds and hedgerows on site. , The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area.
The entire site is greenfield land, it is therefore considered that development has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect
62 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 8 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 against SA Objective 12b. There is also the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt so there is the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 21. The site lies wholly within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore has the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 15 through potentially hindering future access to and use of mineral resources.
February 2016 9 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS304: White Moss Quarry (SL 5) + - / + / / / - / ------++ +
Summary: The Council identifies that this strategic location has the capacity to accommodate up to 350 new homes as well as the creation of a new local centre with retail provision to meet local needs and a small scale community facility. The site is currently an active sand and peat quarry and aggregate recycling facility, development could result in the sterilisation of un-worked mineral reserves with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 15, and the Local Plan Strategy identifies that further archaeological and palaeoecological assessment are required at this site prior to development. The loss of an active quarry could also potentially have major negative effects through the loss of existing employment (Objective 17a).
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of Public Rights of Way, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500 from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Alsager. The site is located close to the Hassell Rd / Crewe Rd junction, the Station Rd / Church Rd / Crewe Rd junction, and the Close Lane / Crewe Rd junction; these junctions are identified as key sensitive areas within the traffic modelling report for Alsager63. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The Local Plan Strategy identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
The site is located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area along the southern border of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
63 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 10 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site partially contains White Moss Local Wildlife Site, with watercourses, hedges, trees and raised mire habitat (a Local UK Biodiversity Priority Habitat). Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is located within the Mossland Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. As the site is entirely greenfield land, development has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The loss of greenfield land as well as best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2) has the potential for major negative effects against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 11 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS305: Fannys Croft (1536) (previously + + / + / / / / ? / - - - ? / + -- SA7) Summary: The Representation SUB-1536 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 300 new dwellings (which includes a 60 bed care facility) and a sports hub64.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to nearly all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and development could therefore contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Any proposal for development that seeks to improve access to a convenience store and secondary educational facilities could enhance the positive effects and lead to a major positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Alsager. The site is located close to the Sandbach Rd / Crewe Rd / Lawton Rd junction which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Alsager65. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site lies partially within/adjacent to a flood risk area along the western boundary of the site, any negative effects could be easily mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance any important habitats, including hedgerows and trees. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
64 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 65 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 12 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There are no designated heritage assets within the site; however, the site lies just outside of the Alsager Conservation Area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not significantly affect the setting of the Conservation Area. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is also the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt so there is the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 21. It also lies adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15 through potentially hindering future access to and use of mineral resources.
February 2016 13 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS306: Land North of Heath End Farm + - / + / + / / ? / - / - ? / -- + (1786) (previously SA10) Summary: The Representation SUB-1786 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 375 new dwellings66.
The site fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, and significantly fails to meet minimum standards for access to a convenience store, post office and pharmacy, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Alsager. The site is located close to the Hassell Rd / Crewe Rd junction which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Alsager67. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any existing trees and hedgerows. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor
66 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 67 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 14 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 15 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS307: Former MMU Extension (1786) + + / + / + / / ? / - / - ? / -- + (previously SA8) Summary: The Representation SUB-1786 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 257 new dwellings68.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and development could therefore contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Any proposal for development at the site that seeks to improve access to the few local amenities that fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Alsager. The site is located close to the Hassell Rd / Crewe Rd junction which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Alsager69. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance any important habitats, including any trees and hedgerows. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, as the site is entirely greenfield land development therefore has the potential for a residual long-
68 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 69 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 16 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 17 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS308a: Radway Green North (1870) 0 + / + - - - / ? / - / - ? ++ ++ + (previously SA9) Summary: The Representation SUB-1870 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 12ha of employment land70.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, however it also fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of local amenities and all forms of open space. Any proposal for development that seeks to improve access to these facilities/services could enhance the positive effects. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs in Alsager. The site is located adjacent to the Close Lane / Crewe Rd junction, and close to the Hassell Rd / Crewe Rd and Station Rd / Church Rd / Crewe Rd junctions; these three areas are identified as key sensitive junctions within the traffic modelling report for Alsager71. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located partially within a flood risk area which bisects the site. While the areas of flood risk could be avoided and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies should ensure that there are no significant negative effects, at this stage, mitigation is considered to be potentially more difficult given that the area of flood risk bisects the site. To reflect this, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located within 200m of the White Moss Local Wildlife Site and Cranberry Moss Local Nature Reserve, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including the brook and any existing trees and hedgerows on site. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that
70 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 71 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 18 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
Though the site is adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel this is only within the very western corner, and as such it is unlikely to hinder the future access to and use of mineral resources; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 19 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS308b: Radway Green North (1870) + + / + - - - / ? / - / - ? ++ ++ + (previously SA9) Summary: The Representation SUB-1870 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 60 new dwellings and 10ha of employment land72.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, however it also fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of local amenities and all forms of open space. Any proposal for development that seeks to improve access to these facilities/services could enhance the positive effects. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500 from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs in Alsager. The site is located adjacent to the Close Lane / Crewe Rd junction, and close to the Hassell Rd / Crewe Rd and Station Rd / Church Rd / Crewe Rd junctions; these three areas are identified as key sensitive junctions within the traffic modelling report for Alsager73. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located partially within a flood risk area which bisects the site. While the areas of flood risk could be avoided and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies should ensure that there are no significant negative effects, at this stage, mitigation is considered to be potentially more difficult given that the area of flood risk bisects the site. To reflect this, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located within 200m of the White Moss Local Wildlife Site and Cranberry Moss Local Nature Reserve, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including the brook and any existing trees and hedgerows on site. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that
72 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 73 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 20 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
Though the site is adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel this is only within the very western corner, and as such it is unlikely to hinder the future access to and use of mineral resources; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 21 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS309: Sandbach Road North, Alsager + + / + / / / / ? / - / -- / - + (Phase 1) (2133) (previously SA6) Summary: The Representation SUB-2133 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 208 new dwellings74.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to nearly all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and development could therefore contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Any proposal at the site that seeks to improve access to a convenience store could enhance the effects and lead to a major positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Alsager. The site is located close to the Hassell Rd / Crewe Rd junction which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Alsager75. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located partially within/adjacent to a flood risk area along the north-eastern border of the site, any negative effects could be easily mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is close to the Carr Woodland at Cherry Lane Local Wildlife Site; mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects. Any proposal for development should ensure that development avoids the boundary with the Local Wildlife Site and a suitable buffer is provided where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the
74 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 75 CEC (2015) Appendix 6c Alsager Highway Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet accessed August 2015.
February 2016 22 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods, and Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Types and is not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of an area of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2), with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 23 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS310: Land at Close Lane (3126) + + / + / + / / ? / - / - / -- +
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 170 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the local amenities that fails to meet to meet minimum distance standards could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Alsager. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Alsager are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site located within 200m of Yew Tree Farm Local Wildlife Site; mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects. Any proposal for development should ensure that development provides a suitable buffer where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Alsager could have potential impacts on the Oakhanger Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is located predominantly within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b and 16.
February 2016 24 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Congleton Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS400: Back Lane / Radnor Park (SL 6, ++ + / + - / - - / - / -- ++ ++ + 1993) Summary: The Council identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 752 new dwellings and 7.08ha of employment land as well as a leisure hub of up to 10ha, appropriate retail to meet local needs and the provision of a new primary school. Part of the site (Black Firs Lane) has outline planning permission for 170 dwellings).
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment; however, it also significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of local amenities and railway connections. Any proposal that seeks to improve access to these facilities/services could potentially enhance positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing strategic employment area (Radnor Park) with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A54 and A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area along the eastern boundary of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site partially contains the River Dane Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and within 200m of the Black Firs Plantation Local Wildlife Site. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting
February 2016 25 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 of any designated heritage. The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land there is also the potential for the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 26 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS401: Congleton Business Park (SL 7) ++ + / + - / - - / -- / -- ++ ++ +
Summary: The Council identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate 624 new dwellings and 10ha of employment land, as well as appropriate retail provision to meet local needs.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the nearly all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and could therefore contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Potential to enhance positive effects if a proposal seeks improvements to rail access where the site is currently failing minimum accessibility standards.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is adjacent to an existing strategic employment area (Congleton Business Park) with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The western border of the site is located within a flood risk zone. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site contains Hulme Walfield Sand Quarry Local Wildlife Site and partially contains / is adjacent to the River Dane Local Wildlife Site. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site lies predominantly within the Dane Valley Local Landscape Designation therefore development at the site has the potential to significantly affect the landscape. Potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The loss of greenfield land along with the potential for the permanent loss of small areas of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a has
February 2016 27 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 28 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS402: Giantswood Lane South (SL 8) + - / + / + / / / - - - ? / ++ +
Summary: The Council identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate 492 new dwellings as well as a new school and appropriate retail to meet local needs.
The site fails to meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m from an existing strategic employment area (Congleton Business Park) with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A536 as well as the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located adjacent to the Hulme Walfield Sand Quarry Local Wildlife Site (LWS). Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWS. Suitable buffers should be provided between the adjacent LWS and any development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however Brickhouse Farm Grade II Listed Building is located north east of the site; mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers / screening, should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 29 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
To reflect that the site is adjacent to an existing quarry it is considered that there is the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 30 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS403: Giantswood Lane South (CS 16) + + / + / + / / / - / -- / + + (previously SA12) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 96 new dwellings. The Site has outline planning permission for 96 dwellings (14/1680C).
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and therefore have the potential to contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Potential to enhance positive effects if any proposal for development seeks to improve access to services/facilities, in particular outdoor sports facilities, which are currently failing minimum accessibility standards.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m pf Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m from an existing employment area (Congleton Business Park) with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A536 as well as the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of the Hulme Walfield Sand Quarry Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWS. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual minor long- term negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site has the potential to result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 31 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS404: Manchester Road to Macclesfield + + / + / + / / / - / -- / + + Road (CS 17) (previously SA11) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 448 new homes and appropriate retail to meet local needs.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and therefore has the potential to contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Any proposal for development that seeks to improve access to the few local amenities, that do not currently meet minimum standards, could enhance positive effects. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m from an existing employment area (Eaton Bank) with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A536 and A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is adjacent to the Cranberry Moss Local Wildlife Site and within 200m of the Havannah Wood Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development would not have any significant negative effects on the LWSs. Suitable buffers should be provided between the adjacent LWS and any development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance existing natural features, including ponds, hedgerows and protected trees, wherever possible.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets. The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 3a). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
Though the site is located adjacent an existing quarry, this is only within the northern tip of the site, and as such it is unlikely to hinder the future access to and use of mineral resources; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 32 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
February 2016 33 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS405: North of Lamberts Lane (1789) + + / + - + - / -- - / -- / + + (previously SA18) Summary: The Representation SUB-1789 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 220 new dwellings76. Parts of the site have already received planning permission at appeal, and a further appeal into development of the entire site is taking place in September 2015 (Ref: 13/3517C77).
The site meets the minimum standards for nearly all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and is likely to contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Development that improves access to secondary educational facilities, could enhance the significance of positive effects against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. The decision to refuse planning permission for application 13/3517C stated that the proposal by virtue of increased activity and traffic would lead to severe highways harm, at the junction of High Street/Lawton Street and Albert Place where no further capacity exists, furthermore insufficient information concerning mitigation for impacts elsewhere upon the highway network was submitted78. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, given the potential issues identified in relation to the planning application, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objectives 8 and 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposals for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such ponds, hedges and protected trees on site.
76 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 77 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/3517C 78 Ibid.
February 2016 34 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There are no designated heritage assets within the site; however, the site lies just outside of the Congleton Conservation Area and Congleton Area of Archaeological Potential. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not significantly affect the heritage assets. However, the Council’s assessment of potential sites79 identifies that the infrastructure improvements that would be required as a result of development at this site could potentially have significant effects on the designated heritage assets. It also worth noting that the Council’s landscape architect commented on the refused application of the site to state that the Cheshire Historic Landscape Character Assessment (HLC) identifies the area as forming part of the Medieval Town Fields of Congleton, which represent a distinctive style of medieval enclosure that relate to the medieval open field arable landscape. As part of the remaining Town Fields of Congleton the site has an important historic association with medieval Congleton that hasn’t been fully identified or considered in the assessments submitted alongside the planning application80. Based on this evidence, it is therefore considered that there is the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12a. It should be noted that Historic England has requested that the Council undertakes a heritage impact assessment in relation to this site in order to identify the value of it in relation to the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land the Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies81 that development at the site could result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 3a). Potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
79 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 80 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/3517C 81 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 35 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS406: Sandbach Road / Padgbury Lane + + / + / / / / / - / -- / -- + (1789) (previously SA23) Summary: The Representation SUB-1789 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 90 new dwellings82.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however significantly fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, and development that improves access to these could enhance the significance of positive effects against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area. Development can avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
82 Ibid.
February 2016 36 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS407: Padgbury Lane (2706) (previously + + / + / / / / / ? - / -- / -- + SA16) Summary: The Representations SUB-2545 and SUB-2546 identify that this site has the capacity to accommodate 270 new dwellings83. The site has planning permission granted by appeal 13/4216C and 13/4219C.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment; however, it significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a post office, leisure facilities, a park / garden and railway connections. Development that improves access to these services/facilities could enhance the positive effects. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area along the south-western border of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as ponds, hedges and protected trees within the site. The site is adjacent to two Listed Buildings; however, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no
83 Ibid.
February 2016 37 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a. It should be noted that Historic England has requested that the Council undertakes a heritage impact assessment in relation to this site in order to identify the value of it in relation to the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets. It is therefore considered that there is also an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The loss of greenfield land along with the potential for development to result in the permanent loss of areas of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a) has the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
Though the site is adjacent to an existing quarry this is only at a very small edge of the site, as such development is unlikely to result in the sterilisation of mineral resources; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 38 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS408: Bent Farm, Bent Lane (2834) ++ + ? + - / - / - - - -- / -- + (previously SA17) Summary: The Representation SUB-2834 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 845 new dwellings84.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment; however, it significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a post office, leisure facilities, a park / garden and railway connections. Development that improves access to these facilities/services could potentially enhance the extent of the positive effects. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A534 and A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site lies within the boundary of a current silica sand quarry; therefore, there are potential amenity and health issues if development were to go ahead. It is predicted that the quarry would no longer be active if residential development were to occur; however, this is uncertain at this stage. Development at the site would also potentially hinder future access to and use of these mineral resources, potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
The eastern boundary of the site lies within/ adjacent to a flood risk area. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as ponds, hedges and protected trees on site. There is a Scheduled Monument (Roman
84 Ibid.
February 2016 39 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Camp at Bent Farm) situated in the south east corner of the site. While there is the potential for major negative effects it is considered that development could avoid the Scheduled Monument and ensure that appropriate mitigation is provided, which includes buffers and screening. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should reduce the significance of the negative effect with residual minor long-term negative effects.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, it is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (a large area of Grade 2 and a small area of Grade 3a). Potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 40 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS409: Sandbach Road / Sandy Lane + - / + / + / / / - / - ? / -- + (2834) (previously SA21) Summary: The Representation SUB-2834 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 175 new dwellings85.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is also over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
85 Ibid.
February 2016 41 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS410: Sandbach Road (2906) (previously + + / + / / / / / - / - ? / -- + SA22) Summary: The Representation SUB-2906 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 100 new dwellings86.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however significantly fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, and development that improves access to these could enhance the significance of positive effects against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area. Development can avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA
86 Ibid.
February 2016 42 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Objective 16.
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS411: Tall Ash Farm 2 (3159) (previously + + / + / + / / - - / - ? / + + SA20) Summary: The Representation SUB-3159 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 250 new dwellings87. The site has a resolution to grant planning permission, subject to section 106 agreement for 236 dwellings (15/2099C).
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and is likely to contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Development that improves access to the few local amenities that fail to meet the minimum distance standards could enhance the significance of the positive effects against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m from an existing employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is within 200m of the Bath Vale Woods Local Wildlife Site and adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal wildlife corridor. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the wildlife corridor. Suitable buffers should be provided between the wildlife corridor and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
The site is adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area and a Grade II Listed Canal Bridge (69). Mitigation provided through Local
87 Ibid.
February 2016 43 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Plan Policies and available at the project level should help to ensure that there are no significant negative effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for residual minor negative effects on the setting of these designated heritage assets. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a. It should be noted that Historic England has requested that the Council undertakes a heritage impact assessment in relation to this site in order to identify the value of it in relation to the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 44 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS412: Tall Ash Farm 1 (3225) (previously + + / + / + / / - - / - ? / + + SA19) Summary: The Representation SUB-3225 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate up to 300 new dwellings88. The site has a resolution to grant planning permission, subject to section 106 agreement for 236 dwellings (15/2099C).
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and is likely to contribute to reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Development that improves access to the few local amenities that fail to meet the minimum distance standards could enhance the significance of the positive effects against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m from an existing employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is adjacent to the Bath Vale Woods Local Wildlife Site and the Macclesfield Canal wildlife corridor. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWS. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and wildlife corridor and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
The site is adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area and a Grade II Listed Canal Bridge (69). Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should help to ensure that there are no significant negative effects; however, the potential delivery of 300 dwellings could have residual minor negative effects on the setting of these designated heritage assets. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a. It should be noted that Historic England has requested that the Council undertakes a
88 Ibid.
February 2016 45 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 heritage impact assessment in relation to this site in order to identify the value of it in relation to the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 46 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS413: Land East of Moss Lane + + / + / + / / / - - - ? / + +
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 180 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the local amenities that fail to meet the minimum distance standards could enhance the significance of the positive effects against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m from an existing employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is adjacent to the Cranberry Moss Local Wildlife Site and within 200m of the Havannah Wood Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWS. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and wildlife corridor and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets. The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
To reflect that the site is adjacent to an existing quarry it is considered that there is the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 47 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS414: Land West of Chelford Road + - / + / + / / / - / - ? / ++ +
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 270 new dwellings.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m from an existing employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 48 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 SA24: Back Lane(1993) ++ - / + - / - / / - / - ? ++ ++ +
Summary: The Representation SUB-1993identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 500 new dwellings and 5ha of employment land89.
The site is comprised of two parcels of land, (given that the proposed Link Road will dissect the site) which are being considered as one site for the purposes of this appraisal. There are differences between the accessibility scorings for each of the parcels of land, with the southern site meeting the minimum standards for access to more forms of open space and more local amenities than the northern site. Taking a precautionary approach, the scores for the northern site have been used to inform the nature and significance of effects against SA Objective 2. The site therefore significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is adjacent to an existing strategic employment area (Radnor Park Trading Estate) with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 through Congleton. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs at various points along the A34 within the town. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Congleton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located partially within a flood risk area, in the south west portion of the southern site. Development can avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located adjacent to the River Dane Local Wildlife Site (LWS). Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWS. Suitable buffers should be provided between the River Dane LWS and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or
89 Ibid.
February 2016 49 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets. The site is partially within the Dane Valley Local Landscape Designation (this roughly coincides with the flood risk area). Potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b as the site lies partially within a Local Landscape Designation. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 50 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Crewe Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS100: Basford East (CS 1) (previously ++ + / + - / - - - - / -- ++ ++ + SA32) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 24ha of employment land and up to 850 new dwellings, as well as a new local centre and a primary school. An outline planning application for 490 dwellings, a primary school, open space and ecological mitigation areas was approved subject to the signing of a Legal Agreement in April 2015 (application reference 14/4025N; the Legal agreement has yet to be signed.)
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities and open space needs, and development that improves access to these could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is adjacent to a strategic employment area, with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b. The site is adjacent to the railway line and as such will require an appropriate buffer along this edge of the site to minimise noise and light intrusions.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve. The Crewe Green Link Road (south) is a 1.1 km dual carriageway road link running north-south through the site. This scheme is currently under construction, is expected to be completed by the end of the year and will improve vehicular access to and from Crewe from Junction 16 of the M6 and the A500. This link road will also provide traffic with an alternative route to that along Nantwich Road.
The Local Plan Strategy identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
Basford Brook runs through the centre of the site, and this is the source of flood risk on site (though the flood risk area is small and in the north of the site), mitigation provided through the Local Plan should ensure that development does not lead to any significant negative effects, and it is considered that development could include appropriate buffers and mitigation on site to alleviate the negative effects; potential for a residual
February 2016 51 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 neutral effect.
Basford Brook is also a designated Local Wildlife Site that supports a variety of flora and fauna and Protected Species. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the Local Plan Strategy identifies that Crotia Mill on the site is thought to be a 14th Century Mill, and as such archaeological assessment may be required prior to development. The site is also located adjacent to the Grade I Listed Crewe Hall and its Registered Park and Garden, while it is predicted that any proposal will provide appropriate buffers/screening, given the capacity of the site to accommodate 850 new dwellings and 24ha of employment land there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Conversely, development also has the potential for positive effects by possibly improving signage and access to the Listed Building; however at this stage this is uncertain. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, the overall effect is considered to be a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden if this site were to be developed alongside the South Cheshire Growth Village (CS 37) and the South Cheshire Growth Village Extension (2454).
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land it is considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Alongside the loss of greenfield land, development could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a), with the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 52 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS101: Basford West (CS 2) (previously + + / + - / - / / - / -- ++ + + SA30) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 370 new dwellings and 22ha of employment uses, as well as a local centre. An outline planning application (Ref: 13/0336N) was submitted to the Council in 2013 for 370 dwellings as well as employment uses, permission was granted with conditions in 201490.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities and open space needs, and development that improves access to these could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b, however this needs to be considered alongside the provision of 22ha of employment land which has the potential for major long-term positive effects against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve. The Crewe Green Link Road (south) is a 1.1 km dual carriageway road link running north-south through the site. This scheme is currently under construction, is expected to be completed by the end of the year and will improve vehicular access to and from Crewe from Junction 16 of the M6 and the A500. This link road will also provide traffic with an alternative route to that along Nantwich Road. There have also been recent capacity improvements and a new link road connecting Basford West to the wider highways network.
The northern tip of the site is located within a flood risk area. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
90 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/0336N&query=3e06a3e8-152e-41d3-b353-d7106fa709cf
February 2016 53 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located within 200m of the Basford Brook and Mere Gutter Local Wildlife Site. The Local Plan Strategy also identifies that the site is known to contain Protected Species which may require the provision of significant areas of mitigation and landscaping. An Ecological Impact Assessment91 (revised May 2013) submitted alongside the planning application for the site proposes suitable mitigation to ensure that there will be no adverse effects on nature conservation sites within 2km or protected species/habitats using the site. Given available evidence it is considered that there is the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land it is considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Alongside the loss of greenfield land, development at the site could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 3a).
91 Prepared by Middlemarch Environmental Ltd on behalf of Goodman (Revised May 2013) Proposed Mixed-Use Scheme Basford West, Crewe – Ecological Impact Assessment. Available online: http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/0336N
February 2016 54 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS102: Leighton West (CS 3) (previously ++ + - -- - + - / / - / - ++ ++ + SA31) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 850 new dwellings, 5ha of employment land, a local centre with retail to meet local needs, a primary school and a potential science / energy park with the potential to include a geothermal plant and district heating hub. As outlined in LPS Policy CS3; it is assumed that Leighton Hospital will be retained in any development proposal, and that sufficient land is provided to facilitate its future expansion as outlined in the Local Plan Strategy.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however significantly fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a couple of local amenities, and development that improves access to these could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way.
The site is adjacent to a strategic employment area, with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b. Development, particularly during construction phases, could also negatively affect the amenity of the neighbouring Leighton Hospital, with the potential for minor short-term negative effects against SA Objective 4a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A530 and along the North Crewe highway corridor, as identified within the Crewe VISSIM study92. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies (including Policy CS3), and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The Local Plan Strategy identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
92 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed December 2015]
February 2016 55 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally protected biodiversity, however the Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site is known to contain Great Crested Newts and other protected species, there is a requirement to deliver compensatory habitat creation to mitigate the negative effects of development on biodiversity; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the developable area is greenfield land it is considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
Development at the site could result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, however this is not best and most versatile quality; it is predominantly Grade 3b. Potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 56 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS103: Crewe Green (CS 4) (previously + + / + / + / / / - / - ? / ++ + SA27) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 150 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, and development that improves access to these could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A534 and A5020. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road and the site is located close to Crewe Green Roundabout which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Crewe93 (which considered the sites proposed for development within the LPS). Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site is located just outside of the Crewe Green Conservation Area and its Listed Buildings. Given the scale of development and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not significantly affect the setting of designated heritage assets; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
93 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 57 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land development is considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. The agricultural land is known to be Grade 3, however it remains uncertain as to whether this is Sub-Grade 3a (best and most versatile) or 3b, therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 58 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS104: Sydney Road (CS 5) (previously + + / -- / + / / / - / - / - + SA26) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate 250 new dwellings. An outline planning application (Ref 13/2055N) was submitted to the Council in 2013 for 240 dwellings94 on part of the site. The application was approved with conditions on the 15th August 2015.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, development that enhances access to the few local amenities that the site currently fails to meet minimum distance standards for could increase the significance of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A534. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road, and the site is located close to the Maw Green area, Coppenhall roundabout and Remer St / Bradfield Rd junction which is identified as a key sensitive area within the traffic modelling report for Crewe95 (which considered the sites proposed for development within the LPS). Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located predominantly within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land it is considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
94 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/2055N&query=7eefb538-b836-402e-9a40-81bc00557c83 95 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 59 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Small parts within the south of the site fall with the urban boundary.
The site is predominantly greenfield and contains agricultural land; however, an Agricultural Land Classification Report submitted as part of application 13/2055N concludes that there is no best and most versatile agricultural land present. It is therefore considered that there is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 60 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS105: Shavington/Wybunbury Triangle + + / -- / + / / / - / -- / -- + (CS 6) (previously SA25) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate 360 new dwellings and appropriate retail provision to meet local needs, as well as a community hub. An outline planning application (Ref: 12/3114N) was submitted to the Council in 2012 for 360 dwellings and was approved with conditions in 201496.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however significantly fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, and development that improves access to these could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located just under 400m from the West Midlands Mosses SAC and Midland Meres & Mosses (Phase 1) Ramsar site. The European designated site is located to the south of the development site option and a minor road connects the sites. A Habitats Regulations Assessment accompanied the planning application (Ref: 12/3114N) for the site97, which was subject to consultation with NE and includes a legal agreement. The HRA concluded that there would be no significant effects on any European sites. Taking the findings of the project level studies into account along with mitigation provided through the Local Plan, including Policy SE 3, and available at the project level, it is considered that development at this site will not lead to any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
96 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=12/3114N&query=602c3206-a3c0-4f17-831c-9d57cb68cb41 97 Ibid.
February 2016 61 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the urban area, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land, development has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Alongside the loss of greenfield land, development at the site could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2 and 3a) with the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 62 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS106: East Shavington (CS 7) (previously + + / + / / / / / - / -- / - + SA28) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 275 new dwellings. An outline planning application (Ref: 13/2069N) was submitted to the Council in 2013 for 275 dwellings and permission was granted following appeal in 201498.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however significantly fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities, and development that improves access to these could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site lies partially within a flood risk area, in the north-eastern corner of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. However the site is in relatively close proximity to the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site in the south, the Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulation Assessment99 concludes that the existing policies and provisions in the LPS and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided, however it is necessary that Construction Management Plans, landscaping, green
98 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/2069N&query=ac85b167-e692-4f3a-a1bc-ec6e015b4fb5 99 JBA Consulting (2014) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment - Final Report - Submission Document SD 004 [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/library [accessed September 2015]
February 2016 63 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 infrastructure and open space proposals are submitted to the Council during the planning application process for any sites in close proximity to the European sites. An assessment on habitats impact accompanied the planning application (Ref: 13/2069N) for the site, which was subject to consultation with NE and includes a legal agreement. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located predominantly within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land it is considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. A small portion of the site falls within the urban area.
Alongside the loss of greenfield land, development at the site could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 64 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS107: South Cheshire Growth Village, ++ - / ++ - / - / ------+ + + South East Crewe (CS 37) (previously SA34) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 700 new dwellings and a mixed-use local centre, as well as sports provisions.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 200m of a footpath and 1km of a cycling route with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b, however this needs to be considered alongside the provision of mixed-use development which has the potential for a minor long-term positive effect.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A5020 and A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve. The Crewe Green Link Road (south) is a 1.1 km dual carriageway road scheme currently under construction, is expected to be completed by the end of the year and will improve vehicular access to and from Crewe from Junction 16 of the M6 and the A500. This link road will also provide traffic with an alternative route to that along Nantwich Road.
The site is located partially within a flood risk area, in the far eastern corner of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally protected biodiversity, however the Local Plan Strategy identifies that there may be Protected Species on site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
The site contains a Listed Building, and is also located adjacent to numerous Listed Buildings and Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden, while it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the Listed Building on site and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting, particularly considering the delivery of approx 700 dwellings. Conversely, development also has the potential for
February 2016 65 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 positive effects by possible improving signage and access to the Listed Building; however, at this stage this is uncertain. Historic England have objected to the allocation of this site within the Local Plan as development could have a high level of harm to the setting of the Hollyhedge Farm (Grade II*) Listed Building. While mitigation may help to reduce the significance of the effect, at this stage this is uncertain. Taking HE comments into account, it is considered that there is the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden if this site were to be extended (Sites PSS118 & PSS119) and developed alongside Basford East (PSS100).
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land it is considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The site lies partially within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development at the site therefore has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
Alongside the loss of greenfield land, development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a), with the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 66 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS108: Central Crewe (SL 1) (previously + ++ / + - / ? - / ? + ? + ? + ? + ++ + SA29) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that this strategic location has the capacity to accommodate mixed-use development, including 400 new dwellings. It should be noted that this is a large strategic area for potential development and does not include defined development boundaries for individual developments.
The area meets the minimum standards for access to all of the identified services and facilities in the Accessibility Assessment, which is not surprising given that it includes the town centre. Any development within this area is therefore likely to reduce the need to travel by private vehicle with the potential for a major long-term positive effect against SA Objective 2. The area is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The area is also adjacent to a strategic employment area, with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b. It should be noted that distances to promoted cycle routes and strategic employment area will differ for individual developments within this strategic area depending on their location. The provision of mixed-use development also has the potential for minor long-term positive effects against SA Objective 17a.
Development within the area could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A534. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road and the site is located close to Crewe Green Roundabout which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Crewe100 (which considered the sites proposed for development within the LPS). Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
There are small areas of flood risk within the strategic location; it is predicted that development within the flood risk areas will be avoided and mitigation provided through Local Plan policies will ensure that there are no significant negative effects in relation to flood risk. Potential for a residual neutral effect with an element of uncertainty to reflect that the location of individual development areas is not known at this stage.
The area is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity; potential for a neutral effect against SA
100 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 67 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Objective 11.
The area contains Listed Buildings, and is adjacent to several more; as such development will require sensitive and responsive design. The nature and significance of effects against SA Objective 12a are ultimately dependent on the precise location of individual developments within this strategic area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. It is assumed that the majority of development will be on previously developed land so there is the potential for positive effects on the townscape and therefore the setting of designated heritage assets. There is also the potential for development to help improve signage and access to these assets. Until the precise location of development is known it is considered the nature and significance of the effect of development within this strategic area is uncertain.
The area is located within the Crewe urban area and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. While the precise location of individual developments is not known, it is predicted that the majority will occur on previously developed land. The regeneration of previously developed land has the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objectives 12b and 16 and SA Objective 15 through the potential reuse of on-site recycled materials; however, there is an element of uncertainty until defined development locations within this strategic area are known.
February 2016 68 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS109a: Leighton, Crewe (SL 2) (previously + + / -- / + / / / - / - / - + SA33) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 400 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however significantly fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, and development that improves access to these could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b. Development, particularly during construction phases, could also negatively affect the amenity of the neighbouring Leighton Hospital.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A530. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally protected biodiversity, however the Local Plan Strategy identifies that there may be Protected Species on site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land it is considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Alongside the loss of greenfield land, development at the site could result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, however this is not best and most versatile quality; it is predominantly Grade 3b. Potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 69 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS109b: Leighton, Crewe (SL 2) ++ + / -- / + / / / - / - / - +
Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 600 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however significantly fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, and development that improves access to these could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b. Development, particularly during construction phases, could also negatively affect the amenity of the neighbouring Leighton Hospital.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A530. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally protected biodiversity, however the Local Plan Strategy identifies that there may be Protected Species on site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land it is considered to have the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Alongside the loss of greenfield land, development at the site could result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, however this is not best and most versatile quality; it is predominantly Grade 3b. Potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 70 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS110: Broughton Road (2043) ++ + / -- - + - / / - / - ? / + +
Summary: The site is a smaller part of Representation SUB-2043 and the Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 200 new dwellings101. There have been a number of planning applications submitted to the Council in relation to smaller areas on the larger site (PSS111 below) proposing much smaller levels of development, with the largest proposing 129 new residential dwellings (13/5085N). The full planning application has been allowed (15/09/2015) and outline application on the site 15/0366N is awaiting decision.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the few local amenities that fails to meet to meet minimum distance standards could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road and the site is located close to the Maw Green area, Coppenhall roundabout and Remer St / Bradfield Rd junction which is identified as a key sensitive area within the traffic modelling report for Crewe102. The CEC Highways Team have also expressed concern regarding the impact of development at this site on the North Crewe Highway network; it is therefore considered that development has the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. Mitigation could help to reduce the potential significance of the identified effect but at this stage this is uncertain. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are also considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. However the site is in relatively close proximity to Sandbach Flashes SSSI, mitigation provided through the Local Plan (such as Policy SE 3) should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Given the capacity of the site and the available mitigation, it is considered that there is
101 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 102 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 71 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land103, although it is unknown what Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage though as the quality of agricultural land is not known there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
103 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 72 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS111: Broughton Road (2043) (previously ++ + / + -- + -- - / - / - ? / - + SA35) Summary: The Representation SUB-2043 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 1,200 new dwellings104. There have been a number of planning applications submitted to the Council in relation to smaller areas on this site proposing much smaller levels of development, with the largest proposing 129 new residential dwellings (13/5085N). The full planning application has been allowed (15/09/2015) and outline application on the site 15/0366N is awaiting decision.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the few local amenities that fails to meet to meet minimum distance standards could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 1km of promoted cycle routes, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 200m of promoted footpaths with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road and the site is located close to the Maw Green area, Coppenhall roundabout and Remer St / Bra dfield Rd junction which is identified as a key sensitive area within the traffic modelling report for Crewe105. The CEC Highways Team have also expressed concern regarding the impact of development at this site, particularly considering its scale, on the North Crewe Highway network; it is therefore considered that development has the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. Mitigation could help to reduce the potential significance of the identified effect but at this stage this is uncertain. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are also considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located adjacent to Sandbach Flashes SSSI, mitigation provided through the Local Plan (such as Policy SE 3) should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects on biodiversity, however given the capacity for 1200 new dwellings and the presence of a nationally designated biodiversity site, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect through
104 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 105 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 73 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
The site is located adjacent to a Listed Building; however, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land106, although it is unknown what Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage though as the quality of agricultural land is not known there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
106 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 74 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS112: Sydney Road (CS5 extension) + + / -- - + - / / - / - ? / - +
Summary: The site is a smaller part of the Representation SUB-3092 and the Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 275 new dwellings107.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the local amenities that the site currently fails to meet minimum distance standards for could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road and the site is located close to the Maw Green area, Coppenhall roundabout, Remer St / Bradfield Rd junction and the Crewe Green Roundabout which is identified as a key sensitive area within the traffic modelling report for Crewe108. The CEC Highways team have also expressed concern regarding the impact of development at this site on the North Crewe Highways network; it is therefore considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. Mitigation could help to reduce the potential significance of the identified effect but at this stage this is uncertain. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are also considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance natural features and habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting
107 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 108 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 75 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 of any designated heritage assets.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land109, although it is unknown what Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage though, as the quality of agricultural land is not known there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
109 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 76 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS113: Land South of Gresty Lane (3116) ++ + / + / + / / / - / -- / + + (previously SA39) Summary: The Representation SUB-3116 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 880 new dwellings, as well as a local centre, school and transport hub110. An outline application for 880 dwellings on this site was dismissed at appeal on 19/01/15 (application reference 13/2874N).
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the few local amenities that the site currently fails to meet minimum distance standards for could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity, however the Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that there may be protected species on site (newts and bats)111. Development should seek to retain and enhance existing habitats, such as mature trees and hedges on site, and ensure appropriate ecological mitigation on site for any protected species. Mitigation provided through LPS policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effect. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Crewe / Shavington could have potential impacts on the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and West Midland Mosses SAC and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
110 Ibid. 111 Ibid.
February 2016 77 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Development at the site could result in the permanent loss of Grade 3a best and most versatile agricultural land, with the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 78 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS114: Land off Eastern Road (3156) + - / + / + / / / - / -- / -- + (previously SA44) Summary: The Representation SUB-3156 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 200 new dwellings112.
The site fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, and significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a supermarket, leisure facilities and a park / garden with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity; potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 11. However, despite this development should seek to retain and enhance existing habitats, including mature trees, hedgerows and water bodies on site. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Crewe / Shavington could have potential impacts on the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and West Midland Mosses SAC and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
112 Ibid.
February 2016 79 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Development at the site could result in the permanent loss of Grades 2 and 3a best and most versatile agricultural land, with the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 80 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS115: Land South of Park Road (986) + + / + / + / / / - / -- / -- + (previously SA40) Summary: The Representation SUB-986 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 175 new dwellings113. An outline planning application (Ref: 14/5824N) was submitted to the Council in 2014 for 175 dwellings, was refused permission and is currently at appeal114.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. The site does however significantly fail to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, and development that improves access to these could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A51, A534 and A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity; potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Crewe / Shavington could have potential impacts on the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and West Midland Mosses SAC and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
The site is located adjacent to a Grade II* Listed Building; however, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not lead to any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
113 Ibid. 114 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=14/5824N&query=a9ed116e-155b-4e6e-8bbd-cf1398e77676
February 2016 81 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. This is supported by lower level evidence, in particular the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment115 (Dec 2014) submitted alongside the planning application, which concluded that there is the potential for moderate adverse effects on visual amenity from the PROW to the western boundary of the site; however, overall there would not be any significant residual adverse effects. Development at the site could result in the permanent loss of Grade 3a best and most versatile agricultural land, with the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16.
115 Appletons on behalf of Stretton Willaston Ltd and Landowners (Dec 2014) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment in respect of land to the south of park road, WIllaston. Available online: http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=14/5824N
February 2016 82 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS116: Gresty Green (3557) (previously + + / -- / / / / / - / - ? + + + SA45) Summary: The Representation SUB-3557 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 165 new dwellings as part of mixed-use development116. Two applications have been made on the site, firstly, 11/3171N: Full planning application for up to 165 dwellings – refused (29/02/2012), appeal withdrawn, secondly 12/1732N – Full planning application for 165 dwellings – refused (16/07/2012)
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to open space and the local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b, however this should be considered alongside the provision of mixed-use development which has the potential for minor long-term positive effects against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500 and A534. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area in the north of the site. Any negative effects could be mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is adjacent to Basford Brook and Mere Gutter Local Wildlife Site along the northern boundary of the site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on
116 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 83 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 biodiversity. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including mature trees and hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located immediately adjacent to the urban area and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land117, of Grade 3, although it is unknown what Sub-Grade this is. There does not appear to have been an Agricultural Land Quality Assessment submitted as part of the planning applications for this site. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that at this stage the quality (Sub-Grade 3a or 3b) of agricultural land is not known there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
117 Ibid.
February 2016 84 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS117: Land North of Moorfields (3134) + + / + / + / / / - / -- / + + (previously SA41) Summary: The Representation SUB-3134 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 170 new dwellings118.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the local amenities that the site currently fails to meet minimum distance standards for could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A534 and A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity; potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 11. However, despite this development should seek to retain and enhance existing habitats, including protected trees on site. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Crewe / Shavington could have potential impacts on the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and West Midland Mosses SAC and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
118 Ibid.
February 2016 85 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Development at the site could result in the permanent loss of Grades 2 and 3a best and most versatile agricultural land, with the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 86 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS118: South Cheshire Growth Village + - / + / + / / ------/ - + Extension 1 (2454) (previously SA38) Summary: The Representation SUB-2454 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 400 new dwellings119.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, development should seek to retain and enhance existing habitats, such as mature trees and hedges on site.
The site is located adjacent to a Grade II* Listed Building and Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden, while it is predicted that any proposal will provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Historic England have objected to the allocation of this site within the Local Plan as development could have a high level of harm to the setting of the adjacent Hollyhedge Farm (Grade II*) Listed Building. While mitigation may help to reduce the significance of the effect, at this stage this is uncertain. Taking HE comments into account, it is considered that there is the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden if this site were included as an extension to PSS107 & PSS119 and developed alongside Basford East (PSS100).
119 Ibid.
February 2016 87 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Development at the site could result in the permanent loss of Grade 2 best and most versatile agricultural land, with the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16.
The site is partially within / adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore may hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 88 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS119: South Cheshire Growth Village + - / + / + / / ------/ -- + Extension 2 (2454) Summary: The site is a smaller part of the Representation SUB-2454 (PSS118 above) and the Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 50 new dwellings.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, development should seek to retain and enhance existing habitats, such as mature trees and hedges on site.
The site is located adjacent to a Grade II* Listed Building and in close proximity to Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden, while it is predicted that any proposal will provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Historic England have objected to the allocation of this site within the Local Plan as development could have a high level of harm to the setting of the adjacent Hollyhedge Farm (Grade II*) Listed Building. While mitigation may help to reduce the significance of the effect, at this stage this is uncertain. Taking HE comments into account, it is considered that there is the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden if this site were included as an extension to PSS107 & PSS118 and developed alongside Basford East (PSS100).
It is therefore considered that there is the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden if this site were to be developed alongside Basford East (CS 1) and the South Cheshire Growth Village (CS 37).
February 2016 89 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Development at the site could result in the permanent loss of Grade 2 best and most versatile agricultural land, with the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16.
The site is partially within / adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore may hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 90 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS120: South West Crewe (3109) (preiously ++ + / + - / - / - - / - ? + - + SA47) Summary: The Representation SUB-3109 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 1,000 new dwellings and 0.2ha of employment land120.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b, however this needs to be considered alongside the provision of 0.2ha on site which has the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A530 and could have an adverse impact on the Alvaston roundabout. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area along the north eastern boundary of the site. Any negative effects could be mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located adjacent to both the Old Covert and Hinging Bank Covert Local Wildlife Sites. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including mature trees and hedgerows.
120 Ibid.
February 2016 91 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site contains a Grade II* Listed Building in the north of the site. While it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the building itself and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Conversely, development also has the potential for positive effects by possible improving signage and access to the Listed Building; however, at this stage this is uncertain. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land121 Grade 3, although it is unknown what Sub-Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that at this stage the quality (Sub-Grade 3a or 3b) of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
121 Ibid.
February 2016 92 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS121: South West Crewe/Church Lane + + / + / / / / / - / -- / - + (2151) (previously SA43) Summary: The Representation SUB-2151 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 325 new dwellings122. Two applications have been made on this site, firstly, 13/2649N: Outline application for up to 300 dwellings. – refused 2014, Inspector recommended appeal be allowed, decision was called-in by the Secretary of State and dismissed (2015) for reasons of the erosion of the Green Gap and the physical separation between settlements; secondly, 14/3024N: Outline application for up to 300 dwellings – application yet to be determined.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum standard distances could enhance the positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A534. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site located partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area along the north east boundary of the site. Any negative effects could be mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located adjacent to both the Old Covert and Hinging Bank Covert Local Wildlife Sites. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including mature trees and hedgerows.
122 Ibid.
February 2016 93 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land123, potentially Grades 3a and 3b. There does not appear to have been an Agricultural Land Quality Assessment submitted as part of the planning applications for this site. There is the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and areas of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 3a).
123 Ibid.
February 2016 94 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS122: Wistaston Village (2325) ++ + / + -- / -- / - - / - ? + + + (previously SA46) Summary: The Representation SUB-2325 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 4,000 new dwellings and 2ha of employment land124.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A51, A530 and A534 and could have an adverse impact on the Alvaston roundabout. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Given the scale of proposed development it is considered that there is the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objectives 8 and 10. While mitigation could help to reduce the significance of the identified effect, given the scale of proposed development this is uncertain at this stage. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve. Given the scale of potential development at this site, there is the potential for a minor negative effect of greater significance compared to the other site options in relation to traffic and air quality.
The site is located partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area along the north east boundary of the site. Any negative effects could be mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located adjacent to both the Old Covert and Hinging Bank Covert Local Wildlife Sites. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including mature trees and hedgerows. The
124 Ibid.
February 2016 95 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Crewe / Shavington could have potential impacts on the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and West Midland Mosses SAC and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
The site contains two Listed Buildings (Grades II and II*). While it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the loss of the buildings and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Conversely, development also has the potential for positive effects by possible improving signage and access to the Listed Building; however, at this stage this is uncertain. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The scale of proposed development could mean that development at this site has the potential for a negative effect of greater significance on the landscape compared to the other site options. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land125 Grade 3, although it is unknown what Sub-Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that at this stage the quality (Sub-Grade 3a or 3b) of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
125 Ibid.
February 2016 96 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS123: North of Wistaston Green Road + - / + / / / / / - / - / -- + (993) (previously SA42) Summary: The Representation SUB-993 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 240 new dwellings126. Two applications have been made on this site; firstly, 14/1326N: Outline application for up to 150 dwellings – allowed following appeal; secondly, 14/5820N: Outline application for up to 148 dwellings – application is still live and yet to be determined.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A530. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area along the north east boundary of the site. Any negative effects could be mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located just outside of 200m of the Hinging Bank Covert Local Wildlife Site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan (such as Policy SE 3) should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects on biodiversity, potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
The site is located adjacent to a Listed Building in the south east corner of the site, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available
126 Ibid.
February 2016 97 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not lead to any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land127, although it is unknown what Grade this is. An Agricultural Land Quality Report submitted as part of application 14/5820N concludes that the site is Grade 3 and given the characteristics of the soil predominantly Grade 3b. It is therefore considered that development has the potential for a permanent minor negative effect through the loss of agricultural land.
127 Ibid.
February 2016 98 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS124: Sydney Road (3092) (previously ++ + / -- -- / -- / / - / - ? / - + SA36) Summary: The Representation SUB-3092 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 1,800 new dwellings128.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the few local amenities that the site currently fails to meet minimum distance standards for could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road and the site is located close to the Maw Green area, Coppenhall roundabout, Remer St / Bradfield Rd junction and the Crewe Green Roundabout which is identified as a key sensitive area within the traffic modelling report for Crewe129. The CEC Highways team have also expressed concern regarding the impact of development at this site, particularly considering its scale, on the North Crewe Highways network; it is therefore considered that there is the potential for a residual major negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. Mitigation could help to reduce the potential significance of the identified effect but at this stage this is uncertain. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are also considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site contains an area of flood risk, in the northern area of the site. Any negative effects could be mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located adjacent to Brookhouse Pools Local Wildlife Site in the northern area of the site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity.
128 Ibid. 129 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 99 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including mature trees and hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land130, although it is unknown what Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage though, as the quality of agricultural land is not known there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
130 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 100 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS125: University Way + - / + / + / / / - / - / ++ +
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 106 new dwellings.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located adjacent to a strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A534 and A5020. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road and the site is located close to Crewe Green Roundabout which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Crewe131 (which considered the sites proposed for development within the LPS). Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance natural features and habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site.
The site is largely surrounded on the eastern side by designated heritage assets, including Crewe Hall Registered Park and Garden, Crewe Green Conservation Area (and associated Listed Buildings) and Park Farm House Grade II Listed Building. Given the scale of development and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level, it is considered that sensitive and responsive design should not significantly affect the setting of designated heritage assets; with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area.
131 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 101 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b and 16.
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS126: Marshfield Bank Farm, Middlewich ++ - / -- - / - / - - / - / - + Rd Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate approximately 840 new dwellings.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A532 and A530. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies (including Policy CS3), and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site lies partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area, along the southern boundary of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance natural features and habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site.
The site lies adjacent to a Scheduled Monument and a Grade II Listed Building. While it is predicted that any proposal will provide appropriate buffers/screening, given the capacity of the site to accommodate 840 new dwellings there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Conversely, development also has the potential for positive effects by possibly improving signage and access to the Monument; however at this stage this is uncertain. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there
February 2016 102 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 are no significant negative effects but at this stage, the overall effect is considered to be a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b and 16.
February 2016 103 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS127: Wood Farm, Middlewich Rd ++ - / -- - / - / - - / - / - +
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate approximately 1,620 new dwellings.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 800m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. As the site is located within 800m of Public Rights of Way, the negative effects against IA Objective 4b are also considered to be of greater significance than those sites within 500m of Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A532 and A530. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies (including Policy CS3), and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, given the capacity of the site to accommodate 1,620 new dwellings, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site lies partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area, along the southern and western boundaries of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance natural features and habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site.
The site lies adjacent to a Scheduled Monument and two Grade II Listed Buildings. While it is predicted that any proposal will provide appropriate buffers/screening, given the capacity of the site to accommodate 1,620 new dwellings there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Conversely, development also has the potential for positive effects by possibly improving signage and access to the Monument; however at this stage this is uncertain. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, the overall effect is considered to be a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
February 2016 104 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is partially within the River Valley and partially within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Types. It is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b and 16.
February 2016 105 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS128: Groby Rd + - / + / + / / / - / - / -- +
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate approximately 200 new dwellings.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 1km of promoted cycle routes, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 200m of promoted pedestrian routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road and the site is located close to the Maw Green area, Coppenhall roundabout and Remer St / Bradfield Rd junction which is identified as a key sensitive area within the traffic modelling report for Crewe132. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Given the capacity of the site and available mitigation, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. However the site is in relatively close proximity to Sandbach Flashes SSSI, mitigation provided through the Local Plan (such as Policy SE 3) should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Given the capacity of the site and the available mitigation, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the
132 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 106 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b and 16.
February 2016 107 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS129: North of Crewe Green 1 ++ + / + - + - / / - / - / - +
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 820 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the few local amenities that fails to meet to meet minimum distance standards could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A534. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road and the site is located close to Crewe Green Roundabout which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Crewe133 (which considered the sites proposed for development within the LPS). Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however at this stage it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance natural features and habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site, including the Bradeley Hall Fishing Pool on site.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the
133 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 108 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b and 16.
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS130: North of Crewe Green 2 (3500) ++ + / + -- + -- / - - / - ? / - + (previously SA48) Summary: The Representations SUB-1782 and SUB-3500 identify that this site has the capacity to accommodate 988 new dwellings134.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is between 500 and 1000m from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A534. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road and the site is located close to Crewe Green Roundabout which is identified as a key sensitive junction within the traffic modelling report for Crewe135. The CEC Highways Team have also expressed concern regarding the impact of development at this site, particularly considering its scale, on the North Crewe highways network; it is therefore considered that there is the potential for a residual major negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity; potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 11. However, despite this development should seek to retain and enhance existing habitats, including mature trees and hedgerows on site.
134 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 135 CEC (2015) Appendix 6b Crewe VISSIM Study [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet [accessed August 2015]
February 2016 109 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site is located adjacent to the Crewe Green Conservation Area and its Listed Buildings in the southern area of the site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should help to ensure that there are no significant negative effects; however, the potential delivery of 988 dwellings could have residual minor negative effects on the setting of these designated heritage assets. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land136 Grade 3, although it is unknown what Sub-Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that at this stage the quality (Sub-Grade 3a or 3b) of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
136 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 110 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 SA37: Bombardier, West Street (3023) + + / -- / + / / + + + ++ / ++ +
Summary: The Representation SUB-3023 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 300 new dwellings137.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the few local amenities that the site currently fails to meet minimum distance standards for could increase the extent of the positive effects against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is adjacent to a strategic employment area, with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A532 and A5078. It should be noted that there are 3 AQMAs along Nantwich Road, Earle Street and Wistaston Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Crewe are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the Nantwich Rd, Earle St and Wistaston Rd do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located adjacent to Crewe Swift Colony Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including mature trees and hedgerows.
The site is located adjacent to Listed Buildings; however, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not lead to any significant negative effects. The regeneration of previously developed land has the potential for a minor long-term positive effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the urban area, and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. The regeneration of brownfield land
137 Ibid.
February 2016 111 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 has the potential for a minor long-term positive effect against SA Objective 12b. There is also the potential for major long-term positive effects against SA Objective 16 as the site is entirely brownfield land and will not result in the loss of agricultural land. The redevelopment of previously developed land also has the potential to result in the use of on-site recycled materials with a minor long-term positive effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 112 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Handforth Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS500: North Cheshire Growth Village ++ + / -- - + - / - - / - ? ++ - -- (CS 30) (previously SA49) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 1,650 new dwellings and up to 5ha of employment land as well as a new mixed-use local centre.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, although it significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities. Development that improves access to these local amenities could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way.
The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b; however, this needs to be considered alongside the provision of 5ha of employment land which has the potential for a long-term major positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
There are no AQMA’s within close proximity of the site, however development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A555 and A34. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Handforth are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A34 and A555 do not deteriorate.
It should be noted that the Local Plan Strategy identifies that a full contamination assessment may be required, particularly considering its close proximity to a former landfill site.
The site is located within 200m of the Hall Wood Handforth and River Dean Banks Local Wildlife Site, and the Local Plan Strategy identifies that it is likely to contain Great Crested Newts. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development would not have any significant negative effects on the LWS as well as any protected species present. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Informed by project level studies and assessments, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats and corridors of importance to the Great Crested Newt.
There is a Listed Building located to the east of the site and while it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the building itself and provide
February 2016 113 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies (including requiring the Listed Building to be preserved / refurbished), and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is predominantly within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, but the northern part of the site is also within the urban area. The site is not located within a locally designated landscape area. It is acknowledged that the site contains brownfield land so development could therefore regenerate this area with positive effects on landscape. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and considering the site as a whole, development is more likely to result in a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
The Local Plan Strategy identifies that it contains agricultural land, although it is unknown what Grade this is. The LPS identifies that the site is predominantly low quality agricultural land; however, this still suggests that there is the potential for best and most versatile agricultural land to be present. To reflect this, it is considered that there is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that at this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 114 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS501: North Cheshire Growth Village ++ + / -- - / - / / - / - ? + -- -- (Safeguarded) (CS 34) (previously SA50) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies this 19.8 hectare site as safeguarded land, which has the capacity to accommodate 594 new residential dwellings assuming 30 dwellings per ha. The potential to provide employment land is unknown at this stage, however it is assumed that this site could provide a mixed use development, with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, although it significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities. Development that improves access to these local amenities could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
There are no AQMA’s within close proximity of the site, however development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Handforth are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues do not deteriorate.
The site lies partially within/ adjacent to a flood risk area along the southern border. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located adjacent to the Hall Wood Handforth and River Dean Banks Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWSs. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWSs and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets. The site is within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the entire site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land the site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 115 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The Local Plan Strategy identifies that it contains agricultural land, although it is unknown what Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land, and to reflect that at this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 116 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS502: Land at Handforth East (1452) ++ + / -- - + - / / - / - ? / -- -- (previously SA53) Summary: The Representation SUB-1452 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 500 new dwellings138.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, although it significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities. Development that improves access to these local amenities could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
There are no AQMA’s within close proximity of the site, however development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A555 and A34. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Handforth are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A555 and A34 do not deteriorate.
The Council’s Site Proforma identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
The site is located within 200m of the Hall Wood Handforth and River Dean Banks Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWSs. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
138Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 117 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the entire site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
Along with the loss of greenfield land development would also result in the loss of Green Belt. There is therefore the potential for a major long- term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land139, although it is unknown what Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that at this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
139 Ibid.
February 2016 118 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS503: Land South of Beech Farm, + + / -- / + / / / - / - ? / - -- Handforth (1452) Summary: The Representation SUB-1452 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 250 new dwellings140.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, although it also significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities. Development that improves access to these local amenities could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
There are no AQMA’s within close proximity of the site, however development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10.
The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site141; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12, is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as ponds, trees and hedges on site.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets. The site is greenfield land located within the urban area and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. The loss of greenfield land therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
Along with the loss of greenfield land development would also result in the loss of Green Belt. There is therefore the potential for a major long- term negative effect against SA Objective 21. The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land142, although
140 Ibid 141 Ibid.
February 2016 119 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 it is unknown what Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that at this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
142 Ibid.
February 2016 120 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS504: Land to the West of Clay Lane ++ + / -- - + - / - - / - ? / - -- (2822) (previously SA51) Summary: The Representation SUB-2822 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 740 new dwellings143.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, although it significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities. Development that improves access to these local amenities could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
There are no AQMA’s within close proximity of the site, however development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A555. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Handforth are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A555 do not deteriorate.
The site is located just over 200m from Dobbin Brook Clough Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There is a Listed Building located within the boundary of the site and while it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the building itself and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area.
143 Ibid.
February 2016 121 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
However, site is predominantly greenfield land (with the exception of The Grange), it is therefore considered that development has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land the site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land144, although it is unknown what Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that at this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
144 Ibid.
February 2016 122 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS505: Land at Clay Lane / Sagars Rd + + / -- / + / / / - / - ? / + --
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 250 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
There are no AQMA’s within close proximity of the site, however development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10.
The site is located adjacent to Dobbin Brook Clough Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers, should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important natural features and habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets. The site is predominantly greenfield land located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. The loss of greenfield land therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
Along with the loss of greenfield land development would also result in the loss of Green Belt. There is therefore the potential for a major long- term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that at this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 123 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Knutsford Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS600: Parkgate Extension (CS 19) + + / -- - / - / - -- / - ? ++ ++ + (previously SA54) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 200 new homes and 6ha of employment land. The site is an extension to land north of Parkgate Industrial Estate for which an outline planning application (Ref: 13/2935M) was submitted to the Council in 2013 for 250 dwellings. Permission was granted for 200 houses summer 2015145.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to open space and educational facilities could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site lies partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area in the eastern border of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located within 200m of Shawheath Plantation and Dog Wood Local Wildlife Site and the Local Plan Strategy identifies that there may be Great Crested Newts on site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan (such as Policy SE 3) should ensure that development will not lead to
145 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/2935M&query=ceca2e5e-874f-463e-b50c-7c7666066505
February 2016 124 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 any significant negative effects on biodiversity, with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The site is also in relatively close proximity to the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site to the west, the Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulation Assessment146 concludes that the existing policies and provisions in the LPS and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided, however it is necessary that Construction Management Plans, landscaping, green infrastructure and open space proposals are submitted to the Council during the planning application process for any sites in close proximity to the European sites. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets on site, it is located just outside of the Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects; however, there is still the potential to affect the setting of these assets. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area and Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden if a number of the sites in the north of the town are developed.
The site is located within the Tatton and Rostherene Local Landscape Designation with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
146 JBA Consulting (2014) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment - Final Report - Submission Document SD 004 [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/library [accessed September 2015]
February 2016 125 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS601: Land between Northwich Rd & ++ + / -- - + - / - - / - ? / - -- Tabley Rd (2530 including CS18 West) Summary: The Council suggests identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate an additional 520 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located just over 200m from Knutsford Heath Local Wildlife Site; however mitigation provided through the Local Plan Policies, such as SE 3, and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The site is also in relatively close proximity to the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site, the Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulation Assessment147 concludes that the existing policies and provisions in the LPS and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided, however it is necessary that Construction Management Plans, landscaping, green infrastructure and open space proposals are submitted to the Council during the planning application process for any sites in close proximity to the European sites. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
147 Ibid.
February 2016 126 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site contains two Listed Buildings (Beson Hill Cottage and Rose Cottage) and lies just outside of the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area, while it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the Listed Buildings and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is predominantly greenfield land development has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 127 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS602: Manchester Rd / Tabley Rd (CS33 + + / -- - + - / - -- - - ? + - -- West and 2530) (previously SA55) Summary: The Council identifies this site for safeguarding beyond the plan period. The site has the capacity to accommodate around 230 new dwellings and 4.5ha of employment land148.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities and forms of open space, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however (given the combination of 230 dwellings and 4.5ha of employment land) it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. The site is however in relatively close proximity to the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site to east, the Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulation Assessment149 concludes that the existing policies and provisions in the LPS and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided, however it is necessary that Construction Management Plans, landscaping, green infrastructure and open space proposals are submitted to the Council during the planning application process for any sites in close proximity to the European sites. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have
148 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 149 JBA Consulting (2014) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment - Final Report - Submission Document SD 004 [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/library [accessed September 2015]
February 2016 128 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
There are no designated heritage assets on site, however the site lies just outside of the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area and Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects; however, there is still the potential to affect the setting of these assets. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area and Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden if a number of the sites in the north of the town are developed.
The site is located within the Tatton and Rostherene Local Landscape Designation with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
The site lies adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel; as such development could potentially hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 129 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective PSS603: Land East of Manchester Road 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 (2623 containing CS18 East and CS33 East) ++ + / -- - + - / - -- - - ? + + -- (previously SA57) Summary: The Representation SUB-2623 proposes a 50 ha site which includes CS18 East – Land east of Manchester Road, and CS33 East - Land west of Mereheath Lane. It is identified as having the capacity to accommodate up to 600 new dwellings and potentially up to 1ha of employment land150.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to open space could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of the Knutsford Heath Local Wildlife Site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers / screening, should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; there is the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The site is also in relatively close proximity to the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site, the Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulation Assessment151 concludes that the existing policies and provisions in the LPS and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided, however it is necessary that Construction Management Plans, landscaping, green infrastructure and open space proposals are submitted to the Council during the planning application process for any sites in close proximity to the European sites. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy
150 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 151 JBA Consulting (2014) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment - Final Report - Submission Document SD 004 [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/library [accessed September 2015]
February 2016 130 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
There are no designated heritage assets on site, however the site lies just outside of the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area and Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects; however, there is still the potential to affect the setting the Conservation Area and Registered Park and Garden. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area and Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden if a number of the sites in the north of the town are developed.
The site is located within the Tatton and Rostherene Local Landscape Designation with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The site is adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel; as such development could potentially hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 131 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS604: Land North of Northwich Rd (CS18 + + / -- / + / / / - / - ? / - -- West) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 150 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located just over 200m from Knutsford Heath Local Wildlife Site; however mitigation provided through the Local Plan Policies, such as SE 3, and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The site is also in relatively close proximity to the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site, the Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulation Assessment152 concludes that the existing policies and provisions in the LPS and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided, however it is necessary that Construction Management Plans, landscaping, green infrastructure and open space proposals are submitted to the Council during the planning application process for any sites in close proximity to the European sites. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
152 Ibid.
February 2016 132 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site lies just outside of the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area. Given the scale of development and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not significantly affect the setting of designated heritage assets; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land development has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 133 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective PSS605: East of Manchester Rd / West of 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 Mereheath Lane (CS18 East / CS35) + + / -- / + / / - -- - - ? + + --
Summary: The Council identifies this site as having the capacity to accommodate around 250 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to open space could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects, potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of the Knutsford Heath Local Wildlife Site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers / screening, should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; there is the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The site is also in relatively close proximity to the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar Site, the Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulation Assessment153 concludes that the existing policies and provisions in the LPS and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided, however it is necessary that Construction Management Plans, landscaping, green infrastructure and open space proposals are submitted to the Council during the planning application process for any sites in close proximity to the European sites. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
153 Ibid.
February 2016 134 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There are no designated heritage assets on site, however the site lies just outside of the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area and adjacent to Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects; however, there is still the potential to affect the setting the Conservation Area and Registered Park and Garden. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area and Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden if a number of the sites in the north of the town are developed.
The site is located within the Tatton and Rostherene Local Landscape Designation with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The site partially contains / is adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel; as such development could potentially hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 135 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS606: Land West of Parkgate (2623) + + / -- / / / - - -- / - ? + ++ -- (previously SA56) Summary: The Representation SUB-2623 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 300 new dwellings and 1 to 3 ha of employment land154.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to outdoor sports facilities and secondary educational facilities could enhance these positive effects, and lead to a major positive effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site lies partially within a flood risk area in the north eastern tip of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located adjacent to the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar Site, Tatton Meres SSSI and Shawheath Plantation and Dog Wood Local Wildlife Site. The HRA process for the Local Plan has screened this proposed site and determined that there will be no likely significant effects on the European site as long as a statement is included within the LPS for this site. Mitigation provided through the Local Plan (such as Policy SE 3) should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects on the SSSI and LWS, however given the proximity of
154 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 136 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
European and nationally designated sites, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy also identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
The site is located adjacent to Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects; however, there is still the potential to affect the setting the Conservation Area. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a. There is the potential for cumulative negative effects on the Knutsford Town Centre Conservation Area and Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden if a number of the sites in the north of the town are developed.
The site is located within the Tatton and Rostherene Local Landscape Designation with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 137 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS607: Land South of Longridge (3455) + + / -- / / / / / - / - ? / ++ --
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 250 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is within 500m of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site lies partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area, mitigation provided through the Local Plan should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects, and development that avoids this part of the site could mitigate the negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is adjacent to Booths Mere Local Wildlife Site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers / screening, should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; there is the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Estate, Wood and Mere Landscape Character Type, it not located within a locally designated landscape area; as
February 2016 138 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 the site is entirely greenfield land development has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 139 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS608: Land adjacent to Booths Hall ++ + / -- / + / - - - / - ? / ++ -- (1598) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 150 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that the site currently fails to meet minimum distance standards for could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is adjacent to a strategic employment area, with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is adjacent to and contains a small part of Booths Mere Local Wildlife Site, the site also contains Ancient Woodland and protected trees. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
The site is in close proximity to the Legh Road Conservation Area, and Norbury Booths Hall Moated Site Scheduled Monument. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects; however, there is still the potential to affect the setting of the Conservation Area and Scheduled Monument. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
February 2016 140 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located predominantly within the Estate, Wood and Mere Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land development has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 141 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS609: Land West of Toft Rd (3202) + + / -- / + / / - - / - ? / - --
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 78 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the local amenities that the site currently fails to meet minimum distance standards for could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
The site is adjacent to the Legh Road Conservation Area, and the numerous designated heritage assets contained within. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects; however, there is still the potential to affect the setting of the Conservation Area and Scheduled Monument. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located predominantly within the Estate, Wood and Mere Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land development has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
February 2016 142 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 143 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS610: Land East of Toft Rd (2594 / 2655) + + / -- / + / / - - / - ? / - --
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 50 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that the site currently fails to meet minimum distance standards for could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A50 in Knutsford, and another AQMA just north of the settlement along the A556 in Mere. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Knutsford are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A50 and A556 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Knutsford could have potential impacts on the Tatton Mere and The Mere SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar and Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
The site is located within the Legh Road Conservation Area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant effects; however, there is still the potential to affect the setting of the Conservation Area. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located predominantly within the Estate, Wood and Mere Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area; as the site is entirely greenfield land development has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
February 2016 144 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 145 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Macclesfield Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS200: Central Macclesfield (SL 4) ++ ++ / + - / ? - / ? + ? / + ? + ++ +
Summary: The Council identifies that this strategic location has the capacity to accommodate around 500 new dwellings as part of mixed-use development. It should be noted that this is a large strategic area for potential development and does not include defined development boundaries for individual developments.
The area meets the minimum standards for access to all of the identified services and facilities in the Accessibility Assessment, which is not surprising given that it includes the town centre. Any development within this area is therefore likely to reduce the need to travel by private vehicle with the potential for a major long-term positive effect against SA Objective 2. The area is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. It is also adjacent to a strategic employment area, with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b. It should be noted that distances to promoted cycle routes and strategic employment area will differ for individual developments within this strategic area depending on their location. The provision of mixed-use development also has the potential for minor long-term positive effects against SA Objective 17a.
Development within the area could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537 and A523. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The Local Plan Strategy identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect. The potential for contamination will also be dependent on the location of individual developments.
The River Bollin runs north-south through the area and is the source of flood risk within the area. It is predicted that development within the flood risk areas will be avoided and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies will ensure that there are no significant negative effects in relation to flood risk. Potential for a residual neutral effect with an element of uncertainty to reflect that the location of individual developments are not known at this stage.
The northern part of the area is located within 200m of the Riverside Park Local Nature Reserve. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies
February 2016 146 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 and available at the project level should ensure that individual developments will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWS. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
The site contains numerous designated heritage assets including, Macclesfield Area of Archaeological Potential, numerous Listed Buildings, Christ Church Conservation Area, Town Centre Conservation Area, and Park Green Conservation Area. The High Street Conservation Area and St Pauls Square Conservation Area are also adjacent to the site. Development at the site therefore has the potential for major negative effects on heritage assets unless appropriate mitigation is provided. The nature and significance of effects against SA Objective 12a are ultimately dependent on the precise location of individual developments within this strategic area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. It is assumed that the majority of development will be on previously developed land so there is the potential for positive effects on the townscape and therefore the setting of designated heritage assets. There is also the potential for development to help improve signage and access to these assets. Until the precise location of development is known it is considered the nature and significance of the effect of development within this strategic area is uncertain.
The site is located within the Macclesfield urban area and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. While the precise location of individual developments is not known, it is predicted that the majority will occur on previously developed land. The regeneration of previously developed land has the potential for minor positive effects against SA Objectives 12b and 16; however, there is an element of uncertainty until defined development locations within the strategic area are known.
February 2016 147 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS201: South Macclesfield Development ++ + / + - + - / - - / - ? ++ + + Area (CS 8) (previously SA63) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 1,050 new dwellings, 5ha of employment land, and 5000 sq.m. of retail provision.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to those services/facilities failing accessibility standards could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Wat and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b; this should also be considered alongside the provision of 5ha of employment land which has the potential for major long-term positive effects against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A536 and A523. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
It should be noted that the Local Plan Strategy indicates that the site is located within close proximity to Danes Moss landfill site and household recycling centre (to the south of the site). There is therefore the potential for negative effects on health as a result of odour from the landfill as well as the potential for contaminated land to be present. Mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level (including appropriate buffers) should be sufficient to ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 4a, with an element of uncertainty until project level studies and assessments have been carried out.
The site is located within 200m of the Danes Moss SSSI and Macclesfield Canal, Gawsworth and Sutton Local Wildlife Site. It is also located just over 200m from the Danes Moss Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWSs. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Given that locally designated areas for biodiversity surround the eastern and southern boundaries of the site, a key issue for any proposal will be to ensure that the connectivity of habitats is retained and enhanced where possible. Any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance linear habitat features, including any trees or hedgerows.
The site is in close proximity to the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area; however, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects. Given the capacity of the site
February 2016 148 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 and the potential for negative effects on the landscape through the loss of greenfield land, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term negative effect on the setting of the Conservation Area.
The site is within the Mossland Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. The site is predominantly greenfield land (although it does contain some previously developed land) and development therefore has the potential for a negative effect on landscape. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that the negative effects are not significant. Given the size of the site and potential capacity for development it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect on the landscape (SA Objective 12b).
As the site is predominantly greenfield and agricultural land there is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through its loss. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 149 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS202: Land at Fence Avenue (CS 9) + + / + / / / / - -- / - ? / ++ --
Summary: The Council identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 250 new dwellings, as well as retaining the existing school building on site.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to nearly all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to those services/facilities failing accessibility standards could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is also within 500m of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located adjacent to a flood risk area in the most northern tip of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, development should seek to retain and enhance existing natural features and habitats, such as protected trees, on site.
The site is largely surrounded by designated heritage assets. It contains a Listed Building and is located partially within and adjacent to the Buxton Road Conservation Area and adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. It is predicted that any proposal will avoid the Listed Building itself and provide appropriate buffers/screening in relation to it as well as the Conservation Areas; however, there is still the potential for a negative effect on the setting of these heritage assets. Given the presence of a Listed Building on site and two Conservation Areas in close proximity it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
February 2016 150 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located predominantly within the Peak Park Fringe Local Landscape Designation, development therefore has the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The site contains some previously developed land, which is to be retained in development proposals, the remainder (and majority) of the site is greenfield land. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 151 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS203: Land at Congleton Road (CS 10) + + / -- - + - / / - - -- ++ -- --
Summary: The Council identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate 300 new dwellings and 5ha of employment land.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to those services/facilities failing accessibility standards could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b; however, this should be considered alongside the provision of 5ha of employment land which has the potential for a major long-term positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A536. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally protected biodiversity, however the Local Plan Strategy identifies that within the larger site CS10 there may be Protected Species on site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance natural features and habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets. The site is predominantly located within the Mossland (and partially within the Higher Farms and Woods) Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. Development at the site would result in the loss of greenfield land, which has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect on the landscape (SA Objective 12b).
The site is located partially within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel and development therefore has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources. Potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15. Development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of agricultural land including best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 3a and 3b) along with greenfield land, which has the potential for permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development therefore
February 2016 152 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 153 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS204: South West Macclesfield ++ + / + - + - - / - - -- ++ - -- Development Area (2177) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 2,000 new dwellings and 10ha of employment land.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537 and A536. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site contains a large part of Cockwood Local Wildlife Site, and is located within 200m of Highbirch Wood Local Wildlife Site. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets in close proximity or in the wider urban setting.
The site is predominantly located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, as the site is predominantly greenfield land, development has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The site is located partially within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel and as such development has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 154 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Although development at the site could regenerate small areas of previously developed land, it could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a), development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 155 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS205: Congleton Rd/South West Maccs ++ + / -- - + - / / - - -- ++ -- -- Development Area (CS10, CS32 part) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 500 new dwellings and 10ha of employment land.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b; however, this should be considered alongside the provision of 10ha of employment land which has the potential for a major long-term positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537 and A536. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally protected biodiversity, however the Local Plan Strategy identifies that within the larger site CS10 there may be Protected Species on site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance natural features and habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located partially within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and partially within the Mossland Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, as the site is predominantly greenfield land, development has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The site is located partially within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel and as such development has the potential to hinder future access to
February 2016 156 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
The site is predominantly greenfield land and development could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a), development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 157 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS206: Gaw End Lane (CS 11) + + / + / + / / - - / - / + --
Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 150 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A523. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The Local Plan Strategy identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
The site is located within 200m of the Macclesfield Canal (Gawsworth and Sutton) Local Wildlife Site and the Danes Moss SSSI. Given the capacity of the site, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers, should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the SSSI. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important natural features and habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site; however, the site is surrounded by Listed Buildings, the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area and a Listed canal bridge. Given the relatively small capacity of the site, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on these heritage assets. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Development at the site could result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, though this is Grade 3b and 4 and not best and
February 2016 158 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 most versatile. Potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 for the loss of greenfield and agricultural land.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 159 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS207: Gaw End Lane and Lyme Green + + / ++ / + / - - - / - / + -- (2357) (previously SA73) Summary: The Representation SUB-2357 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 450 new dwellings155.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities. Development that improves access to these local amenities could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is located within 200m of a footpath, within 500m of Public Rights of Way, and within 1km of a cycling route with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A523. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site156; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
The site is located adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Gawsworth and Sutton Local Wildlife Site, Danes Moss Local Wildlife Site and Danes Moss SSSI. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the SSSI. Any proposal for development should ensure that a suitable buffer is provided between the development and the SSSI. It should also seek to ensure that there is no loss of any supporting habitats and connectivity is retained and enhanced where possible. In recognition of the SSSI being adjacent to the site, it is considered that there is the potential for a minor residual negative effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site is surrounded by Listed Buildings and adjacent to the Macclesfield
155 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 156 Ibid.
February 2016 160 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Canal Conservation Area; as such development will require sensitive and responsive design. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should help to ensure that there are no significant negative effects; however, the potential delivery of 450 dwellings could have residual minor negative effects on the setting of these designated heritage assets. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, as the site is predominantly greenfield land there is the potential for a minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
Although development would regenerate small areas of previously developed land, it could also result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, however it is Grade 3b and therefore not best and most versatile agricultural land. Potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 161 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS208: Gaw End Lane (Lyme Green) + + / ++ / + / - - - / - / + -- (2357) (previously SA73) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 300 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects. The site is located within 200m of promoted footpaths, within 500m of Public Rights of Way, and within 1km of a cycling route with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 4b. The site is located adjacent to an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A523. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site157; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
The site is located adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Gawsworth and Sutton Local Wildlife Site, and these habitats connect with Danes Moss Local Wildlife Site and Danes Moss SSSI. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the SSSI. Any proposal for development should ensure that a suitable buffer is provided between the development and connecting habitats of the SSSI. It should also seek to ensure that there is no loss of any supporting habitats and connectivity is retained and enhanced where possible. In recognition of the SSSI being in such close proximity to the site, it is considered that there is the potential for a minor residual negative effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site is surrounded by Listed Buildings and adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area; as such development will require sensitive and responsive design. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and
157 Ibid.
February 2016 162 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 available at the project level should help to ensure that there are no significant negative effects; however, the potential delivery of 300 dwellings could have residual minor negative effects on the setting of these designated heritage assets. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, as the site is predominantly greenfield land there is the potential for a minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
Although development would regenerate small areas of previously developed land, it could also result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, however it is Grade 3b and therefore not best and most versatile agricultural land. Potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 163 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS209: Land between Chelford Road and + + / + / / / / / - - - ? / - -- Whirley Road (part) (2405) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 150 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to those services/facilities failing accessibility standards could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not within an area of fluvial flood risk; however, the Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that the area is highly susceptible to surface water flooding158. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that the surface water flooding issue is addressed. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located within 200m of the Cookwood Henbury Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through the Local Plan should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets. The site is situated within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. The site is entirely greenfield land and development is therefore considered to have the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
158 Ibid.
February 2016 164 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 165 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS210: Land between Chelford Road and ++ + / + - / - / / - - - ? / + -- Whirley Road (2405, 3565) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 625 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to those services/facilities failing accessibility standards could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not within an area of fluvial flood risk; however, the Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that the area is highly susceptible to surface water flooding159. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that the surface water flooding issue is addressed. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located within 200m of the Cookwood Henbury Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through the Local Plan should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets within close proximity.
The site is situated within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. The site is entirely greenfield land and as such, development is considered to have the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b (landscape).
159 Ibid.
February 2016 166 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 167 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS211: Land North of Birtles Road (3565) + + / + / + / / / - / - ? / -- -- (previously SA69) Summary: The Representation SUB-3565 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 350 new dwellings160.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to those services/facilities failing accessibility standards could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of the Sandy Lane Pit, Whirley Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets. It should be noted that the Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that the fields form part of a historic field pattern dating to the mid-1800s161.
The site is situated within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the entire site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
160 Ibid. 161 Ibid.
February 2016 168 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 169 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS212: Land West of Priory Lane (3566) + + / -- / + / / / - / - ? / -- -- (previously SA68) Summary: The Representation SUB-3566 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 333 new dwellings162.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to those services/facilities failing accessibility standards could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as protected trees on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is predominantly situated within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. The site is predominantly greenfield land (apart from car park and club house on site) and as such is considered to have the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
As the site is predominantly greenfield and agricultural land there is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through its loss. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
162 Ibid.
February 2016 170 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS213: Land to the East of London Road ++ + / + - / - / - -- / - ? + + -- (2124) (previously SA72) Summary: The Representation SUB-2124 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate between 550 and 700 new dwellings and 2.5ha of employment land163.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to those services/facilities failing accessibility standards could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A523. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located partially within a flood risk area in the north of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located within 200m of the Macclesfield Canal Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through the Local Plan should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
163 Ibid.
February 2016 171 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The canal corridor is also a Conservation Area and as such development would require sensitive and responsive design, it is considered that mitigation provided through the Local Plan is sufficient to address any potential significant negative effects. However, development has the potential to affect the setting of the Conservation Area, potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Local Peak Park Fringe Landscape Area and the Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that any building in this area is likely to remove the area’s connection to the Peak Park Fringe164. It is therefore considered that development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
164 Ibid.
February 2016 172 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS214: Lark Hall (52) (previously SA76) + + / + / + / / - -- / - ? / + --
Summary: The Representation SUB-52 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 135 new dwellings165.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment and is likely to contribute to enhancing healthy and active lifestyles and reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. Development at this site that enhances access to open space could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500 of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537 and A523. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as Swans Pool and mature trees on site. There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site is adjacent to a small cluster of Listed Buildings. While Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Local Peak Park Fringe Landscape Designation, development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b. As the site is entirely greenfield and agricultural land, it also has the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
165 Ibid.
February 2016 173 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS215: Land Between Gawsworth ++ + / + - + - / / - - -- + -- -- Rd/Pexhill Rd and CS32 (part) (2177) Summary: The Council identifies that this site is 42.8ha of safeguarded land, which has the capacity to accommodate 1,284 new dwellings assuming 30 dwellings per hectares. The potential to provide employment land is unknown at this stage, however it is assumed that this site could provide a mixed use development, with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b. The delivery of mixed-use development on site could contribute to reducing the significance of these effects.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537 and A536. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of Highbirch Wood Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including an appropriate buffer, should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is predominantly located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, as the site is predominantly greenfield land, development has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
February 2016 174 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located partially within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel and as such development has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
Although development at the site could regenerate small areas of previously developed land, it could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a), development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 175 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS216: Pexhill Rd to Chelford Rd Site A + + / + / + / - / - - -- + - -- (2177) Summary: The Council identifies that this site is 12.7ha of safeguarded land, which has the capacity to accommodate 381 new dwellings assuming 30 dwellings per hectares. The potential to provide employment land is unknown at this stage, however it is assumed that this site could provide a mixed use development, with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site partially contains Cockwood Local Wildlife Site. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets in close proximity to the site.
The site is predominantly located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, as the site is predominantly greenfield land, development has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The site is located partially within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel and as such development has the potential to hinder future access to
February 2016 176 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
Although development at the site could regenerate small areas of previously developed land, it could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 3a), development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 177 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS217: Pexhill Rd to Chelford Rd Site B ++ + / + - + - - / - - -- + + -- (2177) Summary: The Council identifies that this site is 19.5ha of safeguarded land, which has the capacity to accommodate 585 new dwellings assuming 30 dwellings per hectares. The potential to provide employment land is unknown at this stage, however it is assumed that this site could provide a mixed use development, with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537 and A536. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site partially contains Cockwood Local Wildlife Site. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is predominantly located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, as the site is predominantly greenfield land, development has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The site is located partially within an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel and as such development has the potential to hinder future access to
February 2016 178 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
Although development at the site could regenerate small areas of previously developed land, it could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 3a), development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 179 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS218: Land North of Prestbury Rd + + / -- / / / / / -- / - ? / -- --
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 250 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the two local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located just over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537 and A536. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area, in the far eastern corner of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located adjacent to Riverside Park Local Nature Reserve and Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including an appropriate buffer, should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance natural features and habitats, such as hedgerows, mature trees and ponds, within the site.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site is located adjacent to Prestbury Rd Conservation Area and further Listed Buildings. Given the scale of development and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not significantly affect the setting of designated heritage assets; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is greenfield land located within the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designated Area and development in this is area is considered to have the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
February 2016 180 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
As the site is predominantly greenfield and agricultural land there is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through its loss. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 181 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 SA66: Lyme Green (South) (CS 31) ++ - / ++ - + - - - - / - + + --
Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that this 17.9ha site is safeguarded land. This site is considered to have the potential to accommodate 537 new dwellings (at 30 dwellings per hectare). The potential to provide employment land is unknown at this stage, however it is assumed that this site could provide a mixed use development, with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
The site fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. Development that improves access to these facilities and services could reduce the negative effect against SA Objective 2. The site is located within 200m of a footpath, within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of a cycling route with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A523. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Gawsworth and Sutton Local Wildlife Site, Danes Moss Local Wildlife Site and Danes Moss SSSI. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the SSSI. Any proposal for development should ensure that a suitable buffer is provided between the development and the SSSI. It should also seek to ensure that there is no loss of any supporting habitats and connectivity is retained and enhanced where possible. In recognition of the SSSI being adjacent to the site, it is considered that there is the potential for a minor residual negative effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site is adjacent to a Grade II Listed Canal Bridge and Grade II Listed Buildings (Toll Bar Cottage and Lyme Green Hall) and in close proximity to the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on these heritage assets. Development could affect the setting of the heritage assets, it is therefore considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12 a.
The site is situated within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, development would lead to the loss of greenfield land, which has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect
February 2016 182 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 on the landscape (SA Objective 12b).
Development at the site would also result in the permanent loss of agricultural land; however, it is Grade 3b and therefore not best and most versatile agricultural land. Potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 183 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 SA67: South West Macclesfield (CS 32) ++ + / -- - + - / / - - -- + -- --
Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that this 45.4ha site is safeguarded land. This site is considered to have the potential to accommodate 1,356 new dwellings (at 30 dwellings per hectare). The potential to provide employment land is unknown at this stage, however it is assumed that this site could provide a mixed use development, with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that improves access to those services/facilities failing accessibility standards could enhance the significance of the positive effect against SA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located over 1km away from the closest employment area, with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A536. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of the Highbirch Wood Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWS. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect on the landscape (SA Objective 12b) through the loss of greenfield land.
The site is located adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, and as such development has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources. Development at the site could result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2
February 2016 184 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 and 3a) as well as greenfield land with the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site is located entirely within the Green Belt with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 185 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 SA75: Land at Fence Avenue (1558) + + / + / / / / - -- / - ? / ++ --
Summary: The Representation SUB-1558 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 300 new dwellings166.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to nearly all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to secondary educational facilities could enhance these positive effects and lead to a major positive effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on SA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A537 and A523. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A523 London Road. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Macclesfield are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A523 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located adjacent to a flood risk area in the most northern tip of the site and there is a watercourse on site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, development should seek to retain and enhance existing habitats, such as protected trees on site.
The site contains a Listed Building and is located adjacent to both the Buxton Road Conservation Area and Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area, while it is predicted that any proposal will avoid Listed Buildings and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no
166 Ibid.
February 2016 186 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located predominantly within the Peak Park Fringe Local Landscape Designation, development therefore has the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The site contains some previously developed land, which is to be retained in development proposals, the remainder (and majority) of the site is greenfield and agricultural land, development therefore has the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 16. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 187 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Middlewich Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS700: Glebe Farm (CS 20) ++ + / + - + - / - - / - / - +
Summary: The Council identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate 525 new dwellings. An outline planning application (Ref: 13/3449C) for this site was submitted to the Council in 2013 for 450 dwellings and a retail unit167, which has a resolution to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a s106 Agreement.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities and transport facilities, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Middlewich. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Middlewich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally protected biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as ponds, trees and hedgerows on site. It should be noted that the ecological appraisal that accompanied the outline planning application concluded that there would be no adverse effects on any statutory or non-statutory designated sites or protected habitats and species168.
167 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/3449C&query=f8c8c3c1-aaac-4f80-bec3-023ecda90c14 168 FPCR Environmental and Design Ltd on behalf of Bovale Ltd (July 2011) Ecological Appraisal – Land off Booth Lane, Middlewich, Cheshire. Available online: http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/3449C
February 2016 188 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal, Kent Green Conservation Area and Listed Rumps Lock, It is considered that the mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not significantly affect the Conservation Area; however, there is still affect the setting of the heritage assets. Potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The Landscape & Visual Assessment169 (2013) that accompanied the outline planning application concluded that development would not result in any significant adverse impacts to landscape character; however, there would be a small number of significant adverse impacts to visual receptors located along the north western boundary of the site.
The site is predominantly greenfield and contains agricultural land; however, an Agricultural Land Classification Report submitted as part of application 13/3449C concludes that there is no best and most versatile agricultural land present. It is therefore considered that there is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16.
169 Pleydell Smithyman Ltd on behalf of Bovale ltd (July 2013) Landscape and Visual Assessment of Proposals for Residential Development ST Glebe Farm. Available online: http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/3449C
February 2016 189 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS701: Brooks Lane (SL 9) (previously + + / + / / / / ? ++ + ++ -- ++ + SA79) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 400 new dwellings, leisure and community facilities and the potential provision of a marina at the Trent and Mersey Canal.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located within a strategic employment area, with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 17b, however development could also result in the loss of existing employment uses with the potential for major negative effects against SA Objective 17a.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A54, however there are no AQMAs within Middlewich. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Middlewich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located adjacent to an area of flood risk along the eastern border of the site. Any negative effects could be easily mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located adjacent to the Cledford Lane Lime Beds Local Wildlife Site; mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects. Any proposal for development should ensure that development avoids the boundary with the Local Wildlife Site and a suitable buffer is provided where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
The site is bounded by the Trent and Mersey Canal to the west, and therefore includes the associated Conservation Area, as well as number Grade II Listed Buildings, a Scheduled Monument and an Area of Archaeological Potential. While development could avoid the Scheduled Monument and ensure that appropriate buffers are in place, it is considered that there is the potential for a major long-term negative effect on the setting of the Scheduled Monument. The Monument is currently enclosed and land locked by established commercial development, regeneration at the site therefore also has the potential for positive effects. Site level archaeological assessments will also be required. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects, however
February 2016 190 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 the overall effect remains uncertain at this stage.
The site is previously developed land within the urban area; development therefore has the potential for a major long-term positive effects against SA Objectives 12b and 16. The regeneration of previously developed land has the potential for a minor long-term positive effect on the setting of nearby heritage assets, and the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 15 through the reuse of recycled material.
February 2016 191 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS702a: Midpoint 18 Extension (SL 10) / - / + - / - / / - / - ? ++ ++ + (previously SA78) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the whole site has the capacity to accommodate up to 43ha of employment land.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is adjacent to a strategic employment area, with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
There are no AQMAs within Middlewich, however development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Middlewich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area, along the western boundary of the site. Any negative effects could be mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity, however the Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site contains a designated open space and supports a number of protected species. It is considered that suitable mitigation is available through the Local Plan, and at the project level, and appropriate design and layout, including safeguarding of the River Croco and other watercourses, and provision of ecological mitigation areas, could mitigate any potential negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, though three Listed Buildings are in close proximity to the south east and south west; development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the entire site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 192 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS702b: Midpoint 18 Extension (SL 10) / - / + - / - / / - / - ? ++ ++ + (previously SA78) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the whole site has the capacity to accommodate up to 75ha of employment land.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is adjacent to a strategic employment area, with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
There are no AQMAs within Middlewich, however development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Middlewich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area, along the western boundary of the site. Any negative effects could be mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity, however the Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site contains a designated open space and supports a number of protected species. It is considered that suitable mitigation is available through the Local Plan, and at the project level, and appropriate design and layout, including safeguarding of the River Croco and other watercourses, and provision of ecological mitigation areas, could mitigate any potential negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, though three Listed Buildings are in close proximity to the south east and south west; development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the entire site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 193 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS703: Land off Warmingham Lane (phase + + / + / + / / / - / - ? / -- + II) (2134) (previously SA80) Summary: The Representation SUB-2134 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 270 new dwellings170. The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Middlewich. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Middlewich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located adjacent to the River Wheelock Banks Local Wildlife Site; mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects. Any proposal for development should ensure that development avoids the boundary with the Local Wildlife Site and a suitable buffer is provided where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the entire site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land171, although it is unknown what Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that
170 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 194 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 at this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
171 Ibid.
February 2016 195 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS704: Land off Sutton Lane (3153) + + / + / + / / / - / - ? / - + (previously SA81) Summary: The Representation SUB-3153 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 230 new dwellings172. The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Middlewich. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Middlewich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally protected biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as ponds and protected trees on site.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site is adjacent to a Grade II Listed Building and as such development would require sensitive and responsive design, mitigation provided through the Local Plan is considered sufficient to address any potential negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the entire site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
The Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies that it contains agricultural land173, although it is unknown what Grade this is. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land and to reflect that
172 Ibid.
February 2016 196 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 at this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
173 Ibid.
February 2016 197 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS705: Cledford Lagoons (922) (previously ++ + / + - + - - - - / - / ++ + SA83) Summary: The Representation SUB-922 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 750 new dwellings174.
The site is located within the Middlewich Settlement Zone Line and meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is within 500m of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
There are no AQMAs within Middlewich, however development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Middlewich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The entire site contains Cledford Lane Lime Beds Local Wildlife Site and as such development would result in the direct loss of a local biodiversity site, with the potential for a minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 11.
The site shares a boundary to the west with the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area; mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects, however development at the site has the potential for negative effects on the landscape through the loss of greenfield land, and therefore it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect on the setting of the Conservation Area.
The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. The site is greenfield land within the urban area; development therefore has the potential for a minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is also the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield, though this does not
174 Ibid.
February 2016 198 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 appear to contain agricultural land.
February 2016 199 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 SA82: Midpoint 18 Extension (Employment) / - / + - / - / ? / - / - ? ++ ++ + (1661) Summary: The Representation SUB-1661 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 26ha of new employment land175.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is adjacent to a strategic employment area, with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
The site is located partially within / adjacent to a flood risk area, along the western boundary of the site. Any negative effects could be mitigated by development avoiding this particular area of the site and incorporating the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
There are no AQMAs within Middlewich, however development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Middlewich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity, however the Council’s proforma for the site identifies that the site contains a designated open space and supports a number of protected species. It is considered that suitable mitigation is available through the Local Plan, and at the project level, and appropriate design and layout, including safeguarding of the River Croco and other watercourses, and provision of ecological mitigation areas, could mitigate any potential negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage. The site is within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated
175 Ibid.
February 2016 200 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 landscape area. However, the entire site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 201 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Nantwich Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS800: Kingsley Fields (CS 21) (previously ++ ++ / ++ - / - / - - / -- + + + SA84) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 1,100 new dwellings, a mixed-use local centre and 2ha of employment land. An outline planning application (Ref: 13/2471N) was submitted to the Council in 2013 for 1,100 dwellings and 1.82 ha of employment land along with other facilities/services176. Approval was granted in 2015 subject to the signing of a S106 Legal Agreement.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to all of the identified services and facilities in the Accessibility Assessment. The site could therefore significantly contribute to enhancing healthy and active lifestyles and reducing the need to travel by private vehicle.
The site is located within 200m of a footpath, within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of a cycling route with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against IA Objective 17b, however this should be considered alongside the provision of 2ha of employment land which has the potential for a minor long-term positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network and it should be noted that there is an AQMA along Hospital Street / the A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Nantwich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A534 (Hospital Street) do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve. The planning application Committee Report states that access will be via a realigned A51 with a new roundabout, which should help mitigate extra traffic constraints on the town centre.
The eastern border of the site is located within a flood risk area. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. The planning approval on the site shows that main flood plain is to remain as existing with no alterations to levels and no development177. A small section of the new A51 road passes through this area of flood plain however the road will be protected from flooding and the loss of flood plain volume
176 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/2471N&query=aca0c616-3ae9-4905-929d-81b4baeaea5c 177 Ibid.
February 2016 202 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 will be compensated for in the open space; this will be dealt with by condition. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. The Local Plan Strategy identifies that there may be Protected Species on site. Mitigation provided through the Local Plan, including Policy SE 3, should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects on biodiversity with the potential for a residual neutral effect. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as water features, trees and woodland within the site.
The site is largely enclosed by designated heritage assets, including a Registered Battlefield adjacent to the site in the west which adjoins Dorford Hall Registered Park and Garden, a large Area of Archaeological Potential partially within the site and stretching south of the site which also contains Nantwich Conservation Area, and Reaseheath Conservation Area partially within the site and stretching north of the site. A Heritage Assessment (2012) informed the Environmental Statement (ES) (2013) that accompanied the submission of the planning application178. The ES concluded that there would be no significant effects on any heritage assets but that there is the potential for slight to moderate adverse effects. English Heritage (now Historic England) commented on the planning application and stated that they consider that the impact of development on the battlefield is unlikely to be substantial, providing that the mitigation measures suggested in the ES, such as the retention of historic hedgerows within and around the development site, are confirmed.
It is considered that suitable mitigation measures are available to ensure that there will be no significant negative effects on the historic environment. However, in recognition of the sensitive heritage assets surrounding the site and findings of the ES that accompanied the planning application (that there is the potential for slight to moderate adverse effects), it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The loss of greenfield land along with the potential for development to result in the permanent loss of areas of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 3a) has the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
178 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=13/2471N&query=e484142b-f8cf-4bca-88ec-10535cfdcd85
February 2016 203 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS801: Stapeley Water Gardens (CS 22) + + / + / + / / / + + + / - +
Summary: The Council identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate 171 new dwellings. A full planning application (Ref: 14/2155N) was submitted to the Council in 2014 for 171 dwellings and was approved with conditions in 2015179.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network and it should be noted that there is an AQMA along Hospital Street / the A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Nantwich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A534 (Hospital Street) do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as trees, hedgerows and water features on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. Development at the site would regenerate an area of previously developed land, with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objectives 12b and 16. There is also the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 15 through the potential reuse of recycled materials on site. Development would also result in the loss of smaller areas of greenfield land.
179 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=14/2155N&query=b222bb24-1e18-43da-a1a9-0cf61c249a6f
February 2016 204 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS802: Snow Hill (CS 23) (previously SA85) + ++ / ++ ? - ? / + ? + + + + + +
Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that mixed-use regeneration of the site is sought to strengthen and enhance the existing town centre.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to all of the identified services and facilities in the Accessibility Assessment. The site could therefore significantly contribute to enhancing healthy and active lifestyles and reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. The site is located within 200m of a footpath, within 500m Public Rights of Way and within 1km of a cycling route with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 4b.
The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against IA Objective 17b, however this needs to be considered alongside the provision of mixed-use development which has the potential for minor long-term positive effects against SA Objective 17a.
Mixed-use regeneration on site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network and it should be noted that there is an AQMA along Hospital Street / the A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however, as the scale of potential development is unknown at this stage, the overall effects against SA Objective 8 and 10 remain uncertain.
A large proportion of the site is located within a flood risk area. Given the size of the flood risk area through the site mitigation may be difficult and / or expensive, it is therefore considered that there is the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 9. It should be noted that LPS Policy CS 23 seeks to address this issue through criteria g and r, which seek the provision of GI including extension of the riverside park and the retention of the floodplain of the River Weaver.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as trees and the river corridor within the site. It is assumed that open space will be retained or alternative provisions included within development proposals.
The site is located within an Area of Archaeological Potential and within the Nantwich Conservation Area, it also contains numerous Listed Buildings including the Grade II Listed Nantwich Bridge. It is predicted that any proposal for development will avoid the heritage assets and provide appropriate mitigation to ensure that there are no significant negative effects. The redevelopment and regeneration of the areas of previously developed land could have positive effects on heritage by improving townspace as well as access and signage to assets where possible. Potential for a minor long-term positive effect, with an element of uncertainty as the nature and significance of the effect will ultimately be dependent on the final layout and design of development.
February 2016 205 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. The site is located within the urban area and development at the site would regenerate areas of previously developed land, with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objectives 12b and 16. There is also the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 15 through the potential reuse of recycled materials on site.
February 2016 206 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS803: South Nantwich (3135) (previously ++ + / + - + - / / - / - ? + + + SA87) Summary: The Representation SUB-3135 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 629 new dwellings as well as a primary school, local centre and 3,700sq m of employment land180. A planning application (12/3747N – 189 dwellings) on a northern area of the site was refused & subsequently dismissed at appeal181. The decision has now been challenged and is awaiting final decision from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network and it should be noted that there is an AQMA along Hospital Street / the A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Nantwich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A534 (Hospital Street) do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as mature trees, hedgerows and water features on site. Part of the site being promoted (in SUB1792) is a newt mitigation area for the adjacent residential development. Development could avoid the important habitats for newts and any proposal should be required to ensure that important habitats and connectivity between them is retained and enhanced. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11 once mitigation has been taken into account. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Nantwich could have potential impacts on the Wybunbury Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and West Midland Mosses SAC and concluded that further
180 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 181 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=12/3747N&query=a395b2f4-c864-42e9-bc0d-719906e4ec3a
February 2016 207 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and contains TPO’s; development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. It should be noted that one of the reasons for refusal of the planning application (12/3747N) was that development would result in the loss of ten trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order, at the southern proposed access point. If development were to result in the loss of these trees then the negative effect would be of greater significance. A revised proposal has amended access arrangements.
There is also the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 208 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS804: South Nantwich (northern area) + + / + / + / / / - / -- + - + (3135) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 189 new dwellings, and 0.37 ha of employment land.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network and it should be noted that there is an AQMA along Hospital Street / the A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Nantwich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A534 (Hospital Street) do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity, however the site is known to contain part of a Great Crested Newt mitigation area; development of the northern access could result in the loss of this area with the potential for major negative effects. Any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as mature trees and TPOs, hedgerows and water features on site. Development could avoid the important habitats for newts and any proposal should be required to ensure that important habitats and connectivity between them is retained and enhanced. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11 once mitigation has been taken into account. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Nantwich could have potential impacts on the Wybunbury Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and West Midland Mosses SAC and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and contains TPOs; development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. Development should seek to retain existing TPOs on site.
February 2016 209 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There is also the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land, as the site is known to contain areas of Grade 2 and Grade 3a best and most versatile agricultural land.
February 2016 210 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS805: Broad Lane, Nantwich (1792) + + / -- - + - / / - / - ? / + + (previously SA88) Summary: The site has the capacity to accommodate around 195 new dwellings at 30dph.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network and it should be noted that there is an AQMA along Hospital Street / the A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Nantwich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A534 (Hospital Street) do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as mature trees, hedgerows and water features on site. Potential for a neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Nantwich could have potential impacts on the Wybunbury Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and West Midland Mosses SAC and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and as such development has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is also the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 211 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS806: South Nantwich / Broad Ln (1792, ++ + / + - + - / / - / -- + + + 3135) (previously SA89) Summary: The Representations SUB-1792 and SUB-3135 identify that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 824 new dwellings, a primary school, local centre and 0.37 ha of employment land182. A planning application (12/3747N – 189 dwellings) on this site was refused & subsequently dismissed at appeal183. The decision has been challenged, the application is awaiting a final decision from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network and it should be noted that there is an AQMA along Hospital Street / the A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Nantwich are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A534 (Hospital Street) do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity, however the site is known to contain part of a Great Crested Newt mitigation area; development of the northern access could result in the loss of this area with the potential for major negative effects. Any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as mature trees and TPOs, hedgerows and water features on site. Development could avoid the important habitats for newts and any proposal should be required to ensure that important habitats and connectivity between them is retained and enhanced. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11 once mitigation has been taken into account. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic sites on the edge of Nantwich could have potential impacts on the Wybunbury Moss SSSI, a component site of the Midland
182 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 183 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=12/3747N&query=a395b2f4-c864-42e9-bc0d-719906e4ec3a
February 2016 212 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and West Midland Mosses SAC and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and contains TPOs; development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. It should be noted that one of the reasons for refusal of the planning application (12/3747N) was that development would result in the loss of ten trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order, at the southern proposed access point. If development were to result in the loss of these tress then the negative effect would be of greater significance.
There is also the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land, as the site is known to contain areas of Grade 2 and Grade 3a best and most versatile agricultural land.
February 2016 213 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Poynton Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS900: Land at Woodford Aerodrome ++ + / -- - - - / / - - + / + -- (2433) (previously SA94) Summary: The Representation SUB-2433 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 540 new dwellings184.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A532, however there are no AQMAs in Poynton. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Poynton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
A large portion of the site lies within a flood risk area. Given the size of the area of flood risk on site it is considered that mitigation may be difficult and / or expensive, development therefore has the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located within 200m of the Wigwam Wood Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
184 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 214 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. While there is some brownfield land present, the redevelopment of the flat runway to provide housing is considered to have the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The regeneration of the previously developed land (airport runway) has the potential for a minor long-term positive effect against SA Objective 16.
The site partially contains an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 15. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 215 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS901: Land off Waterloo Road (2621) ++ + / + - + - / / - / - ? / -- -- (previously SA91) Summary: The Representation SUB-2621 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 500 new dwellings185.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A532, however there are no AQMAs in Poynton. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Poynton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located adjacent to the Poynton Coppice Local Wildlife Site, and within 200m of the Poynton Coppice Local Nature Reserve. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees, hedgerows or water features.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term
185 Ibid.
February 2016 216 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 negative effect against SA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 217 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS902: Land at Sprink Farm (2629) + + / -- / / / / / - / - ? / -- -- (previously SA90) Summary: The Representation SUB-2629 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 147 new dwellings186.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Poynton. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Poynton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The southern boundary of the site along Poynton Brook lies within a flood risk area. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as protected trees on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located predominantly within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long- term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
186 Ibid.
February 2016 218 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 219 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS903: Land to the West of Poynton (2821) ++ + / ------+ - - - - ? / + --
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 743 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A532, however there are no AQMAs in Poynton. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Poynton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site contains a large area of flood risk through the centre and eastern half of the development area. Given the size of the area of flood risk on site it is considered that mitigation may be difficult and / or expensive, development therefore has the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 9.
The site contains Wigwam Wood Local Wildlife Site. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
The site contains a derelict Grade II Listed Building; development has the potential to encourage reuse and any necessary restoration of the building, with the potential for minor positive effects, and development also has the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is reflected that there is the potential for both positive and negative effects against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative
February 2016 220 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 effect against SA Objective 12b. The site does however partially contain an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 15. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
Development could regenerate a very small area of previously developed land; however, the majority of the site is greenfield. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 221 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS904: Land to the north of Hazelbadge ++ + / -- - / - / - - / - ? / + -- Road (2821) (previously SA92) Summary: The Representation SUB-2821 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 630 new dwellings187.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A532, however there are no AQMAs in Poynton. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Poynton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The eastern boundary of the site lies within a flood risk area. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located in close proximity to the Wigwam Wood Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. It should be noted that an existing road and railway line already separate the site and LWS. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any protected trees, hedgerows or water features.
The site contains a Grade II Listed Building in the west of the site and while it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the building itself and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there
187 Ibid.
February 2016 222 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 223 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS905: Land to the north of Hazelbadge + + / -- / / / / / - / - ? / + -- Road (southern area only) (2821) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 150 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A532, however there are no AQMAs in Poynton. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Poynton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The eastern boundary of the site lies within a flood risk area. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located in close proximity to the Wigwam Wood Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. It should be noted that an existing road and railway line already separate the site and LWS. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any protected trees, hedgerows or water features.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 224 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 225 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS906: Land to the South of Chester Road + - / -- / + / / / - / - ? / -- -- (2866) (previously SA95) Summary: The Representation SUB-2866 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 191 new dwellings188.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way, however it is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths or within 1km of promoted cycle routes, development therefore has the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Poynton. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Poynton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as protected trees and water features on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located predominantly within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
188 Ibid.
February 2016 226 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
February 2016 227 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS907: Adlington Business Park Extension / - / -- - / - / - - / - ? ++ + --
Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 9.9ha of employment land.
The site fails to meet the minimum standards for access to the majority of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
Part of the site lies adjacent to a railway line, which has the potential for negative effects on occupiers of the site. It is considered that mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level, including an appropriate buffer, should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 4a.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A532, however there are no AQMAs in Poynton. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Poynton are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The north-western parcel of the site is located partially within / adjacent to an area of flood risk. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats.
The site is located adjacent to three Grade II Listed Buildings and while it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the building itself and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located predominantly within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and also partially within the urban area. It is
February 2016 228 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. There is also the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 229 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Sandbach Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1001a: Land adj. J17 of M6, Sandbach + + / + ? / ? - / - / -- ++ - + (CS 24) (previously SA96) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate mixed-use development which is predominantly employment (around 20ha), but includes around 200 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Mixed-use development on site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534, and it should be noted that there is an AQMA within Sandbach along the A5022 / A534 and a part of the site lies within this area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however, as the scale of potential employment development is unknown at this stage, the overall effects against SA Objective 8 and 10 remain uncertain.
The site is adjacent to the M6, which has the potential to affect amenity on site, however mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level, including buffers and screening, should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect.
The site contains an area of flood risk which runs through the centre of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site contains Arclid Brook Valley West Local Wildlife Site in the north east of the site. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
February 2016 230 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 231 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1001b: Land adj. J17 of M6, Sandbach + + / + ? / ? - / - / -- ++ - + (CS 24) (previously SA96) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate mixed-use development which is predominantly employment (around 20ha), but includes around 450 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Mixed-use development on site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534, and it should be noted that there is an AQMA within Sandbach along the A5022 / A534 and a part of the site lies within this area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however, as the scale of potential employment development is unknown at this stage, the overall effects against SA Objective 8 and 10 remain uncertain.
The site is adjacent to the M6, which has the potential to affect amenity on site, however mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level, including buffers and screening, should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect.
The site contains an area of flood risk which runs through the centre of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site contains Arclid Brook Valley West Local Wildlife Site in the north east of the site. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
February 2016 232 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 233 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1002: Land between Abbey Rd & Park + + / + / + / / / - / -- / ++ + Lane (Phase 2) (2136) (previously SA98) Summary: The Representation SUB-2136 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 165 new dwellings189.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to nearly all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to a post office could enhance these positive effects and lead to a major positive effect against IA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534 and there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of the Wheelock Disused Railway Local Wildlife Site, however mitigation provided through the Local Plan Policies, such as SE 3, and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and improve habitats, such as existing protected trees and hedgerows on site.
The site is adjacent to a Grade II Listed Building in the south-east corner of the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers / screening, should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
189 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 234 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. It should be noted that there are a number of trees with TPOs along the edge of the site; however, it is assumed that these can be retained. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 235 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1003: South of Abbeyfields Hse, Park Ln, + + / ++ / + / / / - / -- / - + Hind Heath Rd (2137) (previously SA99) Summary: The Representation SUB-2137 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 112 new dwellings190.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities and forms of open space, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is located within 200m of a footpath, within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of a cycling route with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534 and there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of the Wheelock Disused Railway Local Wildlife Site, however mitigation provided through the Local Plan Policies, such as SE 3, and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and improve habitats, such as protected trees on site.
The site is adjacent to a Grade II Listed Building in the north of the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers / screening, should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against
190 Ibid.
February 2016 236 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1004: Senderfield Lane, South of Hind + + / + / + / / / - / - ? / - + Heath Rd (3184) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 120 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534 and there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of Wheelock Disused Railway Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site is located adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area. Given the scale of development and mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level should ensure sensitive and responsive design that does not significantly affect the setting of designated heritage assets; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against
February 2016 237 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA Objectives 12b.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. It should be noted that there is Grades 2 and 3a agricultural land adjacent to this site.
February 2016 238 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1005: Land East of Cookesmere Lane ++ + / + - / - / / - / - ? / - + (2491) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 908 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to nearly all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to a post office could enhance these positive effects, and lead to a major positive effect against IA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site located within / adjacent to an area of flood risk in the northern border. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as trees, hedgerows and water features on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 239 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1006: Land at rear of Park Lane and + ++ / ++ / + / / / - / - ? / - + Crewe Road (2402) (previously SA104) Summary: The Representation SUB-2402 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 200 new dwellings as well as a community facility191.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to all of the identified services and facilities in the Accessibility Assessment. The site could therefore significantly contribute to enhancing healthy and active lifestyles and reducing the need to travel by private vehicle.
The site is located within 200m of a footpath, within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of a cycling route with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534 and there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located adjacent to the Wheelock Disused Railway Local Wildlife Site, however mitigation provided through the Local Plan Policies, such as SE 3, and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and improve habitats, such as trees and hedgerows on site
The site is close to a Grade II Listed Building just north west of the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers / screening, should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
191 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 240 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 241 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1007: Land South West of A533 (2462) ++ + / + - + - / / - / - ? / - + (previously SA101) Summary: The Representation SUB-2462 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 838 dwellings192.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534 and there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as trees and water features on site.
The site is located adjacent to several Listed Buildings in the north of the site; however, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers / screening, should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Higher Woods and Farms Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
192 Ibid.
February 2016 242 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. It should be noted that there is Grade 2 and 3a agricultural land in close proximity to this site.
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1008: Land North of Marsh Green Rd ++ + / + - / - / / - / - ? / - + and West of Cookesmere Lane (2491) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 1200 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to nearly all of the services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to a post office could enhance these positive effects, and lead to a major positive effect against IA Objective 2.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site located within / adjacent to an area of flood risk in the northern boundary of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as trees, hedgerows and water features on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against
February 2016 243 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SA Objectives 12b.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1009: Land South of Old Mill Rd / + + / + / / / / / - / -- / + + Hounding Lane (2462, 3144) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 200 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to railway facilities could significantly enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534. It should be noted that there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
There is an area of flood risk within the southern area of the site and in the northern tip of the site. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as trees and water features on site. The site is adjacent to the Trent & Mersey Canal Conservation Area (along the southern boundary of the site). Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should help to ensure that there are no significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Higher Woods and Farms Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape
February 2016 244 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 2). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 245 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1010: Yeowood Farm, Elton Road (1992) ++ + / + - + - / / - / -- / ++ + (previously SA97) Summary: The Representation SUB-1992 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 600-650 new dwellings as well as a primary school and extension to Sandbach Cricket Club Grounds193.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located within 500m of a strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534 and there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of the Wheelock Disused Railway Local Wildlife Site, however mitigation provided through the Local Plan Policies, such as SE 3, and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and improve habitats, such as the existing trees and hedgerows on site.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site although the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area is in close proximity; development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage, and mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect.
193 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 246 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is majority greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 247 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 SA100: Land South of A533 (S) (2462) + + / + / + / / / - / - ? / - +
Summary: The Representation SUB-2462 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 188 new dwellings194.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534 and there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as trees and water features on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development should not significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
The site is located within the Higher Woods and Farms Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objectives 12b.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. It should be noted that there is Grade 3a agricultural land adjacent to this site.
194 Ibid.
February 2016 248 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
February 2016 249 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 SA102: Land off The Hill / Manor Road + + / + / + / / - - / -- / - + (2462) Summary: The Representation SUB-2462 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 244 new dwellings195.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that currently fail to meet minimum distance standards could enhance these positive effects.
The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M6 and A534 and there is an AQMA along the A5022 / A534. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Sandbach are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues along the A5022 / A534 do not deteriorate further and ultimately improve.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, such as trees and water features on site.
The site surrounds a group of Listed Buildings; while it is predicted that any proposal will provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located within the Lower Woods and Farms Landscape Character Type and is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. Along with the loss of greenfield land development at the site could also result in the permanent loss of best and most
195 Ibid.
February 2016 250 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 versatile agricultural land (Grade 2). Potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16.
Wilmslow Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1100: Adlington Road (CS 25) + + / -- / + / / / - / - ? / -- + (previously SA109) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that it has the capacity to accommodate around 200 new dwellings. The site has full planning permission for 204 dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Wilmslow. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located within 200m of the Bollin Valley Local Wildlife Site, mitigation provided through the Local Plan, including Policy SE3, should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects; potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance existing habitats, including protected trees, mature hedgerows and water features on site.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
February 2016 251 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Development could regenerate small areas of previously developed land (in the form of outbuildings); however, the majority of the site is greenfield. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 252 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1101: Land at Royal London (CS 26) + + / -- / / / / - - / - ? + - --
Summary: The Council identifies that it has the capacity to accommodate an extra 155 dwellings, between 1.7 and 2.4ha of employment land and a hotel, whilst retaining the existing Royal London Campus.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development at this site that enhances access to open space and the few local amenities that the site currently fails to meet minimum distance standards for could enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b, however this should be considered alongside the provision of between 1.7 and 2.4ha of employment land which has the potential for a minor long-term positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Wilmslow. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The adjacent railway line has the potential to affect amenity on site, however mitigation provided through the Local Plan and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers, is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect.
The southern area of the site is located within a flood risk area. Development could avoid the areas of flood risk and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposals for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as protected trees, hedgerows and Whitehall Brook on site.
In the north west of the site there are two Listed Buildings, and the site is adjacent to another; while it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the building itself and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects but at this stage, it is
February 2016 253 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located partially within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, and partially within the urban area, as development is being directed towards the greenfield land within this site, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 254 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1102: Wilmslow Business Park (CS 27) / + -- -- / / / / / - / - ? + - --
Summary: The Council identifies that it has the capacity to accommodate around 2.5ha of employment land.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that the site currently fail to meet minimum distance standards for could enhance these positive effects. It should be noted that the site is surrounded by an existing railway line and A Road; therefore, access could potentially be an issue and mitigation difficult and/ or expensive. The Local Plan Strategy states that careful master-planning of the site would be required to ensure that appropriate access and permeability of the site can be achieved.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b, however this should be considered alongside the provision of 2.5ha of employment land, which has the potential for a minor long-term positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Wilmslow. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The Local Plan Strategy identifies that there is potential for contamination at the site from a licensed inert landfill site in the centre of the site following construction of the A34; however, mitigation provided through Local Policy SE 12 and available at the project level is considered sufficient to address this issue with a residual neutral effect. There is the potential for conflicting neighbouring uses as the site is surrounded by a railway line and A Road. Mitigation may be difficult and/ or expensive given the small size of the site. Potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 4a.
The south east border of the site is adjacent to an area of flood risk, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposals for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as mature trees, shrubs and water features on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated
February 2016 255 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 heritage.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
February 2016 256 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1103: Prestbury Road (CS 35) / + / -- - + - / / - / - ? ++ - -- (previously SA112) Summary: The Council identifies that this 25.78 ha site of safeguarded land can accommodate 14.5ha of new employment land with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities and a transport node, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Wilmslow. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposals for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as protected trees, hedgerows and water features on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land (including playing fields and allotments) and development therefore has the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 257 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1104: Little Stanneylands (2846) + + / -- / / / / - ? -- / - ? / + -- (previously SA114) Summary: The Representation SUB-2846 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 200 new dwellings196.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment. Development that enhances access to the few local amenities that the site currently fail to meet minimum distance standards for could significantly enhance these positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within 500m of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Wilmslow. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The northern border of the site is adjacent to an area of flood risk, mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located adjacent to the Dobbin Brook Clough Local Wildlife Site; mitigation provided through the Local Plan, like Policy SE 3, and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The site is adjacent to 2 Listed Buildings and while it is predicted that any proposal will provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on setting. This along with development in a Local Landscape Designation has the potential for a minor long-term residual negative effect against SA Objective 12a. It should be noted that Historic England has requested that the Council undertakes a heritage impact assessment in relation to this site in order to identify the value of it in relation to the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets. It is therefore considered that there is also an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 12a.
196 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 258 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
The site is located predominantly within the Lower Bollin River Valley Local Landscape Designation therefore development at the site has the potential to significantly affect the landscape. Potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 259 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1105: Land South of Prestbury Road ++ + / -- - + - / / - / - ? / - -- (1066, 1068) (previously SA116) Summary: The Representations SUB-1066 and SUB-1068 identify that this site has the capacity to accommodate 554 new dwellings197.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located between 500m and 1km of an existing employment area with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34 & A532, however there are no AQMAs in Wilmslow. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposals for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as protected trees on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and the Council’s assessment of potential sites identifies agricultural land198 (though the agricultural land quality is unknown at this stage); development therefore has the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
197 Ibid. 198 Ibid.
February 2016 260 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 261 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1106: Land at Dean Row Road (1645, + + / -- / + / / / - / - ? / -- -- 2517 & 3155) (previously SA120) Summary: The Representations SUB-1645, SUB-2517 and SUB-3155 identify that this site has the capacity to accommodate 388 new dwellings199.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Wilmslow. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposals for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as protected trees, hedgerows and water features on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
199 Ibid.
February 2016 262 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
February 2016 263 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1107: Heathfield Farm, Dean Row (2517) + + / -- / + / / / - / - ? / -- -- (previously SA115) Summary: The Representation SUB-2517 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 476 new dwellings200.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also significantly fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Wilmslow. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is not located within 200m of any internationally, nationally or locally designated biodiversity. Despite this, any proposals for development should seek to retain and enhance habitats, such as protected trees on site. There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
The site is located within the Higher Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
200 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 264 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1108: Land at Upcast Lane / Clumber + + / -- / + / / / - / - ? / -- -- Lane (2595, 429) Summary: The Council identifies this can accommodate around 440 new dwellings.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a number of local amenities and open space, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Wilmslow. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located adjacent to the Lindow End Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity, including the LWS. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Mossland Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect against SA Objectives 12b. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this
February 2016 265 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
February 2016 266 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1109: Land North of Moor Lane (429 & + + / -- / + / / / - / - ? / -- -- 3568) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate 330 new dwellings201.
The site meets the minimum standards for access to the majority of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, though it also fails to meet the minimum distance standards for a few local amenities and open space, development that enhances access to these could enhance the positive effects.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network, however there are no AQMAs within Wilmslow. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development on traffic in Wilmslow are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate.
The site is located just over 200m of the Lindow End and Saltersley Moss Local Wildlife Sites. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity including the LWSs. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees or hedgerows.
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage.
The site is located predominantly within the Mossland Landscape Character Type, it is not located within a locally designated landscape area. However, the majority of the site is greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual minor long-term negative effect
201 Ibid.
February 2016 267 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 against SA Objectives 12b.
There is also the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
February 2016 268 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Freestanding Site Options
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1200a: Alderley Park Opportunity Site / - / -- ? + ? - - -- - + ? + ++ -- (CS 29) (Intensification) (previously SA121) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to intensify employment uses on site, including delivery of a life science park.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way.
The site is located within an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b. Intensification of employment uses on site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34, and increase levels of traffic flow between Wilmslow, Alderley Edge, Macclesfield and the development site, though the site is not located in close proximity to an AQMA. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects, however, as the scale of potential intensification is unknown at this stage, the overall effects against SA Objective 8 and 10 remain uncertain.
The site contains Radnor Mere and Woods Local Wildlife Site and is known to contain protected species. Development could be avoided in these areas, and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
The site is located adjacent to the Nether Alderley Conservation Area at the northern border of the site, and contains Listed Buildings. While it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the Listed Buildings on site and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects, but at this stage it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located entirely within the Bollin Valley and Parklands local landscape designation; development therefore has the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12b. However, following the relocation of Astra Zeneca from part of the site, it is assumed that the employment development is likely to be delivered in the areas of previously developed land on site, which has the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 16. It should be noted however, that should development at the site extend into areas of greenfield land on site, this
February 2016 269 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 could result in minor long-term negative effects against SA Objective 16; as such there is an element of uncertainty until site level proposals arise.
The site is adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel; as such development at the site has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 270 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1200b: Alderley Park Opportunity Site + - / -- / + / - - -- - + ? / ++ -- (CS 29) (Residential) (previously SA121) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity to accommodate around 200 to 300 new dwellings.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 2.
The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within an existing strategic employment area with the potential for a major positive effect against SA Objective 17b.
Development at the site could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A34, and increase levels of traffic flow between Wilmslow, Alderley Edge, Macclesfield and the development site, though the site is not located in close proximity to an AQMA. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objectives 8 &10.
The site contains Radnor Mere and Woods Local Wildlife Site and is known to contain protected species. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution.
The site is located adjacent to the Nether Alderley Conservation Area at the northern border of the site, and contains Listed Buildings. While it is predicted that any proposal will avoid the Listed Buildings on site and provide appropriate buffers/screening there is still the potential for a negative effect on its setting. Conversely, development also has the potential for positive effects by possible improving signage and access to the Listed Building and Conservation Area. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there are no significant negative effects, but at this stage it is considered that there is the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12a.
The site is located entirely within the Bollin Valley and Parklands local landscape designation; development therefore has the potential for a major negative effect against SA Objective 12b. However, following the relocation of Astra Zeneca from part of the site, it is assumed that the residential development is likely to be delivered in the areas of previously developed land on site, which has the potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 16. It should be noted however, that should development at the site extend into areas of greenfield land on site, this
February 2016 271 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 could result in minor long-term negative effects against SA Objective 16; as such there is an element of uncertainty until site level proposals arise.
The site is adjacent to an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel; as such development at the site has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for a minor negative effect against SA Objective 15.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development therefore has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against SA Objective 21.
February 2016 272 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1201: Cheshire Gateway Site (3425) / - / -- - / - - / - / -- ++ -- -- (previously SA106) Summary: The Representation SUB-3425 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate a developable area of around 34.6ha of employment land202.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against IA Objective 17b, however this needs to be considered alongside the provision of 34.6ha of employment land which has the potential for a major long-term positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M56, A556 & A56, and the site is bisected by the A556 which is a designated AQMA. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10.
The north-east border of the site is located adjacent to a flood risk zone. Development could provide appropriate buffers and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site contains Yarwood Heath Covert Local Wildlife Site and is located within 200m of Greys Gorse Local Wildlife Site. Development could be avoided in designated areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution. The site is also in relatively close proximity to the Rostherne Mere Ramsar Site in the south, the Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulation Assessment203 concludes that the existing policies and
202 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet 203 JBA Consulting (2014) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment - Final Report - Submission Document SD 004 [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/library [accessed September 2015]
February 2016 273 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 provisions in the LPS and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided, however it is necessary that Construction Management Plans, landscaping, green infrastructure and open space proposals are submitted to the Council during the planning application process for any sites in close proximity to the European sites. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy also identified that development of proposed strategic site could have potential impacts on the Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land (there are also two farmsteads on site) and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The loss of greenfield land along with the potential for development to result in the permanent loss of areas of best and most versatile agricultural land (identified by the Council204, the precise Grade is not stated, but the site is believed to consist of Grades 1-3a) has the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
204 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 274 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1201a: Cheshire Gateway Site (3425) / - / -- - / - / / - / -- ++ -- -- (western parcel) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate a developable area of around 52.9ha of employment land205.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against IA Objective 17b, however this needs to be considered alongside the provision of 52.9ha of employment land which has the potential for a major long-term positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M56, A556 & A56, and the site is bisected by the A556 which is a designated AQMA. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10.
Although the site is not located within or directly adjacent to a flood risk area, it is only separated from an area of flood risk by the A56 in the north west corner of the site. Development could provide appropriate buffers and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site is located within 200m of Greys Gorse Local Wildlife Site and Yarwood Heath Covert Local Wildlife Site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. The site is also in relatively close proximity to the Rostherne Mere Ramsar Site in the south, the Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulation Assessment206 concludes that the existing policies and provisions in the LPS and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided, however it is necessary that Construction Management Plans, landscaping, green infrastructure and open space proposals are submitted to the Council during the
205 Ibid. 206 JBA Consulting (2014) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment - Final Report - Submission Document SD 004 [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/library [accessed September 2015]
February 2016 275 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 planning application process for any sites in close proximity to the European sites. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy also identified that development of proposed strategic site could have potential impacts on the Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land (there are farmsteads on site) and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The loss of greenfield land along with the potential for development to result in the permanent loss of areas of best and most versatile agricultural land (identified by the Council207, the precise Grade is not stated, but the site is believed to consist of Grades 1-3a) has the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
207 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 276 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1201b: Cheshire Gateway Site (3425) / - / -- - / - - / - / -- ++ -- -- (eastern parcel) Summary: The Council identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate a developable area of around 22ha of employment land208.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against IA Objective 17b, however this needs to be considered alongside the provision of 34.6ha of employment land which has the potential for a major long-term positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the M56, A556 & A56, and the site is bisected by the A556 which is a designated AQMA. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10.
The north-east border of the site is located adjacent to a flood risk zone. Development could provide appropriate buffers and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will not be any significant negative effects. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 9.
The site contains Yarwood Heath Covert Local Wildlife Site. Development could be avoided in these areas and mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects. However, at this stage, to reflect the presence of a locally designated wildlife site within the development boundary, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objective 11 through the potential loss of designated land and supporting habitats as well as increased disturbance, noise and light pollution. The site is also in relatively close proximity to the Rostherne Mere Ramsar Site in the south, the Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulation Assessment209 concludes that the existing policies and provisions in the LPS and other plans and strategies should ensure that potential significant adverse effects on the integrity of all identified European sites are avoided, however it is
208 Ibid. 209 JBA Consulting (2014) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment - Final Report - Submission Document SD 004 [online] http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/library [accessed September 2015]
February 2016 277 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2 necessary that Construction Management Plans, landscaping, green infrastructure and open space proposals are submitted to the Council during the planning application process for any sites in close proximity to the European sites. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy also identified that development of proposed strategic site could have potential impacts on the Rostherne Mere Ramsar and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land (there are also two farmsteads on site) and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The loss of greenfield land along with the potential for development to result in the permanent loss of areas of best and most versatile agricultural land (identified by the Council210, the precise Grade is not stated, but the site is believed to consist of Grades 1-3a) has the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt, development has the potential for a major long-term negative effect against IA Objective 21.
210 Cheshire East Council (July 2015) Local Plan Strategy Cabinet Report. Appendix 7.B Results by settlement followed by 'free standing sites'. Available online: http://cheshireeast-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/hs/cabinet
February 2016 278 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1202: Gorsty Hill / Wychwood Village ++ - / + - + - / / - - -- + -- + (1134) (previously SA107) Summary: The Representation SUB-1134 identifies that this site has the capacity to accommodate around 900 new dwellings and 1.1ha of employment land211. A planning application (Ref: 14/5671N) was submitted to the Council for this site in Dec 2014 for 900 dwellings and associated new employment, primary school, recreation facilities and some supporting retail development212.
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 2. The site is not located within 200m of promoted footpaths, however it is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way and within 1km of promoted cycle routes with the potential for a minor positive effect on IA Objective 4b. The site is over 1km away from an existing employment area with the potential for a major negative effect against IA Objective 17b.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A500, and there are 3 AQMAs within Crewe which is located north of the site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10. It will be important to ensure that the cumulative effects of development in Crewe and at this location are considered and addressed to ensure that air quality issues within Crewe do not deteriorate further, and ultimately improve.
The site is located within 200m of the Basford Brook Local Wildlife Site and the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar Site and Black Firs and Cranberry Bog SSSI. Mitigation provided through the Local Plan, including Policy SE 3, and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers, should ensure that development will not lead to any significant negative effects. It should also be noted that NE have commented on the current planning application and do not have any objections213. Given available evidence it is considered that there is suitable mitigation to ensure that there will be no significant negative effects on biodiversity, potential for a residual neutral effect. The HRA addendum of the Local Plan Strategy identified that development of proposed strategic site could have potential impacts on the Black Firs and Cranberry Bog SSSI (a component site of the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar) and concluded that further Habitats Regulations Assessment could be required to demonstrate no direct and indirect impacts of the development on the features of special interest.
211 Ibid. 212 http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=14/5671N&query=1c8698ce-160c-4861-bac1-18df9d911e19 213 Ibid.
February 2016 279 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
There are no designated heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and development is not considered likely to significantly affect the setting of any designated heritage assets.
The site is located within the Lower Farms and Woods Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent to a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is entirely greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b. The loss of greenfield land along with the potential for development to result in the permanent loss of areas of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a) has the potential for a permanent major negative effect against SA Objective 16. The site partially contains an Area of Search for Sand and Gravel, development therefore has the potential to hinder future access to and use of mineral resources, with the potential for minor long-term negative effect against SA Objective 15.
February 2016 280 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Site Option SA Objective 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 21 PSS1203: Wardle Employment / - / -- - + - / / - + - ? ++ + + Improvement Area (CS 28) Summary: The Local Plan Strategy identifies that the site has the capacity for the intensification of employment uses in the Industrial Estate to accommodate around an extra 13.5ha of employment land. It should be noted that the site now has outline planning permission (13/2035M).
The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for access to a number of services and facilities identified in the Accessibility Assessment, with the potential for a minor negative effect against IA Objective 2. The site is located within 500m of Public Rights of Way; however, it is beyond 200m to promoted footpaths and beyond 1km to promoted cycle routes, which are considered to be of greater significance in terms of encouraging walking and cycling compared to Public Rights of Way. The site is located within an existing employment area with the potential for a minor positive effect against IA Objective 17b, and this should be considered alongside the provision of 13.5ha of employment land which has the potential for a major long-term positive effect against SA Objective 17a.
Development could increase traffic on the surrounding road network including along the A51, however there are no AQMAs in close proximity to the site. Mitigation provided through Local Plan policies, and available at the project level, should ensure that there will be no significant effects; however, it is considered that there is the potential for a residual minor negative effect against SA Objectives 8 & 10.
The site is located adjacent to the Wardle Canal Banks Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and Site of Biological Interest (SBI). Mitigation provided through Local Plan Policies and available at the project level should ensure that development will not have any significant negative effects on biodiversity. Suitable buffers should be provided between the LWS and development where necessary. Potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11. Despite this, any proposal for development should seek to retain and enhance important habitats, including any trees and hedgerows. The ES214 accompanying the planning application 13/2035M identifies that the proposal includes “an offset between the Wardle Canal Banks SBI and the development which will consist of a mixture of species-rich grassland and scrub habitat which will be managed for nature conservation. It is anticipated that this will contribute towards the biodiversity value of the SBI, such that the proposals will be minor beneficial to the SBI”. Mitigation further includes the retention and protection of trees and key ecological features where possible, and increases connectivity through new planting. A long-term Habitat Creation and Management Plan will ensure that there will be no adverse effects on the SBI.
There are no designated heritage assets within the site, however the site is adjacent to a Listed Building. Mitigation provided through the Local
214 Chehsire East Planning Application 13/2035M: ES Non-Technical Summary [accessed October 2015]
February 2016 281 / 282 Enfusion Appendix III Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Plan and available at the project level, including appropriate buffers / screening should ensure that there will be no significant negative effects with the potential for a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 12a. It should be noted that the Local Plan Strategy also identifies that there are known to be extensive remains of a World War 2 airfield, and therefore a desk-based archaeological assessment is required to accompany development proposals. The ES215 accompanying the planning application 13/2035M identifies that there is unlikely to be any direct or indirect adverse effects on designated heritage assets or their settings as a result of development at the site. It does conclude however that there may be minor long-term adverse effects on non-designated heritage assets through the loss of former Calveley Airfield buildings; appropriate recording and a memorial feature seek to minimise these impacts. Limited archaeological investigations would also be undertaken as a condition of planning permission.
The site is located within the East Lowland Plain Landscape Character Type and is not within or adjacent a locally designated landscape area. However, the site is predominantly greenfield land and development therefore has the potential for a residual long-term minor negative effect against SA Objective 12b.
Development could regenerate a very small area of previously developed land; however, the majority of the site is greenfield. There is the potential for a permanent minor negative effect against SA Objective 16 through the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. At this stage the quality of agricultural land is not known; therefore, there is an element of uncertainty against SA Objective 16.
The site contains small areas of previously developed land so there is a potential for a minor positive effect against SA Objective 15 through the reuse of recycled materials on site.
215 Ibid.
February 2016 282 / 282 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Appendix IV: Reasons for the Progression or Rejection of Site Options in Plan-Making
Introduction
1.1 The following table(s) set out the options / alternatives for the sites considered through the site selection methodology associated with the revised Local Plan Strategy, with an outline of the reasons for their progression or non-progression where relevant. It should be noted that whilst the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) findings are considered by the Council in its progression of options and form part of the evidence supporting the Local Plan, the SA findings are not the sole basis for a decision; other factors, as noted in the Site Selection Methodology, play a key role in the decision-making process.
1.2 The following table(s) are set out by settlement and reflect the list of sites that were considered at Stage 4 of the Site Selection Methodology.
Crewe
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No PSS100 CS 1 Basford East This site has been progressed as CS1 because of its ability to deliver business growth and the continuing regeneration and growth of Crewe. The site will also contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements, employment needs and provide community facilities including a Primary School. The site can be readily accessed, as the Crewe Green Link Road South opened in December 2015, improving local traffic flow and connectivity and allowing the site to reach its full potential. Locationally, the site’s accessibility to Crewe and the M6 Motorway is also of benefit. Planning applications have been made and granted approval, on the site, demonstrating its overall delivery and suitability. PSS101 CS 2 Basford West This site has been progressed as CS2 because of its ability to deliver business growth and the continuing regeneration and growth of Crewe. The site will also contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements, employment needs and provide a local centre including a hotel and retail uses. The site can be readily accessed, as the Basford West Link Road opened in July 2015, improving local traffic flow and connectivity and allowing the site to reach its full potential.
February 2016 1 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Locationally, the sites accessibility to Crewe and the M6 Motorway is also of benefit. Planning applications have been made on the site and granted approval, demonstrating its overall delivery and suitability. PSS102 CS 3 Leighton West This site has been progressed as CS3 because of its ability to contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements, delivery of new high value employment opportunities, the potential for a geothermal plant and district heating hub and delivery of a key piece of transport infrastructure in the form of improvements to Middlewich Road and Smithy Lane, to allow for a more effective emergency response from the hospital to the south of the Borough, thereby improving connectivity and traffic flow. The site will also provide land for the potential expansion of Leighton Hospital and provide for community uses including a Primary School and a Local Centre.
PSS103 CS 4 Crewe Green This site has been progressed as CS4 because of its ability to contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements, to provide a high quality residential development at a key gateway location into Crewe, whilst also enabling the delivery of improvements to the highway network, at Crewe Green roundabout, thereby improving traffic flow and connectivity into and out of the town.
PSS104 CS 5 Sydney Road This site has been progressed as CS5 because it is considered capable of making a significant contribution to meeting the identified housing need for Cheshire East, in a location adjacent to the existing urban area; it will help to deliver highway infrastructure improvements along the North Crewe Corridor linking the A530 at Leighton to the A500, thereby improving connectivity and traffic flow. It is considered that development of this site will minimise the impact on the Green Gap. Planning applications have been made on the site and granted approval, demonstrating its overall delivery and suitability.
PSS105 CS 6 Shavington/Wybunbury The site has been progressed as CS6 because of its ability to contribute to Triangle Cheshire East’s housing requirements and as, subject to satisfactory provision of
February 2016 2 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No transport and other infrastructure, it will play a role in supporting the regeneration of Crewe and its surrounding area. The site is also surrounded by existing development. Planning applications have been made on the site and granted approval, demonstrating its overall delivery and suitability.
PSS106 CS 7 East Shavington The site has been progressed as CS7 because of its ability to contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements and to support the wider regeneration of Crewe, subject to satisfactory transport and other infrastructure provision. A Planning application has been made on the site and granted approval, demonstrating its overall delivery and suitability.
PSS107 CS 37 South Cheshire This site has been progressed as CS37 because it provides the opportunity to Growth Village create a sustainable, high quality residential development in an attractive setting, adjacent to the Basford East site CS2, in close proximity to Crewe and the M6 Motorway. The site would make a significant contribution to meeting the identified housing need for Crewe whilst supporting the long term regeneration of the town and its surrounding area, providing sustainable transport links to Basford East, with its employment, school and other facilities and will enable the restoration of the historic parkland of the Grade I Listed Crewe Hall (including the Registered Park and Garden). The site lies in close proximity to Crewe, where employment opportunities, services and facilities are located.The site will also provide a mixed- use local village centre comprising retail and community uses to improve its overall sustainability. Locationally, the sites accessibility to Crewe and the M6 Motorway is also of benefit.
PSS108 SL 1 Central Crewe The site is comprised of the urban area of Crewe and therefore represents the development of mainly brownfield land. This site has been progressed as SL1, as redevelopment would regenerate Crewe town centre and the wider urban area of Crewe, using mainly brownfield land, thereby, promoting economic prosperity, helping create sustainable communities, reducing the need to travel and
February 2016 3 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No delivering enhanced connectivity. Central Crewe also presents the opportunity to unlock under-exploited assets and provide a strong mix of uses, improving the vitality and viability of the town centre. The site therefore contributes to the residential, employment and regeneration priorities of one of the Borough’s Principal Towns.
PSS109 SL 2 Leighton This site has been progressed as CS38 because of its ability to contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements, including the delivery of key worker housing for the employees of the adjacent Leighton Hospital. The site is in close proximity to other major employers including Bentley Motors. The site will be delivered alongside the adjacent Leighton West site CS3, providing key linkages between the two sites. The site will also help to deliver further highway improvements to the A530 and North Crewe highway corridor; to upgrade access to Leighton Hospital and to provide improvements to sustainable transport options to the hospital.
PSS110 SUB Broughton Road This site has been progressed as CS39 because of its ability to contribute to 2043 (smaller part) Cheshire East’s housing requirements; it lies in a sustainable location, immediately adjacent to the urban area of Crewe and will contribute towards highway improvements along the Sydney Road corridor. The northern part of the site has planning approval for 124 dwellings (13/5085N) which was granted on appeal on 15 September 2015.
PSS111 SUB Broughton Road (large This site has not been progressed because its development would result in the 2043 site) loss of an extensive area of open countryside, to the north of Crewe. It is considered that such a scale of development would have an adverse impact on the character of the landscape in this area of Crewe. The North Crewe VISSIM highways study has shown that further development along the northern Crewe highway corridor would have an impact on the strategic road network around Crewe; including a significant impact at Crewe Green Roundabout and Groby
February 2016 4 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Road hence further development of this scale would require major infrastructure investment to accommodate this proposal. There are other, more appropriate sites, with fewer constraints, better access to services, facilities and the transport network and that would have less of a visual impact on the surrounding area that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS112 SUB Sydney Road (CS 5 This site has been progressed as an extension to CS5 because it is considered 3092 extension) capable of making a significant contribution to meeting the identified housing need for Cheshire East, in a location adjacent to the existing urban area; it will help to deliver highway infrastructure improvements along the North Crewe Corridor linking the A530 at Leighton to the A500, thereby improving connectivity and traffic flow.
PSS113 SUB Land South of Gresty This site has not been progressed because its development would lead to the loss 3116 Lane of a large area of open countryside, currently designated as Green Gap, eroding the narrow gap between Crewe and Shavington, which it is considered important to retain to protect the latter’s identity. Land to the south of this site has been given planning approval for development, on appeal, meaning that the significance of this part of the Green Gap is now even greater. There are other, more appropriate sites, with fewer constraints, better access to services, facilities and the transport network and that would have less of a visual impact on the surrounding area that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS114 SUB Land off Eastern Road This site has not been progressed because its development would lead to the loss 3156 of a large area of open countryside, currently designated as Green Gap, eroding the narrow gap between Crewe and Willaston, which it is considered important to retain to protect the settlement's identity and contributes to the overall open gap between the towns of Crewe and Nantwich. Land to the north of this site has been given planning approval for 40 dwellings (15/0971N; 11/06/15) meaning that the significance of this remaining part of the Green Gap is now even greater. In
February 2016 5 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No addition, no supporting information has been submitted by the site promoters, in support of the site, meaning that deliverability of the site is uncertain. There are other, more appropriate sites that would have less of a visual impact on the surrounding area that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS115 SUB Land south of Park This site has not been progressed because its development would lead to the loss 986 Road of a large area of open countryside, currently designated as Green Gap, eroding the narrow gap between Nantwich and Willaston, which it is considered important to retain to protect the settlement’s identity and contributes to the overall open gap between the towns of Crewe and Nantwich. Development of the scale proposed, in this narrow part of the Green Gap, will clearly erode the physical gap between Willaston and Nantwich and it is considered that it would adversely affect the visual character of the landscape. The character of the area is considered to change from an open landscape to residential use and that there will be substantial adverse visual effects. There are other, more appropriate sites that would have less of a visual impact on the surrounding area that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS116 SUB Gresty Green This site is located immediately south of the railway line, railway sidings and a 3557 well established milling factory that operates 24 hours a day, produces both noise and odours and is a major employer. The site has been subject to 2 planning applications (11/3171N & 12/1732N) for 165 dwellings which were refused due to the proximity to nearby industrial development and the potential for future conflict. This site has not been progressed because development here would result in residential development being located in an unsatisfactory proximity and relationship with the surrounding industrial uses and the railway. This would limit the future operation of the surrounding businesses and detrimentally affect the amenity of future residents because of noise and an unsatisfactory living environment. There are other, more appropriate sites that would not result in such an unsatisfactory living environment and would not limit the future operation of
February 2016 6 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No the surrounding businesses.
PSS117 SUB North of Moorfields This site has not been progressed because its development would lead to the loss 3134 of a large area of open countryside, currently designated as Green Gap, eroding the narrow gap between Willaston and Wistaston/Crewe which it is considered important to retain to protect the settlement's identity and contributes to the overall open gap between the towns of Crewe and Nantwich. Development of this land would lead to pressure to develop adjacent land in the Green Gap in this location which could ultimately see the loss of the gap between Willaston and Wistaston/Crewe. There are other, more appropriate sites that would have less of a visual impact on the surrounding area that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS118 SUB South Cheshire growth This site has not been progressed because development here would have an 2454 Village extension 1 adverse impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Hollyhedge Farm which was a concern expressed by Historic England; development would also erode the gap between site CS37 and the village of Weston.
PSS119 SUB South Cheshire growth This site has not been progressed through the full Site Selection Methodology, as 2454 Village extension 2 it is part of site PSS118 and is of a size (50 dwellings) that is less than the Strategic Site size threshold. In addition, initial discussions with Historic England indicated that they would object to development on this site.
PSS120 SUB South West Crewe This site has not been progressed due to the large scale of development that is 3109 proposed here which would erode the narrow gap between Crewe and Nantwich, where the Local Plan Strategy proposes to retain a ‘Green Gap’ between the two settlements, to ensure that they remain as two distinct settlements and thereby retaining their own individual character and contributes to the overall open gap between Crewe and Nantwich. There are other, more appropriate sites, not located in the Green Gap, with fewer constraints and better access to services,
February 2016 7 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No facilities and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS121 SUB South West This site has not been progressed because development here would erode the 2151 Crewe/Church Lane narrow gap between Crewe and Nantwich, where the Local Plan Strategy proposes to retain a ‘Green Gap’ between the two settlements, to ensure that they remain as two distinct settlements and thereby retaining their own individual character and contributes to the overall open gap between Crewe and Nantwich. There are other, more appropriate sites, not located in the Green Gap, with fewer constraints and better access to services, facilities and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS122 SUB Wistaston Village This site has not been progressed due to the extremely large scale of 2325 development that is proposed which would substantially erode the narrow gap between Crewe and Nantwich, where the Local Plan Strategy proposes to retain a ‘Green Gap’ between the two settlements, to ensure that they remain as two distinct settlements and thereby retaining their own individual character and contributes to the overall open gap between Crewe and Nantwich. There are other, more appropriate sites, not located in the Green Gap, with fewer constraints and better access to services, facilities and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS123 SUB993 North of Wistaston Site PSS123 has not been taken through the Site Selection Methodology, as it Green Road, Crewe now has planning approval for up to 150 dwellings (14/1326N - approved at appeal on 22 October 2015.)
PSS124 SUB Sydney Road North This site has not been progressed due to the extremely large scale of 3092 development that is proposed which would substantially erode the narrow gap between Crewe and Haslington, where the Local Plan Strategy proposes to retain a ‘Green Gap’ between the two settlements, to ensure that they remain as two distinct settlements and thereby retaining their own individual character. The
February 2016 8 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No North Crewe VISSIM Highway Study indicates that development of this scale would have an adverse impact on the North Crewe Highway Corridor thereby exacerbating existing highway problems, rather than solving them, hence further development of this scale would require major infrastructure investment to accommodate this proposal.There are other, more appropriate sites, not located in the Green Gap, with fewer constraints and better access to services, facilities and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS125 University Way This site is relatively detached from existing residential areas, being located within an existing employment area, with warehousing and distribution uses located adjacent to it. This includes large scale warehousing with unrestricted vehicle movements and deliveries. The site is currently allocated for an employment use within the ‘saved’ Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan 2011 and is included within the employment land supply figures for Crewe. The residential development of this site would therefore result in the loss of allocated employment land, thereby reducing the range of employment land/premises available for businesses, meaning that further employment land would need to be allocated elsewhere. A planning application for up to 106 dwellings (15/0586N) was refused on 8 July 2015, due to the loss of land allocated for employment use in the ‘saved’ Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan 2011. This site has not been progressed due to the fact that residential uses would be incompatible with the surrounding land uses and it would result in the loss of land that is currently allocated for employment use which would have to be replaced elsewhere. PSS126 Marshfield Bank Farm, The site is comprised of a working farm and its associated open fields, located to Middlewich Road the west of Middlewich Road, detached from the urban area of Crewe which lies to the east of Middlewich Road. This site has not been progressed as its development would result in a westwards incursion into the open countryside and beyond a strong boundary formed by Middlewich Road. The site covers a substantial area and it would be difficult to mitigate against the landscape impacts of a development of this size. Development of this site would also result in an
February 2016 9 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No adverse impact at the Alvaston roundabout and A530/A532 junction and the wider A530 corridor meaning that major infrastructure investment would be required to accommodate this proposal. There are other, more appropriate sites, that would not have such an impact on the character of the area and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS127 Wood Farm, The site is comprised of a working farm and its associated open fields, located to Middlewich Road the west of Middlewich Road, detached from the urban area of Crewe which lies to the east of Middlewich Road. Very limited information has been submitted by the promoter of the site .This site has not been progressed as its development would result in a westwards incursion into the open countryside and beyond a strong boundary formed by Middlewich Road. The site covers a substantial area and it would be difficult to mitigate against the landscape impacts of a development of this size. Development of this site would also result in an adverse impact at the Alvaston roundabout and A530/A532 junction and the wider A530 corridor meaning that major infrastructure investment would be required to accommodate this proposal. There are other, more appropriate sites, that would not have such an impact on the character of the area and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS128 Groby Road This site has not been progressed, as its development would be seen as a substantial detached area of urban form, well beyond the existing built development of Crewe which would have an adverse visual impact on the rural character of the area. Very limited information has been submitted by the promoter of the site; no information has been submitted that would show how this adverse visual impact could be mitigated for. There are other, more appropriate sites, that would not have such an impact on the character of the area that are capable of meeting housing needs.
February 2016 10 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No PSS129 SUB North of Crewe Green This site has not been progressed due to the extremely large scale of 1782 1 development that is proposed which would substantially erode the narrow gap between Crewe and Haslington, where the Local Plan Strategy proposes to retain a ‘Green Gap’ between the two settlements, to ensure that they remain as two distinct settlements and thereby retaining their own individual character. The North Crewe VISSIM Highway Study indicates that development of this scale would have an adverse impact on the North Crewe Highway Corridor thereby exacerbating existing highway problems, rather than solving them, hence further development of this scale would require major infrastructure investment to accommodate this proposal.There are other, more appropriate sites, not located in the Green Gap, with fewer constraints and better access to services, facilities and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing needs.
PSS130 SUB North of Crewe Green This site has not been progressed due to the extremely large scale of 3500 2 development that is proposed which would substantially erode the narrow gap between Crewe and Haslington, where the Local Plan Strategy proposes to retain a ‘Green Gap’ between the two settlements, to ensure that they remain as two distinct settlements and thereby retaining their own individual character. The North Crewe VISSIM Highway Study indicates that development of this scale would have an adverse impact on the North Crewe Highway Corridor thereby exacerbating existing highway problems, rather than solving them, hence further development of this scale would require major infrastructure investment to accommodate this proposal.There are other, more appropriate sites, not located in the Green Gap, with fewer constraints and better access to services, facilities and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing needs.
February 2016 11 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Macclesfield
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No PSS200 SL4 Central The site has been progressed as SL4 because development here would make a major Macclesfield contribution to growth and investment, regenerate the town centre of one of the Borough's Principal Towns, provide sustainable jobs, new residential development and the creation of a high quality environment, whilst minimising development in the surrounding Green Belt. The urban area of Macclesfield generally is a popular place to live with good access to a range of facilities and services. There are unlikely to be any significant viability and deliverability issues with the majority of the sites associated with this Strategic Location particularly as the Council is adopting a pro- active approach to the delivery of brownfield development sites.
PSS201 CS8 South The site has been progressed as CS8 because the case to develop this site is well Macclesfield established given its allocation in the previous Macclesfield Borough Local Plan and Development the only significant area of undeveloped land outside the Green Belt. Located on the Area edge of Macclesfield within the settlement boundary, this site allows use of land that is not included in the Green Belt. It is anticipated that this proposal will be of huge benefit in regenerating this area of South Macclesfield and addressing the pockets of deprivation prevalent in this location. Creating a sustainable urban extension will reduce the need to travel, offer employment opportunities, meet identified housing requirements, improve accessibility and have positive implications upon traffic for the whole town. In particular, the site develops a mixture of brownfield and greenfield land, avoiding the need to develop productive farmland. It also provides in the long term a new link road and in the short term improvements to the local highway network. This site is therefore considered central to achieving the priorities and Vision of the Local Plan Strategy.
PSS202 CS9 Land at This site has been progressed as CS9 as it is a very sustainable site close to the Fence centre of Macclesfield, using a mixture of brownfield and greenfield land. It is close to Avenue key facilities (for example a town park), amenities and public transport provision,
February 2016 12 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No promoting the objective of securing sustainable forms of development and transport. It will also assist the current occupier, who has long term associations with the town, to consolidate and provide improved educational facilities elsewhere in the town. The site is developable within the plan period and is being actively promoted by the owners and their agent. This is a sensitive site but a balance can be achieved between development and landscape and heritage protection.
PSS203 CS10 Land at These sites have been progressed as CS10 with land adjacent to Congleton Road Congleton allocated for housing and employment (PSS203), CS40 land south of Chelford Road Road for housing (PSS216) with the remainder of the land between CS10 and CS40 PSS204 SUB 2177 South West safeguarded for future provision. The sites have been taken forward in this way (includes Development because development here would directly contribute to the realisation of the LPS CS10 and Area Vision and Objectives by directing development towards Macclesfield, a Principal CS32 plus Town and would relate well to the existing residential area. The allocations would extra land to provide a sustainable urban extension with the provision of a new link road in the long north) term that would bring traffic benefits to the town. The Green Belt Assessment work PSS205 CS10 and Land at shows that a recognisable and defensible Green Belt boundary can be created. The part of CS32 Congleton safeguarding of land reflects the level of need identified in the evidence base, enabling Road and potential future provision, beyond the plan period. part of South West Macclesfield PSS206 CS11 Gaw End Site PSS208 has been progressed as the site provides additional housing compared Lane to Site PSS206 but does not have as great an impact on the environment and highway PSS207 SUB 2357 Gaw End network as site PSS207. Development here relates well to the highway network and (CS11 and Lane and Lyme Green Business Park to the north, promoting economic prosperity and creating CS32 ) Lyme Green sustainable communities whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality PSS208 CS11 and Gaw End through appropriate mitigation. The allocation will impact on Lyme Green residential part of CS32 Lane and part area to the east but could provide benefits such as improved local services and of Lyme publicly accessible green space. To create a new Green Belt boundary the
February 2016 13 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Green recognisable features of London Road, the Macclesfield Canal and the wooded boundary to the south could be used.
PSS209 SUB 2405 Part of land Site PSS209 has been progressed as site CS41 with part of the land between between Chelford Road and Whirley Road allocated for housing with the remainder of the site Chelford (the rest of the larger site PSS210) remaining in the Green Belt. The loss of Road and accessible green space and the preservation of the separate identities of Henbury and Whirley Road Macclesfield are important issues/constraints so only part of this area has been put PSS210 SUB 2405 Land between forward for development. Constraints such as access and drainage can be overcome and 3565 Chelford and the impact of development in this open and prominent gap between Henbury and Road and Macclesfield can be mitigated against. The site is in a sustainable location and a new Whirley Road Green Belt boundary can be created along the western boundary with screening and landscaping; Chelford Road and Whirley Road form recognisable defensible boundaries.
PSS211 SUB 3565 Land North of This site has not been progressed because it is not considered to relate well to the Birtles Road achievement of the LPS Vision and Objectives, particularly in relation to preservation and enhancement of the environment. The site does not relate particularly well to the built form of Macclesfield as it would create a narrow finger of development extending into open countryside which has a historic network of hedgerows. (Boundaries on Tithe Maps of the mid 1800s – have survived to the present day.) There are other, more appropriate sites, with better access to services, facilities and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing and development need. Limited information has been provided for the proposal; there are no details of housing numbers, surveys carried out or developer interest. Therefore, there are doubts over the sites overall deliverability in the Plan period.
PSS212 SUB 3566 Land west of This site has not been progressed because of concerns regarding viability of the site Priory Lane and the narrowing of the countryside area between Macclesfield and Prestbury. Although it is located adjacent to the existing urban area with good access to local
February 2016 14 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No services and existing infrastructure, the site's location within a valuable area of Green Belt would undermine environmental protection and undermine the separation of the settlements of Prestbury and Macclesfield. There are concerns about viability and achievability as development of the site depends upon the relocation of the Rugby Club who has not yet decided whether moving is the best option for the club or an agreed site to move to.
PSS213 SUB 2124 Land East of This site had not been progressed because it is not considered to relate well to the London Road achievement of the LPS Vision and Objectives, particularly in relation to preservation and enhancement of the environment. The distinct character of this site is noted for its openness and views into the Peak Park Fringe and forms an important contribution to the landscape character of South Macclesfield. This area is also highly valued in retaining openness between the settlements of Sutton and Macclesfield. There are also highway impacts to consider in relation to the Strategic Road Network and lack of suitable access points from the surrounding rural roads.
PSS214 SUB 52 Lark Hall This site has not been progressed because it is not considered to relate well to the achievement of the LPS Vision and Objectives, particularly in relation to preservation and enhancement of the environment. This area is part of the distinctive eastern upland character of Macclesfield. Views extend upward through the site to the Peak Park fringe hills and down through the site from the hills themselves. The highway impact would be difficult to overcome as the narrow residential roads are unsuitable for access. Highways had concerns regarding access and the impact of any development on residential streets and the highway network. This raises concerns about the feasibility of achieving development here coupled with a lack of information concerning the development proposal as a whole.
PSS215 SUB 2177 Land between These sites have been progressed as CS10 with land adjacent to Congleton Road Gawsworth allocated for housing and employment (PSS203), CS40 land south of Chelford Road Road and for housing (PSS216) with the remainder of the land between CS10 and CS40
February 2016 15 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Pexhill Road safeguarded for future provision. The sites have been taken forward in this way and because development here would directly contribute to the realisation of the LPS remainder of Vision and Objectives by directing development towards Macclesfield, a Principal CS32 South Town and would relate well to the existing residential area. The allocations would West provide a sustainable urban extension with the provision of a new link road in the long Macclesfield term that would bring traffic benefits to the town. The Green Belt Assessment work PSS216 SUB 2177 Pexhill Road shows that a recognisable and defensible Green Belt boundary can be created. The to Chelford safeguarding of land reflects the level of need identified in the evidence base, enabling Road Site A potential future provision, beyond the plan period. PSS217 Sub 2177 Pexhill Road to Chelford Road Site B PSS218 Land to North This site has not been progressed because it is not considered to relate well to the of Prestbury achievement of the LPS Vision and Objectives, particularly in relation to preservation Road and enhancement of the environment. The site forms a natural extension to the countryside features of Upton Wood and the Riverside Park/Bollin Valley. The site is part of the Bollin Valley Local Landscape Designation and Upton Wood ancient woodland forms the western boundary. The Riverside Park contains both a Local Nature Reserve and Local Wildlife Site. Upton Brook presents some flood risk issues (Flood Zone 2). The major constraint for the site is highways access which would need a major junction to serve the development. The high traffic generation impact from such a large site would create a number of local highway issues including capacity problems
February 2016 16 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Alsager
Unique Old Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Ref PSS300 CS 12 Twyfords This site has been progressed as CS12 because of its ability to contribute to Cheshire and East’s housing requirements, regeneration priorities and employment needs on a Cardway sustainable, largely redundant brownfield site within the settlement, where development can contribute to the vitality of Alsager, whilst reducing the need to build on greenfield sites. PSS301 CS 13 Former This site has been progressed as CS13 because it is located within the existing urban area MMU where development would add to the vitality of Alsager, it has good access to local services Campus and existing infrastructure, its development would utilise significant areas of previously developed land, and if developed would assist in the creation of a wider sports and leisure hub. PSS302 CS 14 Radway This site has been progressed as CS14 because of its ability to consolidate and expand a Green well-established employment site, thereby contributing to Cheshire East’s employment Brownfield needs on a sustainable, redundant brownfield site. PSS303 CS 15 Radway This site has been progressed as CS15 because the strategic importance of Radway Green Green and its location within the M6 Growth Corridor from Birmingham to Manchester allows it to Extension act as the key linkage between these major hubs and the wider Cheshire economy and provides the opportunity to retain key existing jobs and promote economic growth and further diversification at the site. There would also be the ability to access the whole site (avoiding the railway crossing).
The site is located adjacent to the existing Motorway network and with good access to local and regional population centres and can promote economic prosperity. Through the provision of appropriate green infrastructure the site can also promote environmental quality. The appropriateness and viability of such improvements are considered achievable. There is an overriding need for this site to come forward to promote economic prosperity and deliver contributions toward the improvement of the local road network. It is considered that the site specific characteristics amount to exceptional circumstances necessary to remove from the Green Belt. PSS304 SL 5 White Moss The site has been progressed as CS42 because it offers the opportunity to deliver
February 2016 17 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Quarry a well-defined, sustainable urban extension with supporting local facilities, good access to employment opportunities, and improved access to Alsager’s services and facilities. Where services and facilities are not currently accessible, the delivery of infrastructure improvements will address this deficiency. The site will contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements, subject to satisfactory transport and other infrastructure provision and the mitigation of impacts on ecology and biodiversity. It has also received outline planning permission for up to 350 dwellings and a new local centre (13/4132N). PSS305 SUB Fanny’s The site has not been progressed because to build on this Green Belt site would be a less 1536 Croft sustainable option than the brownfield and greenfield alternatives that have been identified elsewhere in Alsager, and would therefore not relate well to the achievement of the Vision. The site is therefore not being progressed due to the availability of better, alternative sites that are more capable of delivering the Plan’s sustainable housing and regeneration objectives, and that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of the site from the Green Belt. PSS306 SUB Land N of The site has not been progressed because to build on this greenfield site would be a less 1786 Heath End sustainable option than the brownfield and greenfield alternatives that have been identified Farm elsewhere in Alsager, and would therefore not relate well to the achievement of the Vision. The site is therefore not being progressed due to the availability of better, alternative sites that are more capable of delivering the Plan’s sustainable housing and regeneration objectives. PSS307 SUB MMU This site has not been progressed because to build on this greenfield site would be a less 1786 Extension sustainable option than the brownfield and greenfield alternatives that have been identified elsewhere in Alsager. The site is therefore not being progressed due to the availability of better, alternative sites that are more capable of delivering the Plan’s sustainable housing and regeneration objectives. PSS308a SUB Radway The site has not been progressed because to build on this greenfield site for both housing 1870 Green North and employment would be a less sustainable option than the brownfield and greenfield alternatives that have been identified elsewhere in Alsager, and would therefore not relate well to the achievement of the Vision. The site is therefore not being progressed due to the availability of better, alternative sites that are more capable of delivering the Plan’s sustainable housing and regeneration objectives.
February 2016 18 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
PSS308b The site has been progressed as CS43 because of its ability to significantly contribute to Alsager’s employment requirements. PSS309 SUB Sandbach The site has not been progressed by virtue of its inability to deliver sustainable 2133 Rd North development, relative to other brownfield sites in the area that have fewer constraints and are better capable of meeting the Borough’s housing requirements and regeneration priorities. There would also be a significant impact on the landscape, as shown by the dismissal of an appeal on landscape grounds (12/4872C). PSS310 SUB Land at The site has not been progressed because to build on this greenfield site would be a less 3126 Close Lane sustainable option than the brownfield and greenfield alternatives that have been identified elsewhere in Alsager, and would therefore not relate well to the achievement of the Vision. The site is therefore not being progressed due to the availability of better, alternative sites that are more capable of delivering the Plan’s sustainable housing and regeneration objectives.
February 2016 19 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Congleton
Unique Old Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Ref PSS400 SL6 Back Lane The site is being progressed as CS44 as it offers the opportunity to deliver a well defined, Radnor sustainable urban extension with supporting facilities, good access to employment Park opportunities and improved access through the Congleton Link Road to Congleton's services SUB 1993 and facilities. The site supports the delivery of the Congleton Link Road, a key Council priority. Back lane The site will also support the extension of an existing employment site at the Radnor Park Trading Estate. The site will provide open space including a Country Park and support the retention and enhancement of the Back Lane Village Green. The site will contribute towards meeting Cheshire East's housing requirements, subject to satisfactory transport and other infrastructure provision. PSS401 SL7 Congleton The site is being progressed as CS45 as it offers the opportunity to deliver a well defined, Business sustainable urban extension with supporting facilities, good access to employment Park opportunities and improved access through the Congleton Link Road to Congleton's services and facilities. The site supports the delivery of the Congleton Link Road, a key Council priority. The site will also support the extension of an existing employment site at the Congleton Business Park. The site will contribute towards meeting Cheshire East's housing requirements, subject to satisfactory transport and other infrastructure provision. PSS402 SL8 Giantswood The site is being progressed as CS46 as it offers the opportunity to deliver a well defined Lane to urban extension with supporting facilities, good access to employment opportunities and Manchester improved access through the Congleton Link Road to Congleton's services and facilities. The Road site supports the delivery of the Congleton Link Road, a key Council priority. The site will contribute towards meeting Cheshire East's housing requirements, subject to satisfactory transport and other infrastructure provision. PSS403 CS16 Giantswood The site is being progressed as CS16 as it offers the opportunity to provide a sustainable Lane south urban extension as the first element of a larger scheme (alongside site PSS402). Part of the site now has outline planning permission for 96 dwellings (the section 106 agreement was signed on 31 July 2015) demonstrating its overall deliverability. The site will contribute towards meeting Cheshire East’s housing requirements, subject to satisfactory transport and other infrastructure provision.
February 2016 20 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Ref PSS404 CS17 Manchester The site is being progressed as CS17 as it offers the opportunity for a well contained Road to sustainable urban extension which will contribute towards Cheshire East’s housing Macclesfield requirement and provide retail uses to assist in the delivery of a key piece of infrastructure, the Road Congleton Link Road which is a key Council objective. PSS405 SUB North of The site has been progressed as site CS48as it would assist with meeting Cheshire East’s 1789 Lamberts overall housing requirements as a site set in green infrastructure with linkages to the town Lane centre. The site has been granted outline planning permission, via appeal, in December 2015 (after the base date of the Plan’s housing figures at the end of September 2015). The planning permission includes a number of planning conditions to mitigate for the overall impact of the site.With that context in mind, it is appropriate for the Council to allocate the site to reflect this position and ensure the site delivers on the requirements included in the outline planning permission. PSS406 SUB Sandbach The site has not been progressed as limited information has been provided on the sites overall 1789 Road achievability and sustainability. The site significantly fails to meet the minimum standards for Padgbury access to a number of services and facilities. The site will not contribute to the delivery of the Lane Congleton Link Road, a key Council objective. There are other, more appropriate sites, with fewer constraints, better access to services and facilities and the transport network capable of meeting housing needs. PSS407 SUB Padgbury Site PSS407Padgbury Lane has been advanced to stage 4 of the Site Selection Methodology. 2706 Lane Information has been collated on the site during the edge of settlement work (Results by settlement followed by ‘Free Standing Sites’ [PS E039b], pp 696-700). This concluded that the site should be considered further for inclusion in the Local Plan Strategy. The Proforma for [PS E039b] acknowledged that there were two planning appeals on the site for 150 dwellings (13/4216C) and 120 dwellings (13/4219C) respectively. On the 7th August, both appeals were allowed and as a consequence the figures noted above are included in the commitment figures for Congleton and no longer advanced as a site for consideration as an allocation in the Local Plan Strategy. PSS408 SUB Bent Farm The site has not been progressed due to the large scale of development which would alter the 2834 character and form of the settlement to the west of Congleton. Highway impacts of the development would be linked to the developer’s proposals for extension to the Congleton Link
February 2016 21 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Ref Road to the A34 Newcastle Road. However, no information has been provided on this highway’s scheme and therefore there would be concerns over such a proposals suitability and deliverability without such evidence being provided. The key priority in respect of new road infrastructure is to secure a new Bridge over the River Dane and to improve access to existing employment areas. There is an active quarry (Bent Farm) with permission until 2018 and part of the Bent Farm proposal has been submitted to the Council as part of a ‘call for sites’ exercise for Minerals working. The site has been put forward as a future area for search for silica sand. In addition, limited information has been provided for the site proposal. Therefore, there are doubts over the sites overall deliverability in the Plan period. The site would not contribute to the delivery of the Congleton Link Road, a key Council objective. PSS409 SUB Sandbach The site has not been progressed as its development would lead to the loss of open 2834 Road Sandy countryside. There are other, more appropriate sites, with fewer constraints, better access to Lane services and facilities and the transport network capable of meeting housing needs. In addition, limited information has been provided over the site generally to evidence its overall sustainability and achievability. The site will not contribute to the delivery of the Congleton Link Road, a key Council objective. PSS410 SUB Sandbach For the purposes of the site selection work; site PSS410 has been combined with site 2906 Road PSS406. Congleton PSS411 SUB Tall Ash Site PSS411PSS 411 Tall Ash Farm 2 has been advanced to stage 4 of the Site Selection 3159 Farm 2 Methodology. Information has been collated on the site during the edge of settlement work (Results by settlement followed by ‘Free Standing Sites’ [PS E039b], pp 696 – 700). This concluded that the site is being actively promoted and should be subject to Sustainability Appraisal at Stage 4 of the SSM. Following this assessment, the Council wrote to site promotors in July 2015 requesting further information regarding the overall delivery of the site. The previous site promotors (Muller Properties) confirmed that the site is no longer being promoted. As such, based on this intelligence, the site has not been advanced through the remaining stages of the SSM as it is no longer being promoted. PSS412 SUB Tall Ash The site has been progressed as site CS47 as a sustainable site which would assist with 3225 Farm 1 meeting Cheshire East’s overall housing requirements. The site will provide highways
February 2016 22 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Unique Old Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Ref contributions towards A34 online improvements or the Congleton Link Road. The site has a resolution to grant outline planning permission, subject to Section 106, following the Strategic Planning Board on the 18th November 2015 (after the base date of the Plan’s housing figures at the end of September 2015). With that context in mind, it is appropriate for the Council to allocate the site to reflect this position and ensure the site delivers on the requirements included in the outline planning application. PSS413 Land east The site has not been progressed as it is detached from the settlement and would be linked to of Moss the delivery of the Congleton Link Road to form its boundary. Limited information has been Lane provided for the site proposal. Therefore, there are doubts over the sites overall deliverability in the Plan period. There are other, more appropriate sites with fewer constraints and better access to services, facilities and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing needs PSS414 Land west The site has not been progressed as it is detached from the settlement and would be linked to of Chelford the delivery of the Congleton Link Road to form its boundary. Limited information has been Road provided for the site proposal. Therefore, there are doubts over the sites overall deliverability in the Plan period. There are other, more appropriate sites with fewer constraints and better access to services, facilities and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing needs
February 2016 23 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Handforth
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No PSS500 CS30 North This site has been progressed as CS30CS 30 because it will deliver a comprehensively Cheshire masterplanned new settlement,contributing towards the Borough’s housing and Growth economic needs. Provision of the new settlement allows the effective delivery of new Village infrastructure. The site is already in a reasonably sustainable location with good access to services and facilities. Provision of further local services and amenities within the new village will enhance considerably the sustainability of the new development. The site will provide additional local retail provision, local health facilities, a community centre, sports and leisure facilities, a new primary school, significant green infrastructure as well as highway improvements. Added to this are measures to ensure long term management of facilities and their continuing benefit to the community.Whilst the site makes a major contribution to the Green Belt, the proposals are designed to minimise the harm and release of the site would not compromise the function of the surrounding Green Belt. The site will enable a new identifiable Green Belt boundary to be created. The progression of this site avoids the requirement for numerous piecemeal released from the Green Belt and maximises the provision of new infrastructure. PSS501 CS34 (Safeguarded) This site has been progressed as safeguarded land. Although it is currently poorly- North related to the urban area, it is adjacent to the North Cheshire Growth Village site and Cheshire offers the opportunity for a potential future phase of development at North Cheshire Growth Growth Village if required through a review of the Local Plan. This would enable to site Village to utilise the new local facilities and services provided at the North Cheshire Growth Village, adding to its sustainability credentials in the longer term. PSS502 SUB Land at This site has not been progressed as a site in its own right as it forms part of the larger 1452 Handforth North Cheshire Growth Village which has been progressed. East* PSS503 SUB Land to the This site has not been progressed. The site has good access to services and facilities 1452 south of and lies adjacent to the North Cheshire Growth Village site. It also makes a lower Beech Farm* contribution to Green Belt purposes than many other sites in Handforth. However, the site does form part of an important visual break between Stockport and Cheshire East
February 2016 24 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
and is considered an important area in terms of maintaining separation between the new settlement and Heald Green / Cheadle Hulme / Bramhall. There are numerous ponds which take up a large proportion of the site. These are mitigation ponds from the construction of the A34 and are designed to safeguard biodiversity. Given the extent of ponds and their status as mitigation ponds, further mitigation of their loss may be difficult to achieve. PSS504 SUB Land to the This site has not been progressed as it does not relate well to the existing settlement 2822 west of Clay and is in a prominent open location. The site makes a major contribution to the Green Lane Belt and release from the Green Belt would impact on the gap between Handforth and Heald Green. Whilst the new road would provide a strong physical Green Belt boundary, the road is in cutting at this point and has little impact on the openness of the narrow gap. PSS505 Land at Clay This site has been progressed as it opportunity to deliver a high quality housing Lane & development to contribute to the housing requirement for Handforth. It is a self- Sagars Road contained site in a sustainable location in close proximity to Handforth district centre with good access to a range of services and facilities. The site makes a lower contribution to Green Belt purposes than a number of other sites and would enable a new recognisable Green Belt boundary to be created.
February 2016 25 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Knutsford
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No PSS600 CS19 Parkgate This site is being progressed as CS19, an allocation for housing and employment. It is Extension the only non Green Belt site on the edge of Knutsford and as such forms a logical extension to the existing residential and employment uses on the edge of Knutsford, forming an appropriate location in which to meet the identified needs of the town. It has received outline planning permission (13/2935M) for up to 200 houses (approved 23 June 2015). This development has not commenced.The 6 hectares of employment land proposed is yet to be developed and has not been the subject of a planning application, but has been acquired by an adjacent company. PSS601 CS18 (A) Land North West Knutsford comprises Green Belt land largely in agricultural use, which SUB2530 between directly adjoins residential areas. Surrounding uses are both residential and commercial Northwich and therefore the site presents itself as an ideal opportunity for high quality, accessible, Road and residential led sustainable development, which will offer a contribution to housing, open Tabley space and the opportunity for the provision within the site for a new access road in the Road future to relieve the town centre .The majority of this is being progressed for release (SUB 2530 from the Green Belt, for housing and safeguarding. in order to achieve an enduring CS18 (A) Green Belt boundary which will allow the comprehensive sustainable development of north west Knutsford beyond the Plan period: CS18 (A) land north of Northwich Road-Allocated for 175 Housing CS53 land south of Tabley Road allocated for Safeguarding. . PSS602 CS33 Land North West Knutsford comprises Green Belt land largely in agricultural use, which safeguarded between directly adjoins residential areas. Surrounding uses are both residential and commercial SUB2530 Manchester and therefore the site presents itself as an ideal opportunity for a high quality, Now CS18 Road and residential led sustainable development, which will offer a contribution to housing and (B) Tabley employment requirements as well as the opportunity for the provision within the site for a Road (CS33 new access road in the future to relieve the town centre West The whole of this site is being Progressed for release from the Green Belt for a safeguarded combination of housing, employment and safeguarding. Land south of Manchester and Road, adjacent to the existing residential area, will be allocated for 75 dwellings. 7.5
February 2016 26 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
SUB 2530) hectares of employment land will be allocated to the north west of the housing allocation, including the removal of the existing commercial built development and its curtilage. The remaining part of the site to the north of Tabley Road will be allocated for safeguarding in order to achieve an enduring Green Belt boundary which will allow the comprehensive sustainable development of north west Knutsford beyond the Plan period. PSS603 CS18(C) Land East North West Knutsford comprises Green Belt land largely in agricultural and recreational East of use, which directly adjoins residential areas. Surrounding uses are both residential and SUB2623 Manchester commercial and therefore the site presents itself as an ideal opportunity for a high Road quality, residential led sustainable development, which will offer a contribution to Potential housing and employment requirements for this Key Service Centre Extension to The south eastern portion of this site, north of Manchester Road and south of Mereheath CS18 (c) Lane is being progressed and allocated for 250 dwellings, associated infrastructure and east SUB protected open space (see PSS605). The northern most extent of th site considered 2623 CS33 here is not required to meet Knutsford housing requirement either during the plan safeguarded period or beyond. The Green Belt boundary which would be formed by this allocation East) would form a moderately strong Green Belt Boundary; which would be no stronger than the suggested allocation of CS18(c) PSS605 The land to the east of Mereheath Lane has not been allocated as it forms an important buffer zone immediately adjacent to Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden. The current allotments will remain Protected Open Space in the Green Belt. PSS604 CS 18 (A) Land North North West Knutsford comprises Green Belt land largely in agricultural use, which west of Northwich directly adjoins residential areas. Surrounding uses are both residential and commercial Road and therefore the site presents itself as an ideal opportunity for high quality, accessible, residential led sustainable development, which will offer a contribution to housing, open space and the opportunity for the provision within the site for a new access road in the future to relieve the town centre
The majority of this is being progressed for release from the Green Belt, for housing and safeguarding. CS18 (A) West, land north of Northwich Road, will be allocated for 175 houses and associated infrastructure [also see PSS601] The land to the north, i.e. south of Tabley Road will be safeguarded in order to achieve an enduring Green Belt
February 2016 27 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
boundary which will allow the comprehensive sustainable development of north west Knutsford beyond the plan period. PSS605 CS 18(C) Land East North West Knutsford comprises Green Belt land largely in agricultural and recreational east/ CS33 of use, which directly adjoins residential areas. Surrounding uses are both residential and safeguarded Manchester commercial and therefore the site presents itself as an ideal opportunity for a high east Road & quality, residential led sustainable development, which will offer a contribution to Land West housing and employment requirements for this Key Service Centre of The site, north of Manchester Road and south of Mereheath Lane is being progressed Mereheath and allocated for 250 dwellings with associated infrastructure. The Protected Open Lane Space will remain as such but will be removed from the Green Belt in order to achieve a strong and defensible Green Belt boundary. The northern most extent of the site will be formed by the hedge-lined field boundary adjacent to Brookdale Centre. This is a considered a moderate boundary in the Updated Green Belt Assessment and will require policy wording for the boundary treatment to ensure the boundary remains readily recognisable and enduring It is considered an appropriate boundary. Potential boundaries further north scored no better in terms of forming a strong and defensible Green Belt Boundary The land to the east of Mereheath Lane has not been allocated as it forms an important buffer zone immediately adjacent to Tatton Park Registered Park and Garden. The current allotments will remain Protected Open Space in the Green Belt PSS606 SUB 2623 Land West Land west of Parkgate is a Green Belt site in agricultural use adjacent to the boundary of Parkgate of Tatton Park SSSI and Registered Park and Garden to the west and Parkgate Industrial Estate and CS19 housing and employment allocation. The site is constrained by access issues regarding crossing the railway as well as issues on the impact of traffic on the strategic road network of Knutsford This site has not been progressed due to concerns regarding the traffic impact on the highways network of development together with concerns regarding the impact on Tatton Park both in landscape and ecological terms and the need to maintain a buffer zone immediately adjacent to Tatton Park. PSS607 SUB 3455 Land South Land south of Longridge comprises a Green Belt site in the open countryside. It is of Longridge adjacent to existing residential development and represents a suitable location for development. The Development Strategy suggested that the site could support about 300 new homes and an extension to a local centre providing additional retail provision
February 2016 28 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
and community facilities alongside Green Infrastructure, linkages The site is being progressed and allocated for 150 dwellings and public open space infrastructure. The eastern side of the site has been allocated for safeguarded in order to meet future housing need beyond the plan period. Highway infrastructure improvements would need to be delivered to support the eventual development of the whole site beyond the Plan period. This allocation will create a strong and enduring Green Belt boundary PSS608 SUB 1598 Land The site is located to the south east of Knutsford and is well related to the existing urban adjacent to edge. It is within the grounds of Booths Hall, a Georgian manor house built in 1745. The Booths Hall area of Booths Hall Park currently accommodating business use is categorised as an Ornamental Park and contains a Scheduled Monument, Norbury Booths Hall, Moated Site, fishponds and connecting channels. This site has been progressed as a safeguarded site. It was suggested through representation (SUB 1598) as suitable for 150 houses. However there are concerns that the landscape impact of this site would be greater than alternative sites which could be developed initially. The traffic impact on the strategic highway network would be significant. Highway infrastructure improvements would need to be delivered to support the eventual development of the site beyond the Plan period. PSS609 SUB 3202 Land west This site is not being progressed as using the Site Selection Methodology the site would of Toft Road not deliver the accepted threshold required to be considered as a strategic site (150 dwellings +).The site forms part of a prominent entrance to the town The site was initially considered together with the adjacent site [PSS610] as a collective potential strategic site however the differing site attributes such as different Green Belt contributions and Conservation Area status on PSS609 this site means that the site cannot be considered together. The site could be considered through the site allocations or Neighbourhood Plan process. PSS610 SUB 2594 / Land East This site is not being progressed as using the Site Selection Methodology the site would 2655 of Toft Road not deliver the accepted threshold required to be considered as a strategic site (150 dwellings +). The site forms part of a prominent entrance to the town The site was initially considered together with the adjacent site [PSS609] as a collective potential strategic site however the differing site attributes such as different Green Belt contributions and Conservation Area status on this site means that the site cannot be
February 2016 29 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
considered together. The site could be considered through the site allocations or Neighbourhood Plan process
February 2016 30 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Middlewich
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Site Ref PSS700 CS 20 Glebe Farm This site has been progressed as CS20 because of its ability to contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirement. The site can enhance green infrastructure by providing cycling and pedestrian connections into the existing, adjoining housing development to the north. It can also provide vehicular and non-vehicular access between Warmingham Lane and Booths Lane, as well as contribute to the delivery of a Middlewich Eastern Bypass. A large part of the site has a resolution to grant Outline planning permission (13/3449c) , subject to the signing of a s106 Legal Agreement, for a mixed use development of 450 dwellings, a retail unit and supporting infrastructure. PSS701 SL 9 Brooks Lane This site has been progressed as CS54 because of its regeneration potential and sustainable location close to the centre of town with good access to its facilities and services. The site offers the opportunity for a mix of uses to help meet identified needs in the town. These include housing, land for a new railway station and enhanced opportunities for leisure and recreation associated with the Trent and Mersey Canal. The site can potentially be accessed via new and improved non vehicular linkages from the town centre and other areas of the town. It can also contribute to the long term conservation and enhancement of a scheduled monument. PSS702 SL 10 Midpoint 18 This site has been progressed as CS56 because of its ability to deliver significant Extension employment growth, both within the Plan period and beyond, which will enhance the vitality of the town. The site has good road access to the Motorway network and can deliver significant transport improvements. These include the provision of land and contributions to the completion of the Middlewich Eastern Bypass and the construction of a new Middlewich railway station. The site also has the potential to deliver more sustainable linkages to the town centre and residential areas. PSS703 SUB Land off This site has been progressed as CS55 because of its ability to contribute to 2134 Warmingham Lane Cheshire East’s housing requirement. The site can enhance green infrastructure by
February 2016 31 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
(phase II) providing cycling and pedestrian connections into the adjoining housing developments to the north and east. It can deliver green infrastructure and contribute to highway improvements including the delivery of the Middlewich Eastern Bypass. The site is being actively promoted with an outline planning application (15/5840C) having been submitted to the Council for consideration. PSS704 SUB Land off Sutton The site has not been progressed because the land owner has indicated that it is no 3153 Lane longer available for development. PSS705 SUB Cledford Lagoons This site has not been progressed because the Council has concerns over whether 922 a development on this brownfield site is achievable. Although the site is being promoted and some evidence based assessment work has been undertaken, insufficient evidence has currently been submitted to show that it can be viably delivered. The site has a previous history of industrial use in association with British Salt, and it is not clear how this and other factors would impact upon the viability of the site. The site supports habitats (calcareous grassland, saltmarsh) found in few other places in Cheshire, so has ecological and ornithological value. In addition, there are potential issues with neighbouring uses (TATA chemical works and the ANSA transfer station & refuse processing facility) and it is not clear the extent to which mitigation is required.
February 2016 32 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Nantwich
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No PSS800 CS21 Kingsley The site lies immediately adjacent to the town centre, with its various existing services Fields and facilities and its development will support the future prosperity of Nantwich. The site has been progressed as CS21 due to its ability to make a significant contribution to Cheshire East’s housing requirements; it provides a site for a new business park to be developed in partnership with Reaseheath College and enables the expansion of facilities at the College, key to continued economic development within the Borough. The site will also extend the Riverside Park, a well used recreational resource; provide a local centre and realign the A51 through the site which is a key piece of highway infrastructure for the town. The site is recognised as a commitment in the Local Plan Strategy and now has planning approval (13/2471N) for 1,100 dwellings, up to 1.82 hectares of B1 business uses, potential primary school, community facilities, local centre, allotments and open space which was granted on 20 January 2016.
PSS801 CS22 Stapeley Site PSS801 will not be taken through the Site Selection Methodology, as it has Water planning approval for 171 dwellings (14/2155N - approved subject to a S106 Legal Gardens Agreement, signed on 19 February 2015) and is under construction.
PSS802 CS23 Snow Hill The site lies within the urban area of Nantwich, immediately adjacent to the town centre, with its various existing services and facilities and its development will support the future prosperity of Nantwich. This site has been progressed as CS23 because it will redevelop brownfield land, within the urban area of Nantwich, immediately adjacent to the town centre, avoiding the need to develop productive farmland. It also provides opportunities to enhance this land immediately adjacent to the town centre and will provide improvements to local highway junctions. Its redevelopment as a mixed use site has the potential to contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements and to provide employment opportunities, whilst regenerating a gateway site and supporting the vitality of Nantwich town centre.
February 2016 33 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
PSS803 SUB3135 South This site lies beyond the southern edge of Nantwich and would extend the built form of Nantwich the town beyond the firm boundary of Peter de Stapeleigh Way. This site has not been progressed, due to its overall scale and location which means that it is unable to contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements without the loss of historic landscape character. The proposed development would appear as an intrusion of large scale built development into the open countryside and would significantly diminish the attractive rural character of this locality, known as Stapeley. The site would also have an adverse impact on road capacity constraints and it is not apparent that any further capacity improvements can be made without the need for third party land or compromising road safety. It is considered that the site is unable to deliver sustainable development when compared to other brownfield and greenfield options; it is not located adjacent to the town centre, where services and facilities are all easily accessible, nor does it extend the Riverside Park or deliver employment development that would enable the expansion of Reaseheath College, which are clear benefits of the site at Kingsley Fields (Site PSS800/CS21).
PSS804 SUB3135 South This site lies on the southern edge of the town and would extend the built form of the Nantwich – town beyond the firm boundary of Peter de Stapeleigh Way, into an area of open northern countryside. This site has not been progressed because the site is not located site area adjacent to the town centre, where services and facilities are all easily accessible, nor only does it extend the Riverside Park or deliver employment development that would (subject of enable the expansion of Reaseheath College, which are clear benefits of the site at planning Kingsley Fields (Site PSS800/CS21). The site proposal includes a local centre and application Primary School however a new Primary school would not be required to be delivered 12/3747N) as a result of a development of this size which would also be unlikely to be able to support a local centre, therefore it is unlikely that they would be delivered as part of the proposal.
PSS805 SUB1792 Broad Lane This site is an isolated piece of land, to the south of Nantwich which does not immediately adjoin the built form of the town. This site has not been progressed, due to its overall scale and location which means that it is unable to contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements without the loss of historic landscape character and the
February 2016 34 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
fact that it would be an area of isolated urban form, within open countryside that would significantly diminish the attractive rural character of this locality, known as Stapeley. The site would also have an adverse impact on road capacity constraints and it is not apparent that any further capacity improvements can be made without the need for third party land or compromising road safety. It is considered that the site is unable to deliver sustainable development when compared to other brownfield and greenfield options; the site is not located adjacent to the town centre, where services and facilities are all easily accessible, nor does it extend the Riverside Park or deliver employment development that would enable the expansion of Reaseheath College, which are clear benefits of the site at Kingsley Fields (Site PSS800/CS21).
PSS806** SUB3135 & South This site lies beyond the southern edge of Nantwich and would extend the built form of SUB1792 Nantwich the town beyond the firm boundary of Peter de Stapeleigh Way. This site has not been combined and Broad progressed, due to its overall scale and location which means that it is unable to Lane contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirements without the loss of historic combined landscape character. The proposed development would appear as an intrusion of site large scale built development into the open countryside and would significantly diminish the attractive rural character of this locality, known as Stapeley. The site would also have an adverse impact on road capacity constraints and it is not apparent that any further capacity improvements can be made without the need for third party land or compromising road safety. It is considered that the site is unable to deliver sustainable development when compared to other brownfield and greenfield options; it is not located adjacent to the town centre, where services and facilities are all easily accessible, nor does it extend the Riverside Park or deliver employment development that would enable the expansion of Reaseheath College, which are clear benefits of the site at Kingsley Fields (Site PSS800/CS21).
February 2016 35 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Poynton
Unique Old Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Ref PSS900 SUB Woodford The site has been progressed as CS65 (a safeguarded site) as it is considered that it is 2433 Aerodrome in a suitable location to meet the future needs of the town, beyond the Plan period. There is also an opportunity to be served by Poynton Relief Road. The site could be suitable for a number of uses. PSS901 SUB Land at The site has not been progressed because of its landscape impact. It would intrude into 2621 Waterloo rising ground towards the Peak District fringe and is not considered to be a logical Road extension to the urban form. PSS902 SUB Land at The site has been progressed as CS58 because it is seen to be a small, self-contained 2629 Sprink Farm site, with minimal landscape impact, which is very well related to the existing settlement and local facilities. PSS903 SUB Land to the The site has not been progressed because it is of a substantial size and the quantum of 2821 west of development that it can provide is not required in Poynton at this stage. It also currently Poynton has access issues, pending completion of the Poynton Relief Road, which would delay delivery. PSS904 SUB Land to the The site has not been progressed because of its landscape impact and its encroachment 2821 north of onto open land, north of Poynton. It is also of a substantial size and the quantum of Hazelbadge development that it can provide is not required in Poynton at this stage. Road PSS905 SUB Land to the The site has been progressed as CS57 because it is seen to be a small, self-contained 2821 north of site, which is very well related to the existing settlement and existing facilities. It has Hazelbadge potential to contribute to localised infrastructure improvements. Road (southern area)*216
216 Renamed as Land adjacent to Hazelbadge Road
February 2016 36 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
PSS906 SUB Land south The site has been progressed as CS59 because it is seen to be a small, self-contained 2866 of Chester site, which is very well related to the existing settlement. By confining the site to the east Road of the adjacent access track, the risk of coalescence with development in Woodford is limited. PSS907 Adlington The site has been progressed as CS60 because of its ability to expand a well- Business established employment site, thereby contributing to Cheshire East’s employment needs. Park The construction of the Poynton Relief Road brings potential for well contained parcels of Extension land around the existing industrial area to be brought forward for business use. *Alternative to whole site
February 2016 37 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Sandbach
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No PSS1001 CS 24 Land adjacent to J17 This site has been progressed as CS24 is to provide employment land within of M6, south east of the town and to create a more sustainable community by better balancing the Congleton Road, proportion of housing and jobs in the town. This is considered necessary as Sandbach Sandbach has seen a significant reduction in employment land but relatively high levels of housing development in recent years. The site will also contribute to Cheshire East’s housing requirement, provide appropriate leisure uses, incorporate green infrastructure and enable improvements to the highway network. PSS1002 SUB Land between Abbey This site has not been progressed as no further housing allocations are 2136 Road & Park Lane, required in Sandbach to meet the spatial distribution for housing that has been Sandbach identified for the town, other than site CS24. Housing on that site is preferable as it is enabling development which helps provide the infrastructure needed to deliver the employment proposal which is the primary purpose for allocating the site. Therefore, CS24 better meets the wider objectives around creating sustainable communities. The development of this site would further erode the area of separation between Etilley Heath and Sandbach identified in the Sandbach Neighbourhood Plan, which has successfully past examination subject to modification. This makes it a less desirable location for housing than site CS24. PSS1003 SUB Land to south of This site has not been progressed as no further housing allocations are 2137 Abbey fields House, required in Sandbach to meet the spatial distribution for housing that has been Park Lane & identified for the town, other than site CS24. Housing on that site is preferable Sandbach as it is enabling development which helps provide the infrastructure needed to Community Football deliver the employment proposal which is the primary purpose for allocating the Centre, Hind Heath site. Therefore, CS24 better meets the wider objectives around creating Road, Sandbach - sustainable communities. The development of this site would further erode the Abbey fields Phase 3 area of separation between Ettiley Heath, Wheelock and Sandbach identified in the Sandbach Neighbourhood Plan, which has successfully past examination
February 2016 38 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
subject to modification. This makes it a less desirable location for housing than site CS24. PSS1004 SUB Land adjacent to This site has not been progressed because it is a committed site. 3184 Senderfield Lane, south of Hind Heath Road, Sandbach PSS1005 SUB Land east of This site has not been progressed as no further housing allocations are 2491 Cooksmere Lane, required in Sandbach to meet the spatial distribution for housing that has been Sandbach identified for the town, other than site CS24 . Housing on that site is preferable as it is enabling development which helps provide the infrastructure needed to deliver the employment proposal which is the primary purpose for allocating the site. Therefore, CS24 better meets the wider objectives around creating sustainable communities. Development at Cooksmere Lane would extend the urban form in an uncontained fashion into open countryside north of the town. This area is served by rural roads of limited capacity. PSS1006 SUB Land rear of Park This site has not been progressed as no further housing allocations are 2402 Lane & Crewe Road, required in Sandbach to meet the spatial distribution for housing that has been Sandbach identified for the town, other than site CS24 . Housing on that site is preferable as it is enabling development which helps provide the infrastructure needed to deliver the employment proposal which is the primary purpose for allocating the site. Therefore, CS24 better meets the wider objectives around creating sustainable communities. The development of this site would further erode the area of separation between Ettiley Heath, Wheelock and Sandbach identified in the Sandbach Neighbourhood Plan, which has successfully past examination subject to modification. This makes it a less desirable location for housing than site CS24. PSS1007 SUB Land to south west This site has not been progressed as no further housing allocations are 2462 of A533 required in Sandbach to meet the spatial distribution for housing that has been identified for the town, other than site CS24 . Housing on that site is preferable as it is enabling development which helps provide the infrastructure needed to deliver the employment proposal which is the primary purpose for allocating the
February 2016 39 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
site. Therefore, CS24 better meets the wider objectives around creating sustainable communities. PSS1008 SUB Land west of This site has not been progressed as no further housing allocations are 2491 Cooksmere Lane & required in Sandbach to meet the spatial distribution for housing that has been north of Marsh identified for the town, other than site CS24 . Housing on that site is preferable Green Rd, Sandbach as it is enabling development which helps provide the infrastructure needed to deliver the employment proposal which is the primary purpose for allocating the site. Therefore, CS24 better meets the wider objectives around creating sustainable communities. Development west of Cookesmere Road would extend the urban form into open countryside north of the town – with a limited degrtee of containment. This area is served by rural roads of limited capacity. PSS1009 SUB Land south of Old This site has not been progressed as no further housing allocations are 2462/31 Mill Road/Hounding required in Sandbach to meet the spatial distribution for housing that has been 44 Lane, Sandbach identified for the town, other than site CS24 . Housing on that site is preferable as it is enabling development which helps provide the infrastructure needed to deliver the employment proposal which is the primary purpose for allocating the site. Therefore, CS24 better meets the wider objectives around creating sustainable communities. In addition, the site will have a negative impact on the landscape due to its elevated position and has significant highway constraints. PSS1010 SUB Yeowood Farm, This site has not been progressed as no further housing allocations are 1992 Elton Road, required in Sandbach to meet the spatial distribution for housing that has been Sandbach (Phase identified for the town, other than site CS24 . Housing on that site is preferable 1&2) as it is enabling development which helps provide the infrastructure needed to deliver the employment proposal which is the primary purpose for allocating the site. Therefore, CS24 better meets the wider objectives around creating sustainable communities. The development of this site would further erode the area of separation between Ettiley Heath and Wheelock identified in the Sandbach Neighbourhood Plan, which has successfully past examination subject to modification. This makes it a less desirable location for housing than site CS24. In addition, the site would have significant highway constraints and
February 2016 40 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
would represent the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land.
February 2016 41 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Wilmslow
Unique Old Ref Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No PSS1100 CS25 Adlington This site has not been progressed through the plan-making process as it has gained Road planning permission (14/0007M) for 204 dwellings and is currently under construction. It is now included in the commitments figure for Wilmslow and therefore not considered further for allocation in the Local Plan. PSS1101 CS26 Royal London This site has been progressed as CS26 because it would provide a well-located (includes (includes land housing development in a highly sustainable location adjoining the existing urban SUB 2902) west of area and close to existing services and infrastructure.It could also play an important Alderley role in facilitating employment growth in a key employment sector.It will provide Road) green infrastructure including additional playing fields for use by Wilmslow High School. The site relates well to the urban area and would create a strong and permanent new Green Belt boundary using the A34. PSS1102 CS27 Wilmslow This site has been progressed as CS27 as it will provide a well-located employment Business Park site with good pedestrian and cycle links to the town centre and railway station as well as road access with a prominent position adjacent to the A34.It will create employment opportunities, fulfilling the LPS Objectives of promoting economic prosperity by creating conditions for business growth whilst minimising the need to travel. In conjunction with the Royal London site, it relates well to the existing settlement pattern and would establish a new permanent strong Green Belt boundary using the A34. PSS1103 CS35 (Safeguarded) This site has not been progressed as it is currently within the Green Belt and it has Prestbury not been demonstrated that a new readily recognisable, permanent Green Belt Road boundary could be created following release of this site. Although not readily visible from surrounding roads, it is very open to the south and there are long range views from the Alderley Edge escarpment. Although geographically close to a range of services and facilities, the presence of major infrastructure (A538, A34 and the West Coast Mainline) means that pedestrian linkages are currently poor in comparison with alternative options. PSS1104 SUB 2846 Land at Little This site has been progressed as CS 61 as it presents an opportunity to deliver a
February 2016 42 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Stanneylands high quality, sustainable residential development to contribute to the identified housing requirement for Wilmslow. It is sustainably–located and will provide new pedestrian and cycle links to Handforth District Centre and train station, giving access to a range of facilities and services whilst reducing the need to travel. It will also provide new Green Infrastructure by opening up an area of the Dean River Valley which is not currently publicly accessible, providing new pedestrian links through the area. With appropriate boundary treatments, the site will also enable a new permanent Green Belt boundary to defined. PSS1105 SUB Land south of This site has not been progressed as it is somewhat detached from the urban area. 1066/1068 Prestbury The site is very open to the south and east and there are long range views from the Road Alderley Edge escarpment. The presence of major infrastructure (A538, A34 and the West Coast Mainline) means that pedestrian linkages are currently poor. PSS1106 SUB 2517, Land at Dean This site has not been progressed as it is not well related to the urban area and is 3155 &1645 Row Road not particularly sustainably-located, being beyond the recommended distance from a number of facilities and services. The site is not being comprehensively promoted for development and development may impact on the listed buildings on the eastern boundary. PSS1107 SUB 2517 Heathfield This site has been progressed as it relates well to the existing urban area, is well- Farm bounded and makes a lower contribution to Green Belt purposes than many other sites in Wilmslow. It is in a reasonably accessible location with the ability to improve pedestrian and cycle links to the west providing access to Summerfields local centre. PSS1108 SUB 2595 Land at This site has been progressed as safeguarded land as is reasonably well related to &429 Upcast the urban area and it makes a lower contribution to Green Belt purposes than many Lane/Cumber other sites in Wilmslow. It is in a relatively accessible location with access to many Lane services and facilities although it does lie some distance from the town centre. The site is not suitable for allocation at this point in time as it does not currently have a suitable access point. However, there is a evidence to show that an access could be created in the future to enable development of the site if allocated in a future Local Plan. PSS1109 SUB 3568 Land north of This site has not been progressed as there is limited information submitted to & 429 Moor Lane demonstrate that it is achievable. The site is within the Green Belt and it is not clear how a readily recognisable and permanent new Green Belt boundary would be
February 2016 43 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
created following its release. Although close to a number of facilities and services, the site is some distance from the town centre and has poor access to the strategic road network.
February 2016 44 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
Freestanding sites
Unique Old Name Reasons for progression or non-progression of the Option in Plan Making Ref No Ref PSS1200 CS 29 Alderley Park This site has been progressed as CS29 because, although the site is not located adjacent to an existing urban area, with the provision of appropriate social and physical infrastructure, it will significantly contribute to the creation of economic prosperity, sustainable communities and the protection of environmental quality. PSS1201 Cheshire Gateway (whole site) PSS1201a Cheshire Gateway The site has not been progressed because it has a greater Green Belt impact than (western parcel) other sites in the Borough and its doesn’t align with the strategic employment objectives of the Borough. SUB PSS1201b Cheshire Gateway The site has been progressed as CS64 (a safeguarded site) as it is considered 3425 (eastern parcel) that it is in a suitable location to meet the future needs of the Borough, particularly in employment terms, beyond the Plan period. It is considered to be a contained site, with limited Green Belt impact, and has the potential to align with the LEPs Cheshire and Warrington Strategic and Economic Plan [BE 124], that is, its science corridor Strategic Priority. PSS1202 SUB Gorstyhill/Wychwood The site has not been progressed because there are other, more appropriate 1134 Village sites, with fewer constraints and better access to services, facilities and the transport network that are capable of meeting housing and other development need. It is considered to be in a remote location, with limited opportunity for walking, cycling, or public transport links to Crewe. PSS1203 CS 28 Wardle Employment This site has been progressed because it supports a well established rural Improvement Area employment area. It will significantly contribute to the creation of economic prosperity and support the wider economic objectives of that area of the Borough. A brownfield site, in the form of a former Royal Air Force airfield, industrial and commercial development has grown over the past few decades since the closure of the airfield.The site now has outline planning permission and is considered to be deliverable. The site is supported by a travel plan and contributions towards sustainable transport modes to improve sustainable travel options to and from the
February 2016 45 / 46 Enfusion Appendix IV Cheshire East Council Local Plan Strategy: Proposed Changes to Sites & Strategic Locations Sustainability (Integrated) Appraisal Addendum Report Volume 2
site.
February 2016 46 / 46 Enfusion