NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT

NOVEMBER 2019

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This consultation statement has been prepared to fulfil the legal obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 in respect of the Peover Superior (Over Peover) Neighbourhood Plan. The legal basis of the Statement is provided by Section 15 (2) of Part 5 of the 2012 Neighbourhood Planning Regulations, which requires that a consultation statement should:

 Contain details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed Peover Superior Neighbourhood Plan;  Explain how they were consulted;  Summarise the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted;  Describe how those issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed Peover Superior Neighbourhood Plan.

1.2 The Neighbourhood Area is in the unitary authority of East Council, and comprises of a rural Parish within the Green Belt. The parish has a small population of some 666 residents (at the time of the 2011 census). The relatively small number of residents has meant that consultation with members of the community has been a real possibility at a manageable scale, which has helped to allow the community to become aware of the Neighbourhood Plan, and to contribute to its development through various consultation events and a questionnaire. Additionally, the Parish Council has published information on the village website https://www.overpeover.com which has pages dedicated to the Neighbourhood Plan, where Neighbourhood Plan documents and background evidence have been published and available to view.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Peover Superior Neighbourhood Plan is a community plan and must derive its vision, objectives and policies from the community. From the outset the Parish Council was determined that the residents should be kept informed and given every opportunity to inform the Steering Group of their views. Communication and consultation, in various forms, have played a major role in formulating the Neighbourhood Plan.

2.2 Throughout the process, the neighbourhood planning steering group has engaged in consultations with the community, using a variety of methods in order to gain as many views as possible.

2.3 It was considered essential to:

 Promote a high degree of awareness of the project;  Form a steering group that contained both Parish Council members and volunteers from the local community;  Encourage everyone to contribute to the development of the Neighbourhood Plan;  Promote consultation events and provide regular updates on the status of the Neighbourhood Plan and its development.

2.4 Key to this programme was publicity to gain residents’ engagement. This was gained via public meetings, drop-ins, newsletters, a questionnaire, and electronic media via the village website. Consultation versions of the Neighbourhood Plan were available to view on the Parish website, along with other documents and reports. (https://www.overpeover.com)

2.5 Every effort has been made to ensure that the vision, objectives and policies of the Over Peover Neighbourhood Plan reflect the views of the majority of the local residents, whilst having regard to local and national policies.

2.6 The Neighbourhood Plan has been developed through regular consultation with the residents of and businesses in, Over Peover. Council Planning department has also been consulted throughout the process and has provided invaluable information and advice. The Neighbourhood was formally designated by Cheshire East Council on 5th April 2017.

3. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN PRESENTATION

3.1 Who was consulted and how were they consulted? The Neighbourhood Plan steering group held a presentation to the community on 27th September 2017, held at the village hall. The presentation comprised of a power point, followed by questions and answers. The event was advertised by a flyer delivered to each household and approximately 40 local residents attended. The power point presentation can be seen at http://www.overpeover.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/Neighbourhood-Plan.pdf

3.2 The presentation was well received, and set out to address -  What is driving us to change what we already have?  What is a Neighbourhood Plan and why do we need one?  What is the process and how long will it take?  Who needs to be involved?

3.3 What issues and concerns were raised? Residents asked a number of questions regarding the process of developing a Neighbourhood Plan, and discussed whether it would be a useful document to have, and what it could achieve.

3.4 How have the issues and concerns been considered? Residents were supportive of the decision to produce a Neighbourhood Plan, and agreed that it would be a valuable document that would be of great use to the parish. It was decided that the next steps would include a questionnaire, to find out in more detail what issues residents would like to see addressed in the Neighbourhood Plan. It was also considered sensible to learn from other parishes; establish contact with local groups; and determine with residents, businesses, school and community groups what policies ought to be covered in the Neighbourhood Plan. 4 SHORT SURVEY OF RESIDENTS

4.1 Who was consulted and how were they consulted? In early October 2017 a short survey was delivered by hand to every household in the parish. The survey requested views on the development of 12-14 homes in the village, plus a village community facility which had been proposed by Crabtree Homes. The survey was to be returned by October 22nd either by post to the parish clerk, or by hand to one of three collection points at the village pubs.

4.2 What issues and concerns were raised? There were 282 surveys distributed, and 116 were returned, a response rate of 41%. Almost 90% of households (101 returns) objected or strongly objected to the proposal tabled by Crabtree Homes. Five households were either supportive or strongly supportive of the proposal.

4.3 Those that were supportive highlighted in their comments that communities need to develop, that more housing is needed nationally and that “the offer of a free Village Hall should not be dismissed out of hand”. Of those that objected or strongly objected to the proposal and provided comments, the overwhelming reasons were to the building of houses on greenbelt land and the precedent that this development would set; there being no proven need for additional housing in the Village; and the additional traffic and the access to the site which was considered as being on a dangerous bend. Other objections cited that the village facilities were inadequate to meet the additional housing; that the proposal was not aligned to the Parish Plan in terms of preserving the openness of the Village and preferring development on brownfield sites; and that a more centralised location nearer the school was preferred for a new Village Hall.

4.4 How have the issues and concerns been considered? The results of the survey were fed back to the residents in a village newsletter, which was delivered to each household. The newsletter can be viewed at http://www.overpeover.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Proposed- Development-in-the-Village-Results.pdf. The results highlighted that residents were keen to protect the Green Belt, were concerned about traffic, and also that they would prefer a new village hall, were one to be forthcoming, to be centrally located. It was therefore felt that a traffic survey should be undertaken, and also discussions undertaken with Cheshire East Council regarding the likelihood of a new village hall being delivered within the Parish, and where the most suitable location for this may be.

5 RESIDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

5.1 Who was consulted and how were they consulted? A more detailed questionnaire was delivered by a team of volunteers to every household in the parish in early 2018, to be completed by the end of January. A covering letter explaining the purpose of the questionnaire was also delivered. (The questionnaire results and analysis can be viewed at http://www.overpeover.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/Questionnaire-Results-Report.pdf )

5.2 The questionnaire explained that priorities were being sought in order to understand what issues were important to the community and should be covered in the Neighbourhood Plan. It asked a number of questions, focussing on what people liked and disliked about living in the parish, and asked people to score out of ten how high a priority certain issues were to them. These covered Green Belt protection; gaps within developments; house building; types of new housing; extensions; employment; traffic; a new village hall and biodiversity. 5.3 The questionnaires could be returned by post, popped into one of the collection points at the three village pubs, or handed to one of the Parish Councillors.

5.4 What issues and concerns were raised? 288 questionnaires were delivered, and 76 responses were received, a response rate of 26%, and the results showed what the main priorities and areas of concern to the residents were.

5.5 When asked what residents like about living in the parish of Over Peover, the main response was the countryside and rural situation, and the friendly community, peace and quiet and the pubs. The main dislike was associated with traffic through the village, the threat of new developments in the Green Belt, and the state of the village hall.

5.6 The questionnaire results highlighted that there was emphatic support in favour of protecting the Green Belt. The next highest priority was to protect the open spaces and green gaps within the village. The availability of superfast broadband was considered to be of high importance, along with the need to reduce the impact of traffic through the village. The next highest issue of priority was the promotion and protection of biodiversity, followed by design.

5.7 The topics that were ranked as low priority primarily centred about the need for new house building and specific types of new housing, along with new job creation.

5.8 How have the issues and concerns been considered? The results highlighted the issues which were important for local people to see included in the Neighbourhood Plan, formed the basis of the Neighbourhood Plan’s vision, objectives and policies, and helped to determine what evidence needed to be gathered to inform the policies. From the questionnaire results, ten recommendations were drawn up, to help to deliver the Neighbourhood Plan.

5.9 The recommendations included drawing up policies to protect the green gaps and open spaces; engage with Cheshire East Council to discuss traffic improvements; engage with Barclay’s Bank, a major employer in the parish, to ascertain if there were any measures that they could implement to improve traffic issues; explore the options for a new village hall and investigate the provision of superfast broadband.

5.10 Additionally, the recommendations led to the decision by the steering group to commission further reports to help provide background evidence and justification for the Neighbourhood Plan policies, on topics which had been seen as important by the community. As such, Cheshire Wildlife Trust was commissioned to prepare a report on the Natural Environment of the Parish, a Design Guide for Over Peover was commissioned, and a traffic report was undertaken. The reports can be viewed at https://www.overpeover.com/nhp-documents/.

5.11 The results of the questionnaire were fed back to the community on the website, and also through a well-attended open meeting and presentation held in the village hall in May, which was advertised through a flyer hand delivered to every household. This gave the opportunity for residents to hear the results of the questionnaire, the recommendations for future work, the context of the Neighbourhood Plan within the policy framework, and the proposed policy themes and ideas. It also enabled the community to ask questions as to the content and process of preparing the Neighbourhood Plan. The presentation can be viewed at http://www.overpeover.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/Neighbourhood-Plan-May-update.pdf

5.12 In June 2019 about a dozen businesses that have premises in the Parish were targeted for their views. These diverse enterprises ranged from small horticultural businesses, the public houses, wedding and events venues up to the Barclays Technology Centre that employs about 3500 staff at its Radbroke Hall site in the Parish. Disappointingly, none of the businesses submitted a response or attended any of the meetings that were arranged. 6. DROP-IN MEETINGS – JULY 2018

6.1 Who was consulted and how were they consulted? Two drop-in meetings were held in July 2018, once the results of the questionnaire had been analysed and explained, and policy ideas drawn up. The meeting were held on Tuesday 17th July, from 10am-4pm, and 7pm-9pm, and Saturday 28th July, from 101m-4pm. The drop-ins were held in the village hall, and it was felt that the broad range of times, and holding an event on the Saturday, would enable more people to attend. A prize was also offered to those who attended and brought the flyer, in an attempt to encourage residents to attend. The drop-ins were advertised on a flyer which was delivered to every household, and was advertised on the website.

6.2 The Steering Group again explained the results of the questionnaire, and sought feedback from the people present about content for the Neighbourhood Plan and the proposed themes that would be covered in the document. A1 sized posters were prepared and displayed which covered the proposed objectives and policy ideas in detail. The posters can be seen at http://www.overpeover.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/drop-in-slides.pdf

6.3 What issues and concerns were raised? About 25 people attended the drop-ins. The main concerns arising were the impact of traffic, the village hall, the need to protect the Green Belt and the rural feel of the parish, and the need to ensure good design.

6.4 How have the issues and concerns been considered? The comments received were used to draft the policies further. The drop-in meetings were also an opportunity to keep residents aware of the process and explain what could and couldn’t be included in the Neighbourhood Plan. It was recognised that residents were concerned about traffic, and therefore a sustainable transport policy and also a policy regarding traffic improvements were drafted. A number of design policies were drafted, and further meetings with Cheshire East Council were undertaken to discuss a new village hall.

7. REGULATION 14 CONSULTATION

7.1 As required under Part 5, Section 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group completed a six week pre-submission consultation on the draft Peover Superior Neighbourhood Plan between 19th August 2019 and 30th September 2019. Within this period the following was undertaken -

 Consultation with statutory consultation bodies  Notification as to where the pre-submission Peover Superior Neighbourhood Plan could be inspected  Information on how to make representations, and the date by which these should be received  A copy of the pre-submission Peover Superior Neighbourhood Plan was sent to the Cheshire East Spatial Planning department

7.2 Cheshire East Council supplied approximately 100 e-mail addresses of interested parties which were all sent the Regulation 14 information letter and links to the Neighbourhood Plan website where they could view the Neighbourhood Plan and accompanying documents. This was supplemented with contacts for local organisations and individuals which it was considered might have opinions on the Plan. All households in the Parish were notified of the Regulation 14 consultation process and the drop-in events. A copy of the Plan was available for viewing at Library, at Library, at the three village pubs, at the village show and at 2 drop in events at the village hall held on 29th August 2019 and 8th September 2019. An online version could be viewed on the village website at https://www.overpeover.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/Neighbourhood-Plan-Reg-14-Pre-submission-version.pdf

7.3 Comments on the Plan could be submitted from downloading response forms from the website, or from collecting forms at the venues mentioned above. Response forms and letters could be sent by post to the Parish Clerk, by email to the clerk, or by hand at the drop in events. 7.4 The drop in events which were held at the village hall also enabled people to attend, ask questions, view the draft Neighbourhood Plan and background documents, and give their comments.

7.5 At the drop-in events members of the Neighbourhood Plan steering group were in attendance to explain the Neighbourhood Plan and answer questions, and give residents the chance to make comments on the draft plan. Residents read through the plan and discussed various aspects with the Steering Group.

7.6 Along with local residents, the following people and groups were consulted as part of the Regulation 14 consultation:-

Halton Council Neighbourhood Planning – Cheshire East Lancashire County Council Council Manchester City Council Greater Manchester Councils Newcastle - Staffs Council Cheshire West and Council Shropshire Council Derbyshire Dales Council Staffordshire Moorlands Council Derbyshire County Council Stockport Council Peak District National Park Stoke Council Chapel and Hill Chorlton Parish Council Trafford Council Audley Parish Council Transport for Greater Manchester Keele Parish Council Natural Resources Wales Kidsgrove Town Council South Derbyshire Council Loggerheads parish Council Council Madeley Parish Council Malpas Parish Council Biddulph Parish Council Tarporley parish Council Whaley Bridge Parish Council Beeston parish Council New Mills Town Council Tiverton Parish Council Woodford Parish Council Natural High Peak Council The Environment Agency Parish Council Historic England Appleton Parish Council English Heritage Grappenhall and Thelwall Parish Council Network Rail Stretton Parish Council The Highways Agency The Coal Authority The Marine Management Organisation The Homes and Communities Agency National Trust United Utilities Highways England Welsh Water Amec Cheshire and Warrington Local Enterprise National Grid Partnership O2 Stoke/Staffordshire Local Enterprise Scottish Power Partnership Electricity North West Cheshire and Warrington Growth Hub NHS – Lancashire and Greater Manchester East Cheshire Chamber of Commerce and NHS- Eastern Cheshire Industry NHS – Cheshire and Merseyside North Cheshire Chamber of Commerce and June Leach (Over Peover WI) Industry R W Lindsay (Over Peover Probus) South Cheshire Chamber of Commerce and Mark Nightingale (Over Peover Cricket Club) Industry Heather Jobling (Parochial Church Council) West Cheshire Chamber of Commerce and M Broomhead (Primary School Academy) Industry

7.7 What issues and concerns were raised? A total of 34 comments were received at the Regulation 14 stage, from 13 consultees. These were from 6 residents, 6 statutory bodies, and Cheshire East Council. The issues raised included comments about wording to strengthen and give clarity to policies, the need to reference Cheshire East Design Guide, the need to expand on the importance of hedges as boundaries, the need to remove references to the parish field as a potential site for the village hall, comments regarding the Green Belt, and comments on traffic.

7.8 How have the issues and concerns been considered? The issues and concerns have been given full consideration, and changes have been made to the Neighbourhood Plan accordingly, in preparation for formal submission. Various wording in the text and policies have been amended, as per suggestions, to add clarity to the Neighbourhood Plan. Minor changes were made to policies H1- New Housing; LCD1 – Local Character and Design; LCD3 – Extensions and Remodelling; LCD6 – Front Boundaries; LCD7 – Agricultural and Equestrian Conversions; ENV1 – Biodiversity; and INF6 – Village Hall. A total of 19 changes were made to the draft plan following Regulation 14.

7.9 A summary of the representations made, along with the Steering Groups response and recommended amendments to the Neighbourhood Plan is detailed in Appendix 1.

8. CONCLUSION

8.1 The publicity, engagement and consultation completed throughout the production of the Peover Superior Neighbourhood Plan has been open and transparent, with opportunities provided for both statutory consultees and those that live, work or operate businesses within the Neighbourhood Area to feed into the process, make comment, and to raise issues, priorities and concerns for consideration. 8.2 All statutory requirements have been met and consultation, engagement and research has been completed. This Consultation Statement has been produced to document the consultation and engagement process and is considered to comply with Part 5, Section 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.

APPENDIX 1: REPRESENTATIONS FROM REGULATION 14 PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION

Consultee Document Comment Neighbourhood Plan Steering Ref Group Response Cheshire H1 Planning control is exercised across the parish The word "strictly" has been East in accordance with green belt policy, and the removed from policies H1 and Council identified approach to development within the LCDC 3.3. proposed Over Peover infill boundary put forward in the SADPD. When considering development proposals, the measures set out in the development plan may only be applied as set out and decision makers must apply them as written. There is therefore no scope to apply a policy ‘strictly’ or in any other way, and it is advised that this word is removed from the text. Cheshire H1 Feedback from recent examinations has The policy wording has been East highlighted that referring to the SADPD and amended in line with the Council relying on policies in there will be problematic recommendation. as the document isn’t yet adopted and won’t be for some time. Additionally, the allowance of infilling of one or two dwellings more accurately relates to gaps in frontages outside of villages… therefore in H1 I would recommend the following:

Limited Infill housing development will be supported within the Over Peover village infill boundary as defined in Figure C. Limited infilling is defined as the development of a relatively small gap between existing buildings. Backland or Tandem development is not considered infill development and will not be supported. Developments within the infill boundary should: i. Be in keeping with the scale, character and appearance of its surroundings and the local area; ii. Not give rise to unacceptable impacts; and iii. Not involve the loss of undeveloped land that makes a positive contribution to the character of the area.

Outside of the village infill boundary shown at figure C, development proposals will not be considered to be ‘limited infilling in villages’ when applying CELPS policy PG6. Cheshire LCD1 The Cheshire East Design Guide is a SPD and to Amend LCD1, second sentence to East ensure that measures within it are fully applied read ‘The design and layout of Council when development proposals are considered, it new developments should would be helpful for the key guidance to be demonstrate consideration of the replicated directly in the neighbourhood plan, Cheshire East Design Guide as local policy. (2017) and the Over Peover Design Guide (2018) or any updated versions.’ Add new para 6.22 ‘Additionally, Cheshire East has recently produced a design guide https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk /planning/spatial_planning/chesh ire_east_local_plan/supplementa ry_plan_documents/design- guide-supplementary-planning- document.aspx The guide highlights that the character and attractiveness of Cheshire East underpins the quality of life enjoyed by the borough and its residents. Peover Superior falls within the North Cheshire Fringe. Design cues specific to the North Cheshire Fringe which should be considered for new developments include:- • 19th to 20th century archetypes dominate but examples remain of early domestic architecture. • Varied materials, although brick is predominant. Cheshire brick often used alongside standard red engineering brick for trim detailing and coursing. • Most housing is between two or three storeys high giving an intimate domestic scale and feel to settlements. • Full range of boundary treatments in evidence although low sandstone walls with hedging are a strong streetscape element in some settlements. • Original features and detailing include sash windows, decorative barge boards, gabled dormer windows, decorative timber detailing and prominent chimney stacks. • Views of surrounding countryside adds to rural character and feel of settlements. 6.23 In order to reflect and enhance the character of Peover Superior, The Cheshire East Design guide should be consulted on all new development proposals, along with the Over Peover Design Guide.

Cheshire LCD7 The term ‘important characteristics’ sets a Policy LCD 7 amended as East potentially high threshold to be met to ensure suggested. Council that features are retained. How would such features be deemed ‘important’? If such features are merely interesting but add character to the local vernacular it would be difficult to justify they are important (where they are not identified heritage assets, and a heritage assessment identifies their importance). Also, as written the policy may help to secure the retention of such features but not their reintegration into new development (they could be retained but simply not used). To enable to policy to be applied more fully it is suggested that the policy is altered to ‘…must ensure that any characteristic features of the original building are retained and integrated within the design of the proposed development…’ Cheshire ENV1 SE3 of the LPS references a ‘significant adverse The word "significantly" has been East impact’ when referring to local wildlife sites, for added for consistency with the Council consistency with the strategic policy it is Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy. recommended that the first line of the policy is The wording of the last sentence altered to read: ‘Development should not has been modified as suggested significantly adversely affect…’ to broaden its scope. The last sentence of the policy is more closely related to management of verges however could be developed to require that landscaping schemes should include an approach and planting scheme that can be left unmanaged and to grow naturally without causing regular maintenance duties. Cheshire PARA. 7.22 The removal of permitted development rights Para 7.22 add at the end of the East for boundary treatments could have a positive para, ‘Removing permitted Council effect on the character and biodiversity of the development rights for boundary village. It would help to justify the policy if treatments will have a positive further detail was included on the role that effect on the character and boundary treatments play in contributing to the biodiversity of the village. As character of the area (based in the character detailed above, hedges and assessment) and the role that hedges play in hedgerows play an important role supporting biodiversity, and why this is in supporting biodiversity which important locally. is greatly valued by the local community. The Cheshire East Design Guide highlights that hedges are an important element of the streetscene, forming boundaries between fields and lanes, and rather than screening development from the countryside, soften and ground development in its setting, in keeping with local character. In addition, the Over Peover Spatial Character Assessment highlights the prevalence of hedgerows in the parish and the important role that they play in forming boundaries.’ Cheshire INF6 Green Belt policy makes no allowance for the Follow up meeting held with Tom East provision of community facilities such as village Evans on 28/10/19. Council halls, therefore should an application be Agreed position is that proposals brought forward for this use in the green belt, for a new Village Hall are too applicants would be required to demonstrate immature to include in this the existence of very special circumstances in version of the Neighbourhood order to secure consent. Plan. However, the policy (and It is within the gift of neighbourhood plans to other sections) will be changed to make small scale detailed changes to the support building on a new site in boundary of the green belt, and such an the Green Belt and remove all approach could be used to remove this barrier references to the use of the to delivering what could be a locally important Parish field as a potential site. facility. Policy INF 6 and paras 9.37 , 9.39 Therefore the policy could potentially be and 9.46 reworded to remove all developed to investigate and allocate a specific references to the Parish field as a site for a new village hall within the green belt. potential site for a new village Without such an approach the principle of hall. development for a new village hall cannot be supported outside of the identified infill boundary however, support for other types of building, hosting uses compatible with green belt policy would not be inappropriate. Natural N/A Thank you for your consultation on the above No Action required. England Natural England does not have any specific comments on this draft neighbourhood plan. Network N/A Network Rail is a statutory consultee for any No Action required. Rail planning applications within 10 metres of relevant railway land (as the Rail Infrastructure Managers for the railway, set out in Article 16 of theDevelopment Management Procedure Order) and for any development likely to result in a material increase in the volume or a material change in the character of traffic using a level crossingover a railway (as the Rail Network Operators, set out in Schedule 4 (J) of the Development Management Procedure Order). Network Rail is also a statutory undertaker responsible for maintaining and operating the railway infrastructure and associated estate. It owns, operates and develops the main rail network.Network Rail aims to protect and enhance the railway infrastructure, therefore any proposed development which is in close proximity to the railway line or could potentially affect Network Rail’s specific land interests will need to be carefully considered. The neighbourhood plan area includes operational railway to the eastern boundary. Developments in the neighbourhood area should be notified to Network Rail to ensure that: a. Access points / rights of way belonging to Network Rail are not impacted by developments within the area. b. That any proposal does not impact upon the railway infrastructure / Network Rail land e.g. Drainage works / water features Encroachment of land or air-space Excavation works Siting of structures/buildings less than 2m from the Network Rail boundary / Party Wall Act issues Lighting impacting upon train drivers’ ability to perceive signals Landscaping that could impact upon overhead lines or Network Rail boundary treatment Any piling works Any scaffolding works Any public open spaces and proposals where minors and young children may be likely to use a site which could result in trespass upon the railway (which we would remind thecouncil is a criminal offence under s55 British Transport Commission Act 1949) Any use of crane or plant Any fencing works Any demolition works Any hard standing areas For any proposal adjacent to the railway, Network Rail would request that a developer constructs (at their own expense) a suitable steel palisade trespass proof fence of at least 1.8m in height.All initial proposals and plans should be flagged up to the Network Rail Town Planning Team London North Western Route

Highways N/A Thank you for consulting Highways England in No Action required. England relation to the Peover Superior Neighbourhood Plan. Highways England have no comment to make at this time. Historic N/A Thank you for consulting Historic England on No Action required. England the above document. At this stage we have no comments to make on its content. Coal N/A Thank you for consulting The Coal Authority on No Action required. Authority the above. Having reviewed your document, I confirm that we have no specific comments to make on it. Homes N/A I would firstly like to thank you for the No Action required. England opportunity to comment on the Pre-submission version of Peover Superior Neighbourhood Plan. Homes England does not have any land holdings affected by the consultation and therefore we do not propose to make at representations at this point. JE & AE Parish Field This is the only area of open land in the Parish References to the Parish field (para 9.37 & to which there is unrestricted access. This must have been replaced with "close to 9.46) remain the case and there must be no the primary school". development on this field. JE & AE Replacemen This must be located on / adjacent to the References to the Parish field t Village Hall school to provide joint use and parking away have been replaced with "close to (para 9.35- from the road. the primary school". 9.39) JE & AE General Well done to everyone who has worked hard Thank you. No Action required. on producing the Plan. BW&JW Housing We would be grateful if the Neighbourhood Policy LCD6 title amended to Plan Committee would consider the following include rear boundaries and the for inclusion in the Plan. following sentence added: "Any new housing in the Parish should be "Any new housing should avoid located/orientated so that the house front's rear boundaries bordering the face the highway or road - rather than the highway." backs/back gardens of the houses facing the road - which should not be permitted." Reason Housing where the back gardens and back garden fences face the highway or road looks dreadful. Often washing lines, cheap sheds and greenhouses, dilapidated climbing frames, trampolines, old bikes and cheap non- uniform fencing spoil the local street-scenes - and should not be permitted anywhere in Over Peover. We look forward to your views on this suggestion. We feel strongly that it ought to be included in the Plan. RH Para 1.1 to The White Paper published by the Government Having spoken to the respondee 1.9 in January 2017 promised the continued he has a misunderstanding protection of the Green Belt. With its between new development fundamental presumption that no new which includes modifications or development can be allowed within it except in replacement building and new exceptional prescribed circumstances; none of build on greenfield sites. which apply here. Para 1.5 explicitly states that a Neighbourhood Plan must be compatible with National Policy. No action required. RH Policies H1 We have already had limited affordable The policy is consistent with LCD1 housing and infilling built. I therefore strongly Cheshire East Site Allocations and LCD2 object to the Plan encouraging any new Development Policies Document LCD7 development or enhancing facilities within this and cannot contradict it. Infill INF6 Green Belt. bounday is consistent with Cheshire East Strategic Allocations and Development Policies Document and will limit potential for infill development much more than existed previously. No action required. RH General A good Plan & well presented for any Cheshire The Plan is consistent with village outside of the Green Belt but not for National Green Belt policy and is Peover Superior within it. therefore applicable to Peover Superior. No Action required. DI Page 39 I would like to submit a comment to the The map is reproduced on page neighbourhood plan. 44 of the Neighbourhood Plan as This specifically relates to the ‘Reclaiming the Area B - Colshaw Hall area. road document’ and the map on page 39 of the Having discussed this with document. another neighbour we agree that I would object to the introduction of the road as drawn this could create a narrowing on the apex of the bend. My problem. However, these layouts reasons for this are that we use farm vehicles were drawn to convey design along the track between Burnacre and Smithy ideas and any final design would Cottage to access the land on the Colshaw Hall have to meet all highway Estate. If the road narrowing were introduced department guides and on the apex of the bend, farm vehicles would neighbour requirements. be unable to turn left out of the track onto The wording on page 43 has been Stocks Lane, going towards the Primary School. amended to include "It should be My suggestion would be to move the road stressed that at this stage all of narrowing further down Stocks Lane, past the proposals are ideas and Smithy Cottage. should they come to fruition significant detailed study by Cheshire Highways and consultation with local residents in the vicinity would be required prior to developing a detailed proposal for implementation." KD Front cover I like the picture very much but am wondering Cover photograph changed. whether a more secular view should be chosen? Just a thought. KD p.7 Is it worth commenting about the recent trend Discussed at meeting with Tom para 2.6 for knock down and rebuild. It does have the Evans on 28/10/19. Tom effect of changing the character of the village suggested that there is little that fairly radically. I understand that we cannot go can be done to prevent against existing planning policy and it is demolition and replacement of permissible but I was wondering if there was non-heritage buildings. He any way in which it could be constrained? suggested that the Design and Character policies should be used to influence or restrict what a replacement building looks like. No further action required. KD p.8 Un-spoilt = unspoilt – I know Word is Hyphen removed. para 3.2 underlining it but it doesn’t have a hyphen in OED

KD p. 10 Should the traffic objective be higher up the Amended as indicated. para 4.3 pecking order as it featured so significantly in the questionnaire or are you just listing the items in the order in which they are dealt with in the text? KD p.13 LCD Excellent No action required. 3.5 KD P.14 LCD7 I would suggest here that you also include LCD7 updated as suggested. Title garages and domestic outbuildings. (e.g. was it of LCD7 updated to match. Brackenwood the Irlam development opposite Mr Bean on Green Lane where this was done?) e.g. ‘where agricultural buildings, stables, domestic outbuildings or garages have been converted to residential use no replacement will be permitted for a period of 10 years.’ That should catch most of the examples we have encountered. KD p.26 ENV2 Last line – Where proposals for new Amended as indicated. development involves – involve KD p.27 ENV3 Public Right of Way network – their Amended as indicated. enhancement – its enhancement KD p.36 9.44 Line 6 – from local landowner – from a local Amended as indicated. landowner KD p.37 9.46 Do you think we should be so overt in All references to a Village Hall on supporting the Parish Field as a site for the the Parish Field have been Village Hall as it may turn people off the removed. Neighbourhood Plan as a whole? DG COMMENTS Page 6 section 1.5 "best practice to transform Agreed but as a supporting ON urban environment" appears opposite 3 photos document this observation is not "RECLAIMIN on stocks lane reflected in the Neighbourhood G THE Observation we live in a rural environment Plan. ROAD" No further action required. DOCUMENT DG COMMENTS Page 11 section 2.4.1 until the future of the Given the school has moved ON present village hall is decided (especially if the almost 100 years ago and the "RECLAIMIN title of the church end is challenged) and the neighbouring location of the G THE location of any replacement clarified and fully Cricket Club and Parish Field, it is ROAD" funded, discussions about the "centre" of the well accepted within the Village DOCUMENT village may be premature. These discussions that the "centre" is around the should crucially occur before further effort and school, Cheshire Row and expense in developing other areas happens. Parkgate Inn. Indeed, the Christmas Tree is located each year on the corner of Parkgate Avenue. No action required. DG COMMENTS N.B -Page 29 Area A four lane ends Same issue and same response as ON Page 38 Section 5.3.3 "All existing route choices per DI comment. "RECLAIMIN will remain available to motorists" "including G THE refuse collection vehicles and buses ".. ROAD" "sections will be limited to single lane widths DOCUMENT and include rain gardens" Under the Colshaw Hall area modifications Area B Observation This will obstruct both the entrance apron to Burnacre onto Stocks lane and farm vehicle access to the field and footpath maintenance vehicles which share this access point. This obstruction will apply on exiting and entry to Burnacre in both directions but especially in an easterly direction towards the Parkgate Pub as the proposed "Raingarden/ traffic calming blockage" is pictured extending across half of the access apron to Burnacre. This I suggest would restrict the type of vehicle I can use (I drive a long wheel base van and trailer on occasions) and my safety in doing so! especially in the low early morning winter sun! An accident waiting to happen! This will also create an obstruction to emergency vehicles (fire and ambulance) and delivery vehicles to this property! In no other part of this plan is an individual property compromised. I appreciate that traffic calming measures may be desirable but not at the expense and loss of amenity of residents. This aspect is unacceptable in the present proposed form in this position. DG General The new Village centre seems to be based No business could give such a Comments around the Parkgate Pub. I trust the changes long term commitment. The best reflect a long term commitment to the village way to secure the longevity of from the pub owners moving forward? the pub is for it to be well used and remain profitable. See also changes made to page 43 regarding the detailed planning required prior to implementation of any of the traffic management ideas. No action required.