Consultation Report

Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan

Knutsford Town Council

October 2018

Project name and Number: 16-024_Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan Document Name and Revision: Consultation Report_001 Prepared by: TR/JP/BP Reviewed By: BP/JP Date of Issue: October 2018 Contents

1. Introduction...... 4 2. Initial Residents Survey ...... 5 3. Informal Consultation ...... 10 4. Emerging Policies Consultation ...... 11 5. Regulation 14 Consultation ...... 16 6. Conclusion ...... 19 Appendix 1 – Initial Survey Age Gap Analysis ...... 20 Appendix 2 – Initial Survey Gap Analysis (Location) ...... 22 Appendix 3 – Informal Consultation Table ...... 24 Appendix 4 – Quantitative Data from Initial Survey ...... 30 Appendix 5 – EPD Feedback: Three outstanding Issues ...... 32 Appendix 6 – Emerging Policies Document Age Analysis ...... 36 Appendix 7 – Emerging Policies Document Gap Analysis (Location) ...... 38 Appendix 8 - Quantitative Regulation 14 Data ...... 40

3 Consultation Report

1. Introduction and were formed mid-late 2015. The working groups would ultimately go on to facilitate the consultation events, 1.1. The following document forms the along with their consultants, Urban Consultation Report and seeks to Imprint. provide an overview of the consultation and engagement of stakeholders in Summary of Consultation preparation of the Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan. Informal Meetings undertaken by the individual working groups: 2015 - 2018 1.2. The document collates work sourced List available in Appendix 4 from a range of different types of events and methods for collecting the views of local residents, landowners and agents, businesses, statutory bodies, local groups to name a few.

1.3. Using such a range of methods aims to Initial Residents Survey – August 2016 ensure that all those that want to input into the project have the opportunity to, Gap Analysis available in Appendix 1 and 2 (age and location) and the plan seeks to represent all stakeholders.

1.4. Key findings from each form of consultation are recorded and summarised in order to draw out the key themes and concerns raised by Emerging Policies Document (EPD) – stakeholders. The comments will be November 2017 grouped and ranked according to the Emerging Policies document and other frequency that they are raised. consultation documents are available in the Core Documents library. 1.5. Part I explores and collates the consultation responses which refer to The Quantitative Data and Gap Analysis are general issues that the Neighbourhood available in Appendix 4, 6 and 7 (age and Plan should seek to address and location) naturally centres around core themes such as transport, recreation, and housing.

The Neighbourhood Plan Working Groups: Regulation 14 Consultation – May and July 2018 1.6. The Town Council decided that several Working Groups offered the best means Quantitative and Qualitative data are both available in the Core Documents library. to produce a plan. The groups were made up from a number of resident A summary of the quantitative data is available volunteers and several town councillors in Appendix 6. 4

Consultation Report

2. Initial Residents Survey 2.7. Publicity was provided on the Town Council website, the local press and on posters around the town, promoted by The Survey the Town Mayor and the Chairman of the Neighbourhood Plan Committee. The 2.1. In summer 2016, a resident’s survey broad results are presented below, designed by the Town Council was sent however, full details are available as part out to homes in Knutsford. of spreadsheets submitted as part of the 2.2. The survey contained questions on the core documents with the Neighbourhood quality of Knutsford and the current way Plan. of life so that the Neighbourhood Plan 2.8. The key findings of the questionnaire are group could gain a better understanding set out below, by theme / topic. of the key issues which the Neighbourhood Plan could address. Community Places 2.3. The survey received a varied response 2.9. Most respondents have determined that with some questions receiving a higher the existing community places in number of responses than others. Knutsford are ‘good’ with regards to Notable responses were identified by the availability, quality, and location of higher number of respondents (which facilities. However, many commented on equate to approximately 250). the poor condition of the Leisure Centre and the lack of parking and variety the The Questionnaire Document services offer. 2.4. The survey questionnaire was divided in 2.10. There is a strong consensus that a new to 9 themes: Community Places, function hall is required in the town and Education, Employment, Environment the community agree that Knutsford is and Open Space, Getting Around, Health, missing a centrally located health centre Heritage, Housing, and Town Centre. and facilities for the youth. 2.5. The survey questionnaire was developed Education by the Neighbourhood Plan Committee, with inputs from a number of working 2.11. The survey revealed that the current groups. Each section was specifically primary school, adult education and targeted towards key issues or questions special education needs were viewed as on a particular theme. The sections were having significantly inadequate provision grouped together in an A5 booklet that and will not be able to support additional was distributed. A copy is contained with growth. the core documents submitted with this plan. 2.12. Reponses highlighted that close to/in the middle of any new housing development 2.6. A copy of the questionnaire issued to all would be the ideal location for a new households was available online for primary school. completion using a survey monkey. Nearly 750 completed questionnaires 5 Consultation Report

2.13. 63% of residents revealed that they will 2.19. 28 respondents highlighted that the not support any housing development on Leisure Centre required further school playing fields and 49% support investment and improvements and a the retention of these spaces for better-quality swimming pool is needed. community purposes. Getting Around Employment 2.20. It was highlighted in the survey that the 2.14. Several residents highlighted that the existing narrow and poor-quality questions in this section were leading pavements were a significant issue in and were not sure what the approach Knutsford. Alongside on-street car behind them was. parking on the busier streets meant that those with wheelchairs and prams found 2.15. However, 48% of respondents to the it difficult to navigate the town. This is survey highlighted that improvements to exacerbated by the poor quality public the public transport network and access transport network and the lack of will support employment opportunities in provision of parking facilities. the town. 61% would only support employment development in the town 2.21. The survey revealed that many where they contribute to the character of respondents believe that all development Knutsford. in Knutsford should contribute to improvement in the efficiency and safety 2.16. It was also identified that the community of the transport network (67%), should will not support the development of any aim to reduce congestion (67%) and shops in residential areas (110 improve and develop both pedestrian responses) and large retail/ super stores and cycle networks (61% and 48%). in both residential and edge of town areas (45 responses). Health

Environment, Open Spaces, Leisure, and Sport 2.22. 74% of the total respondents to the initial survey revealed that the current 2.17. It was revealed that the Health, the Moor, provision of healthcare facilities was Tatton Park, the surrounding sufficient to accommodate the increase countryside, and the quality parks are in growth. 64% of respondents stated aspects of Knutsford that are most that better accessibility to these facilities important to the community. via walking and cycling and the public transport network need to be a priority. 2.18. Respondents also highlighted that the ‘bad’ elements of the town were the 2.23. 54% consider existing air and noise Manchester Airport flight path and the pollution (likely from Manchester Airport subsequent air pollution, and the need and general congestion) to be a major for improved cycle ways through the impact on residents’ health. town.

6 Consultation Report

Heritage Town Centre

2.24. The survey results indicate that all 2.30. The pedestrianisation of Knutsford’s aspect related to heritage were central roads received a high level of considered very important by residents support with approximately 123 (historic festivals, buildings, memorials, responses. This was followed by conservation areas). improved parking provision (53) and improved pavements and footpaths for 2.25. Tatton Park, the Heath, and the Moor are both pedestrians (43) and cycling (23). expected to be protected and conserved alongside King Street and the many open 2.31. It was discovered that 46% of residents and greenspaces. believe that the Town Centre is difficult to navigate due to congestion and only 2.26. The community are keen to reduce on- 12% regard the experience to be street litter such as advertisements, road pleasurable. signs, clutter, and signage. The community also agree there is an Gap Analysis abundance of drinking and eating establishments. 2.32. The completed surveys were then collated by the Town Council and the Housing results were analysed by Urban Imprint. From these results, an age analysis and 2.27. The survey indicated that 67% of location analysis was prepared to respondents expect that new housing identify any key gaps that could be developments should be designed to be addressed at the next stage of in harmony with the scale, styles, and consultation (see Appendix 1 and 2). setting of the historic market town. Residential development should also Gap Analysis (Age) provide a mix of house types which include affordable homes (54%) and that 2.33. The consultant team undertook an age facilities and amenities should be gap analysis from the initial survey developed as part of the overall scheme results. The purpose of this analysis was (57%). to determine whether there were any under-represented demographic areas of 2.28. 60% of residents support infill those whom responded. The gaps in the development and conversion of existing analysis would reveal specific age buildings to residential use. groups which needed to be addressed.

2.29. However, many commented that 2.34. The gap analysis revealed that there was Knutsford cannot accommodate the a serious under-representation with increase in growth and the town already regards to respondents who are between ‘has enough homes’. the ages of 25-44. Due to their position in society as the most economically active this was especially concerning and allowed the subsequent consultation

7 Consultation Report

events to focus more on addressing this underrepresented areas of the town. The particular issue. Legh road Conservation area to the south east of Knutsford also received 2.35. The most over represented age group extremely low levels of results. were those aged between 65 and 84yrs and the typical demographic whom 2.40. The area along Bexton Road was very responded to the initial survey. These well-represented. There were also high respondents are those who typically live concentrations of respondents along in larger households within the more Tabley Road and Hallside Park and areas affluent areas. Alternatively, there were surrounding the Town Centre, train very few respondents from local station, and Grove Park. The area that businesses. received the highest number of respondents was Ashworth Park, with a 2.36. Furthermore, residents aged 45 and over total of 21 completed surveys. were well represented, with an average of 8.9% answer rate. For obvious 2.41. Notably, the west and east of Knutsford reasons, those under the age of 15 were represented the best, with the east answered the least surveys (their parents slightly better represented than the west; are likely to fill in their forms). this outcome is expected due to the concentration of dwellings in these 2.37. Residents between the ages of 16-24 areas, however, the south of Knutsford also answered very few surveys, highlights a gap where large residential however, the most noteworthy gap that areas have not been covered. has been found is the 25-44 age group, which make up a significant part of the 2.42. The results highlighted that any population, and only 4% of their total subsequent surveys needed to focus on population answered the survey. the underrepresented areas of Knutsford. Gap Analysis (Location) Key Findings 2.38. Urban Imprint undertook a location gap analysis to identify possible under 2.43. The results of the initial survey representation of specific highlighted several issues. The current neighbourhoods within Knutsford. The condition of Knutsford’s pavements, analysis consisted of collating responses especially in the Town Centre are poor under their postal addresses and and narrow which deter pedestrians mapping them accordingly. The bigger (especially those in wheelchairs and the ‘blobs’ on the map represented a prams). higher return of responses from that particular neighbourhood. 2.44. The community are keen to protect and conserve the historic market town 2.39. The gap analysis revealed that spatially, character and the many green and open given the housing density in Knutsford, spaces throughout Knutsford. The Longridge and Shaw Heath in the Heath, the Moor, and Tatton Park were northeast were the most

8 Consultation Report

identified as spaces that should be protected.

2.45. The findings from the gap analysis (both age and location) allow subsequent consultation and surveys to target those areas which were underrepresented during the initial survey period.

2.46. The age analysis revealed that those aged between 16-24 and 25-44 were underrepresented. The location analysis highlighted that residents at Longridge and Shaw Heath were the most underrepresented.

2.47. It was concluded that the next round of consultation should seek to specifically address the ‘gaps’ identified.

2.48. The initial survey and the key findings from the consultation are essential for the development of the planning policies in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and are all available in the Core Documents library.

9 Consultation Report

3. Informal Consultation

3.1. This chapter includes the informal meetings held by individual working groups regarding their specific topic areas.

3.2. The 9 topic areas are:

 Housing

 Employment

 Getting Around

 Health

 Education and Community Places

 Environment and Open Space

 Sports and Leisure

 Heritage

 Town Centre

3.3. Informal meetings were undertaken by the individual working group leaders and volunteers with a variety of consultees. A comprehensive list of who was present at these informal meetings is available in Appendix 3. Any actions raised during these meeting have also been recorded.

3.4. The groups have supported the development of the plan throughout the process and have reviewed every draft of the documents that have formed the subject of any consultation and submission. They do so through both Councillor and Resident champions on the Neighbourhood Plan Committee.

10 Consultation Report

4. Emerging Policies 4.6. The consultation period was extended to the end of December 2017, due to Consultation delivery issues.

The Emerging Policies Document EPD Consultation Period

4.1. The Neighbourhood Plan Committee 4.7. Every household was sent a summary determined to undertake consultation on document, a leaflet advertising the the emerging policies that were being consultation events, and a feedback developed following the feedback from form (see core documents for full the initial consultation. copies) which residents could fill in to give their opinions on the emerging 4.2. It was considered important that the policies. The consultation period was community were given the opportunity to extended when it became clear that firstly see the way that their responses some households had not received a had shaped the plan, but also for the copy of the consultation package. ‘direction of travel’ on the plan to be effectively tested. 4.8. Full copies of the Emerging Policies Report could be downloaded online from 4.3. An Emerging Policies Document (EPD) the Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan was produced by the committee with website and was available in hard copy assistance from their appointed at five venues in the Town: consultants. The document formed the basis for the consultation.  The Welcome (Longridge),  Market Hall, Outline of the consultation  Knutsford Library,  Knutsford Council Offices, 4.4. A 7-week consultation period on the  Co-op on Parkgate Lane emerging polices for the Knutsford  Spar on Toft Road. Neighbourhood Plan took place between 13th of November and 18 December, 4.9. A series of events were scheduled to run 2017. During this period, residents were throughout the consultation period: given multiple options to respond to the th emerging policies document (available in  Mon 20 Nov ’17 – Methodist Church st the Core Documents library), by post,  Tue 21 Nov ’17 – Shaw Heath Scout Hut rd nd email or online and in person by  Thu 23 Nov ’17 – 2 Scout Hut, Shaw Heath th partaking in one of a number of  Fri 24 Nov ’17 – The Welcome th consultation events held at different  Wed 29 Nov ’17 – Town Council Offices venues across the consultation period.  Sat 2nd Dec ’17 – Christmas Market  Sun 3rd Dec ’17 – Christmas Market 4.5. All material from the Emerging Policies Consultation can be found in an 4.10. It should be noted, that given the electronic format in the core documents geographical disparities identified in the submitted with the Neighbourhood Plan. initial questionnaire the events and hard copies were heavily focused on the 11 Consultation Report

eastern end of the town around the areas that had not responded so comprehensively in the initial survey / questionnaire.

Consultation Events

4.11. Urban Imprint were commissioned by Knutsford Town Council and the committee to create a series of A1 exhibition boards to be used at every event. These boards provided information on the process of the Illustration 1: The boards set up at the Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan, explaining how we Xmas Market got to this stage, a brief overview of the township, and the emerging policies 4.14. Residents were also given the themselves, to be used at the opportunity to leave written feedback via consultation events. post-it notes that they could stick alongside the respective 4.12. The events were supported by members policies/sections of the boards. of the Neighbourhood Plan Committee, Following the event, these comments and staff from the appointed planning were recorded and analysed. Their consultants. This was to ensure that the opinions were then used to form the event was staff appropriately and appropriate amendments and create the enabled the residents to have an policies for the Neighbourhood Plan (this opportunity to discuss any matters with information can be found in the core the people involved in creating the documents. emerging policies. 4.15. The raw data was collated and analysed 4.13. Residents could respond to each of the from both the public consultation events emerging policies including the Vision and the feedback via the feedback form. and Objectives. They could do this by This data was analysed and a sticking colour coded stickers recommendation report (see core representing their approval of each topic; documents) was produced. the traffic light system. Red stickers indicated their disagreement, amber represented that the policy needed a bit of work and green meant they agreed with the policy. A breakdown of the results for the quantitative feedback are available in appendix

12 Consultation Report

conflict between responses. These were considered in more detail and are summarised below.

4.19. The appointed consultants analysed and recorded the feedback and produced a Recommendation Report. This document along with the Summary Document are available in the Core Documents library.

Three Key Issues

4.20. Three outstanding issues were highlighted through observing the written comments: A joint medical centre, the potential for a relief road and pedestrianisation the Town Centre. This is explored further in a separate briefing note ‘EPD Feedback: Three Outstanding Issues’ available in appendix 5. Illustration 2: One of the exhibition boards after the consultation period 4.21. In brief, the figures show that there was strong support for the joint Medical EPD Feedback Centre from both the written responses and the tick box responses in the survey 4.16. The feedback received (including from (65% and 78% respectively). the questionnaire, written submissions and free text comments) from the 4.22. However, many of the support tallies for consultation highlighted that residents the written responses had comments were generally in support of the which also wishes for the existing emerging policies, this was also reflected surgeries to be retained as many in the traffic light exercise. residents currently rely on travelling to Macclesfield for certain health services. 4.17. Just over 600 (approximately 400 online and 200 paper questionnaires) 4.23. Comments were reasonably reflective of responses were received to the EPD the survey ‘tick box’ responses. Many consultation. Detailed feedback is residents wished for both the joint contained in the various documents at medical centre and the existing contained in the core documents, surgeries. however, in almost every case, the policy outlines were supported by the 4.24. Transport to and from a potential new consultation and thus taken forward. medical centre was highlighted as a key issue. 4.18. The consultation identified three issues where there was some concern or 13 Consultation Report

4.25. The figures between the tick box 4.31. Similar to the initial survey a gap analysis responses and written responses under was undertaken by Urban Imprint. They Aspiration: Traffic Congestion which are available as separate documents. A mentioned a relief road are in general map and table are available in appendix conformity with each other. 6 and 7.

4.26. However, despite a strong support for a 4.32. The EPD consultation received a large relief road, only 27 written comments number of responses from those aged made reference to the matter of a relief between 66 and 84. This was to be road out of the 647 in total. This expected (and is very common) as the represents less than 5% of the total majority of this age group will likely be respondents. retired and have more time to respond to this survey. 4.27. Despite 81% of people who did mention it (mainly showing support), it could be 4.33. Furthermore, there is clear under considered that this matter is not of high representation from both the 16-25 and concern for residents, based on the the under 15 age groups. The latter may overall level of comments that came be down to households answering as a back in the survey. family unit.

4.28. There is an inconclusive split for support 4.34. The 35+ age bands are significantly over / against pedestrianising the town represented, especially in the 25-55 and centre. There are several matters which 66-84 categories. The proportion of residents on both sides of the table have responses in the 16-35 categories is made regarding this matter. broadly commensurate to the overall population. 4.29. Like the relief road, a relatively low percentage of respondents referred to 4.35. The ‘gap’ between those aged 25 to 44 pedestrianisation in the survey. highlighted in the initial age analysis improved notably during the EPD 4.30. As a result, it was considered that whilst consultation however due to their the three matters would be considered position in society as the most as part of developing the policies for the economically active, this could still be Neighbourhood Plan, a specific policy on improved. each was not supported at this stage and that further work would be required Gap Analysis (Location) to conclusively determine the community’s wishes on these issues. 4.36. The gap analysis is discussed in more The final plan does however, cover the depth in a separate document. In brief, matters of concern that these specific the analysis reveals a noticeably more projects identify – public realm in the even spread of responses for the EPD town centre, healthcare provision in the survey compared to the initial town and congestion. questionnaire.

Gap Analysis (Age)

14 Consultation Report

4.37. However, although there are larger 4.43. However, the theme with the largest concentrations of respondents in certain amount red stickers was also areas, there were slightly fewer Community and Education which may responses overall compared to the initial indicate that the policy topic needed to survey. be carefully considered. It is important to note that Community and Education 4.38. Similar to the initial questionnaire, South received the highest level of response Knutsford was more poorly represented overall with 366 respondents. in the EPD survey, however, this area has Environment had the second highest a typically lower housing density and level of response with 319 respondents. therefore a much lower population than other areas of Knutsford. 4.44. The emerging policy which received the lowest level of support was the 4.39. North East Knutsford was one of the aspiration regarding managing the best represented areas in the EPD delivery of school places. As a result this survey. There was a noticeable policy was given careful consideration as improvement in responses in this area part of the final drafting of the from the initial questionnaire. This is Neighbourhood Plan. likely due to the recent publicity of the strategic allocated sites at Longridge and Parkgate and the increased public interest in the Neighbourhood Plan which has been generated.

Key Findings

4.40. Overall, every emerging policy was generally highly supported by the residents indicated by every policy receiving a high level of green stickers.

4.41. The policy theme with the highest positive response (306) was the community and education topic. This is expected after the response from the initial survey which revealed that the community were very keen in protecting their community assets.

4.42. The specific emerging policies which received the highest levels of support were H1 Housing Mix and T3 Parking which each received 65 green stickers.

15 Consultation Report

5. Regulation 14 Consultation  Residents were given the option of submitting their responses by post, email, or by drop-off at a local collection point. 5.1. A 6 week consultation on the draft Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan took  A simple feedback form was developed to place between 21st of May and 2nd July, collate quantitative feedback and was 2018. During this period, residents were available at locations across the town and given the opportunity to respond to the online via Survey Monkey. Full written plan by post and email. response making reference to specific paragraphs or policies was also 5.2. The following documents were produced encouraged. for the consultation and are available in the Core Documents library: Regulation 14 Consultation Period:  Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan (Draft); 5.4. Throughout the six week consultation period 6 events took place across the  Summary Document of the Draft town offering residents and other Neighbourhood Plan interested parties the opportunity to discuss the policies and aspirations  Feedback form; contained in the Neighbourhood Plan (alongside the supporting documents)  Advertisement Leaflet with those who were responsible for creating it. 5.3. During this period, residents were given an array of opportunities and methods Drop-in Session with which to view and respond to the plan, policies and supporting documents: 5.5. Three drop-in sessions took place in Knutsford. The sessions were conducted  Information about the Neighbourhood Plan by the committee members offering the with an online version of the Plan and any opportunity for members of the public to supporting documents were available on ask clarification questions and discuss the Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan website the plans content.  Every household received a summary 5.6. These were held on: document, feedback form and a flyer advertising the consultation events th  Mon 28 May ’18 – Lions Fayre  th  Information about the plan and the Tue 19 Jun ’18 – Welcome Cafe st consultation was publicised across the  Thu 21 Jun ’18 – Methodist Church Town Themed Workshops  Hard copies of the plan were placed at various publicly accessible locations during 5.7. Three workshops were conducted with the consultation period (as per the EPD) the goal of discussing the major points of the Neighbourhood Plan. These workshops were split into three broad 16 Consultation Report

topic areas and supported by a 5.12. The Neighbourhood Plan Committee PowerPoint presentation outlining the determined that since the plan was well key points in each policy theme and how supported by questionnaire responses, the group arrived at them It also that there was little or no mandate to explained how residents’ comments amend the policies unless it either would be taken on board to shape the assisted with the operation of the policy development of the Plan. or strengthened the policy intent. It was clear that many developers did not 5.8. These workshop were held on : support some of the policies, however,  Wed 30th May ’18 – Supporting this needed to be balanced carefully Infrastructure against the community’s aspirations and wider feedback.  Wed 6th Jun ’18 – Creating Places  Thu 14th Jun ’18 – Meeting Local 5.13. Once each group advised on the recommended changes, the final Needs responses were debated as part of a Feedback combined workshop which included the leaders of each working group and the 5.9. Residents, local business owners, and consultants at Urban Imprint. It should developers could all comment on the be noted that many of the developers plan by submitting feedback either delivering the key strategic sites in the electronically or in paper form, everyone town participated in the Housing and was also given to option to submit Employment working group’s discussion written feedback. as to the appropriate policy revisions in these categories. 5.10. Every comment received during the consultation was collated and analysed. 5.14. The agreed changes which form the final Qualitative data was recorded in the version of the Neighbourhood Plan are Knutsford Regulation 14 Consultation: available in the ‘Regulation 14 Detailed Comments (available as part of Consultation Feedback: key issues and the Knutsford Core Documents library). agreed changes’ (available within the Quantitative data was recorded as a Core Documents library). series of graphs (available in appendix 8 of this document). Amendments

5.11. Key issues were reported and recorded 5.15. Feedback, both qualitative and in the Knutsford Recommendations quantitative, revealed that there was a Report (also available in the Core clear mandate to retain the majority of Documents library). Each working group the Neighbourhood Plan policies. was tasked with perusing over their own individual sections within the 5.16. The majority amendments consist of: Recommendation Report and agree on the final amendments in preparation for  ‘points of clarity’ where the text required regulation 15 submission. minor amendments to ensure that it is clear and easy to understand.

17 Consultation Report

 Mapping to be more in line with minor amendments to the Neighbourhood Plan policies and in accordance with the Cheshire East Local Plan mapping (as suggested by a Cheshire East Council comment);

 Insertion of a new policy TC4: Active frontages within the Town Centre following a community mandate.

18 Consultation Report

6. Conclusion

6.1. The Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan has been consulted on twice, at the emerging policy stage and at the statutory regulation 14 consultation. A survey was also undertaken at the beginning of the process and many meetings between working groups, the Neighbourhood Plan Committee, and interested parties have taken place to ensure everyone that wished to have an opportunity to comment has had their say.

6.2. Throughout each stage of consultation the plan was generally well supported by the community and the majority of the local developers.

6.3. Minor amendments have been suggested at each stage of consultation, mostly regarding points of clarity. However over the course of its development policies and aspirations have been combined, deleted, introduced and divided to produce the final plan ready for the regulation 15 submission

19 Consultation Report

Appendix 1 – Initial Survey Age Gap Analysis

20 Appendix 1: Initial Survey Age Gap Analysis Consultation Report

Appendix 2 – Initial Survey Gap Analysis (Location)

22 Appendix 2 - Initial Survey Gap Analysis (February 2017)

Grove Park Hallside Park

Survey Respondents Ashworth Park 1-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20+ Consultation Report

Appendix 3 – Informal Consultation Table

24 Appendix 3: Informal Consultation Table Working Group Participants Date Purpose 1. Health

Dr Mallon - Lead GP MP 2 May, 2017; Keith Thompson - a) Esther McVey - MP 24 May, 2017; Community champion Angela McPake - MP's PA 3 August, 2017;

2. Education and Community Places

Lesley Dalzell - To engage will all those in the town who Community Champion; have an interest in Education and to meet a) Bob Phillips & Jon Lucy (?) - Great Places 16 November, 2016; with Urban Imprint to discuss concerning Maginnes - Urban matters regarding additional number of Imprint pupils in education per new house built.

Discuss how the NP will support Knutsford Mike Drew - Manager of b) 22 March, 2017; Library and other community services it Knutsford Library offers. Mike Cladingbowl - head of To learn about the academy’s plan to move Cllr Stewart Gardiner - Knutsford academy the lower site to the upper site. Councillor; Bob Armstrong - Chair of Egerton catchment area and how it will c) 27 September, 2017; Lesley Dalzell - Governors cope with the additional housing –as it is Community champion Alison Hooper - Egerton Primary already at capacity. school 3. Housing and Employment

Cllr Tony Dean - Councillor; Agreed that an Office Needs Survey needed Rob Watts; Adam to be undertaken; discussion on findings Jim McCain - Tatton Estate; 28 October, 2015; 19 a) Keppel-Green - (Town after speaking to Barclays, Bruntwood and Bill Davison - Bruntwood November, 2015; Clerk) Gareth Oliver Valves regarding local busineses and Fryer; Paul Webster; their future David Walton

24 August, 2015; 14 November, 2015; 05 August, 2016; 01 September, 2016 30 November, 2016; Cllr Tony Dean - 08 December, 2016; Councillor; 19 January, 2017; b) Brian Chaplin - 23 February, 2017; Community champion 30 March, 2017; 05 April, 2017; O4 May, 2017; 29 June, 2017; 05 September, 2017; 10 October, 2017 Terry Griffiths - Barton Willmore - acting on Discuss their indicative masterplans for c) (Residents group) N/A behalf of Brown Estates LPS36A and B. Community champion Paul Webster - LPS36C and LPS37 TEM Management (Conservation and LPS41 and booths Park d) P4 Planning - Bruntwood N/A Heritage Group) LPS38 and two other SADPD sites Emery Planning Community Champion 4. Environment and Open Space

Adam Keppel-Green - KTC Clerk; Bob Phillip - Urban Imprint; Take stock, introduce Ui as project a) Jan McCappin - FoTH; Sam Stephenson - TEM 14 November, 2016; managers and plan the way forward Kevin Griffiths - FoTH; Kevin Wreglesworth; Steve Wall

Adam Keppel-Green - KTC Clerk; Information gathering on green corridors, Jacquie Grinham & Jan b) 28 November, 2016; open spaces inventory, drainage, play areas, McCappin - FoTM local green space designation. Kevin Griffiths - FoTH; Steve Wall

Bob Phillips - Urban Imprint; Jacquie Presentation from Dr Rachel Giles and Rachel Giles - Cheshire Wildlife Grinham & Jan mapping of green spaces and consideration c) Trust; 12 December, 2016; McCappin - FoTM; of protection and enhancement of existing Sam Stephenson - TEM Kevin Griffiths - FoTH; nature reserves. Kevin Wreglesworth Adam Keppel-Green - KTC Clerk; Bob Philips & Jon Maginness - Urban Imprint; Review NP survey results and local green d) Debbie Jamison & 11 January, 2017; space designations. Jacquie Grinham - FotM; Jan McCappin - FotM; Kevin Griffiths - FoTH

Adam Keppel-Green - KTC Clerk; Bob Philips & Jon 7 February, 2017; Consideration of preventative health, tree Maginness - Urban 8 March, 2017; works in conservation areas, audit of all Imprint; Jonty Rawcliffe - Fisher German; 19 April, 2017; green spaces, review of open spaces Debbie Jamison & Carol Clarke - TEM; e) 31 May, 2017; assessments, review draft vision and Jacquie Grinham - Nicola Jones - TEM; 9 August, 2017; objectives, policy outlines, local character FotM; Michael Waterhouse - TEM 23 August, 2017; assessments, Local green space designation, Jan McCappin - 6 September, 2017; charter for trees. FotM; Kevin Griffiths - FoTH

Roughly 30 local residents 23, November, 2017;' 23rd November, 2017 E10:F12+F14 Cllr Stewart Gardiner - Councillor; f) Friends of the Heath group

5. Getting Around

Cllr Tony Dean - Councillor; 27 April, 2017; Mark Price; Sally Bennet & Nicola Jones - 16 May, 2017; Steve Nixon; TEM a) 11 July, 2017; Dee Griffiths; Terri Griffiths and Carol Clarke - 17 August, 2017; Su russell; TEM 28 September, 2017 Jayne McHarry; Paul Webster;

6. Sports and Leisure *a large number of groups undertook/participated Agreement on who is to be involved and Sports & Leisure a) 10 March, 2016; decision whether to proceed with the Working Group process. Jimmy Evans Knutsford Football Club & Community Spirit Sport & Recreation (CSSAR); John Horsley Knutsford Golf club; Tony Evans 7 Steve Mooney Knutsford Rugby Club; Neil Forbes(NF) Knutsford Town To engage will all those in the town who Council; Bob Armstrong (RA) Bob Phillips & Jon have an interest in sport and leisure and to Knutsford Multi Academy Trust Maginess Urban meet with Urban Imprint to discuss b) & James Routs Knutsford 16 November, 2016; Imprint; concerning matters regarding S106 Academy; Phil Bland (PB) Debbie Jamison WG Rep agreements for new/improved sports Everybody Sports & Recreation & facilities. Steve Baldwin ESAR Knutsford Leisure Centre; Emma Naylor Egerton Football & Youth Clubs; David Clayton Knutsford Sports Club; Graham Jones Tatton Park (&National Trust); Sam Stephenson Tatton Estate

Jimmy Evans (JE) Knutsford Football Club & Community Spirit Sport & Recreation (CSSAR); Tony Evans (TE) & Steve Mooney (SM) Knutsford Rugby Club; Neil Forbes (NF) Knutsford Town Council; Bob Bob Phillips & Jon Armstrong (RA) Knutsford Multi Maginess Urban Academy Trust & James Routs Review Vision and Objectives, discuss c) Imprint; 11 January, 2017; (JR) Knutsford Academy; Phil evidence gathering and action review Debbie Jamison WG Bland (PB) Everybody Sports & Rep; Recreation & Steve Baldwin (SB) ESAR Knutsford Leisure Centre; David Clayton (DC) Knutsford Sports Club; Sam Stephenson (SS) Tatton Estate. Lesley Dalzell resident lead Education & Community WG. Tony Evans (TE) Knutsford Rugby Club;; Bob Armstrong (RA) Governor Knutsford Multi Academy Trust & James Routs (JR) Community engagement; Phil Bland (PB) Trustee Bob Phillips Urban Everybody Sports & Recreation Imprint; (ESAR) & Peter Hartwell CEO; Debbie Jamison WG John Hutcheson (JH) Knutsford (Presentation) Ideas on improved d) Rep; Sports Club; Carol Clarke (CC) 29 March, 2017; community, leisure facilities. Determine Cllr Neil Forbes Tatton Estate Management. Alan next steps for Mereheath and Open spaces Knutsford Town Council Jones(AJ) Viking Swimming & link Cllr Cheshire; Gaynor Clifton (GC) Egerton Youth Club & FC; Lesley Dalzell resident lead Education & Community WG. Cllr Stewart Gardiner chair of Neighbourhood Plan Committee & Cheshire East Cllr.

Bob Armstrong (RA) Governor Knutsford Multi Academy Trust & James Routs (JR) Community engagement; John Hutcheson (JH) & Dave Hunt (DH) Knutsford Debbie Jamison WG Sports Club; Carol Clarke (CC) Rep; Cllr Neil Forbes Tatton Estate Management; Review vision, NP progress and the future of e) 3 May, 2017; Knutsford Town Council Gaynor Clifton (GC) Egerton the working group link Cllr Youth Club & FC; Jimmy Evans (JE) Knutsford Football Club & Community Spirit Sport & Recreation (CSSAR) Steve Mooney (SM) Knutsford Rugby Club;

Nicola Jones (NJ) Tatton Estate Management Phil Bland (PB) Trustee Everybody Sports & Recreation (ESAR) ; Tony Evans (TE) Knutsford Rugby Club; Bob Debbie Jamison (DJ) WG Policies outline and agreed and agree next f) Armstrong (RA) Governor 8 June, 2017; Rep; steps in prep for consultation Knutsford Multi Academy Trust & James Routs (JR) Community engagement; Tom O Donnell Egerton Youth Club & Football Club; Consultation Report

Appendix 4 – Quantitative Data from Initial Survey

Below are a series of graphs indicating each emerging policy against the traffic light system.

Community and Education Environmental 60 80 40 60 20 40 0 20 0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7

Green Amber Red Green Amber Red

Health and wellbeing Deisgn and Heritage 80 60 40 60 20 40 0 20 0 HW1 Aspiration HW2 Aspiration

Green Amber Red Green Amber Red

Sports and Leisure Housing 60 80 40 60 40 20 20 0 0 SL1 SL2 SL3 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6

Green Amber Red Green Amber Red

30 Consultation Report

Employment and Retail 40 30 20 10 0 ER1 ER2 ER3 ER4

Green Amber Red

Travel, Transport and Movement 100

50

0 Aspiration T1 T2 T3

Green Amber Red

Town Centre 60

40

20

0 Aspiration TC1 TC2 TC3

Green Amber Red

31 Consultation Report

Appendix 5 – EPD Feedback: Three outstanding Issues

(16-024_brn_003_240118)

32

BRIEFING NOTE

EPD Feedback: Three Outstanding Issues

Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan

16-024_brn_003_240118

Data analysis of the three outstanding key issues received from the Emerging Policies Feedback Consultation.

24th January 2018

a joint Medical Centre, potential for a Relief Road, and pedestrianising the town centre.

1. The need for a Health Centre / Joint Medical Centre

Written responses: Tick-box responses:

General comments from the written responses: • • • •

• • • • •

•

•

Broad conclusions:

2. The need for a Relief Road / By-pass

Written responses: Tick-box responses:

General comments from the written responses: • •

• • •

Broad conclusions:

3. Pedestrianisation of Knutsford Town Centre

Written responses:

• • • • • • •

Broad conclusions:

Consultation Report

Appendix 6 – Emerging Policies Document Age Analysis

36 Appendix 4: EPD Age Analysis Consultation Report

Appendix 7 – Emerging Policies Document Gap Analysis (Location)

38 Mere

Tatton

Mobberley

Longridge Tabley Superior Booth- fields

Higher Downs

Knutsford

Marthall

Ashworth Park Survey Respondants

1-4

5-9

10-14

Bexton Tabley Inferior 15+ Ollerton

0 225 450 900 1,350 1,800 Toft Meters ¯ © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100049045 Consultation Report

Appendix 8 - Quantitative 4. Would you use the plan when considering planning issues in the Regulation 14 Data town?

1. Does the plan cover all the issues that are important to you or your family?

5. Do you support the Vision and Nine Objectives presented in the plan?

2. Do you consider that the plan is sufficiently detailed and specific?

6. Do you support the Spatial Strategy for 3. Do you think that the plan is written in Knutsford that has been identified? an accessible style?

40 Consultation Report

7. Do you support the Community and 10. Do you support the Environment Education Infrastructure Policies C1 – Policies E1 – E5? C4?

11. Do you support the Health and 8. Do you support the Design Policies D1 Wellbeing Policies HW1 and HW2? – D4?

12. Do you support the Heritage Policies 9. Do you support the Employment and HE1 – HE5? Retail Policies ER1 – ER5?

41 Consultation Report

13. Do you support the Housing Policies Do you support the Traffic, Transport, H1 – H4? and Movement Policies T1 – T4?

14. Do you support the Sports and Leisure

Policies SL1 – SL3? 17. Do you think the aspirations are helpful to provide a holistic strategy?

15. Do you support the Town Centre Policies TC1 – TC3? 18. Do you think that the aspirations cover 16. relevant issues?

42 Consultation Report

This page has been intentionally left blank

43