Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish

NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN

CONSULTATION STATEMENT CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2. Consultation Process 3. Issues Raised 4. Draft Neighbourhood Plan 5. Draft Neighbourhood Plan Consultees 6. Commentary on Consultation Responses 7. Summary of general responses from the Public 8. Conclusion 1. Introduction

The Consultation Statement has been prepared to fulfil the legal requirements of Part 5, Section 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 by:

a. Detailing all those who were consulted about the proposed Neighbourhood Plan;

b. Outlining details of the consultation process;

c. Providing a summary of the main issues and concerns that were raised during the Consultation;

d. Detailing how these issues and concerns have been considered and addressed in the Neighbourhood Plan.

The Parish of Chapel-en-le-Frith is situated in High Peak. A significant area of the Parish lies within the National Park. The Parish is divided into four Wards, Chapel-en-le-Frith East, Chapel-en-le-Frith West, Dove Holes and Martinside and Combs and Whitehough.

The majority of the settlement in the Parish falls within Chapel-en-le-Frith East and Chapel-en-le-Frith West Wards.

The Village of Dove Holes has a distinct community and is located approximately 3 miles from the larger settlement of Chapel-en-le-Frith.

There are also a number of smaller communities in Sparrowpit, Combs and Whitehough together with smaller settlements in Bagshaw, Blackbrook and Tunstead Milton.

The Parish Council at its meeting on 1 May 2012 resolved that the whole of the Parish should be included in the Neighbourhood Development Plan and made application to High Peak Borough Council in accordance with the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 No 637.

The reasons for the designation of the whole of the Parish as the area for the Neighbourhood Development Plan were:

A ten-year Action Plan developed by the Chapel-en-le-Frith Regeneration Partnership, following the Market Town Health Check and Dove Holes Village Plan in 2002, had come to an end and so the time was right to engage in a full consultation in order to develop a new long-term plan for the parish. The Parish was at a critical stage in its development, because:

a) It had been identified as a place for major housing developments in the High Peak Borough Council and Dales draft core strategy ( June 2010). The location and extent of the proposed residential developments (target of 650 houses to be built by 2026) were of great concern to residents. A Public Meeting was held in September 2010 following which the Parish Council agreed that a ‘Vision’ should be created for the future of the Parish.

b) After ten years of reasonably healthy business growth, there were a number of empty commercial premises in Chapel-en-le-Frith and no retail outlets in Dove Holes or other areas in the Parish. Ways of stimulating local business was considered to be critical to the future of the Parish and developed with full public engagement.

c) The town’s major employer (Federal Mogul Friction Products Ltd) was engaged in the rationalisation and modernisation of its plant, which would hopefully result in a secure future for the company, but would also lead to land being released for alternative development.

d) Tourism pressures on the Peak District National Park are intense, but it was considered that towns on the perimeter of the National Park, like Chapel-en-le-Frith, have considerable tourist potential, which, if fully tapped, could release pressure on the National Park and bring increased prosperity to the parish.

e) Within the Parish a number of small communities, Combs, Whitehough, Sparrowpit, Bagshaw, Blackbrook, Tunstead Milton and Dove Holes who have individual needs and issues to address.

1 Following four initial public meetings, Chapel Vision was formed to be the vehicle to develop the Neighbourhood Plan working in partnership with the Parish Council to carry out the following:

 Involve the whole community to gather the views and opinions of as many individuals, groups and businesses as possible.  Liaise with relevant authorities and organisations to make the plan as effective as possible.  Determine the types of survey and information gathering to be used.  Be responsible for the analysis of the surveys, the production and distribution of the final report to the Parish Council.

The Chapel Vision Steering Group membership was formed from members of the public who attended the initial meetings around the Parish and expressed an interest to be involved with the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan. There were also four members of the Parish Council on the Steering Group.

The Neighbourhood Development Plan Area was officially approved by High Peak Borough Council on 11 April 2013, following a 6 week period of public consultation as required within Part 2, Section 6 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.

2 2. Consultation Process

Initial Public Meetings 07 March 2011 Combs Village Hall

09 March 2011 Sparrowpit Memorial Institute

10 March 2011 Dove Holes Methodist Church

16 March 2011 Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Hall

Other Consultations Saturday morning drop-in event at Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Hall with maps and 15 October 2011 progress on Plan

Saturday morning drop-in event at Dove Holes Community Centre with maps 12 November 2011 and progress on Plan

Every household in the Parish delivered a survey with FREEPOST March 2012 return envelope

Questionnaire sent to every retail business in the Parish with a FREEPOST return envelope

Questionnaire sent to every commerical business in the Parish with a FREEPOST return envelope

17 January 2014 Open Day - Display at Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Hal l 18 January 2014 Open Day - Display at Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Hal l 24 January 2014 Open Day - Display at Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Hal l 25 January 2014 Open Day - Display at Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Hal l

How people were consulted

In March 2011 four meetings were arranged at venues around the Parish and were open to all residents. The meetings were published on the seven notice boards around the Parish, on the Parish Council website and in the local press.

The meetings were well attended and those present were asked four questions:

1. What do you like about living in the Parish?

2. What don’t you like about living in the Parish?

3. What would you like to see in the future in the Parish?

4. What wouldn’t you like to see in the future in the Parish?

People were asked to put their names forward to volunteer to join a Steering Group to prepare a Plan for the Parish or alternatively to join a Working Group.

With support from Rural Action Derbyshire the Chapel Vision Steering Group was formed and it considered all the comments made at the four public meetings and divided them into common areas of concern.

3 From this the following Working Groups were formed:

 Housing  Countryside  Transport  Infrastructure  Economic/Tourism

The Working Groups appointed a Chairman who represented the Group on the Steering Committee along with four Parish Councillors and other interested residents.

Chapel Vision Constitution was agreed on 18 January 2012 together with Terms of Reference for Working Groups.

High Peak Borough Council allocated Officer support to each of the Working Groups to ensure that the Plan evolved in conformity with the Policies of the High Peak Local Plan. Officer support was also made available by the Peak District National Park Authority.

In October and November 2011 two Saturday morning drop in events were held in Chapel-en-le-Frith and Dove Holes to update residents on the themes/issues that had come forward in the initial consultation meetings. Large scale maps were presented and residents were asked to mark areas that they wished to remain as countryside.

The Chapel Vision Steering Committee having regard for the evidence gathered to date produced a survey which was delivered to every household in the Parish with a FREEPOST return envelope. The results of the surveys were analysed by a professional data inputter and the data was made available to each of the Working Groups.

4 3. Issues Raised

 Number of proposed houses to be built  Lack of Affordable Housing  Employment Opportunities  Promotion of tourism  Development of Community facilities  Parking issues  Scope of public transport  Preservation of open countryside and green spaces  Ability of the local infrastructure to cope with more residents

4. Draft Neighbourhood Plan The responses from the consultations were developed into policies for inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan with the following policy areas:

 Housing  Employment, Tourism and Community Land Development  Town Centre  Sustainable Transport and Movement  Countryside

5. Draft Neighbourhood Plan Consultees

English Heritage Natural Environment Agency Derbyshire County Council Government Pipelines Severn Trent Water Electricity North West United Utilities The Coal Authority Network Rail NHS England - Area Team Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire British Telecom Mono Consultants C/O Mobile Operators Association Highways Agency HCA Derbyshire Constabulary Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service National Grid Town Council Parish Council Chinley & Brownside Parish Council Hartington and Upper Quarter Parish Council Edale Parish Council Peak Forest Parish Council High Peak Borough Council Peak District National Park Authority Volunteer Bureau Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Chambers of Commerce D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership High Peak Access

5 M Goldsborough - Derbyshire Broadband High Peak Radio European Estates - Federal Mogul Friction Products Ltd Chapel Town Band Civic Society Safer Neighbourhood Team - Police M Dyson - Resident Whitehough Hourigan Connolly Planning Consultants - Dorma site Whitehough R Thompson – Resident Whitehough Friends of Chapel Memorial Park Buxton Advertiser Chapel Girls Brigade Combs Brownies Chapel Army Cadets J McNamara Chapel Carnival Committee Chapel Scouts Chapel Football Club Chapel Girls’ Guides Chapel Male Voice Choir Chapel Boys’ Brigade Friday Lunch Club How Planning Consultants Higham & Co Planning Consultants Barratt Homes John Rose Associates S Robinson Developments

Meeting to present the Consultation Version of the Plan to members of Chapel Vision 16 December 2013.

Hugh Barton Peter Soden Pat Soden David Benning A Gamble

Dove Holes Community Association Combs Village Hall Trust Chapel Business Association

Andrew Bingham MP

Chapel Parish Church Chapel Methodist Church Chapel Catholic Church Dove Holes Methodist Church Dove Holes Parish Church

All residents who left a contact email on the survey distributed to all Households in the Parish.

6 Mrs Dunk - Pickford Place H1 Mr & Mrs Sanders - Park Road H1 S Booth - Bowden Hey Farm ES6 Crimped Paper ES7 Lomas Distribution ES1 Chartbranch (Chapel-en-le-Frith) Limited ES3 Mrs Green and Mr Shuker ES4 Mr John Ainley ES5 Peter Ainley ES5 Santhouse Pensioner Trustee ES5 RTG Developments Limited ES5

Land Owners/Planning Consultants, where known, for proposed Green Spaces.

The Draft Neighbourhood Plan was available to be viewed and downloaded from the website: www.chapelparishneighbourhoodplan.org

Comments were invited via the feedback form on the Neighbourhood Plan website or by email to [email protected]

A link to the Neighbourhood Plan website was posted on the Parish Council website and High Peak Borough Council website.

Hard copies of the Plan and feedback forms were available in the Parish Office and Library. During the Statutory Consultation period four Open Days were held in the Town Hall Chapel-en-le-Frith during the daytime and evening.

The Neighbourhood Plan consultation was covered in the local press and radio.

A Parish Council newsletter dedicated to the Neighbourhood Plan including the Consultation Process was delivered to all households in the Parish. .

7 6. Commentary on Consultation Responses

The Pre-Submission Version of the Chapel-en-le-Frith Neighbourhood Plan (the Neighbourhood Plan) underwent a seven week public consultation period between 16 December 2013 and 31 January 2014.

The consultation period was widely publicised as referred to earlier and 171 responses were received from a broad cross-section of interested parties, including residents, consultation bodies, landowners, businesses and agents. The Statement of Public Consultation, to be submitted alongside the Examination Version of the Neighbourhood Plan, as a supporting document provides a detailed analysis of this and all the other consultation undertaken as part of the neighbourhood planning process.

Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Council (the Parish Council) has considered all of the representations received. Whilst it has done so, the Parish Council draws attention to the fact that neighbourhood planning is different to local authority-wide local planning. A Neighbourhood Plan is not a Local Plan and it is not subject to the same processes and requirements.

A number of the responses received during the Consultation stage were not dissimilar to those that a Local Authority might expect to receive during consultation on a Local Plan. However, as a fundamentally different process to local planning, there is no requirement for a neighbourhood planning body to provide the kind of detailed or individual response to representations that a Local Authority might produce during the production of a Local Plan.

Notwithstanding the above point, the Parish Council has adopted an open and transparent approach to public consultation from the earliest stages of the Neighbourhood Plan. As above, all representations have been considered and where appropriate this Consultation Statement sets out how the Neighbourhood Plan will be amended to take into account the results of the consultation process.

The Relationship between the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan A number of responses have stated that the Neighbourhood Plan should not come forward ahead of the emerging High Peak Local Plan. However, in this regard, National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) is clear:

‘Neighbourhood Plans …. Can be developed before or at the same time as the Local Planning Authority is producing its Local Plan’.

As the Chapel-en-le-Frith Neighbourhood Plan is being brought forward before the emerging High Peak Local Plan will be adopted, the NPPG sets out a requirement for the qualifying body (Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Council) and High Peak Borough Council to:

‘discuss and aim to agree the relationship between policies in: the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, the emerging Local Plan, the adopted Development Plan, with appropriate regard to national policy and guidance’.

There has been a proactive and positive working relationship between the Parish Council, High Peak Borough Council and the Peak District National Park Authority with regards to the Neighbourhood Plan. Collaborative working has sought to share evidence and minimise any conflicts between policies in the Neighbourhood Plan and the emerging Local Plan. This approach is entirely in line with statutory requirements. Subject to a number of minor comments which will be addressed later in this Statement, it is noted that High Peak Borough Council and the Peak District National Park Authority have submitted representations in support of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Housing Numbers With some reference to the relationship between the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan, a number of respondents, including those acting for house builders and landowners, consider that the Neighbourhood Plan provides for too few houses.

The Neighbourhood Planning process does not provide for the rigorous examination of district wide housing land requirements. That is the role of the local planning process. As already alluded to, further collaborative working and the sharing of evidence – in line with statutory requirement, the Parish Council and Borough Councils are satisfied with the relationship between the Neighbourhood and Local Plans.

8 The Borough Council has not raised any concerns with regards the Neighbourhood Plan failing to meet the Basic Conditions in respect of its approach to housing numbers. The Borough Council has, however, raised a concern with regards the viability of the approach to two housing sites (Pickford Place and Park Road). This matter is addressed below.

Further to all of the above, Policy H1 of the Neighbourhood Plan allocates land for a minimum of 454 new homes. It does not promote less development than that set out in the Local Plan, or undermine its strategic policies. As above, the Parish Council recognises the status of the adopted and emerging development plans and with regard to national policy and has a proactive and collaborative working relationship with High Peak Borough Council. The Neighbourhood Plan has also been produced in full, ongoing consultation with the Peak District National Park Authority. The Neighbourhood Plan has regard to national Policy. It meets the Basic Conditions.

It is acknowledged that some representations included proposals for housing sites in the Neighbourhood Area. In this regard, it is noted that new sites may emerge at any time. However, in this case, plan preparation is well advanced and as it is considered that the Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions, new sites are not being sought at this stage.

Soundness It is noted that there has been reference to the ‘soundness’ or otherwise, of the Neighbourhood Plan.

As set out above, Neighbourhood Planning is different to local authority wide local planning. The Neighbourhood Plan will not be examined for its ‘soundness’. Soundness is not a relevant test that the Neighbourhood Plan needs to meet if it is to progress to a Referendum.

Employment Land Representations have been received with regards the provision of employment land. There is support for the Neighbourhood Plan approach to providing for the Neighbourhood Area’s economic development. However, the allocation of land at the A6 Bowden Lane (Site ES2 A6 Bowden Lane Greenfield Site), has been the subject of significant local opposition.

Objections to the allocation can perhaps best be summed up by the Peak District National Park Authority’s comment that the:

‘site is a clear break out into open land beyond the A6 bypass, which currently provides a natural edge to the town and the start of the open landscape beyond’

At a strategic level, the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to protect the special qualities of the Neighbourhood Areas landscape. This is a matter that has been found to be incredibly important to residents and visitors alike and as such, it forms a cornerstone of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Consequently and after due consideration, the Parish Council proposes to remove this particular allocation from the Neighbourhood Plan.

 Remove Site ES2 A6/Bowden Lane (Greenfield Site)

It is noted that the allocation of the above site is supported by High Peak Borough Council. In its representation, the Borough Council accepts that the site is within a highly sensitive landscape. Whilst the Parish Council recognises that the site could provide for economic growth, it is considered that the potential for harm to the landscape would be so significant as to outweigh the economic case for the site. There is no evidence before the Parish Council to demonstrate that it would be possible to implement a landscaping plan to overcome this harm, hence the decision to remove the site from the Plan.

In removing the site, the Neighbourhood Plan would still provide potential industrial development allocations amounting to some 9 hectares. This provides for a sufficient quantity and choice of allocations.

Comments have been received seeking to promote employment allocations for other uses, notably housing. Whilst the Parish Council recognises that housing land may attract significantly higher land values than employment land, it is considered essential for the sustainable future of the Neighbourhood Area that sufficient land is allocated for employment use.

9 Economic Sustainability The allocations in the Neighbourhood Plan provide for a range of land for employment use – from industrial and storage, through to more intensive, high tech or office uses. It provides for a wide degree of flexibility. Whilst landowners may of course have a preference for different, higher value uses, all of the employment allocations have reasonable prospects of employment use. The approach to employment land has regard to the Framework, which recognises the building of a strong and competitive economy as being central to sustainable development, and it is in conformity with adopted strategic policies.

Representations have been received in support of including a site previously considered, Site ES8 Bridgeholme Industrial Estate, in the Neighbourhood Plan. This comprises existing industrial land plus land within the Green Belt, part of which is a waste tip. The Parish Council considers that there is no need to include existing industrial land as an allocation. With regard to that part of the site within the Green Belt, the Neighbourhood Plan does not propose removing any land from the Green Belt. National Green Belt Policy is very stringent and it is considered that any proposals to extend the existing site into the Green Belt should be undertaken through a planning application.

The Neighbourhood Plan does not focus on business use classes for the employment allocations. This approach has particular regard to the Framework, which emphasises the need for flexibility.

The Parish Council acknowledges the representations received which state that there should be a longer introduction to the Employment section of the Neighbourhood Plan. Whilst the Parish Council agrees that it may be helpful to provide more background information, it is considered that, by limiting the amount of supporting text, the Neighbourhood Plan focuses on its Policies and that this results in a concise planning document. It is felt that the Employment Section provides an appropriate introduction and sets out the main relevant points.

It is acknowledged that there is a tremendous amount of background work and information supporting the Neighbourhood Plan. This information is important and will support the final Examination Version of the Neighbourhood Plan.

No further changes to the employment land allocations other than already stated are proposed.

Policies H1 & H10: Pickford Place and Park Road Further to viability and deliverability assessments, the Borough Council has found that the proposed approach to development at these two sites raises significant viability concerns. Specifically, the Borough Council considers that neither site could be developed, viably, whilst providing for £45 per square metre Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments or affordable housing. Furthermore, the proposed provision of car parking at Pickford Meadow has been re-considered by the Parish Council and is no longer considered suitable.

Whilst it is noted that the approach to CIL is simply emerging and does not form part of any adopted policy, the Parish Council considers that, in the light of information provided and in the interests of viability and deliverability, there should be more flexibility with regards the approach to these two sites.

It is considered that the changes, set out below, provide for more flexibility by allowing for exceptional circumstances to be presented, whilst still striving to provide for affordable housing wherever possible. The results of consultation have demonstrated that the provision of affordable housing is an important local concern. The Parish Council considers it essential that, whilst the Neighbourhood Plan provides for appropriate flexibility, it does not lose sight of those issues that are most important for local people.

Taking all of the above into account, the Parish Council proposes the following changes:

Policy H1 – removed reference to Accessible Homes

Policy H3 – the text has been amended so that it is compatible with the policies of the Peak District National Park Authority and a paragraph has been inserted between Policy H3 and Policy H4 outlining the circumstances for new housing in the National Park.

Policy H6 – change the first line to ‘All proposals for 6 or more new homes must provide affordable housing unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated’.

10 Policy H6 – change the fifth line to ‘On large brownfield sites, of 25 or more homes, or on town centre sites, no less than 30% of new homes must be affordable, unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.’

Policy H10 – Amend to:

Pickford Meadow (behind Pickford Place) ‘Applications for the development of the site should be accompanied by a viability appraisal. The majority of homes should have one or two bedrooms. Proposals should demonstrate how they have taken into account’:

 Accessibility for wheelchairs or those with impaired mobility  A high quality design approach to the provision of a higher density scheme  Provision of appropriate public and private open space, including an area comprising approximately the north western half of the site, incorporating the pond and ample green space around it to protect wildlife.  Arboriculture – Retention of all mature trees worthy of retention and where trees are removed, the appropriate planting of replacement trees of native species.  As a town centre site, the development should demonstrate how it contributes towards town centre improvements, in accordance with Policy CNP1.  Access should be via Miry Meadow Car Park, and the approach route leading from the site to Eccles Road should be made up and adopted.’

Policy H11 has been incorporated into Policy H10.

Policy H11 – Amend to:

Park Road – Bungalow and Facto ry Applications for the development of the site should be accompanied by a viability appraisal. The majority of homes should have one or two bedrooms. Proposals should demonstrate how they have taken into account:

 Accessibility for wheelchairs or those with impaired mobility;  A high quality design approach to the provision of a higher density scheme; and  The relevant part of Park Road between Market Street and Grange Park Road should be made up and adopted;  Vehicular access to the site is to be from Park Road only. Pedestrian access is to be from both Park Road and Sunday School Lane.

Policy TC10 – Delete reference to CP4 Land at Pickford Meadow.

Further to this, comments have been received to the effect that the approach to affordable housing is different to that in the adopted development plan.

The Parish Council fully accepts that this is the case. The approach to affordable housing is specific to Chapel-en-le-Frith, just as the Neighbourhood Plan is distinctive to Chapel-en-le-Frith.

Importantly, the approach to affordable housing is in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan and has regard to national policy. In this regard, it is important to note that, other than the comment addressed above, the Borough Council is satisfied with the Neighbourhood Plan’s approach to affordable housing.

Policy TR 3 Following comments made by Chapel Vision during the Consultation an additional bullet point has been added to Policy TR3:

 Protecting, enhancing and developing the Peak Forest Tramway Trail and extending the Warmbrook Trail.

Policy C1 Following comments made by Chapel Vision during the Consultation an additional bullet point has been added to Policy C1:

 Visual impact on views from the historic town centre, settlements and surrounding hills.

11 Policy C3

Following comments made by Chapel Vision during the Consultation the following Policy has been added:

Policy C3: Protection of Local Valued Areas Where there is evidence of deliberate damage, neglect or degradation of a valued local asset this should be taken into account if planning permission is then sought for an area.

 Destruction of a historic feature  Blocking of an established public access  Degradation of wildlife habitat  Degradation of local landscape character  Removal of established trees

Local Green Spaces There is a drafting error in Policy C2 (Local Green Spaces), Table 1 and the corresponding maps. Policy C2, Table 1 and the relevant Maps will correspond to each other. Local Green Space Map 1 has been amended to LGS 1 - 24.

The Neighbourhood Plan identifies 21 areas of Local Green Space. This reflects the Neighbourhood Areas exceptional landscape and its importance to local people, the qualities and attributes of which have consistently been emphasised throughout the consultation. The number of Local Green Spaces reflects the unique character of the Neighbourhood Area and the importance local people afford to its protection.

In response to general representation in respect of Local Green Spaces, most of the Neighbourhood Areas green areas or open areas are NOT recognised as Local Green Spaces. The designation has only been used where the green area is demonstrably special to the local community and holds a particular local significance, because of its beauty, historic importance, recreational value, tranquillity or richness of wildlife. The allocation of the sites links directly to community consultation events where the Local Green Spaces were specifically identified for their locally significant qualities, worthy of protection.

With the exception of the Local Green Spaces 7 and 8, considered below, all of the Local Green Spaces allocated are local in character and are not extensive tracts of land. The designations do not overlap with Green Belt. It is not intended that domestic gardens will be included as Local Green Spaces. Every effort has been made to draw the maps accurately to ensure that domestic gardens are excluded.

Taking all of the above into account, the allocation of Local Green Spaces in the Neighbourhood Plan can be demonstrated to have regard to the Framework. The Parish Council acknowledges that Local Green Spaces are a recent addition to the national planning system. However, whilst this very newness may present some initial fear of change, such a fear of change does not, in itself, comprise a factor that should prevent their allocation.

The allocation of Local Green Spaces is supported by robust evidence. A significant part of this evidence base comprises the results of comprehensive open and transparent public consultation. It is considered that the evidence base shows each of the Local Green Spaces identified to be demonstrably special to local people.

The Borough Council has its own views on how Local Green Spaces might come forward and takes a different view to the Parish Council with regards to some of the allocations. However, this is not a policy in the Local Plan but a Neighbourhood Plan Policy which has emerged through the neighbourhood planning process. The Parish Council is satisfied with the evidence base for the allocation of Local Green Spaces. The Parish Council does, however, consider the Borough Council’s information to be helpful. It will be taken into account when progressing the Examination Version of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Policy C2 – Consideration of High Peak Borough Council’s approach to Local Green Spaces and related information prior to the production of the Examination Version of the Neighbourhood Plan.

On consideration, the Parish Council acknowledges that Local Green Spaces 7 and 8 (Target Wall Fields and land around Combs Reservoir), comprise extensive tracts of land. As such, they do not have regard to national policy. Consequently these two allocations have been revised.

12 Policy C2 Consideration of reducing Local Green Spaces 7 and 8 in size and/or changing their allocation to ‘Special Landscape Area’

The site currently shown on the Local Green Spaces in the Countryside Map as number 24 – the Local Green Space at Manchester Road, is now referred to in Table 1.

Both Local Green Spaces 7 and 8 have been reduced in size.

The Manchester Road Local Green Space will be listed in Table 1 (No24).

A representation regarding this area refers to land ownership and its wider contribution to the character of the area. Whether or not a site is in separate ownerships does not preclude it from being allocated as a Local Green Space. The site was recognised for its significant qualities, considered to be worthy of protection, by local people during consultation. Furthermore, in a recent planning appeal (APP/H1033/A/13/2193775), the site formed part of an area which the Inspector noted for its ‘sylvan setting’ and sweeping paddocks ‘down gentle slopes of the Combs valley’. Consequently, it is not proposed to remove this allocation.

The fact that a residential application is being prepared for Local Green Space 11 – Spring Meadow, Whitehough and that the land is in private ownership, does not prevent it being allocated as a Local Green Space. This is a green space identified by the local community for its significance, in the light of the Local Green Space provisions of the Framework.

The Local Green Space identified as Map 2 – Warmbrook Area. The allocation shown on the Local Green Spaces within the Built Up Area Map includes an area of land within HD Sharman’s Works. HD Sharman is recognised as an important local employer. On further consideration of this site, it is apparent that the area of land included which is adjacent to and within the works site should not have been included.

Land within HD Sharman’s works has been removed from the Local Green Space 2 allocation and the map has been amended in the Examination Version.

Part of Local Green Space 5 – Pickford Meadows is allocated as a development site and the allocation will be changed to reflect this.

Local Green Space 5 has been removed to accord with Policy H1.

For clarity, Table 2 in the Neighbourhood Plan simply identifies other important green spaces in the Neighbourhood Area. This is to show that other areas, important to local people, are already protected and do not require Local Green Space allocations.

Policy C3 Following comments made by Chapel Vision during the Consultation the following have been added to Policy C3:

 Developments that result in a net loss of biodiversity will not be permitted.  Derbyshire Wildlife sites and sites designated by Derbyshire Wildlife Trust as having particularly high wildlife potential will be protected from development.

Other Matters It is recognised that the Borough Council has undertaken further work regarding a town centre boundary for Chapel-en-le-Frith. However, at this stage, the Parish Council will continue to use the town centre boundary as established in the adopted development plan.

The Special Landscape Area policy (C1) is supported by comprehensive and robust supporting information. It is not proposed to change the boundary of the Special Landscape Area. It is noted that the policy does not prevent appropriate development.

Whilst the Parish Council acknowledges the existence of the Dark Peak Nature Improvement Area (NIA), the Framework is explicit in recognising that such areas should be supported by Local Plans. Consequently, it is not proposed to refer to the NIA in the Neighbourhood Plan.

13 It is acknowledged that there is an inconsistent approach to the treatment of figures, plans, appendices and tables. Chapel Vision summaries this clearly in its representation.

 Adopt a consistent approach to figures, plans, appendices and tables in the Examination Version. Relevant plans are now included in the town centre section.

The Parish Council recognises that the introduction to the Town Centre section is brief and does not necessarily include all of the important points raised during the Plan preparation process. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal by Chapel Vision, to replace the introductory text, be incorporated in full.

 Town Centre Section – The text has been amended to incorporate comments made by Chapel Vision .

There is a drafting error in Policy TC7.

 Policy TC7 – Reference to ‘(unless allowed by a site specific policy)’ has been removed

Comments referred to Policy H2’s requirement for Site Design Briefs. The Framework is clear in establishing that sustainable development includes high quality development. Site Design Briefs may be of particular importance for sites with outline, but not full planning permission. No change to the policy is proposed.

The Parish Council acknowledges and welcomes the many comments in support of the Neighbourhood Plan and its policies.

14 7. Outcome of the Consultation

The Parish Council received 172 responses to the Consultation and the following are the key issues raised by members of the public that have not already been addressed in Section 6 of this document:

Housing

Summary of the key issues/concerns How they have been addressed

No further building in the Parish Housing allocations are covered in Policy H1

Need for more affordable housing Policy H6 & H7 deal with affordable housing

Permission for 66 houses on Long Lane, Chapel- Affordable housing should be restricted to en-le-Frith on a Greenfield site was approved with local people 50% affordable housing

No evidence for 50% affordable housing requirement

More 1 bedroomed flats needed

Need small retirement properties

Any adjustment should come as part of a Adjust the built up area boundary on north side of planning application as this is currently designated Manchester Road to include paddocks open countryside and will fall within the Special Landscape Area

Policy H1 to stand due to the overwhelming support Allocation of houses for Pickford Meadow should during Consultation. be 54 not 30 That the site is more conducive to housing

Pickford Meadow should be housing and not parking

Only part of the site should be developed to leave an open green space.

That the site be considered for either use subject Park Road site has poor access to access

More suited to Light Industry

Objection to housing on the site

Include SUDs street design including provision Policy H8 includes 'forgotten elements’ for bins

15 Industrial Land

Summary of the key issues/concerns How they have been addressed More land required for small start-up Comment noted businesses/workshops

All industrial sites should be within the Parish Plan to be amended

Existing industrial allocated sites should take ES2 addressed separately See Page 14 precedence over ES2 Any adverse effect would be dealt with as part of ES7 too close to residential properties any Planning Permission Parish Council addressing this issue separately Promote Local Enterprise Zone from thePlan The site is located in an area of industrial use and ES6 should be considered for residential use this is the most appropriate use for the land demarcating industrial and residential

Relocate Somerset's haulage site out of town Comments noted

Improve the old coal yard site

Extension of the green belt at Bridgeholme Mill See Page 10

ES2 Summary of the key issues/concerns How they have been addressed 73 objections were received to this site being included in the Plan Plan should protect the spread of the built-up area ES2 to be removed from the Plan boundary Industrial sites should be within the current built-up area boundary Greenfield site abutting the National Park and visible from surrounding hills A6 bypass a clear boundary between the town and open countryside Sufficient industrial land allocated in the Plan

Eastern gateway to the town and National Park

Poor access to the site 83% of those surveyed responded that the area out - side the built up area boundary should be protected 4 comments were received in favour of the inclusion of the site in the Plan If site was sufficiently important it would be in These comments do not outweigh the objections National Park Development would bring employment

Could be sensitively developed

Large pylon on site which is already obtrusive

16 Transport

Summary of the key issues/concerns How they have been addressed

Relieve traffic congestion Comment noted

Better rail and bus links Comment noted Improve car/pedestrian situation on the Comment noted Market Place cobbles Consider 20mph limit in Whitehough Comment noted

More car parking spaces required Comment noted

Additional pedestrian crossings Comment noted

Infrastructure Summary of the key issues/concerns How they have been addressed Insufficient capacity at Schools, Doctors Will be considered as part of any future Planning Dentists, Utilities Applications There should be a plan to increase amenities, To be considered in the Community Plan youth facilities and promote tourism Protection of Historic Buildings Comment noted

Countryside and Green Spaces How they have been addressed Summary of the key issues/concerns

Improve way marking and cycle routes Comment noted

Include a Policy on fracking Comment noted

Include a Policy on light pollution Comment noted No objections to the proposed Special That no amendments be made to the Special Land - Landscape Area scape Area Objection to the proposed Green Space Comment noted behind the Methodist Church Objection to the proposed Green Space to the Comment noted and dealt with in the Consultation south of Manchester Road Statement

8. Conclusion

The publicity, engagement and consultation completed throughout the production of the Chapel-en-le-Frith Neighbourhood Plan has been open and transparent, with many opportunities provided for those that live, work, and do business within the Neighbourhood Area to feed into the process, make comment, and to raise issues, priorities and concerns.

All statutory requirements have been met and a significant level of additional consultation, engagement and research has been completed throughout the Neighbourhood Area.

The Consultation Statement and the supporting consultation reports have been produced to document the consultation and engagement process undertaken and are considered to comply with Part 5, Section 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.

17 .