H. Report on Consultation on Preferred Options Core Strategy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Rochdale Core Strategy Report on Consultation on Preferred Options Local Development Framework November 2010 Report on responses on the Rochdale Core Strategy Preferred Options Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. SCHEDULE A 3 3. SCHEDULE B 27 4. TOWNSHIP MEETING NOTES 281 1. INTRODUCTION This report includes the representations received on the Core Strategy Preferred Options Report which was published for consultation in October 2009 . It includes the representations in full as they have been submitted against the policies/questions in the Preferred Options report. In some cases representations have been made against a particular policy or question but which are also relevant to others. Consequently, we have attempted to move them to the most appropriate place. In a limited number of cases, representations appear in more than one place. Against each representation, there is an officer response/action. It should be noted that the officer response was recorded as an initial response following receipt of the objections in order to identify the need or otherwise for changes. In some cases, the response refers to the need for further consideration and refinement without stating an actual change. All comments have now been considered. The response is standardised to state if the representation is: • Noted (may require further consideration but no specific change identified) • Support Noted (no specific change necessary) • Disagree (followed by a short explanation); and • Agree (followed by a short explanation or proposed change) It should be noted that all representations were considered based on the structure of the Preferred Options Report. In some cases the policy names and numbers have changed between the Preferred Options Report and the Publication Draft Core Strategy. The Publication Draft Core Strategy has therefore been produced taking account of: • Comments made on the Preferred Options Report; • Changes to national guidance and the revocation of RSS; • New evidence and studies; and • The need to improve the structure and presentation of the Core Strategy. The Report is in two parts: Schedule A deals with the general thrust of the responses and the more contentious Options for open land release in South Heywood to meet development needs. It also covers those policies which are the subject of further significant changes. Schedule B includes all representations made by stakeholders and the local community on the Preferred Options and a brief officer response except where it states there is a detailed response in Schedule A. The representations are grouped by policy, in chapter order as they appear in the Preferred Options document. 1 Appended are notes of public meetings held within the Rochdale, Middleton, Heywood and Pennines Townships to explain and discuss the Preferred Options with local residents. 2 2. SCHEDULE A Chapter 2 – Spatial Portrait Comments: Most representations supported the Spatial Portrait as a reasonable description of the borough and its issues and challenges. Some suggested including additional points or changing emphasis and a number of changes have been made. Some felt the portrait was too long and detailed whilst others felt it should be shorter and more focuses on the key facts and issues. Officers’ Response: This has been shortened and made more positive and focussed and more clearly linked to the Objectives. Chapter 3 – Our Spatial Vision for the Borough Comments: There is strong support for the Vision. It is ambitious and takes into account comments made at Issues and Options stage. It is also more spatial. Officers’ Response: Support is welcomed. Further review is necessary to ensure that it is consistent with the emerging vision in the Sustainable Community Strategy (Pride of Place 3). Whilst POP 3 is not yet finalised, the Vision in the Publication Core Strategy is consistent. Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives Comments: Most respondents supported the Strategic Objectives. There was a difference of opinion as to whether they are too detailed or not detailed enough. Some objectives required further justification. Officers’ Response: General support for the Objectives is welcomed. The Objectives have been made shorter and more succinct to present a clear picture of the Council’s direction. We disagree that further justification is required as the Objectives should clearly reflect the Spatial Portrait challenges. The revised objectives should also relate to the policy topics in the main policy chapters. Chapter 5 - Spatial Strategy Comments: 3 In general, representations and comments made at the public meetings supported the broad thrust of the Spatial Strategy. Most respondents understood and agreed with the Council’s different approach in the northern and southern parts of the Borough. However, some representations sought clarification of north/south approach and particularly how the role of the Townships fit into that. Officers’ Response: Consequently, some changes are proposed to improve clarity and presentation. These are: • Policy SP2 ‘The Spatial strategy for the borough’ – this has been changed to clarify the difference in approach in the north and south of the borough • Policy SP3 (the south) and Policy SP4 (the north) have been deleted and replaced with Policy SP3 Strategy for each townships (with an indication of what’s in the north and south) • Policy SP5 The sequential approach to development -has been deleted because it duplicated government guidance and may confuse policy approaches for housing and town centre uses. Key Diagram Comments: A number of respondents felt the Diagram was not detailed and clear enough in showing the boundaries of sites where development is proposed. Others felt there was unnecessary detail and confusion between the Key Diagram and the Township delivery maps. Officers’ Response: It is not the role of a Core Strategy to define the exact boundaries of policy areas and development areas. This is the role of a separate allocations Plan. The Core Strategy should indicate the broad locations where development, regeneration and conservation should be focussed. Unnecessary detail, including some sites, have been deleted. Sites have been deleted because they are not strategic or they show options no longer being pursued. Chapter 6 – Delivering a more prosperous economy E3 – Focussing on economic growth corridors South Heywood / J19 economic growth corridor Context: The proposal, which is to deliver more jobs and housing in an economic growth corridor in south Heywood, appears in several places in the Preferred 4 Options Report under several inter-related policies. The proposal, through the relevant policies, is to: • Develop existing employment sites within the urban area off Hareshill Road before releasing additional land (Policies E2, E3); • Provide new employment development on land currently in the Green Belt off Hareshill Road following development of existing sites (Policies E3, R2); • Deliver mixed use development (housing and employment) around Collop Gate Farm with a new local centre, providing an attractive new location attracting new residents (Policies E3, C1, R2); • Provide a link road between Junction 19 of M62 and junction 3 of M66 to service new development and reduce heavy traffic in Heywood town centre (Policies E3, T1); and • Deliver high quality development, landscaping and greenspace to improve the edge of the urban area (Policy P3). Comments: Two public meetings were held in Heywood, each attended by over 100 residents primarily objecting to these proposals. Notes of these meetings are set out in Appendix 1. 39 residents made objections in writing and these are set out in schedule B. The objections at the meetings, and made in writing, were on the following broad grounds: 1. There is no need for the J19 / Hareshill Road link road and it will have negative impacts on the environment / surrounding area 2. The location and type of development is inappropriate 3. There is no need for more employment land / development 4. It will employ people from outside Heywood, not benefit local people, and increase commuting 5. Object to loss of Green Belt and agricultural land 6. Damaging impact on air quality, noise and amenity 7. Damaging impact on environment and ecology 8. Proposals contradict other parts of the Core Strategy 9. Impact on the character of the area / loss of open space 10. Damaging impact on individual properties 11. Risk of further development in the Green Belt 12. Other issues Representations in support of the proposals were received from Peel Holdings, Russell Homes, The Wilton Estate, The Casey Group and Rochdale Development Agency. 2 residents support the road proposal because of its benefits for residents on Manchester Road, Middleton Road and Coronation Avenue who have problems with traffic, mainly cars, and often at peak times, driven by workers from Pilsworth/Heywood Distribution Park driving through Hopwood to get to the motorway. Representations on the proposals were also received from the Highways Agency and 4 NW and these are set out and responded to in Schedule B. 5 In order to respond to these objections several studies have been done, and the detailed findings and conclusions of these will be made available to the public during the public consultation on the draft Core Strategy. The studies are as follows: • An Ecology Study of the ecology in the south Heywood area; • An indicative design for the Hareshill Road – J19 link road and the J19 junction, and an examination of the work required to upgrade the existing stretch of Harehill Road to a satisfactory standard; • A costing of the above highways work; • An indicative Masterplan illustrating the possible type, location and scale of development in the growth corridor; • An Environmental Impact Assessment of the development indicated in the above Masterplan, identifying any environmental mitigation measures required; • A study into the market demand and need for employment development in this area; • An economic viability assessment to determine whether the overall development (road, housing, employment and associated development) is viable. All the above studies have informed the response to objections as set out below.