DOCSLIB.ORG

(CGR) 2019: Electorate Forecasts Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(CGR) 2019: Electorate Forecasts Technical Report Cheshire East CGR electorate forecasts technical report V9 (7th August 2019) Cheshire East Council Community Governance Review (CGR) 2019: electorate forecasts technical report 1. Introduction As part of Cheshire East Council’s Community Governance Review (CGR), it is necessary to produce forecasts of the Borough’s future electorate for parishes and other small administrative areas. The main rationale for producing these forecasts is to assess how the size and geographical distribution of electors is likely to change in the coming years, so that electors can be fairly distributed between councillors. For example, housing developments can result in some small areas seeing much faster population and electorate growth than others – and hence the electors in these areas will be increasingly under-represented unless there is a change in electoral boundaries or the number of assigned councillors. Similarly, councillors representing areas of high population and electorate growth may become increasingly over-burdened unless boundaries or councillors numbers are revised. CGR and electorate guidance produced by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE)1 set out the requirements for these forecasts. In addition, Cheshire West & Chester Council recently (in 2017) carried out an electoral review of its council wards, which included electorate forecasts. Cheshire West & Chester produced a report on its methodology2, which the LGBCE reviewed and considered fit for purpose. Cheshire East Council has now produced its initial CGR forecasts, which take account of the LGBCE guidance and are based on Cheshire West & Chester’s approach.3 This technical report sets out Cheshire East’s methodology and the main results. The forecasts, and this report, were prepared by the Council’s Strategic Planning Team. The LGBCE recommends that electorate forecasts are constrained so that they are consistent with the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS) population projections or with projections developed from another tested methodology.4 The chosen methodology does not constrain the electorate forecasts to ONS’ latest (2016-based) subnational population projections (SNPPs), but such a constraint was tested and this report 1 [1] ‘Guidance on community governance reviews’, LGBCE and Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG), March 2010. [2] ‘Electorate Forecasts – A Guide for Practitioners’, LGBCE, October 2011. [3] ‘Electoral reviews: Technical guidance’, LGBCE, April 2014. 2 Cheshire West and Chester Electoral Review 2017: The Current and Forecast Electorate, Cheshire West & Chester Council, March 2017. 3 It will also be necessary to generate electorate forecasts for any alternative administrative boundaries that are proposed during the course of the CGR. 4 This advice is set out in the LGBCE’s ‘Electorate Forecasts – A Guide for Practitioners’. As noted above, the Council’s chosen methodology is based on Cheshire West & Chester’s approach, which has been tested and accepted by the LGBCE. OFFICIAL 1 Cheshire East CGR electorate forecasts technical report V9 (7th August 2019) highlights the effect of that constraint and explains why the SNPP-constrained electorate forecasts were not adopted as the Council’s chosen forecast. Cheshire East’s chosen forecasting methodology involves some separate treatment of dwellings (in which one or more households live) and communal establishments, such as care homes and student halls of accommodation. For the sake of clarity, this report uses the term “dwellings” to refer only to accommodation occupied by households with no care provision5; “residential properties” (or “properties”) means all accommodation, whether dwellings with extra care, dwellings without extra care or communal establishments.6 Section 2 of this report explains which geographical areas the forecasts were produced for (and why), Section 3 justifies the choice of the forecasting time period and Section 4 presents the forecasting methodology and summarises the forecast results. Section 5 explains why the base year (2018) forecast figure differs from that published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Section 6 highlights the results of constraining the forecasts so they are consistent with ONS’ latest (2016- based) subnational population projections. Annex 1 sets out how the underlying forecasts of future housing development were produced and Annex 2 contains the tables of electorate forecast results. 2. Geographical coverage of the forecasts The CGR involves a review of parish and parish ward boundaries, but the findings and resulting decisions may also involve a change to council ward boundaries. Hence there is a need to consider the current and future electorate at all these geographical tiers. This is complicated by that fact that, in many cases, council ward and parish boundaries do not align with each other very well. Parish wards are usually (though not in every case) subdivisions of both council ward and parishes. However, all polling districts are subdivisions of parish wards, parishes and council wards. Furthermore, Electoral Register data – which include statistics on both the number of electors and the number of properties – are readily available at polling district level. Cheshire West & Chester’s 2017 review of its council ward boundaries included forecasts at and above polling district level. The other key data input required for electorate forecasts – Council data on completed new build housing and on future development sites - includes site and 5 For the purposes of this report and the CGR electorate forecasts, “care homes” means forms of specialist housing for older people that fall within the C2 premises use class (https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/9/change_of_use ): namely residential care homes, nursing homes and extra care housing. Extra care housing is housing primarily for older people, where occupants have specific tenure rights to occupy self-contained dwellings and where they have agreements that cover the provision of care, support, domestic, social, community or other services. 6 This is consistent with the definitions in the 2011 Census Glossary of Terms (Office for National Statistics, May 2014). This defines a dwelling as “a unit of accommodation which may comprise one or more household spaces (a household space is the accommodation used or available for use by an individual household)…” OFFICIAL 2 Cheshire East CGR electorate forecasts technical report V9 (7th August 2019) individual property eastings and northings. Housing completions and expected future developments can therefore be mapped to any geographical area. Given all this, Cheshire East’s CGR electorate forecasts have been produced for five different geographical tiers: its 343 polling districts, 193 parish wards, 142 parishes, 52 council wards and the Borough as a whole.7 The chosen approach – following that taken by Cheshire West & Chester in its 2017 review - was to produce forecasts firstly for council wards and add these up to obtain a Borough-wide total, and then generate forecasts for polling districts. The forecasts for each polling district were calculated using (amongst other input data) estimates of the average number of electors per dwelling for the council ward in which polling district lay. The resulting electorate forecasts for each polling district were then constrained so that they summed to the electorate totals for each council ward. The polling district figures were then grouped into their constituent parish wards and parishes, in order to generate forecasts for these other geographical tiers that summed to the same sub-totals and overall (Borough) totals. For the Borough as a whole, the resulting forecast is an increase of around 26,300 (8.7%) in the electorate, from 302,000 (2018) to 328,300 (2025). 3. Time period for the forecasts LGBCE guidance on electorate forecasts states that there is a legal requirement that the review take into account changes in the electorate that are likely to occur within five years of the end of the review’s final recommendations. Hence the LGBCE asks that local authorities produce forecasts for six years from the start of the review.8 Cheshire East has decided that the review should commence in June 2019 and therefore forecasts are required up to 2025. For the forecasting starting point, LGBCE ideally requires authorities to use the electorate from the 1st of the month during which the review formally starts. However, the LGBCE is willing to consider use of the register from the previous December if the Council in question presents valid reasons for doing so.9 1st December 2018 was a Saturday, but Cheshire East had data available from the register as of the last working day prior to this, 30th November 2018. Because of the time lag involved in compiling and modelling data and desirability of having forecasts available for when the review commences, the Council decided to take the register as of 30th November 2018 as the baseline for its forecasts. The resulting forecasts are therefore for the period from (30th November) 2018 to 2025. 7 The figures quoted here for parishes and parish wards include 7 parish meetings, i.e. there are 186 town and parish council wards and 135 town and parish councils, plus the 7 parish meetings. 8 Paragraph 4.68, ‘Electoral reviews: Technical guidance’, LGBCE, April 2014. 9 Paragraph 4.67, ‘Electoral reviews: Technical guidance’, LGBCE, April 2014. OFFICIAL 3 Cheshire East CGR electorate forecasts technical report
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Macclesfield. 855
    • • :MACCLESFIELD. 855 • -· • NEWSPAPERS. Conservative Club, 6, Chester gate-Henry Uacclef!.field Advertiser and East C/w;hire Abbott, secretary and registration Gazette, 50, Mill street, published agent ' every Saturday-Joshua Daniel, pro­ County Lunatic .Asylum, Parkside, Chester ' prietor and publisher. (&e advl.) road-Peter Maury Deas, M.B., medi­ Ncu:.desfield Courier and lierald, Office, ·19, cal superintendent ; Thomas Lyle, Chester gate, published every Saturday M.D., assistant medical officer; Rev. -Jnmes Swinnerton, proprietor and Edwd. Powell Nicholl, M.A., chaplain; publisher. (See advertisement) Thomas Barton, clerk and steward Maccle.~eld Fr~e Pre.~s and Bollin,gton lYews, County Police Statim1, King Edward street Office, 59, Mill street, published on -Henry Saxton, superintendent 'Vednesday-Clarson and Baker, pro­ Pire Engi11e Station, Town hall, Church side prietors and publishers. - William Sheasby, superintendent Macclesfield Guardian, Office, 38, Market Gas Wo1·ks, Hibel road-John Hy. Lyon, place, published every Saturday - managel", Stanley, and S. Buckley Clarson and Baker, publishers and and J ames Bamford, collectors proprietors. (See advertisementt) Highway Bom·d .f#Jr H·estbury Didsiou, 1 !), King Edward street-Thos. Carswcll, PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENTS. surveyor Baths, Davenport street-V\.,.illiam Fisher, Infirmary, Cumberland street- Charles manager Edward Hardymau, house surgeon ; Board of Health, Office, Town hall-.Tabez Henry M. Fernie, John L. Rushton, Wright, surveyor; Dr. George Bland, M.D.; James B. Hughes, J.I>.Allwood, medical officer; Samuel Whittaker, Thomas A. Somerville, hon. medical collector ; J ames Barber, comptroller; officers; F. F. Lallemand, John Birch­ Alfred Ridgway, sanitary inspector enall, Ja:mes Bland, hon. consulting B<Yrough Pofice Station, l, Church sirle­ medical officers; Wm.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Cheshire East Council Public Consultation July 2017
    Cheshire East Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Cheshire East Council Public Consultation July 2017 OFFICIAL Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Public Consultation Contents 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Consultation Documents .................................................................................. 1 3.0 Consultation Period .......................................................................................... 1 4.0 Consultation Publicity ....................................................................................... 1 5.0 Comments Received ........................................................................................ 3 6.0 Document Revision .......................................................................................... 6 7.0 Appendix A: List of Stakeholders (Direct Mail Shot) ......................................... 7 OFFICIAL 1.0 Introduction In accordance with its statutory duties under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA), as a lead local flood authority (LLFA) Cheshire East Council must develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management across its administrative area. As required by the FWMA, the Council as LLFA must consult about the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy with other risk management authorities and the public that may be affected by the strategy. This document is a summary of the consultation exercise which has been undertaken
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation Report Knutsford Neighbourhood Plan Knutsford
    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 ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pub Walks Walks from the Dog
    PUB WALKS WALKS FROM THE DOG 1. Over Peover Trek Distance: 4.3 miles 2. Sandle Bridge Lane to Peover Hall Distance: 10 miles 3. Peover Heath Stroll Distance: 2.5 miles 4. History of Over Peover WALKS FROM THE SHIP Southern Woods Walk, Quarry Bank Mill 5. Distance: 1 mile Kingsher Walk, Quarry Bank Mill 6. Distance: 1.5 miles Styal Circuit 7 - 8. Distance: 9 miles 9. History of Styal Over Peover Trek Distance: 4.3 miles 1. Turn right out of e Dog car park and walk along Well Bank Lane until you meet a crossroads known as 4 Lane Ends. A signpost points towards Peover Hall where we will take a left, sticking to the signed footpath and entering the estate by a stout wooden gate. 2. Just past a stable, a gate takes us forward along an avenue of trees leading to a stile between two ponds. Head across parkland to an ornamental gate and turn right, then follow a path past St Lawrence’s Church. 3. Go through a stand of mature trees until you come to a stile. Leave the trees and turn left, then shortly after take a right over a second stile. Keep along the fence on your right, and then enter a copse when you come to a barrier. Exit by another stile, keeping in the same direction. At the next stile keep left on a well-dened track towards an iron estate gate beside a pond. 4. Go through the gate and follow the dead-straight track to meet the A50.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 4 Detailed Proposals for Each Ward – Organised by Local Area Partnership (LAP)
    Appendix 4 Detailed proposals for each Ward – organised by Local Area Partnership (LAP) Proposed Wards within the Knutsford Local Area Partnership Knutsford Local Area Partnership (LAP) is situated towards the north-west of Cheshire East, and borders Wilmslow to the north-east, Macclesfield to the south-east and Congleton to the south. The M6 and M56 motorways pass through this LAP. Hourly train services link Knutsford, Plumley and Mobberley to Chester and Manchester, while in the east of this LAP hourly trains link Chelford with Crewe and Manchester. The town of Knutsford was the model for Elizabeth Gaskell's novel Cranford and scenes from the George C. Scott film Patton were filmed in the centre of Knutsford, in front of the old Town Hall. Barclays Bank employs thousands of people in IT and staff support functions at Radbroke Hall, just outside the town of Knutsford. Knutsford is home to numerous sporting teams such as Knutsford Hockey Club, Knutsford Cricket Club, Knutsford Rugby Club and Knutsford Football Club. Attractions include Tatton Park, home of the RHS Flower show, the stately homes Arley Hall, Tabley House and Peover Hall, and the Cuckooland Museum of cuckoo clocks. In detail, the proposals are: Knutsford is a historic, self-contained urban community with established extents and comprises the former County Ward of Knutsford, containing 7 polling districts. The Parish of Knutsford also mirrors the boundary of this proposal. Knutsford Town is surrounded by Green Belt which covers 58% of this proposed division. The proposed ward has excellent communications by road, motorway and rail and is bounded to the north by Tatton Park and to the east by Birkin Brook.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Plan Strategy Statement of Consultation (Regulation 22) C
    PreSubmission Front green Hi ResPage 1 11/02/2014 14:11:51 Cheshire East Local Plan Local Plan Strategy Statement of Consultation (Regulation 22) C M Y CM MY CY May 2014 CMY K Chapters 1 Introduction 2 2 The Regulations 4 3 Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper (2010) 6 4 Place Shaping (2011) 11 5 Rural Issues (2011) 17 6 Minerals Issues Discussion Paper (2012) 21 7 Town Strategies Phase 1 (2012) 27 8 Wilmslow Vision (Town Strategies Phase 2) (2012) 30 9 Town Strategies Phase 3 (2012) 32 10 Development Strategy and Policy Principles (2013) 36 11 Possible Additional Sites (2013) 43 12 Pre-Submission Core Strategy and Non-Preferred Sites (2013) 46 13 Local Plan Strategy - Submission Version (2014) 52 14 Next Steps 58 Appendices A Consultation Stages 60 B List of Bodies and Persons Invited to Make Representations 63 C Pre-Submission Core Strategy Main Issues and Council's Responses 72 D Non-Preferred Sites Main Issues and Council's Reponses 80 E Local Plan Strategy - Submisson Version Main Issues 87 F Statement of Representations Procedure 90 G List of Media Coverage for All Stages 92 H Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy - Submission Version: List of Inadmissible Representations 103 Contents CHESHIRE EAST Local Plan Strategy Statement of Consultation (Reg 22): May 2014 1 1 Introduction 1.1 This Statement of Consultation sets out the details of publicity and consultation undertaken to prepare and inform the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy. It sets out how the Local Planning Authority has complied with Regulations 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)(England) Regulations 2012 in the preparation of the Local Plan Strategy (formerly known as the Core Strategy).
    [Show full text]
  • Cheshire East Council Local Governance Review
    Cheshire East Council Local Governance Review Overview Borough Councils have a duty to conduct community governance reviews every 10-15 years. This review by CEC has looked at all Parish Councils throughout Cheshire East and has put forward a series of proposals. The recommended changes suggested that impact our parishes are: • Of the four wards currently within the Sutton Parish Council’s boundary, Lyme Green Ward should move within the Macclesfield boundary; • The Sutton Rural Ward should be upgraded to become a new Parish Council and be expanded to include the two Parish Meetings of Wincle and Macclesfield Forest & Wildboarclough; • Sutton Parish Council would be smaller and only consist of the Sutton Lane End and Langley Wards. Points to consider re the amalgamation of Sutton Rural Ward and Wincle/Macclesfield Forest & Wildboarclough Parish Meetings:- • Wincle and Macclesfield Forest & Wildboarclough are very different types of rural communities to that of the Sutton Rural Ward. Although, there are some similarities with the higher land up to the A54, the Sutton area also includes more semi-rural areas such as Leek Old Road and Parvey Lane. • The two Parish Meetings are in the Peak District National Park, who have their own national park planning policies, whereas the Sutton Rural Ward comes under CEC for Planning. • 8 councillors have been suggested for the combined population of 672 electors for the expanded Sutton Rural Council (WBC=160; Wincle=150; Rural Sutton=362). Using the CEC guideline of 84 electors per councillor, this would probably mean 2 councillors each for WBC and Wincle, with 4 for Rural Sutton.
    [Show full text]
  • Counciltaxbase201819appendix , Item 47
    APPENDIX A COUNCIL TAX - TAXBASE 2018/19 COUNCIL TAX - TAXBASE 2018/19 BAND D TAX BASE BAND D TAX BASE CHESHIRE EAST EQUIVALENTS 99.00% CHESHIRE EAST EQUIVALENTS 99.00% Acton 163.82 162.18 Kettleshulme 166.87 165.20 Adlington 613.67 607.53 Knutsford 5,813.84 5,755.70 Agden 72.04 71.32 Lea 20.78 20.57 Alderley Edge 2,699.00 2,672.01 Leighton 1,770.68 1,752.97 Alpraham 195.94 193.98 Little Bollington 88.34 87.45 Alsager 4,498.81 4,453.82 Little Warford 37.82 37.44 Arclid 154.71 153.17 Lower Peover 75.81 75.05 Ashley 164.05 162.41 Lower Withington 308.54 305.45 Aston by Budworth 181.97 180.15 Lyme Handley 74.74 74.00 Aston-juxta-Mondrum 89.56 88.66 Macclesfield 18,407.42 18,223.35 Audlem 937.36 927.98 Macclesfield Forest/Wildboarclough 112.25 111.13 Austerson 49.34 48.85 Marbury-cum-Quoisley 128.25 126.97 Baddiley 129.37 128.07 Marton 113.19 112.06 Baddington 61.63 61.02 Mere 445.42 440.96 Barthomley 98.14 97.16 Middlewich 4,887.05 4,838.18 Basford 92.23 91.31 Millington 101.43 100.42 Batherton 24.47 24.23 Minshull Vernon 149.65 148.16 Betchton 277.16 274.39 Mobberley 1,458.35 1,443.77 Bickerton 125.31 124.05 Moston 277.53 274.76 Blakenhall 70.16 69.46 Mottram St Andrew 416.18 412.02 Bollington 3,159.33 3,127.74 Nantwich 5,345.68 5,292.23 Bosley 208.63 206.54 Nether Alderley 386.48 382.61 Bradwall 85.68 84.82 Newbold Astbury-cum-Moreton 374.85 371.10 Brereton 650.89 644.38 Newhall 413.32 409.18 Bridgemere 66.74 66.07 Norbury 104.94 103.89 Brindley 73.30 72.56 North Rode 125.29 124.04 Broomhall 87.47 86.59 Odd Rode 1,995.13 1,975.18 Buerton
    [Show full text]
  • Full Consultation Report for IRMP 13
    Making Cheshire Safer Integrated Risk Management Plan for 2016/17 Report on public, staff and partner consultation January 2016 IRMP 13 (2016/17) Consultation Report Page 1 of 79 Contents Page 1. Introduction 3 2. Executive summary 4 3. The consultation programme 6 4. Consulting with the public 8 5. Consulting with staff and internal stakeholders 13 6. Consulting with stakeholders 16 7. Feedback, evaluation and communicating outcomes 19 8. Detailed results 21 9. Profile of respondents 30 10. Media relations, press coverage and use of social media 42 Appendices Appendix 1: Annual Report, IRMP Summary, IRMP Survey and Stakeholder Newsletter 44 Appendix 2: Partners and stakeholders communicated with 48 Appendix 3: Public comments 51 Appendix 4: Staff comments 67 Appendix 5: Responses from partners and stakeholders 75 IRMP 13 (2016/17) Consultation Report Page 2 of 79 1. Introduction This report sets out the results of the programme of public, staff and partner consultation on Cheshire Fire Authority’s draft Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP) for 2016/17, entitled Making Cheshire Safer. The formal consultation period lasted for 12 weeks between September 28th 2015 and December 28th 2015. The purpose of this report is to enable the Authority to understand levels of support among all groups to the proposals set out in the draft IRMP. This feedback will be among the issues considered by the Fire Authority prior to approval of the final version of the IRMP. This report comprises eleven sections, as follows: An executive summary, which briefly describes the consultation programme, the level of response and the key conclusions which can be drawn from the feedback received An overview of the consultation programme An outline of the methods used when consulting with the public Outlining how the Service consulted with staff and internal stakeholders An overview of the approach taken to consult with partners and external stakeholders A description of the work undertaken to assess and evaluate the consultation against previous consultations.
    [Show full text]
  • HERITAGE at RISK REGISTER 2009 / NORTH WEST Contents
    HERITAGE AT RISK REGISTER 2009 / NORTH WEST Contents HERITAGEContents AT RISK 2 Buildings atHERITAGE Risk AT RISK 6 2 MonumentsBuildings at Risk at Risk 8 6 Parks and GardensMonuments at Risk at Risk 10 8 Battlefields Parksat Risk and Gardens at Risk 12 11 ShipwrecksBattlefields at Risk and Shipwrecks at Risk13 12 ConservationConservation Areas at Risk Areas at Risk 14 14 The 2009 ConservationThe 2009 CAARs Areas Survey Survey 16 16 Reducing thePublications risks and guidance 18 20 PublicationsTHE and REGISTERguidance 2008 20 21 The register – content and 22 THE REGISTERassessment 2009 criteria 21 Contents Key to the entries 21 25 The registerHeritage – content at Riskand listings 22 26 assessment criteria Key to the entries 24 Heritage at Risk entries 26 HERITAGE AT RISK 2009 / NORTH WEST HERITAGE AT RISK IN THE NORTH WEST Registered Battlefields at Risk Listed Buildings at Risk Scheduled Monuments at Risk Registered Parks and Gardens at Risk Protected Wrecks at Risk Local Planning Authority 2 HERITAGE AT RISK 2009 / NORTH WEST We are all justly proud of England’s historic buildings, monuments, parks, gardens and designed landscapes, battlefields and shipwrecks. But too many of them are suffering from neglect, decay and pressure from development. Heritage at Risk is a national project to identify these endangered places and then help secure their future. In 2008 English Heritage published its first register of Heritage at Risk – a region-by-region list of all the Grade I and II* listed buildings (and Grade II listed buildings in London), structural scheduled monuments, registered battlefields and protected wreck sites in England known to be ‘at risk’.
    [Show full text]
  • Legend DRAFT
    Rs FP11 40m The scaling of this drawing cannot be assured Half Plantation Chestnut Track Mb FP69 Little Mere 50m Issues 55m Slip 64m 50m Kell House Revision Date Drn Ckd 35m Farm 38m FB Brookside Me FP4 51m 59m W Farm - - - - Path Golf Course 51m 35m N Track Mb FP71 40m 50m Walk Mill W Path 40m Covert Issues M Home 60m E Tatton Dale Barnshaw R Farm Mb FP69 45m E Mereside Farm Farm S Mb FP68 65m D Rostherne Drive Track Fish Pond I D A O 30m E R Coverts Y 40m 66m E P L Legend E R 57m H P LC S 55m Belt O Track M P A E Clay A Shading Two Wood R 45m opper D 43m Track House Pond S Gates 44m Dairy Wood W T Site Boundary R New Mills 55m Harrison's Cattle Marlowe ley E Issues Croft Pens E 57m Parkside T 56m 35m Brook Drain Iss Iss Farm 39m Saddleback Pp Ho 35m PW 52m Plantations Sls 58m Saddleback Mill 59m P Meml I N Pool WOOD LANE Plantations E 67m 57m Track FB Issues T Existing Woodlands, Copses and Tree Belts ^ 57m Mill Pool Wood R E Path E 58m Ice Pp Ho S Jetty 65m 65m Stable Majority Pond Track Cottage 57m 55m Talisker Lady Mary's Walk Track 61m Clump Issues 42m Pp 50m Track Jetty Mere Ho FBs 49m Track 50m Cottage 55m LC A50 Egerton Issues Drain Jetty Egerton 46m A556 The Springs 41m FB The Mere Dairy Clump 40m Ancient Woodland # Mere S Jetty Clump M Wood Raleigh Wood Four Lane A Drains Mere Golf Fourlane-ends L 55m 49m L Ends L MERE CP and A N E Country Club 60m Tatton Park 58m Sugar Brook El Sub Knutsford Drive Mere Hall 50m 62m 66m Track Sta War Lodge Chestnut Owen House Meml 40m Clump TATTON CP Swan A50 Farm Clump 45m 60m 60m 41m Existing
    [Show full text]
  • Head of Holly Grove, Tabley, Cheshire, Wa16 0Hr
    Application No: 11/3828M Location: HEAD OF HOLLY GROVE, TABLEY, CHESHIRE, WA16 0HR Proposal: Development of 8 Dwellings Applicant: PEAKS & PLAINS HOUSING TRUST Expiry Date: 13-Dec-2011 Date Report Prepared: 20 December 2011 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION : Approve subject to conditions and the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement MAIN ISSUES • Whether the principle of affordable housing in this location is acceptable • Whether the need for affordable housing has been proven • Whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if so, whether there are any very special circumstances • The design and appearance of the proposal and its impact on the character, appearance and openness of the area • The impact of the proposal on the amenity of nearby residents • Whether access and parking arrangements are suitable • The impact of the proposal on existing trees and landscaping • The impact of the proposal on protected species REASON FOR REPORT The application has been called in to the Northern Planning Committee by the local Ward Member, Councillor Steve Wilkinson. Councillor Wilkinson cites the “concerns expressed by residents over highway safety issues, including insufficient visitor parking within the development given that a parking problem already exists within the existing Holly Grove, access to sewerage septic tank by United Utilities wagon adjacent to the proposed development.” DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND CONTEXT The application site comprises an open area of land at the head of Holly Grove. The site comprises three domestic garage structures and three caravans appeared to be stored there. United Utilities require access through the site to their sewerage disposal facility at the northern end of the site.
    [Show full text]