1 Introduction 2 2 National, Regional and Local Context 3 3 Methodology 6 4 Proposed Hierarchy 10

Appendices

1 Planning Policy 12 2 List of Settlements 13 3 Settlement Matrix 14

Cheshire West and Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement Hierarchy October 2009 1 Introduction

1.1 As part of the West and Chester Local Development Framework evidence base a new settlement hierarchy is being produced in order to inform the Core Strategy. This paper has been amended following consultation on the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Topic Paper, to take account of comments received. Most notably the methodology has been updated. The changes applied to the methodology have streamlined the process and the draft hierarchy is now focused on identifying sustainable locations in the Borough.

1.2 A primary aim of this settlement hierarchy is to promote the development of sustainable communities throughout the Borough whilst enhancing and protecting existing settlements. Sustainable communities are created through the correct location of housing, employment and services, integrated with a high quality supporting infrastructure that provides for its community whilst at the same time does not have an adverse affect on the environment.

1.3 The hierarchy will classify settlements according to their existing facilities and services, over arching development constraints and opportunities, and accessibility. The hierarchy will be used to assess whether windfall and/or infill development can be accommodated within a settlement.

2 Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement Hierarchy October 2009 2 National, Regional and Local Context

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Statement 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development (January 2005)

2.1 A key principle of PPS1 is that "development plans should ensure that sustainable development in an integrated manner", to do this they should have careful consideration of the relationships in and between "social inclusion, protecting and enhancing the environment, the prudent use of natural resources and economic development." The general approach taken to delivering sustainable development should be one that promotes national, regional and local economies, promotes both urban and rural regeneration, promotes inclusive, healthy and safe communities, whilst being able to bring forward suitable and sufficient land in sustainable locations to meet the needs for housing and industrial development, as well as for the exploitation of raw materials such as minerals. Development should be more efficient through higher densities and mixed uses, preferably on previously developed, brownfield, land.

Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (November 2006)

2.2 Planning Policy Statement 3 sets out the Government's key housing policy objective for everyone to be able to live in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. The Government is keen to ensure that more sustainable patterns of new development are provided, and that better use of land is made. The priority for housing development should be on previously developed (brownfield) land, and should have good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. There should be a good mix of housing, the creation of sustainable communities and a high standard of housing design.

Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (2005)

2.3 PPS 6 promotes the sustainable development of town centres in an inclusive pattern of development that creates and maintains vital and viable centres. "The Government is committed to developing and supporting successful, thriving, safer and inclusive communities, both urban and rural." Guidance states that Local Authorities "should plan carefully how best to distribute any identified growth to achieve the objectives of their spatial strategies." Where there is an imbalance in the network centres i.e. largest centres dominate, this should be addressed through a more even distribution of town centre uses to ensure that local needs are met at a local level. Market towns should be retained and enhanced where possible, and development plans should consider re-introduction or creation of new market towns if possible.

Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in the Rural Areas (2004)

2.4 The key principles of PPS 7 are i) to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas, ii) to promote more sustainable patterns of development, iii) to promote the development of the English regions by improving their economic performances so that all are able to reach their full potential and iv) to promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agriculture sectors. This policy statement emphasises the important role for LDDs in the promotion and facilitation of sustainable patterns of development and sustainable communities in rural areas. Polices should should sustain, enhance and where possible, revitalise towns and villages in rural locations.

Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement 3 Hierarchy October 2009 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (2001)

2.5 A key planning objective of PPG13 is to ensure that employment, facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, especially to those who do not have access to a car. This should be applied in both the urban and rural area. Land allocated for future development should "offer realistic, safe and easy access by a range of transport modes, and not exclusively by car".

Regional Planning Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy (2008)

2.6 The Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, "The North West Plan", provides a framework for development and investment in the region up to 2021. The Plan sets out the broad vision, priorities for growth and regeneration, and policies to achieve sustainable development for the region and its sub regions.

2.7 The Liverpool City Region includes West Cheshire and former , identifying the historic city of Chester as a world-class tourist asset with a prosperous, compact retail and business centre, and the town of as a strong manufacturing base with scope for expansion. Both have links with North Wales with real opportunities for establishing more sustainable patterns of cross-border development and movement.

2.8 Policies RDF1 and RDF2 of the Plan state the priority areas for development within the region and also establish the basis of a hierarchy for development. Chester, Ellesmere Port and are identified as larger suburban centres within the city region which would be compatible for development provided it is of an appropriate scale and at points where transport networks connect and where public accessibility is good. Development elsewhere in the Borough may be acceptable if it satisfies other policies in RSS (DP 1 to DP 9).

2.9 In addition Appendix RT identifies Chester Railway Station as a regional gateway and interchange; these are gateways and interchanges which have more than sub-regional significance.

Single Strategy for the North West

2.10 Work is underway to develop a new Single Integrated Strategy for the North West. This will give a clear vision for the North West, and will replace the Regional Economic Strategy (RES), Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and Regional Housing Strategy (RHS). These are currently the statutory documents which form the basis for the future development of the region. A draft of the Regional Strategy is to be consulted upon at the end of 2009, with the aim of agreeing a strategy in mid 2010.

West Cheshire - North East Wales Sub Regional Strategy 2004 - 2021

2.11 The broad vision for this strategy is one that sees the sub region as "an area able to compete successfully in the regional, national and global marketplace, where the area’s special characteristics for growth are pursued ... where the economic and other strengths of individual centres are recognised and enhanced, where the desire to pursue economic growth is intertwined with the need to realise social inclusivity and promote environmental sustainability, where the distinctiveness of the local environment is appreciated and conserved, and where quality of life of the residents of the sub-region is paramount."

4 Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement Hierarchy October 2009 Local Planning Policy

2.12 The Borough is currently covered by three existing adopted development plans of the former authorities of Chester, Ellesmere Port and , and Vale Royal. All three plans contain policies that identify settlements for growth as well as policies that protect existing settlements and facilities within them. These polices have been taken into account when formulating the settlement hierarchy for the Borough. Please refer to the Appendices at the back of this document for a list of policies.

Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement 5 Hierarchy October 2009 3 Methodology

3.1 In order to form a development hierarchy of settlements for the Borough a number of factors will be taken into consideration which include:

Existing services and facilities within a settlement; Accessibility and sustainability of a settlement; Prevailing constraints and opportunities which may restrict or promote the potential for future development.

Stage 1: Settlement selection

3.2 A list of settlements for inclusion in the initial survey was collated using a range of sources including existing Local Plan policies, Supplementary Planning Documents and Regional Guidance. Relevant Local Plan policies are detailed in Appendix 1 at the back of this document. In addition to the settlements identified within existing policy, additional settlements were included as result of responses received during the first stage of consultation on the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Topic Paper. A fully inclusive list of each of the settlements that have been surveyed is detailed alphabetically in Appendix 2.

3.3 The purpose of this study is not to set development boundaries, but to assess the level of service provision within a given settlement. The area covered by the desk based and site survey for each settlement is defined by i) existing settlement boundaries as set in Local Plans or ii) the built up envelope of the settlement. This approach has been adopted in line with the existing saved Local Plan policies of the former District Councils in the Borough.

Question 1

Do you agree with the list of settlements included in the survey at Appendix 1? If not, which settlements do you think should have been included and why?

6 Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement Hierarchy October 2009 Stage 2: Settlement Survey

3.4 A combination of a desk-top study and field based survey work has been undertaken to collect information relating to the existing provision of facilities and services within each of the settlements listed above.

3.5 Council GIS data relating to school catchment areas has been used to identify the location of schools within settlements, and also the catchment areas for settlements that do not have a school.

3.6 Web based information has been used to collect information on Post Offices, public services such as libraries, and facilities such as children's' playgroups and nurseries. This information was recorded on the proforma and cross checked during the field based surveys.

3.7 A range of information has been collected for each settlement and recorded in an access database. This information was then collated to form a matrix which details all of the services and facilities that were recorded as a result of the desk top study and field based surveys. A copy of the draft matrix is provided at Appendix 3 at the rear of this document.

Question 2

Do you agree with the range of facilities and services (detailed in the matrix in Appendix 3) surveyed as part of the desk based and site survey work? If not, please explain why.

Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement 7 Hierarchy October 2009 Stage 3: Categorising Settlements

3.8 It is proposed that the hierarchy will categorise settlements in terms of their current provision of services and facilities, the accessibility of services, and the ability to accommodate windfall and/or infill development. The hierarchy will be divided in the following way:

Table 3.1 Settlement Hierarchy Categories

Category(1) Development Reason / Justification Type

Major Potential to Full range of services and facilities, high Service accommodate all level of accessibility, good access to Centre types of employment, retail, education development opportunities

Local Potential to Many services and facilities available Service accommodate within settlement, good public transport Centres windfall links to major service centres, access to (Urban and development (2) employment opportunities Rural)

Local Potential to Limited services and facilities, adequate Centres accommodate access to services in neighbouring Local infill development Service Centres, limited employment within settlement opportunities within settlement

Other Cannot currently Level of services and facilities do not Centres accommodate currently support development, limited development access to public transport

1. *Please note: Colours used in diagram are non-representative 2. Windfall sites: sites that are not allocated for development in an existing Plan, but which may come forward for consideration for development. It may or may not be appropriate to grant planning consent for these sites, having regard to the overall aims of the Plan.

8 Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement Hierarchy October 2009 Question 3

Do you agree with the suggested categories for the settlement hierarchy? If not, please explain why.

3.9 The hierarchy is a dynamic structure that is continuously updated in response to the development of the Core Strategy and emerging pieces of the accompanying evidence base, and also as a result of changes to national, regional and sub-regional guidance. The Council is also preparing a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which will examine the potential for new development across the Borough. When completed, the SHLAA will accompany the Settlement Hierarchy and will be used to assess the potential for development within the settlements listed in this document. This information will then be used to inform the Core Strategy.

Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement 9 Hierarchy October 2009 4 Proposed Hierarchy

4.1 It is proposed that the information collected through the desk based and site survey work is used to inform the preparation of the settlement hierarchy for the Borough. The matrix shown in Appendix 3 scores each settlement with regards to whether or not a service is available within the settlement. The provision of a service or facility within a settlement has been given a score of 1, and where a service / facility is not present a score of 0 is applied.

Question 4

Do you agree with the scoring applied in the matrix? Please explain your answer.

4.2 A number of settlements that have been surveyed have a low score of between 5 and 10. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsustainable or not suitable for development as they may be within close proximity to a larger service centre, or have adequate access to services and facilities in neighbouring settlements. However, it is felt that settlements with a score of 4 or less are least likely to be able to accommodate any type of infill development in their current position, and are therefore automatically included in the "Other Centres" category of the hierarchy.

Question 5

Do you agree that the lowest scoring settlements i.e. those with a score of 4 or less should automatically be included within the category "Other Centres"? Please explain your answer.

Question 6

How do you think the scoring should be applied to the categories suggested for the settlement hierarchy?

Next Steps

4.3 The next stage in the development of the settlement hierarchy is to look at the accessibility of each settlement in terms of access to public transport, access to other centres from each settlement, and existing constraints for development.

4.4 It is proposed that for each of the settlements listed in Appendix 2, the following information is collected and recorded:

1. Bus service(s): Is there a bus service from/to larger centres in the Borough? How regular is the existing service? (daily / less than 1 per hour / hourly / more than 1 per hour)?

10 Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement Hierarchy October 2009 2. Train Service: Does the settlement have a train station/halt? What level of service is provided? (Multiple destinations/few main destinations/limited services) 3. Development Constraints: Is the settlement in / "washed -over" / inset in the Green Belt? Is the settlement in a Flood Risk zone?

Question 7

Do you agree with the proposed next stage in the development of the settlement hierarchy? Please explain your answer.

4.5 When the next stage of work has been completed, this information will be used along with the scoring matrix compiled previously to prepare a hierarchy of settlements for the Borough. This will then form part of the evidence base that will inform the Preferred Options paper of the Core Strategy.

Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement 11 Hierarchy October 2009 Appendix 1 Planning Policy

Policy Document Policy Details Reference

Chester District Local Plan ENV 1 Sustainable Development

ENV 24 Rural Landscape

ENV 37 New development in Conservation Areas

HO 6 Infill Development in "Washed Over" Villages in the Green Belt

HO 10 The Re-use of Rural Buildings

HO 12 Low Cost Housing in the Rural Area

RET 10 Suburban Shopping Centres

SPD: Sustainable HO 6 Development (Chester)

Ellesmere Port and Neston GB6 Willaston Village Inset Local Plan ENV13 Development in Conservation Areas

SHOP1 Primary Shopping Centres

SHOP2 Local Shopping Centres

SHOP3 Small Shopping Centres

Vale Royal Borough Local GS2 New development in the Borough Plan BE10 Historic Environment: Conservation Areas

H4 Housing Development Hierarchy

STC1 Shopping and Town Centre Development

12 Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement Hierarchy October 2009 Appendix 2 List of Settlements

Alphabetical list of settlements included in the initial desk based and site survey exercise:

Aldford Anderton Antrobus

Ashton Hayes Barnton Barton Beeston

Burton Chester

Christleton Churton Clutton

Crowton Cuddington / Sandiway Delamere

Dodleston Dunham-on-the-Hill Eccleston

Ellesmere Port Elton Farndon

Great Barrow Hampton Heath

Hapsford Hartford Higher Whitley

Higher Hooton Kingsley

Lach Dennis

Lower Whitley Malpas Manley Marston

Mickle Trafford Milton Green Mollington Moulton

Neston No Mans Heath Northwich

Plumley

Saughall Sutton Weaver Swan Green

Tarporley Thornton-le-Moors

Tilston Tiverton Waverton

Weaverham Whitegate Willaston Wincham

Winsford

Cheshire West and Chester Local Development Framework | Draft Settlement 13 Hierarchy October 2009 14 Appendix 3 Settlement Matrix

Scoring matrix

Hierarchy Cheshire Doctor/GP Hospital Pharmacy Dentist Optician Library Mobile Place of Village Cash Bank/Building Post Public Convenience Supermarket Additional N'hood Café / Pre-School/ Primary Secondary College University Police 24 Fully Retained Allotments Sports Sports Sports Children's SCORE Library Worship Hall Machine Society Office House Store Shops Centre Restaurant Nursery School School Station Hour retained Centre Centre Pitches Play Area (Public) (Private) / Fields

W Chester √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - - √ √ √ √ √ 30 October est Ellesmere Port √ √ √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - √ √ - - √ √ √ √ √ 28

and

2009 Northwich √ √ √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ - √ - √ - - √ √ √ √ 26

Chester Frodsham √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ - √ - √ - - √ - √ - √ √ 25

Winsford √ - √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ - - √ - √ - - √ √ √ √ 25

Local √ √ √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ - √ √ √ - √ - √ √ √ √ √ - - - - √ - - √ √ √ 22

Development Neston √ - √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - √ - - √ √ √ ------√ √ - √ √ 20

Hartford √ - √ √ - - √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ------√ - √ 19

Helsby √ - √ √ - √ - √ √ - - √ √ √ - √ - √ √ √ √ ------√ √ √ √ 18

Framework Malpas √ - √ - √ √ √ √ √ - - - √ √ - √ - √ √ √ √ - - - - - √ - √ - √ √ 18

Weaverham √ - √ √ √ √ - √ √ - - √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ √ ------√ √ 18

Tarvin √ - √ √ - √ √ √ √ - - √ √ √ - √ - √ √ √ ------√ √ 16

|

Draft Rudheath √ - √ √ - - √ √ - - - - √ √ - - - √ √ √ √ ------√ √ √ √ 15

Settlement Tattenhall √ - √ - - √ √ √ √ - - √ √ √ - √ - √ √ √ ------√ √ 15

Barnton √ - √ √ - √ - √ √ - - √ √ √ - √ - - √ √ ------√ √ 14

Christleton ------√ √ √ - - - √ √ - √ - √ √ √ √ √ ------√ - √ √ 14 Cheshire Cuddington/Sandiway √ - √ √ - - √ √ - - √ √ √ - √ - √ √ √ ------√ √ 14

Elton √ - √ - - √ - √ √ √ - √ √ √ - √ - - √ √ ------√ √ 14

Farndon √ - - - - √ √ √ - - - √ √ - √ - - √ √ ------√ - - √ √ 14 W

est Kelsall √ - √ - - - √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ - - - √ √ √ ------√ √ 14

and Kingsley √ - √ - - - √ √ √ - - √ √ √ - √ - √ √ √ ------√ - 13

Chester Willaston √ - √ √ - - - √ √ - - - √ √ - √ - - √ √ ------√ - - √ √ 13

Lostock Gralam - - √ - - √ - √ √ - - √ √ √ - √ - - √ √ ------√ √ 12

Local Moulton ------√ √ - - √ √ √ - √ - √ √ √ ------√ √ √ 12

Development √ - √ - - √ √ √ - - - √ √ √ - √ - - √ √ ------√ 12

Waverton √ - - - - - √ √ √ √ - √ - √ - √ - - √ √ ------√ √ 12

Davenham - - √ - - - √ √ - - - √ √ √ - √ - √ √ √ ------√ - 11

Framework Guilden Sutton - - - √ - - √ √ √ - - √ √ √ - - - - √ √ ------√ √ 11

Antrobus ------√ √ √ - - √ √ √ - - - - √ √ ------√ - 9 Hierarchy √ - - - - - √ √ √ - - √ √ √ - - - - √ √ ------9

|

Draft Comberbach ------√ √ √ - - √ √ √ - - - - √ √ ------√ - 9

October

Settlement ------√ √ - - - √ √ √ - - - - √ √ ------√ √ 9

Mickle Trafford ------√ √ - - √ - √ - - - - √ √ - - - √ ------√ √ 9 2009

Burton (Neston) ------√ √ ------√ - √ - √ - √ ------√ √ 8

Great Barrow ------√ √ - - - √ √ - - - - √ √ ------√ √ 8

Tilston ------√ √ √ - - - √ √ - - - - √ √ ------√ - 8 15 16 ------√ √ √ - - - √ √ - - - - √ ------√ - 7

Crowton ------√ √ √ - - - √ √ - - - √ - √ ------7

Norley ------√ √ - - - √ √ - - - - √ √ ------√ - 7 Hierarchy Cheshire Wincham ------√ - √ - √ - - √ √ ------√ √ 7

Delamere ------√ √ - - √ √ √ - - - - - √ ------6

W October

est Great Budworth ------√ √ - - - √ √ ------√ ------√ - 6

and Utkinton ------√ - √ - - √ - √ - - - - - √ ------√ - 6

2009

Chester ------√ √ - - √ √ √ ------5

Dunham-on-the-Hill ------√ √ - - - √ - - - - - √ √ ------5

Local Higher Whitley ------√ ------√ √ √ √ 5

Development Hooton ------√ - - - - - √ - - - - √ √ ------√ 5

Lach Dennis ------√ √ √ - - - √ - - √ ------5

Plumley ------√ - - - √ √ ------√ √ 5

Childer Thornton ------√ - - - - √ - √ ------√ - - - - 4 Framework

Duddon ------√ - - - √ ------√ ------√ - 4

Eccleston ------√ √ ------√ √ ------4

|

Draft Higher Wincham ------√ - - √ - √ - - - - - √ ------4

Little Budworth ------√ - - - - √ - - - - - √ ------√ - 4 Settlement Little Leigh ------√ √ - - √ ------√ ------4

Marston ------√ √ - √ - √ ------4 Cheshire Mollington ------√ ------√ √ ------√ - - 4

Pulford ------√ - - - - √ - - - - √ ------√ - 4

Saighton ------√ ------√ - √ ------√ - 4 W

est Tiverton ------√ √ √ ------√ - 4

and Alvanley ------√ - - - - √ ------√ 3

Chester Anderton ------√ - - - √ √ ------3

Barton - - - - - √ - √ - - - - √ ------3

Local Churton ------√ - √ - - - √ ------3

Development Clutton ------√ ------√ ------√ - 3

Lower Whitley ------√ - - - - √ ------√ - 3

Swan Green ------√ √ √ ------3

Framework Hampton Heath - - - - - √ ------√ ------2

Shocklach ------√ ------√ ------2 Hierarchy Sutton Weaver ------√ ------√ 2

|

Draft Thornton-le-Moors ------√ √ ------2

October

Settlement Whitegate ------√ ------√ ------2

Capenhurst ------√ ------1 2009

No Mans Heath ------√ ------1

Beeston ------0

Hapsford ------0 17 18 Milton Green ------0 Hierarchy Cheshire

W October est

and

2009

Chester

Local

Development

Framework

|

Draft

Settlement