October 2019 Consultation Statement Neighbourhood Plan Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan Neighbourhood

Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement 1

2 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty Consultation Appendix 2–SummaryOfRepresentationsFromRegulation14Pre-Submission Appendix 1–ListofRegulation14consultees APPENDICES 9. Conclusion 8. Regulation14Consultation 7. BusinessQuestionnaire 6. YoungerResidents’Questionnaire 5. MainQuestionnaire 4. InitialFactFindingSurvey 3. Designation 2. Background 1. Introduction CONTENTS 17 15 14 12 11 9 7 6 6 5 4

Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement 3

5 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty Promote a high level of awareness of what the Plan can and cannot achieve Promote a high level of awareness of what on the status and progress of the Plan Ensure that the community was fully informed process and development participate in the planning Provide opportunities for any resident to use feedback effectively Consult regularly with the community and • • • • BACKGROUND BACKGROUND by a Cheshire planning on neighbourhood two presentations were made at Initial soundings 2015, and secondly in November meeting Firstly, at a Parish Council Community Action consultant. invited to attend and ask questions. in February 2016, when the public were at a public meeting Parish Council determined to reaction from residents Shavington-cum-Gresty Based on the positive The designation process was completed to designate the Neighbourhood Area. submit an application in Dec 2015. applied to ensure that consistently been of the Plan, key principles have Throughout the development were: These Plan. community were incorporated into the relevant wishes of the village meetings and newsletters, consultation and Community engagement was sought through within the community) leaflet drops to specific groups drop in events, survey questionnaires (directed minutes and other information survey reports, agenda, and social media. Documents, questionnaires, at www.scgplan.co.uk and Plan and Village websites could be accessed via the Neighbourhood www.shavingtononline.co.uk. Plan, with twitter and publicising the Neighbourhood Social media was used to great effect in steering group were also a visible to raise awareness. The Facebook posts in particular being used Plan, and members of the explaining the Neighbourhood presence at village events, with displays and make a note of comments. group being available to answer questions 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Contain details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed Shavington- about persons and bodies who were consulted Contain details of the Plan; cum-Gresty Neighbourhood consulted; Explain how they were consulted; issues and concerns raised by the persons Summarise the main and, where relevant, addressed issues and concerns have been considered Describe how those Neighbourhood Plan. in the proposed Shavington-cum-Gresty • • • • interaction and consultation with residents and businesses across the Parish. The development of and businesses across interaction and consultation with residents surveys and consultation has included public meetings, the Plan has taken almost four years and able to contribute to the Plan. This fully informed and were events, to ensure that all residents were by the Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan process has been overseen and coordinated a group of resident volunteers and parish councillors. Views Steering Group, which was formed from Objectives in the Shavington-cum- led to the Vision and and interactions from various consultations formed the basis for the key policies set out in the Gresty Neighbourhood Plan and subsequently Plan. requires that a consultation statement should: requires that a consultation Plan are the result of close Neighbourhood The policies contained in the Shavington-cum-Gresty INTRODUCTION Regulations Planning fulfil the Neighbourhood been prepared to statement has This consultation Plan. The legal basis of the Statement Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood 2012 in respect of the Planning Regulations, which 15(2) of Part 5 of the 2012 Neighbourhood is provided by Section 1.2 1.1 1.

4 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

7 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty

The questionnaire was delivered by a team of 28 volunteers, in specially prepared branded t-shirts, prepared branded The questionnaire was delivered by a team of 28 volunteers, in specially The received a copy. who split the parish into manageable routes to ensure that each household help with Plan, or volunteers were also able to answer any queries regarding the Neighbourhood returned up by volunteers, or filling them in. The questionnaires could be filled in online, picked A hall and New Life Church). to four convenient locations in the parish (the Co-op, Nisa, village questionnaire the completed telephone number was also given for queries. A cash price for returning the questionnaires was given, in the hope that this would encourage more returns. Publicity regarding via Plan websites, and was given through the village newsletter, village and Neighbourhood facebook. How have the issues and concernsissues and have the How considered? been gave the Steering and to the community, were of importance highlighted what issues The results issues should be determine what and helped to and objectives, for drafting the vision Group ideas questionnaires. asked in the more detailed what questions covered and MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE they consulted? Who was consulted and how were was prepared by the Steering Group, along with an A more in depth, comprehensive questionnaire Plan, along with the the purpose of the Neighbourhood eight page information leaflet explaining every household in the Parish in were hand delivered to Neighbourhood Planning process. These November 2016. The questionnaires and information leaflet October 2016, to be completed by 14th can be viewed at https://shavingtononline.co.uk/shavington-cum-gresty-neighbourhood-plan- questionnaire-results-65c27a5d38d 5.2 4.5 5. 5.1

What do you think is wrong with Shavington-cum-Gresty? What do you love about Shavington-cum-Gresty? What would you change about Shavington-cum-Gresty? What facility or feature is missing from Shavington-cum-Gresty? • • • • so it was ensured that Neighbourhood Plan information was regularly posted on the village Facebook posted on the village so it was ensured that Neighbourhood Plan information was regularly not online. pages, as well as being available in paper versions for those residents raised? What Issues and Concerns were building was The main issues and concerns were regarding the need to ensure that future house additional space; requests for more strictly controlled; concerns regarding lack of green recreational Plan, to a Neighbourhood local facilities, shops and businesses, and issues not relating necessarily such as road maintenance and public transport. The fact finding survey also asked how long residents had lived in Shavington-cum-Gresty, what The fact finding survey also asked how long residents had lived in Shavington-cum-Gresty, how they by email or post, and respondents’ postcodes were; would they like to be kept informed question, the group had heard about the Neighbourhood Plan. It was hoped that by asking this last through most successful – directly would be able to tell which methods of communication were the Facebook, actually came via the door, Facebook, or village newsletters. The majority of responses the local residents. A short fact finding survey was prepared by the Steering Group. This asked four survey was prepared by the local residents. A short fact finding the issues which were deemed to be important to the main questions, and was designed to highlight of planning policies, along with objectives and the direction community and to help inform the vision, to all households during July and was also promoted on other evidence. The survey was delivered Residents could leave their it could be completed online. the Neighbourhood Plan website, where Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Co-op or Nisa shop. The returned surveys at the village hall, the the results from 256 returns. carried out the data entry and analysed The survey asked:- parties. No comments were received. Official designation took place on 17th August 2016. took place were received. Official designation parties. No comments FINDING SURVEY INITIAL FACT they consulted? Who was consulted and how were Area, work began on consulting of the Neighbourhood During the consultation on the designation DESIGNATION by Cheshire East and organised Area was of the Neighbourhood on designation Formal consultation 6 week period. During which time, the until 15th August 2016, the required ran from 4h July2016 consultees and interested statutory by be accessed on Cheshire East website proposed area could 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4. 3.1 3.

6 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

9 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty

and to determine what policies should be prepared. It was also apparent that housing development that housing development and to determine what policies should be prepared. It was also apparent and they kindly was a concern for many residents, and so Cheshire East Council were approached the housing policies. prepared a housing advice note for Shavington-cum-Gresty to help to prepare YOUNGER RESIDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRES they consulted? Who was consulted and how were designed to be In order to engage with younger age groups, questionnaires were specifically were to be completed by children under 12, and for teenagers aged 13 -17. The questionnaires leaflet in the information completed online, and information was given regarding the questionnaires household. The questionnaires which was delivered along with the main questionnaire to every time. The younger mainly focused on activities and sports, and how the young people spend their cycling; going to the cinema; children were asked whether they liked dancing; football; swimming; The questionnaire asked a number of questions, such as whether respondents or their families were families or their respondents as whether such of questions, a number asked The questionnaire residents used; and services local facilities Parish or outside; which to move within the intending bridleways footpaths and used the public used; whether respondents methods were what transport be used to help that would with statements or not residents agreed and whether and play areas; rate of excellent response were received, an 812 responses vision for the community. draw up a 25-44 year olds, with 48% of from Unusually, the largest response rate came approximately 45%. was covered however, with the community his age group. The full age range of responses fitting into over 60s. 18-24 year olds, and 16% from the 6% of responses from raised? What Issues and Concerns were issues at local services and car usage and some parking The results highlighted that there is high most people live in a privately was connected to the internet; amenities; almost everyone who replied a number of people had family who wanted to move within owned semi-detached or detached house; but had been unable to find suitable housing for their needs; the Parish, or move back into the Parish be welcomed. Many residents more recreation space would the public footpaths are well used; and place in the Parish, and worried that building that was taking commented on the large amount of new with the pressure that the new infrastructure to cope Shavington-cum-Gresty did not have adequate were also concerned that Shavington-cum-Gresty would developments would bring. Many residents lose its village feel. How have the issues and concerns been considered? Plan, for the Neighbourhood The issues were used to help to formulate the vision and objectives 6. 6.1 5.4 5.5 5.6

An advertising campaign featuring different members of the community was undertaken, to help members of the community An advertising campaign featuring different of the Neighbourhood encourage people to reply to the questionnaire and explain the importance on social was a large presence Plan. Leaflets were produced featuring different scenarios, and there media.

Banners were on the village hall railings and on and hall railings the village were on Banners village to advertise road junctions in the fences at “Your Vision, Plan (above, the Neighbourhood and banners also Our Future”) Our Community, and the Oct-Nov 16’ Consultation announced dates. 5.3

8 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

11 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty

What do you love about Shavington-cum-Gresty? A partner of a business operating in Shavington-cum-Gresty trading from Shavington-cum- registered office in, or A Director of a limited company with their Gresty within Shavington-cum-Gresty The most senior person at a business premises • • • • and Shavington-cum-Gresty in the next five years, and would they like to stay; and whether the and Shavington-cum-Gresty in the next five years, and would they like to stay; next five their business in the businesses felt that they faced any obstacles growing or sustaining years. raised? What Issues and Concerns were a plumber), whereas 2 Of the responses, 65% were either home based or made home calls (such as had staff who all lived had offices, 2 worked in retail, and 1 was a warehouse. 55% of respondents within or service came from in the parish, and the largest percentage of demand for the product to move from their 15 miles. Worryingly, 47% of respondents (8 responses) said that they are likely stay in Shavington- premises within the next five years, and of those 8, six of them would like to phone were poor mobile cum-Gresty. The main obstacles to growing and sustaining the businesses and staff and customer coverage and broadband speed; the cost of premises, planning constraints; parking. How have the issues and concerns been considered? policy within the The business questionnaire results highlighted the need to have an economy from along with working Neighbourhood Plan, which would support existing and new businesses, BUSINESS QUESTIONNAIRE BUSINESS they consulted? Who was consulted and how were also asked for business owners to the main questionnaire The information leaflet which accompanied asked that a questionnaire be filled in The leaflet complete a separate online business questionnaire. if the resident was:- asked which category The questionnaire Seventeen businesses completed the questionnaire. home based or made home visits; whether they had a the business fell into; whether they were of premises they had; whether what type commercial trading address in Shavington-cum-Gresty, the demand they lived in the parish, and how many of their staff did; how they advertise; where to move from their premises for their product or service comes from; whether they were likely 7.3 7.4 7. 7.1 7.2

recognized as being an important element of the Neighbourhood Plan. recognized as being an important element of the Neighbourhood towns such as Crewe and Nantwich. The teenagers enjoyed swimming and cycled regularly. A lot of towns such as Crewe and Nantwich. The Parish. The results highlighted that carried out outside of the the sporting activities undertaken were doing, had to be done outside and young people enjoyed many of the activities which the children spaces and activities. the need for further recreational Shavington-cum-Gresty, and highlighted How have the issues and concerns been considered? enjoyed and young people The results highlighted that many of the activities which the children for further doing, had to be done outside Shavington-cum-Gresty, and highlighted the need facilities, and enhancing community recreational spaces and activities. The importance of protecting was and further open spaces, and the provision of new facilities such as a Multi Use Games Area, questionnaire. raised? What Issues and Concerns were outside, swimming and going enjoyed were playing The main activities which the younger children younger age group were a member of an organized group to the cinema. Over three quarters of the of the teenagers were on facebook, Instagram and such as the cubs or brownies. The majority or meeting friends in nearby were going to the cinema, snapchat, and the most popular activities skateboarding; playing outside, playing on the computer, or if they were in a club like the cubs the cubs a club like were in or if they computer, on the playing playing outside, skateboarding; danced; enjoyed sports; cycled; played specific were asked if they The teenagers and brownies. nearby cinema or visited any clubs; went to the were in arts; played an instrument; performance or outside inside part in these activities asked if they took teenagers were also towns. The 37 or snapchat. facebook, twitter, Instagram whether they used and Shavington-cum-Gresty; the teenager’s completed children’s questionnaire, and 11 teenagers children returned the 6.3 6.2

10 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

13 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty

81 comments from neighbouring residents and parish councils; 8 comments from Cheshire East Council, comments from 3 statutory consultees and 7 comments from 2 developers. A summary of comments reflecting issues and concerns, along with the steering groups’ response can be found in Appendix 2. Resident comments focused on the need to ensure that new development is well designed, the lack of recreational facilities, housing figures, neighbouring Comments from sustainable transport, and the need for community facilities and shops. East prepared by Cheshire residents were concerned that the larger settlement limit for Shavington Plan, which in the Neighbourhood Council and covering part of the neighbouring parish was included with some approval of the draft was larger than the designated area. Cheshire East expressed strong to ensure clearer understanding. helpful suggestions for improving the wording of several policies made available for residents to scrutinise and comment sheets were available for completion. An for completion. available were sheets comment and to scrutinise for residents available made the Parish, and again, to all houses in distributed Voice’ which was also written for ‘Village article was a wide audience. and to reach the consultation, information about was used to provide Facebook the Neighbourhood (11 May) and Festival was held the annual Village consultation period, During the numerous villages this event, Council. During stall with the Parish Group shared a Plan Steering Plan and this occasion was used to and discuss the Neighbourhood stopped to ask questions On the following Sunday and the Plan. to comment on any and all aspects of emphasise the need asked questions and further residents was held in the village Hall where Monday, a drop-in event discussed the Plan. by Parish Councillors and Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Stall at Village Festival, 11 May 2019, manned dates. members with banners advertising the consultation Planning Team and each East Neighbourhood A list of consultees was provided by Cheshire contacted and informed of the relevant consultees were consultee, along with a wide range of other consultation (see Appendix 1). raised? What Issues and Concerns were In total 129 comments were submitted consisting of 29 comments from 12 residents; 8.5 8.3 8.4

in events in the village hall to help gather comments and answer queries. All documentation was queries. All documentation in events in the village hall to help gather comments and answer All consultees were informed of the location of the draft Plan and associated documents and surveys. associated documents All consultees were informed of the location of the draft Plan and for along with the closing date Clear explanation was provided on how to make representation with accompanying comments to be submitted. A copy of the Plan was submitted to Cheshire East on the were published documentation. All details of the consultation and all relevant documentation or could be Parish Council website village website. Comment sheets could be downloaded from the and drop the village festival completed online. In addition, members of the steering group attended As required under Part 5, Section 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, As required under Part 5, Section 14 of undertook a six week pre-submission consultation on the Shavington-cum-Gresty Parish Council and the 5th June 2109. In doing so, the Parish Council draft Plan, between the 23rd April 2019 who might have an interest and a range of consultees consulted with all required statutory bodies vantage points for both around the village at various in the draft Plan. Banners were displayed around the village. hall railings and fences pedestrians and drivers including the parish stands at the annual Village Festivals, summer of 2017 and 2018, where many dozens of residents 2018, where many dozens of residents Village Festivals, summer of 2017 and stands at the annual Plan. and the direction of the Neighbourhood discussed the findings 14 CONSULTATION REGULATION they consulted? Who was consulted and how were home. The policy recognised the importance of parking for local businesses, and also the need to the need and also businesses, for local of parking the importance recognised The policy home. to have a policy on important also considered possible. It was facilities where retain employment in the questionnaire. an issue raised as this was telecommunications, which continued regarding the Questionnaire the villagers much discussion amongst There was the Steering Group manned of Plan preparation. Representatives throughout the Neighbourhood 8.2 8.1 8.

12 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

15 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty Tarporley Parish Council Parish Council Chapel and Hill Chorlton Other Bodies Lancashire and Gtr. Manchester NHS Eastern Cheshire NHS Clinical Group Cheshire and Merseyside NHS Electricity North West United Utilities Scottish Power South Cheshire Chamber Parish Councils Adjoining Cheshire East Adjoining Cheshire Parish Councils Malpas Parish Council Planning Trafford Beeston Parish Council Tiverton Parish Council Audley Parish Council Keele Parish Council Kidsgrove Town Council Loggerheads Parish Council Madeley Parish Council Biddulph Staffordshire Whaley Bridge Town Council New Mills Town Council Woodford Community Neighbourhood Planning Stockport LDF High Peak Lymn Parish Council Appleton Parish Council Grappenhall and Thelwall Parish Council Stretton Parish Council Cheshire West and Chester Neighbourhood Planning Cheshire West and Chester Enquiries Greater Manchester Planning Derbyshire Dales Dales Planning Policy Derbyshire Customer Service Peak District Planning Halton LMWF Lancashire Planning Strategy Manchester Planning Policy Newcastle Planning Peak District Planning Policy Shropshrie Planning Staffordshire Moorlands National Bodies The Homes and Communities Agency - now Homes England Natural England The Environment Agency [email protected] The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (known as English Heritage) Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (company number 2904587); The Highways Agency Local Authorities Planning Cheshire East Neighbourhood Planning Policy Stoke Environmental Services Derbyshire Strategic Planning Trafford Estates TFGM Neighbourhood Planning Stockport Planning Policy Stockport Strategic Assessment Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru Customer Services South Derbyshire Planning Derbyshire Dales HBSMR Admin Cheshire West and Chester Archaeology Cheshire West and Chester LDF Warrington Planning Policy Shropshire APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 14 Consultees List of Regulation Throughout the process of investigation, research, planning and preparation of the Plan, residents of Throughout the process of investigation, contribute to the process by joining every opportunity to Shavington-cum-Gresty have been afforded and concerns and by expressing identifying their priorities the steering group, by raising issues, by consultation has been robust process. Engagement and their views at each stage of the planning an interest in the Plan have been fully informed at all times. and thorough and those who might have completed in accordance with the have been fulfilled and All statutory requirements for consultation Planning (General) Regulations 2012. 15 of the Neighbourhood appropriate regulation, Part 5, Section CONCLUSION They also suggested a way forward and provided a map to ensure that policy HOU1 related to that related HOU1 that policy to ensure a map and provided forward a way also suggested They housing sites and suggested two developers designated area. The within the part of Shavington clearer. a number of policies suggestions to make also made some Taylor Wimpey the issues and concernsHow have considered? been accordingly. responded and gave careful consideration to all comments The steering group Based on the comments submitted, a comment can be found in Appendix 2. Responses to each amendments being made to policies HOU1 were made to the draft Plan, with number of amendments – and Type; boundary); Policy HOU2 – Housing Mix (and the map of the settlement New Housing and Design; and Policy Character for Older People; Policy HOU4 – Local Policy HOU3 – Housing COM4 – Developer Contributions. Facilities and Local Businesses; Policy COM1 – Community

9. 9.1 8.6

14 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

17 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty

Noted. Shavington is defined as a local service centre in the settlement hierarchy, defined in the Cheshire East Local Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan must be in general conformity with the local plan. No action required. Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Plan Steering Group Neighbourhood Local Character and Noted. Policy HOU4 – to ensure that new Housing Design seeks and appropriate development is well designed to the character of Shavington-cum-Gresty. – Trees and Hedgerows Additionally, Policy ENV2 of trees in new encourages the planting COM1 – community developments. Policy redevelopment of the Facilities supports the site for community use. old St. Mark’s Church opportunity to comment Residents will have the that is submitted. No on any planning application action required. in The Parish does indeed suffer from a shortfall will open spaces, and the Neighbourhood Plan hopefully help to address this important issue. Policies COM2 – Recreation and Play Facilities, and Policy COM3 – The Provision of New Open Space Facilities seek to protect and enhance the existing open space facilities, and encourage provision of new open spaces, to help to address the current shortfall. No action required. and young adults to play freely? I understand the need to keep leisure centres open through charging for use but not all can afford this luxury and at one time there were lots of open areas for children to play. Could this incorporate dog walks, benches to enjoy/observe/parents to sit? Just a way of making Shavington residents have more of community opportunities for coming together. 1.6 - Local Services Area – definition ‘a range of services’ – what does this mean? We are poorly served, despite increased services, despite increased numbers of population (ie doctors/ chemist/ shops/buses). This is our HOME – not a service area for others. Already surrounded by massive ugly warehouses, blotting out views, a noisy bypass too. Comment that there Village centre – concerns spread out is a lack of this. We are that helps and lack a focal centre I am bring our community together. to rebuild aware that there is a plan incorporate a St. Mark’s church and sounds lovely community café. This something but it is important to create the style of that aesthetically fits into that the village and not something and lacking stands out as modern cement in longevity (thinking of become ugly structures that quickly after a few years). We like trees and gardens and places to sit. Could the new church and café build this into the layout so that members of the community can walk through and be encouraged to enjoy the internal and external environment? Many feel that when driving through Shavington, there is no centre and this could become more of a focal centre that is lovely to experience, whether driving through or for residents to share Playing fields – I have many concerns about opportunities available for young people to play a range of sports using outdoor fields that are free to use. At one time, children, teenagers and adults could freely use the fields at the back of the leisure centre but now there is a big surrounding fence and users have to pay for hire. I very rarely see young people on these fields kicking a ball or playing rounders or other such sports. I think this is tragic. In a world where obesity is becoming a concern across the UK, could we not create an open area that allows children

GB Respondent ER ER 3 Rep No. 1 2 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX Consultation 14 Pre-Submission From Regulation Of Representations Summary Crewe Green Parish Council Haslington Parish Council Nantwich Town Council Rope Parish Council Wybunbury Parish Council Crewe Town Council Crewe YMCA Willaston Parish Council Wistaston Parish Council Wychwood Village CW2 Group 12th Shavington Scouts Nisa Shop Playworld Roundabouts Nursery Shavington Festival Committee Shavington Junior Badminton Club Shavington Junior Club Shavington Methodist Church Shavington Primary School St. Luke’s Hospice (Shavington Support) Stuart Shaw Roofing Wilkinsons North Cheshire Chamber North Cheshire Chamber West Cheshire Chamber East Cheshire Hub Warrington Growth Cheshire and Stoke and Staffs LEP LEP Cheshire and Warrington O2 Services Steven Linde Funeral Sure Fire Pest Control Audlem Parish Council British Red Cross CHALC Cheshire Wildlife Trust Christian Concern Other Bodies Other SAS Singers Navitas Centre Shavington Social Club St. Mark’s Church Taylor’s Homefeeds Woodnoth WI Doddington Parish Council Hough and Chorlton Parish Council Newhall Parish Council Weston and Basford Parish Council Right at Home Beech Tree Cattery CJS Builders Crewe and Nantwich Timber Elephant Pub Elevation and Marketing Consultancy EPG Fire Security and Alarms Hairporium Adams PD Age Concern Anwyl Homes Arley Homes D Broome Building Services FEO Shone JCL Plumbing KFH Accounts Kate Thornton The Coal Authority and Parish Councils Local Groups, Companies 2nd Shavington Brownies Acton Parish Council Adactus Housing National Bodies National Management Organisation The Marine National Trust Highways England Amec Historic England

16 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

19 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty unfortunately outside of the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan, although Policy TRA1 – Sustainable Transport supports the improvement of public transport facilities. No action required. Noted. Policy COM4 – Developer Contributions addresses the impacts and benefits that new development may have on community infrastructure. No action required. Noted – this is a planning application that has already been determined, subject to conditions being approved, and is therefore beyond the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan. No action required. Noted – unfortunately these are highways issues and therefore beyond the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan. No action required. Noted. Policy COM1 – Community Facilities seeks to protect existing facilities. Policy TRA1 – Sustainable Transport supports the improvement of public transport facilities. No action required. Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood through sites have been allocated The strategic are outside East Local Plan, and the Cheshire Plan. The the Neighbourhood the scope of to ensure that Plan policies seek Neighbourhood new development is appropriately any further of the development outside located. New have to accord with settlement boundary will open countryside. No policies relating to the action required. policy TRA1 on The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that new sustainable transport sustainable transport. development delivers transport are also Improvements to public required. supported. No action traffic calming Noted. Speed limits and of the scope of are unfortunately outside the Neighbourhood Plan. However, the Neighbourhood Plan policy TRA1 on sustainable transport seeks to ensure that new development to delivers sustainable transport. Improvements public transport are also supported. No action required. Noted. Policy COM1 – Community Facilities seeks to protect existing facilities. Bus routes of and pothole repairs are unfortunately outside the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan, although Policy TRA1 – Sustainable Transport supports No the improvement of public transport facilities. action required. Noted. No action required. Noted. Bus routes and timetables are evening – need a better transport hub such as a station at Rope Green or a metro between Crewe and Nantwich. There needs to be another medical centre to take pressure off surrounding centres. Housing development planned at the back of the Elephant Pub needs delaying until access is sorted. Tarmac needs repairing at Greenfields Avenue, Cromwell Drive, Withnall Drive, and white lines need repainting throughout Shavington. There used to be 13 shops in Shavington, now there are none. Also need better public transport and the footpaths are a disgrace with potholes everywhere. Comment – if any part of the New housing of the settlement Parish outside claimed as open boundary is with strict development countryside does this square controls – how scale developments with the large What in occurring in these areas? large scale reality is to stop further development? of use of the Public transport – lots ‘promote’ but terms ‘encourage’ and it happen – what will actually make of their cars to get more people out almost there needs to be frequent, – how do we door to door transport achieve this? ENV1 Footpaths and Cycleways Transport and TRA1 – Sustainable Crewe Road B5071 is a wide road that encourages speeding and new houses will mean more traffic. Also, the 30mph signs are not clear at either end of the village, they are near traffic lights, no repeater signs and the speed indicator works intermittently. The road is wide enough for traffic calming measures. They could be introduced at Brook Avenue and near the Sugar Loaf towards Barons Road and Alfred Potts Way. Would like a new coop and post office, bus route to Nantwich, repair of potholes, and retention of junior school. No more new builds – infrastructure cannot cope. It is a shame the village has grown so big – too many new houses, it has lost its village charm. There is more crime and lots of disruption and noise due to all the new housing, and more traffic. Would like a post office. Transport is poor on a weekend and AF AF AF MR Respondent RB RB TS Anon Anon AF 18 19 20 21 Rep No. 12 13 14 15 16 17 action required. Noted. Policy ENV3 – Water Management and Noted. Policy ENV3 – Water Management and will Drainage seeks to ensure that development not increase surface water flooding and ensure appropriate water management. No action required. Noted. The Parish currently suffers from a shortfall in open spaces, and the Neighbourhood Plan will hopefully help to address this important issue. Policies COM2 – Recreation and Play Facilities, and Policy COM3 – The Provision of New Open Space Facilities seek to protect and enhance existing open space facilities, and encourage the provision of new open spaces, to help to address the current shortfall of accessible open space. No action required. Noted with thanks. It is hoped that the Neighbourhood Plan will help to ensure that the quality of life in Shavington-cum-Gresty is increased, rather than decreased. The vision for Shavington-cum-Gresty is that it will be a vibrant, thriving and inclusive village. The housing figures are outside of the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan as they are from Cheshire East Council. The Neighbourhood Plan must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Cheshire East Local Plan. No The Neighbourhood Plan policy TRA1 on Plan policy TRA1 The Neighbourhood that transport seeks to ensure sustainable shall the transport infrastructure facilities within assist those where practicable to be provided Improvements or elderly persons. with disabilities No action are also supported. to public transport required. count towards the Noted. The strategic sites in the Cheshire East housing figures for Crewe required. Local Plan. No action the scope of the Noted. This is beyond Neighbourhood Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan does however seek to ensure that new housing development is appropriately located and will not exacerbate flooding problems. No action required. Noted. It is hoped that policies within the the Neighbourhood Plan can help to influence design and size of future planning applications. No action required. Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood quality of life in the village feels like it is decreasing daily. 36000 homes mentioned in text, but table says 38185 – needs clarifying. Average housing per LSC is 288 (3794/13) – Shavington cum Gresty has much more than this – how is this justified? encouraging increase in mosquitos and gnats, causing bad bites. Play areas/space – note that spaces highlighted were mostly not really accessible to the public, e.g. Crewe Alex Training Ground, Shavington Primary (locked), and Shavington Secondary Academy. Thank you for all the hard work – but I feel that we are closing the stable door once the horse has bolted – the sand, and constant earth vibration from several building sites pile driving. 8.12 – It is the character of the village to have this type of building stock – so why is it being changed? Elderly might want to downsize but new housing often unsuitable – bungalow and garden space needed not tiny 3 storey boxes, which will cause mobility problems later. Water management – serious concerns re open drainage ditches/ pools, especially with change in our climate – wet and warm – on a bus to work so either walks or on a bus to work so either relies on us to take them. 1.9 ScG has met development this be requirements but can is reversed. I fear the answer CIL. 2.11 yes, especially with £0 boundary states 1005 with ScG – this is to be included in Crewe concerning. running Environment – area has sand fields but still building is occurring and now flooding – what consideration is there for pre-existing housing not underpinned being damaged by this flooding, disturbing Comment a Transport – there is Lower Level about car dependency later comment Are older people – hardly surprising. are can’t drive or who and those who to medical reasons going unable due We out of the village? to be pushed unable to drive have a family member cannot rely for medical reasons who RB GB GB GB GB GB GB Respondent GB 10 11 9 8 7 6 5 Rep No. 4

18 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

21 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty Agreed – see response to rep 30 above. Agreed – see response to rep 30 above. Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood infrastructure, recreation, public forestry, outdoor service undertaken by public essential works or for other or statutory undertakers, authorities be permitted. to a rural area will uses appropriate may be made: Exceptions with one or two dwellings i. the infill of a small gap frontage; affordable in an otherwise built up with the criteria contained housing, in accordance Housing for in Policy SC 6 ‘Rural Exceptions the dwelling is exceptional Local Needs’ or where development terms; in design and sustainable rural buildings where ii. for the re-use of existing substantial and would the building is permanent, rebuilding or not require extensive alteration, extension iii. for the replacement of existing buildings (including dwellings) by new buildings not materially larger than the buildings they replace; the iv. for extensions to existing dwellings where extension is not disproportionate to the original dwelling; v. for development that is essential for the expansion or redevelopment of an existing business. At the last sentence of paragraph 8.2 and – add paragraph 8.10 of the Neighbourhood Plan ‘as it relates to the designated Neighbourhood Plan Area.’ Neighbourhood Plan designated area. Together with representatives from the Wybunbury Parish Council, we are happy to continue to work with the Shavington Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group to resolve this matter, however, if Shavington Parish Council fail to revise and/or amend the Draft Regulation 14 plan, then it will not meet the test of Basic Conditions and the Draft Plan cannot be made. Comments as per rep 30 above Comments as per rep 30 above Comment 2015 - some 6 the 1st December the designation of months before plan area for the neighbourhood – cum – Gresty. When Shavington Wybunbury Plan area the Combined and at subsequent was designated relation consultation stages in Plan, to the Combined Parishes by no objections were submitted Parish Shavington – cum – Gresty Combined Council to the Wybunbury Parishes designated area on the which was designated some 6 1st December 2015 - months before the designation plan area of the neighbourhood – Gresty. for Shavington – cum When the Combined Wybunbury and at Plan area was designated subsequent consultation stages in relation to the Combined Parishes Plan, no objections were submitted by Shavington – cum – Gresty Parish Council to the Wybunbury Combined Parishes designated area or objections raised to the policies and proposals in the Regulation 14 Neighbourhood plan. The legislation (2004 Act s38B) clearly states that should a parish council seek to designate a neighbourhood plan area that covers whole or part of another parish council, then the proposing parish council can only act with the permission of the other parish council. In this instance no permission was sought by Shavington – cum – Gresty Parish Council and no consent has been given for the inclusion of the Shavington triangle area within the proposed settlement boundary of Shavington – cum – Gresty Neighbourhood plan. Policy HOU1 should be amended and the proposed settlement boundary withdrawn or revised to include only the land within the Shavington-cum-Gresty Hough and Chorlton Parish Council Hough and Chorlton Parish Council Respondent 31 32 Rep No.

use) will be supported where they are in keeping with the scale, role and function of Shavington- cum-Gresty and do not conflict with any other relevant policies in the local plan. Outside of the Settlement Boundary, Open Countryside Policy PG6 of the Local Plan Strategy applies. Within the Open Countryside only development that is essential for the purposes of agriculture, and are considered appropriate for the document. and are considered appropriate for the document. No action required. Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Agreed. Following consultations with Cheshire East Council and Wybunbury Combined Parishes Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, the settlement boundary for the Neighbourhood Plan has been amended to reflect the Neighbourhood Area designation, and Cheshire East have suggested amendments to Policy HOU1. The map (Figure C) has been amended to identify the part of the settlement boundary that lies within the designated Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan Area. Amend Figure C to show the Shavington boundary as it relates to the Neighbourhood Plan designated area. Amend Policy HOU1 – New Housing to read – Within the settlement boundary defined on Figure C, development proposals (including change of Noted. Policy COM1 – Community Facilities COM1 – Community Noted. Policy Policy TRA1 – existing facilities. seeks to protect improvement Transport supports the Sustainable required. facilities. No action of public transport planning conditions when Noted. Planning the are approved address applications must make to contributions that developers No action required. facilities and services. unfortunately outside of Noted. Speed limits are Plan. No action the scope of the Neighbourhood required. application that has Noted – this is a planning subject to conditions, already been determined the scope of the and is therefore beyond No action required. Neighbourhood Plan. the scope of the Noted. This is beyond No action required. Neighbourhood Plan. Noted. The High School is surprisingly outside No of the Neighbourhood Plan designated area. action required. COM2 – Recreation and Play Facilities, and Policy COM3 – The Provision of New Open Space Facilities seek to protect and enhance the existing open space facilities, and encourage provision of new open spaces, to help to address the current shortfall of accessible open space. No action required. The maps are prepared by Cheshire East Council Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood Combined Parishes of Wynbunbury Neighbourhood Plan Designated Area which was designated on from the designated area, Policy HOU1 – New Housing in the Draft Regulation 14 plan, defines as part of this policy, a settlement boundary for Shavington – cum – Gresty which includes land known as the Shavington Triangle. (see Figure C on page 14 of the draft Shavington – cum – Gresty neighbourhood plan). Significant areas of the Shavington Triangle lie outside the parish boundary of Shavington – cum – Gresty Parish Council and lie in the Parish of Wybunbury. Moreover, the same boundary has already been considered within the Comment Figure B on page 5 of the plan clearly shows the Shavington – cum – Gresty neighbourhood plan designated area which according to the plan was formerly designated on the 17th August 2016. The designated area does not include the major part of the land known locally as the Shavington Triangle. Notwithstanding the exclusion of land known as the Shavington Triangle A park/ community centre would be a welcome addition especially with facilities for older children/ teenagers, along with free to use tennis areas. It would be useful if the maps could locate particular points, for example to label the key roads on each map, naming of play areas etc. Rope Lane to have some sort of Rope Lane to have some speed control. by Elephant Object to new proposal to traffic Pub – totally inappropriate anything for calming – does not do present residents. would be Better signage for footpaths or booklet useful, along with a map of walks. There is greenspace and recreational facilities at the High School. Comment bus service, more Need a better café a nice pub eatery and shops and meeting place. should provide and Developers they are doing to publish what and play provide educational facilities areas. Respondent The Combined Parishes of Wybunbury Neighbourhood EJ EJ SD PB EJ EJ Respondent IB SD 30 Rep No. 29 27 28 25 26 23 24 Rep No. 22 Neighbouring residents and groups and Parish Councils Neighbouring residents and groups

20 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

23 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty At the start of Para 8.17 add ‘The NPPF defines older people as people over or approaching retirement age, including the active, newly retired through to the very frail elderly; and whose housing needs can encompass accessible, adaptable general needs housing through to the full range of retirement and specialised housing for those with support or care needs.’ Amend references to ‘the elderly’ in paras 8.17 (two references), and 8.18 (three references) to ‘older people’. Partly agree. However, the NPPF does state that to support a rural economy planning policies and decisions should enable the retention and development of accessible local services and meeting shops, as local such facilities, community places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship. The loss of shops and the post office has been a concern to many local residents and it is considered that it is appropriate to include this in the Neighbourhood Plan. Agree that for clarification the Policy should be Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood will be reviewed Neighbourhood Plan Noted. The policies are not to ensure that prior to submission duplicated. to Rep 30, above. The Agreed. See response HOU1 have been map (Figure C) and Policy from Cheshire East amended following advice Council. Older Agreed. Amend Policy HOU3 – Housing for People so that the three references to housing ‘older for ‘the elderly’ are amended to housing for people’. the policy. The policy would also benefit from consistent referencing using either the term ‘housing for the elderly’ or ‘housing for older people’ (the phrases may be subject to different interpretations). COM1 - For clarity, it would be helpful if the term ‘community facility’ were defined in the plan. Whilst shops may perform a ‘community service’ in part, they are primarily a retail function whereas a church or school for example has a communal element of use that is distinct from shops and pubs. Therefore it may not be appropriate to refer to shops and pubs as community facilities and for planning purposes these uses are often distinct from one another. Comment noted that the Borough It should be recently published Council has Allocations and it’s draft Site Policies Document Development the local plan) which (part two of some similar detailed does cover Shavington issues covered by the The full Neighbourhood Plan. be accessed SADPD document can are here and to ensure policies it is not unnecessarily duplicated, approach in advised to review the of the final the Council’s plan ahead submission of the neighbourhood plan. plans Policy HOU1 - Neighbourhood policy may only introduce planning within the defined neighbourhood area. In this case the southern extent of the neighbourhood area is defined by Newcastle Road and therefore although the physical form of Shavington does extend beyond this across the ‘Shavington Triangle’, the neighbourhood area does not. Therefore a settlement boundary cannot be applied here through the neighbourhood plan. A neighbourhood area may be amended to extend beyond the existing parish boundary, with consent from the neighbouring parish. If this were achieved the proposed settlement boundary in its full form could be implemented. This is not currently the case however and therefore it is recommended to amend the map on page 14 (figure 8,5) to identify only that part of the settlement boundary that lies within the Shavington Neighbourhood Area. HOU3 - How is ‘housing for the elderly’ defined in the neighbourhood plan? It would be helpful to include a specific definition which would assist decision makers implement Cheshire East Council Respondent Cheshire East Council Cheshire East Council Cheshire East Council 118 Rep No. 115 116 117 Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Noted, with thanks. Noted, with thanks. Noted, with thanks. Agreed – see response to rep 30 above. response to rep 30 Agreed – see Agreed. See response to rep 30 above. Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood Generally, the Plan is very well laid out, clear to understand and follows a logical progression. Visually it is very well presented and follows clear themes. Overall, the plan is succinct and very well presented The vision and objectives of the plan are clear and provide a natural link between the overall objectives of the plan and the policies chosen. Including the objectives ahead of the policies is helpful to demonstrate that link. Comment This plan is clearly the result of much hard work and dedicated effort by the Parish Council, steering group and local residents who have contributed to its production and should be applauded for embracing the concept of local plan making. The ideas presented have the real potential to help shape sustainable development in Shavington over the coming years ahead. current document. NHPs are to define a village area and show the way forward for that village both in planning matters and the life of the village not to cause friction with its neighbours. Comments raising concerns about the settlement boundary incorporating part of Wybunbury as expressed above by rep 30. document as possible inference that document as possible to support Shavington are wishing this part of the CEC in the transfer of Wybunbury parish to Shavington. the document This is compounded by showing the SADPD document boundary both boundary as the plan and an for the parish of Wybunbury area of Hough parish. cum I would ask that Shavington to show the Gresty amend their plan line of their plan to be the parish/ward boundary as this simple re-alignment of the plan would resolve the issue and ill feeling generated by the Comment of the Shavington The inclusion in the document which village plan been approved by CEC has not yet local plan document council as a only a consultation and therefore caused more concern document has Stock Lane Dig to the residents of the consider this Lane triangle, as they Cheshire East Council Cheshire East Council Respondent Cheshire East Council 77 Wybunbury residents Respondent P.W.Jackson 114 113 112 Rep No. 34-111 Rep No. 33 Cheshire East Council

22 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

25 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood Noted. The policy is considered appropriate, reflecting the housing advice note, the current housing stock, census information and the need It for a mix and type as mentioned in the NPPF. is considered that the policy allows for flexibility and viability considerations. To add further flexibility, at the start of the second paragraph add ‘Where viable and appropriate’

considered. Taylor Wimpey objects to the second paragraph of the policy which requires housing to meet the requirements of a wide range of households without the necessity for substantial alterations. With regard to this matter, Taylor Wimpey notes that only Category 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 is mandatory. The higher Building Regulation standards for accessible and adaptable dwellings, and wheelchair user dwellings are optional. There is therefore no statutory requirement for these optional higher standards to be provided. Whilst they recognise the benefits of providing accessible and wheelchair user dwellings, Taylor Wimpey considers that insufficient evidence has been provided to support the inclusion of a blanket requirement for these higher standards in the policy. With regard to the application of optional higher standards, the Practice Guidance2 states the following: Comment notes that the Wimpey also distribution and the geographical of homes that each Local proportion should develop is Service Centre upon through the being consulted therefore be the case SADPD. It may towards that the level of distribution in Shavington changes resulting of a requirement for the allocation In order additional land for housing. is in general to ensure that the SNP policies conformity with the strategic plan contained in the development it will for the area of the authority, on the be necessary for progress and any SADPD to be monitored SNP will need further iterations of the This may to align with the SADPD. the settlement require amendments to boundary identified in Figure C if land around Shavington is identified for allocation in the SADPD going forward. Policy HOU2 –Housing Mix and Type The CELPS recognises that Neighbourhood Plans can play an important role in securing an appropriate housing mix. Whilst Taylor Wimpey acknowledges the need to provide an appropriate mix of housing, it considers that Policy HOU2 as currently worded is over prescriptive. Taylor Wimpey appreciates the need to help to address imbalances in the housing stock but considers that the imposition of a fixed limit on the proportion of detached homes may result in development which is out of character with its surroundings and this limit should therefore be removed. The removal of this fixed limit would also provide more flexibility in the policy to best meet needs identified at the time when planning applications are being Respondent Taylor Wimpey Rep No. 121 to such improvements in accordance with the most up to date funding mechanisms for developer contributions adopted by Cheshire East Council. The associated infrastructure that has been detailed for provision as part of the site specific principles of development for the two strategic sites in Shavington-cum-Gresty, within the to.’ Cheshire East Local Plan, must be adhered Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Noted. It is not considered necessary to allocate further housing sites in the Neighbourhood Plan. Rest assured that any future iterations of the Neighbourhood Plan will indeed align with the SADPD and/or any other Local Plan documents. No action required. amended. The title should be amended to Policy The title should be amended amended. AND LOCAL FACILITIES COM1 – COMMUNITY page amended (and the contents BUSINESSES accordingly). policy to read first sentence of the Amend that use, refurbishment ‘The retention, continued community buildings and improvement of all together with local and recreational facilities, and public houses will businesses such as shops be supported.’ of the Policy to Amend the second paragraph public houses and read ‘The loss of shops, from the Parish will community infrastructure be demonstrated that be resisted unless it can been actively marketed the existing uses have and/or any over an appropriate timeframe, equal or greater replacement use will provide benefits to the community.’ Retain the third paragraph as currently drafted. Agreed. See also response to Rep 124. Amend Policy COM4 to read ‘All new development will be expected to address the impacts and benefits it will have on community infrastructure that is directly related to the development, and be demonstrate how any negative aspects can mitigated. The proposal shall either incorporate the necessary improvements or include a contribution Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood - Taylor states that the draft SADPD has defined a settlement boundary for Shavington-cum-Gresty. Taylor at Grove Farm is currently being promoted for residential allocation through the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document [SADPD]. Consultation on the First Draft SADPD took place in October 2018. The Grove Farm site was not identified for allocation in the First Draft. However, Taylor Wimpey is continuing to promote the site for allocation and it may be the case that the site is allocated in future iterations of the SADPD. The explanatory text to policy HOU1 Comment Policy HOU1 – New Housing Wimpey’s site at Grove Farm sits outside of the settlement boundary identified in Figure C. The SNP does not allocate any sites for residential development. Taylor Wimpey’s site suggests that development should consider a wide ranging series of issues related to ‘community infrastructure’. There is no requirement for development to mitigate impacts that are not directly related to it and therefore the policy should be amended to reflect this. through either reducing the marketing through either reducing that an period or emphasising a appropriate exercise covering appropriate range of issues, over an should be (but undefined) timeframe undertaken. COM4 - As written the policy Comment uses are not Where employment a marketing period being lost, may be considered of 24months frustrate development onerous and on a positive impact that could have is therefore recommended the area. It and to review this requirement flexibility consider introducing more Respondent Taylor Wimpey Council Cheshire East Respondent Rep No. 120 119 Rep No. Developers

24 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

27 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood as Agreed. Amend parts h and i of Policy HOU4 suggested, to read to h) New residential development which is built high sustainability standards in terms of energy and resource efficiency is encouraged. i) The density of development must be appropriate to the site and its surroundings. The demolition of large properties for the redevelopment of the site of more units at a on higher density must not have an adverse effect the existing street scene and residential amenity.

These include such as a wide range of as well as detached with a limit of one with a limit

, Housing should meet , Housing should meet of older and disabled

. smaller homes, the minimum standards of energy efficiency and construction quality. There is no justification or evidence to support this requirement in planning terms. In particular, there are no local circumstances that are highlighted to justify a departure, or higher level of requirement, than established at a national level. The requirement for a scheme to demonstrate that it has been built to the highest possible sustainability standards should not therefore be included in the policy. The SNP provides no viability evidence to demonstrate that it will be possible for applicants to deliver the highest possible sustainability standards and that such a contribution would not undermine the deliverability of sites as required by the Framework. The wording of the policy should be amended to encourage such features rather than establishing them as a requirement. Part (i) of the policy requires that the density of development must be appropriate to the site and its Comment mix of housing in appropriate new Shavington-cum-Gresty, should housing developments mix of house types, comprise a which includes detached. The remainder third being should (both market and affordable) favour terraced or bungalows, apartments, semi-detached dwellings provided Where evidence has been to justify need the requirements of households user people (including wheelchair necessity for dwellings) without the substantial alterations. with push the requirements of families chairs, wheelchair users, disabled visitors, and older people. The design of housing should maximise utility, independence and quality of life, while not compromising other design issues such as aesthetics or cost effectiveness. Policy HOU 4 – Local Character and Design Part (h) of the policy requires new residential development to be built to the highest possible sustainability standards in terms of energy and resource efficiency. Taylor Wimpey generally supports the use of sustainable construction techniques in new development. However, this should be in the context of national planning policy and take viability into consideration, as required by the Framework and Practice Guidance, to ensure that homes are deliverable and developable. Taylor Wimpey objects to Part (h) of Policy HOU 4 as currently worded. Taylor Wimpey notes that there is no national policy requirement for schemes to exceed Respondent Taylor Wimpey Rep No. 122 Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood , In order to redress the imbalance of the current housing stock and ensure an use of land by unnecessarily applying greater than normal space standards which may not be required for all dwellings. This approach would fail to align with the objectives of the Framework which seeks to promote the efficient use of land with development at high densities where appropriate. Taylor Wimpey considers that Policy HOU2 should be amended as shown below: Unless viability or other material considerations show a robust justification for a different mix blanket requirement. In addition, we are not aware of Cheshire East Council producing the evidence and no reference appears to be made to it in the explanatory text to SPN Policy HOU2. In addition, it is considered that the policy could prejudice the delivery of development and therefore hamper the ability of Cheshire East Council to meet its housing requirement target by imposing unduly onerous requirements which have not been subject to viability testing. Taylor Wimpey is also concerned that the policy could result in the inefficient housing tenures. • the overall impact on viability”. The onus is therefore on local planning authorities to provide evidence to justify these higher requirements. Draft Policy HOU6 of the SADPD states that the Council is currently considering the adoption of the optional accessibility and wheelchair housing standards and is not therefore certain that they will be included in the Local Plan. There is no evidence in the Cheshire East 2013 Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA] to support this of the Building Regulations. There of the Building Regulations. official is a wide range of published local statistics and factors which consider and planning authorities can take into account, including: for housing for • the likely future need (including older and disabled people wheelchair user dwellings). quality of • size, location, type and specifically dwellings needed to meet evidenced needs (for example retirement homes, sheltered homes or care homes). • the accessibility and adaptability of existing housing stock. • how needs vary across different Comment their housing needs “Based on and other available assessment will be for local planning datasets it to set out how they intend authorities demonstrating the need to approach M4(2) (accessible for Requirement and/or and adaptable dwellings), dwellings), M4(3) (wheelchair user Respondent Rep No.

26 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

29 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty community infrastructure that is directly related to the development, and demonstrate how any negative aspects can be mitigated. The proposal shall either incorporate the necessary improvements or include a contribution to such improvements in accordance with the most up to date funding mechanisms for developer contributions adopted by Cheshire East Council. The associated infrastructure that has been detailed for provision as part of the site specific principles of development for the two strategic sites in Shavington-cum-Gresty, within the Cheshire East Local Plan, must be adhered to. Amend para 10.14 to read The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a national scheme which allows local planning authorities to set local charges for new development to fund the provision of infrastructure. Cheshire East Council have prepared a Charging Schedule for CIL which has been through examination, and was approved February 2019. The CIL rates need to be set at such a level to strike an appropriate balance between the need to fund infrastructure and the potential implications for the economic viability Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood Partly agree – although there are currently no zone 4 areas charging £71 within the Neighbourhood Plan designated area. Amend policy COM4 to read ‘All new development will be expected to address the impacts and benefits it will have on

it strongly objects to the proposed mechanism for addressing this matter in Policy COM4. The precise requirement for infrastructure contributions is normally established following the submission of a planning application. It is at this stage that the Council is able to confirm to the applicant the precise extent of infrastructure contributions required, following review of the planning application details by the Council and though discussion with its formal consultees such as its open space officers, the education authority, the highway authority, and the local clinical commissioning group. It would not therefore be normally possible to and required infrastructure the identify the proposed mitigation through a Design and Access Statement at the beginning of the planning application process. In addition, mitigation relating to matters technical matters such as drainage/sewers etc. is often dealt with through individual technical documents prepared by appropriately Comment not development will To ensure that or water flooding increase surface foul drainage system overload the for new developments all proposals possible, incorporate should, where green, gravity reliant above ground, (i.e. sustainable drainage systems based no mechanical or electrical systems) including permeable paths. surfaces for drives and be discharged Surface water should priority: in the following order of or some • An adequate soakaway system. other form of infiltration to • An attenuated discharge body. watercourse or other water to public • An attenuated discharge surface water sewer. to public • An attenuated discharge combined sewer. Where capacity is insufficient in the local sewerage system, the development will need to provide improvements to the sewer infrastructure to enable a connection to the nearest point of adequate capacity as advised by United Utilities. New developments will be permitted only if the network can accommodate the additional demand for sewerage disposal either in its existing form or through planned improvements to the system, or can be provided in time to serve it in advance of the construction of the development. Taylor Wimpey also considers that paragraph 9.17 of the NPS should be deleted. Policy COM4 – Developer Contributions Taylor Wimpey recognises the need for the impacts of development to be appropriately mitigated and addressed as necessary through developer contributions. However, Respondent Taylor Wimpey Rep No. 124 Noted. The Policy, and the justification is considered appropriate as drafted, and received no adverse comment from United Utilities. No action required. Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood where relevant, in accordance with the NPPF. an impact from recent development in Shavington upon flooding. Taylor Wimpey considers that the inclusion of this paragraph is unnecessary as it is not required to justify the content of the policy. Taylor Wimpey considers that Policy ENV3 should be amended as shown below: Development in areas of flood risk zones 2 & 3 as identified by the environment agency flood risk maps will only be permitted in accordance with the NPPF. New development outside flood risk zones 2 and 3 should be subject to a site specific flood risk assessment, have an adverse effect on the existing street scene and residential amenity. Policy ENV3 – Water Management and Drainage Taylor Wimpey recognises the need to minimise flood risk. However, it considers that there are elements of Policy ENV3 which are unnecessary as the requirements covered are included in national planning guidance, including the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. It is not therefore necessary to repeat this guidance in the policy. The explanatory text to the policy suggests that there has been should be built to the highest possible sustainability standards in terms of energy and resource efficiency is encouraged. Taylor Wimpey considers that Part (i) of Policy HOU4 should be amended as shown below: The density of development must be appropriate to the site and its surroundings, and should not normally exceed the density of adjoining residential development. The demolition of large properties for the redevelopment of the site of more units at a higher density must not upon the development potential upon the development density of sites resulting in lower be achieved development than could density through alternative higher not development which would upon the have a detrimental impact area. character of the surrounding contrary This approach would be Framework to the objectives of the the efficient which seeks to promote at high use of land with development densities where appropriate. Taylor Wimpey considers that Part (h) of Policy HOU4 should be amended as shown below: New residential development which is Comment and should not surroundings, the density of normally exceed development. adjoining residential of objects to Part (i) Taylor Wimpey 4 as currently worded. Policy HOU is considered This requirement and to be overly prescriptive impact could have a detrimental Taylor Wimpey Respondent 123 Rep No.

28 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

31 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood Noted. It is not considered necessary to allocate Plan. further housing sites in the Neighbourhood No action required.

as £0 per with adoption in February 2019. to £71 per square ranging from details various a rates for details various a rates . However, funding mechanisms defined through the SADPD. The purpose of this representation is to propose the sites as an allocation in the Neighbourhood Plan (NP). We do note that the Part Two Plan is seeking to allocate sites to meet the requirement in the Cheshire East Local Plan and in the present draft no further sites are proposed at Shavington due to existing completions and commitments. We have made representations to Cheshire East on that position and we consider further sites should be allocated. Policy HOU1 proposes to identify a settlement boundary, with countryside policy applied beyond these boundaries. It should be noted that the quantum of development to be distributed to Shavington as a local service centre is yet to be determined and is a matter for the SADPD. We therefore consider that Policy HOU1 needs to be amended so that it is sufficiently flexible to respond to the SADPD should it be determined that additional sites are required. Comment Infrastructure Levy The Community scheme which (CIL) is a national set planning authorities to allows local to for new development local charges of infrastructure. fund the provision Council have prepared Cheshire East CIL which a Charging Schedule for has been through examination, and was approved anticipated early be set at The CIL rates need to appropriate such a level to strike an to fund balance between the need potential infrastructure and the viability implications for the economic borough. of development in the Schedule Unfortunately, The Charging therefore Shavington square metre metre may be changed and the amounts required updated in the future - as the rates can be altered should market conditions change. It is therefore considered appropriate to include this policy. We are acting on behalf of Messrs Silvester & Rigby who own adjoining sites to west of Crewe Road, to north of the settlement of Shavington: -199 Crewe Road, Shavington -Land rear of 199 Crewe Road, Shavington -Land south of the A500, Shavington -Depot and land west of Crewe Road, Shavington Details of the sites including location plans can be found in our representations to the Cheshire East Site Allocations DPD (SADPD). The land currently form part of the Green Gap to the north of Shavington as defined in the adopted Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan. The boundaries of the Strategic Green Gap are to be Respondent Emery Planning Rep No. 125 of development in the borough. The charging in the borough. The of development rates for the details various Schedule therefore area ranging Neighbourhood Plan designated per square square metre to £22 from £0 per may be funding mechanisms metre. However, updated in the amounts required changed and can be altered should the future - as the rates market conditions change.’ Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood The proposal shall Taylor Wimpey also considers that [§10.14] of the SNP should be amended as follows: of services, the either incorporate the necessary improvements or include a contribution to such improvements in accordance with the most up to date funding mechanisms for developer contributions adopted by Cheshire East Council. The associated infrastructure that has been detailed for provision as part of the site specific principles of development for the two strategic sites in Shavington-cum-Gresty, within the Cheshire East Local Plan, must be adhered to. will have on community infrastructure and demonstrate how any negative aspects can be mitigated. For proposals of ten or more dwellings, the Design and Access Statement shall include an infrastructure evaluation which will quantify the likely impact on the community infrastructure; including, but not limited to the effect on schools, open spaces, footpaths and cycle paths, sewers, traffic and parking. To the extent that this evaluation indicates improvements to the existing infrastructure will be necessary to maintain existing quality square metre. Contributions towards some infrastructure in these areas will therefore be met through a CIL charge. Taylor Wimpey also notes that the CIL Charging Schedule was approved in February 2019. Taylor Wimpey considers that 10.14 of the SNP should therefore be amended to reflect this variance in charge rates and the adoption of the CIL. Taylor Wimpey considers that Policy COM4 should be amended as shown below: All new development will be expected to address the impacts and benefits it Schedule applies a £0 per square Schedule applies a £0 in Shavington. metre CIL charge rate within the Whilst this is the case Taylor existing settlement boundary, CIL Charging Wimpey notes that the outside Schedule identifies areas boundary of the existing settlement Strategic (including the two CELPS and allocations at East Shavington lying with Shavington Triangle) as where the Zone 2 charging area a CIL charge of £22 per square metre is applied to residential development. The area to the south of the existing settlement is subject to a Zone 4 charge of £71 per Comment and submitted qualified consultants planning application as part of a They would not therefore submission. and dealt with in a Design normally be The explanatory Access statement. suggests that text to the SNP Community Cheshire East Council’s Charging Infrastructure Levy [CIL] Respondent Rep No.

30 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

33 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood Comment Therefore there should older persons. in Policy HOU3 to allow be flexibility to adjacent for limited development boundary that enables the settlement forward which can a site to come for older people as deliver housing Our part of the wider development. that aim client’s site can achieve 2/3 bedroomed which includes the 5, The 5 dwellings bungalow properties. the are evenly dispersed throughout been designed development and have specification to the same high quality dwellings. as surrounding market of a recent The site was the subject dismissed appeal and whilst it was there was this was on the basis that present time not a need for it at the a as the Council could demonstrate 5 year housing land supply. There were no site specific issues that would prevent the development coming forward and the impact on the Green Gap was limited (i.e. the lowest impact). That issue is entirely separate to meeting the need in the Cheshire East Local Plan for the whole of the plan period which looks beyond the 5 year period. We request that our representations to the Part Two Local Plan are duly considered as part of this consultation to the NP. The allocation of this small site would also assist the NP to benefit from paragraph 14 of the NPPF going forward. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out 4 criteria all of which need to be complied with. However as the NP is not allocating land it would not benefit from paragraph 14 once adopted. Therefore the allocation of this site, which has no site specific constraints, and which can deliver much needed 2/3 bed bungalows for the village, should be duly considered. Respondent Rep No. Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Group Plan Steering Neighbourhood there were sites within the settlement boundary they are more likely to come forward for market dwellings rather than homes specifically for elderly people. It is considered vital that there are no further losses to the supply of homes for older people in the Parish, and indeed new homes or ‘lifetime’ homes within the settlement boundary would be welcomed.” We note that Policy HOU3 states that support would be given to proposals for older persons but that is only within the settlement boundary. Due to the lack of available sites within the settlement boundary or any assessment in the evidence base, we question whether Policy HOU3 would deliver any housing for older people. If of having homes for the elderly within the village, to ensure that they could stay living in Shavington. 8.18 There are currently only a small number of homes specifically for the elderly in the Parish. Recent calculations indicate that there are approximately 27 units specifically for the elderly – a mere 1.5% of total households. These are bungalows to rent from a social landlord and are located at Barons Road, Edwards Close, Lordsmill Road and Santune Court. Unfortunately in 2012/13 Santune House closed, which provided valuable respite care for which we know are needed locally for older persons. This is set out in paragraphs 8.17 and 8.18 of the NP which state: “8.17 As mentioned above, the Housing Advice Note (see https:// shavingtononline.co.uk/) indicated that Shavington-cum-Gresty has a higher than average proportion of elderly age groups (65-84 and 85 and over) and significantly higher proportion of middle age groups (45-64). A number of residents, through the Neighbourhood Plan questionnaire, raised the importance the requirement in the Cheshire the requirement in the the present East Local Plan and in proposed draft no further sites are at Shavington due to existing completions and commitments. to We have made representations position and Cheshire East on that should be we consider further sites allocated. provide 15 The proposals seek to a high quality new dwellings, offering development that will consist of a mix of market and affordable housing. The proposal would provide a mix of 3 to 4 bedroom properties and includes 5, 2/3 bedroomed bungalow properties, Comment on behalf of Mr and We are writing who own land to the Mrs McGarry Close, Shavington. rear of Oakleaf is of this representation The purpose in the site as an allocation to propose Plan (NP). the Neighbourhood Two Plan We do note that the Part to meet is seeking to allocate sites Respondent Emery Planning Rep No. 126

32 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement

35 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement Consultation – Plan Neighbourhood Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Response Plan Steering Group Neighbourhood No action required. No action required. No action required. electricity and gas transmission electricity and gas transmission high apparatus which includes and high- voltage electricity assets pressure gas pipelines. that it has National Grid has identified within no record of such apparatus area. the Neighbourhood Plan not have Homes England does by the any land holdings affected we do not consultation and therefore at propose to make at representations this point. We will however continue to engage with you as appropriate. Comment your document, Having reviewed we have no specific I confirm that to make on it. comments carried An assessment has been Grid’s out with respect to National Homes England Respondent The Coal Authority National Grid 129 128 Rep No. 127 Statutory Consultees Statutory

34 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement SCGNP-N19R15

36 Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation Statement