Publication Draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Response to consultation July 2013

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2013 - Schedule of Sites

Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details This site has 30% of the area in the parish of Whitegate & Marton and as such is encroaching into open countryside. This area should should not be available for development as is not in a Key Settlement Area but is in open countryside and as such only infil should be allowed. This area is also This site is located adjacent to Parish not an exceptional windfall site. Another an existing urban area. It has Mr Councillor concerning aspect is the fact that the A54 is a been categorised as an urban

WOV/0041 natural boundary and moving over this extension and is considered to Gary Whitegate & /S boundary is a definite encroachment into be a potential suitable location

Marton Parish open countryside and would potentially set a for development. Cliffe Council precedent. If allowed, what would stop the encroachment into a few more fields and a No change required. little further into open countryside? There have to be ward and parish boundaries that give definitive demarcation lines for terms such as open countryside and Key Settlement Areas. This site encroaches too far over these natural and political boundaries. This site has 30% of the area in the parish of Whitegate & Marton and as such is encroaching into open countryside. This area should should not be available for development as is not in a Key Settlement Area but is in open countryside and as such only infill should be allowed. This area is also This site is located adjacent to Parish not an exceptional windfall site. Another an existing urban area. It has Mr Councillor concerning aspect is the fact that the A54 is a been categorised as an urban

WOV/0029 natural boundary and moving over this extension and is considered to Gary Whitegate & /S boundary is a definite encroachment into be a potential suitable location

Marton Parish open countryside and would potentially set a for development. Cliffe Council precedent. If allowed, what would stop the encroachment into a few more fields and a No change required. little further into open countryside? There have to be ward and parish boundaries that give definitive demarcation lines for terms such as open countryside and Key Settlement Areas. This site encroaches too far over these natural and political boundaries. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF allows for some Site is no longer in use redevelopment of brownfield Mr and is a vacant sites within the Green Belt,

KIN/0022/ brownfield site in the this is considered on a site by Terence S Green Belt that could site basis and for the purpose

be redeveloped rather of the SHLAA such sites have Harvey than being derelict. been considered for potential inclusion in the councils housing land supply.

Land is a brownfield site Site is no longer in use This site is no longer classed having previously been as previously developed land / Mrs I know the site owner is keen for it and is a vacant used as a haulage depot, brownfield and has returned to to be used for some kind of brownfield site in the ELT/0013/ surfaced with hardcore. a status greenfield . The NPPF Pauline development and they offered it for Green Belt that could S This makes it unsuitable continues to support the affordable housing, which was for be redeveloped rather for either agriculture or protection of the Green Belt English some reason refused. than being derelict horticulture. The land is from inappropriate between two detached development and as such the Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details houses so it could be SHLAA methodology classed as infill. discounts sites that are located in the Green Belt (with the exception of a number of brownfield sites). These sites are not subject to a full assessment, and do not contribute towards the future housing land supply.

No change required. Ms Clerk

Jo DAM/0018 INCORRECTLY LISTED - SHOULD BE Parish has been amended to Kingsmead /H KINGSMEAD PARISH read Delamere. Parish O'Donoghu Council e Please check/amend the site boundary. Red line boundary of planning permission ref 11/03802/OUT is to south of Hooton Road only. The site mapped in the proforma is all of Cllr Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Local The location map has been Cheshire Plan GB7 allocation. Northern portion of the amended to reflect the extant West and WIT/0007/ Myles site is still a well-used employment site. The planning permission boundary Chester H site does not extend across the B5133 to only and the site area has Council Hogg include Hooton Works Trading Estate land nor been updated accordingly. the site of the Cane factory opposite the Hooton Pub and adjacent to the station. The map overstates the housing land allocated at present. The NPPF continues to support the protection of the It is important to preserve this area Green Belt from inappropriate for the benefit of Chester as a development and as such the whole. It is already designated SHLAA methodology Mr Green Belt area and should discounts sites that are remain so. Any encroachment into located in the Green Belt (with GWY/0068 Paul the Green Belt should be entirely the exception of a number of /S resisted as it provides great brownfield sites). These sites White amenity to the community in this are not subject to a full area and preserves the unique assessment, and do not nature of Chester as an historic contribute towards the future city. housing land supply.

No change required. Agree with the comments that the Given that we have The statement The density and potential site site would be suitable and demonstrated that the confirming that no capacity detailed for each site contribute to the creation of a site is available, expression of interest are estimates based on the sustainable mixed community. allowing time for had been shown is general assumptions set out in It would seem sensible to allow for a higher allocation and/or grant incorrect and should be the SHLAA methodology. Mr Development density development on the parts of the site of planning permission amended accordingly These details do not Manager DAM/0041 nearest to Church Street and hence existing for a development and to acknowledge the determine the parameters of a John /S residential development to reflect existing However, the statement in the subsequent previous planning application which WCE development patterns and the character of the draft SHLAA document that no construction on the representations could be submitted for a Beardsell Properties Ltd Conservation Area. expression of interest to northern section of the submitted as part of the smaller / larger area than sell/develop the site for housing site adjacent to Church SHLAA "call for sites" shown in the SHLAA, and the had been submitted and hence Street, the site could exercise in February proposed density and capacity that it is not currently available is comfortably be 2013. The site should may also differ. factually incorrect. Following email delivered within the therefore be correctly Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details correspondence completed next 5 years. As such, categorised as having Assessment of availability SHLAA forms were submitted to the supply estimate immediate to medium amended to 'Yes' to reflect Beth Fletcher, Planning Officer for should be revised term potential. details of expression of CWaC Council, during the accordingly. interest received. SHLAA "call for sites" exercise in February 2013 that proposed part of this site, between 28 and 36 Church Street, totalling 1 hectare. The representation confirmed that the proposed residential site, and a parcel of land adjacent to the west, was free from constraints and available given that WCE Properties Ltd was acting on behalf of the landowners to promote the land for housing development. We can again confirm that the portion of the site identified previously, totalling just over 1 hectare is therefore suitable, available and achievable subject to a revision to the settlement boundary/grant of planning permission for residential development. This site has been included under a single I am writing regarding the reference to reflect the above site reference sheet suggested which refers to the two development potential fields shown as Site Type received through a site The parcel of land in the south "Greenfield". The first field submission. The of the map is located in the (land off Chester Road) is, potential use of the Green Belt and this will be according to the Local northern area is reflected on the proforma. The Plan "Allocated Sports siggested residential two parcels remain as a single Mrs Facilities and Open development with the assessment as a result of the Space" whilst the field to site submission received HAG/0044 provision of open space P the rear of Saint Vincent during the preparation of the /S on the southern site, Drive (the lower of the two therefore no SHLAA, however the land in McNabb on the map) is in fact " development has been the Green Belt is not Greenbelt " land. As such suggested on Green considered for housing the Site Type Belt land. development, but as provision section should be of open space in conjunction amended to clearly reflect with potential development of these points but The developable area the northern site. ideally each field should and capacity have been have its own individual Site amended to reflect the Reference Sheet. development potential for the land outside of the Green Belt only.

WOV/0010/S; Land at Shepherd's Fold, This site now has an outline Mrs Wade Lane, Winsford planning permission pending a Assistant S106 legal agreement. The WOV/0010 Michelle planning status and supply Goldfinch /S I confirm that this site is available and subject forecasts have been amended Pensions to gaining planning permission will be suitable Jones for developing during years 1-5, not 6-10 as to reflect details of the current stated in the Draft SHLAA 2013. planning permission. Mrs Assistant I confirm that this site is available and subject The planning status of the site WSD/0005 to gaining planning permission will be suitable has been updated to Subject /S Michelle Goldfinch for developing during years 1-5, not 6-10 as to Section 106 legal Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Pensions stated in the Draft SHLAA 2013. agreement and the potential Jones delivery forecasts have been updated as applicable. I oppose any strategic release of Greenbelt land along the A41 corridor in Chester so support the discontinuance of these sites as part of the plan The NPPF continues to I hope that I have managed to find all the sites process. The revised support the protection of the that are in the Greenbelt around Pipers Ash growth figures which Green Belt from inappropriate both in Gt. Boughton Parish and Guilen are lower than originally development and as such the GWY0068/ Sutton Parish. Although Royal Mail decided planned for and the SHLAA methodology Mrs 0069/0070 Pipers Ash should be in Guilden Sutton availability of discounts sites that are All of the sites are /0037/003 postcode area, most of the houses are in Gt. alternative sites not located in the Green Belt (with currently in agricultural use These sites are listed as Susan 0/0056/00 Boughton. within the Greenbelt the exception of a number of and are part of the North discontinued. I welcome this. 67/0074/0 suggest that growth brownfield sites). These sites Cheshire Greenbelt. Proctor 075/0078/ Gt. Boughton Parish is in CW&C;s Vicars needs can be met are not subject to a full 0079/0095 Cross & Boughton Heath ward whilst Guilden without encroaching assessment, and do not Sutton is in the Chester Villages ward into the Greenbelt. contribute towards the future prevously part of Gowy ward. The sites are Agricultural land is housing land supply. listed as discontinued. important to the nation's economy and No change required. the need for the country to produce as much of its own food as it can, therefore Greenbelt land should be retained. The location map has been amended to show the correct site.

This site has been identified Cllr through the Housing Land This is the old Yoghurt Factory Site and the Monitor (HLM) and hase an WEC/0037 John first of 150 houses are under construction existing planning permission /H now. for residential development Grimshaw therefore it forms part of the council’s housing land supply. The progress of the site is monitored through the HLM, and completions recorded and reported every six months. Cllr

TAK/0004/ The Parish has been amended John This site is in Delamere Parish not Kelsall H to read Delemere.

Grimshaw The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development Cllr This is a rising plot of land potential and does not apply and would encroach into detailed Local Plan policies. TAK/0009/ John Site is in Delamere Parish not Kelsall the rural landscape of NA NA These issues would be S Willington which is considered through the Grimshaw sparsley populated. Development Management process if a planning application were submitted to Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details the council.

The Parish has been amended to read Delamere, and details have been inserted into the Additional Information section. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development potential and does not apply detailed Local Plan policies. Cllr This site is very elevated These issues would be and would intrude on the considered through the TAK/0069/ John Site is in Delamere Parish not Kelsall rural landscape of Development Management S Willington which is process if a planning Grimshaw sparsley populated application were submitted to the council.

The Parish has been amended to read Delamere. I have registered my disapproval of the loss of this amenity donated by Peter Jones for public use on the This sites has been identified General Mr relevant CWAC through the Housing Land Secretary planning site. Planning Monitor and hase an existing HAP/0004/ Reg permission is now all planning permission for Handbridge S but a done deal and i residential development. It Residents Barritt leave it to those living therefore forms part of the Council in close proximity to council’s housing land supply. this proposed development to take issue with the detail of what is to be done. This is an appalling and utterly inappropriate The SHLAA is a high level proposal. It must be assessment of development retained as open space potential and does not apply and visual amenity. It General detailed Local Plan policies. Mr greatly enhances walks, Secretary These issues would be taken by many, along the HAP/0005/ considered through the Reg riverside and is very much Handbridge S Development Management part of the local scene that Residents process if a planning Barritt is appreciated both by Council application were submitted to local and visitors who pass the council. this way. It has to be

retained given our No change required. assessed shortfall of local open amenity greenspace. This comment is made This comment is made on behalf of Willaston This comment is made on behalf on behalf of Willaston Residents’ and Countryside Society. of Willaston Residents’ and Residents’ and Mr Countryside Society. Countryside Society. The location map has been amended to reflect extant WIT/0007/ The ROFTEN site as detailed on the SHLAA Barry for Willaston & Thornton Ward already has an planning permission boundary H The SHLAA requires updating to The ROFTEN outline Planning Permission for 250 homes only and the site area has identify the Outline planning site outline Planning Vowles (11/03802/OUT - subject only to final legal been updated accordingly. permission shortly to be issued by Permission for 250 agreements) on the land south of Hooton CWAC in 11/03802/OUT homes (11/03802/OUT) Road and west of the railway line. on the land south of Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Hooton Road and west of the railway linen more than satisfies the numbers of houses in the referenced SHLAA. Our Society believes that the additional lands detailed to the north of Hooton Road and the east of the railway line should be REMOVED from the SHLAA as unnecessary and likley to cause unwanted applications for development. In particular all the lands identified on the east side of the railway line should be retained as an industrial estate which provides much needed local employment and businesses It was a mistake to give permission for residential development at this enclosed location. A no sustainable decision and one likely to bring social tensions to the location once the General Mr development is in place Secretary with new residents Thank you for your comments HAP/0017/ Reg living on top of the which have been noted. No Handbridge H established. The site change required. Residents Barritt should have been Council reatined for much more needed parking. That said the deed is done and the site has permission for housing development hence it is pointless for me to comment further on this inclusion. This comment is made on behalf of Willaston Residents’ and Countryside Society. This site has been identified Mr through the Housing Land Monitor and has an existing WIT/0015/ Barry This site has already been developed. The planning permission for H developer has almost completed the 2 houses residential development Vowles which will no doubt be sold and occupied in therefore it forms part of the the very near future. This should be removed council’s housing land supply. from the SHLAA

Mr This comment is made on behalf of Willaston This sites have been identified WIT/0016/ Residents’ and Countryside Society. through the Housing Land Barry H Monitor and has an existing planning permission for Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Vowles This site has already been developed. 3 residential development houses have been built (the third is almost therefore it forms part of the complete) and all 3 houses are displaying council’s housing land supply. SOLD signs. This item should be removed from the SHLAA I was not aware of any permisison for residential development This site has been identified General at this location, but it Mr through the Housing Land Secretary seems it has been Monitor and has an existing HAP/0040/ given hence it is futile Reg planning permission for Handbridge S of me to take issue with residential development. It Residents this loss of garden Barritt therefore forms part of the Council space. It has to be a council’s housing land supply. concern though as to what is to be built in this space. This comment is made on behalf of Willaston Residents’ and Countryside Society. This sites has been identified Mr through the Housing Land Monitor and has an existing WIT/0014/ Barry This site is already in the process of planning permission for H development in line with its Planning residential development Vowles Permission for 5 terraced houses. All 5 therefore it forms part of the houses should be complete and sold within council’s housing land supply. the next few months. The site should be removed from the SHLAA This seems simply to be infill development in This site has been identified General Mr a row of terraced through the Housing Land Secretary properties off the main Monitor and has an existing HAP/0042/ Reg road. I have no view on planning permission for Handbridge H this matter, again given residential development. It Residents Barritt it already has therefore forms part of the Council development council’s housing land supply. permission. I am sure the permission for the building of some 30 £1m executive homes on the site only awaits CWAC's rubber stamp. This is not best use of the location in General sustainabel planning Mr Secretary terms, and the plan is Thank you for your comments HAP/0041/ but an economic Reg which have been noted. No Handbridge S resolution to the change required. Residents problems facing the Barritt Council owners and CWAC in these harsh economic times visited on us by the banking sector itself. I have commented on this matter to CWAC already and will do so on the planning file Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details when it is finally posted. The location would have made a great museum to show off such as Chester's past maritime history but hey ho money talks and end up with a speculative development of the site of no use to man nor beast here in Handbridge; and with no promise of any commuted sum to do such as pay for developing a central park at St Georges Crescent on the QPHS surplus land or contributing towards the much needed new Health Centre. This comment is made on behalf of Willaston Residents’ and Countryside Society.

The society wishes CWAC to note that a parcel of land is lying wasted and undevelopedd close to the village centre. It is Mr approx 150 metres from the village green on the RH side on Hadlow Road when heading Details of new sites will be Barry WIT collated and will inform future west out of the village along Hadlow Road. Apparently a planning application was made versions of the assessment. Vowles several years ago for development, but was refused on technical grounds I believe. This land could be developed for a small number of houses or if that is not possible then as a car park area to relieve parking congestion within the village. Is there a way of adding this on the SHLAA

Cuddington Parish Council welcomes the The SHLAA capacity includes listing for Cuddington as a key service sites without planning centre. We note the 30 houses p.h. density permission and therefore the proposed. The document notes Cuddington's capacity for each area is not a capacity as 370, and we acknowledge that reflection of the total number you mention that this may not be an up to of units that have secured Mrs date figure; our own figure would be nearer to planning permission. These Clerk to the 387, based on those applications already figures are a snap shot in time Julie Council approved or within the planning service at an and planning permissions that WEC/0001 advanced stage. We suggest that this total are granted after the base Chrimes - Cuddington /H should represent Cuddington and Sandiway's date of the document will be Parish Parish contribution to the apparent need for land for monitored through the councils Clerk Council housing and would urge your Authority to Housing Land Monitor which Cuddington resist granting any further approvals. alongside the SHLAA informs the housing land supply. Amongst those sites listed as non suitable we note that the land between Chester The NPPF continues to Road/Daleford Lane and Kennel lane sits support the protection of the within this list with the comment that it has Green Belt from inappropriate been refused consent and is awaiting an development and as such the Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details appeal decision. We would regret it if that was SHLAA methodology the only reason for noting as non suitable. We discounts sites that are would submit that there is sustained and located in the Green Belt (with appropriate opposition to development on this the exception of a number of site on valid planning grounds. brownfield sites). These sites are not subject to a full Within the list of discounted sites we see 7.52 assessment, and do not ha at Moss Farm, Littledales Lane, contribute towards the future Cuddington; 0.79 at Bryn Farmhouse; 2.24 at housing land supply. Smithy Lane; and 2.67 at Forest Road, Cuddington. The reason given for discounting all these sites is that they within the Green Belt. Cuddington Parish Council would hope that Cheshire West and Chester will do everything within their power to protect the green belt, and would be dismayed if the perimeter of our village were to be nibbled away at by these, or similar, applications to build on land within the Green Belt. Site address has been amended and capacity and forecasts have been reviewed and amended where applicable. The following should be amended The statement 'Long

to say; term opportunity. Where the site is classed as Currently in active use.' achievable and able to deliver Available; The former Weir site is wrong and should be units with 5 years the has been vacant since July 2012, amended to say that assessment is based on clear and marketed to employment the majority of the site evidence provided/available to Mr The site address should be amended to users since that time without is not in active use, and The site would the Council to support its correctly state: interest. Interest has been the remainder is only WIC/0057/ contribute 150 units in inclusion in the five year Peter Vernon & Co confirmed from residential used for temporary S years 1 to 5, and 65 supply e.g positive pre developers. Detailed negotiations open storage. The site Former Weir Enginnering Works and Mr Lees units in years 6 to 10. application discussions or Vernon are currently taking place. is available for land, Winnington Avenue, Northwich were proposed schemes have immediate been discussed with the development, meetings Acheivable; The site is available Council Officers. This does not have been held with the and the current interest means that prevent a site from coming Council regarding an its development is acheivable so forward in the future should imminent residential that its majority would be there be a change in application. developed within years 5. circumstances. If the planning status of a site changes, this will be taken into account and amended when the SHLAA is next updated. This site is in a highly sustainable Where sites have been village location, within easy refused permission and are walking distance to a range of subject to appeal they have facilities. It is therefore highly been excluded from the suitable for residential SHLAA, unless on the grounds Miss Planner The density of development here would have development given the need for that the release of a site Planner to reflect the Conservation Area constraints, housing land in Tarporley. The site should first be determined TAR0008/ Helen The and therefore may well be less than the is available and achievable. It has through the Local Plan The Emerson S Emerson potential yield of 78 indicated in the previous been identified as not suitable in process. It would be Group Hartley Group SHLAA assessment. the draft SHLAA 2013 due to a inappropriate for the Council to previous planning application factor these sites into our being refused. However, it is future supply of potential land intended to address these reasons for housing (i.e. put them in for refusal through a resubmitted the SHLAA) when the Council application, which is currently has decided that there is a Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details being prepared. This site should significant planning objection therefore be re-included in the which should prevent them updated SHLAA. being released for development. Under these circumstances if an appeal was then allowed by an Inspector/Secretary of State, the site would then feature again in the SHLAA.

The densities applied and agreed by the members of the Housing Partnership during the preparation of the 2011 SHLAA are applied. The assumptions detailed in Table 2.2 have been used to ensure site capacity is calculated consistently in the absence of any other information available to indicate the capacity of sites. The developable area of the site has been calculated and the relevant density assumption has then been applied. Where a site is classed as achievable and able to deliver units within 5 years the assessment is based on clear evidence provided/available to the Council to support its The draft SHLAA is not accurate in It is realistic to include inclusion in the five year indicating this site would not be supply on this site supply e.g positive pre Miss Planner achievable in the next 5 years. The application discussions or Planner within the 0 to 5 year site presents a viable prospect for were proposed schemes have TAR/0010/ timeframe, given the Helen The development, and it is realistically been discussed with the The Emerson S requirement for housing Emerson achievable that homes could be Council Officers. Group in Tarporley. Hartley Group delivered in the next 1 to 5 years. The proposed delivery

forecasts do not prevent a site from coming forward in the short term and if the planning status of a site changes, this will be taken into account and amended when the SHLAA is next updated. Where a site is classed as The draft SHLAA is not accurate in achievable and able to deliver indicating this site would not be units within 5 years the It is realistic to include achievable in the next 5 years. The assessment is based on clear supply on this site evidence provided/available to Miss Planner site presents a viable prospect for Planner within the 1 to 5 year the Council to support its development. A planning DAM/0005 timeframe, given the inclusion in the five year Helen The application is being prepared and it The Emerson /S requirement for housing supply. e.g positive pre Emerson is realistically achievable that Group in this area. application discussions or Hartley Group homes could be delivered in the next 1 to 5 years. were proposed schemes have been discussed with the Council Officers.

Circumstances or assumptions Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details may change which may mean that sites could come forward sooner or later than originally envisaged. The SHLAA does not prevent planning applications being submitted on any sites identified or excluded within it at any time. The site is on Great Boughton Parish Councils Latest housing need Queens road Community figures show The assessment has been Park were they ever Boroughwide needs Mr reviewed and this site has consulted on its use for can be met from Site of one time Council refuse tip which is been discounted as it is GRB/0001 Housing ?? I think the site should be brownfield site and infill Graham unstable and therefore of questionable See above classed as a formal public 5/S discounted or ruled out altogether. across the whole suitabilty open space. The site does not Borough not by Proctor It is therefore Pulblic Open contirubute towards the centering most of the space. I don't see housing land supply. Grosvenor Park, development in and Westminster Park or Hoole around Chester. Park in the schedules. THE NOS. QUOTED IN LED 0001 AND SUT0001 , 145 AND 128 RESPECTIVELY, ARE INCLUDED IN THE 2000 UNDER LED 0004. These sites have been reviewed in line with the CO- CO- current pending and approved EITHER THE 2000 IS REDUCED TO 1727 MR CHAIRMAN CHAIRMAN planning applications. The OR THE 2 X SITES LED 0001 AND SUT LED 0001 SHLAA now inicates two sites 0001 ARE REMOVED...EITHER WAY THE GRAHAM LEDSHAM & LEDSHAM LED 0004 only, and the site area, TOTAL NO OF HOUSES IS REDUCED TO MANOR & MANOR SUT 0001 capacity and potential delivery 2156, i.e. 2429 - 273. PENNESS ACTION ACTION forecasts have been amended GROUP GROUP accordingly to ensure that REDROW HOMES HAVE MADE IT VERY double counting does not take CLEAR THAT APPLICATION 12/03849/FUL place. IS PART OF ...NOT ADDITIONAL.TO APPLICATION 12/02091/OUT AND THE SAME WOULD APPLY TO SUT 0001 The address has been amended to clarify the location The lower parcel of of the two parcels of land. The land as shown on the This lists the "site type" as The lower parcel of land as shown two parcels of land have been The site details list the two parcels of land as map (land to the rear of Mrs "Greenfield" when in fact on the map (land to the rear of St considered under a single being "land off chester road/Hartford" and St Vincent Drive) has a the parcel in the lower part Vincent Drive) has a restrivtive assessment as aresult of the HAG/0044 "Styal Lane, Hartford". The parcel shown in restrivtive covenant on P of the map (land to rear of covenant on it which prvents submission received during /S the lower part of the map is in fact land to the it which prvents St Vincent Drive) is in fact buildings of any type but states the preparation of the SHLAA. rear of St Vincent Drive, Hartford" >can find buildings of any type McNabb Greenbelt and should be that the land should only be used The proposal for the site in the no road called "Styal Lane" in Hartford. but states that the land listed as such. for grazing purposes only. Green Belt is to retain it as should only be used for open space in conjunction with grazing purposes only. development of the northern site. Land south east of Hollies Farm, Sites that have been refused Hartford (2010 Site SHLAA Ref: planning permission will be not Mr ABY0009). The site was the be subject to an assessment subject of a refused planning at the current time and Harrow HAG/0006 Tim application for residential excluded from the SHLAA, Estates plc /S development for up to 350 unless on the grounds that the Noden dwellings (Application Ref: release of a site should first be 11/05805/OUT). Whilst that determined through the Local application was refused by the Plan process. Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Council, the site is a suitable location for housing, as evidenced It would be inappropriate for in the agreed Statement of the Council to factor these Common Ground submitted as sites into our future supply of part of the appeal which states the potential land for housing (i.e. site "is a sustainable location for put them in the SHLAA) when new housing Development" (para the Council has decided that 7.20) and "the Council has not there is a significant planning raised any reason for refusal objection which should prevent relating to the principle of them being released for residential development on the development at the current site" (para 7.38). time. Under these circumstances if an appeal The proposals are policy compliant was then allowed by an and the only matter of dispute Inspector/Secretary of State, between the Council and the the site would then feature applicant in relation to the appeal again in the SHLAA. However proposals was with respect to a this does not prevent a site highway conflict alleged by the from coming forward in the Council concerning the impact on future should there be a congestion. However, even with change in circumstances. respect to this matter no evidence was produced by the Council at If the planning status of a site the Appeal Inquiry to demonstrate changes, this will be taken into the highway impact was severe. account and amended when the SHLAA is next updated. In In these circumstances it is simply terms of planning permissions, wrong for the Council to discount a these are regularly monitored site's suitability for housing within and form part of the councils the draft SHLAA on the basis of a housing land supply. blanket exclusion, especially given that the Council has made no assessment of how its decision to refuse applications like that proposed at the land east of Hollies Farm can be overcome and the site specific merits.

Land at Poolfield, Where a site is classed as School Lane, achievable and able to deliver Hartford. units within 5 years the assessment is based on clear evidence provided/available to We are pleased to see the Council to support its this site identified as a inclusion in the five year suitable site for supply e.g positive pre residential application discussions or development. However, were proposed schemes have Director we are surprised that it been discussed with the is identified as Linson HAG/0005 Council Officers. The potentially available Construction /S Planning within the 6-10 year It is recognised that there is a Consultancy period; in our view the need to consider such sites on site should be viewed a case-by-case basis and only as available in the 0-5 include those which are year time period. considered to have a realistic prospect of delivering housing By reference to Section within five years, however this 7 of the SHLAA does not prevent a site from Practice Guidance, we coming forward in the future observe that the site is should there be a change in in the control of a circumstances. Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details developer who, you are aware, is keen to bring the site forward for development. Furthermore, there are no significant constraints to its development that will take time to address that might, otherwise, delay its delivery. Consequently, we do not see why the site is not identified within the 0-5 year period which would, after all, improve your overall land supply position.

We do not comment on your calculation of housing land supply within Section 3 of the document, but for the avoidance of doubt, the calculation should not be seen as an appropriate calculation to provide the basis for development control decisions. This site being at the extremity of the village envelope could be used as a precedent to put additional pressure for development on the greenbelt which must These sites have been Mr not be eroded by identified through the Housing stealth or otherwise. Land Monitor and have an CHV/0004/ Site is right on end of A site which is suitable Graham existing planning permission H Village envelope for housing The same is true of Site for residential development Proctor CHV/0057/H I would be therefore they form part of the grateful if you could council’s housing land supply. record separately the same views on that site and also Site CHV/0076/H.

The SHLAA Practice Guidance Where sites have been July 2007 states that, "The SHLAA refused permission and are is a key component of the subject to appeal they have Mr evidence base to support the been excluded from the

HAG/0007 delivery of sufficient land for SHLAA. Unless on the Tim /S housing to meet the community's grounds that the release of a

need for more homes" (para 1) site should first be determined Booth through the Local Plan And "It should aim to identify as process. It would be many sites with housing potential inappropriate for the Council to Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details in and around as many factor these sites into our settlements as possible" (para 7) future supply of potential land for housing (i.e. put them in There is currently no justification the SHLAA) when the Council for excluding Grange Fram, has decided that there is a Hartford, from the Assessment on significant planning objection the simple basis that an which should prevent them application has been refused. This being released for methodological approach in the development. Under these draft SHLAA is fundamentally circumstances if an appeal flawed and contrary to the Practice was then allowed by an Guidance as evidenced by Inspector/Secretary of State, paragraph 7 and Stage7 a-d (para the site would then feature 33-42). again in the SHLAA.

The outline application for up to If the planning status of a site 300 dwellings was refused on the changes, this will be taken into grounds that it had, "a severe account and amended when impact on the highway network". the SHLAA is next updated. In The Council will be well aware that terms of planning permissions, at no point in the appeal inquiry these are regularly monitored was evidence presented that this and form part of the councils single "constraint" to the site housing land supply coming forward was severe. Accordingly there is no reason why the entire site should be excluded based on the site specific merits.

However, setting that argument aside, the only "limitation" from the Council's perspective that can accord with paragraph 38 of the Practice Guidance is highway capacity. This would mean that the single issue for the draft SHLAA to consider is estimating the housing potential of the site as the site meets all of the other tests to be included.

The site is a suitable location for housing, as evidenced in the agreed Statement of Common Ground submitted as part of the appeal which states the site, "is a sustainable location for new housing development" (para 7.20) and "the Council has not raised any reason for refusal relating to the principle of residential development on the site" (para 7.38). It should also not be forgotten that the site has been previously allocated.

It remains available and could be developed now or in the future. The site is clearly in the control of a recognised developer who has demonstrated a clear intention to Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details develop its asset.

The Council has made no assessment of how its decision to refuse the application can be overcome and the site specific merits, instead it has applied a blanket exclusion. The approach adopted by the Council has to be flawed in that it favours untested sites with no providence of being deliverable or developable at the expense of sites which are (albeit the Council may have not agreed with the format/parameters of a specific application).

Finally, even if the Council did not agree with the above and our interpretation of the Practice Guidance in relation to the whole site, it has failed to recognise that part of the site is derelict previously developed land which lies within the settlement boundary. Given the sites that have been included in Hartford and Greenbank we strongly suggest the Council reviews its approach. Ms Clerk

Comments noted. An error in Jo HAG/0003 Hartford Wrong map used !!!!! the link to the map has been /S Parish corrected. O'Donoghu Council e Ms Clerk

Jo HAG/0005 Part of current development subject to Thank you for your comments. Hartford /S decision from Sec of State No change required. Parish O'Donoghu Council e I would also request that I wish to have the The NPPF continues to same views and support the protection of the objections to Green Belt from inappropriate development recorded development and as such the I am opposed for the following sites in SHLAA methodology Mr wholeheartedly to particular the retention discounts sites that are I would wish to this piecemeal erosion of of their green belt located in the Green Belt (with CHV/0005/ site deleted from the lists Graham the greenbelt or any status. the exception of a number of S of land for future housing change to the existing brownfield sites). These sites as it is in the greenbelt Proctor greenbelt boundaries Site CHV/0008/S, Site are not subject to a full on this side of Chester CHV/0009/S, Site assessment, and do not CHV/0013/S, Site contribute towards the future CHV/0017/S, Site housing land supply. CHV/0018/S, Site CHV/0034/S, Site No change required. CHV/0035/S, Site Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details CHV/0074/S Where sites have been refused permission and are subject to appeal they have not been subject to an assessment at this time and excluded from the SHLAA, unless on the grounds that the release of a site should first be determined through the Local Plan process. It would be inappropriate for the Council to Ms factor these sites into our Clerk future supply of potential land

Jo HAG/0022 Currently part of planning appeal and awaiting for housing (i.e. put them in Hartford /S decision from Sec of State DCLG the SHLAA) when the Council Parish O'Donoghu has decided that there is a Council e significant planning objection which should prevent them being released for development at the current time. Under these circumstances if an appeal was then allowed by an Inspector/Secretary of State, the site would then feature again in the SHLAA.

No change required. Ms The location plan has been Clerk amended to reflect the

Jo HAG/0034 boundary of the planning Hartford location map incorrect, 1 house not 2 /H permission and the supply has Parish O'Donoghu been updated to detail the net Council e dwellings. Ms Clerk

There is not Styal Lane in Hartford. This is The address has been Jo HAG/0044 Hartford land off Mornant Avenue and St Vincents amended to clearly locate the /S Parish Drive. area. O'Donoghu Council e The NPPF continues to support the protection of the Green Belt from inappropriate development and as such the I would also request SHLAA methodology that I wish to have Mr I am opposed wholeheartedly to discounts sites that are these views and I would wish to see this site deleted from the piecemeal erosion of the greenbelt located in the Green Belt (with CHV/0013/ objections to Graham lists of land for future housing as it is in the or any changes to the existing the exception of a number of S development recorded greenbelt. greenbelt boundaries on this side brownfield sites). These sites for this site and in Proctor of Chester are not subject to a full particular the retention assessment, and do not of its green belt status. contribute towards the future housing land supply.

No change required. Mr CHV/0014/ I would wish to see this site deleted from the I am opposed wholeheartedly to I would also request The NPPF continues to S lists of land for future housing as it is in the piecemeal erosion of the greenbelt that I wish to have the support the protection of the Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Graham greenbelt. or any changes to the existing same views and Green Belt from inappropriate greenbelt boundaries on this side objections to development and as such the Proctor of Chester and grwoing the Village development recorded SHLAA methodology envelope. for the following sites in discounts sites that are particular the retention located in the Green Belt (with of their green belt the exception of a number of status. brownfield sites). These sites are not subject to a full assessment, and do not Site CHV/0019/S, Site contribute towards the future CHV/0024/S, Site housing land supply. CHV/0027/S, Site CHV/ No change required. The NPPF continues to support the protection of the Green Belt from inappropriate I would also request I am opposed wholeheartedly to development and as such the that I wish to have piecemeal erosion of the greenbelt SHLAA methodology these views and Mr or any changes to the existing discounts sites that are I would wish to see this site deleted from the objections to greenbelt boundaries on this side located in the Green Belt (with CHV/0030/ lists of land for future housing as it has been development Graham of Chester. If this site were to be the exception of a number of S top class agricultural land and is in the recorded sites in scheduled for future development brownfield sites). These sites greenbelt particular the retention Proctor it would put even greater pressure are not subject to a full of this prime agriculture for more development on the rest assessment, and do not land and its green belt of that part of the green belt. contribute towards the future status. housing land supply.

No change required. The NPPF continues to support the protection of the Green Belt from inappropriate development and as such the SHLAA methodology discounts sites that are Mr This land has been partially developed and located in the Green Belt (with allowed to become derelict it could be the exception of a number of CHV/ Graham considered as an infill site only providing that brownfield sites). This site is 0025/S that would not cause further highways categorised as greenfield land Proctor problems on Tarvin Road. in teh Gren Belt and is npt subject to a full assessment, and therefore does not contribute towards the future housing land supply.

No change required. I am opposed The NPPF continues to wholeheartedly to support the protection of the piecemeal erosion of Green Belt from inappropriate the greenbelt or any development and as such the changes to the existing SHLAA methodology Mr I would wish to see this site deleted from the I am opposed wholeheartedly to greenbelt boundaries discounts sites that are lists of land for future housing as it is in the piecemeal erosion of the greenbelt on this side of Chester. located in the Green Belt (with CHV/0038/ Graham greenbelt or any changes to the existing If this site were to be the exception of a number of S greenbelt boundaries on this side scheduled for future brownfield sites). These sites Proctor . of Chester. development it would are not subject to a full put even greater assessment, and do not pressure for more contribute towards the future development on the housing land supply. rest of that part of the green belt. No change required. Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details

I would also request that I wish to have the same views and objections to development recorded for the following site in particular the retention of its green belt status.

Site CHV/0042/S I am opposed wholeheartedly to piecemeal erosion of I would also request Both this site and site CHV/0045/S are not in the greenbelt or any that I wish to have the Vicars Cross to the best of my knowledge. changes to the existing same views and Mr greenbelt boundaries Perhaps there are other errors in some of the objections to Address details for these sites on this side of Chester. CHV/0044/ supplied consultation data. development recorded have been amended and Graham If this site were to be S for the following site in reference to Vicars Cross scheduled for future I would wish to see these sites deleted from particular the retention removed. Proctor development it would ofits green belt status. the lists of land for future housing as they are put even greater in the greenbelt. pressure for more development on the Site CHV/0045/S rest of that part of the green belt. I am opposed The NPPF continues to wholeheartedly to support the protection of the piecemeal erosion of Green Belt from inappropriate the greenbelt or any development and as such the This is first class agricultural land changes to the existing SHLAA methodology and should not be released for Mr greenbelt boundaries discounts sites that are housing or other development. I would wish to see this site deleted from the on this side of Chester. located in the Green Belt (with CHV/0066/ Agriculture is still of huge value to Graham lists of land for future housing as it is in the If this site were to be the exception of a number of S both the local and regional greenbelt. scheduled for future brownfield sites). These sites economy as well sustainability of Proctor development it would are not subject to a full this part of the national food put even greater assessment, and do not supply. pressure for more contribute towards the future development on the housing land supply. rest of that part of the green belt. No change required.

I am opposed I would also request The NPPF continues to This is first class agricultural land and should wholeheartedly to that I wish to have the support the protection of the not be released for housing or other piecemeal erosion of same views and Green Belt from inappropriate development. Agriculture is still of huge value the greenbelt or any objections to development and as such the to both the local and regional economy as changes to the existing development recorded SHLAA methodology Mr well sustainability of this part of the national greenbelt boundaries for the following sites in discounts sites that are food supply. on this side of Chester. located in the Green Belt (with GRB/0030 particular the retention Graham See above. See above If this site were to be the exception of a number of /S of their green belt scheduled for future status. brownfield sites). These sites Proctor development it would are not subject to a full I would therefore wish to see this site deleted put even greater assessment, and do not from the lists of land for future housing and pressure for more Site GRB/0029/S, Site contribute towards the future would wish to ensure that it retains its very development on the GRB/0017/S, Site housing land supply. longstanding and valuable green belt status. rest of that part of the GRB/0018/S and Site green belt. GRB/0019/S No change required. Mr This is first class agricultural land and should I have previously The NPPF continues to GRB/0030 not be released for housing or other submitted comments support the protection of the /S Graham development. Agriculture is still of huge value on this site and those Green Belt from inappropriate Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details to both the local and regional economy as below on a form for development and as such the Proctor well sustainability of this part of the national Chester Villages and SHLAA methodology food supply. would wish to have discounts sites that are those responses located in the Green Belt (with allocated to the Great the exception of a number of Boughton Section as brownfield sites). These sites well. are not subject to a full assessment, and do not I am opposed contribute towards the future wholeheartedly to housing land supply. piecemeal erosion of the greenbelt or any changes to the existing greenbelt boundaries on this side of Chester. If this site were to be scheduled for future development it would put even greater pressure for more development on the rest of that part of the green belt.

I would also request that I wish to have the same views and objections to development recorded for the following sites in particular the retention of their green belt status. Site GRB/0017/S, Site GRB/0018/S and Site GRB/0019/S. Where a site is classed as achievable and able to deliver units within 5 years the assessment is based on clear evidence provided/available to The supply should be It is proposed the site the Council to support its updated as follows: could be developed in inclusion in the five year The SHLAA should be updated to phases. An application supply e.g positive pre show this site as achievable. The for phase 1 will be application discussions or Director Years 1-5 (65) site owners are currently preparing submittied later in were proposed schemes have Dimelow & MAL/0013/ a planning application that will be summer 2013. This will been discussed with the Witter SATPLAN S Years 6-10 (50) submitted during summer 2013. include residential Council Officers. LTD Site delivery is expected within 5 development of upto 65 years. Years 11-15 (50) dwellings and may also If the planning status of a site include the provision for changes, this will be taken into Years 16-20+(42) a new Doctors surgery. account and amended when the SHLAA is next updated. The delivery forecasts are not prescriptive and do not preclude a site from coming forward in the short term. Mr The site (and EPT/0021/H which is To ensure deliverability The current assessment and EPT/0019/ in the same ownership/control) has in the current market forecasts reflect the details of H Tim been the subject of a number of the density and mix of the most recent extant Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details discussions with the Council over the extant permission is planning permission as this is Booth the last few years about ways to also likely to reduce, the most robust evidence. If an bring forward the delivery of mainly through a alternative scheme is agreed housing on the site. reduction in with the council the apartments. assessment will be reviewed The site is currently not viable with Accordingly we suggest and amended where an affordable housing requirement a more realistic applicable to reflect any and until this is addressed housing provision from the site changes. cannot be delivered. Having would be 150-160 units discussed the matter with officers, and if the Council The capacity and forecasts we intend submitting an accept the viability detailed for this site do not application with supporting viability argument 110 units preclude alternative schemes information to vary the affordable could be delivered from being submitted. housing condition. within the 1-5 year Forecasts have been adjusted period. where applicable.

The site (and EPT/0019/H which is To ensure deliverability The current assessement and in the same ownership/control) has in the current market forecasts reflect the details of been the subject of a number of the density and mix of the most recent extant discussions with the Council over the extant permission is planning permission as this is the last few years about ways to also likely to reduce, the most robust evidence. If an bring forward the delivery of mainly through a alternative scheme is agreed reduction in with the council the Mr housing on the site. apartments. assessment will be reviewed

EPT/0021/ Accordingly we suggest and amended where Tim H The site is currently not viable with a more realistic applicable to reflect any

an affordable housing requirement provision from the site changes. Booth and until this is addressed housing would be 55-60 units cannot be delivered. Having and if the Council The capacity and forecasts discussed the matter with officers, accept the viability detailed for this site do not we intend submitting an argument these units preclude alternative schemes application with supporting viability could be delivered from being submitted. information to vary the affordable within the 1-5 year Forecasts have been adjusted housing condition. period. where applicable. We would draw the Council's attention to land within Russell Homes control at Middlewich Road, Swan Green, which compares favourably to This site has been categorised a number of the sites as non-suitable as it is not being consulted on in located within or adjacent to a planning, suitability and key service centre. Swan deliverability terms. The Green is not proposed as a land extends to 1.6ha key service centre in the MR Director and it is considered emerging Local Plan however

SHA/0009/ suitable for up to 30 this does not preclude some Daniel See additonal notes See additional notes. See additional notes. See additional notes. Russell S houses. development from coming

Homes forward in this area. Also, the Kershaw The 2010 SHLAA categorisation of a site as non identified the site as a suitable does not prevent a ‘site to be taken planning application from forward' (Ref : being submitted. NWE0025). This was based on a larger plot No change required. of 5.35ha delivering 135 units. The 2013 update identifies the site as a ‘non-suitable site' - advising that the site is not within / Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details adjacent to main urban area or one of the 9 key service centres (Farndon, Frodsham, Helsby, Neston & Parkgate, Malpas, Kelsall, Tarvin, Tattenhall, Tarpoley).

The emerging Local Plan seeks to concentrate most of the Borough's housing requirements in the main urban settlements however it is proposed to provide 20% in the rural area with the focus of most new development within 9 key service centres. Whilst these service centres provide the greatest scope for further growth CWAC acknowledge that additional housing will come forward through other sites.

The criteria for determining the key local centres was based on the availability of services and facilities within settlements, the existence of which reduces the need to travel significant distances. Specifically the key services which have been assessed include: •Secondary or primary school •General store •GP facility •Post office •Community building •Supermarket •Newsagent •Bank •Place of worship •Leisure centre •Public house •Library •Dentist •Sports pitches/children's play area

Whilst Swan Green is only a small village it includes a local neighbourhood shop Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details (newsagent, off license) with combined post office service and a public house/restaurant within the settlement boundary. Additional facilities exist around 800m from the site in the neighbouring settlement of Lower Peover. A church, primary school, and public house are all found within Lower Peover and are within walking distance of Swan Green. There are bus services that run through the village with regular links to the higher order centres of Knutsford and Holmes Chapel and there are a number of leisure facilities within the immediate area (Peover Golf Course). There is currently limited play space within the village and the development of the site could provide suitable provision to address the local shortage. It would be proposed to set aside an area of land within the site that would function as public open space for the site and also for the neighbouring residents of Swan Green. In summary whilst the site is not within a key service centre it is does have access to a number of local services and has good accessibility to neighbouring towns with existing facilities.

The redevelopment of the site could assist in the delivery of open space of which there is a local shortage. The purpose of this submission is to reiterate the site's immediate availability Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details and benefits and request that it be considered alongside the other deliverable sites put forward for assessment/allocation within this consultation document.

For the reasons outlined under the following sub-headings, it is our view that this site compares considerably more favourably than a number of the deliverable sites put forward for consultation. Hence, to assist the Council in identifying and subsequently allocating sites to meet future housing needs at suitable, available, sustainable and deliverable sites, we ask that this site be included in future allocation consultation documents and that it be correctly referenced as deliverable in future SHLAA updates. The following sub-headings are outlined to give a brief summary of the site's key planning merits and considerations:

Availability The site is owned by three parties who have jointly contracted to sell the site for future residential development top Russell Homes. As such, the site should be termed to be wholly and expediently available. The land extends to 1.6 hectares in size and it is considered that it could accommodate up to 30 dwellings.

Agricultural Land Quality The site is a Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details small parcel of unused open land. The land does not fall within the definition of being the best or most versatile in agricultural terms.

Accessibility The land can be access from Middlewich Road or from the existing access spur from Holly Tree Drive.

Planning Designation The site is designated as being ‘Open Countryside'. The development of the site would represent a logical ‘rounding off' of the settlement and not lead to any significant localised countryside encroachment.

Adjoining Uses The site adjoins existing housing and the open countryside. The visual landscape quality of the site is poor.

Sustainability The site occupies a reasonably sustainable location at the boundary of the settlement of Swan Green. Access to a primary schools, public house, local church and local shop is also wholly achievable on foot. Access to other services is available by a variety of bus routes that pass the site, linking it with surrounding settlements.

Summary

The site is wholly available, sustainable and deliverable. The development of the site would represent a logical rounding off of the settlement and is capable of being Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details developed to deliver an attractive scheme in a suitable residential location. It would assist in providing local children play space facilities of which there is a local shortfall. The site is favourable in planning terms to a number of sites being promoted by parties elsewhere, notably on the basis that it does not entail Green Belt land, which should only be developed in ‘very special circumstances'. The site is considered to be available, suitable, sustainable and deliverable. As such, it is requested that the Council consider the site's potential as a deliverable site to accommodate up to 30 dwellings and include this site within subsequent Local Plan and Land Allocation consultation documents. Allocation 0053/S and the This representation seeks to By agreeing this proposed extension are extend an existing SHLAA extension of 0053/S, controlled by the same allocation, through the inclusion of there will be a unique single owner who is an additional strategically placed opportunity to combine The proposed working with Russell piece of land within the same both allocations extension measures Homes to sell the site for ownership. Land identified as (0053/S and 0019/S) to The site has been amended 1.92 acres. It has future residential TAK/0053/S ‘land surrounding createa as applicable and in response therefore been representations received We are instructed to make representations on development. As such, the telephone exchange, Church comprehensively assessed that the throughout the preparation of the above in relation to land at Church Street, site should be deemed to Street, Tarvin' has already been master-planned existing allocation the SHLAA. The SHLAA does Tarvin. It is the intention of this be wholly available. identified as a site that can deliver approach to wider 0053/S can be not allocate land for representation to extend the allocation to 66 units projected to come forward redevelopment extended by 18 family development and is a high Mr include an additional area of land within the within years 11-15. Abutting the proposals, rather than The site adjoins Church dwellings, bringing the level assessment of same land holding to the immediate south. southern boundary of this land is through a piecemeal TAK/0053/ Street to the West, farm new total to 84 development potential and Paul The additional site measures 1.92 acres, the 5.19 ha site identified as approach. S buildings and existing dwellings. does not apply detailed Local bringing the revised site allocation to 8.71 TAK/0019/S ‘Council Holdings off residential to the North Plan policies. Coggins acres. By way of an explanation, if you with open Countryside to Tarporley Road, opposite The site is favourable in The land is capable of combine allocations 0053/S and 0019/S there the East. Council holdings Broomheath Lane junction, Tarvin' planning terms to a delivering housing from The identification of a site(s) in is a 'gap' in the centre. This central field is forming the basis of which has been identified to number of sites being 2019, with this in mind the SHLAA does not prevent a owned by the Vendor of 0053/S and as such allocation TAK/0019/S lies deliver 125 units between years promoted by parties it is requested that planning application coming should be considered for inclusion. immediately to the South. 16-20. There is however one elsewhere, notably on the proposed extended forward on a larger / smaller Given the potential to central field, owned by the Vendor the basis that it does site be considered to area and for a greater / consider the entirety of of allocation of TAK/0053/S that not entail Green Belt deliver housing smaller capacity. both allocations as a has been omitted. It is requested land, which should only between years 6-10. composite development that this land be included within be developed in ‘very there is adequate potential allocation 0053/S. special circumstances'. for screening. If required, planting or a bund could The additional land can be The site is considered Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details be used for screening, or considered exactly the same as to be wholly available, open space or flatted 0053/S when assessed against all suitable, sustainable development here could criteria of accessibility, and deliverable. As act as a suitable buffer. sustainability, agricultural land such, it is requested quality and planning designation. that the Council consider the site's potential as a deliverable site between years 6-10 to accommodate up to 84 dwellings and include this site within subsequent Local Plan and Land Allocation consultation documents. Cllr Cheshire

West & DAM/0015 Parish has been amended to Helen Site is in Kingsmead parish not Northwich. Chester /H Kingsmead.

Council Weltman Cllr Cheshire

West & DAM/0018 Parish has been amended to Helen Site is in Kingsmead parish not Northwich. Chester /H Kingsmead.

Council Weltman The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development potential and does not apply detailed Local Plan policies. Cllr Cheshire I am concerned about These issues would be

West & DAM/0016 the following site for the considered through the Helen Chester /S problems accessing it Development Management

Council will bring. process if a planning Weltman application were submitted to the council.

No change required. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development potential and does not apply detailed Local Plan policies. Cllr Cheshire I am concerned about These issues would be

West & DAM/0011 the following site for the considered through the Helen Chester /S problems accessing it Development Management

Council will bring. process if a planning Weltman application were submitted to the council.

No change required. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development Cllr Cheshire I am concerned about potential and does not apply

West & DAM/0033 the following site for the detailed Local Plan policies. Helen Chester /S problems accessing it These issues would be

Council will bring. considered through the Weltman Development Management process if a planning Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details application were submitted to the council.

No change required. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development potential and does not apply detailed Local Plan policies. Cllr Cheshire I am concerned about These issues would be

West & DAM/0045 the following site for the considered through the Helen Chester /S problems accessing it Development Management

Council will bring. process if a planning Weltman application were submitted to the council.

No change required. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development potential and does not apply detailed Local Plan policies. Cllr Cheshire I am concerned about These issues would be

West & DAM/0027 the following site for the considered through the Helen Chester /S problems accessing it Development Management

Council will bring. process if a planning Weltman application were submitted to the council.

No change required. The SHLAA considers and assesses each site Query two sites which independantly, however this Cllr Cheshire may potentially join up issue would be considered

West & DAM/0004 the villages of through the Development Helen Chester /S Davenham and Management process if a

Council Moulton DAM/0004/S planning application were Weltman and DAM/0030/S submitted to the council.

No change required. Cllr Cheshire Planning status has been

West & DAM/0012 Is the planning status correct (pending a amended to read None, and Helen Chester /S decision)? Additional Information has

Council been changed. Weltman The boundary for a proposed crematorium does fall within site. The assessment was Cllr This land includes the Cheshire made at a time when a recently approved West & DAM/0006 permission was not in place Helen Crematorium site which Chester /S and therefore the capacity will take up a large Council reflects the potential for the Weltman chunk of that land. whole site. These details will be updated when the assessemnt is next reviewed. Cllr The access to this site The SHLAA is a high level will single track due to assessment of development DAM/0004 Elton the proximity of potential and does not apply /S adjacent properties, detailed Local Plan policies. Watson rights of way are Each site is considered Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details present on the site independantly and these which are well used issues would be considered and valued by existing through the Development residents, developing Management process if a this site would result in planning application were encroachment into the submitted to the council. buffer of open land between the 2 No change required. communities of Davenham & Moulton, only one field would separate the communities leading coalescing. There would be no support from the community for a development on this site of this scale. It is likely that some of DAM/00045/S (adjacent site) would be accessed by Green Lane, this is unlikely to be suitable for the volume of traffic generated due to it being a one way lane, there will also be an impact on London The SHLAA is a high level Road, particularly with assessment of development regards to traffic potential and does not apply queuing behind Cllr detailed Local Plan policies. vehicles waiting to turn Each site is considered DAM/0005 right in to Green Lane, I Elton independantly and these /S am concerned that any issues would be considered access from Green Watson through the Development Avenue will not be up Management process if a to modern planning application were requirements due to the submitted to the council. width of the existing layout. These 2 sites adjacent to the development of 36 homes that have already been given approval will lead to the built communities of Davenham & Kingsmead only being separated by the A556. It is likely that some of The SHLAA is a high level DAM/00045/S would be assessment of development accessed by Green potential and does not apply Cllr Lane, this is unlikely to detailed Local Plan policies.

DAM/0045 be suitable for the These issues would be Elton /S volume of traffic considered through the

generated due to it Development Management Watson being a one way lane, process if a planning there will also be an application were submitted to impact on London the council. Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Road, particularly with regards to traffic No change required. queuing behind vehicles waiting to turn right in to Green Lane, I am concerned that any access from Green Avenue will not be up to modern requirements due to the width of the existing layout. These 2 sites adjacent to the development of 36 homes that have already been given approval will lead to the built communities of Davenham & Kingsmead only being separated by the A556. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development Church Street is not potential and does not apply suitable for additional detailed Local Plan policies. Cllr traffic movements that These issues would be

DAM/0027 would be generated considered through the Elton /S from development of Development Management

this scale, may be process if a planning Watson capacity issues with application were submitted to existing sewer system. the council.

No change required. Concerned about The SHLAA is a high level access for either assessment of development Church Street or potential and does not apply London Road for detailed Local Plan policies. Cllr development of this These issues would be scale. This end of DAM/0041 considered through the Elton London Road is already /S Development Management suffering from process if a planning Watson congestion, this application were submitted to number of homes is not the council. suitabel on this site.

Part of the site is No change required. protected by TPO. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development potential and does not apply detailed Local Plan policies. Cllr These issues would be Concerns about access DAM/0029 considered through the Elton onto Church Street and /S Development Management effect on London Road. process if a planning Watson application were submitted to the council.

No change required. Cllr DAM/0006 This will have no The SHLAA is a high level Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details /S connectivity to assessment of development Elton Davenham, Leftwich or potential and does not apply Whatcroft, so will be a detailed Local Plan policies. Watson Kingsmead Mk II, traffic These issues would be at Gadbrook Pk will be considered through the even worse if this Development Management ridiculous proposal ever process if a planning happens, part of the application were submitted to site has approval for the council. crematorium, we will need to build a new The assessment was carried primary school and out prior to the submission of high school. an application for development on part of this site. These details will be amended as applicable in future updates of the SHLAA. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development potential and does not apply detailed Local Plan policies. Cllr Traffic generated not These issues would be suitable for London DAM/0033 considered through the Elton Road, this is why a /S Development Management bypass was built for process if a planning Watson Davenham. application were submitted to the council.

No change required. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development potential and does not apply detailed Local Plan policies. Cllr Land adjacent to the site These issues would be belongs to Parish Council, DAM/0034 considered through the Elton with mature trees present, /S Development Management unlikely to grant access, process if a planning Watson land has flooded recently. application were submitted to the council.

No change required. Cllr Planning statushas been amended to read None, and DAM/0012 Status says pending decision - i have not Elton Additional Infortmation /S been consulted, where is the access? referencing planning Watson application has been deleted. The planning status of this site has been updated, and in line Cllr This was recently refused by Strategic with the methodology the site

DAM/0030 Planning Committee and I would refer you to ahs been discounted from the Elton /S the reasons for refusal, principally NE12 of detailed assessment at the

the current local plan. current time as a result of the Watson refusal of a recent planning application. Emery Whilst the 2010 version of the The assessments of Russells Planning DAM/0016 SHLAA includes the site as a availability and achievability Limited Partnership /S developable site (Ref NWW0009), have been reviewed and Ltd its deliverability credentials were amended where applicable to Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details incorrectly summarised, given that reflect information / evidence the site is wholly available. The of delivery received on this 2010 SHLAA notes the site to be site. Delivery forecasts have developable, with delivery in years been updated in line with the 6-10. This is despite my client changes made to the confirming to the council that the assessment. site os owned by two willing landowners, who hae contracted with my client to seek the site's subsequent residential development.

The site is understood to Accessibility - Initial have an Agricultural Land highway scoping Classification of Grade 3. investigations On this basis, the land undertaken by Bob does not fall within the Hindaugh Associates definition of being the best confirm that the site or most versatile in can be appropriately agricultural terms. The site and safelt accessed via is small in scale and is Bye Pass Road. Any used for domestic new junction could purposes with some open readily accommodate storgae of plan and the 130 or so dwellings machinery. Development envisaged to be should not be prevented delivered on the site. from coming forward on this basis. Adjoining Uses - The site adjoins teh A556; The site is acknowledged however, given the as being 'Open potential for screening The assessments of Countryside'. Regarding and the delivery of availability and achievability Open Countryside, the Availaibility - The site is owned by residential have been reviewed and Emery development of the site two parties who have jointly developmenr, we do amended where applicable to Russells Planning DAM/0016 would represent a logical contracted to sell the site for future not anticipate this to be reflect information / evidence Limited Partnership /S ''rounding off' of the residential development. As such, an issue.As required, of delivery received on this Ltd settlement and not lead to the site should be termed to be planting or a bund site. Delivery forecasts have any significant localised wholly and expediently available. could be used for been updated in line with the countryside encroachment. screening, or open changes made to the Ad the existing settlement space or flatted assessment. boundaries are now out of development here date, the site's location in could act as a suitable the open coutryside is not buffer. Noise and air a barrier preventing its quality issues sustainable delivery. associated with the A556 will be investigated; however, Sustainability - The site given the delivery of occupies a sustainable other residential location at the edge of schemes adjoing the Kingsmead. The main A556, we do not shopping area is 0.5 miles anticipate this to be an from the site. Access to issue of significance. schools and other services The soutehr boundary is wholly achievable on of the site is heavily foot. A variety of bus vegetated. This routes pass the site, screening could be linking it with surrounding used to soften the site's settlements. impact onto the A556. Russells Emery DAM/0016 The site is wholly The assessments of Limited Planning /S available, sustainable availability and achievability Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Partnership and deliverable. The have been reviewed and Ltd development of the site amended where applicable to would represent a reflect information / evidence logical rounding off of of delivery received on this the settlement and is site. Delivery forecasts have capable of being been updated in line with the developed to deliver an changes made to the attractive and highly assessment. sought after residential location. The site is favourable in planning terms to a number of sites being promoted by parties elsewhere, notably on the basis that it does not entail Green Belt land. As such, it is requested that the Council consider the site as a deliverable site to accommodate up to 130 dwellings wihtin the next 5 years and include it within subsequent Local Plan and Land Allocations consultation documents. This has been identified in the SHLAA for 100 Mr units, to come forward Director Barton in the medium-term DAM/0045 Scott Willmore (years 6-10). It is our Ashall /S LLP Client's strong view that Property Ashall this site is in fact deliverable within the short-term (years 0-5). Where sites have been The site was promoted refused permission and are by our Client through subject to appeal they have the SHLAA in 2012, but not been subject to an has not been identified assessment at this time and in the Draft SHLAA excluded from the SHLAA, as a potential unless on the grounds that the development site. The release of a site should first be Site is currently the determined through the Local subject of a planning Mr Plan process. Director appeal, and has been Barton WEC/0034 discounted from the Scott Willmore It would be inappropriate for Ashall /S SHLAA on the basis LLP the Council to factor these Property that the outline Ashall sites into our future supply of planning was refused potential land for housing (i.e. back in February (App. put them in the SHLAA) when Ref. 12/05143/OUT). the Council has decided that Nevertheless, it there is a significant planning remains our Client's objection which should prevent view that this site is them being released for fully deliverable for development at the current residential development time. Under these within years 0-5. circumstances if an appeal Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details was then allowed by an Inspector/Secretary of State, the site would then feature again in the SHLAA.

This does not prevent a site from coming forward in the future should there be a change in circumstances. If the planning status of a site changes, this will be taken into account and amended when the SHLAA is next updated. The address / location of the two sites has been amended, and details of the current pending application have been updated. The two sites have been considered througha The draft SHLAA 2013 single assessment as a result reference sheet refers to of the site submission received two fields as Site Type during the preparation of the "Greenfield". The field to SHLAA. the rear of Saint Vincent Mrs Drive (the lower of the two The denisty and potential on the map) is in fact capacity are estimates based HAG/0044 P "Greenbelt" land (as per on the assumptions in the /S CWAC website). I would methodology. If a planning McNabb be greatful for your application were to be granted comments but would permission the Housing Land respectfully ask that the Monitor would record this, and document is amended to the SHLAA would be updated make this clear at your at the most approriate time i.e earliest opportunity. when a review / update is undertaken.

The two areas remain as a single assessment as this is reflected in the currenmt pending application. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development potential and does not apply detailed Local Plan policies. Is this a site of special These issues would be biological interest? If so, it considered through the should be protected as Development Management such and careful process if a planning Razia consideration shoudl be application were submitted to HAP/0001/ required regarding the council. S Daniels landscape and natural habitat of the area, and, of The inclusion of a site in the coures, the impact and SHLAA does not guarantee or concerns of the immediate predetermine a planning neighbours. permission being granted, this must be judged against Local Plan policies and any other applicable material considerations. Liz Highways and HAP/0001/ CPRA is aware of the The SHLAA is a high level Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Open Spaces S owner's wish to develop assessment of development Neeves Working this site but would potential and does not apply Group remind CWaC of the detailed Local Plan policies. sensitivity of the site These issues would be Curzon Park (being in a considered through the Residents conservation area and Development Management Association close proximity to the process if a planning Roodee wish is 'critical application were submitted to to the heritage of the council. Chester'). Careful consideration would be No change required. required regarding the landscape and natural habitat of the are, and, of course, the impact and concerns of the immediate neighbours. The SHLAA is a high level This is an important assessment of development open space for the area potential and does not apply and a community detailed Local Plan policies. facility, and therefore These issues would be Highways and CPRA would strongly considered through the Open Spaces object to any housing Development Management Working development on this Liz process if a planning Group HAP/0002/ land. We have also application were submitted to S been informed that this Neeves the council. Curzon Park land was a landfill site /

Residents rubbish tip in the late The inclusion of a site in the Association 1930s and 1940s and SHLAA does not guarantee or therefore there would predetermine a planning also be structural permission being granted. issues to be

considered. No change required. 'The Green' is a vital The SHLAA is a high level open space for the area Highways and assessment of development and an important Open Spaces potential and does not apply community facility (we Working detailed Local Plan policies. Liz regularly use this area Group HAP/0013/ These issues would be for community events), S considered through the Neeves and therefore CPRA Curzon Park Development Management would strongly object to Residents process if a planning any housing Association application were submitted to development on this the council. land. This is an important The SHLAA is a high level open space for the area assessment of development and a community potential and does not apply facility used for leisure detailed Local Plan policies. Razia HAP/0002/ activities for many These issues would be

S years therefore considered through the Daniels residents would Development Management strongly object to any process if a planning housing development application were submitted to on this land. the council. This is a open green The SHLAA is a high level Razia HAP/0003/ space in the community assessment of development

S and valued by potential and does not apply Daniels residents. detailed Local Plan policies. Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details These issues would be considered through the Development Management process if a planning application were submitted to the council. My comment relates particularly to site reference HAP/0004/S - Green Bank Hall, West Cheshire College, Eaton Road, Handbridge (and by extension to any development that would result in increased traffic along Eaton Road).

I am delighted to see the gradual deterioration of Green Bank Hall halted, respecting the legacy from and wishes of Edward Jones in 1962 when he left it to the Chester Corporation for This site has now been educational use. granted planning permission for residential development I do worry that 15 and is therefore included in the additional dwellings councils Housing Land Monitor Stef and subsequent housing land HAP/0004/ along Eaton Road, supply. S assuming on average Coetzee two commuting adults in each would result in The issues raised regarding 30 more cars at peak infrastructure will have been times trying to gain considered as part of the access to the Overleigh planning application and roundabout (if one decision making process. includes the Coach House at Netherleigh House ref: HAP/0040/S for which permission has already been granted).

Already, at peak time when I try to exist Eaton Road to Handbridge or Overleigh Road I can wait up to 25 minutes in traffic. The combination of school traffic, those using the Ecclestone through Eaton Road as a short cut to Chester to avoid traffic alongside local traffic results in severe Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details congestion. Add to this the fact that Eaton Road from West Chester College onwards is width limited due to necessary) parking for local houses in the last half mile, significantly aggravates the problem.

My concern ? At what point does the addition of extra traffic hit the elbow of a curve that results in frustration boiling over into a dangerous situation for car traffic, cyclists, pedestrians and children going to school - not to mention even greater waste of fuel and productive hours per week whilst everyone queues on Eaton Road.

I am not sure what the solution is to the problem. Could there be alternative access for school traffic that eases the load on that last half mile of Eaton Road?

Would imposing on the developer the improvement of the riverside path to extend as a better cycle path all the way to the new development at Green Bank Hall help ease access to the city and limit the impact of cars?

There is already a dangerous level of (high speed) traffic from Eccelstone along Eaton Road into Chester on a road hardly wide enough to accommodate the people that already use it. This does not appear to be a viable alternative Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details route.

My thanks to the team for registering my concerns and for recording them in the consultation process. I believe under the category " physical problems or limitations - such as access, infrastructure ....." listed on page 13 of the Draft SLHAA of 24 May 2013, resolving the issue Eaton Road traffic, and proving that it has been addressed with appropriate traffic surveys, should be seen as a pre-requisite for development of HAP/0004/S - Green Bank Hall, West Cheshire College, Eaton Road. I would like to register an urgent concern if I may particularly to site reference HAP/0004/S - Green Bank Hall, West Cheshire College, Eaton Road, Handbridge (and by extension to any development that would result in increased This site has now been traffic along Eaton granted planning permission Road). for residential development

and is therefore included in the The traffic going down Mr councils Housing Land Monitor Eaton Road between and subsequent housing land HAP/0004/ 08.10 hrs and 09.00 hrs Michael supply. S during school terms

reaches the level of Wright The issues raised regarding Istanbul, which has the infrastructure will have been distinction of having the considered as part of the worst traffic chaos in planning application and the world. An example decision making process. of the inconvenience which this causes is that I cannot schedule doctor's appointments in the Lache Health Centre before 09.20 hrs as the area is a total no-go by car. Often the

appointments between 08.30 and 09.10 are Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details available for the next day or so, but for later appointments I have to wait up to a week; this is a sign of the traffic chaos in the Eaton Road/Overleigh roundabout area in the morning. I can see no solution to ease the current problem, but to add to it, by allowing this development, would be unwise.

To formalise this, I understand that under the category " physical problems or limitations - such as access, infrastructure ....." listed on page 13 of the Draft SLHAA of 24 May 2013, resolving the issue Eaton Road traffic, and proving that it has been addressed with appropriate traffic surveys, should be seen as a pre-requisite for development of HAP/0004/S - Green Bank Hall, West Cheshire College, Eaton Road. This site should not be included as a potential site for development and should be The SHLAA is a high level removed. It is assessment of development cherished by the local potential and does not apply community as an detailed Local Plan policies. Razia HAP/0005/ important open space These issues would be

S with historical and considered through the Daniels geographical Development Management significance, albeit on a process if a planning local scale. There is application were submitted to also a Public Right of the council. Way across the site which must be protected. I believe that this area The SHLAA is a high level should be removed assessment of development from the list of suitable potential and does not apply Mr Chairman sites for detailed Local Plan policies.

HAP/0005/ These issues would be Steve Friends of S development and considered through the Edgar's Field should be discounted. Development Management Rogers Park This site is an process if a planning important, though application were submitted to informal, open space the council. Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details on the south side of the River Dee and should be retained as an open space. It is part of the green corridor that stretches on the Handbridge Park side of the river from the Meadows through Queen's Promenade, Edgar's Field, Overleigh Cemetery to the Grosvenor Bridge and the Dingle. Containing a public footpath, the site is well used by local residents as well as visitors and contributes to and supports neighbouring formal green spaces such as Edgar's Field. It provides an important continuation and extension of the habitat for bats, other small mammals and birds in this area.

I would also point out that there is an acknowledged shortage of greenspace in

Handbridge. In addition, this area is likely to form part of future plans for the leisure development of the south side of the River Dee to fulfil the aim of realising the potential of Chester's waterways in the strategy currently being developed by Chester Renaissance for the One City Plan. 'The Green' is a vital open space for the area The SHLAA is a high level and an important assessment of development community facility It is potential and does not apply regularly used for detailed Local Plan policies. Razia Community events for HAP/0013/ These issues would be example summer fairs, S considered through the Daniels Diamond Jubilee, carol Development Management singing etc. There will process if a planning be a very strong local application were submitted to opposition to any the council. housing development as it would mean a Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details great loss of community amenity. This site has been identified through the Housing Land Inappropriate Razia Monitor and has an existing HAP/0017/ development in a built planning permission for H up area where parking Daniels residential development. It is a huge problem. therefore forms part of the council’s housing land supply. LEM/0001/S, LEM/0003/S and LEM/0006/S - these sites are being promoted for comprehensive redevelopment through outline planning application reference: 12/02091/OUT. Therefore, for consistency Redrow Homes NW with the application and to avoid double anticipates that from commencement of counting / duplication we request that the These sites have been development, within the three sites are now combined into one. reviewed in line with the 1-5 year period the site current pending and approved Senior Associate will deliver 400 new Ms The assessment fo rthe combined site should planning applications. The Planning Director homes, in the 6-10 year acknowledge that there are two live planning SHLAA now indicates two Manager LEM/0001/ period the site could Victoria applications (your refernce: 12/02091/OUT sites only, and the site area, Terence S deliver 600 new homes and 12/03849/FUL) and that two large parts of capacity and potential delivery Redrow O'Rourke and in the 11-15 year Murray the site are allocated for residential forecasts have been amended Homes Ltd period the site could development in the saved local plan accordingly to ensure that deliver a further 600 (Ellesmere Port Local Plan reference: H1 (1) double counting does not take new homes with the South of Ledsham Road and H1 (4) Green place. remiander delivered in Lane, Sutton Green. the 16 to 20 year period. To confirm the total site area is 105ha and it is capable of accommodating up to 2,000 new homes, as demonstrated by the outline application. LEM/0001/S, LEM/0003/S and LEM/0006/S - these sites are being promoted for comprehensive redevelopment through outline planning application reference: 12/02091/OUT. Therefore, for consistency Redrow Homes NW with the application and to avoid double anticipates that from commencement of counting / duplication we request that the These sites have been development, within the three sites are now combined into one. reviewed in line with the 1-5 year period the site current pending and approved Senior Associate will deliver 400 new Ms The assessment fo rthe combined site should planning applications. The Planning Director homes, in the 6-10 year acknowledge that there are two live planning SHLAA now indicates two Manager LEM/0003/ period the site could Victoria applications (your refernce: 12/02091/OUT sites only, and the site area, Terence S deliver 600 new homes and 12/03849/FUL) and that two large parts of capacity and potential delivery Redrow O'Rourke and in the 11-15 year Murray the site are allocated for residential forecasts have been amended Homes Ltd period the site could development in the saved local plan accordingly to ensure that deliver a further 600 (Ellesmere Port Local Plan reference: H1 (1) double counting does not take new homes with the South of Ledsham Road and H1 (4) Green place. remiander delivered in Lane, Sutton Green. the 16 to 20 year period. To confirm the total site area is 105ha and it is capable of accommodating up to 2,000 new homes, as demonstrated by the outline application. Ms Senior Associate LEM/0001/S, LEM/0003/S and LEM/0006/S - Redrow Homes NW These sites have been LEM/0006/ Planning Director these sites are being promoted for anticipates that from reviewed in line with the S Victoria Manager comprehensive redevelopment through commencement of current pending and approved Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Terence outline planning application reference: development, within the planning applications. The Murray Redrow O'Rourke 12/02091/OUT. Therefore, for consistency 1-5 year period the site SHLAA now indicates two Homes Ltd with the application and to avoid double will deliver 400 new sites only, and the site area, counting / duplication we request that the homes, in the 6-10 year capacity and potential delivery three sites are now combined into one. period the site could forecasts have been amended deliver 600 new homes accordingly to ensure that The assessment fo rthe combined site should and in the 11-15 year double counting does not take acknowledge that there are two live planning period the site could place. applications (your refernce: 12/02091/OUT deliver a further 600 and 12/03849/FUL) and that two large parts of new homes with the the site are allocated for residential remiander delivered in development in the saved local plan the 16 to 20 year (Ellesmere Port Local Plan reference: H1 (1) period. South of Ledsham Road and H1 (4) Green Lane, Sutton Green.

To confirm the total site area is 105ha and it is capable of accommodating up to 2,000 new homes, as demonstrated by the outline application. Mrs All is well on the record. To remain on the list do MAR/0001 Thank you for your comments. Vicki we need to confirm our /H No change required. satisfaction with the Walker representation? Cllr Cheshire

West & SUT/0010/ Please note Dudleston Road, Little Sutton is Ward and site reference have Nicole Chester H in Ledsham and Manor Ward. been amended.

Council Meardon The SHLAA identifies the site as being capable of providing 56 units in years 6 - 10. However the site is deliverable when assessed against footnote 11 of NPPF and capable of Development of up to 95 dwellings ranging in contributing 85 - 95 mix and size to include affordable. Initial units in years 1 - 5. The Land & master planning and site analysis work has site is controlled by Mr Planning been undertaken and used to inform the likely Hollins Strategic Land Proposed forecasts have been Manager dwelling yield. A design assessment of nearby LLP who intend to Sedgwick TAR/0007/ reviewed and amended where Paul development was also undertaken in order to submit an application Associates S applciable in line with updated Hollins understand existing local density ranges. for permission for information received. O'Shea Strategic These studies conclude the avergae density residential development Land range is from 20 to 25 dwellings per hectare, for c. 85 - 95 dwellings. averaging around 22/23 dwellings per Initial survey work has hectare. shown there to be no significant constraints to development of the site. It is therefore considered that the SHLAA should be amended to state that the site is capable of providing 95 units in years 1 - 5. Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Paragraph 89 of the NPPF allows for some redevelopment of brownfield Council for Mrs sites within the Green Belt the Protection where appropriate. This is of Rural BLA/0027/ Green Belt location and should be removed Ann considered on a site by site England S from sites taken forward. basis and for the purpose of (Chester Jones the SHLAA such sites have District) been considered for potential inclusion in the councils housing land supply. The SHLAA is a high level assessment of development Council for potential and does not apply Mrs the Protection detailed Local Plan policies. Important Green Space of Rural UPT/0008/ These issues would be Ann protected by policy England S considered through the ENV 17 CDLP. (Chester Development Management Jones District) process if a planning application were submitted to the council. This site is included in Council for Mrs Appemdix D: Table of the Protection Important Green Space discounted sites therefore it of Rural UPT/0009/ Ann protected by policy has not been subject to a full England S ENV 17 CDLP. SHLAA assessment and is not (Chester Jones included in the current housing District) land supply. Where sites have been refused permission and are subject to appeal they have not been subject to an assessment at this time and excluded from the SHLAA, Amongst those sites unless on the grounds that the listed as non suitable release of a site should first be we note that the land determined through the Local between Chester Road Plan process. / Daleford Lane and Kennel Lane sits within It would be inappropriate for this list with the the Council to factor these Clerk to the comment that it has sites into our future supply of Mrs Council been refused consent potential land for housing (i.e.

WEC/0034 and is awaiting an put them in the SHLAA) when Julie Cuddington /S appeal decision. We the Council has decided that

Parish would regret it of that there is a significant planning Chrimes Council was the only reason for objection which should prevent noting as non suitable. them being released for We would submit that development at the current there is sustained and time. Under these appropriate opposition circumstances if an appeal to development on this was then allowed by an site on valid planning Inspector/Secretary of State, grounds. the site would then feature again in the SHLAA.

This does not prevent a site from coming forward in the future should there be a change in circumstances. If Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details the planning status of a site changes, this will be taken into account and amended when the SHLAA is next updated. The reason given for discounting the site is that The NPPF continues to it is within the Green Belt. support the protection of the Cuddington Parish Council Green Belt from inappropriate would hope that Cheshire development and as such the Clerk to the Mrs West and Chester will do SHLAA methodology Council everything within their discounts sites that are WEC/0006 Julie power to protect the green located in the Green Belt (with Cuddington /S belt, and would be the exception of a number of Parish Chrimes dismayed if the perimeter brownfield sites). These sites Council of our village were to be are not subject to a full nibbled away at by these, assessment, and do not or similar, applications to contribute towards the future build on land within the housing land supply. Green Belt. The reason given for discounting the site is that The NPPF continues to it is within the Green Belt. support the protection of the Cuddington Parish Council Green Belt from inappropriate would hope that Cheshire development and as such the Clerk to the Mrs West and Chester will do SHLAA methodology Council everything within their discounts sites that are WEC/0036 Julie power to protect the green located in the Green Belt (with Cuddington /S belt, and would be the exception of a number of Parish Chrimes dismayed if the perimeter brownfield sites). These sites Council of our village were to be are not subject to a full nibbled away at by these, assessment, and do not or similar, applications to contribute towards the future build on land within the housing land supply. Green Belt. The reason given for discounting the site is that The NPPF continues to it is within the Green Belt. support the protection of the Cuddington Parish Council Green Belt from inappropriate would hope that Cheshire development and as such the Clerk to the Mrs West and Chester will do SHLAA methodology Council everything within their discounts sites that are WEC/0043 Julie power to protect the green located in the Green Belt (with Cuddington /S belt, and would be the exception of a number of Parish Chrimes dismayed if the perimeter brownfield sites). These sites Council of our village were to be are not subject to a full nibbled away at by these, assessment, and do not or similar, applications to contribute towards the future build on land within the housing land supply. Green Belt. The reason given for The NPPF continues to discounting the site is that support the protection of the Clerk to the it is within the Green Belt. Green Belt from inappropriate Mrs Council Cuddington Parish Council development and as such the

WEC/0044 would hope that Cheshire SHLAA methodology Julie Cuddington /S West and Chester will do discounts sites that are

Parish everything within their located in the Green Belt (with Chrimes Council power to protect the green the exception of a number of belt, and would be brownfield sites). These sites dismayed if the perimeter are not subject to a full Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details of our village were to be assessment, and do not nibbled away at by these, contribute towards the future or similar, applications to housing land supply. build on land within the Green Belt. The SHLAA identifies the site as being capable of providing 65 A planning application for units in years 6-10. developemnt of this site has However the site is been received by the council, deliverable when however the SHLAA is a snpa assessed against shot time and the planning footnote 11 of NPPF stauts reflects this. This does and capable of not prevent / impact upon a contributing up to 74 planning application being no. units in years 1-5. decided, and any changes in Land & This is demostarted by the planning status of a site Mr Planning the fact that an will be recorded through the Manager application (no councils Housing Land Sedgwick WIR/0015/ Paul 13/02449/OUT) for Monitor, and will then be Associates S Hollins outline permission (all included in the housing land O'Shea Strategic matters reserved other supply as applicable. Land than access) for up to 74no dwellings has Circumstances or assumptions recently been may change which may mean submitted to the LPA that sites could come forward by Hollins Strategic sooner or later than originally Land LLP. It is envisaged. The SHLAA does therefore considerd that not prevent planning the SHLAA should be applications being submitted amended to state that on any sites identified or the site is capable of excluded within it at any time. providing 74 units in years 1-5. The land in question was part of a planning brief in the late 80s. In addition part of the planning permission / obligation for the adjacent 90s It has always been the intention to demolish development was that The site boundary and use all the buildings currently on the land and Mr all services capable of category have been amended develop the whole of the site because teh serving similar and the assessment has been WIW/0050 current property is both out of keeping with Trevor development of the in reviewed and amended where /S area and now in a dilapidated condition. If it question where made applicable. The site is now hadn't been for the depressed housing market Nunn available at the included in Appendix F:Table since 2008 it would have been developed by entrance to the of suitable sites. now. undeveloped site. In addition it has also been on an earlier housing land availability assessment albeit at that time we weren't in the position to proceed. Principal Achievability: on behalf of the To reflect HOW Where the site is classed as c/o H O W Planner Darnhall Estate, HOW Planning is Planning's assessment achievable and able to deliver Darnhall Commercial WSD/0001 currently preparing an outline of the site, it is units with 5 years the Estate Planning /S How planning application including requested that the assessment is based on clear Advisors Planning means of access for part of the Councils estimated evidence provided/available to Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details site identified within the SHLAA. number of homes the Council to support its An Edge Red Boundary Plan which could be inclusion in the five year illustrating the extent of the land delivered on the site in supply. e.g positive pre which will form the applciation site the next 0-20+ years is application discussions or is enclosed (with comments amended. As a where proposed schemes submission). This land has been planning application is have been discussed with the the subject of pre-applciation likely to be submitted Council Officers. discussions with Cheshire West by the end of June and Chester Council and HOW 2013 for up to 200 new Circumstances or assumptions Planning has recently undertaken dwellings on part of the may change which may mean wider community consultation on site, it is highly likely that sites could come forward the proposals for residential that this level of sooner or later than originally development on the land. The development will be envisaged. The SHLAA does information consulted upon is achieved within the 0-5 not prevent planning enclosed (with commenst year period. applications being submitted submission) and summarises all on any sites identified or the technical assessments In addition, as no excluded within it at any time. undertaken to date and confirms technical constraints that there are no technical issues have been identified for which would preclude the sites the development of the development. We can also confirm remainder of the site, it that the delivery of housing at the is highly likely that the site is viable. Council's projected yield of 1,395 new The Darnhall Estate's project team houses will be achieved are currently collating all the within the 0-15 year commenst made during this period. consultation and wherever possible, amedments are being Due to the size and made in order to take these into nature of the Beech consideration. Once this process House Farm site, if ahs been undertaken, it is planning permission is anticiapted that an outline granted for the woder application (with all matters site, it is entirely reserved except for means fo appropriate that access) proposing a residential multiple house builders development of up ro 200 new will be developing on homes will be submitted to the the site at a rate of 120 Council later this month. If the dwellings per annum. planning application is approved, As such, it is propsed this would enable the delivery of that the Council's housing within 5 years. It is estimation of housing therefore requested that the delivery should be SHLAA's assessment of the site revised as shown be amneded as shown: below:

Achievable? YES Housing is Estimated number of expected to be delivered within homes that could be five years. delivered onthis site in the next: 1 to 5 years = 200; 6 to 10 years = 600; 11 to 15 years = 595; and 16 to 20+ years = 0 The site is under the Mr control of Persimmon. The company has Persimmon WSD/0003 Thank you for your comments. Sean secured permission for Homes A/H No change required. the site (09/02473/FUL) McBride for 39 dwellings, and represents an excellent Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details housing development opportunity of Greenfield land.

The Company would like to assert that the site evidence that there are viable and deliverable opportunities to deliver housing on Greenfield sites within urban areas and such opportunities should be exploited. We remain confident that there are significant opportunities for further Greenfield development within the Borough, and would encourage the Council to proactively identify opportunities on greenfields sites for housing development. Strong support is given to the identification of the land as To reflect HOW suitable for residential Planning's assessment development. In particular, it is of the site, it is agreed that the developmnet of requested that the this site would contribute to the Councils estimated creation of a sustainable mixed number of homes community. However, it is which could be Where the site is classed as requested that the SHLAA also delivered on the site in achievable and able to deliver identifies the land as available and the next 0-20+ yeasr is units with 5 years the achievable. amended. As no assessment is based on clear technical constraints evidence provided/available to The land is in the freehold have been identified the Council to support its ownership of the Darnhall Estate which would prevent inclusion in the five year and there are no restrictions to the development of the site supply. e.g positive pre availability of the land for for housing, it is application discussions or Principal c/o H O W immediate development. There are possible that the where proposed schemes Planner Darnhall Commercial WSD/0006 no buildings on the site, nor any Council's projected have been discussed with the

Estate Planning /S known issues which would prevent yield of 313 new Council Officers. How Advisors the site's immediate development. houses could be Planning The site is therefore available for achieved within the 1- Circumstances or assumptions development now, and could 10 year period. As may change which may mean deliver new housing within the next such, it is proposed that that sites could come forward 5 years. the Council's estimation sooner or later than originally of housing delivery envisaged. The SHLAA does As the site is in private freehold should be revised as not prevent planning ownership, the site is available follows: applications being submitted now. There are no known physical on any sites identified or constraints which would preclude Estimated number of excluded within it at any time. the delivery of residential homes that could be development on the land. The site delivered on this site on can therefore be viably developed the next: 1 to 5 years = in technical terms and could 200; 6 to 10 years = deliver housing within the next 5 113; 11 to 15 years = 0; years. As a result, it is requested and 16-20+ years = 0. that the SHLAA's assessment of Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details the site be amended as follows:

Achievable? YES Housing is expected to be delivered within five years. In my opinion, this site should not be included as a potential site for development and should be removed. It is cherished by the local community as an important open space with historical and geographical significance, albeit on a local scale. There is also a Public Right of Way across the site which must be protected.

The Draft SHLAA May 2013 in section 2.13 pertains to this site; it refers to 'open spaces vital to the well-being and amenity of CW&C residents, as well as helping to improve the Mr borough's image.' The document refers to HAP/0005/ Graham 'formal open space' but S in my opinion weight Gordon should not be put on the use of 'formal' in this instance. 2.13 goes on to say:

'Therefore, unless it can be demonstrated that such sites no longer meet the needs of the local population .... these sites are generally not considered suitable for development'

I believe a strong case can be made for this site meeting the needs of local people. It lies on the south bank of the River Dee stretching from Queen's Promenade to the Grosvenor Bridge and increasingly seen as an important green Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details corridor for locals and visitors alike.

CW&C council and Chester Renaissance are developing under the One City Plan, a Waterways Strategy for Chester with the stated aim 'to develop a coherent, comprehensive plan for the River Dee and Canal to deliver a renewed vitality and maximize the opportunities the waterways and water- frontage present for the benefit of residents, users, business and visitors.'

This site is key to the realisation of this aim on this section of the south bank. If, as is proposed, up to 30 dwellings realised within 11-15 years were to happen then the objectives referred to above would be severely and negatively impacted. Suitable now: The site is Where sites have been considered suitable for housing refused permission and are development as it offers a suitable subject to appeal they have location within the Key Service not been subject to an Centre of Kelsall amd would assessment at this time and contribute to the creation of a excluded from the SHLAA, sustainable mixed use community. unless on the grounds that the Given that the Council are unable release of a site should first be to demonstrate a five-year supply determined through the Local of housing land (demonstrated in Plan process. additional comments), there are no policy restrictions preventing the It would be inappropriate for HOW Taylor TAK/0017/ site from coming forward. the Council to factor these Planning Wimpey UK S Similarly, it is considered that there sites into our future supply of LLP are no physical or technical potential land for housing (i.e. limitations preventing the site from put them in the SHLAA) when coming forward in the short term. the Council has decided that The Council's only reason for there is a significant planning refusal on application objection which should prevent 12/01880/OUT was on highways them being released for grounds and in every othe development at the current rrespect, including policy and time. Under these sustainability, the site is agreed to circumstances if an appeal be entirely sustainable. The was then allowed by an hishways issue is teh subject of an Inspector/Secretary of State, ongoing appeal and TW attest that the site would then feature Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details there are no highways limitations again in the SHLAA. capable of preventing the site coming forward in the short term. This does not prevent a site In fact, the development of the site from coming forward in the would generate significant benefits future should there be a and improvements to the local change in circumstances. If area and as such the site is the planning status of a site suitable for residential changes, this will be taken into development now. account and amended when the SHLAA is next updated. A significant amount of Ecology: At the request documented work has been of your Officers, Tyler undertaken by ASL in conjunction Grange have with the Council and other undertaken surveys statutory bodies to ensure that the and produced Stage 1 site is deliverable. ASL is therefore site assessments. Tyler extremely surprised by the poor Graneg has confirmed assessment of the site as reported that there are no in the 2013 draft SHLAA update. material impediments There have been three significant to delivery in respect of changes (when compared with ecology. Urban Vision assessment) of which ASL cannot find any basis Landscape: Tyler for: Grange has also The site is situated approximately 1km to the undertaken initial south west of Northwich Town Centre, 1. Reduced Capacity: The capacity assessments of teh immediately adjacent ot the existing of the site has been reduced to Landscape and Visual residential properties around Withington The site area and subsequent only 237 units. As set out above, Impact of residential Close in Leftwich. As such, the site represents developable area and potential the Environemnt Agency has development on the a highly sustainable location for additional capacity have been reviewed provisionally confirmed that a site. They have residential development. The site area shown and amended to reflect the larger area is considered to be concluded not only the by the Council for DAM/0047/S is 8.45 larger site boundary. suitable for development. The acceptability of teh hectares (21 acres). ASL disagrees with this capacity of the site has therefore scheme in landscape assertion. Following on-going discussions The potential delivery increased (not decreased). terms but also the Mr with the Environment Agency, the site has forecasts have been significant landscape Ainscough HOW been resurveyed and reassessed and a reassessed and updated DAM/0047 benefits that would Paul Strategic Planning significant area of land has been removed 2. Deliverability: The SHLAA where applicable. /S accrue as a result. Land LLP from Flood Zone 3, thereby increasing the suggests an even later delivery Circumstances or assumptions Martin developable land area to approximately 12 than the 2012 partial review may change which may mean hectares (30 acres). AECOM are currently in document. There is no basis for Highways: Following a that sites could come forward the process of finalising this with the this. A planning application is site meeitng with Ken sooner or later than originally Environment Agency. currently being prepared to bring Jones, TTHC envisaged. The SHLAA does the site forward for some (Highways Consultants) not prevent planning residential development and ASL have undertaken their applications being submitted Therefore, even assuming a denisty of 25 are currently undertaking pre- analysis and traffic on any sites identified or dwellings per hectare (which is considered too application consultation to inform counts and have an on- excluded within it at any time. conservative), and a developable site area of the design stage. The site is going dialogue with the 12 hectares, teh site is capable of delivering deliverable within the five-year Council Highways at least 300 units. period. team. As part of this it is confirmed in principle 3. Achievability: The draft 2013 that the site can be SHLAA no longer considers the accessed from the site as achievable. However, existing adjacent following the significant technical highways without the work on the site undertaken to need for third party date (including a high level of pre- land. In addition, the application consultation) a two potential access significant proportion of the points are both within proposed housing on the site is Flood Zone 1 only. considered to be deliverable in the short term.(See additional Flooding: AECOM are information for summary of holding on-going Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details technical work). discussions with the Environment Agency to ASL is extremely surprised by the agree the extent of the unexplained changes to the developable area. A assessment of site DAM/0047/S lareg section of land as reported in the draft Cheshire has been removed from West and Chester 2013 SHLAA Flod Zone 3 and update. These changes simply do significant progress has not reflect teh significant progress been made to finalise that has been made to date in this reassessment. As bringing teh site forward for a noted by Urban Vision, residential application in 2013. teh core development platform is outside the flood plain and that the developemnt platform (c30ac net) is suitable, available and achievable.

Ownership: The land owners have entered into an agreement with ASL to drive forward the early delivery of the whole development parcel.

Consultation: A design Review has already been undertaken and further public consultation is expected on 21 June 2013 by way of an exhibition. ASL is therefore actively pursuing an application in the short term. Where sites have been refused permission and are subject to appeal they have not been subject to an Available now: The site is assessment at this time and considered available for excluded from the SHLAA, development as there are no unless on the grounds that the associated legal or wonership release of a site should first be problems. The majority of the site determined through the Local is in the freehold ownership of Plan process. Taylor Wimpey UK Limited, with HOW Taylor TAK/0017/ the remainder under option. In Planning It would be inappropriate for Wimpey UK S accordance with this, the land is LLP the Council to factor these actively being brought forward for sites into our future supply of development immediately. An potential land for housing (i.e. application has already been made put them in the SHLAA) when and the decision is being appealed the Council has decided that at present. As such teh developer there is a significant planning has a strong intention to develop objection which should prevent the land. The site is available now. them being released for development at the current time. Under these circumstances if an appeal Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details was then allowed by an Inspector/Secretary of State, the site would then feature again in the SHLAA.

This does not prevent a site from coming forward in the future should there be a change in circumstances. If the planning status of a site changes, this will be taken into account and amended when the SHLAA is next updated. Gladman note that the only 'planning' reason why the sites in Farndon, Malpas and Tarporley have been refused related to the fact that they are in open countryside and on best and most versatile agricultural land. However, Gladman note that this Conservation Areas are not a applies to most sites on reason for exclusion of a site the edge of settlements and do not form part of the in Cheshire West and assessment of suitability, Chester and if the availability or achievability for Council is to be the purposes of the SHLAA. consistent then all sites Conservation Areas are in the same context considered through the should be excluded planning process when an from the SHLAA. This application fro development is clearly has not been made to the Council. Miss the case as the Council Gladman MAL/0012/ has recently approved Where an application for Nicole Development S developments in the residential development has s Ltd same context. been refused on a site, the Penfold methodology states that the With specific reference site will not be included in the the site in Malpas (land Council's land supply. This at Broselake Farm) the does not preclude a new or only additional reason amended application from why the site has been being made / permitted; it excluded from the Draft does not predetermine future SHLAA 2013 relates to planning decisions; and it does the Conservation Area. not stop a site from being Gladman submit that included in future iterations of this alone does not a SHLAA. warrant the site being discounted from the SHLAA, it is not an absolute constraint on development and developments in the same or simialr context have been approved in Malpas (planning application ref: 12/05430/OUT) Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details The site has been omitted from the list of potential sites and should be included for the reasons set out below. The site is Suitable, Available and Sustainable.

1. The current application on this site for residential development was the subject of a report to Strategic Planning Committee on Thursday 18 April 2013. The application is described under item number 5, pages 13 to 90. This site was not subject to a Although the full SHLAA assessment due to recommendation is the flood risk constraint for refusal this is present on the site. In addition, based on grounds where sites have been refused planning permission they have Managing that have now been been excluded from the Mr Director overcome. The SHLLA as it would be outcome of the BLA/0069/ inappropriate for the Council to Colin Satnam Planning S factor such sites into future Planning Committee was that supply of potential land for Griffiths Services the application be housing when the Council has Limited deferred for further negotiations decided that there is regarding the loss significant planning objection of private sports which should prevent it from land. being released for 2. It will be seen from development at the current the report that the time. following apply to this site: 1. The Environment Agency has no objection in principle (page 24) with regard to flooding matters on this site. 2. Highways and Transportation - no objection in principle (page 31). 3. The site is sustainable and is able to provide for sustainable development (paragraph 6.231 on page 77). 4. Other technical issues are aboe to Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details satisfactorily dealt with (paragraph 6.238, page 78) including landsacpe impact, archaeology, on- site open space, detailed layout and design and education provision.

It is considered, therefore, that this shite should be included within the SHLAA as a site suitable for residential development in the short term. We should not build directly below overhead power cables, there are unproven health issues to be resolved. Leukaemia has been linked electromagnetic fields and medical evidence is This site is a remaining inconclusive. EPNBC housing allocation included in had a policy of not the Ellesemere Port and allowing construction Neston Borough Council Local within 50m, this was Mr Plan and has been included in over turned on appeal line with the CLG SHLAA STR/0004/ hence the building of 5 Mark Guidance which lists S houses directly below remaining Local Plan power cables on Henesy allocations as a source of sites Norwich Drive. To put for inclusion in the this in to context, for assessment. much of the 10 years

these house / No change required. bungalows have been available they have been empty, however I note that, none of them are up sale or to let at the moment. This is the first time I can recall them being fully occupied. In light of the The NPPF continues to conclusion that Green support the protection of the Belt sites should be Green Belt from inappropriate Mr Planning included in teh SHLAA, development and as such the Director it is proposed that the SHLAA methodology Turley CHV/0044/ Andrew land at Mannings Lane discounts sites that are Associates S David Wilson is assessed. The site located in the Green Belt (with Taylor Homes comprises some the exception of a number of 17.3ha of land to the brownfield sites). These sites north eats of Chester are not subject to a full and is proposed to be assessment, and do not Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details developed for high contribute towards the future quality housing, housing land supply. associated open space and a park and ride Paragraph 89 of the NPPF faciltiy. allows for some redevelopment of brownfield David Wilson Homes sites within the Green Belt has already prepared where appropriate. This is an advocacy document considered on a site by site which sets out the basis and for the purpose of reasons why the site is the SHLAA such sites have needed and why it is been considered for potential suitable and deliverable inclusion in the councils for major developmnet. housing land supply. It focuses upon the appropriateness, No change required. availability and feasability of the site for housing and a park and ride facility and explains why it is well placed to help deliver Chester West and Chester's housing needs (it is anticiapted that a significant proprtion of the site could be delivered within the next 5 years) and assist in facilitating economic growth over the pland period. It should be noted that when comapred against the suitability restrictions as sey out in paragraph 2.27 of the 2013 SHLAA, there are no physical limitations or environmental considerations that would prevent the site in coming forward for development. Where sites have been The site was included in the 2010 refused permission and are SHLAA as site reference subject to appeal they have BRX0022. It was idenified as being not been subject to an a suitable site and deliverable site assessment at this time and for housing development of up to Mr Senior Land Associate excluded from the SHLAA, 150 dwellings. The site was Manager Director unless on the grounds that the indicated to be capable of delivery Richard TAT/0008/ release of a site should first be of 50 dwellings within years 6-10 Wainhomes Emery S determined through the Local and a furtehr 100 dwellings within Chamberlai (Development Planning Plan process. years 11-15. This assessment n s) Ltd Partnership include sthe suitability of the site It would be inappropriate for which scores well in terms of the Council to factor these sustainability having good access sites into our future supply of to public transport and being within potential land for housing (i.e. walking and cycling distance of the put them in the SHLAA) when Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details village centre. the Council has decided that there is a significant planning We have significant concern that objection which should prevent the 2013 SHLAA fails to assess them being released for the suitability of this site, development at the current referencing only that it has been time. Under these subject to a refusal of planning circumstances if an appeal permission and is currently the was then allowed by an subject of an appeal. This Inspector/Secretary of State, approach fails to recognise that the site would then feature the only reason for refusal of the again in the SHLAA. applciation (contrary to officer recommendation) was landscape This does not prevent a site impact which in itself has no from coming forward in the influence on the suitability, future should there be a availability or deliverability of the change in circumstances. If site for residential development. the planning status of a site changes, this will be taken into In consideration of the proposed account and amended when development in the planning the SHLAA is next updated. application teh Planning Officer gave thorough consideration to all site specific policy, environmental and technical issues. The report sets out that no objections were raised from consultees in regard to flood risk and drainage; transportation and accessibility; nature conservation; environmental protection and residential amenity.

The conclusions of the committee report make clear that teh Council considers that the proposal represents sustainable developement as detaile din the NPPF (Core Document CD4.5 paragraph 7.4). We maintain that the site should be included in the 2013 update document as a deliverable site, particularly as the site is now controlled by our client.

There has been no change to the sustainability credentials; indeed the proposals currently being considered on appealseek to enhance the sustainability credentials of the with the introduction of new bus stops on Tattenhall Road.

Since the publication of the 2010 SHLAA Wainhomes have sevured an option on the site. As such its delieverability credentials have actually improved and as such we contend that far from the site being excluded from assessment due to the ongoing appela instead it Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details should be moved up to table of deliverability into the 1-5 tear time frame. Wainhomes have continued to deliver housing throughout th erecession and, have proven delivery within Cheshihre West. This clearly demonstarets that the site is genuinly deliverable now to assist in metting the significant shortfall which continues to be experience by CWAC. Our client has an agreement with the adjacent landowner (Site Ref WIR/0016/S - Land to the east of Shipbrook Road) to combine the sites and bring forward a comprehensive residential development. The density has been The sites can assist in calculated and inserted and meeting the text inserted into Additional development needs of Information where applicable. Northwich and provide

for the changing needs Where the site is classed as of the town. They have achievable and able to deliver sufficient size and units within 5 years the critical mass to allow a Only a small part of the assessment is based on clear comprehensive site is located in Flood The supply notation evidence provided/available to strategy to be Zone 3a and therefore this The achievability notation in the requires amending to the Council to support its developed on a phased should be reflected under assessment section require reflect the potential inclusion in the five year basis. The sites are in the site characteristics amending to reflect the potential earlier delivery of the supply. e.g positive pre Higham & WIR/0022/ single ownership, can CTP Ltd A density needs to be indicated. section with the removal of earlier delivery of the site (as part site (as part of application discussions or Co S be servived now, and the current Flood Zone of comprehensice development comprehensice where proposed schemes are available and notation. This will make it with DAM/0006/S and development with have been discussed with the accessible. Their consistent with other sites WIR/0022/S). DAM/0006/S and Council Officers. development would which similarly only have WIR/0008/S). assist in promoting a small areas of this zoning. Circumstances or assumptions broader based may change which may mean economy and could that sites could come forward deliver a mix of homes sooner or later than originally as part of a mixed envisaged. The SHLAA does business and not prevent planning residential community. applications being submitted on any sites identified or The sites can be excluded within it at any time. developed in a sensitive way having regard to thier surrounding landscape. As part of the proposal a high quality development can be brought forward combining leisure and public open space as an integral element of a residential led mixed Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details use scheme.

A master planning exercise and preparation of technical reports is currently on- going and we intend to engage with your Authority in th enear future in respect of taking the sites forward through the Local Plan including the potential preparation of an early planning application. The additional informationsection requires amending to reflect the potential earlier delivery of the site (as part of comprehensice development with DAM/0006/S and WIR/0022/S).

The sites can assist in meeting the development needs of Northwich and provide An estimated density has been for the changing needs calculated and inserted. of the town. They have sufficient size and The assessemnt has been critical mass to allow a reviewed in response to The supply notation comprehensive comments and information requires amending to The achievability notation in the strategy to be received and amended where It can be confirmed that reflect the potential assessment section require developed on a phased applicable. there are no site earlier delivery of the Higham & WIR/0008/ amending to reflect the potential basis. The sites are in CTP Ltd A density needs to be indicated. constraints that would site (as part of Co S earlier delivery of the site (as part single ownership, can Circumstances or assumptions prevent the delivery of the comprehensice of comprehensiv development with be servived now, and may change which may mean site. development with DAM/0006/S and WIR/0022/S). are available and that sites could come forward DAM/0006/S and accessible. Their sooner or later than originally WIR/0022/S). development would envisaged. The SHLAA does assist in promoting a not prevent planning broader based applications being submitted economy and could on any sites identified or deliver a mix of homes excluded within it at any time. as part of a mixed business and residential community.

The sites can be developed in a sensitive way having regard to thier surrounding landscape. As part of the proposal a high quality development can be brought forward combining leisure and Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details public open space as an integral element of a residential led mixed use scheme.

A master planning exercise and preparation of technical reports is currently on- going and we intend to engage with your Authority in th enear future in respect of taking the sites forward through the Local Plan including the potential preparation of an early planning application. Additional information section should be amended to reflect the potential earlier delivery of the site (as partof acomprehensive development along with The assessement of WIR/0008/S amd achievability has been Under the assessment section the WIR/0022/S). notation for available should be amended to reflect the amended to "Expression of interest expression of interest, and to sell or develop site for housing". The sites can assist in notes added to the Additional This will show consistency with the meeting the Information section where corresponding notation for the development needs of applciable to reflect the adjacent site to the east (Land Northwich and provide comments received. south of Gadbrook Park - site ref for the changing needs WIR/0008/S). of the town. They have Where the site is classed as Only a small part of the sufficient size and achievable and able to deliver site is located in Flood Supply section should critical mass to allow a units with 5 years the Zone 3a and therefore this Under the assessment section the be amended to reflect comprehensive assessment is based on clear should be reflected under notation for achievable should be the potential earlier strategy to be evidence provided/available to the site characteristics amended to reflect that fact that delivery of the site (as developed on a phased the Council to support its Higham & DAM/0006 CTP Ltd section with the removal of delivery of the site can be part of basis. The sites are in inclusion in the five year Co /S the current Flood Zone achieved within years 1 - 5. A a comprehensive single ownership, can supply. e.g positive pre notation. This will make it corresponding amendment will be development along with be servived now, and application discussions or consistent with other sites required in respect of Land south WIR/0008/S amd are available and were proposed schemes have which similarly only have of Gadbrook Park - Site Ref WIR/0022/S). accessible. Their been discussed with the small areas of this zoning. WIR/0008/S and Land east of development would Council Officers. Shipbrook Road - site Ref assist in promoting a WIR/0022/S as it is considered broader based Circumstances or assumptions that the three sites can be brought economy and could may change which may mean forward as part of a deliver a mix of homes that sites could come forward comprehensive mixed use scheme as part of a mixed sooner or later than originally to assist in meeting your business and envisaged. The SHLAA does authority's housing and residential community. not prevent planning employment development applications being submitted requirments in Northwich. The sites can be on any sites identified or developed in a excluded within it at any time. sensitive way having regard to thier surrounding landscape. As part of the proposal a high quality development can be Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details brought forward combining leisure and public open space as an integral element of a residential led mixed use scheme.

A master planning exercise and preparation of technical reports is currently on- going and we intend to engage with your Authority in th enear future in respect of taking the sites forward through the Local Plan including the potential preparation of an early planning application. Suitability of Saighton Camp: Saighton Camp has previously been identified by the Council as suitable and available. We have confirmed in out previous representations that the site is Sites that have been refused suitable for development, available planning permission will be not now and achievable within the be subject to an assessment prospect of development being and excluded from the SHLAA delivered in the short term i.e. unless on the grounds that the within five years. Indeed, planning release of a site should first be permission has already been determined through the Local granted for 478 dwellings this far Plan process. on approximately half of the site along with 5,000 sqm of It would be inappropriate for employment land and a further 500 the Council to factor these sqm of ancilliary development. sites into our future supply of potential land for housing (i.e. This information has been put them in the SHLAA) when Associate Commercial submitted to the Council by virtue the Council has decided that DOH/0002 Estates of the application proposals for the there is a significant planning Indigo B/S Group Ltd site including a full Environmental objection which should prevent Planning Ltd Statement, submitted in April 2012 them being released for (Ref: 12/01754/OUT). The development at the current proposed residential scheme has time. been considered by the Council and the principle of development This does not prevent a site accepted in planning terms by from coming forward in the officers, however, the Council future should there be a resolved to refuse planning change in circumstances. If permission on highway and the planning status of a site ecology grounds. changes, this will be taken into account and amended when The Council's decision to refuse the SHLAA is next updated. planning permission is currently being challenged by planning No change required. appeal and a decision is due later this year. In the meantime, a duplicate planning application has been submitted to the Council (Ref: 13/02247/OUT) with Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details additional supporting information in order to further address the reasons for refusal.

Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that the site is a suitable contender for delivery of housing in Chester. It fulfils the assessment criteria set out in the SHLAA Practice Guidance (2007) and therefore should not be discounted by the Council for the purposes of this latest assessment. The role of the SHLAA is to identify as many sites with housing potential as possible (paragraph 7 of the Guidance) and it is a matter of fact that this site has such potential. Mr Director Could be integrated Peel Comments noted, and ROS/0004 Amend existing use from with the adjacent D Investments proforma updated as G V A /S vacant to 'part vacant'. residential site (North) Ltd applicable. Grimleys Rossfield Farm. Trimingham Delete planning application reference Amend address / location to: 'Land at Site address and status details Mr (12/02062/OUT) have been amended as Director Rossmore Road East / Jackswood Avenue Peel applicable. Planning ROS/0007 (formerly Rossfield Road North), Ellesmere D Investments applciation reference has been G V A /S Port Insert additional text: (North) Ltd de;eted and text inserted as Grimleys Part of the wider Trimingham residential detailed into Additional Amend planning status to: None transformation of teh Information. Rossfield Park area. The potential site capacity has Mr Director been reduced to 5000 units Peel Amend assessment of ROS/0003 Amend supply in 6 to and the delivery forecasts D Investments Amend net units to 5000 achievability to: 'Do not expect G V A /S 10 years to 0 (zero) have been revised to reflect (North) Ltd delivery within ten years'. Grimleys the change in units and Trimingham revised proposed timeframe.

Delete application Site details have been reference P/2002/929 amended and planning Amend supply as and replace with ref references have been updated Mr Director follows: 10/02062/OUT. to reflect the most up to date Peel ROS/0008 Amend site type from planning application details. D Investments G V A /H greenfield to brownfield. Text has been inserted into (North) Ltd 1 to 5 years = 110; 6 to Insert additional text: Grimleys the Additional Information Trimingham 10 years = 150; and 11 Part of the wider to 15 years = 40 residential section as detailed. The transformation of the delivery forecasts have been Rossfield Park area. updated as applicable. Mr Director Peel SHLAA has been removed ROS/0014 Delete SHLAA entry - D Investments from the assessment as the G V A /H site built out in 2012. (North) Ltd site is recorded as complete. Grimleys Trimingham Mr Peel Director Amend existing use from ROS/0012 Existing use category has Investments 'Business / Commercial' to /H been updated. D (North) Ltd G V A 'Vacant Office'. Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Grimleys Trimingham Amend application refernces to: Site details have been P/2007/264, amended as applicable and Amend address / location to read: Rossfield P/2007/364, planning references have Mr Park Development (Phase 2B and 2C: Land 13/01365/EXT been updated to reflect the Director Peel at Rossfield Road, adjacent to Phase 2A), most up to date planning ROS/0016 Supply in 1 to 5 years = D Investments Ellesmere Port permissions. Text has been G V A /H 17 Insert additional text to (North) Ltd inserted into Additional Grimleys read: Includes phases Trimingham Amend planning status to: Full / Outline 2b and 2c of Rossfield Information as suggested. Permission Park. Part fo the wider residential Delivery forecasts have been transformation of the updated as applicable. Rossfield Park area. Amend planning application references to P/2002/929 and Site details have been 13/01365/EXT amended, and planning Amend supply as references updated to include Mr Amend planning status to Outline Permission. the most up to date planning Director follows: Peel Amend additional applciation details. Text has ROS/0018 Amend existing use to information text as D Investments Amend address / location to: Rossfield Park been inserted into Additional G V A /H 'Vacant Land'. 1 to 5 years = 75; 6 to follows: Outline (North) Ltd Development (Phase 3 and 4: Jackswood Information section as Grimleys 10 years = 125; and 11 planning permision for Trimingham Avenue), Ellesmere Port suggested. to 15 years = 23 phased development. Part of the wider Delivery forecasts have been residential amended as applicable. transformation of the Rossfield Park area. Amend additional information text to: Potential redevelopment of site Mr Site area has been recalclated Director for commercial, leisure Peel and amended as applicable. ROS/0028 and health / community D Investments Amend site size to 2.59 hectares Text has been inserted into G V A /S facility. Residential (North) Ltd Additional Information section Grimleys development on Trimingham as suggested. adjacent sites. Part of the wider tarnsformation of teh Rossfield Park area.

Mr Amend supply as Director Site address has been Peel Address / location: Rossfield Park follows: ROS/023/ amended, and delivery D Investments Development (Phase 5: Land at Rossbank G V A H forecasts have been updated (North) Ltd Road / Rossfield Road North), Ellesmere Port Grimleys 6 to 10 years = 125; as applicable. Trimingham and 11 to 15 years = 5

It is requested that the next A Development The NPPF continues to version of the SHLAA identifies the Framework Document support the protection of the land as deliverable for future (DFD) prepared by Green Belt from inappropriate Leach Rhodes Walker development and as such the Principal development for the following GB GB and HOW Planning of SHLAA methodology Planner principle reasons: Developme Development CHV/0060/ behalf of GBDSL was discounts sites that are nt Solutions Solutions S prepared and submitted located in the Green Belt (with How Ltd Limited  Suitable (YES): The site is to the Council in the exception of a number of Planning sustainably located in close January 2013. The brownfield sites). These sites proximity to Christleton and DFD assesses the are not subject to a full represents an opportunity to release of the site from assessment, and do not maintain and enhance the the Green Belt against contribute towards the future Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details vitality of the village. The land is paragraphs 80 and 85 housing land supply. located on a self-contained of the National parcel of land with clearly Planning Policy Paragraph 89 of the NPPF defined, defensible boundaries. Framework (NPPF). allows for some The DFD demonstrates that redevelopment of brownfield there are no known technical The site is a self- sites within the Green Belt, constraints preventing its contained parcel of this is considered on a site by redevelopment for housng; land which has site basis and for the purpose  Available (YES): GBDSL are the established defensible of the SHLAA such sites have sole owner of the site and boundaries to the north, been considered for potential through their detailed east, south and west. inclusion in the councils representations to the Council The site benefits from housing land supply. as part of the preparation of the established Local Plan, it has been landscaping along its No change required. confirmed that the site is northern and southern available for development now. boundaries and the  Achievable (YES): The DFD DFD demonstrates that demonstrates taht a high quality its redevelopment for open market and affordable high quality oopen housing scheme could be market and affordable achieved at the site which housing would not comprises up to 45 new homes. impact on the The delivery of this quantum of openness of the Green development can be achieved Belt. Indeed the sites within the next five years subject development would to the site being released from make a positive the Green Belt and planning contribution to the permission being granted by the Shropshire Union Council. Cnaal as well as the Christleton Village Conservation Area.

Available Now: Land to the west of The draft SHLAA Wrexham Road is an undeveloped identifies land to the site controlled by Paycause west of Wrexham Road The NPPF continues to Limited and is therefore as SHLAA ref: support the protection of the immediately available. DOH/0013/S. It has Green Belt from inappropriate been discounted as a development and as such the Suitable Location: The site rates site for housing as it is SHLAA methodology well in terms of its sustainability not a major developed discounts sites that are credentials as it is located site in the Green Belt. located in the Green Belt (with approximately 4km to the south of Paycause Limited the exception of a number of Chester City Centre, which considers that the brownfield sites). These sites comprises the regional shopping approach to are not subject to a full centre for the entire borough. The discounting Green Belt assessment, and do not area is well provided for in terms of sites is flawed. This is contribute towards the future Nathaniel Paycause DOH/0013 Primary Schools and secondary because it fails to housing land supply. Lichfield & Limited /S education. The site can be easily consider the Borough's Partners accessed by sustainable modes of spatial strategy as set Paragraph 89 of the NPPF transport and the site benefits from out in the Cheshire allows for some existing access along Wrexham West and Chester redevelopment of brownfield Road. Local Plan Preferred sites within the Green Belt, Policy Directions. As this is considered on a site by 1 The immediate north of the site stated above, this site basis and for the purpose is bounded by the West Minster identifies a need to of the SHLAA such sites have Park residential neighbourhood accommodate in the been considered for potential comprising the properties fronting region of 2,000 inclusion in the councils Green Lane, Lache Lane, dwellings in the Green housing land supply. Whaddon Drive, Merton Drive, Belt around Chester. Five Ashes Road, Shelbourne No change required. Avenue and Fir Tree Avenue. Paycause Limited Close to the northern tip of the site proposes that land to Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details lies the Westminster Park local the west of Wrexham centre. The area comprises a mix Road, Chester, will of housing types and architectural provide a residential led styles. Because the immediately mixed use development surrounding area includes to deliver up to 950 residential development it is homes in the emerging considered that this site would Cheshire West and consolidate the existing Chester Local Plan. neighbouring residential areas of Lache and provide a sustainable Paycause Limited urban expansion to the Chester wishes to emphasise urban area. that overall, the site at Wrexham Road 2 The site would be brought accords with the forward by the private sector and housing objectives of has relatively few constraints, the Framework [Para. ensuring that the site is deliverable 50]: and would help to ensure that Chester West and Chester Council 1 It can achieve high could demonstrate a sufficient five quality housing; and, year forward supply of office space to meet the City's requirements. 2 It can provide a mix of affordable and open 3 Land to the west of Wrexham market housing. Road could provide a realistic opportunity to provide at least 950 Development of the site dwellings to contribute towards the would help to secure Local Plan. Consultants working the three dimensions of on behalf of Paycause Limited can sustainable demonstrate that existing development in relation highways infrastructure can to the economic, social accommodate the development of and environmental the site for housing. objectives of the NPPF [¶7 & ¶30]. 4 The Environment Agency has confirmed that the proposed The site is sustainably development site is located within located providing a Flood Zone 1 (low risk). It is social role with considered that residential accessibility to services development in this area will not that reflect community be affected by flood risk. needs.

5 The site is considered to be a The site will perform an suitable area for housing as there economic role and are no physical constraints contribute to a strong, preventing its development such responsive and as infrastructure, flooding, ecology competitive economy. and noise and any constraints can Its development will be suitably mitigated to allow the involve the continuation development of the site to come of residential forward. development in the southern part of 6 Paycause Limited is therefore Chester, providing confident that they can meet the houses for the requirements for housing delivery employees on the outlined in the Framework. Chester Business Park, as well as people living Achievable: The site is within Chester and the undeveloped and controlled by nearby villages. Paycause Limited. It could therefore be brought forward for Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details development within five years. The The site will perform an site is achievable with no environmental role by insurmountable physical issues to contributing, protecting prevent the site being developed. and enhancing the environment. We are not aware of any physical, environmental or ecological constraints preventing the site coming forward for residential development. As we set out below, and in Appendix 2, the site no longer fulfils its purpose as Green Belt land. The Framework [¶47] specifies that when seeking to significantly boost the supply of housing, the Council should identify key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the Plan period. Clearly, the Wrexham Road site is critical to the delivery of the Council's housing land supply, delivering in the region of 950 houses. It is also the most appropriate location for development for a sustainable urban extension. As set out in the Development Statement (December 2011), exceptional circumstances exist for Green Belt release to accommodate housing need in Chester and the site does not fulfil its purpose as Green Belt land [the Framework,¶80]:

1 The development of the site will not result in the unrestricted sprawl of Chester but will remove a site which logically forms part of the surrounding urban area.

2 The development of the site will not result in the merger of neighbouring towns into Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details one another.

3 Whilst the preservation of the setting and special character of Chester is considered important, the land is divorced from, and has no impact on, the historic core of Chester.

4 The land to the east of the site is already developed as the Chester Business Park, and to the south is the Park and Ride. Furthermore, the existing hedgerows would protect views into and out of the existing site.

5 The Local Plan acknowledges that there is insufficient brownfield land in Chester to meet the future development requirements of the largest financial, retail and employment settlement of the Borough. The development of land to the west of Wrexham Road would not prevent the recycling of derelict land.

We have reviewed the It is not the role of the SHLAA Council's Draft SHLAA, to review the Green Belt. This and note that ASL's site is a role for the Local Plan at Chester Triangle has should it be proven necessary. not been included as a The scope has not been potential site, having purposely narrowed down in been discounted due to order to constrain its Green Belt development. A very Mr designation. We significant number of sites Ainscough Barton were assessed. The national UPT/0036/ understand that this is Paul Strategic Willmore guidance for SHLAA’s state S a blanket position, but Land LLP we nonetheless set out that policy restrictions such as Martin our concerns on this designations and protected approach in the context areas in existing policy can be of land supply around taken into account and Chester. particular types of land excluded from the assessment where justified. ASL is in control of a parcel of land, It would be premature at this approximately 34 stage to include specific sites Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details acres, which is known in the Green Belt within the as "Chester Triangle" Council’s housing land supply and is a well contained in advance of the Council site, located to the determining through the Local north of Chester, Plan whether it would be bounded by the A41 appropriate to remove land Moston Road to the from the Green Belt to meet east and A5116 future housing requirements Liverpool to the west. It comprises part Brownfield and part Greenfield land.

Whilst the Site has not been included as a potential development site within the Draft SHLAA due to its Green Belt location, it is a suitable, available and deliverable site, and would contribute postively to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities and to the Council's five year housing land supply.

ASL has submitted to the Council a Landsacpe and Visual Amenity Impact Assessment (LVIA) as part of the "call for sites" and Green Belt Review, which demonstrates that the Site is in the most approriate location for Green Belt release. The LVIA demosntrates that the Site is surrounded by development in at least three directions and is itself partially developed. It has been demonstrated that removing the site from the Green Belt will not be detrimental to the Green Belt or reduce the ability of neighbouring sites to meet the purpose of the Green Belt. Crucially the LVIA work demonstrates the site does not meet the tests for inclusion of land within the Green Belt outline in Section 9 of Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details the NPPF.

The proposed development of the site for residential development will enhance the visual amenity of the area, given its proximity to the neighbouring tourist attraction, Chester Zoo. The Site will not encroach any further into the Green Belt from this location because the surrounding land uses which include residential, commercial and leisure / tourism and the Site are already developed.

The Site also benefits from its proximity to to public transport linkages including both Chester and Bache Railway Stations, and its linkages to Chester, Ellesmere Port and Cheshire Oaks.

Furthermore, the Site benefits from existing access points which can be utilise on both Liverpool Road and Morton Road, alongside pedestrian and cycle paths, which enhance the accessibility of the Site. There are also a number of local services located inclose proximity to the Site, including a petrol filling station, schools and health services, alongside Chester Zoo.

The Site is alos readily available for development and there are no potential constraints to the development of the Site. It is therefore considered that the Site is suitable, available Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details and deliverable for development, and should be released from the Green Belt, and included within the Council's SHLAA. The development of the Site will make a valuable contribution to the Boroough's housing land supply, and can be developed immediately. This site was subject to a planing application which was rejected by EPNBC. However the site could Mr accommodate housing at sometime in the STR/0005/ Mark future. The garden Thank you, comments noted. S centre is not as popular Henesy as it once was and is owned by a large garden centre company who may develop the site if it becomes marginal. Mr This site could be

STR/0006/ developed so long as Mark Thank you, comments noted. S the open space was

replaced. Henesy I would be strongly The SHLAA is a high level against the assessment of development development of this potential and does not apply Mr area whilst the detailed Local Plan policies. overhead power cables STR/0007/ These issues would be Mark are in place. The land S considered through the is directly below and in Development Management Henesy between two large process if a planning power cables and has a application were submitted to pylon in the South West the council. corner. Draft SHLAA indicates that the site Where the site is classed as is capable of accommodating achievable and able to deliver c.684 dwellings and anticipates units within 5 years the development commencing in the assessment is based on clear second phase of the plan (years 6- evidence provided/available to 10) when 150 dwellings will be the Council to support its built, with developmentthen inclusion in the five year Redrow WOV/0011 proceeding at an average rate of supply. e.g positive pre Homes /S c.50 units per annum. Redrow application discussions or (Northern) support the identification of were proposed schemes have Westholme Farm in the SHLAA, been discussed with the but disagree with the council's Council Officers. proposed phasing of development. The site is in single ownership and Circumstances or assumptions currently under option to Redrow; may change which may mean it has no known technical or that sites could come forward Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details highways constraints and there is sooner or later than originally no reason why the land should not envisaged. The SHLAA does be brought forward with not prevent planning development commencing in the applications being submitted first phase of the plan. Subject to on any sites identified or satisfactory grant of planning excluded within it at any time. permission development could commence within c.1 year and the In the current economic site is capable of contributing climate the assumption is around 150 dwellings to the made that sites that are deliverable 5-year supply. classed as greenfield are more Thereafter, it is likely that the site likely to be developed before would accommodate two outlets those classed as PDL due to (developers) increasing the annaul viability being generally more rate of development to c.70 units of a challenge on PDL sites. per annum and making a valuable These assumptions are a contribution to the overall housing result of discussions and the supply in the borough and in assessment of sample sites Winsford in particular. with the Housing Partnership Group. Given the shortfall fo deliverable housing sites, Redrow, therefore, advocates moving the site forward into the first phase of the plan. It is clear from the Preferred Policy Directions that Frodsham has been identified as a sustainable location for housing growth, however, it has not been demonstrated how these housing requirements will be achieved without The NPPF continues to appropriate Green Belt support the protection of the Having reviewed the SHLAA I note release. The site (as Green Belt from inappropriate that the above site has not been outlined in development and as such the included within the SHLAA for earlier representations), SHLAA methodology what would appear to be reasons benefits from clear discounts sites that are Director that relate to its Green Belt defensible boundaries located in the Green Belt (with Barratt FRO/0020/ designation. I do however note is in a sustainable the exception of a number of Homes SATPLAN S that the SHLAA has included some location and therefore brownfield sites). This sites is LTD its development would not subject to a full sites that are within the Green Belt not lead to urban assessment, and does not and therefore it is unclear as to the sprawl, unsustainable contribute towards the future reasons for this inconsistency. development or impact housing land supply. negatively on the aims and objectives of the No change required. Green Belt.

When the SHLAA is revised, it is critical that a full and proper assessment is undertaken of Green Belt sites. Furthermore, it is clear that there is a need for a borough- wide review of Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Greenbelt sites - confining such a study to Chester only is considered inappropriate and is likely to seriously undermine the robustness and credibility of the evidence base which will have serious implications for the emerging Local Plan. Suitability - I note that my client’s site (formerly identified as BRX0027 in the 2010 SHLAA) is no longer identified as a deliverable housing site. The 2010 SHLAA identified this is a suitable Where sites have been site for development and indicated refused permission and are 88 dwellings for years 6-10. The subject to appeal they have site has been allocated with not been subject to an reference TAT/0025/S in the 2013 assessment at this time and draft SHLAA, however, I note that excluded from the SHLAA, this site has not been included in unless on the grounds that the formal assessments, but rather release of a site should first be has been included in Schedule C determined through the Local which contains those sites which Plan process. are not considered to be suitable for inclusion within the SHLAA. It would be inappropriate for The reason for this being that the the Council to factor these site has been refused planning sites into our future supply of consent and is currently subject to potential land for housing (i.e. a planning appeal. I note that no put them in the SHLAA) when Director other explanation is provided with the Council has decided that Barratt TAT/0025/ regards to why this site is not there is a significant planning Homes SATPLAN S suitable for inclusion within the objection which should prevent LTD SHLAA. them being released for development at the current time. Under these Having reviewed the NPPF in circumstances if an appeal detail, I can find no justification for was then allowed by an this approach. I refer you to Inspector/Secretary of State, footnote 11 on page 12 of the the site would then feature Framework which sets out the again in the SHLAA. criteria on which sites should be assessed to determine whether This does not prevent a site they are deliverable or not. My from coming forward in the clients have demonstrated, by way future should there be a of a full planning application that change in circumstances. If this site is free from technical the planning status of a site constraints and is therefore changes, this will be taken into suitable, available and achievable. account and amended when As you will be aware, CWaC the SHLAA is next updated. Planning Officers recommend this scheme for approval, therefore, I cannot see any legitimate reason for this site not to be included within the SHLAA. MR Director SHA/0009/ The land extends to 1.6ha and it is considered The 2010 SHLAA identified the There is currently The site has been categorised S suitable for up to 30 houses (as per red line site as a 'site to be taken forward'. limited play space as non suitable as it is not Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Daniel Russell boundary on submitted plan) This was based on a larger plot of within the village and located within or adjacent to a Homes 5.35ha delivering 135 units. The the development of the key service centre. Swan Kershaw 2013 update identifies the site as a site could provide Green is not proposed as a 'non-suitable site' - advising that suitable provision to key service centre on the the site is not within/adjacent to address the local emerging Local Plan; however main urban area or one of the 9 shortage. It would be this does not preclude some key service centres. proposed to set aside development from coming an area of land within forward in this area. Also, the The purpose of this submission is the site that would categorisation of a site as non to reiterate the site's immediate function as public open suitable does not prevent a availability and benefits that it be space for the siet and planning application from considered alongsode the other also for the being submitted. deliverable sites put forward for neighbouring residents assessement / allocation within in Swan Green. No change required. this consultation document. For teh reasons outlined under the In summary whilst the follwoing sub-headings, it is our site is not within a key view that this site compares service centre it does considerably more favourable than have access to a a number of the deliverable sites number of local put forward for consultation. services and has good accessibility to Availability - The site is owned by neighbouring towns three parties who have jointly with existing facilities. contracted to sell the site for future The redevelopment of residential development to Russell the site could assist in HOmes. As such, teh site should the delivery of open be termed to be wholly and space of which there is expediently available. The land local shortage. extends to 1.6 hectares in size and it is considered that it could accommodate up to 30 dwellings.

Agricultural land quality - the site is a small parcel of unused open land. Teh land does not fall within the definition of being the best or most versatile in agricultural terms.

Accessibility - The land can be accessed from Middlewich Road or from the existing access spur from Holly Tree Drive.

Planning designation - The site is designated as being 'Open Countryside'. Teh development of the site would represent a logical 'rounding off' of the settlement and not lead to any significant countryside encroachment.

Adjoining uses - The site adjoins existing housing and the open countryside. the visual landscape quality of the site is poor.

Sustainability - The site occupies a reasonably sustainable location at the boundary of the settlement of Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details Swan Green. Access to a primary schools, public house, local church and local shop is also wholly achievable on foot. Access to other services is availabel by a variety of bus routes that pass teh site, linking it with surrounding settlements. The land has previously been discounted by the Council due to the fact that it is situated within Flood Risk Zone 3b. However, as can be seen on the adjacent site submitted by Bark Street Investments Ltd (ref:12/04229/OUT), technical mitigation measures can be adopted in order to reduce teh risk of flooding and protect housing. The Bark Street scheme has not been objected to by the Environment Agency on flood risk grounds. A technical solution can also be adopted at our client's site to ensure the site is a suitable location for new housing.

Furthermore, the site is in a suitable, sustainable location for housing as it is situated less than This site was not subject to a 2km from Chester city centr with full SHLAA assessment, as existing services and facilities per the agreed methodology, c/o Indigo within walking distance. Contrary due to the presence of flood Sealand Planning Ltd to the parcels of Green Belt land risk constraints on the site. Commercia Indigo BLA/0072/ on the edge of the city - which the Any changes to the extent of l Properties Sealand Planning Ltd S Council has identified within the level of this constraint will be Ltd Commercial Green Belt Stud 2012 for potential recorded in future updates / Properties Ltd release for housing development, iterations of the Council's the site at Sealand Road is within SHLAA, and the site will be the existing built up area of reassessed accordingly. Chester, meaning that development on the site would not result in extending the built up arae of Chester or require the release of protected Green Belt land. In this way, this site is more suitable for housing.

The site does not form formal playing fields or open space, it is not part of existing allotments or within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest or RAMSAR site. The landscape is unremarkable and there are no designated heritage assets within the site. Given that technical flood risk matters can be resolved (as demonstrated at the Bark Street site), and as teh site lies in a sustainable location and can be Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details accessed, with no ecological or other technical constraints, it should be considered by the Council as a suitable site for meeting the identified housing shortfall in Chester.

The site is available now and could be developed for new housing within 1 to 5 years.

For the reasons set out above, we request that the Council revist the Draft SHLAA 2013 to address the inconsistencies within the methodology and to include site CTY0104 as a suitable housing site. The NPPF continues to support the protection of the Hapsford is a very Green Belt from inappropriate small hamlet of less development and as such the than 35 properties in SHLAA methodology the Green Belt and with Cllr discounts sites that are Cheshire no infill. This propsal Site is in Dunham Hill and Hapsford Park located in the Green Belt (with West & GOW/002 would not make any Eleanor ward with a field of 8.79ha for 211 units - i the exception of a number of Chester 8/S contribution to the would strongly object to development. brownfield sites). This site is Council community it would Johnson not subject to a full overwhelm the area, assessment, and does not and would not be at all contribute towards the future sustainabel either now housing land supply. or in the future.

No change required.

The site is included in the 2010 TW strongly disagree Where sites have been SHLAA under the address of 'Flat with the removal of site refused permission and/ or Lane (land at), north of Kelsall TAK/0017/S from the subject to appeal they have Primary School, Kelsall' (2010 draft 2013 SHLAA. The not been subject to an SHLAA Ref: GWY0009). This Council assert the site assessment at this time and assesses the site as follows: is no longer suitable for excluded from the SHLAA, Suitable (yes): site adjacent to inclusion. The site unless on the grounds that the settlement. Sustainable location; measures 3.48 release of a site should first be Available (yes): Vacant land; hectares and is situated determined through the Local Achievable (yes): Developer in a highly sustainablet Plan process. interest on site. Pre application location (a position discussions held with Local agreed with the It would be inappropriate for HOW Authority. Council) to the south the Council to factor these Taylor TAK/0017/ Planning west of Kelsall village sites into our future supply of Wimpey UK S LLP This concludes that the site has centre. potential land for housing (i.e. potential to deliver 84 houses in put them in the SHLAA) when the medium term (6-10 years). TW In summary, site the Council has decided that disagree with this assessment TAK/0017/S is there is a significant planning given the significant progress that considered to be objection which should prevent has been made since 2010 on deliverable in line with them being released for pursuing planning permission. An footnote 11 of the development at the current outline application for residential NPPF. As such, it time. Under these development was subsequently should be (re)included circumstances if an appeal made to the local planning within the 2013 SHLAA was then allowed by an authority (LPA Ref: update. Whilst the 2010 Inspector/Secretary of State, 12/01880/OUT) but refused by SHLAA stated that the site would then feature delegated powers on 13 March units could be delivered again in the SHLAA. Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details 2013. Consequently, teh draft in the medium term (6- 2013 SHLAA update now 10 years), this is no Tthis does not prevent a site discounts the site by virtue of longer the case given from coming forward in the being "non-suitable". TW strongly the significant progress future should there be a disputes this stance and requests that has been made change in circumstances. If that the site (TAK/0017/S) is towards obtaining the planning status of a site (re)included within the 2013 planning permission, changes, this will be taken into SHLAA update as suitable, and the site is able to account and amended when available and achievable as per make a full contribution the SHLAA is next updated. the 2010 SHLAA. The Council's during the first five-year refusal of the application is period. currently being appealed and until such time as a decision is made, the site should remain included. Where sites have been refused permission and are subject to appeal they have not been subject to an assessment at this time and excluded from the SHLAA, unless on the grounds that the release of a site should first be determined through the Local Plan process.

Achievable (and viable): The site is It would be inappropriate for considered to be achievable for the Council to factor these the development of up to 90 units. sites into our future supply of Given the Council's housing land potential land for housing (i.e. supply position and significant put them in the SHLAA) when historical under-delivery of housing the Council has decided that HOW against RSS requirements, there is Taylor TAK/0017/ there is a significant planning Planning demonstarble need for both Wimpey UK S objection which should prevent LLP market and affordable housing in them being released for Kelsall and the wider Borough. As development at the current such, it is considered that there is time. Under these an excellent prospect that housing circumstances if an appeal will be delivered within five years was then allowed by an and in particular that development Inspector/Secretary of State, of the site is viable. the site would then feature again in the SHLAA.

This does not prevent a site from coming forward in the future should there be a change in circumstances. If the planning status of a site changes, this will be taken into account and amended when the SHLAA is next updated. Where sites have been Land at Chester Road, Tattenhall refused permission and are has previously been identified by subject to appeal they have the Council as suitable and not been subject to an available. We have confirmed in assessment at this time and Taylor Indigo TAT/0003/ our previous representations that excluded from the SHLAA, Wimpey Planning Ltd S the site is suitable for unless on the grounds that the development, available now and release of a site should first be achievable with the prospect of determined through the Local development being delivered in the Plan process.

Consultee Consultee Agent (if Site Additional Organisation Site details Site characteristics Assessment Supply Council's Response Full Name applicable) Reference information Details short term i.e. within five years. It would be inappropriate for the Council to factor these Since then, a significant amount of sites into our future supply of further technical work has been potential land for housing (i.e. undertaken to confirm how the site put them in the SHLAA) when might be brought forward. This has the Council has decided that been submitted to the Council by there is a significant planning virtue of the applciation proposals objection which should prevent for the site submitted in April and them being released for August 2012 (Ref: 12/02032/OUT development at the current and 12/03717/OUT). The time. Under these proposed residential scheme has circumstances if an appeal been considered by the Council was then allowed by an and the principle of development Inspector/Secretary of State, accepted in both technical and the site would then feature planning terms by officers. again in the SHLAA.

Unfortunately, Members disagreed This does not prevent a site with the officer recommendation from coming forward in the and refused the application on future should there be a landscape grounds. The Council's change in circumstances. If decision to refuse planning the planning status of a site permission is currently being changes, this will be taken into challenged by plannng appeal and account and amended when a decision by the Secretary of the SHLAA is next updated. State is due later this year.

Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that the site is a suitable contender for delivery of housing in the Ket Service Centre of Tattenhall. It fulfils the assessment criteria set out in the SHLAA Practice Guidance (2007) and therefore should not be discounted by the Council for the purposes of this latest assessment. The role of the SHLAA is to identify as many sites with housing potential as possible (paragraph 7 of the Guidance) and it is a matter of fact that this site has such potential.

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2013 For ease of reference the headings on Page 14 below set out the Council’s responses on the key issues raised in the representations.

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 Methodology - Consultation Responses to the on-line forum (2-16 April 2013). Name / Organisation Summary of comments Response Emery Planning Concerned that the SHLAA still does not assess Green Belt sites. We consider that the SHLAA See Council Partnership should potential assess sites that could potentially be allocated through the emerging Local Plan, Responses 4, 6, 9 irrespective of current policy constraints. and 8 It is agreed that a site should have made significant progress through the planning system to be considered deliverable. In our view any site that is contrary to existing development plan policies (for example sites outside of existing settlement boundaries, sites last in employment use etc) should be excluded from the supply until planning permission has been granted, or a resolution to grant permission has been make. Clearly, the deliverability of each site needs to be considered on a site-by-site basis. Not all sites will conform to the standard methodology or build rates and lead in time. In respect of the proposed small site allowance, deliverability is not being assessed on a site-by- site basis. A discount should therefore be applied to existing planning permissions on smaller sites to reflect that not all will come forward in the next 5 years just because they have planning permission. Gladman Developments General Comments: See Council Ltd The methodology appears to be largely consistent with the SHLAA practice guidance and Responses 5, 9 and unchanged from the 2011 SHLAA methodology. We would however draw your attention to the 12 adequacy of the proposed density assumptions, as our recent experience has shown densities of 25-30 d p h are being achieved on sites. The methodology also makes no mention of anticipated delivery rates, which would make site delivery estimates more robust. Finally, it is not fully clear how sites will be considered to be available and viable in the context of the 5 year housing land supply. We draw you to our comments in this regard below. Five-Year Housing Land Supply: Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) clearly states that to boost significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under-delivery this buffer should be increased to 20% to achieve a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; Gladman strongly believe that sites with planning permission should be correctly considered deliverable and included in the 5-year supply unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, whilst sites without planning permission, such as those identified through a SHLAA, should only

1

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 Methodology - Consultation Responses to the on-line forum (2-16 April 2013). Name / Organisation Summary of comments Response be regarded as available and deliverable now where the Council has clear, robust evidence to support their inclusion within the 5-year supply. We direct you to paragraphs 26 to 51 of a recent appeal decision, APP/Y3940/A/12/2183526, Land South of Filands, Malmesbury, Wiltshire in this respect. Given the Council’s housing land supply position, the 2012 SHLAA Partial Review recommendations and the timescale for the forthcoming Publication Local Plan, we would be opposed to any attempt to carry out a quick and flawed exercise to identify a supply of deliverable sites to satisfy the authority’s 5-year housing land requirement.

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

Gladman Developments Use of planning history as a reason for excluding sites is not a legitimate reason to discount as it See Council Limited (N. Penfold) is a result of policy at a particular point in time. Responses 7 and 8 Applications recommended for approval by professional officers – refusals in these cases below. (Farndon, Malpas and Tarporley) were politically driven, and local political considerations are not cited in guidance as a reason for exclusion from SHLAA. Refusals have been made as sites are in open countryside and on best and most versatile agricultural land which applies to most sites on the edge of settlements. For consistency all sites in the same context should be excluded from SHLAA. Nathaniel Lichfield & Five Year Requirement; See Council Partners (on behalf of Shortfall in delivery should be addressed within a five year period (‘Sedgefield’ approach) and Responses 4, 6, 8, Paycause Limited) not the remainder of the Plan period (‘residual’ approach) 9,10 and 14 below. (Caroline Simpson) Strong justification for applying a 20% buffer, and 20% buffer has been agreed as part of the Tattenhall Public Inquiries. Annual Requirement (based on RSS, under delivery of 4,586 units, and the ‘Sedgfield’ approach) = 2,682 dwellings Five Year Supply SHLAA Methodology; 5-year supply of 8,745 dwellings is considerably over-stated for the following reasons: Sites with more than one developer – simplistic to assume a standard multiplier as element on competition arises. Suggest 25-30dw per developer per annum increasing to 30-35dw per

2

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

developer per annum towards end of 5-year period with max of 70dw per annum (aligning with HBF Figures) Lead-in assumptions – over optimistic to reduce lead in times for sites with unimplemented planning permissions, sites subject to S106 and where no apps have been made. Does not consider timescales of REM, discharge of conditions and time to implement development. Sites with extant permission – assumed that these sites will be delivered, but inevitable that some sites will not be delivered i.e. flats. Sites awaiting S106 – over-optimistic delivery rates and timescale assumptions. Pending and pre apps – only included within 5-year supply if clear evidence can demonstrate deliverability. LP allocations – Extremely unlikely all or even some will deliver in next 5-years No planning status – Questionable as to whether sites can deliver within next 5 years Small sites allowance – Refute ‘compelling evidence’ as basis for this allowance, and no analysis of delivery on garden land which is no longer classed as small site windfall. Green Belt – no Green Belt sites have been assessed despite following CLG guidance that states the assessment should look at urban extensions. In light of Local Plan PPD requirement for ca 2,000 homes in Green Belt around Chester, these sites should be assessed Turley Associates (on SHLAA methodology and Green Belt assessment – there is nothing in Practice Guidance which See Council behalf of David Wilson suggests Green Belt should be automatically excluded. Excluding Green Belt is at odds with Responses 4, 10 and Homes) (David Diggle) future Local Plan policy. 14 below. Housing Land Supply Position – SHLAA fails to meet requirements of NPPF to identify min 5 year land supply. Consider housing land position to be considerably worse due to unreasonable assumptions in respect of 5% buffer and adopting residual approach to calculation (as opposed to ‘Sedgefield’ approach). Indigo Planning Limited Overall approach – Extent of engagement and consultation on 2013 SHLAA has been See Council (on behalf of Taylor inadequate, no meetings with HPG since Urban Vision consultation. Online and short Responses 1, 5, 6, 7 Wimpey UK Limited) consultation periods limited ability for positive and constructive engagement. Latest draft has not 8, 9 10 11, 13 and 14 (Jen Popplewell) been prepared in line with paras 11 and 12 (Practice Guidance 2007) which highlights below. importance of partnership approach.

Sources of land supply – Housing density assumptions – HPG agreed the general density assumptions, and made it clear these were only estimates. Similarly assumptions with regards net developable area over estimated. 3

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

Deliverability of sites – object to approach outlined at paragraph 2.25 – categorising sites with refused application as unsuitable. Delivery rates – accept higher delivery rates dependent on size of development, location and type of site. Delivery rate approx 25-30 dwellings per developer appropriate on short term, increasing to 30-35 towards end of 5 year period subject to max output of 70 dwellings per annum per site. Small sites allowance – allowance in 2013 draft is higher than that proposed in Partial Review. Assessment Results – sites identified as deliverable within first five years must have supporting evidence of their deliverability. Current approach and components flawed and object, in particular the inclusion of sites that do not have planning permission (unless compelling site specific evidence available) Five year housing land supply – object to inclusion of 5-year supply calculation in the draft, this should contained in HLM. Unclear as to why recent HLM does not include this calculation. SHLAA should draw no conclusions on five-year housing land supply matter. Calculating five year requirement - RSS remains correct basis for calculation, and correct calculation of shortfall, but this should be met over 5-years not remainder of plan period. Agree the Council is a 20% buffer authority given extent of shortfall, which is a strong rationale. Calculating supply – disagree with calculation, as do not accept component elements of supply are justified when assessed against paragraph 47 of NPPF. Concerned about assumptions under pinning delivery of sites. HOW Planning LLP (on Housing requirement (1-5 years) – consider the five-year housing requirement (1,985 per See Council behalf of Taylor Wimpey annum) to be wholly underestimated. Under supply should be addressed within first five years, a Responses 4, 6, 9, UK Limited) (Matthew 20% buffer should be applied to the calculation. Buffer should be applied to backlog as well as 10 and 14 below. Robinson) forward five-year requirement. (Annual requirement = 2,681) Housing supply (1-5 years) – Housing land supply considered questionable; Overly optimistic lead-in assumptions; assumes all planning permissions will be delivered; sites without planning permission should have clear evidence of delivery; LP allocations unlikely to be delivered; and small sites allowance not informed by robust evidence. Five-year calculation – Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply as required in paragraph 47 of NPPF, therefore essential that additional sites come forward to meet the deficit (including some Green Belt sites), and sites are not removed from SHLAA unjustifiably. Harrow Estates (Tim Methodology: See Council Noden) It is essential that the correct methodological approach is adopted by the Council. Whilst para Responses 2, and 7 2.26 of the draft document indicates that the Council has followed the DCLG SHLAA Guidance below. 4

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

to determine the assessment criteria for assessing the suitability of a site, a review of the guidance suggests this is not the case. The DCLG SHLAA Guidance does not offer support for the council’s approach to discounting the suitability of a site for housing based on the fact that it has been subject to a planning refusal. This approach is set out in paragraph 2.25 of the draft SHLAA document, and it use represents a significant departure from DCLG guidance. It is therefore considered to be inappropriate and should be deleted from the draft SHLAA assessment methodology. The sites discounted as suitable under this criterion should be reassessed against the assessment criteria set out in the DCLG SHLAA Guidance. Whilst the wording of both paragraphs 37 and 38 of the DCLG SHLAA Guidance are contained in the draft SHLAA, the Council’s additional categorization of sites that have been refused planning permission as unsuitable serves to fundamentally undermine the above criteria. To apply a different assessment test of ‘suitability’ to a particular site simply because it has been subject to a planning refusal, is unsound. This point is clearly demonstrated through the proposed discounting within the Draft SHLAA of the land south east of Hollies Farm, Hartford (2010 Site Refer ABY0009). This site was subject of a refused planning application for residential development for up to 350 dwellings (Ref:11/058505/OUT). Whilst the application was refused by the Council, the site is a suitable location for housing, as evidenced in the agreed Statement of Common Ground submitted as part of the appeal which states that site “is a sustainable location for new housing Development” (para 7.20) and “the Council has not raised any reason for refusal relating to the principle of residential development on the site”. Emery Planning Five Year housing Requirement See Council Partnership (on behalf of A 20% buffer should be applied to Cheshire West and Chester. It is noted that sites with “no Responses 6, 7, 8 Wainhomes planning status” include those where applications have either been withdrawn or permission has and 14 Development Ltd) expired. It is unclear what the Council’s justification is for in first five years where planning (Stephen Harris) permission has expired. Regarding those other sites without planning permission, justification is required from the council as to why these sites are deliverable with regard to their suitability, achievability and viability. Justification is required form the Council as to why these sites are deliverable with regard to their suitability, achievability and viability. Small Sites – 352 dwellings on small sites are included in the five year supply. We maintain that a discount should be applied to existing planning permissions on smaller sites to reflect that not all will come forward in the next five years. 5

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

Barton Willmore Methodology See Council (Lorraine Davison) (on Disagree with the Council’s approach on the exclusion of Green Belt sites, particularly in Responses 3, 4, 5, 6, behalf of Ainscough advance of the Green Belt Review which is currently being prepared, and consider that the 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14 Strategic Land) publication of the Draft SHLAA is therefore premature. below. Concern about the application of a 5% buffer, the evidence base used, the prematurity of the SHLAA in advance of the Green Belt review, the impact on the five year supply and the sites included within the SHLAA. The consideration by Members to adopt a 5% buffer at the LDF Panel is inappropriate and contrary to Officers’ recommendations. Between 2003 and 2012, CWAC has persistently under- delivered, only achieving the required level of housing completions once during this period in 2005/06. To continue to support this approach is contrary to NPPF. Development Plan – Consideration should be given to the revocation of the North West Regional Spatial Strategy which was revoked on 20 May 2013, at this stage, particularly as it was a well know intention of the Government. An amendment to the SHLAA is required, and the finalized SHLAA should reflect this. Exclusion of Green Belt Sites - The main criticism of the SHLAA is that it deliberately excludes Green Belt Sites as CWAC is currently undertaking a Green Belt Review around Chester. The delay in the Green Belt Review renders the preparation and publication of the Draft SHLAA premature. The Chester Triangle , whilst located in the Green Belt is suitable, deliverable and available and should be included as a potential development sites within the SHLAA and emerging Development Plan. Housing Density Assumptions – The densities which the Council seeks to apply have been agreed by members of the Housing Partnership, and where sites in the SHLAA have planning permission, the densities of these sites have been used. The methodology does, however, state that some assumptions have been based on work carried out in 2010, which is outdated. This is not robust approach as the methodology may be heavily influenced by the different housing market conditions in 2010, as opposed to the changing housing position in 2013. New Developable Site Area – In terms of net developable area it is accepted that the general approach to the scale of development areas and the base level of developable areas should apply. e.g. on sites between 10ha and 20ha, this equates to a 75% developable area, which allows for areas of open space provision and drainage. However it is considered that this should be on a case by case basis depending on the nature of the site and character of the area. Delivery Timeframe Assumptions. Support the proposed build out rates proposed and considers that between 10 and 20 per year 6

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

on sites up to 100 dwellings, and between 20 and 40 units per year on larger sites over 100 dwellings as appropriate. However concern over the “Delivery Assumptions”. These timescales are too stringent and not achievable, particularly in relation to allocated sites and more flexibility is required in terms of lead in times. These are dependent on obtaining planning permission, section 106 signoff and the ability of all developers to bring forward sites for development. Housing Land Position. CWAC has acknowledged that there is an undersupply of housing in Years 1-5, but states that is addressed through a surplus in years 6-10 and Years 11-15. However, despite this future surplus within the Draft SHLAA in Years 6-15, the Council do not have five year housing land supply which Paragraph 47 off the NPPF . It is appreciated that the difference between the SHLAA and the five year supply, as some of the sites included within the SHLAA cannot be included within the five year supply .e.g Sites without planning permission should not be included. Additional Comments Questions whether site visits have been carried out on selected sites, to ensure there are no constraints to the site in relation to flooding, access etc and further clarification is required on this matter, and how these can be overcome. Barton Willmore (Dan General Comments – Question whether the methodology is compliant with footnote 12 of NPPF. See Council Mitchell) (on behalf of Exclusion of Green Belt Sites. Responses 2, 4, 5, 6, The Grosvenor Estate) The Grosvenor Estate has fundamental concerns over the methodology of the draft SHLAA, 9, 11and 14 below. particularly in relation to the blanket exclusion of Green Belt sites, which are currently being assessed as part of the Green Belt Review. Density Assumptions – The methodology for generating the density assumptions is based on planning permission granted for major residential schemes (10 or more dwellings) since 2010 and is outdated. We also seek clarity on whether densities have been applied to the net or gross development area of the site and suggest that this element of assessment work is preceded by the calculation of net developable area of a site. Delivery Rates - sites which are not currently in the planning system should not be considered within CWAC’s five year supply as there can be no certainty of delivery within this time frame. Net Developable Site Area Accept the general approach: however consider that this should be undertaken on a site by site basis, as there may be constraints which have not been fully assessed. Calculation of the 5 year Supply – 7

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

The SHLAA in its current form demonstrates that CWAC has a 3.85 year supply when using the NPPF compliant 20% buffer due to it is acknowledge persistent under delivery for approximately 9 years. Fundamentally disagree with CWAC applying a 5% buffer and do not support the reasons put forward by Members at the LDF Panel in May. Barton Willmore Bellway do not consider the application of the 5% buffer to be appropriate, and considers that a See Council (Lorraine Davison) (on 20% buffer should be applied. When a 20% buffer is applied, CWAC can only demonstrate 3.85 Responses 1, 3, 5, 6, behalf of Bellway Homes years , this demonstrates an underlying need to both plan for and accommodate housing in the 7, 9, 10 and 14 below. Ltd) short term (year 0-5). Level of Site Assessment – it would appear from the Draft SHLAA that it has been derived from a predominately desktop assessment, as opposed to a site visit. Further clarity required to determine if any site visits have completed to support the Council’s assessment that sites are suitable and deliverable,, and to determine if there are any constraints associated with the individual sites which could preclude their development. Development Plan - Questioned why the Council have not referenced the revocation of NWRSS. An amendment of the final SHLAA is therefore required to reflect this change in policy. Housing Density Assumptions - Some assumptions have been based on work carried out in 2010, which is now outdated. This is not robust approach as methodology may be heavily influenced by the housing market downturn back in 2010, as opposed to the changing housing position (and needs) in 2013. Further, the density assumptions which the Council has applied in the Draft SHLAA has the potential “inflate “ the housing supply position in the Borough rather than provide a true picture of delivery. Net Developable Site Area – net developable area should be on an individual site by site basis, depending on the nature of the site and the character of the local area. Delivery Timeframe Assumptions - Accept that the numbers put forward by CWAC are a general approach, however flexibility should be allowed on a site by site basis. Timescales are too stringent (any may be applied to all sites). Allocation of sites within the SHLAA Timeframe – There is neither a strong methodology nor justification provided within the Draft SHLAA to support the approach used by the Council to identify which sites areincluded within each timeframe. Indigo – GMV Eight Limited c/o Commercial Estates Group (CEG) The latest draft has not been prepared in line with the guidance contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the SHLAA Practice Guidance (2007) which highlight the importance of a partnership approach. 8

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

Determining Sources of Land Supply Housing Density Assumptions - the Housing Partnership Group agreed general density assumptions, however, made clear that these were only an estimate and in many cases, represented an over estimate of the level of development that might actually be achieved on sites. Table 2.3 relates to assumptions with regards to the likely net developable area of sites based on their size. Again, on larger sites, these assumptions remain on the ‘high side’ . Delivery Rates. Consider the delivery rate of approximately 25-30 dwellings per developer are appropriate in the short term, increasing to between 30-35 dwellings per developer towards the end of the five year period on the assumption that market conditions will improve (subject to a maximum output of 70 dwellings per annum per site. This broadly aligns with the latest HBF figures, which indicate the completion of approximately 0.5 dwellings per week per developer per site. Assessment Results In terms of those sites identified as being deliverable within the first five years, the Council much adopt the approach advocated in the NPPF (Footnote 11 Paragraph 47) and ensure that only those sites that have supporting evidence of their deliverability in five years, are included in the five year forecast. Table 3.3 Object to the Council including sites that do not currently have planning permission without clear justification and evidence that they will deliver housing within the five year period. Five Year Housing Land Supply As a general principle, we object to the inclusion of a five year housing land supply calculation within the draft 2013 SHLAA. The document should not draw conclusions on the five year housing land supply matter. Disagree with the Council’s assertion that the shortfall of housing identified in 2003-2013 should be addressed over the remainder of the plan period. It should be made up within the following five year period to ensure that the NPPF’s objective to ‘boost significantly’ the supply of housing and meet housing need, is addressed . There are a number of appeal decisions that support the adoption of this approach. Agree that the Council is a 20% authority for the purposes of applying the NPPF buffer, given the extent of past shortfall against the plan requirement to date. Calculating the Supply Do not accept the component elements of the supply identified by the Council in Table 3.3 are justified when assessed against Paragraph 47 and the Footnote of the NPPF .i.e. not all of those categories should be included in the five year housing land supply. Also concerns with regards 9

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

to the assumptions underpinning the actual delivery of sites i.e. application of densities, lead-in times, build rates etc. Indigo Planning Limited Overall approach – Extent of engagement and consultation on 2013 SHLAA has been See Council (Sarah Wozencroft) (on inadequate, no meetings with HPG since Urban Vision consultation. Online and short Responses 1, 5, 6, 8, behalf of GMV Eight consultation periods limited ability for positive and constructive engagement. Latest draft has not 9, 10 11 and 14 Limited c/o Commercial been prepared in line with paragraphs 11 and 12 (Practice Guidance 2007) which highlights below. Estates Group) importance of partnership approach. Sources of land supply – Housing density assumptions – HPG agreed the general density assumptions, and made it clear these were only estimates. Similarly assumptions with regards net developable area over estimated. Deliverability of sites – object to approach outlined at para 2.25 – categorising sites with refused application as unsuitable. Delivery rates – accept higher delivery rates dependent on size of development, location and type of site. Delivery rate approx 25-30 dwellings per developer appropriate on short term, increasing to 30-35 towards end of 5 year period subject to max output of 70 dwellings per annum per site. Small sites allowance – allowance in 2013 draft is higher than that proposed in Partial Review. Assessment Results – sites identified as deliverable within first five years must have supporting evidence of their deliverability. Current approach and components flawed and object, in particular the inclusion of sites that do not have planning permission (unless compelling site specific evidence available) Five year housing land supply – object to inclusion of 5-year supply calculation in the draft, this should be contained in HLM. Unclear as to why recent HLM does not include this calculation. SHLAA should draw no conclusions on five-year housing land supply matter. Calculating five year requirement - RSS remains correct basis for calculation, and correct calculation of shortfall, but this should be met over 5-years not remainder of plan period. Agree the Council is a 20% buffer authority given extent of shortfall, which is a strong rationale. Calculating supply – disagree with calculation, as do not accept component elements of supply are justified when assessed against paragraph 47 of NPPF. Concerned about assumptions under pinning delivery of sites. Bell Ingram Design It is noted that sites are assessed against a list of potential constraints (paragraph 2.12) at an Comments are noted. (Catherine Newton) (on early stage, which is supported. Like to suggest that the ESSR Oil (UK) pipelines are added to behalf of Essar Oil (UK)) the list of sites constraints in order that any potential sites identified in very close proximity to the 10

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

pipeline that come forward are discounted at an early stage. Emery Planning Methodology - Concern that SHLAA does not assess Green Belt sites, despite the Council See Council Partnership (John undertaking a review of Green Belt sites around Chester. The SHLAA should assess all sites Responses 4, 6, 7 Coxon) (on behalf of that could potentially be allocated through the emerging local plan, irrespective of current policy and 14. multiple client’s) constraints. Five Year Housing Requirement -The calculation fails to include an additional buffer of 20% and shortfall should be addressed in the first five years. Five Year Supply - In terms of deliverable sites, table 3.3 of the draft SHLAA includes those where applications have either been withdrawn or permission has explored. Footnote 11 of the NPPF specifically states that sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until planning permission expires. It is therefore unclear what the Council’s justification is for including sites in the first five years when permission has expired. Justification is required as to why those other sites under “no planning status” are deliverable This is particularly important in relation to historic allocations, which have no planning application pending and also sites where pre-application has been given. Small Sites - 352 Dwellings on small sites are included in the five year supply. We maintain that a discount should be applied to existing planning permissions on smaller sites to reflect that not all will come forward in the next five years. Queen’s Park Residents Concerned about the inclusion of green spaces in Curzon Park particularly Mount Pleasant The sites will be Association (Mr Richard playing fields and Greensway triangle. As far as I am aware the playing fields are still used for checked and Lydon) football, recreation and leisure and should be preserved. reassessed where Surprised that more brownfield sites are not included in the SHLAA (like the QP sites), I am sure applicable. more exist in Handbridge ward. Adams Planning and Request for inclusion of site in SHLAA – Land at Milestone Farm, south of Wrexham Road, This site will be Development (Mr Russell Cuddington Heath, Malpas (location plan and site representation included in submission) assessed during the Adams) (on behalf of Mr next update. and Mrs A. Sockett) Russell Homes (Daniel Emerging Local Plan seeks to concentrate most of the Borough’s housing requirements in main The area of survey is Kershaw) urban settlements and 20% in rural area with the focus on 9 key service centres. Whilst these focused on the key service centres provide greatest scope for growth the Council acknowledges that additional urban areas and key housing will come forward through other sites. service centres in the Whilst Swan Green is only a small village it includes a local neighbourhood shop with combined Borough as listed in post office service and public house / restaurant within the settlement boundary. Additional paragraph 2.10 of the facilities are around 800m away in Lower Peover and within walking distance of Swan Green. document. 11

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

Harris Lamb Planning It is not practically possible to properly review all 700 consultation draft sites within 3 weeks, and The Council has had Consultancy (Simon not possible to prepare and submit a detailed representation. full regard to Hawley) Full regard should be had to requirements of NPPF paragraph 47 (deliverability criteria of a site). paragraph 47 of the Housing land supply calculation (table 3.6) – support the use of RSS housing target. ‘Liverpool’ National Planning method is however not suitable and the ‘Sedgefield’ approach to calculating land supply should Policy Framework. be adopted. See Council Confusion regarding the use of a buffer in table 3.6. The report refers to a 20% buffer but the Responses 10 and calculation of land supply only applies a 5% buffer – which we do not support. 14. Satplan Ltd (Shaun Overall approach – Extent of engagement and consultation on 2013 SHLAA has been See Council Taylor) (on behalf of inadequate, no meetings with HPG since Urban Vision consultation. Online and shirt Responses 1, 5, 6, 9, Barratt Homes) consultation periods limited ability for positive and constructive engagement. Latest draft has not 8, and 11. been prepared in line with paras 11 and 12 (Practice Guidance 2007) which highlights importance of partnership approach. Sources of land supply – Housing density assumptions – HPG agreed the general density assumptions, and made it clear these were only estimates. Similarly assumptions with regards net developable areas over estimated. Deliverability of sites – object to approach outlined at para 2.25 – categorising sites with refused application as unsuitable. Delivery rates – accept higher delivery rates dependent on size of development, location and type of site. Delivery rate approx 25-30 dwellings per developer appropriate on short term, increasing to 30-35 towards end of 5 year period subject to max output of 70 dwellings per annum per site. Small sites allowance – allowance in 2013 draft is higher than that proposed in Partial Review. Assessment Results – sites identified as deliverable within first five years must have supporting evidence of their deliverability. Current approach and components flawed and object, in particular the inclusion of sites that do not have planning permission (unless compelling site specific evidence available) Five year housing land supply – object to inclusion of 5-year supply calculation in the draft, this should be contained in HLM. Unclear as to why recent HLM does not include this calculation. SHLAA should draw no conclusions on five-year housing land supply matter. Calculating five year requirement - RSS remains correct basis for calculation, and correct calculation of shortfall, but this should be met over 5-years not remainder of plan period. Agree the Council is a 20% buffer authority given extent of shortfall, which is a strong rationale. 12

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

Calculating supply – disagree with calculation, as do not accept component elements of supply are justified when assessed against para 47 of NPPF. Concerned about assumptions under pinning delivery of sites. Turley Associates (Sam Housing land supply – SHLAA fails to meet requirements of the NPPF by not identifying a min 5- See Council Ryan) (on behalf of year land supply. Redrow consider the position to be considerably worse due to unreasonable Responses 5, 10 and Redrow Homes Ltd) assumptions in respect of ‘flexibility allowance’ and employing the residual approach for 14. calculating supply. Flexibility allowance – there can be no doubt that there has been ‘a record of persistent under delivery of housing’ such that it would be appropriate to apply a 20% buffer (a position accepted in recent Statements of Common Ground for recent appeals. Calculating the requirement – the council should adopt the ‘Sedgefield’ method. Cllr Les Ford Paragraph 1.11 still refers to a 20% buffer – would be better of all references were removed. This will be amended. Emery Planning Five year housing requirement: See Council Partnership (Alison Agree to requirement being based on RSS target. Responses 3, 6, 8 Freeman) (on behalf of Shortfall should be addressed in first five years. and 14. Russell Homes) A 20% buffer should be applied to the calculation (not 5%) Five year housing land supply Unclear what the Council’s justification is for including sites in first five years where planning permission has expired and also sites without planning permission. Clear evidence needed to demonstrate that they would be implemented. Small sites – A discount should be applied to existing planning permissions on smaller sites to reflect that not all will come forward in next five years. Barton Willmore Persistent under delivery has been identified – a 5% buffer is not appropriate, and a 20% buffer See Council (Lorraine Davison) (on should be applied. Responses 3, 5,9,13 behalf of Ashall Property Why has the revocation of NWRSS not been referenced in this update? Amendment to text to and 14. Ltd) reflect this should be made in the final SHLAA. Housing density assumptions – concerned regarding small sample used in Urban Vision work that informed densities. This concern remains. Do not object to a minimum density but density should reflect a site’s locality rather than achieving a density. Density assumptions applied in draft SHLAA have potential to ‘inflate’ housing land supply position rather than provide a true picture of deliverability. Net developable site area – accept general approach to scale of development and base level of developable areas should apply. However, consider that this should be on individual site by site basis depending on nature of site and character of local area. 13

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

Delivery timeframe assumptions – figures are slightly lower than numbers put forward by Housing Partnership which considers that 25 to 30 dpa per developer are appropriate and consistent with industry (HBF) figures. Allocations of sites within SHLAA timeframe – Concerns over approach used to identify which sites are included in time frames. No strong methodology or justification to support this, justification and criteria-based assessment is required. HOW Planning LLP Housing requirement (1-5 years) – consider the five-year housing requirement (1,985 per See Council (Matthew Robinson) annum) to be wholly underestimated. Under supply should be addressed within first five years, a Responses 4, 6, 8, 9 (Ainscough Strategic 20% buffer should be applied to the calculation. Buffer should be applied to backlog as well as and 14 Land) forward five-year requirement. (Annual requirement = 2,681) Housing supply (1-5 years) – Housing land supply considered questionable; Overly optimistic lead-in assumptions; assumes all planning permissions will be delivered; sites without pp should have clear evidence of delivery; LP allocations unlikely to be delivered; and small sites allowance not informed by robust evidence. Five-year calculation – Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply as required in paragraph 47 of NPPF, therefore essential that additional sites come forward to meet the deficit (including some Green Belt sites), and sites are not removed from SHLAA unjustifiably. NLP Planning (Brian Five year requirement – Agree with use of NWRSS until emerging CWaC Local Plan is at more See Council O’Connor) (Gladman advance stage. Responses 3, 10 and Developments) Backlog – Disagree with use of residual method to address backlog. ’Sedgefield’ method should 14, be used. No justification has been provided as to why this method is used. Buffer – Do not agree with application of a 5% buffer and consider a 20% buffer should be applied and justification for this position should be provided. Buffer to backlog – claimed buffer has only been applied to forward 5 year requirement, and should be applied to the backlog as well as the forward requirement. Do not accept this approach – the appropriate buffer (20%) Harrow Estates Plc (Tim Methodology: See Council Noden) DCLG SHLAA Guidance (2007) does not support the council's approach to discounting the Response 2 and 7 suitability of a site for housing based on the fact that it has been subject to a planning refusal. It is considered to be inappropriate and should be deleted from the draft SHLAA assessment methodology. The correct methodology to be used in assessing the suitability of a site for housing is set out in paragraphs 37-38 of the CLG guidance. Paragraph 37 is clear that ‘a site is suitable for housing development if it offers a suitable location for development and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities'. 14

DRAFT SHLAA 2013 - Consultation Responses

Name / Organisation Response Summary of comments

Whilst the wording of both paragraphs 37 and 38 of the guidance are contained in the draft SHLAA, the Council's additional categorisation of sites that have been refused planning permission as unsuitable serves to fundamentally undermine the above criteria..

15

Response to process and methodology consultation comments

Process / subject Response 1.Engagement and The 2011 SHLAA was produced in conjunction with the Housing Partnership Group (HPG). The HPG were also consulted Consultation during the Partial Review of the SHLAA was undertaken by consultants Urban Vision last year. This work has informed the work carried out on the current SHLAA 2013. Building upon the valuable outcomes of partnership working the methodology was open for comment and review by the HPG through an on-line forum (2-16 April 2013). Further consultation was undertaken between 24 May & 14 June 2013. The purpose of the Draft SHLAA 2013 consultation was to make sure the Council has the most up to date factual information about sites. The council intends to regularly monitor and review site information and the SHLAA will be updated on an annual basis. Although the consultation period was fairly short, additional time to reply was agreed for stakeholders and it is felt that the responses set out the view of key stakeholders.

No change required. 2.Methodology The methodology is consistent with CLG Guidance on the preparation of the SHLAA is contained within the 2007 publication “Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments – Practice Guidance”. Whilst this document pre dates the NPPF and includes references to other documents now revoked, it remains the current national guidance on preparing these assessments. Accordingly the Council has continued to follow the approach of this guide. The 2011 SHLAA methodology was produced in conjunction and endorsed by the Housing Partnership Group (HPG). To inform the update of the SHLAA, consultants, Urban Vision were appointed by CWAC to assess the assumptions and methodology used in the SHLAA 2011 and to make recommendations to the Council on potential changes to the study based on the current policy framework. This process included consultation with the HPG. This has informed the current SHLAA 2013, which has been updated to reflect National Planning Policy Framework.

No change required 3. RRS Revocation Since the draft SHLAA was produced the Regional Spatial Strategy has now been revoked and is no longer part of the Development Plan. The SHLAA 2013 will be finalised to inform the ‘Publication’ version of the Local Plan.

The revocation of the RSS will be reflected in the final SHLAA document.

16

Process / subject Response 4.Exclusion of Green It is not the role of the SHLAA to review the Green Belt. This is a role for the Local Plan should it be proven necessary. Belt Sites The scope has not been purposely narrowed down in order to constrain development. A very significant number of sites were assessed. The national guidance for SHLAA’s state that policy restrictions such as designations and protected areas in existing policy can be taken into account and particular types of land excluded from the assessment where justified. The original SHLAA undertaken by the Council decided to exclude sites within the Green Belt and this methodology was subject to consultation and was agreed in principle with Members of the Housing and Planning Group in June 2010. It would be premature at this stage to include specific sites in the Green Belt within the Council’s housing land supply in advance of the Council determining through the Local Plan whether it would be appropriate to remove land from the Green Belt to meet future housing requirements.

No change required 5. Density It is recognised that the application of unrealistic density assumptions could result in an over-or under–estimation of the housing potential of identified sites. The densities applied and agreed by the members of the Housing Partnership during the preparation of the 2011 SHLAA are applied. The assumptions detailed in Table 2.2 have been used to ensure site capacity is calculated consistently in the absence of any other information available to indicate the capacity of sites. The developable area of the site has been calculated and the relevant density assumption has then been applied. Where sites in the SHLAA already have an extant planning permission, the number of units approved as part of the planning permission has been used, unless further intelligence available suggests this is now not realistic or achievable. Members recommended that the current density assumptions are maintained but that these should be kept under review to ensure their ongoing appropriateness.

The Council will continue to monitor the density of future permissions and schemes being implemented in order to inform any future changes to the density assumptions.

17

Process / subject Response 6. No Planning Status The NPPF states that to be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. It sets out how authorities should deal with sites with planning permission (i.e. assume that sites with planning permission are deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years) but NPPF does not state that sites without planning permission should be excluded from the 5 year housing land supply. It is recognized that there is a need to consider such sites on a case-by-case basis and only include those which are considered to have a realistic prospect of delivering housing within five years. The SHLAA guidance itself, at paragraph 20, makes it clear that sites not yet included within the planning process should be considered. It is then a matter of characteristics of these sites as to whether they can be genuinely deliverable and appropriate. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Where the site is classed as achievable and able to deliver units with 5 years the assessment is based on clear evidence provided/available to the Council to support its inclusion in the five year supply e.g positive pre application discussions or were proposed schemes have been discussed with the Council Officers. Including sites that are the subject of pending applications does not mean that the Council is predetermining the planning application process.

No change required 7. Refused Sites/Sites Where sites have been refused permission and are subject to appeal they have not been subject to an assessment at this Subject to appeal time and excluded from the SHLAA, unless on the grounds that the release of a site should first be determined through the Local Plan process. It would be inappropriate for the Council to factor these sites into our future supply of potential land for housing (i.e. put them in the SHLAA) when the Council has decided that there is a significant planning objection which should prevent them being released for development at the current time. Under these circumstances if an appeal was then allowed by an Inspector/Secretary of State, the site would then feature again in the SHLAA. Paragraph 2.14 of the draft SHLAA, states that sites that have been refused planning permission will be not be subject to an assessment at the current time however this does not prevent a site from coming forward in the future should there be a change in circumstances. If the planning status of a site changes, this will be taken into account and amended when the SHLAA is next updated. In terms of planning permissions, these are regularly monitored and form part of the councils housing land supply.

No change required

18

Process / subject Response 8. Small Sites The small sites allowance in the final version of the SHLAA 2013 is based on completions on sites of less than 10 dwellings since the base date (2010) of the Local Plan Publication Draft 2013 and excludes garden land. The allowance is added to the overall housing land supply to take account of the discounting of smaller sites (less than 0.4ha) in the SHLAA. The assumptions applied to forecasting future completions would expect that small sites (a development of less than ten dwellings) would be completed within a three year time frame, dependent upon the type of permission granted. For this reason a small site allowance is included for years four and five only, of the first five year forecasting period. This will avoid errors created through double counting of units as all small sites with an extant planning permission are already included in the housing land supply.

Small sites allowance to be based on the completion on sites of less than 10 dwellings since the base date (i.e. 2010) of the Local Plan - Publication Draft 2013. 9.Delivery Rates In relation to the delivery rates of the sites within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment a consistent Timeframe Assumptions approach is applied to all sites dependent on the stage within the planning process and the size of the site. Alternative build rates have been considered where additional information has been provided from developers or house builders or in line with any current planning permissions. Delivery rates (number of dwellings completed per year) is highly dependant upon the size of a development, the location of the site e.g urban or rural, and the land supply i.e. greenfield or PDL. For the purposes of forecasting delivery, basic rates have been applied to sites where no additional information is available / has been provided. A general rate of 10 to 20 units per year on sites up to 100 dwellings, and 20 to 40 units per year on large sites (over 100 units). Where sites may consist of more than one house builder, a multiplier factor may be applied to the delivery forecasts. A considered judgement has been made in terms of when sites may come forward (short (1 to 5 years), medium (6 to 10 years) or long term (11 years +) To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Where the site is classed as achievable and able to deliver units within 5 years the assessment is based on clear evidence provided/available to the Council to support its inclusion in the five year supply. e.g positive pre application discussions or where proposed schemes have been discussed with the Council Officers.. Circumstances or assumptions may change which may mean that sites could come forward sooner or later than originally envisaged. The SHLAA does not prevent planning applications being submitted on any sites identified or excluded within it at any time. In the current economic climate the assumption is made that sites that are classed as greenfield are more likely to be developed before those classed as PDL due to viability being generally more of a challenge on PDL sites. These assumptions are a result of discussions and the assessment of sample sites with the Housing Partnership Group.

No change required

19

Process / subject Response 10.Sedgefield v Liverpool In relation to the Sedgefield versus Liverpool approach. There is no guidance as to which is the appropriate method and Approach the NPPF is silent on this matter.

The Council will continue to calculate land supply based on the residual (Liverpool) approach. 11. Object to Five Year CLG SHLAA guidance advises that the SHLAA should be regularly kept up-to-date and reviewed annually to support the Supply Calculation being updating of the housing trajectory and the 5 year supply of deliverable sites. included in the SHLAA. The NPPF does not specify how the supply of housing should be identified and updated each year – but it is ordinarily done via a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment – and paragraph 48 of the framework endorses the continued used of this tool. It is considered appropriate to ensure that the final SHLAA document reflects the latest Housing Land Monitoring position.

The five year land supply position will be removed from the SHLAA 12. Site Visits Officers have visited numerous sites during the Housing Land Monitoring exercise in addition aerial photographs have been used along with Officer consultation and considerable local knowledge.

No change required 13. Estimating net The developable area of the site has been calculated and the relevant density assumption had been applied using the developable site area. assumptions within Tables 2.2 and 2.3. Where site specific information exists to suggest realistic alternatives to these assumptions, this has been used to estimate housing capacity of individual sites. This includes current and historic planning permissions, development briefs, pre-application information and site specific constraints.

No change required 14. Buffer On 20th May, the Local Development Framework Panel resolved to apply a 5%, rather than a 20%, buffer in calculating the 5 year supply of deliverable housing land under paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework in the draft SHLAA 2103 for the reasons that: (1) Members considered that the ‘moratorium’ on housebuilding had artificially affected the delivery of new homes in previous years. (2) The adverse market conditions during the recession had resulted in much lower demand and consequent under delivery in recent years. (3) Members believed that the revocation of the RSS meant that the high targets that had been required were no longer applicable. (4) Members did not consider that the housing delivery over the last four years constituted persistent under delivery.

No change required

20