Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy

Assessment of the Urban Potential of the Principal Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres and Possible Development Sites Adjacent to those Settlements

July 2015

Contents

1. Introduction 2. Summary of Assessment Methodologies 3. Summary Results – Stage 1: Urban Potential Assessment 4. Summary Results – Stage 2: Edge of Settlement Assessment 5. Conclusion 6. Glossary 7. Annexes Annex 1: Methodologies Annex 2: Results by settlement followed by ‘free standing sites’ (including summary reports, summary spreadsheet, maps and proformas) Crewe Macclesfield Alsager Congleton Handforth Knutsford Middlewich Nantwich Poynton Sandbach Wilmslow Alderley Edge Audlem Bollington Bunbury Chelford Disley Goostrey Haslington Holmes Chapel Mobberley Prestbury Shavington Wrenbury Cheshire Gateway Gorsty Hill

Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy: Assessment of the ‘Urban Potential’ of the Principal Towns; Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres and Possible Development Sites Adjacent to those Settlements

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 On 6 November 2014, the Inspector appointed to examine the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (LPS), Mr Stephen J. Pratt, published his Interim Views on the soundness and legal compliance of the LPS, in which he expressed a number of specific concerns, including:

 At paragraph 61: “… further clarification may be needed on this matter, [the appropriate balance of greenfield and brownfield sites] particularly about the scale of brownfield development likely to be delivered from site allocations within the existing built-up areas of towns like Crewe, Macclesfield and Middlewich.”

 At paragraph 76 [specifically in relation to Poynton, Knutsford and Wilmslow]: “Many potential sites were assessed during the preparation of the LPS but specific options which envisage the development of smaller sites within the built-up area or on the fringes of these settlements do not seem to have been fully considered.”

 At paragraph 78: “… such work [on the proposed spatial distribution of development] may need to examine the possibility of releasing smaller scale sites in and around the fringes of existing towns and settlements, including those in the Green Belt, to inform further work at Site Allocations stage.”

1.2 The Inspector also identified a number of concerns regarding the Green Belt Assessment [BE012] submitted in support of the LPS, in response to which the Council has now prepared a Green Belt Assessment Update 2015 (GBA Update). To ensure its robustness, evidence relating to the potential for development within settlements that are located within the Green Belt is an essential part of that assessment.

1.3 To address the Inspector’s specific concerns (identified above at paragraph 1.1), the Council has undertaken an assessment of the ‘Urban Potential’ of the Principal Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres – referred to in this Report as the Urban Potential Assessment (UPA). The UPA has informed the GBA Update (particularly in relation to assessing the contribution parcels of land make to the urban regeneration purpose of including land in the Green Belt) and the assessment of opportunities for development within settlements. In turn, those assessments have also informed the additional work undertaken relating to the Spatial Distribution of Development and Site Selection, for both the LPS and the forthcoming Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (SADPD).

1.4 Additionally, an assessment has also been carried out of the development potential of land that lies immediately adjacent to the settlement boundaries/Green Belt

boundaries of the Principal Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres in Cheshire East – referred to in this Report as the Edge of Settlement Assessment (ESA). The development potential of such land has been considered previously in the Town Strategies [BE083-BE099], as Non-Preferred sites (included in the Non Preferred Sites Justification Paper [SD016]), or as ‘Omission’ sites promoted within representations on the LPS publication draft.

1.5 Furthermore, the Council has included two large ‘freestanding’ sites within the ESA, namely: a site known as ‘Cheshire Gateway’, which is being promoted through the Local Plan process for employment development; and a site on a former golf course at Gorsty Hill, which is being promoted through the Local Plan process for residential development. These sites were submitted as representations to the publication of the LPS Submission Draft (as Omission Sites) and are therefore being actively promoted for development within the Local Plan process. Both sites have been included in the ESA to ensure that all reasonable alternatives are considered. N.B – All other Omission Sites not immediately adjacent to Principal Towns, Key Service Centres or Local Service Centres have not been assessed, as they are not considered to be reasonable alternatives or they are of a size that could be given further consideration for inclusion in the SADPD.

1.6 The UPA and ESA are separate pieces of work to the GBA Update. Consequently, neither Assessment includes any references to the contribution that sites make to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. This important consideration will be considered as part of the ‘Site Selection’ and/or Site Allocations stage.

1.7 The work to assess the development potential of land within and adjacent to these settlements has been carried out in two stages: the first stage being the UPA; and the second stage being the ESA, to identify and assess potential opportunities for the release of land for development, should it be required.

1.8 Both stages of assessment have identified potential opportunities to release land for future development, if required in the LPS, and to inform future work on the preparation of the SADPD.

2. SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

Stage 1: Methodology for identifying ‘Urban Potential’ within Settlements

2.1 The methodology used for the Stage 1: Urban Potential Assessment is summarised below:

 Settlements covered - Principal Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres.

 A ‘refresh’ of relevant SHLAA sites, along with an update and expansion of the ‘Assessment of Additional Brownfield Potential for Housing Development’ [BE041].

 Objective – identify all potential sites within settlement/Green Belt boundaries that potentially could be developed for housing during the Plan period.

 For the towns of Crewe, Middlewich, Nantwich and Sandbach – only sites of 10 or more dwellings were considered, as these settlements do not lie within the Green Belt; for all other settlements sites capable of accommodating 1 or more dwellings were considered.

 The relevant findings of the on-going ‘Macclesfield Brownfield Land Initiative’ were fed into the work.

 Standard proforma for site assessments were used.

 Step 1: Production of base maps to show information (e.g. Green Belt boundaries; SHLAA sites; Non-Preferred sites).

 Step 2: Desk-based assessment using existing mapped information; identification of any potential ‘new’ sites for site visit.

 Step 3 Site visits and identification of any new sites (e.g. empty buildings, sites for sale).

 Step 4: Complete proformas and research site histories etc.

 Step 5: Internal officer ‘peer review’ of sites.

 Step 6: Complete summary spreadsheet and finalise proformas.

 Step 7: Produce report for settlement.

 Step 8: Produce map of sites surveyed and extract map from relevant (draft) Town Strategy (if appropriate).

Stage 2: Summary of Methodology for Edge of Settlement Assessment

2.2 The methodology used for the Stage 2: Edge of Settlement Assessment, involving the assessment of the development potential of sites immediately adjacent to settlement/Green Belt boundaries is summarised below:

 Settlements covered: Principal Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres.

 Objective: evaluate sites adjacent to Settlement/Green Belt boundaries previously considered as potential development sites in Local Plan process, including ‘Omission’ Sites and the ‘freestanding’ ‘Omission’ Sites of Cheshire Gateway and Gorsty Hill. Consider potential sites for release in Local Plan Strategy/at Site Allocations stage.

 Standard proforma for site assessments were used.

 Step 1: Production of base maps to show information e.g. Green Belt boundaries, SHLAA sites, Non Preferred Sites, Local Plan representation (‘Omission’) Sites.

 Step 2: Desk based assessment, including the consideration of available information on sites including (draft) Town Strategy, Non-Preferred sites and Omission Sites.

 Step 3: Site visits.

 Step 4: Complete proformas and ‘refresh’ existing site information.

 Step 5: Consider all relevant information including that from Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) etc.

 Step 6: Internal officer ‘peer review’ of sites.

 Step 7: Finalise proformas and recommendation for each site re possible further consideration for potential future release of land in the LPS or SADPD. If it is recommended that the site could be given further consideration for inclusion in the LPS, a recommendation is included to state that the site should be subject to SA (such sites are also subject to HRA); completion of summary spreadsheet.

 Step 8: Production of report for settlement.

 Step 9: Production of maps showing sites to be subject to SA and HRA and to show sites that have been included in the ESA and extract map from relevant (draft) Town Strategy (if appropriate).

Additional considerations

2.3 Save as otherwise stated, the following additional considerations were common to both methodologies (Stages 1 and 2):

 Screen out (for Urban Potential only): Sites in active use, gardens (unless included in a SHLAA site), open space; land with major constraints.

 Density: Assumed to be 30 dwellings per hectare unless a clear reason to deviate from this, including taking into account submission from site promoters and site characteristics.

 Information resources: Wide ranging including evidence base, Local Plan representations and Examination Library.

 Brownfield sites: Definition is the same as that given for ‘previously developed land’ in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 Vacant buildings: It is assumed that vacant buildings can be demolished, unless they are historic buildings on the statutory list, within a Conservation

Area, on the Local List of Historic Buildings; or site specific reasons dictate otherwise. Where buildings are to be converted, the RIBA publication ‘The Case for Space: The Size of England’s New Homes’ is used as a guide.

 Site visit date recorded: sites were surveyed over a period between November 2014 and April 2015.

 Housing completions and commitments data: The base date for this data is 31 December 2014, as this is the latest information that was available at the time that the assessments were carried out.

 Mapping of sites considered in the assessments: All sites considered are mapped as at April 2015 (the site survey date). The maps also show housing commitments of 10 or more dwellings (the site size threshold of a large site in the SHLAA) as at 30 June 2015; this provides an up to date picture of housing commitments for each settlement.

2.4 Full details of the methodologies and supporting information are included within Annex 1.

2.5 A glossary of terms used in the Assessments follows the conclusions of this report.

3. SUMMARY RESULTS – STAGE 1: URBAN POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT

3.1 The Summary Reports, Summary Spreadsheets, maps and proformas can be found within Annex 2, which are grouped by settlement.

3.2 The summary results from the Stage 1: Urban Potential Assessment (numbers of dwellings) are shown in Table 1 (below).

Sites with Potential for Development During the Sites without Potential for Development During Plan Period the Plan Period Greenfield Brownfield Total Greenfield Brownfield Total Crewe 35 488 523 165 78 243 Macclesfield 35 431 466 180 609 789 Principal Towns 70 919 989 345 687 1032 Alsager 27 4 31 111 5 116 Congleton 196 56 252 468 542 1010 Handforth 15 9 24 81 243 324 Knutsford 0 0 0 10 85 95 Middlewich 48 0 48 213 1056 1269 Nantwich 0 60 60 0 0 0 Poynton 0 15 15 9 133 142 Sandbach 54 102 156 47 233 280 Wilmslow 0 37 37 12 74 86 Key Service Centres 340 283 623 951 2371 3322 Alderley Edge 6 4 10 0 8 8 Audlem 3 0 3 0 0 0 Bollington 53 49 102 50 66 116 Bunbury 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelford 3 1 4 0 23 23 Disley 0 71 71 3 18 21 Goostrey 15 2 17 21 9 30 Haslington 0 0 0 0 0 0 Holmes Chapel 69 73 142 95 110 205 Mobberley 0 0 0 0 375 375 Prestbury 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shavington 4 0 4 0 0 0 Wrenbury 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Service Centres 153 200 353 169 609 778 Totals 563 1402 1965 1465 3667 5132 Table 1 - Summary Results - Stage 1: Urban Potential Assessment – numbers of dwellings

3.3 Relevant to the Stage 1: Urban Potential Assessment are the following brownfield initiatives which were agreed by Council’s Cabinet on 16 September 2014:

 Cheshire East Council to be at the forefront in the use of Local Development Orders by establishing a cross-departmental Task Group to develop a pilot within Macclesfield, identifying and working with the owners of brownfield sites, to help bring them forward for development.

 Work with Government to explore the creation of a fund to build capacity to develop knowledge and understanding of smaller sites likely to be beneficiaries of Local Development Orders.

 Explore the potential for the development of an Equity share or grant schemes, delivered through a public/private partnership approach.

 Work with the Government on the development of tax incentives targeted at brownfield sites that were identified within the Local Development Orders or in existing town centre boundaries.

3.4 It should be noted that the UPA screens out sites that are in use. However, some of the sites that have been screened out could deliver new homes over the Plan period, if their use ceases. This is considered to be a realistic possibility, as many of these sites are included in the SHLAA and thus reflect aspirations for the development of land. It is considered, therefore, that the figures included within the UPA could be exceeded if some of the sites that are screened out of the UPA are developed; such sites would be windfall sites.

3.5 In the case of the Strategic Locations of SL4 Central Macclesfield and SL1 Central Crewe, figures are included in the LPS of 500 and 250 dwellings respectively, to be delivered over the Plan period; the evidence in the UPA, along with mechanisms to help bring brownfield sites forward, assists in justifying these figures.

3.6 It is considered that the UPA provides a realistic indication of the quantum of sites that have the potential to come forward during the Plan period within the settlements that have been assessed, at the time that the assessment was carried out.

Interpreting the Stage 1: Urban Potential Assessment Results

3.7 Overview – There is an assessed urban potential for 1,965 dwellings across the Borough, of which 563 dwellings are on greenfield sites and 1,402 are on brownfield sites. Sites assessed as not having the potential to deliver dwellings on them in the Plan period, total 5,132 dwellings. As stated above, although these sites are not currently considered to have potential for development in the Plan period, it is possible that, due to changes in circumstances, some of these sites may come forward for development in the Plan period. Inevitably the assessment work represents a snap shot in time.

3.8 Principal Towns: Almost half of the sites considered to have the potential for development in the Plan period are located in Crewe (523) and Macclesfield (466), a total of 989 potential dwellings, with most of those being on brownfield sites (919).

3.9 Crewe – the UPA has shown that there are sites with the potential for development of at least 500 dwellings within the Plan period. A figure of 250 dwellings is included in Appendix A of the Local Plan Strategy for Central Crewe Strategic Location SL1 (this is qualified as being the whole urban area of Crewe) within the Plan period. The urban potential results show that there are sufficient sites in Crewe to be confident that the brownfield figure for Crewe shown in the LPS can be delivered. Although it is acknowledged that the Council’s CIL Viability Assessment [BE042] indicates that

the viability of brownfield sites can be an issue in urban Crewe, recent approvals and development activity indicate that such sites are being developed. For example, residential development is taking place on land adjacent to Bombardier, West Street, where 143 dwellings (Ref 13/3102N) are under construction and the former Sir William Stanier School, where 107 dwellings (Ref 13/4382N) are under construction, both by Registered Providers. In addition, the various initiatives listed above are of relevance. In terms of facilitating the development of brownfield sites in Crewe, Cheshire East Council is carrying out some initial work, in partnership with FSL Consulting (who are also working in partnership with Cheshire East Council on the Macclesfield Brownfield Land Initiative), with the aim of establishing a Delivery Toolkit, to enable Housing Officers to work with owners of brownfield land, to find ways of assisting them to bring forward their sites.

3.10 Macclesfield - the UPA has shown that there are sites with the potential for development of at least 400 dwellings within the Plan period. A figure of 500 dwellings is included in Appendix A of the Local Plan Strategy for Central Macclesfield Strategic Location SL4 (this is qualified as being the whole urban area of Macclesfield). There are also some sites in the screened out list that have potential to come forward due to previous housing interest or site owners actively seeking new premises (such as the King’s School). These sites have however been screened out at present as they are still in active use and therefore are not immediately available for development. There are also a number of brownfield initiatives that have been set up that will ensure that brownfield sites are delivered within the Plan period, as referred to above; they include setting up a pilot Local Development Order in Macclesfield. Again, this assists in justifying the figure of 500 dwellings, for Local Plan Strategy Strategic Location SL4 referred to above.

3.11 The Pam Upchurch (on behalf of Land East of Fence Avenue (LEFA) residents group) assessment of potential in Macclesfield was submitted in the form of a list of sites that they considered could have development potential within the town. As part of the assessment, all the sites put forward by them have been examined, and where there was a site they put forward that met the criteria in the methodology, it was referenced in the proformas.

3.12 Key Service Centres: The Key Service Centres have sites with the potential for the development of 623 dwellings in the Plan period, with most of them being located in Congleton (252) and Sandbach (156).

3.13 There are no opportunities to identify additional Strategic Sites/Strategic Locations within the urban areas of the Key Service Centres; there are however some opportunities for what may be called ‘windfall’ sites (land unidentified in the LPS and too small to be allocated) to be delivered over the Plan period within the towns and in

some cases, such as Congleton, there could also be the opportunity to allocate sites within the urban area, at the Site Allocations stage.

3.14 Alsager – The UPA showed that there are limited opportunities for development to take place within the urban area of Alsager, with a total of 31 potential new homes being delivered on sites within the Plan period. Of these a total of 27 are on greenfield sites and only 4 on brownfield sites. This shows therefore that there are no opportunities to identify additional Strategic Sites within the urban area of Alsager; it does however show that there are some opportunities for windfall sites to be delivered over the Plan period within the town.

3.15 Congleton - The UPA showed that there is potential for development to take place within the urban area of Congleton to deliver a total of 252 new homes on sites within the Plan period. Of these sites, 196 are on greenfield sites and 56 are on brownfield sites. The UPA did not reveal any sites within the urban area of Congleton that could be identified as additional Strategic Sites, however it has shown that there are sites that could be given further consideration at Site Allocations stage, and there is a range of sites that could deliver windfalls over the Plan period.

3.16 Handforth - The UPA showed that there are limited opportunities for development to take place within the urban area of Handforth, with a total of 24 potential new homes being delivered on sites within the Plan period. Of these a total of 15 are on greenfield sites and only 9 on brownfield sites. This shows therefore that there are no opportunities to identify additional Strategic Sites within the urban area of Handforth; it does however show that there are some opportunities for windfall sites to be delivered over the Plan period within the town. This possibly reflects the fact that Handforth is situated within the Green Belt, where development opportunities are extremely limited and therefore if development opportunities do arise within the urban area they are soon taken up.

3.17 Knutsford - The UPA showed that there are no current opportunities with a reasonable prospect for development to take place within the urban area of Knutsford. This shows therefore that there are not any opportunities to identify additional Strategic sites within the urban area of Knutsford. This reflects the fact that Knutsford is a very desirable place to live, situated within the Green Belt, where development opportunities are extremely limited and when development opportunities do arise within the urban area they are soon taken up.

3.18 Middlewich - The UPA showed that there is the potential within the urban area of Middlewich to deliver a total of 48 new homes on sites during the Plan period. All of these sites are greenfield, with no brownfield sites being identified. The UPA did not reveal any sites within the urban area of Middlewich that could be identified as additional Strategic Sites however it has shown that there is a range of sites that

could deliver housing on windfall sites over the Plan period. It should be noted that the site size threshold for Middlewich is 10 dwellings or more therefore there could also be opportunities for smaller sites to deliver windfalls over the Plan period.

3.19 Nantwich - The UPA showed that there is the potential within the urban area of Nantwich to deliver a total of 60 new homes during the Plan period. This figure relates to one brownfield area of Nantwich - Strategic Site CS23 Snow Hill, which is identified as an area for mixed use regeneration in the Local Plan. A specific number of dwellings was not assigned to this site in the Local Plan Strategy, as it was not considered to be appropriate to be prescriptive in respect of this site. The UPA did not reveal any other sites within the urban area of Nantwich that could be identified as additional Strategic Sites. Nantwich is a town that is a very desirable place to live, where development opportunities are quickly taken up. It should be noted that the site size threshold for Nantwich is 10 dwellings or more therefore there could also be opportunities for smaller sites to deliver windfall sites over the Plan period.

3.20 Poynton - The UPA showed that there are limited opportunities for development to take place within the urban area of Poynton, with a total of 15 potential new homes being delivered on sites within the Plan period. All of these are on brownfield sites. This shows therefore that there are not any opportunities to identify additional Strategic Sites within the urban area of Poynton. This possibly reflects the fact that Poynton is situated within the Green Belt, where development opportunities are extremely limited and therefore if development opportunities do arise within the urban area they are soon taken up.

3.21 Sandbach - The UPA showed that there is the potential within the urban area of Sandbach to deliver a total of 156 new homes on sites during the Plan period. Of these sites 54 are greenfield, with 102 brownfield sites being identified. The UPA did not reveal any sites within the urban area of Sandbach that could be identified as additional Strategic Sites however it has shown that there is a range of sites that could deliver windfalls over the Plan period and that there are sites that could be given further consideration at Site Allocations stage. It should be noted that the site size threshold for Sandbach is 10 dwellings or more therefore there could also be opportunities for smaller sites to deliver windfall sites over the Plan period. Sandbach is considered to be a popular and desirable place to live in the Borough with good public transport and road links and is clearly attractive to developers.

3.22 Wilmslow - The UPA showed that there are limited opportunities for development to take place within the urban area of Wilmslow, with a total of 37 potential new homes being delivered on such sites within the Plan period. All of these are on brownfield sites. This shows therefore that there are no opportunities to identify additional Strategic Sites within the urban area of Wilmslow. This possibly reflects the fact that Wilmslow is situated within the Green Belt and is a very popular place to live, where

development opportunities are extremely limited and therefore if development opportunities do arise within the urban area they are soon taken up.

3.23 The Residents of Wilmslow (RoW) group submitted a list of sites that they considered could have development potential within the town. As part of the assessment, all the sites put forward by the RoW have been examined, and where there was a site they put forward that met the criteria in the methodology, it was referenced in the site proformas.

3.24 Local Service Centres: The UPA showed that within the Local Service Centres (LSCs) there are limited opportunities for development to take place within their urban areas, with a total of 353 potential new homes being delivered on sites within the Plan period. Of these sites, 153 are on greenfield sites and 200 are on brownfield sites.

3.25 The opportunities range from zero in some settlements such as Bunbury, Haslington, Mobberley and Prestbury to very limited opportunities in Alderley Edge with the potential for 10 dwellings to be developed in the Plan period, with the greatest opportunities being in Holmes Chapel (142) and Bollington (102).

3.26 The LSCs that are inset in the Green Belt have sites that potentially could deliver 187 dwellings; with those LSCs located outside of the Green Belt potentially delivering 166 dwellings.

3.27 Many of the settlements inset in the Green Belt have no such opportunities (e.g. Mobberley and Prestbury), illustrating that they are settlements where development opportunities are soon taken up and therefore very desirable places to live.

3.28 Overall, this UPA shows that over the Plan period there is the potential for 353 dwellings to be delivered within the LSCs. This figure could be explored further when the Site Allocations work is carried out, to see if any of these sites could be formally identified as allocated housing sites.

4. SUMMARY RESULTS - STAGE 2: EDGE OF SETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT 4.1 The Summary Reports, Summary Spreadsheets, maps and proformas can be found within Annex 2, which are grouped by settlement, followed by the ‘freestanding’ sites of Cheshire Gateway and Gorsty Hill.

4.2 The summary results of the ‘Stage 2: Edge of Settlement Assessment of the development potential of sites immediately adjacent to settlement/Green Belt boundaries’ (numbers of dwellings) are shown in Table 2 below.

Sites with Potential for Further Consideration Sites Not Suitable for Further Consideration Greenfield Brownfield Total Greenfield Brownfield Total Crewe 10078 0 10078 0 0 0 Macclesfield 4823 70 4893 360 0 360 Principal Towns 14901 70 14971 360 0 360 Alsager 1434 0 1434 190 0 190 Congleton 2850 0 2850 0 0 0 Handforth 1521 0 1521 339 33 372 Knutsford 2368 0 2368 3273 0 3273 Middlewich 620 11 631 300 0 300 Nantwich 1133 0 1133 1964 0 1964 Poynton 2251 540 2791 1255 0 1255 Sandbach 4718 0 4718 263 0 263 Wilmslow 2588 14 2602 770 0 770 Key Service Centres 19483 565 20048 8354 33 8387 Alderley Edge 1153 0 1153 0 0 0 Audlem* 120 0 120 181 0 181 Bollington 59 0 59 0 0 0 Bunbury 187 0 187 0 0 0 Chelford 0 0 0 902 0 902 Disley 101 0 101 0 0 0 Goostrey 138 0 138 0 0 0 Haslington 178 0 178 0 0 0 Holmes Chapel 324 0 324 0 0 0 Mobberley 245 0 245 0 0 0 Prestbury 104 0 104 0 0 0 Shavington 300 0 300 0 0 0 Wrenbury 117 0 117 0 0 0 Local Service Centres 3026 0 3026 1083 0 1083 Gorsty Hill (freestanding site) 900 0 900 0 0 0 Totals 38310 635 38945 9797 33 9830 * Audlem site for 120 dwellings was allowed on appeal (7/01/2015)

Table 2 - Summary results of the Stage 2: Edge of Settlement Assessment – numbers of dwellings

4.3 Tables 3 and 4 (below) summarise potential locations for employment development:

Employment Sites with Potential for FurtherIndividual Consideration Employment Sites with Potential for Further Local Plan Strategy (Ha) Site Allocations (Ha) East of London Road Macclesfield SUB 2124 2.5

10 SW Development Area Macclesfield SUB 2177, 2371,1784 Newcastle Road, Willaston, Crewe SUB3431 5.63 Radway Green south of Crewe Road Alsager SUB 1870 10 Land to the west of Parkgate Knutsford SUB 2623 10 Land between Manchester Road and Tabley Road, 5 Knutsford SUB 2604 Potential Extension to CS18 East of Manchester Road 1 and west of Tatton Park SUB 2623 Land to East of Poynton Industrial Estate* (NPS & in 11 SHLAA for employment use) Woodford Aerodrome, Poynton SUB 2433 4

Land west of London Road, Hope Green, Poynton* (land 4 between industrial area & proposed bypass- estimated) South Nantwich employment as part of mixed use 0.37 (3,700sqm max floor area B1b,c, B2, B8) Cheshire Gateway SUB 3425 34.6 TOTALS 73.47 24.63

*Please note: Poynton sites marked with an asterisk* are not sites currently being promoted in the Local Plan process but have been identified as having potential for further consideration

Table 3 Summary of potential locations for employment development

Employment Sites with Potential for Further Consideration Local Plan Strategy (Ha) Site Allocations (Ha) Crewe 5.63 Macclesfield 12.5 Principal Towns 12.5 5.63 Alsager 10 Congleton Handforth Knutsford 16 Middlewich Nantwich 0.37 Poynton* 19 Sandbach Wilmslow Key Service centres 26.37 19 Cheshire Gateway 34.6 Other Sites 34.6 Totals 73.47 24.63

*Please note: Poynton sites marked with an asterisk* are not sites currently being promoted in the Local Plan process but have been identified as having potential for further consideration

Table 4 - Settlement totals of employment sites with potential for further consideration

4.4 Tables 3 and 4 above show the potential employment sites within the Borough that have been highlighted through the ESA. The sites in Poynton that are marked with an asterisk are included in the table, although they are not currently being actively promoted in the Local Plan process. They have been included in the table as it is considered to be important to illustrate these potential employment sites that could be given further consideration for inclusion in the SADPD , following the call for sites that is due to take place later this year. Both of these sites have previously been included in the Local Plan process; the land to the east of Poynton Industrial Estate is a Non Preferred Site and a site in the SHLAA (for employment purposes), whilst the land west of London Road is part of a Non Preferred Site and was a site in the Draft Poynton Town Strategy. Both of these sites have been assessed as part of the ESA.

4.5 The ESA has assessed sites that have been considered previously in the Local Plan process, including the (draft) Town Strategies and the Non-Preferred Sites Justification Paper [SD016]. The assessment has also considered sites that are being actively promoted through the Local Plan process as Omission Sites (i.e., those included in representations made in response to the publication of the LPS Submission Version.

4.6 In relation to some of the Local Service Centres, sites have been included in the study that lie adjacent to the settlement and are the subject of planning applications;

this illustrates the level of development pressure that there is adjacent to these settlements.

4.7 The site capacities applied vary according to the information available for each site; the most appropriate information has been used in each case. Where a site is an Omission Site, the capacity proposed by the site promoter has been used; if this information has not been provided, a capacity from the SHLAA or using 30 dwellings per hectare have been used. Such capacities reflect known features on the ground, such as woodland or ponds which could reduce the developable site area.

4.8 This ESA identifies those sites that may be considered further for inclusion in the LPS as potential Strategic Sites, along with those that could be given further consideration at the Site Allocations stage. This illustrates that there is a ‘pool of sites’ that may be considered for inclusion in the LPS.

4.9 As this work feeds into the Site Selection work for any potential sites to be included in the LPS or considered at the Site Allocations stage, a recommendation is included in the proforma for each site that has been assessed. The recommendations state that if a site is not being actively promoted it should not be given any further consideration, as it is not considered to be a reasonable alternative; if a site is considered to be a reasonable alternative as either a site to be included in the LPS or to be considered at the Site Allocations stage, the recommendation reflects that.

4.10 If a site is considered to have a ‘showstopper’ development constraint associated with it, that is made clear and it is stated that it is not considered to be a reasonable alternative. Those sites that are recommended for further consideration as potential sites to be included in the LPS include a recommendation that they should be subject to Sustainability Appraisal (such sites are also subject to Habitats Regulations Assessment).

Interpreting the Stage 2: Edge of Settlement Assessment Results

4.11 Overview – The ESA showed that land is being actively promoted that potentially could deliver 38,945 dwellings, which is suitable for further consideration as land to be potentially identified as additional Strategic Sites, or allocated during the Site Allocations process, where additional land is required. Of these sites, the majority of dwellings (38,310) are located on greenfield sites, with the minority (635) on brownfield sites. This includes the freestanding proposal of 900 dwellings promoted on a former golf course at Gorsty Hill.

4.12 In addition, land was also assessed that could accommodate an additional 9,830 dwellings; of these, the majority (9,797) would be on greenfield sites and the minority (33) on brownfield sites. This land is not, however, considered to be suitable for further consideration, due mainly to the fact that it is not being actively promoted

through the Local Plan process, or where the development of the site is not supported due to one or more ‘showstopper’ constraints on development.

4.13 Land has also been assessed that is being promoted for employment development; a total site area of 73.47ha, which is split between Macclesfield (12.50ha); the Key Service Centres of Alsager (10ha); Knutsford (16ha) and Nantwich (0.37ha); in addition, the freestanding proposal of Cheshire Gateway (34.60ha) has also been assessed. This information is shown on Tables 3 and 4.

4.14 Principal Towns: Almost a third of the sites assessed are located in Crewe and Macclesfield, which potentially could accommodate a total of 14,971 new dwellings.

4.15 Both towns have a pool of sites to choose from, when considering the identification of additional land for housing development, either as additional Strategic Sites for inclusion in the LPS, or as sites for inclusion in SADPD.

4.16 Crewe – A total of 10,078 dwellings could be accommodated on the sites that have been assessed and are being actively promoted in the Local Plan process; these are all located on greenfield sites. These sites are considered to be suitable for further consideration for inclusion in the LPS or SADPD, illustrating that there is a pool of sites to choose from.

4.17 However, the majority of the dwellings (8,713) are on sites that lie within the area identified as Green Gap by Policy NE.4 within the adopted Replacement Borough of Crewe and Nantwich Local Plan (2011). As the LPS seeks to retain the Green Gap between Crewe and Nantwich and settlements to the south and east of Crewe, the site selection process will have to give very careful consideration to this issue. In addition, a representation made in response to the LPS publication draft promotes 5.63ha of land partly within the Green Gap for commercial uses.

4.18 Macclesfield - A total of 4,893 dwellings could be accommodated on the sites that have been assessed and are being actively promoted in the Local Plan process; these are mainly (4,823) located on greenfield sites, with a small number (70) on brownfield sites. A total of 12.50ha of potential employment land is promoted on two sites (of 2.50 hectares and 10 hectares). These sites are considered to be suitable for further consideration for inclusion in the LPS or SADPD, illustrating that there is a pool of sites to choose from. However, all of this land is located in the Green Belt, a factor that will have to be given very careful consideration in the site selection process.

4.19 Key Service Centres: Sites are being actively promoted in the Local Plan process in the Key Service Centres that, potentially, could accommodate 20,048 dwellings, with most of these being promoted adjacent to Sandbach (4,718 - all are on greenfield sites) and Congleton (2,850 - all are on greenfield sites). In the north of the Borough on land currently within the Green Belt, the greatest number of sites being promoted

are located adjacent to Poynton (2,791; of which 2,251 are on greenfield sites and 540 are on brownfield sites), Wilmslow (2,602; of which 2,588 are on greenfield sites and 14 are on greenfield sites) and Knutsford (2,368 – all are on greenfield sites).

4.20 All of the Key Service Centres have a pool of sites to choose from, when considering the identification of additional land for housing development to take place upon it, either as additional Strategic Sites for inclusion in the LPS, or as sites for inclusion through the Site Allocation process. The sites in the north of the Borough all lie adjacent to these settlements in the Green Belt; no sites were identified adjacent to these settlements that are not located in the Green Belt.

4.21 Alsager – Sites are being promoted adjacent to Alsager that potentially could deliver 1,434 dwellings. All of these sites are located on greenfield land, with one site (360 dwellings) being located in the Green Belt.

4.22 One of the sites also includes a proposal for 10ha of employment land.

4.23 Congleton - Sites are being promoted adjacent to Congleton that potentially could deliver 2,850 dwellings. All of these sites are located on greenfield land, with one site (100 dwellings) being located in the Green Belt.

4.24 Handforth - Sites are being promoted adjacent to Handforth that potentially could deliver 1,521 dwellings. All of these sites are located on greenfield land.

4.25 However, all of this land is located in the Green Belt, a factor that will be given very careful consideration in during the site selection process.

4.26 Knutsford - Sites are being promoted adjacent to Knutsford that potentially could deliver 2,368 dwellings, two of which are smaller sites that could deliver a total of 128 dwellings and could be given further consideration at the Site Allocations stage.

4.27 All of these sites are located on greenfield land. This includes 16ha of land being promoted as employment land, as part of mixed use proposals.

4.28 However, all of this land is located in the Green Belt, therefore during the site selection process, this will have to be given very careful consideration.

4.29 Middlewich - Sites are being promoted adjacent to Middlewich that potentially could accommodate 631 dwellings. The majority (620) of these sites are located on greenfield land, with a small number (11) on brownfield sites.

4.30 Nantwich – Two sites are being promoted adjacent to Nantwich that potentially could accommodate 1,133 dwellings. Both of these sites are located on greenfield land. This includes 0.37 hectares of employment land being promoted as part of a large potential residential development.

4.31 Poynton - Sites are being promoted adjacent to Poynton that potentially could deliver 2,791 dwellings, a number of which are smaller sites which could be given

further consideration at the Site Allocations stage. The majority (2,251) of these sites are located on greenfield land, with the minority (540 – former Woodford aerodrome) being located on brownfield land. This includes 4ha of employment land being promoted at Woodford Aerodrome.

4.32 However, all of this land is located in the Green Belt, therefore during the site selection process, this will have to be given very careful consideration.

4.33 Sandbach - Sites are being promoted adjacent to Sandbach that potentially could deliver 4,718 dwellings. All of these sites are located on greenfield land.

4.34 Wilmslow - Sites are being promoted adjacent to Wilmslow that potentially could deliver 2,602 dwellings, four of which are smaller sites that could deliver a total of 187 dwellings and could be given further consideration at the Site Allocations stage.

4.35 The majority (2,588) of these sites are located on greenfield land, with the minority (14 on sites that are currently in mixed uses) being located on brownfield land.

4.36 All of this land is however located in the Green Belt, therefore during the site selection process, this will have to be given very careful consideration.

4.37 Local Service Centres: Sites are being promoted adjacent to Local Service Centres (LSCs) that potentially could deliver 3,026 dwellings, all of which would be on greenfield sites. NB: this figure includes 120 dwellings on a site adjacent to Audlem that was granted planning permission at appeal on 7 January 2015; a representation was received in relation to this site in response to the publication of the LPS Submission Version.

4.38 Strategic Sites are not allocated in LSCs, due to their location in the Settlement Hierarchy. However, they potentially will have sites allocated within them in the SADPD

4.39 The LSCs that are inset in the Green Belt have sites being promoted adjacent to them that potentially could deliver 1,662 dwellings; with those LSCs located outside of the Green Belt potentially delivering 1,364 dwellings. This shows that there is a pool of sites to choose from at the Site Allocations stage. Some of those sites will however be located in the Green Belt; this will have to be given very careful consideration during the site selection process.

4.40 Gorsty Hill – This site potentially could deliver 900 dwellings on land that is located adjacent to an existing residential and golf course development, in the south of the Borough at Gorsty Hill which is located about 6km south-east of Crewe. The site is a greenfield, former golf course site which is not located in the Green Gap or the Green Belt. The site is not adjacent to a settlement; however it is a large, freestanding proposal being actively promoted in the Local Plan process. This site has therefore

been included in this assessment, to ensure that all reasonable alternatives are considered.

4.41 Cheshire Gateway – This potentially could deliver 34.60 hectares of employment land, on of two parcels of land, east and west of the A556 at junctions 7 and 8 of the M56, north of Knutsford. The land is greenfield and lies in the Green Belt. The site is not adjacent to a settlement; however it is a large, freestanding proposal being actively promoted in the Local Plan process. This site has therefore been included in this assessment, to ensure that all reasonable alternatives are considered.

5. CONCLUSION

5.1 The Stage 1: Urban Potential Assessment has shown that the housing figures assigned to the Strategic Locations in Crewe (SL1 – 250 dwellings) and Macclesfield (SL4 – 500 dwellings) can be justified. The assessment shows that there is the potential for 523 (of which 488 are brownfield and 35 are greenfield) dwellings to be developed over the Plan period in Crewe and 466 (of which 431 are brownfield and 35 greenfield) in Macclesfield. This clearly addresses the concerns raised by the Inspector in paragraph 61 of his Interim Views, where he says that further clarification is required on the scale of brownfield development likely to be delivered from site allocations in Crewe and Macclesfield.

5.2 In relation to Middlewich (which is also referenced by the Inspector in paragraph 61 of his Interim Views), the UPA shows a potential for 48 dwellings (all of which are greenfield) to be developed within the town, over the Plan period however the site size capacity assessed in Middlewich was 10 dwellings or more therefore smaller sites could also provide windfalls over the Plan period, along with a proportion of the 1,269 dwellings that have been assessed as currently not having potential.

5.3 In relation to paragraphs 76 and 78 of the Inspector’s Interim Views, he referred to the potential for smaller sites to be identified within or on the fringes of settlements, and referred specifically to Poynton, Knutsford and Wilmslow. The assessment of urban potential and sites adjacent to settlements has shown that in relation to:

5.3.1 Poynton: there is the potential for only 15 dwellings to be developed over the Plan period, within the settlement; sites are being actively promoted adjacent to Poynton that could deliver 2,791 dwellings, one of which is a smaller site that could deliver 40 dwellings however a number of the ‘Omission’ Sites could be reduced in size and could be given further consideration at the Site Allocations stage.

5.3.2 Knutsford: none of the sites assessed within the settlement are considered to have potential for development during the Plan period; sites are being actively promoted adjacent to Knutsford that could deliver 2,368 dwellings, two of which are smaller sites that could deliver a total of 128 dwellings; a number of the

‘Omission’ Sites could be reduced in size and could be given further consideration at the Site Allocations stage.

5.3.3 Wilmslow: there is the potential for 37 dwellings to be developed over the Plan period, within the settlement. Sites are being actively promoted adjacent to Wilmslow that could deliver 2,602 dwellings, four of which are smaller sites that could deliver a total of 187 dwellings; a number of the ‘Omission’ Sites could be reduced in size and could be given further consideration at the Site Allocations stage.

5.4 Overall, the UPA results have shown that there is a limited supply of such sites across the Borough. It does however show that there will be the opportunity in some settlements (e.g. Congleton and Sandbach) to consider allocating sites in the urban areas at Site Allocations stage however in a large number of settlements, particularly those in the Green Belt (e.g. Knutsford and Prestbury) it shows that there is little or no urban potential and therefore no opportunities to allocate such sites. Opportunities to allocate such sites may also be taken up by local communities, in the form of Neighbourhood Plans.

5.5 The UPA results have also been used to inform the production of the GBA Update which also relates to concerns expressed by the Inspector in his interim Views, in relation to the original Green Belt Assessment [BE012].

5.6 The UPA results also form stage one of the site selection process, as they evidence how much of the need can be accommodated within the existing settlement.

5.7 In relation to sites on the edge of settlements, those being actively promoted in the Local Plan process are mainly sites of a strategic size and illustrate that there is a pool of sites to choose from when selecting sites for inclusion in the LPS and at the Site Allocations stage. This work forms the second stage of the Site Selection process, to evaluate potential sites that could be required for inclusion in the LPS or SADPD. Opportunities to allocate such sites may also be taken up by local communities, in the form of Neighbourhood Plans.

5.8 As part of the site selection process, sites that are considered to be strategic in nature, which are being actively promoted in the Local Plan process and do not have any ‘showstopper’ development constraints, have been recommended to be subject to SA and HRA. It is considered however that smaller parts of some of those sites being promoted, which are of a strategic size, could be considered along with the smaller sites that are being promoted; this could be done at the Site Allocations stage (or through Neighbourhood Plans) and be combined with the results of a ‘call for sites’ that is due to take place later in the year.

6. GLOSSARY

Agricultural Land Provides a method for assessing the quality of Classification farmland to enable informed choices to be made about its future use in the planning system. Land is classified into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into Subgrades 3a and 3b. The best and most versatile land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a by the National Planning Policy Framework.

Ancient Woodland Woodland that is believed to have existed from at least medieval times.

Brownfield Land and Previously developed land that is or was occupied by Sites a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.

Commitments All land with current planning permission or allocated in adopted Development Plans for development (particularly residential development).

Conservation Area Areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance.

Density In the case of residential development, a measurement of either the number of habitable rooms per hectare or the number of dwellings per hectare.

Development Development is defined under the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act as "the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operation in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or other land." Most forms of development require planning permission (see also 'permitted development').

Development Plan This includes adopted Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans, and is defined in section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Development Plan These are prepared by Local Planning Authorities and Documents outline the key development goals of the Local Plan.

Development Plan Documents include the Core Strategy, Local Plan Strategies and, where needed, Area Action Plans. There will also be an Adopted Policies Map that illustrates the spatial extent of policies that must be prepared and maintained to

accompany all Development Plan Documents.

All Development Plan Documents must be subject to rigorous procedures of community involvement, consultation and independent examination, and adopted after receipt of the Inspector's report. Once adopted, development management decisions must be made in accordance with them unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Dwelling A self-contained building or part of a building used as a residential accommodation, and usually housing a single household. A dwelling may be a house, bungalow, flat, maisonette or converted farm building.

Flood Zones A geographic area within which the flood risk is in a particular range, as defined within the NPPF. The following flood zones refer to the probability of river and sea flooding, ignoring the presence of defences: Flood Zone 1 – low probability; Flood Zone 2 – medium probability; Flood Zone 3a – high probability; Flood Zone 3b – functional floodplain.

Green Belt A designation for land around certain cities and large built-up areas, which aims to keep this land permanently open or largely undeveloped. The purposes of the Green Belt are to: check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; safeguard the countryside from encroachment; preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Green Belts are defined in a Local Planning Authority's Development Plan.

Greenfield Land and Land, or a defined site, usually farmland, that has not Sites previously been developed.

Green Gap A current local designation that seeks to maintain the built definition and separation of existing communities, and to indicate support for the longer term objective of preventing Crewe, Willaston, Wistaston, Nantwich, Haslington, and Shavington from merging into each other.

Habitats Regulations Used to assess the potential effect of plans and Assessment (HRA) projects on sites of European importance, such as the Ramsar, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special

Areas of Conservation (SACs).

Infrastructure Basic services necessary for development to take place, for example, roads, electricity, sewerage, water, education and health facilities.

Key Service Centre Towns with a range of employment, retail and education opportunities and services, with good public transport. The Key Service Centres are Alsager, Congleton, Handforth, Knutsford, Middlewich, Nantwich, Poynton, Sandbach and Wilmslow.

Listed Building A building of special architectural or historic interest. Listed Buildings are graded I, II* or II with grade I being the highest. Listing includes the interior as well as the exterior of the building, and includes any buildings or permanent structures within its curtilage which have formed part of the land since before 1 July 1948. Historic England is responsible for designating buildings for listing in England.

Local Plan The plan for the future development of the local area, drawn up by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the community. In law this is described as the Development Plan Documents adopted under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Current Core Strategies or other planning policies, which under the regulations would be considered to be Development Plan Documents, form part of the Local Plan. The term includes old policies which have been saved under the 2004 Act.

Local Planning The public authority whose duty it is to carry out Authority specific planning functions for a particular area. All references to Local Planning Authority apply to the Borough Council, and the National Park Authority, to the extent appropriate to their responsibilities.

Local Plan Strategy A Development Plan Document setting out the spatial vision and strategic objectives of the planning framework for an area, having regard to the Community Strategy.

Local Service Centre Smaller centres with a limited range of employment, retail and education opportunities and services, with a lower level of access to public transport. The Local Service Centres are Alderley Edge, Audlem, Bollington, Bunbury, Chelford, Disley, Goostrey, Haslington, Holmes Chapel, Mobberley, Prestbury,

Shavington, and Wrenbury.

Local Wildlife Site Locally important sites of nature conservation adopted by local authorities for planning purposes.

National Planning A document that sets out the Government’s planning Policy Framework policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It sets out the Government’s requirements for the planning system only to the extent that is it relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. It provides a framework within which local people and their accountable Council’s can produce their own distinctive Local and Neighbourhood Plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities.

Neighbourhood Plan A plan prepared by a Parish Council or Neighbourhood Forum for a particular Neighbourhood Area (made under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

Non Preferred Site A site not currently proposed to be allocated in the Local Plan Strategy, but has been consulted upon at a previous stage in the development of the Cheshire East Local Plan.

Omission Site A site, not currently included in the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version, which has been submitted to the Local Plan Strategy Submission Version Examination for consideration for inclusion in the Local Plan Strategy.

Open Countryside The open countryside is defined as the area outside the settlement boundaries of those towns and villages in the Borough identified as Principal Towns, Key Service Centres, Local Services Centres or Villages. Settlement boundaries will be shown on the Proposals Map of the Local Plan.

Open Space All space of public value, including public landscaped areas, playing fields, parks and play areas, and areas of water such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs, which may offer opportunities for sport and recreation or act as a visual amenity and a haven for wildlife.

Previously Developed Land which is or was occupied by a permanent Land (PDL) structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by

landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time.

Primary Shopping Area Defined area where retail development is concentrated (generally comprising the primary and those secondary frontages that are adjoining and closed related to the primary shopping frontage).

Principal Town The largest towns with a wide range of employment, retail and education opportunities and services, serving a large catchment area with a high level of accessibility and public transport. The Principal Towns are Crewe and Macclesfield.

Protected Species Plants and animal species afforded protection under certain Acts and Regulations.

Public Right of Way A highway over which the public have a right of (PROW) access along the route.

Ramsar Site Wetlands of international importance, designated under the 1971 Ramsar Convention.

Registered Parks and Parks and gardens that have a special historic interest Gardens in a national context. Historic England is responsible for compiling the ‘Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England’.

Safeguarded Land Safeguarded Land is land between the urban area and the Green Belt. It ensures the protection of Green Belt within the longer time-scale by reserving land which may be required to meet longer-term development needs without the need to alter Green Belt boundaries.

Scheduled Monument A nationally-important site or monument which is given legal protection against disturbance or change.

Site Allocations and Part of the Local Plan which will contain land Development Policies allocations and detailed policies and proposals to Document deliver and guide the future use of that land.

Site of Biological Locally important sites of nature conservation adopted

Importance (SBI) by local authorities for planning purposes.

Site of Special Sites designated by Natural England under the Wildlife Scientific Interest and Countryside Act 1981. (SSSI)

Special Area of Areas given special protection under the European Conservation (SAC) Union’s Habitats Directive, which is transposed into UK law by the Habitats and Conservation of Species Regulations 2010.

Special Protection Areas which have been identified as being of Area (SPA) international importance for the breeding, feeding, wintering or the migration of rare and vulnerable species of birds found within European Union countries. They are European designated sites, classified under the Birds Directive.

Strategic Housing A key component of the evidence base to support the Land Availability delivery of sufficient land for housing; to meet the Assessment (SHLAA) community’s need for more homes; and to inform housing policy within a Local Plan. This assessment is required under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 59.

Strategic Site/Location An important or essential site/area in relation to achieving the vision and strategic priorities of the Local Plan and which contributes to accommodating the sustainable development planned for over the local plan period.

Supplementary A Local Development Document that may cover a Planning Document range of issues, thematic or site specific, and provides (SPD) further detail of policies and proposals in a 'parent' Development Plan Document.

Sustainability An appraisal of the economic, environmental and Appraisal (SA) social effects of a plan from the outset of the preparation process to allow decisions to be made that accord with sustainable development.

Town Centre Area defined on the Local Authority’s Proposal Map, including the Primary Shopping Area and areas predominantly occupied by main town centre uses within or adjacent to the Primary Shopping Area. References to town centres or centres apply to city centres, town centres, district centres and local centres but exclude small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance. Unless they are identified

as centres in Local Plans, existing out-of-centre developments, comprising or including main town centre uses, do not constitute town centres.

Town Strategies Documents prepared in partnership by Cheshire East Council, Town and Parish Councils and the local communities to set out the vision and strategy for the future development of the Borough’s towns over a 20 year period. Forms part of the evidence base used to develop the Cheshire East Local Plan.

Tree Preservation A mechanism for securing the preservation of single or Order (TPO) groups of trees of acknowledged amenity value. A tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order may not normally be topped, lopped or felled without the consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Wildlife Corridor Strips of land, for example along a hedgerow, conserved and managed for wildlife, usually linking more extensive wildlife habitats.