To: Miss Kerry Trueman, East Local Plan Programme Officer 1st Floor Westfields, C/O Muncipal Buildings, Earle Street, , CW1 2BJ From: Parish Council [Representor ID: 459864] Date: 22nd August 2016

CHESHIRE LOCAL PLAN STRATEGY PROPOSED CHANGES – EXAMINATION HEARINGS: REPRESENTATION TO MR STEPHEN PRATT MATTER 5: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY (Policy PG2) MIQ 5.1a

1. Summary Goostrey Parish Council wishes to strongly object to ‘Goostrey’ being designated as a Local Service Centre (LSC) in the Council (CEC) Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy. We do not believe that this categorisation is appropriate, effective, justified or soundly based. We submit that ‘Goostrey’ should be moved to the category of ‘Other Settlements and Rural Areas’. We have repeatedly made this request to CEC through meetings and all stages of the consultation processes, however the responses from CEC have been inadequate and have not addressed our concerns. The evidence for our request is summarised below.

2. Background: Definition of Goostrey LSC Goostrey LSC is defined by the proposed CEC Local Plan as an area covered by 2 Lower Layer Super Output Areas (specifically the ONS area codes E01018411 and E01018412, also called Cheshire East 022B and 022C respectively). This definition is given in Appendix 6 of document BE046 ‘Determining the Settlement Hierarchy’. The definition includes the entire rural Parishes of , Goostrey, and Twemlow. It is an area consisting predominantly of agricultural fields (Fig 1 below). The population of 3,900 of this area is spread across the dispersed villages and farmsteads in eight thousand acres. This area is referenced in BE 001 ‘Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update’ (Sep 2013) in which it is called “ Rural”. The CEC document, PS E035 entitled ‘Spatial Distribution Update Report’ (July 2015), authored by AECOM, tabulates various statistics relating to ‘Goostrey’ in Appendix 26, including population and current housing numbers. These statistics all relate to the area containing Cranage, Goostrey, Swettenham and Twemlow Parishes.

3. Lack of key services in Goostrey LSC

1

We wish to point out that the entire area proposed for the Goostrey LSC has none of the following facilities: GP, health centre, dentist, bank, ATM, child day care, secondary school, library, supermarket. The area is predominantly rural and does not offer the opportunity for any significant number of new jobs. Consequently, the area is not a sustainable location for new dwellings. CEC document BE 046 confirms (Table 26) that Goostrey has only “two of the twelve essential services”. It is our view that people would not travel to Goostrey LSC to use services as the key services do not exist in this location and therefore it is erroneous to categorise Goostrey as an LSC. ‘Goostrey’ adjoins Holmes Chapel, an LSC which does contain all the key services noted above and to which people do travel for services and jobs. This is illustrated in Fig 1, in which the red line is the CEC proposed Goostrey LSC boundary. The proximity of Cranage, Twemlow and Swettenham to Holmes Chapel LSC (black line boundary) is clear.

It is also our view that the existence of the established LSC of Holmes Chapel on its doorstep would limit Goostrey’s potential to develop local services even if it were to be expanded. This is the reason given by CEC for excluding other villages from the LSC category, even though they have the same or more services. Examples are Astbury (with two essential services, but near ), Styal (with two essential services, but near ) and a number of others also excluded from the LSC category in Table 5.1 of BE 046 ‘Determining the Settlement Hierarchy’ (November 2010).

There is a single bus service that serves Goostrey village, however it only runs outside peak hours (9:30 to 14:00) and it operates a circular route from (a Key Service Centre) and Holmes Chapel (a larger LSC), and is therefore unlikely to attract people to use the limited services in Goostrey. The bus service cannot be used for commuting. There is a train station, approximately 2km from the centre of Goostrey village, which again is not likely to attract foot traffic from other locations. The travel times to the nearest key services from Goostrey are greater than the average for Cheshire East or , including the time to the nearest employment centre, further education institution, GP, hospital, primary school, secondary school, supermarket and town centre. The data is shown in our submissions to the Inspector for the hearings in 2015. A recent planning application near the centre of Goostrey village for 119 houses (14/5579C) was refused by Cheshire East Council. The CEC Strategic Highways and Transportation Manager wrote as follows on 9th Feb 2015: “the site location is not well served by public transport and there is a considerable walking distance to the railway station. It is considered that the site predominantly will be car based and therefore not a sustainable development and is a reason to refuse the application.”

2

Fig 1: CEC proposed Goostrey LSC (red boundary) which includes the villages of Cranage, Goostrey, Twemlow and Swettenham showing their proximity to Holmes Chapel LSC (black boundary).

This situation is recognised in the CEC Regulation 16 submission (15 Aug 2016) of the Holmes Chapel Neighbourhood Plan which states (on page 11) as follows: “As well as servicing the needs of its own residents and businesses, the residents and businesses in the surrounding parishes of Brereton, Cranage, Goostrey, Twemlow, Swettenham, Allostock, Lower Peover, Upper Peover, Somerford and also use the shops, library, medical and educational services. Holmes Chapel’s status as a Local Service Centre providing these needs has been taken into account in developing this Plan”

The situation is also recognised in the proposed Local Plan, where CEC state under Policy PG2 (Settlement Hierarchy), paragraph 8.34 the following:

“8.34 In the other settlements and rural areas, the Local Plan Strategy approach is to support an appropriate level of small scale infill development that reflects the function and character of individual villages. Small scale growth may be appropriate where it supports the creation of stronger local communities and

3

where a clear need exists, which is not more appropriately met in a larger nearby settlement. Development will be restricted to locations well related to the built-up extent of these settlements. The identification of such sites will achieved through the allocation of suitable sites and / or the designation of settlement boundaries addressed as part of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Development Plan Document and / or in Neighbourhood Plans, where these come forward. In the case of Goostrey which adjoins Holmes Chapel, a larger Local Service Centre, it is anticipated that development needs will largely be provided for in Holmes Chapel.”

4. Jodrell Bank Radio Astronomy Observatory (JBO)

Goostrey village lies entirely within the ‘Inner Consultation Zone’ of Jodrell Bank as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope) Direction 1973. The village is less than 2 miles from the ‘Sir Bernard Lovell Radio Telescope’, the 3rd largest fully- steerable radio telescope in the world. The interference that arises from electrical devices in dwellings, such as microwave ovens, mobile phones, routers, LED lighting, solar panel inverters etc, causes degradation to the research capability at JBO. As a result, CEC have refused many planning applications in the Goostrey LSC area due to conflict with Policy PS10. Some examples of refusals in Goostrey village due to conflict with Policy SE14 (JBO) are: 14/1964C (26 dwellings), 14/1147C (25 dwellings), 15/3131C (7 dwellings), 14/5579C (119 dwellings); and in Twemlow: 16/0731C (6 dwellings), 16/0459C (14 dwellings).

This adds to the view that the Goostrey area is not suitable for designation as an LSC as development within the proposed LSC, and especially within Goostrey village, is heavily constrained.

5. Conclusion We submit that Goostrey village and the surrounding area has very few services, it lies in the vicinity of a more appropriate LSC and is heavily constrained by JBO. We support the CEC Policy PG 2, paragraph 8.34, that “In the case of Goostrey, development needs will largely be provided for in Holmes Chapel”. We also support SE14 which protects JBO from interference. It therefore seems illogical, and not appropriate, effective, justified or soundly based for CEC to categorise Goostrey village or the surrounding area as an LSC. If the CEC Local Plan is left with the current wording there is likely to be significant conflict at future planning committees, inquiries, appeals and beyond, which we submit should be resolved at this stage by re-categorising Goostrey in the CEC Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy as ‘Other Settlements and Rural Areas’.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this representation.

Yours respectfully, Goostrey Parish Council

4