Draft - Bagnall

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site Report Site s within the Green Belt Bagnall PC comments: Comments noted. Allocation of sites not considered All Sites necessary – new housing could be Letter dated 24 August 2015 – object to proposals set accommodated within the infill boundary. out in consultation document and refers back to meeting on the 9TH August 2015 where residents submitted petition to the PC. Letter also refers back to detailed objections in letter dated 12 August 2014. These are:

Concentration of new build is like a mini estate and not compatible with character of village.

PC not against development but this should be smaller developments more in character with village.

Already barn conversions taking place and completion of 50 units at Bagnall Heights, with possible further development. This gives options for older residents to down size and free up housing stock.

Sufficient development planned to meet 10 units.

Miss communication from Council over proposed 15 units at Stockton Brook, in Bagnall Parish. This would meet housing requirements.

th Petition dated 11 August 2015 Signed by 143 residents. Objections are:

Objecting to creating mini estates rather than more modest ribbon/infill development on the edge of the settlement.

Lack of consultation with residents.

Asks that the Parish Council supports their views opposing the 3 sites put forward.

That the Parish Council clarifies with SMDC what new development can be counted towards housing target. Petition signed by 126 residents: Comments noted. All sites Object to concept of mini estate and feel more modest infill/ribbon development more appropriate. Have far less impact on green field land, wildlife, residents, and infrastructure and maintain character of village.

Lack of infrastructure services and public transport.

Conflicts with Core Strategy Policy T1 (reducing reliance on private cars).

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site Report

Parts of village and routes to neighbouring settlements without footpaths along narrow busy roads.

There is no or little scope for growth in employment, economic diversification or tourism.

Core Strategy Policy SS6c seeks to maintain greenbelt. Supported by para 89 and 79 in NPPF.

Environment Agency – Surface water in these areas should be treated using suitable SUDS where possible. If development is in a combined sewer area, increased flow should not affect the spill frequency.

BG008 10 0.83 Statutory bodies/stakeholders: The proposed delivery • The Highway Authority has clearly raised of circa 10 dwellings is issues about a suitable access to the site that SCC Highways - There is no current means off access considered to have a may be difficult to overcome. into this site and it does not border a highway. significant positive Inspecting the area around the site it is unlikely, even if effect, as could the • There are issues regarding the impact of any further land could be acquired, that an appropriate site’s accessibility to built development on this site on the access could be provided. areas of existing Conservation Area which require careful employment. Similarly, consideration. Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - the site’s accessibility This site is in Bagnall Conservation Area and its use to areas of open space • Staffordshire County Council say that Endon would be potentially harmful to its historic settlement is likely to have a Hall Primary School currently has insufficient form. In addition we were given to understand it will positive effect. capacity for the likely number of pupils prove controversial: both it and the adjacent properties However, the site is generated from the overall level of are owned by one family who are unlikely to sell. inaccessible to development in that catchment. Endon High services and facilities School is also projected to have insufficient Developer/Agent/Owner – Availability unknown. which is likely to have capacity and the District Council will work with a significant negative the County Council to identify an appropriate Public response 61 comments - 61 objections effect, as could the solution. site’s proximity to Issue s ra ise d: historic assets. The • New development is the main way to deliver development of new or improved infrastructure / services. Objections greenfield, grade 4 Infrastructure needs specifically related to a ALC land and the new development will be provided as part of •Infrastructure – Schools – Catchment schools district ecological that development. oversubscribed. importance of the site •Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – School Road is is likely to also have a • The land in question is within the Green Belt. narrow near misses with cars and pedestrians. negative effect. The Council has recently completed a Green No access to site and nearby lane would not be able to Belt Review in order to assess parts of the accommodate increased traffic. Green Belt where minor adjustments can be Access through fields or village hall car park made without having an impact on the function inappropriate and dangerous. of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined in Public transport x2 per day times not compatible with government planning guidance). This study commuters or schools. recommends that site BG008 is considered for 2 narrow bridges in village not built to sustain heavy release from the Green Belt. traffic. Often large vehicles hitting walls. . Access to the village from all direction along very narrow • The agricultural land classification of this land roads. is grade 4 which means that it is poor quality. Additional development adds to congestion. No facilities in Bagnall, buses, shops •Infrastructure – • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 etc, doctors, post office only church and one pub. Ecological Study for the District. This Private car travel required to reach services elsewhere. assessed sites included in the Site Options No access to main gas or drainage. consultation. The site survey results will be No recreational or social amenities for elderly or used as part of the site selection process.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site Report disabled. Existing drainage and sewerage at capacity. • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss •Landscape – Object to building in greenbelt. of light will be assessed in detail once a site Land used for cattle grazing and part of working dairy layout has been determined at the time a farm. planning application is received and residents Overdevelopment of rural location and impact on will have the opportunity to comment on the openness of village. content of that application. Views from •Nature Conservation – Site has a wide variety of individual properties are not protected in wildlife such as bats, badgers, swifts, hares, newts and planning law. raptors all at risk if development occurs. •Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – Loss of • It is not agreed that 10 houses constitutes far reaching views . ‘estate type development’. It is considered that •Scale of development – No estate style housing in design and layout are the key issues. Any new village as this would ruin ribbon pattern of development development taking place would be subject to in village. design policies contained within the new Local Development in centre of village should be avoided and Plan – which will be subject to public develop on outlying open spaces might reduce impact consultation next year. on village. •Listed Building / Conservation Area – Site in • The issue of using land in neighbouring conservation area. authorities will be discussed as part of the •Government Policy – Against govt policy to develop Council’s duty to co-operate obligation. on greenbelt. •Other – Can you clarify how many houses are being • Housing requirements in the Staffordshire proposed 30 or 10? Moorlands are in addition to existing properties Bagnall is historic village with sense of community even if these are for sale or derelict. development would undermine this. Cause noise, disruption and pollution at construction • The infill options suggested are within the stage. Green Belt and are not recommended for Use brownfield sites in Stoke on Trent. consideration for release in the Green Belt 5 Other nearby properties under construction plus Review. Endon riding school. This development should be counted towards housing quota as confirmed by SMDC at meeting on 21st July. Development would only be economically viable if developed as mini estate but this would change historic nature and character of village. Devalue properties. Owners have indicated site not available for housing.

Petition submitted to Council indicates residents oppose estate type development and prefer infill. Infill options are; Clewlows Bank which is on land opposite Windycroft, and the areas of School Road between Fulwood and Bagnall Heights and between Casetta and Old Hall Farm. The advantages of infill between Bagnall Heights and the village would be to enhance links between this development and the village. There is no risk of drift towards the urban settlement of Stoke as natural and significant barriers already existing in the form of the golf course and cricket pitch.

Ribbon development would have much less impact on the wildlife and green belt areas around the village. Study in 2009 revealed 800+ housing lay empty in SM. This has increased to 1350 (SMDC housing strategy 2013).Council would be better directing resources to occupying these.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site Report Chair of Bagnall PC has vested interest as owner of one of the 3 plots. Previously advised by SMDC that housing allocation was for the whole parish and not just village.

BG014 10 1.16 Statutory bodies/stakeholders: The proposed delivery • The Highway Authority has not raised any of circa 10 dwellings is issues which would make this site SCC Highways - School Road is 30mph at this point considered to have a undevelopable. and does have adequate pedestrian facilities. There is significant positive an existing gated farmland access leading directly into effect, as could the • Staffordshire County Council say that Endon the site from School Road, however this would need site’s accessibility to Hall Primary School currently has insufficient improvements and widening to provide adequate areas of existing capacity for the likely number of pupils dimension for an adoptable site road. There is no street employment. Similarly, generated from the overall level of lighting in the immediate vicinity along School Road, this the site’s accessibility development in that catchment. Endon High would need to be addressed. Access could also be to areas of open space School is also projected to have insufficient allowed through BG014 to BG015. is likely to have a capacity and the District Council will work with positive effect. the County Council to identify an appropriate Developer/Agent/Owner – Land available. However, the site is solution. inaccessible to Public response 50 comments - 49 objections and 1 services and facilities • New development is the main way to deliver support which is likely to have new or improved infrastructure / services. a significant negative Infrastructure needs specifically related to a Issues raised: effect, as could the new development will be provided as part of site’s proximity to that development. Objections historic assets. The development of • The land in question is within the Green Belt. •Infrastructure – Schools – Schools at capacity greenfield, grade 4 The Council has recently completed a Green •Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Poor public ALC land and the Belt Review in order to assess parts of the transport and not at commuter times. district ecological Green Belt where minor adjustments can be Add to traffic on narrow network of roads. importance of the site made without having an impact on the function Access to the village from all direction along very narrow is likely to also have a of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined in roads. negative effect. government planning guidance). This study Addition development adds to congestion. recommends that site BG014 is not considered •Infrastructure - Other - No facilities in Bagnall, buses, for release from the Green Belt. shops, doctors, post office only church and one pub. Private transport required to get to facilities which are • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 against SMDC Core Strategy. Cannot walk to these as Ecological Study for the District. This footpaths few or narrow. assessed sites included in the Site Options No access to main gas, electric or drainage. consultation. The site survey results will be No recreational or social amenities for elderly or used as part of the site selection process. disabled. Existing drainage and sewage at capacity. • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 •Landscape – Destruction of greenbelt should be last Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the resort. District, the results of which are being used to Change landscape character around village. inform the site selection process. Mitigation •Nature Conservation – Site is former AONB also measures can be taken as part of the site contains or is adjacent to wetlands and home to wildlife. development to address any surface water Development would impact on water table. issues. •Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – Loss of privacy, light, increased noise and loss of open • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss aspect/views to properties that will back onto the site. of light will be assessed in detail once a site •Scale of development – To build cluster of houses layout has been determined at the time a would be out of character with village. planning application is received and residents Development along School Road or ribbon development will have the opportunity to comment on the would be better less infrastructure required and more in content of that application. Views from keeping with village. individual properties are not protected in •Listed Building / Conservation Area – Site is in planning law. conservation area building a mini estate would change

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site Report character of village. • It is not agreed that 10 houses would be out of •Government Policy - Against govt policy to develop on character with the village. It is considered that greenbelt design and layout are the key issues. Any new •Other development taking place would be subject to Previously advised by SMDC that housing allocation design policies contained within the new Local was for the whole parish and not just village. Plan – which will be subject to public Devalue property. consultation next year. Housing in village slow to sell. No existing business capable of expansion requiring • The site adjoins the Conservation Area but is additional housing. not within it. Brownfield sites available to develop in cities. Question the viability of developing site for such small • The new Local Plan will cover a period to 2031 number of housing with lack of infrastructure would need so lack of demand (perceived or actual) at one to be larger estate to be viable. point in time is not a valid reason for not Already 3 dwellings being built in village so housing meeting the area’s objectively assessed requirement should be 7 not 10. These could be housing needs. accommodated on small sites in village being brought forward on an incremental basis. • The issue of using land in neighbouring authorities will be discussed as part of the Infill options are; Clewlows Bank which is on land Council’s duty to co-operate obligation. opposite Windycroft, and the areas of School Road between Fulwood and Bagnall Heights and between • There is no indication at this stage that Casetta and Old Hall Farm. development of this site would be unviable. The advantages of infill would be to enhance links between this development and the village. There is no • The infill options suggested are within the risk of drift towards the urban settlement of Stoke as Green Belt and are not recommended for natural and significant barriers already existing in the consideration for release in the Green Belt form of the golf course and cricket pitch. Review.

No evidence for housing numbers and recent figures • Housing requirements in the Staffordshire show over 1000 properties lie vacant in SM. Moorlands are in addition to existing properties Given opposition of locals and PC – Neighbourhood even if these are for sale or derelict. Plan for Bagnall? Settlement area does not reflect the full community (excluding Bagnall Heights, houses along School Rd and behind Fulwood and land at the top of Clewlows Bank towards Bagnall springs). Why are these areas excluded from settlement? Plans for other Staffordshire villages include outlying areas.

5 recently completed developments plus additional development of Bagnall Heights means 5 houses required not 10.

Support

•Other – owner of part of sites supports development but no reasons given. BG015 10 0.66 Statutory bodies/stakeholders: The proposed delivery • The Highway Authority has not raised any of circa 10 dwellings is issues which would make this site SCC Highways - As mentioned in comments to BG014, considered to have a undevelopable, though it is accepted that BG014 and BG015 if developed together, could have an significant positive access through neighbouring BG014 would be acceptable access, although improvements would be effect, as could the required. required via the existing gated entrance directly off site’s accessibility to School Road. If developed in isolation, however the only areas of existing • Staffordshire County Council say that Endon means of access is via a private driveway. Considering employment. Similarly, Hall Primary School currently has insufficient the potential number of properties which could be the site’s accessibility capacity for the likely number of pupils accommodated on this site it is unlikely that an adopted to areas of open space generated from the overall level of

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site Report road could be provided over the constraints of this is likely to have a development in that catchment. Endon High driveway. positive effect. School is also projected to have insufficient However, the site is capacity and the District Council will work with Developer/Agent/Owner – Land available. inaccessible to the County Council to identify an appropriate services and facilities solution. Public response 56 comments – 56 objections which is likely to have a significant negative • New development is the main way to deliver Issues raised: effect, as could the new or improved infrastructure / services. site’s proximity to Infrastructure needs specifically related to a Objections historic assets. The new development will be provided as part of development of that development. •Infrastructure – Schools – Schools oversubscribed greenfield, grade 4 •Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport - Poor public ALC land and the • The land in question is within the Green Belt. transport. Access to the village from all directions along district ecological The Council has recently completed a Green very narrow roads. importance of the site Belt Review in order to assess parts of the Additional development adds to congestion. is likely to also have a Green Belt where minor adjustments can be Need to travel by private car to reach services which is negative effect. made without having an impact on the function against SMDC Core Strategy. of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined in Cannot walk to services as footpaths narrow in places. government planning guidance). This study Poor access to site. recommends that site BG015 is not considered •Infrastructure – Other No facilities in Bagnall, buses, for release from the Green Belt. shops etc, doctors, post office only church and one pub. All require private transport. • The agricultural land classification of this land No access to main gas, electric or drainage. is grade 4 which means that it is poor quality. No recreational or social amenities for elderly or disabled. • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 Existing drainage and sewerage at capacity. Ecological Study for the District. This •Landscape – Destruction of greenbelt should be last assessed sites included in the Site Options resort. consultation. The site survey results will be Part of working dairy farm. used as part of the site selection process. •Nature Conservation - Site is former AONB also contains or is adjacent to wetlands and home to wildlife. • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 Development would impact on wildlife and water table. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the •Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – Loss of District, the results of which are being used to privacy, increase noise and pollution and loss of open inform the site selection process. Mitigation aspect/views. measures can be taken as part of the site •Scale of development - To build cluster of houses development to address any surface water would be out of character with village. Development issues. along school road/infill development would be better less infrastructure required and more in keeping with village. • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss Better infill sites in village available which could be of light will be assessed in detail once a site brought forward on an incremental basis. layout has been determined at the time a •Listed Building / Conservation Area – Site is in planning application is received and residents conservation area. will have the opportunity to comment on the •Government Policy - Against govt policy to develop on content of that application. Views from greenbelt individual properties are not protected in •Other Previously advised by SMDC that housing planning law. allocation was for the whole parish and not just village. Devalue property. • It is not agreed that 10 houses would be out of No evidence for housing numbers and recent figures character with the village. It is considered that show over 1000 properties lie vacant in SM. design and layout are the key issues. Any new Given opposition of locals and PC – Neighbourhood development taking place would be subject to Plan for Bagnall? design policies contained within the new Local No existing business in Bagnall capable of expansion Plan – which will be subject to public and therefore requiring more housing. consultation next year. Brownfield sites in Stoke available for development. Question the viability of developing site for such a small • The land is adjacent to but not within the number of housing and lack of infrastructure means Conservation Area.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site Report development would need to be larger estate. • The new Local Plan will cover a period to 2031 Infill options are; Clewlows Bank which is on land so lack of demand (perceived or actual) at one opposite Windycroft, and the areas of School Road point in time is not a valid reason for not between Fulwood and Bagnall Heights and between meeting the area’s objectively assessed Casetta and Old Hall Farm. The advantages of infill housing needs. would be to enhance links between this development and the village. There is no risk of drift towards the • The issue of using land in neighbouring urban settlement of Stoke as natural and significant authorities will be discussed as part of the barriers already existing in the form of the golf course Council’s duty to co-operate obligation. and cricket pitch. • There is no indication at this stage that Settlement area does not reflect the full community development of this site would be unviable. (excluding Bagnall Heights, houses along School Rd and behind Fulwood and land at the top of Clewlows • The infill options suggested are within the Bank towards Bagnall springs). Green Belt and are not recommended for consideration for release in the Green Belt Review.

• Housing requirements in the Staffordshire Moorlands are in addition to existing properties even if these are for sale or derelict.

Draft - Blackshaw Moor

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Site s outside the draft infill boundary Allocation of sites not considered necessary – new housing could be accommodated within an amended (extended) infill boundary. BL006 12 0.73 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 12 • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement Allocation of site not dwellings is considered to have a Setting Study and this site is not identified as considered necessary – SCC Highways: Plot is not directly connected to highway. significant positive effect, as could being important landscape setting to the new housing could be Access beyond Bluestones Close will require widening and the site’s accessibility to areas of settlement. accommodated within an bringing up to adoptable standard, including provision of existing employment. Similarly, the amended (extended) footway. Surface water runoff from the farm track will need site’s accessibility to areas of open • Staffordshire County Education Authority advise infill boundary. to be considered. space is likely to have a positive that there is currently some spare capacity at effect. However, the site is Blackshaw Moor CE First School and that the Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - This site inaccessible to services and small number of homes proposed in Blackshaw extends too far out of the draft infill boundary and abuts the facilities which is likely to have a Moor should not impact significantly on this School which would prevent the school from extending in significant negative effect. The school. Additional school places are unlikely to this direction. As the viability of rural schools is one of the development of greenfield, grade 4 be needed to mitigate the impact of this scale of arguments being used for the creation of infill boundaries ALC land and the district ecological development in the area. Neither do they for the smaller settlements this seems to be an important importance of the site is likely to reference the need for extending the school consideration. have a negative effect. playing fields.

Developer/Agent/Landowner – Landowner confirms that most of this site is available for housing.

Public response 0 comments.

BL007 7 0.20 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The site’s accessibility to areas of existing employment is considered • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement SCC Highways: acceptable subject to access design and to have a significant positive effect. Setting Study and this site is not identified as visibility. Footway or service strip should be provided on The proposed delivery of 7 being important landscape setting to the frontage of plot. dwellings is likely to have a positive settlement. effect, as could the site’s Developer/Agent/Landowner – Landowner has confirmed accessibility to areas of open that this site is not available for future development. space. However, the site is inaccessible to services and Public response 0 comments. facilities which is likely to have a significant negative effect. The development of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land is likely to have a negative effect.

Draft - Caverswall

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Sites within infill boundary Caverswall Parish Council - All sites - Village should not Allocation of sites not be split into two areas. Already has 13 of the required 20 considered necessary – houses with another 7 dwellings being achievable through new housing could be infill. accommodated within the

infill boundary. Environment Agency:

• There is sufficient capacity within the Leek and Checkley treatment works to support growth. However there are known sewer capacity issues with the main sewer from Draycott to Checkley STW. Checkley sewage treatment works serves Caverswall.

• Surface water in these areas should be treated using suitable SUDS where possible. If development is in a combined sewer area, increased flow should not affect the spill frequency.

CV005 10 0.63 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 10 • The site is within the Conservation area and dwellings is considered to have a considered to be potentially harmful to the Caverswall Parish Council - Site is in conservation area significant positive effect. Similarly, settlement form by the Council’s Conservation and greenbelt and within curtilage of several listed the site’s accessibility to areas of team. buildings. There is a spring on the site which is known to open space is likely to have a cause flooding. Access is onto narrow lane. positive effect. However, the site is • The Highway Authority has raised access inaccessible to services and difficulties which appear to be challenging to SCC Highways - (CV004, CV005) The Hollow has no facilities and areas of existing overcome. footway and is unlit. Access off The Hollow would be employment which is likely to have difficult due to levels which could prevent improvements, a significant negative effect, as • The District Council is working with the County currently only a farm access on the eastern side of the site could the development of Council on the issue of school capacity. The which is not suitable for the numbers proposed without greenfield, grade 3 ALC land and County has determined that additional school improvements. Access does not seem possible to High the site’s proximity to historic provision would be required to support housing Street. assets. The district ecological growth at the Primary and Secondary phases of importance of the site is likely to education within the catchment. At this early stage Developer/Agent/Owner – Landowner unknown. have a negative effect. in the site selection process there are a number of options for delivering school capacity dependant Public response 28 comments - 28 objections on the sites selected to take forward.

Issues raised: • New development is the main way to deliver new or improved infrastructure e.g. more residents may Objections: support an improved bus service. Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new development • Infrastructure – schools - schools at capacity and will be provided as part of that development e.g. children will have to travel further to school children’s play areas. No parking for schools • Infrastructure - traffic/transport – Parking an issue on • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 High Street ‘access only’ especially at school times and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, also in the Square and Hollows. the results of which are being used to inform the Traffic congestion will increase. site selection process. Mitigation measures can be Caverswall High Street is a single track road unable to taken as part of the site development to address take increased traffic. any surface water issues. Site is close to both primary schools and cause access

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings and traffic difficulties especially at drop off and pick up • The land in question is not highlighted as times. significant in the Council’s Landscape & People outside of the village do not observe traffic Settlement Setting Assessment. restrictions. A development would have difficulty in accessing the • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 site from the High Street. Ecological Study for the District. This assessed A previous application for this site was turned down by sites included in the Site Options consultation. SMDC. The site survey results will be used as part of the Few pavements within village. site selection process. Road improvements must be considered to meet extra housing. • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss of Access would destroy old farmyard entrance. light will be assessed in detail once a site layout • Infrastructure – other – cannot take any more has been determined at the time a planning development. No shops, doctors, dentists etc. Poor application is received and residents will have the public transport. opportunity to comment on the content of that How will drains cope with extra sewage and water. application. Views from individual properties are More housing means more demands on local services not protected in planning law. and facilities. • Landscape – This site is greenbelt in heart of the • Planning permissions which have been granted village and will spoil rural feel and make it more like an since 2011 will be included in the village’s housing estate. requirements. The site provides landscape for those with very small back gardens. • Housing requirements in the Staffordshire It would also detract greatly from the 'rurality' of the Moorlands are in addition to existing properties village even if these are for sale or derelict. • Nature conservation – Impact on flora and fauna and wildlife. • Public footpaths can be maintained or re-directed. • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – Loss of outlook and views. Impact on quality of life for nearby residents. • Flood risk – Natural spring on site known to cause flooding. • Scale of development – More development will erode historic charm of village. Impact on character of village. • Government policy – Govt directive asks for 20 houses in small villages. We already have 13 new and therefore only 7 required by 2031. This could be provided by existing infill and more barn conversions whilst preserving our heritage. • Other – Always plenty of properties for sale in the village. Lots of open space more suitable to build on. Already new housing built in village recently. People want to live in village – this is reflected in prices paid for property. Devalue house prices. This is one community and housing requirements should be amended to reflect this. There is sufficient infill and space in the existing village boundary to meet housing requirements. There are several new development priced highly that have not sold. Affordable housing is required for young and older residents to down size and free up family sized homes. Develop empty buildings and brownfield sites first. Few play facilities for children. Village is conservation area with several listed buildings

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings in village square and has a protected linear aspect. Building would destroy this. Right of way across field. Historic character spoilt by modern development.

Sites within the Green Belt CV004 8 0.36 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 8 • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In dwellings is considered to have a order for Caverswall to accommodate new Caverswall Parish Council - Site lies outside of draft new positive effect. Similarly, the site’s development, the Green Belt boundary may need infill boundary. It is greenbelt and pastureland. It is outside accessibility to areas of open space adjustment to accommodate the level of village boundary. Access is onto a narrow lane. and low ecological value of the site development needed. The Council has recently is likely to have a positive effect. completed a Green Belt Review in order to assess SCC Highways – (CV004, CV005) The Hollow has no However, the site is inaccessible to parts of the Green Belt where minor adjustments footway and is unlit. Access off The Hollow would be services and facilities and areas of can be made without having an impact on the difficult due to levels which could prevent improvements, existing employment which is likely function of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined currently only a farm access on the eastern side of the site to have a significant negative effect, in government planning guidance). This study which is not suitable for the numbers proposed without as could the development of recommends considering site CV004 for release improvements. Access does not seem possible to High greenfield, grade 3 ALC land and from the Green Belt. Street. the site’s proximity to historic assets. • The site is within the Conservation area and Developer/Agent/Owner – Landowner unknown. considered to be potentially harmful to the settlement form by the Council’s Conservation Public response 31 comments - 31 objections team.

Objections: • The Highway Authority has raised access difficulties which appear to be challenging to • Infrastructure – schools – At capacity and children overcome. having to travel outside of area. • Infrastructure - traffic/transport – Increase in traffic • The District Council is working with the County and roads already used as short cut and rat run. Council on the issue of school capacity. The Existing roads are unsuitable for more traffic and no County has determined that additional school room to alter. provision would be required to support housing Access to the site is on a tight bend and would create growth at the Primary and Secondary phases of additional traffic problems and have devastating visual education within the catchment. At this early stage impact. in the site selection process there are a number of Site is close to both primary schools and cause access options for delivering school capacity dependant and traffic difficulties especially at drop off and pick up on the sites selected to take forward. times. People outside of the village do not observe traffic • New development is the main way to deliver new restrictions. or improved infrastructure e.g. more residents may Parking is already bad along High Street. support an improved bus service. Infrastructure Very few pavements in the village. needs specifically related to a new development Cannot see how you can provide access to this field. will be provided as part of that development e.g. • Infrastructure – other – few shops and public transport children’s play areas. no doctors, dentists etc. • Landscape – The area is greenbelt in heart of village • The land in question is not highlighted as and should not be developed into housing estate. significant in the Council’s Landscape & Infringement on greenbelt and will be swallowed into Settlement Setting Assessment. Stoke on Trent conurbation. Green spaces are part of the character of the village. • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 • Nature conservation – Protect natural environment Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, and wildlife. the results of which are being used to inform the Loose established trees and wildlife. site selection process. Mitigation measures can be • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – Taking taken as part of the site development to address away open views. any surface water issues. Increase in noise pollution. • Flood risk – Loose natural drainage on the site. • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 • Scale of development – Spoil the feel of the village Ecological Study for the District. This assessed

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings and more like urban estate. sites included in the Site Options consultation. Fundamental change to rural landscape. The site survey results will be used as part of the • Government policy – Govt directive asks for 20 site selection process. houses in small villages. We already have 13 new and therefore only 7 required by 2031. This could be • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss of provided by infill and more barn conversions whilst light will be assessed in detail once a site layout preserving our heritage. has been determined at the time a planning • Other – Devalue property that owners paid premium to application is received and residents will have the live in village. opportunity to comment on the content of that Already 13 new homes in the village this year (Cloisters) application. Views from individual properties are very high prices and not selling. This needs to be taken not protected in planning law. into account with regards to housing numbers required. Village needs affordable housing and options to • Planning permissions which have been granted downsize therefore releasing family homes onto market since 2011 will be included in the village’s housing and keeping opportunities for young and old to stay in requirements. village. There are other open spaces more suitable to build on. • Housing requirements in the Staffordshire Village is a conservation area. Moorlands are in addition to existing properties Caverswall and Cookshill should be treated as one even if these are for sale or derelict. village and housing allocations should be amended accordingly. • Public footpaths can be maintained or re-directed. Existing old and new housing is not selling. More houses means drain on existing amenities ie play areas. Funds will be required to improve these. Enough infill potential in village to develop small number of housing required. Few play facilities for children. Ancient linear village with several listed buildings building on this land would destroy linear aspect. There is a public footpath through the site. Modern development ruin distinct village feel.

CV006 8 0.40 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 8 • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In dwellings is considered to have a order for Caverswall to accommodate new Caverswall Parish Council - Site is in conservation area positive effect. Similarly, the site’s development, the Green Belt boundary may need and greenbelt and within curtilage of several listed accessibility to areas of open space adjustment to accommodate the level of buildings. There is a spring on the site which is known to is likely to have a positive effect. development needed. The Council has recently cause flooding. Access is onto narrow lane. However, the site is inaccessible to completed a Green Belt Review in order to assess services and facilities and areas of parts of the Green Belt where minor adjustments SCC Highways - High Street has no footways and is an existing employment which is likely can be made without having an impact on the access only to prevent rat-running, unlikely to achieve to have a significant negative effect, function of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined visibility for an adoptable road. The land is currently used as could the development of in government planning guidance). This study for garden and parking at the moment where land abuts greenfield, grade 3 ALC land and recommends considering site CV006 for release the High Street. There also appears to be two other the site’s proximity to historic from the Green Belt. accesses into the land which could be investigated. 8 units assets. The district ecological would be too many off a single access. Individual units importance of the site is likely to • The site is within the Conservation area and with access and parking maybe achievable. have a negative effect. considered to be potentially harmful to the settlement form by the Council’s Conservation Developer/Agent/Owner – Landowner intentions team. unknown. • The Highway Authority has identified an access Public response 25 comments - 25 objections issue which would need to be resolved if this site is to be delivered. Objections: • The District Council is working with the County • Infrastructure – schools – Schools at capacity. Council on the issue of school capacity. The • Infrastructure –- traffic/transport – Traffic will County has determined that additional school increase through village and no scope to improve road provision would be required to support housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings structure. growth at the Primary and Secondary phases of How will the site be accessed? education within the catchment. At this early stage Parking is already an issue on High Street ‘access only’ in the site selection process there are a number of Traffic nightmare at school times. options for delivering school capacity dependant Access to site would impact on privacy. on the sites selected to take forward. Few pavements in village. Levels of traffic high through village as used as short • New development is the main way to deliver new cut. or improved infrastructure e.g. more residents may Road improvements must be undertaken to meet new support an improved bus service. Infrastructure housing. needs specifically related to a new development Access through Red house car park or High Street both will be provided as part of that development e.g. busy and cannot take any more traffic. children’s play areas. Infrastructure – other – Drain on existing facilities. No shops, doctors dentists etc and poor public transport. • The land in question is not highlighted as • Landscape – building on greenbelt is unacceptable. significant in the Council’s Landscape & This is greenbelt in the heart of the village. Settlement Setting Assessment. Greenbelt adds to the character of the village. • Nature conservation – need to protect wildlife. • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 Development would impact on wildlife. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – Taking the results of which are being used to inform the away open views. site selection process. Mitigation measures can be Access route would impact on privacy. taken as part of the site development to address • Flood risk – natural spring in site that causes flooding. any surface water issues. • Scale of development – spoil rural feel of village more like housing estate. • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 Housing numbers should be amended to reflect that this Ecological Study for the District. This assessed is one community. sites included in the Site Options consultation. Scale of development is inappropriate for village of this The site survey results will be used as part of the size. site selection process. • Government policy – Govt directive asks for 20 houses in small villages. We already have 13 new and • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss of therefore only 7 required by 2031. This could be light will be assessed in detail once a site layout provided by more barn conversions whilst preserving has been determined at the time a planning our heritage. application is received and residents will have the • Other – There are other open spaces more suitable for opportunity to comment on the content of that building. application. Views from individual properties are Already have new homes in the village which have not not protected in planning law. sold. Residents have paid a premium to live in village house • Planning permissions which have been granted prices will be devalued. since 2011 will be included in the village’s housing Always properties for sale in village. requirements. Existing village boundary and infill development would meet housing needs especially given recent new • Housing requirements in the Staffordshire developments which are priced high. Moorlands are in addition to existing properties Village needs affordable housing and options to even if these are for sale or derelict. downsize therefore releasing family homes onto market and keeping opportunities for young and old to stay in • Public footpaths can be maintained or re-directed. village. Village retains strong traditional feel with good community values. Build on the outskirts of the village i.e. old nursery site. Number of dwellings proposed is above level anticipated for next 16 years. Do not want to be swallowed into Stoke on Trent conurbation. Few play facilities for children.. Village is a conservation area with protected ridge and furrow fields etc.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Caverswall has linear aspect to development which needs to be protected. Site lies within curtilage of several listed buildings. Change character of village from historic and picturesque into one surrounded by modern development. New houses would be viewed from village green ruin the feel and views of the village.

Draft - Cookshill

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Sites within the infill boundary None Sites within the Green Belt CL004 20 2.20 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 20 • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In dwellings is considered to have a order for Cookshill to accommodate new Caverswall Parish Council - This is green belt and significant positive effect. Similarly, development, the Green Belt boundary is likely to pastureland. Access to site on blind bend. Site is located in the site’s accessibility to areas of need adjustment to accommodate the level of curtilage of listed building. Public footpath through site. open space and location away from development needed. The Council has recently historic assets is likely to have a completed a Green Belt Review in order to assess SCC Highways - Access to site will be difficult on positive effect. However, the site is parts of the Green Belt where minor adjustments Roughcote Lane, as there no footways to the east so inaccessible to services and can be made without having an impact on the unlikely to achieve adequate visibility without facilities and areas of existing function of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined improvements to third party land. employment which is likely to have in government planning guidance). This study a significant negative effect, as recommends considering site CL004 for release Developer/Agent/Owner – Landowner intentions could the development of from the Green Belt. unknown. greenfield, grade 3 ALC land. The district ecological importance of the • The Highway Authority has raised an issue with Public response 37 comments - 36 objections and 1 site is likely to have a negative accessing the site which would need to be support effect. resolved.

Objections: • The District Council is working with the County Council on the issue of school capacity. The • Infrastructure – schools – Local primary schools at County has determined that additional school capacity and no pre-school facilities. provision would be required to support housing Children have to travel adding to congestion. growth at the Primary and Secondary phases of No parking for schools. education within the catchment. At this early stage • Infrastructure - traffic/transport – Access to site in the site selection process there are a number of unsuitable and road network around narrow, blind options for delivering school capacity dependant bends and unsafe Green lane used as rat run. on the sites selected to take forward. Devt here add to more congestion and accidents. Public transport inadequate. • New development is the main way to deliver new Access from Roughcote Lane will require tress and or improved infrastructure e.g. more residents may hedges to be removed. support an improved bus service. Infrastructure Limited visibility at Roughcote lane and Mill Close. needs specifically related to a new development Additional housing means increased traffic using the will be provided as part of that development e.g. Green. children’s play areas. Green Carriageway is unacceptable with no pavements for 80%. • The land in question is not highlighted as Road junction at Auctioneers Arms is dangerous. significant in the Council’s Landscape &

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Narrow pavements outside of school and school pick Settlement Setting Assessment. up/drop off = congestion in village. There will be an increased use of Caverswall Rd and • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 School Lane as ‘rat run’ thus avoiding Meir. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, Village used as short cut by people living outside the the results of which are being used to inform the area. site selection process. Mitigation measures can be Access only restrictions are already not observed. taken as part of the site development to address Construction traffic will cause major disruption. any surface water issues. • Infrastructure – other – only one small shop and nearest GP is in Meir. • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 Inadequate local facilities –no dentist doctors or health Ecological Study for the District. This assessed clinic sites included in the Site Options consultation. • Landscape – Site used as agricultural, greenbelt, The site survey results will be used as part of the farmland and should stay that way. site selection process. Public footpath across site and 100 year old trees which are central to aesthetics of the landscape. • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss of Land is greenbelt. light will be assessed in detail once a site layout Field provides pleasant outlook. has been determined at the time a planning Retention of greenbelt is a must to retain the character application is received and residents will have the of the village. opportunity to comment on the content of that • Nature conservation – large number of birds breeding application. Views from individual properties are nearby will be impacted by devt. not protected in planning law. Impact upon protected wildlife. • Flooding – Flooding on School Land and The Green • Planning permissions which have been granted after heavy rain. since 2011 will be included in the village’s housing • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light)- increase requirements. in noise and lack of privacy. Loss of quiet and pleasant outlook. • Housing requirements in the Staffordshire • Scale of development – Number of houses Moorlands are in addition to existing properties unreasonable and recent devt at The Cloisters and even if these are for sale or derelict. Wesleyan Chapel slow to sell. What Caverswall needs is affordable housing. • Public footpaths can be maintained or re-directed. Existing village boundary and infill capacity will meet housing requirements. • Government policy – Govt directive asks for 20 houses in small villages. We already have 13 new and therefore only 7 required by 2031. This could be provided by more barn conversions whilst preserving our heritage. • Other – Better to build near scout hut CL007. Housing allocation should reflect that this is one community. Increase in traffic pollution. Caverswall and Cookshill should be considered as one village for the purposes of the Local Devt Plan. Devalue property. Loss of perfectly good arable farming land. Plenty of houses for sale in village. People want to live here because it is a tranquil village not housing estate. Few play facilities for children. Site within curtilage of listed building. Footpath running through site. Site is flat and good for agriculture.

Support • Infrastructure - Schools - Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – Road structure from Weston Coyney

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings would cope with extra traffic. • Infrastructure – other • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) • Scale of development – Houses would blend in better as already sizeable estate already there. Development kept to min number to retain village feel.

CL007 30 0.98 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 30 • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In dwellings is considered to have a order for Cookshill to accommodate new Caverswall Parish Council - Previous application refused significant positive effect. Similarly, development, the Green Belt boundary may need on site and dismissed at appeal as important spatial land the site’s accessibility to areas of adjustment to accommodate the level of between authorities. Land is on food plain and greenbelt. open space is likely to have a development needed. The Council has recently Increased risk of sewer surcharge into existing and new positive effect. However, the site is completed a Green Belt Review in order to assess houses. 30 houses is over development of the site. inaccessible to services and parts of the Green Belt where minor adjustments facilities and areas of existing can be made without having an impact on the SCC Highways - Access to site should be acceptable onto employment which is likely to have function of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined in Caverswall Lane. A 2 metre wide footway would be a significant negative effect, as government planning guidance). This study required over the site frontage. Traffic calming could be could the development of recommends that site CL007 is not considered for required on Caverswall Road depending on the what the greenfield, grade 3 ALC land. The release from the Green Belt. existing 85 percentile speeds are, which would be a district ecological importance of the continuation of School Lane. site and its proximity to historic • The Highway Authority does not raise any issues assets is likely to have a negative which would preclude the development of this site. Developer/Agent/Owner – Land available. effect. • The District Council is working with the County Public response 28 comments - 27 objections and 1 Council on the issue of school capacity. The support County has determined that additional school provision would be required to support housing Objections: growth at the Primary and Secondary phases of education within the catchment. At this early stage • Infrastructure – schools – Schools at capacity and in the site selection process there are a number of children having to travel adding to congestion. options for delivering school capacity dependant • Infrastructure - traffic/transport – routes around on the sites selected to take forward. village already congested and used as rat run cannot cope with more housing. • New development is the main way to deliver new Already difficult to walk safely to the site. or improved infrastructure e.g. more residents may Narrow pavements outside of school. support an improved bus service. Infrastructure Junction at Auctioneers Arms and exit at Mill Close is needs specifically related to a new development dangerous. will be provided as part of that development e.g. Existing traffic restrictions are not observed. children’s play areas. Junction of School Lane and The Green lethal. If development goes ahead then road improvements are • The land in question is not highlighted as required. significant in the Council’s Landscape & Access to the site borders narrow road next to primary Settlement Setting Assessment. school and highly unsuitable for additional traffic. • Infrastructure – other – No local doctors only 1 shop • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 and public transport is inadequate. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, Additional houses will put a strain on local facilities. the results of which are being used to inform the • Landscape - This is a major incursion into the small site selection process. Mitigation measures can be strip of greenbelt between Caverswall and Stoke-on- taken as part of the site development to address Trent conurbation. Previous plans to develop have been any surface water issues. turned down by Council and the Government Inspector because of the importance of maintaining this • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 separation. Ecological Study for the District. This assessed Land is greenbelt and spatial land that separates 2 sites included in the Site Options consultation. County Councils. Building here would link village to The site survey results will be used as part of the Weston Coyney. site selection process. Site is used as farmland and should stay that way. • Nature conservation – Impact on wildlife. • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss of 8

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – light will be assessed in detail once a site layout Residents on Mill Close will be overlooked. has been determined at the time a planning Noise pollution. application is received and residents will have the Impact on privacy and natural light. opportunity to comment on the content of that • Flood Risk – Junction of School Lane and the Green application. Views from individual properties are Floods after heavy rain. not protected in planning law. Site prone to flooding. The land is on a flood plain. • Planning permissions which have been granted • Scale of development – Affordable housing needed. since 2011 will be included in the village’s housing Affordable housing is out of keeping with the village and requirements. will be more housing estate than rural village. The site is small compared to number of dwellings • Housing requirements in the Staffordshire proposed. Moorlands are in addition to existing properties Height of development overbearing. even if these are for sale or derelict. • Government policy – Govt directive asks for 20 houses in small villages. We already have 13 new and • Public footpaths can be maintained or re-directed. therefore only 7 required by 2031. This could be provided by infill and more barn conversions whilst preserving our heritage. Number of houses is more than is required. • Other – No more housing until new developments are sold. This is one village that shares facilities and housing numbers should reflect this. Site is next to scout hut and bus stop which is dangerous. Cars not adhering to speed restrictions make it very dangerous. Site is outside current infill boundary. Few play facilities for children.

Support • Infrastructure - Schools - Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – Road between Cookshill and Weston Coyney would support extra housing. • Infrastructure – other • Scale of development – Hope that development remains small and sit alongside properties of a similar design and does not ruin village feel.

Draft – Caverswall and Cookshill

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Sites within infill boundary Caverswall Parish Council - All sites - Village should not Allocation of sites not be split into two areas. Already has 13 of the required 20 considered necessary – houses with another 7 dwellings being achievable through new housing could be infill. accommodated within the

infill boundary. Environment Agency:

• Surface water in these areas should be treated using suitable SUDS where possible. If development is in a combined sewer area, increased flow should not affect the spill frequency.

Draft - Cookshill

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Sites within the infill boundary None Sites within the Green Belt CL004 20 2.20 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 20 • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In dwellings is considered to have a order for Cookshill to accommodate new Caverswall Parish Council - This is green belt and significant positive effect. Similarly, development, the Green Belt boundary is likely to pastureland. Access to site on blind bend. Site is located in the site’s accessibility to areas of need adjustment to accommodate the level of curtilage of listed building. Public footpath through site. open space and location away from development needed. The Council has recently historic assets is likely to have a completed a Green Belt Review in order to assess SCC Highways - Access to site will be difficult on positive effect. However, the site is parts of the Green Belt where minor adjustments Roughcote Lane, as there no footways to the east so inaccessible to services and can be made without having an impact on the unlikely to achieve adequate visibility without facilities and areas of existing function of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined improvements to third party land. employment which is likely to have in government planning guidance). This study a significant negative effect, as recommends considering site CL004 for release Developer/Agent/Owner – Landowner intentions could the development of from the Green Belt. unknown. greenfield, grade 3 ALC land. The district ecological importance of the • The Highway Authority has raised an issue with Public response 37 comments - 36 objections and 1 site is likely to have a negative accessing the site which would need to be support effect. resolved.

Support • Infrastructure - Schools - Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – Road structure from Weston Coyney

Draft - Checkley

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment DraftRecommendation dwellings Site s within the infill boundary None Allocation of sites not considered necessary – new housing could be accommodated within an amended (extended) infill boundary. Site s outside the infill boundary CK007 6 0.28 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 6 • The District Council will work with the County Allocation of site not dwellings is considered to have a Council to identify appropriate solutions considered necessary – Checkley Parish Council positive effect. Similarly, the site’s regarding education provision. new housing could be accessibility to areas of open space accommodated within an • Traffic – the main road from Uttoxeter and two JCB and low ecological value is likely to • County Highways advise that development of amended (extended) sites to Tean/Cheadle pass through Checkley. have a positive effect. However, the site acceptable subject to access design and infill boundary. This road is straight through Checkley and is a site is inaccessible to services and provision of visibility splay frequent high speed overtaking area. Checkley is facilities and areas of existing also on the diversion route used if the A50 is employment which is likely to have • Housing commitments between 2011-2015 will closed between Uttoxeter and Blythe Bridge. a significant negative effect, as be factored in to calculate the village’s residual • Access to the sites. could the development of housing requirement to 2031. Note that not all • Fear of houses overlooking each other. greenfield, grade 3 ALC land. The options are likely to be required to meet • Area is prone to flooding, main sewer is at site’s proximity to historic assets is Checkley’s requirements. capacity. likely to have a negative effect. • Local schools are already at capacity. • When deciding over which site options to • Both of these sites are green field sites. proceed with the Council will consider the • Fole dairy would make a better site. respective comments of statutory consultees including SMDC Conservation, SCC Highways/Transportation, Environment Agency, Checkley Village Awareness Committee infrastructure providers etc; and utilises the • Potential for development at the Fole Dairy site results of its sustainability appraisal work. rather than CK007. This will meet housing requirement. • New development is the main way to deliver • Brownfield sites and infill should be utilised first new or improved infrastructure e.g. more • Rural Village character should be preserved. residents may support an improved bus service, • Development will place enormous presseure on and provision of a mains gas supply. amenities Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new • Sites identified are excessive for five houses. development will be provided as part of that development e.g. childrens’ play areas, • Sites selected front a very busy road and accident footpaths. Similarly, any existing blackspot facilities/services in Checkley will assess their • Issues with existing electricity supply. capacity needs as a result of new development • Loss of two fields will impact on environment and in Checkley so that provision can be made to Countryside. accommodate new residents.

SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and • Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty provision of visibility splay. Bus stop on frontage should be to complete necessary improvements to sewers protected, renewed and upgraded if appropriate. to provide the capacity for new development.

The Council will continue to liaise with the EA SCC Education: and Severn Trent regarding this issue. • Consultation with SoT LEA will be required as there is potential for cross-boundary impacts • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 • In general consideration should be given to sites’ Ecological Study for the District. This assessed proximity to essential infrastructure and services to sites included in the Site Options consultation.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment DraftRecommendation dwellings maximise sustainable transport, eg walking to school. The site survey results will be used as part of the site selection process. Any other sites Developer/Agent/Landowner – Owner position unknown. which come forward and are potentially suitable for development will also need to be assessed Public response 99 comments - 94 objections and 5 support • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, Objections the results of which are being used to inform the • Infrastructure – Schools. Intake pressure on site selection process. The Council also fully primary school. Nearby developments in Fole and Lower consults with both the Environment Agency and Tean fall into this catchment. County Council Lead Local Flood Risk Officer • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – A5222 is busy during the Plan preparation process. and fast road. Development would increase volume of traffic and pose a greater threat to pedestrians. Any new • Amenity – issues such as overlooking will be building should be with no direct access on A522. assessed in detail once a site layout has been Speeding and child safety concerns. The path is very determined at the time a planning application is narrow along this stretch of road. Will cause problems with received and residents will have the opportunity access onto what is already a busy road. A notorious to comment on the content of that application. accident blackspot. Frequent accidents on the A50 mean traffic is diverted through Checkley. Visibility would be poor at the frontages to these sites. • Infrastructure – other. Problems with the electricity supply Electricity supply in Checkly is unreliable and could not cope with extra loading. The area suffers frequent power cuts. Development would put pressure on community services. Sewage works cannot support more housing. • Landscape – The area is a living/working greenfield pasture. There are more suitable brownfield sites. This is a rural community. Public footpath runs across the field. Development would ruin the character of the village • Nature Conservation - development on a greenfield site would be detrimental to nature conservation. Site is home to wildlife including colonies of pipistrelle bats • Flood Risk – South side of A522 subject to flooding. • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light). Noise pollution from increased traffic. Would have negative impact on adjacent properties. • Scale of development - The size of the sites would suggest/encourage further development. Site is excessive for five dwellings. • Listed Building / Conservation Area • Government Policy – These fields should remain in the special landscape area. SM Core Strategy – Checkley should remain as a small hamlet • Other – The approved development on the 5 acre brownfield site meets the requirement for housing. The proposed infill boundary should be abandonded and the existing village boundary preferred. Infill sites will accommodate the proposed five dwellings along with the development at the old Fole dairy in liaison with ESDC. .This should be developed in full before new sites are proposed. Planned developments sufficient to 2031.

Support • Scale of development – A suitable infill area for

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment DraftRecommendation dwellings small scale development. CK008 7 0.30 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 7 • The District Council will work with the County Allocation of site not Checkley Parish Council dwellings is considered to have a Council to identify appropriate solutions considered necessary – positive effect. Similarly, the site’s regarding education provision. new housing could be • Traffic – the main road from Uttoxeter and two JCB accessibility to areas of open space accommodated within an sites to Tean/Cheadle pass through Checkley. and low ecological value is likely to • County Highways advise that development of amended (extended) This road is straight through Checkley and is a have a positive effect. However, the site acceptable subject to access design and infill boundary. frequent high speed overtaking area. Checkley is site is inaccessible to services and provision of visibility splay. also on the diversion route used if the A50 is facilities and areas of existing closed between Uttoxeter and Blythe Bridge. employment which is likely to have • Housing commitments between 2011-2015 will • Access to the sites. a significant negative effect, as be factored in to calculate the village’s residual • Fear of houses overlooking each other. could the development of housing requirement to 2031. Note that not all • Area is prone to flooding, main sewer is at greenfield, grade 3 ALC land. The options are likely to be required to meet capacity. site’s proximity to historic assets is Checkley’s requirements. • Local schools are already at capacity. likely to have a negative effect. • Both of these sites are green field sites. • When deciding over which site options to proceed with the Council will consider the respective comments of statutory consultees Checkley Village Awareness Committee including SMDC Conservation, SCC • Potential for development at the Fole Dairy site Highways/Transportation, Environment Agency, rather than CK008. This will meet housing infrastructure providers etc; and utilises the requirement. results of its sustainability appraisal work. • Brownfield sites and infill should be utilised first • Rural Village character should be preserved. • New development is the main way to deliver • Development will place enormous pressure on new or improved infrastructure e.g. more amenities residents may support an improved bus • Sites identified are excessive for five houses. service, and provision of a mains gas supply. • Sites selected front a very busy road and accident Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new development will be provided as part of blackspot that development e.g. childrens’ play areas, • Issues with existing electricity supply. footpaths. Similarly, any existing • Loss of two fields will impact on environment and facilities/services in Checkley will assess their Countryside. capacity needs as a result of new development

in Checkley so that provision can be made to SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and accommodate new residents. provision of visibility splay. Footway on frontage should be

widened to 2m. Hedge on frontage will need to be cut back • Housing commitments between 2011-2015 will or setback or removed. be factored in to calculate the village’s residual

housing requirement to 2031. Note that not all SCC Education: options are likely to be required to meet • Consultation with SoT LEA will be required as there is Checkley’s requirements. potential for cross-boundary impacts

• In general consideration should be given to sites’ • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 proximity to essential infrastructure and services to Ecological Study for the District. This assessed maximise sustainable transport, eg walking to school. sites included in the Site Options consultation.

The site survey results will be used as part of Developer/Agent/Landowner – Owner position unknown. the site selection process. Any other sites

which come forward and are potentially suitable Public response 99 comments - 94 objections and 5 for development will also need to be assessed. support

• The Council has recently completed a Level 1 Objections Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the • Infrastructure - Schools Intake pressure on primary District, the results of which are being used to school. Nearby developments in Fole and Lower Tean fall inform the site selection process. The Council into this catchment. also fully consults with both the Environment

Agency and County Council Lead Local Flood • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – Any new Risk Officer during the Plan preparation building should be with no direct access on A522. A5222 is process.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment DraftRecommendation dwellings busy and fast road. Development would increase volume of traffic and pose a greater threat to pedestrians. • Amenity – issues such as overlooking will be Speeding and child safety concerns. The path is very assessed in detail once a site layout has been narrow aloing this stretch of road. Will cause problems with determined at the time a planning application is access onto what is already a busy road. A notorious received and residents will have the opportunity accident blackspot.Frequent accidents on the A50 mean to comment on the content of that application. traffic is diverted through Checkley. Visibility would be poor at the frontages to these sites. This site accesses the road over the brow of a hill.

• Infrastructure – other. Problems with the electricity supply. The area suffers frequent power cuts. Development would put pressure on community services. Sewage works cannot support more housing.

• Landscape - The area is a living/working greenfield pasture. There are more suitable brownfield sites. This is a rural community. Public footpath runs across the field. Development would ruin the character of the village.

• Nature Conservation – development on a greenfield site would be detrimental to nature conservation. Site is home to wildlife including colonies of pipistrelle bats

• Flood Risk - Flood Risk – South side of A522 subject to flooding.

• Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) Noise pollution from increased traffic. Would have negative impact on adjacent properties

• Scale of development – The size of the sites would suggest/encourage further development. Site is excessive for five dwellings • Listed Building/ Conservation Area • Government Policy - These fields should remain in the special landscape area.SM Core Strategy – Checkley should remain as a small hamlet • Other-

Support • Infrastructure – other. New development will keep the amenities ie school viable. • Scale of development – A suitable infill area for small scale development.

Draft - Dilhorne

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site Site s within the draft infill boundary None Allocation of sites not considered necessary – new housing could be accommodated within the infill boundary.

Site s within the Green Belt

All sites Environment Agency – There is sufficient capacity within the Leek and Checkley treatment works to support growth. However there are known sewer capacity issues with the main sewer from Draycott to Checkley STW. Checkley sewage treatment works serves Blythe Bridge/Forsbrook.

DH004 20 1.13 Statutory bodies/stakeholders: The proposed delivery of circa 20 • There is an issue with providing a suitable dwellings is considered to have a access to the site which may be difficult to SCC Highways – Sarver Lane is unsuitable to be used to significant positive effect. overcome. access this site. Third party land would be needed to bring Similarly, the site’s accessibility it up to appropriate standards. An access point on to to areas of open space and • Any adverse impact on the Listed Building Godley Lane would be more satisfactory. distance from designated assets could potentially be mitigated, this issue is likely to have a positive effect. requires further consideration. Dilhorne Parish Council However, the site is inaccessible Issues Raised: to services and facilities and • The land in question is within the Green Belt, • Site within curtailage of a grade 2 listed building. areas of existing employment, though the Staffordshire Moorlands Core • Within Green belt both of which is likely to have a Strategy categorises Dilhorne as a ‘smaller • Access from highway is difficult due to narrow roads significant negative effect, as village’ which will include an infill boundary (to and existing access arrangements. could the site’s proximity to be determined through the Local Plan • Tree preservation orders in vicinity. historic assets. The development process). The Council has recently completed of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land is a Green Belt Review in order to assess parts Developer/Agent/Owner – Land availability unknown. likely to have a negative effect. of the Green Belt where minor adjustments can be made without having an impact on the Public response 19 comments – 19 objections function of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined in government planning guidance). Issues raised: This study recommends that site DH004 could be considered for release from the Green Belt. Objections • Infrastructure – Schools School no longer threatened • Trees with TPOS can usually be incorporated by low numbers. in to development schemes with careful • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – No direct access design. to the highway. Access would be on a dangerous bend. Roads unable to take additional capacity. • Dilhorne has been classified as a ‘smaller Insufficient capacity on Godley Lane.Traffic will village’ in the Staffordshire Moorlands Core bottleneck at High Street and Godley Lane. Narrow Strategy and this involves the village having and winding roads to the village. Single lane access an infill boundary within which development from Sarver Lane on unadopted road. Parking issues will be allowed if it is in line with planning adjacent to site. Increased traffic will add to policy. This designation is to support all congestion at junction of Blyth Bridge High School. village facilities not just the school. Road would need to widened resulting in loss of trees and nearby bungalow. Safety concerns for children • New development is the main way to deliver crossing road to school. new or improved infrastructure / services.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site • Infrastructure – Other – Gas and sewerage Infrastructure needs specifically related to a infrastructure insufficient for site. No local shops or new development will be provided as part of amenities. Old mine workings believed to be under the that development. site. • Landscape – Special landscape area. Impact on • Where sites are affected by historic mine Sarver Lane as part of the Moorlands Walk. workings, investigative work will take place • Nature Conservation – impact on wildlife and prior to the commencement of any biodiversity. Bats sighted in area. Tree preservation development. In most circumstances, mining orders in vicinity. acts as a constraint rather than an absolute • Flood Risk – The natural fall helps ground water drain barrier to development. to the brook. The ground is always wet. • Listed Building / Conservation Area – Adverse effect • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 on nearby grade 2 listed building. Ecological Study for the District. This • Government Policy – Green belt. Harm to openness of assessed sites included in the Site Options green belt consultation. The site survey results will be • Other – Application for 10 dwellings at Home Farm used as part of the site selection process. site, Godley Lane and 3 at Royal Oak High Street meets the estimated need so no need for additional • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 housing. Future need should be met by small infill in Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the the village. Dilhorne is designated as an infill village. District, the results of which are being used to This is not infill. Need for bungalows to inform the site selection process. Mitigation accommodate ageing population. measures will be taken as part of the site development to address any surface water issues.

DH013 6 0.18 Statutory bodies/stakeholders: The proposed delivery of circa 6 • The Highway Authority does not raise any dwellings is considered to have a issues indicating that the site is SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and positive effect. Similarly, the undevelopable. provision of visibility. Where is access proposed? Sarver site’s accessibility to areas of Lane should be widened and surfaced at least partially. open space and distance from • The land in question is within the Green Belt, Visibility must be provided across front of the plot from designated assets is likely to though the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Sarver Lane. 2m wide footway should be provided on have a positive effect. However, Strategy categorises Dilhorne as a ‘smaller frontage to connect to existing. the site is inaccessible to village’ which will include an infill boundary (to s ervices and facilities and areas be determined through the Local Plan Dilhorne Parish Council of existing employment, both of process). The Council has recently completed which is likely to have a a Green Belt Review in order to assess parts Issues Raised: significant negative effect, as of the Green Belt where minor adjustments could the site’s proximity to can be made without having an impact on the • Previous applications by landowners refused on historic assets. The development function of the Green Belt as a whole (as access issues. of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land is defined in government planning guidance). • Junction is insufficient width to accommodate likely to have a negative effect. This study recommends that site DH013 is not vehicles. considered for release from the Green Belt. • Site is within green belt • Excavation would create visual harm • New development is the main way to deliver new or improved infrastructure / services. Developer/Agent/Owner – Land available. Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new development will be provided as part of Public response 10 comments: 10 objections that development.

Issues raised: • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – Access roads are of light will be assessed in detail once a site narrow and winding. Additional traffic would be layout has been determined at the time a dangerous. Roads unable to cope with additional planning application is received and residents capacity. Access roads are not of sufficient width and will have the opportunity to comment on the do not provide the visibility required. Earlier content of that application. Views from applications for new farm track refused on grounds of individual properties are not protected in access and poor visibility. planning law. • Infrastructure – other Insufficient infrastructure – Gas,

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site Shops etc • It is not considered that development of this • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – Dwellings particular site would be out of proportion with will overlook existing property. Development will its surroundings Any new development taking restrict views from existing property on Sarver Lane. place will be subject to design policies Noise pollution. contained within the new Local Plan – which • Scale of development will be subject to public consultation next year. • Listed Building / Conservation Area – Development would have adverse affect on nearby grade 2 listed • It is not considered that development on this building (Day House Farm) site would have an adverse impact on Day • Government Policy – Green belt. House Farm. • Other – Brownfield site (Moss Feeds) already identified and will meet required capacity. Dilhorne is designated as an infill village. This is not infill.

DH018 7 0.23 Statutory bodies/stakeholders: The proposed delivery of circa 7 • The Highway Authority does not raise any dwellings is considered to have a issues which would prevent the development SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design. positive effect. Similarly, the of this site. site’s accessibility to areas of Dilhorne Parish Council open space is likely to have a • The land in question is within the Green Belt, positive effect. However, the site though the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Issues Raised: is inaccessible to services and Strategy categorises Dilhorne as a ‘smaller • Object on highway issues. facilities and areas of existing village’ which will include an infill boundary (to • Traffic would emerge on a bend on New Road. employment, both of which is be determined through the Local Plan • Site is within green belt and would visually harm likely to have a significant process). The Council has recently completed rural area. negative effect, as could the a Green Belt Review in order to assess parts • SMD/2014/0143 at Home Farm Godley Lane site’s proximity to historic assets. of the Green Belt where minor adjustments meets the required housing numbers. The development of greenfield, can be made without having an impact on the grade 4 ALC land is likely to have function of the Green Belt as a whole (as Developer/Agent/Owner – Land available a negative effect, as could the defined in government planning guidance). site’s district ecological This study recommends that site DH018 is not importance. Public response 13 comments: 12 objections and 1 considered for release from the Green Belt. support • Dilhorne has been classified as a ‘smaller Objections village’ in the Staffordshire Moorlands Core • Infrastructure - Schools Dilhorne Endowed Primary Strategy and this involves the village having school more than doubled in size in recent years. an infill boundary within which development • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – Access to highway will be allowed if it is in line with planning would be near a bend. Churnet Valley Road has blind policy. This designation is to support all areas. On road parking is already an issue. Roads in village facilities not just the school. the village are narrow and windy and cannot cope with additional traffic. Visibility issues. Blind bends are • New development is the main way to deliver safety concerns. new or improved infrastructure / services. • Infrastructure – other. No gas mains and sewerage Infrastructure needs specifically related to a infrastructure is at capacity. Few facilities in the new development will be provided as part of village. Nearest shop is Forsbrook. that development. • Landscape – Extensive excavation would be required. • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 • Nature Conservation – Badgers and protected species Ecological Study for the District. This in neighbouring woods. assessed sites included in the Site Options • Government Policy – Greenfield site consultation. The site survey results will be • Other - Brownfield site (Moss Feeds) already used as part of the site selection process. identified and will meet required capacity. Capacity

met by development at Royal Oak. Dilhorne is

designated as an infill village. This is not infill. Can

not fit 7 properties onto this site.

Support • Infrastructure – Schools – School is under capacity.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings site • Other – Growth is needed in the village to attract younger residents and families.

DH026 15 0.50 Statutory bodies/stakeholders: The proposed delivery of circa 15 • The Highway Authority does not raise any dwellings is considered to have a issues which would prevent the development Dilhorne Parish Council significant positive effect. of this site. Similarly, the site’s accessibility Issues Raised: to areas of open space is likely to • The land in question is within the Green Belt, have a positive effect. However, though the Staffordshire Moorlands Core • Traffic would emerge on a bend on New Road. the site is inaccessible to Strategy categorises Dilhorne as a ‘smaller • Site is within green belt and would visually harm services and facilities and areas village’ which will include an infill boundary (to rural area. of existing employment, both of be determined through the Local Plan • SMD/2014/0143 at Home Farm Godley Lane which is likely to have a process). The Council has recently completed meets the required housing numbers. significant negative effect. The a Green Belt Review in order to assess parts development of greenfield, grade of the Green Belt where minor adjustments SCC Highways: Not connected to highway apart from 4 ALC land is likely to have a can be made without having an impact on the through DH018. Acceptable if this is possible and subject negative effect, as could the function of the Green Belt as a whole (as to access design and visibility at DH018 site’s district ecological defined in government planning guidance). importance and proximity to This study recommends that site DH026 is not Developer/Agent/Owner – Land available. historic assets. considered for release from the Green Belt.

Public response 12 comments - 11 objections and 1 • Dilhorne has been classified as a ‘smaller support village’ in the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy and this involves the village having Objections an infill boundary within which development • Infrastructure - Schools - Schools Dilhorne Endowed will be allowed if it is in line with planning Primary school more than doubled in size in recent policy. This designation is to support all years. village facilities not just the school. • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – No highway access. Access to the site is narrow and on a bend. • New development is the main way to deliver Roads to the village are narrow and winding. Roads new or improved infrastructure / services. cannot cope with more traffic. Infrastructure needs specifically related to a • Infrastructure – other - no gas mains and sewerage new development will be provided as part of infrastructure is at capacity that development. • Landscape – Extensive excavation would be required. • Nature Conservation – Badgers and protected species • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 in neighbouring woods. Ecological Study for the District. This assessed sites included in the Site Options • Government Policy - Green belt site consultation. The site survey results will be • Other - Brownfield site (Moss Feeds) already used as part of the site selection process. identified and will meet required capacity. Capacity met by development at Royal Oak. Dilhorne is designated as an infill village. This is not infill.

Support • School is under capacity • Other - Growth is needed in the village to attract younger residents and families

Draft - Draycott

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Sites within the draft infill boundary None Sites within the Green Belt Draycott in the Moors village is a ribbon development. • Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty Allocation of sites not There are no amenities to support even the 850 or so to complete necessary improvements to sewers considered necessary – residents in the local parish area. to provide the capacity for new development. new housing could be Bus services stopped some years ago, The District Council will continue to liaise with accommodated within the We have no shops, medical services, schools, the Environment Agency and Severn Trent infill boundary. The location of proposed housing in our village seems ill regarding this issue. thought out placing houses at the junction of Uttoxeter

Road and Cheadle road. • No known infrastructure constraints that would If Draycott is to have housing development then prevent small-scale development. consideration needs to be made for services as well. • Sites which have received planning permission Draycott Parish Council - There are other areas more or have housing completions since 1st April suited to industrial/residential development than to use 2011 will be included within the housing green field sites (Fole Dairy/Tean Mill). Concern that requirement. Draycott Parish is turning into a suburb of Stoke on Trent.

Environment Agency – There is sufficient capacity within the Leek and Checkley treatment works to support growth. However there are known sewer capacity issues with the main sewer from Draycott to Checkley STW. Checkley sewage treatment works serves Draycott. DC003 10 0.50 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 10 • The Highway Authority has raised issues dwellings is considered to have a regarding access which would need to be SCC Highways - There is no existing access to the site. significant positive effect. Similarly, overcome. Access from Cheadle Road adjacent to the site will be the site’s accessibility to areas of difficult to achieve as it is a declassified road which is open space is likely to have a • The site is within the Green Belt. The Council narrow and has only limited footways. In addition, there is positive effect. However, the site is has recently completed a Green Belt Review in an open watercourse between the site and the highway inaccessible to services and order to assess parts of the Green Belt where which will need to be crossed. Acceptable visibility may facilities and areas of existing minor adjustments can be made without having also be difficult to achieve due to adjacent trees and employment, both of which is likely an impact on the function of the Green Belt as a hedges. Access would be best achieved to this site via to have a significant negative effect, whole (as defined in government planning adjacent DC005 proposal site. Ideally a footway should be as could the site’s proximity to guidance). This study concludes that site provided over the frontage of the site but as this will affect historic assets and development of DC003 could be considered for release from the the open watercourse it may be difficult to insist upon. greenfield, grade 3 ALC land. The Green Belt. site’s district ecological importance Leek and Moorland Historic Building Trust - is likely to have a negative effect. • The site is adjacent to a listed building. A The core of Draycott’s historic past is the area that Heritage Impact Assessment will be undertaken includes the church, and the hollow-way/avenue that leads during the plan production process if the site is from the church to the Old Rectory and its curtilage taken forward. buildings (Listed Grade II). The Old Rectory is set on a moated site consisting of medieval ponds and earthworks (not Scheduled but of considerable archaeological and historical significance). Building on the northern part of DC003 could do serious damage to the setting of the building and impact on the surrounding earthworks. While limited development might be acceptable to the south of DC003 within what we presume to be the current development boundary we would prefer to see the northern part excluded.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings

Developer/Agent – site is available

Public response – no comments received

Draft - Foxt

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Sites outside the draft infill boundary F008 8 0.29 Ipstones Parish Council – The site has good accessibility to • There are issues surrounding access to the site Object to the site for the following reasons: areas of existing employment which which is through an existing employment site. • It is the only industrial site in Foxt and supports is likely to have a significant two separate businesses. Support the retention of positive effect. Similarly, the • There are no known infrastructure constraints. this site for industrial use. proposed delivery of circa 8 • Consider that any new dwellings should be dwellings is considered to have a • Amenity – issues such as landscaping and accommodated through infill only and not an positive effect, as could the site’s screening (mature trees) overlooking and other allocated site. accessibility to areas of open impacts on existing residents will be assessed • Consider there is a need for bungalows for older space. However, the site is in detail onc e a site layout has been determined residents to release housing for younger residents inaccessible to services and at the time a planning application is received but these should be infill. facilities and is in proximity to and residents will have the opportunity to designated assets, both of whic h is comment on the content of that application. Statutory bodies/stakeholders likely to have a significant negative effect. The development of • There is a limited need for new housing in Foxt. SCC Highways: Not directly connected to highway. May be greenfield, grade 4 ALC land is Consider that this could be met by infill acceptable if access can be achieved and subject to likely to have a negative effect, as opportunities within the infill boundary. design. could the site’s proximity to historic assets. Developer/Agent - Site is available

Public response 7 comments - 1 objection, 1 neutral and 5 support

Issues raised:

General comment from 1 respondent stating: • Other opportunities within Foxt such as existing holiday lets at Rock House Farm

Objections • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport • Infrastructure - Other • Landscape • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) • Scale of development

Support

• Landscape • Scale of development – Small scale and would enhance area. • Other – Site is central in village and brownfield site. Would also be a good idea to incorporate

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings existing garage into site. No objection to housing but please more information on numbers and timescale. Perfect spot for new housing.

Draft - Froghall

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Sites outside the draft infill boundary OC001 50 5 hectares This site was not considered as part of the Site Options Site appraised in the Churnet Valley The site is identified in the Churnet Valley Masterplan as Bolton (net) Cons ultation as the site is already identified in the Churnet Masterplan SA. an opportunity site and identified in the Core Strategy as Copperworks Valley Masterplan and Core Strategy Policy SS6c. a major developed area in the countryside. Potentially Site, Froghall suitable uses include housing (alongside employment, Public response – several comments suggesting site for: tourist-related retail/accommodation; and leisure Housing / leisure /recreation/ retail/ employment / gypsy purposes). This site will be included as a preferred and traveller site option for these uses (as set out in Pol SS6C(4) Core Strategy). Issue s ra ise d: Redevelop the existing brownfield site for housing. This is an eyesore and would improve the local Any subsequent applications will be expected to meet area. It would bring benefits to the local community. the land use expectations set out in the Churnet Valley Masterplan.

Draft - Hollington

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Site s within the draft infill boundary None Sites outside the draft infill boundary Checkley Parish Council - See comments below. Allocation of sites not considered necessary – Traffic – already an issue in the village due to narrow new housing could be roads, higher speed limits and the ever increasing JCB accommodated within the traffic. Hollington is used as a through route from Rocester infill boundary. to Tean/Cheadle, and these sites are on a particularly dangerous bend.

The buildings in Hollington are historical and a majority are listed buildings. How would new buildings fit in with the aesthetics of the village? There is no public transport to Hollington or amenities for additional residents. HO002 – is situated on the narrowest section of the road. At present there is not sufficient width for two vehicles to pass. Consequently there is often a bottleneck when traffic has to stop to allow others to pass by. Access to St Johns Church is already a problem with no parking available so cars have to park on the narrow road. Site HO003 is situated on a dangerous bend. Access to both sites would cause additional hazards for all vehicles. HO002 7 0.26 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The propos ed delivery of circa 7 • The Highway Authority has not raised any dwellings is considered to have a issues which would prevent the development of SCC Highways: May be acceptable subject to access positive effect. Similarly, the site’s this site. design and provision of adequate visibility. accessibility to areas of open space and location away from designated • No known infrastructure constraints that would Developer/Agent – Site is available assets is likely to have a positive prevent small-scale development. effect. However, the site is Public response 6 comments - 6 objections inaccessible to services and • The site is located in a sensitive area close to facilities and areas of existing Hollington House which is listed. A Heritage Issue s ra ise d: employment, both of which is likely Impact Assessment will be undertaken during to have a significant negative effect, the plan production process if the site is taken Objections as could the site’s proximity to forward. • Infrastructure - Schools historic assets. The development of • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Sites greenfield, grade 4 ALC land is • New development would need to follow the located near sharp bend on very narrow road likely to have a negative effect. Council’s design policies, which will be the without footpaths and used as rat run. subject of consultation as part of the Local Plan Access to St Johns Church already a problem. production process. Amount of traffic using road network already busy. • Infrastructure – Other – No mains gas, schools, shops or bus. • Landscape • Listed Building / Conservation Area – Impact on setting of listed building (Hollington House) • Government Policy – To support building on brownfield sites first rather than green belt such as Tearne Quarry.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings • Other – No demand for housing as under occupancy of nearby Tean Mill development. Adequate access to sites will require loss of stone walls and this will have an adverse impact on character of the village.

HO003 6 0.22 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The propos ed delivery of circa 6 • The Highway Authority has not raised any dwellings is considered to have a issues which would prevent the development of SCC Highways: May be acceptable subject to access positive effect. Similarly, the site’s this site. design and provision of adequate visibility. Site is on inside accessibility to areas of open space of bend, careful positioning of access will be required to and location away from designated • No known infrastructure constraints that would achieve visibility. assets is likely to have a positive prevent small-scale development. effect. However, the site is Developer/Agent – Site is available inaccessible to services and • The site is located in a sensitive area close to a facilities and areas of existing number of listed buildings. A Heritage Impact Public response 6 comments – 6 objections employment, both of which is likely Assessment will be undertaken during the plan to have a significant negative effect, production process if the site is taken forward. Issue s ra ise d: as could the site’s proximity to historic assets. The development of • The site relates well to the existing settlement. Objections greenfield, grade 4 ALC land is • Infrastructure - Schools likely to have a negative effect. • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Sites located near sharp bend on very narrow road without footpaths and used as rat run. • Infrastructure – Other – No mains gas, schools, shops or bus. • Landscape • Listed Building / Conservation Area – Impact on setting of listed building (Hollington House) • Government Policy To support building on brownfield sites first rather than green belt such as Tearne Quarry. • Other – No demand for housing as under occupancy of nearby Tean Mill development. Adequate access to sites will require loss of stone walls and this will have an adverse impact on character of the village. The site is very shallow and garden space will have to be alongside which is against good design policies in NPPG and SMDC local plan.

Draft - Hulme

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Sites within the Green Belt Environment Agency – Surface water in these areas should be treated using suitable SUDS where possible. If development is in a combined sewer area, inc reas ed flow should not affect the spill frequency. HU002 5 0.29 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The propos ed delivery of circa 5 • The Highway Authority has not raised any Allocation of site not dwellings is considered to have a issues which would prevent the development of considered necessary – SCC Highways - acceptable subject to access design and positive effect. Similarly, the site’s this site. new housing could be provision of adequate visibility. accessibility to areas of open accommodated within an space, areas of existing • The site is within the Green Belt. The Council amended (extended) Developer/Agent employment and location away has recently completed a Green Belt Review in Rob Duncan – Planning Consultancy - support from historic assets is likely to have order to assess parts of the Green Belt where infill boundary. a positive effect, as could the minor adjustments can be made without having Public response 2 comments - 2 support development of brownfield land. an impact on the function of the Green Belt as a However, the site is inaccessible to whole (as defined in government planning Issue s ra ise d: services and facilities which is likely guidance). This study concludes that site to have a significant negative effect, HU002 could be considered for release from the Support as could the site’s proximity to Green Belt. designated assets. • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – Easy access • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 to highway network. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, • Infrastructure – other – Lack of facilities in village the results of which are being used to inform the but Weston Coyney and Meir nearby. site selection process. The majority of the site • Landscape – Greenbelt not affected as is within Flood Zone 1 – Low probability. surrounded by housing and pub. • Nature Conservation – Can deliver biodiversity • The Council has recently completed a Phas e 1 enhancements (tree planting) Ecological Study for the District. This assessed • Flood Risk – Not in flood plain. sites included in the Site Options consultation. • Scale of development – spread development out The site survey results will be used as part of with individual drives rather than 1 access point. the site selection process. Any other sites This is more in keeping with village. which come forward and are potentially suitable • Other – Much needed housing for local people. for development will also need to be assessed. Site is available to be brought forward within 5 years and is viable. Suitable for open market local housing needs. Owner indicated adjacent site also available for development

Draft - Kingsley Holt

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Site s within the infill boundary Allocation of sites not considered necessary – new housing could be accommodated within an amended (extended) infill boundary. KH018 8 0.26 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The propos ed delivery of circa 8 • The Highway Authority has not raised any issues Allocation of site not dwellings is considered to have a which would prevent the development of this site. considered necessary – SCC Highways - Acceptable if adequate visibility can be positive effect. Similarly, the site’s new housing could be provided. Hedge, foliage and undergrowth will need to be accessibility to areas of open space • The planning history for this site dates back to the accommodated within an removed which would also provide a benefit for the and areas of existing employment is late 1970’s and is not relevant in this case. There amended (extended) adjacent houses and farm access. likely to have a positive effect. is no recent history on the site. infill boundary. However, the site is inaccessible to Developer/Agent/Owner – Landowner intentions s er vic es and facilities which is likely • New development is the main way to deliver new unknown. to have a significant negative effect, or improved infrastructure. Infrastructure needs as could the site’s proximity to specifically related to a new development will be Public response 3 comments - 2 objections and 1 designated assets. The provided as part of that development e.g. general comment development of greenfield, grade 4 children’s play areas, footpaths. ALC land is likely to have a Issue s ra ise d: negative effect, as could the site’s • All planning consents for housing in the village proximity to historic assets. from 2011 will be taken into account in calculating General comment: the housing requirement figure for the village. Previous application on this site refused. • The new Local Plan will cover a period to 2031 so Objections lack of demand (perceived or actual) at one point • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport - Access to in time is not a valid reason for not meeting the and from the A521 is blind to the north and poor to area’s objectively assessed housing needs. the south, with the existing 40 mile an hour speed limit any additional traffic at this point would be dangerous. • Infrastructure – Other – No schools, doctors or shops. • Other – 7 houses already granted permission but not started do these not count? Where is the demand?

Sites outside the infill boundary KH009 9 0.40 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The propos ed delivery of circa 9 • The Highway Authority has not raised any issues dwellings is considered to have a which would prevent the development of this site. SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and positive effect. Similarly, the site’s provision of adequate visibility splay. Footway on frontage accessibility to areas of open space • The District Council is working with the County should be widened to minimum 2m which would assist with and areas of existing employment is Council on the issue of school capacity. The visibility splay. likely to have a positive effect, as County has determined that additional school could its location away from historic provision would be required to support housing Developer/Agent/Owner – Land not available. assets and the development of growth in this catchment area at Primary and High brownfield land. However, the site School level. At this early stage in the site Public response 3 comments - 3 objections is inaccessible to services and selection process there are a number of options facilities which is likely to have a for delivering school capacity dependant on the Issue s ra ise d: significant negative effect, as could sites selected to take forward. the site’s proximity to designated Objections assets. • New development is the main way to deliver new

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings • Infrastructure - Schools or improved infrastructure. Infrastructure needs • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport - Access specifically related to a new development will be point to site poor at brow of hill with tight bends. provided as part of that development e.g. Increased traffic. children’s play areas, footpaths. Site sits above 2 sets of terraced houses, which require 'on road parking'. These terraces lie • All planning consents for housing in the village between site KH018 and KH009 means extra cars from 2011 will be taken into account in calculating manoeuvring on and off Churnet Valley Road, the housing requirement figure for the village. within an approximate 100 metre area. • Infrastructure – Other – No schools, doctors or shops • Landscape – Only window to surrounding landscape with views across to Ipstones. Valuable backdrop for events and functions at Chapel. • Other – Site should remain outside of village infill boundary. Staffordshire way passes site. If developed for housing will become a corridor from one side of village to another with no reason to stop in village. 7 houses already granted permission but not started do these not count? This is Open Space' laid down in the Village Plan it is outside the 'Village Boundary'

ADD07 50 2.2 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 52 Further investigations are required to establish any dwellings is considered to have a constraints on the site. SCC Highways – Awaiting comments. significant positive effect. The site’s accessibility to areas of existing Developer/Agent/Owner – Land available. Has good employment is considered to have access, road frontage, adjoins village boundary, utilities on a positive effect. However, the site’s site or very close. inaccessibility to services and facilities is likely to have a Public response None – site was put forward during significant negative effect. Similarly, consultation. the site’s proximity to designated and historic assets is likely to have a negative effect, as could the development of greenfield, grade 4 ALC, land.

Draft - Leekbrook

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Site s within the infill boundary LB006 6 0.22 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The site’s accessibility to areas of • County Highways question how site will be Allocation of housing existing employment is likely to connected to highway. [It is believed sites not considered SCC Highways - Not connected to highway. How will have a significant positive effect. Spicerstone access track in joint private necessary – new housing access be achieved? Similarly, the proposed delivery of ownership]. could be accommodated circa 6 dwellings is considered to within the infill boundary. Developer/Agent/Landowner – Landowner position have a positive effect, as could the • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement unknown. site’s accessibility to areas of open Setting Study and this site is not identified as

space and its location away from being important landscape setting to the Public response 0 comments. designated and historic assets. settlement. However, the site is inaccessible to services and facilities which is likely to have a significant negative effect. The development of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land is likely to have a negative effect. Site s outside the infill boundary LB011 6 0.21 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The site’s accessibility to areas of • County Highways advise that development of Environment Agency – Site is likely to be affected to some existing employment is likely to site acceptable subject to access design and degree by flood risk and if taken forward will require the have a significant positive effect. provision of adequate visibility. support of the Sequential Test and a Level 2 SFRA. Similarly, the proposed delivery of circa 6 dwellings is considered to • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement SCC Highways - acceptable subject to access design and have a positive effect, as could the Setting Study and this site is not identified as provision of adequate visibility. site’s accessibility to areas of open being important landscape setting to the space and its location away from settlement. Developer/Agent/Landowner – Landowner position designated and historic assets. unknown. However, the site is inaccessible to services and facilities which is likely Public response 0 comments. to have a significant negative effect. The development of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land is likely to have a negative effect. LB012 6 0.26 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The site’s accessibility to areas of • County Highways advise that development of existing employment is likely to site acceptable subject to access design and SCC Highways - acceptable subject to access design and have a significant positive effect. provision of adequate visibility. provision of adequate visibility. Similarly, the proposed delivery of circa 6 dwellings is considered to • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement Environment Agency – Site is likely to be affected to some have a positive effect, as could the Setting Study and this site is not identified as degree by flood risk and if taken forward will require the site’s accessibility to areas of open being important landscape setting to the support of the Sequential Test and a Level 2 SFRA. space and its location away from settlement. designated and historic assets. Developer/Agent/Landowner – Landowner position However, the site is inaccessible to unknown. services and facilities which is likely to have a significant negative effect. Public response 0 comments. The development of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land is likely to have a negative effect. Employment Sites ADD09 Up to 1.67ha 1.67ha Statutory bodies/stakeholders The development of new • Further investigations are required to establish (CD095 (part employment employment premises should have any constraints on the site. of)) land. SCC Highways – Awaiting comments. a significant positive effect on the vitality and viability of the District, • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Developer/Agent/Landowner – Correspondence from strengthen economic growth and Setting Study and this site is not identified as owner indicates the site is available. support a higher level of being important landscape setting to the employment within the District. The settlement. site’s accessibility to open space is likely to have a positive effect. However, the site is relatively inaccessible to services and facilities which is likely to have a significant negative effect. The development of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land is assessed as being a negative effect, as could the site’s proximity to historic assets

Draft - Longsdon

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Site s within the draft infill boundary Longsdson Parish Council • The development requirements for the different Allocation of sites not villages stem from the rural housing requirement considered necessary – How has the figure of 20 houses been arrived at as this is set out within Policy SS3 of the Core Strategy, new housing could be a small village with lack of facilities. Criteria is 1 in every 23 then split based on a combination of factors accommodated within an electors which is excessive compared with others. If the including existing village population/ assessed amended (extended) average formula is used the only 9 are required and can be development capacities/ access to facilities and infill boundary. met from infill and proposed homes already approved. services etc.

The 3 sites together present a large concentration of • As this is an options consultation, not all site houses out of character with area. options are required to achieve the village housing requirement. Village has no mains sewerage so new houses would have to use septic tanks. • Infill boundaries within the greenbelt will generally be drawn quite tightly around those Site LO02 already has a refusal for 1 house due to harm to settlements affected. The Council will also refer SLA so how can 10 be acceptable. to the results of its Green Belt Review.

Danger of traffic emerging onto Sutherland Road/ A53. History of accidents – blind bend and 40mph traffic.

Infill sites could manage to accommodate reduced number of dwellings.

Why not widen village boundary to include more suitable sites such as, School Lane. Micklea Lane, Denford Road, and School Lane would be suitable sites for controlled infill development. .

Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - Extending the development boundary to include LO002, LO007, and LO021 would be acceptable provided the scale and position the existing houses is respected at the road frontages.

LO002 10 0.43 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 10 • County Education advise that there are capacity Allocation of site not dwellings is considered to have a issues affecting Leek First-, Middle- and High considered necessary – SCC Education – significant positive effect. Similarly, Schools; and given the scale of housing new housing could be • the site’s accessibility to areas of Advise that Woodcroft First School currently proposed across this catchment, new First-, accommodated within an oversubscribed. Projections across the Leek open space is likely to have a Middle-, and High Schools will be required amended (extended) catchment indicate that the scale of new housing positive effect. However, the site is within Leek. Educational contributions will be across it will mean that at least an additional 1 FE inaccessible to services and required. The District Council will work with the infill boundary. First school will need to be provided in Leek, and facilities and areas of existing County Council to identify an appropriate there is limited potential to expand existing first employment which is likely to have solution. schools for this purpose. Educational contributions a significant negative effect. The will be required. development of greenfield, grade 4 • County Highways advise that development of • Advise that St Edwards CofE Academy Middle ALC land is likely to have a site acceptable subject to appropriately School currently has some capacity. However negative effect, as could the site’s designed access point or points with adequate projections across the Leek catchment indicate proximity to designated and historic visibility, and maximum gradient. that the scale of new housing across it will mean assets. that at least an additional 1 FE Middle school will • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement need to be provided in Leek, and there is limited Setting Study and this site is not identified as potential to expand existing first schools for this being important landscape setting to the purpose. Educational contributions will be settlement. 1

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings required. • Advise that Westwood College currently has some • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In capacity. However High Schools in the Leek order for Longsdon to accommodate new catchment are projected to have insufficient development, an infill boundary will need to be capacity to accommodate any children generated created. The Council has recently completed a from housing allocated across the catchment. Green Belt Review in order to assess parts of There is limited potential to enlarge existing the Green Belt where minor adjustments can be secondary schools in the Town. If it is not possible made without having an impact on the function to enlarge existing schools to the level required for of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined in the proposed growth on existing sites, then government planning guidance). This study additional land may be needed. Educational recommends considering site LO002 for release contributions will be required. from the Green Belt. • Consultation with SoT LEA will be required as there is potential for cross-boundary impacts. • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 • In general consideration should be given to sites’ Ecological Study for the District. This assessed proximity to essential infrastructure and services to sites included in the Site Options consultation. maximise sustainable transport, eg walking to The site survey results will be used as part of school. the site selection process. Any other sites which come forward and are potentially suitable SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to appropriately for development will also need to be assessed. designed access point or points with adequate visibility which appears achievable. Footway must be widened on • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 the frontage to 2m wide. Land falls sharply away from Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, Sutherland Road. Maximum gradient of any access should the results of which are being used to inform the be 1 in 10. Maximum gradient of any potentially adoptable site selection process. The Council also fully highway is 1 in 15. Acceptability will depend on layout. consults with both the Environment Agency and County Council Lead Local Flood Risk Officer Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - There during the Plan preparation process. are good quality 19th century buildings opposite and adjacent to the LO002 and houses built on this road • New development is the main way to deliver frontage would need to respect their scale and siting. new or improved infrastructure e.g. more residents may support an improved bus service, Developer/Agent/Landowner – Landowner has confirmed and provision of a mains gas supply. support. Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new development will be provided as part of that Public response 50 comments - development e.g. childrens’ play areas, 48 objections and 2 support footpaths. Similarly, any existing facilities/services in Longsdon will assess their Issues raised: capacity needs as a result of new development in Longsdon so that provision can be made to Objections accommodate new residents.

•Infrastructure – Schools – Local School closed • Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty •Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – to complete necessary improvements to sewers - Exacerbate problem of access and egress from to provide the capacity for new development. Sutherland Road to A53 (blind bend no visibility). The Council will continue to liaise with the EA - The density of traffic using the village has increased and Severn Trent regarding this issue. due to the Cheddleton housing developments. - More houses would increase the danger of accessing • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss the road network. of light will be assessed in detail once a site •Infrastructure – Other – layout has been determined at the time a - Mains drains would need to be installed to site. planning application is received and residents - This site and stream in LO021 is used for run off from will have the opportunity to comment on the local septic tanks where would outfall be ? content of that application. - Lack of facilities – no schools or shop, post office and minimal public transport. • It is not considered that development of this •Landscape – particular site would be out of proportion with - Site is in green belt//area of natural beauty and the rest of the village. Any new development

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings previous planning applications refused on this ground. taking place will be subject to design policies - Only area of green belt between urban areas of SM contained within the new Local Plan – which will and Stoke. be subject to public consultation next year. - Longsdon is set in SLA which should be preserved. •Nature Conservation – Impact on wildlife. • The development requirements for the different •Flood Risk villages stem from the rural housing requirement •Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – set out within Policy SS3 of the Core Strategy, - Additional noise of 28 houses spoil tranquillity of then split based on a combination of factors village. including existing village population/ assessed - Land slopes and will be overlooked by existing houses development capacities/ access to facilities and in Sutherland Road. services etc. Longsdon is a ‘smaller village’. •Scale of development – - Number of dwellings proposed is excessive and not in keeping with village/rural location and spoil character of village (infill better option). - Unlikely to meet Victorian character. - New development on the The New Inn Public House site to be bungalows only, suitable for older people. - Scale of proposed development would open up sites for more housing on green belt and would connect Longsdon to potteries and loose village status. •Government Policy – Against green belt policy. •Other – - Housing numbers for Longsdon excessive and more than double the average. - Infill development of say 10/15 houses max would seem to be a better option - There has been planning permission granted since 2012 for five dwellings on the New Inns Site as yet not developed. - Query viability of site given drain infrastructure required, serious waterlogging and Japanese knotweed. - Devalue existing properties. - Loss of views. - Better area for development would be around New Inn PH. - Extend village infill boundary to include all roads in Longsdon both sides of A53. - Impact on tourism as tourists visit charm of small villages around area.

Support • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport - - Traffic issues would be negligible we all have a bad junction somewhere on the way to work. - Site is accessible from Sutherland Road as access from A53 would be dangerous. - Site adjacent to community centre and might be an option to provide consolidated access. •Infrastructure – other – - Drainage is not an issue with state of the art sewage treatment plants. - Located in centre of village within walking distance of remaining facilities. •Landscape - There would be minimal visual impact providing design parameters are applied. •Nature Conservation

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings •Scale of development – - Site has strong frontage and is capable of accommodating 2 dwellings similar to surrounding development and would therefore meet infill policy in greenbelt. - Some of the site included within village boundary and Council feel that the site could accommodate 5 dwellings. The site could also provide access to LO021. - LO02 most suitable and relates best to existing layout and character of the village. - Site could accommodate 10 homes without impacting on views and openness of village. - It is a natural infill development site. •Other – - Many years of no housing resulting in declining population and cannot sustain services and facilities impacting on village character. - Additional housing is required to meet long term viability of village. - Requirement of 20 is appropriate.

LO007 (part in 5 0.38 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 5 • County Education advise that there are capacity draft infill boundary, part in dwellings is considered to have a issues affecting Leek First-, Middle- and High Green Belt) SCC Education – positive effect, as could the site’s Schools; and given the scale of housing • Advise that Woodcroft First School currently accessibility to areas of open proposed across this catchment, new First-, oversubscribed. Projections across the Leek space. However, the site is Middle-, and High Schools will be required catchment indicate that the scale of new housing inaccessible to services and within Leek. Educational contributions will be across it will mean that at least an additional 1 FE facilities and areas of existing required. The District Council will work with the First school will need to be provided in Leek, and employment which is likely to have County Council to identify an appropriate there is limited potential to expand existing first a significant negative effect. The solution. schools for this purpose. Educational contributions development of greenfield, grade 4 will be required. ALC land is likely to have a • County Highways advise that site appears • Advise that St Edwards CofE Academy Middle negative effect, as could the site’s unable to achieve adequate visibility onto A53. School currently has some capacity. However proximity to designated and historic However may be acceptable if accessed projections across the Leek catchment indicate assets. through LO002 or if frontage can be extended. that the scale of new housing across it will mean that at least an additional 1 FE Middle school will • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement need to be provided in Leek, and there is limited Setting Study and this site is not identified as potential to expand existing first schools for this being important landscape setting to the purpose. Educational contributions will be settlement. required. • Advise that Westwood College currently has some • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In capacity. However High Schools in the Leek order for Longsdon to accommodate new catchment are projected to have insufficient development, an infill boundary will need to be capacity to accommodate any children generated created. The Council has recently completed a from housing allocated across the catchment. Green Belt Review in order to assess parts of There is limited potential to enlarge existing the Green Belt where minor adjustments can be secondary schools in the Town. If it is not possible made without having an impact on the function to enlarge existing schools to the level required for of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined in the proposed growth on existing sites, then government planning guidance). This study additional land may be needed. Educational recommends considering site LO007 for release contributions will be required. from the Green Belt. • Consultation with SoT LEA will be required as there is potential for cross-boundary impacts. • Given the housing requirements of the village, it • In general consideration should be given to sites’ is not possible to meet this need upon proximity to essential infrastructure and services to brownfield sites in the village alone. Therefore a

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings maximise sustainable transport, eg walking to number of greenfield options have been school. proposed. National/Local Policy does not rule out allocating upon greenfield sites. Note that SCC Highways - appears unlikely to be able to achieve not all options will be required to meet Endon’s adequate visibility [onto A53]. May be acceptable if requirements. Note that not all options will be accessed through LO002 or if frontage can be extended. required to meet Endon’s requirements.

Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - The road • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 frontage of LO007 is lined by substantial houses set well Ecological Study for the District. This assessed back from the road and the building line of these would sites included in the Site Options consultation. need to be respected. The site survey results will be used as part of the site selection process. Any other sites Developer/Agent/Landowner – Correspondence from which come forward and are potentially suitable owner received indicating immediate availability for for development will also need to be assessed. housing. Also co-own LO021. • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 Public response 46 comments - 44 objections and 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, support the results of which are being used to inform the site selection process. The Council also fully Issue s ra ise d: consults with both the Environment Agency and County Council Lead Local Flood Risk Officer Objections during the Plan preparation process.

•Infrastructure – Schools – Local Schools closed. • New development is the main way to deliver •Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – new or improved infrastructure e.g. more - Exacerbate problem of access and egress from residents may support an improved bus service, Sutherland Road to A53 (blind bend no visibility). and provision of a mains gas supply. - Land would be required from adjoining sites to deliver Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new safe visibility splays. development will be provided as part of that - More houses would increase the danger of accessing development e.g. childrens’ play areas, the road network. footpaths. Similarly, any existing •Infrastructure – Other – facilities/services in Longsdon will assess their - Mains drains would need to be installed to site. capacity needs as a result of new development - Lack of facilities – no schools or shop, post office and in Longsdon so that provision can be made to minimal public transport. accommodate new residents. •Landscape – - Site is in green belt/area of natural beauty and • Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty previous planning applications refused on this ground. to complete necessary improvements to sewers - Only area of green belt between urban areas of SM to provide the capacity for new development. and Stoke. The Council will continue to liaise with the EA - Longsdon is set in SLA which should be preserved. and Severn Trent regarding this issue. •Nature Conservation - Impact on wildlife. •Flood Risk • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss •Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) - of light will be assessed in detail once a site - Additional noise of 28 houses spoil tranquillity of layout has been determined at the time a village. planning application is received and residents - Land slopes and will be overlooked by existing houses will have the opportunity to comment on the in Sutherland Road. content of that application. •Scale of development – - Number of dwellings proposed is excessive and not • It is not considered that development of this in keeping with village/rural location and spoil particular site would be out of proportion with character of village. (infill better option). the rest of the village. Any new development - Unlikely to meet Victorian character. taking place will be subject to design policies - New development on the The New Inn Public House contained within the new Local Plan – which will site to be bungalows only, suitable for the older be subject to public consultation next year. people. - Scale of proposed development would open up sites • The development requirements for the different for more housing on green belt and would connect villages stem from the rural housing requirement

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Longsdon to potteries and loose village status. set out within Policy SS3 of the Core Strategy, •Government Policy - Against green belt policy. then split based on a combination of factors •Other – including existing village population/ assessed - Housing numbers for Longsdon excessive. development capacities/ access to facilities and - Infill development of say 10/15 houses max would services etc. Longsdon is a ‘smaller village’. seem to be a better option. - Query viability of site given drain infrastructure required. - Devalue existing properties. - Loss of views - There has been planning permission granted since 2012 for five dwellings on the New Inns Site as yet not developed. - Develop areas of brownfield land in Leek first. - Better area for development would be around New Inn PH. - Extend village infill boundary to include all roads in Longsdon both sides of A53.

Support •Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – - Traffic issues would be negligible we all have a bad junction somewhere on the way to work. •Infrastructure – other - Drainage is not an issue with state of the art sewage treatment plants. •Landscape - There would be minimal visual impact providing design parameters are applied. •Nature Conservation

Site s within the Green Belt LO021(small area 13 0.56 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 13 in draft infill • boundary, but dwellings is considered to have a County Education advise that there are capacity most in Green SCC Education – significant positive effect. Similarly, issues affecting Leek First-, Middle- and High Belt) • Advise that Woodcroft First School currently the site’s accessibility to areas of Schools; and given the scale of housing oversubscribed. Projections across the Leek open space is likely to have a proposed across this catchment, new First-, catchment indicate that the scale of new housing positive effect. However, the site is Middle-, and High Schools will be required across it will mean that at least an additional 1 FE inaccessible to services and within Leek. Educational contributions will be First school will need to be provided in Leek, and facilities and areas of existing required. The District Council will work with the there is limited potential to expand existing first employment which is likely to have County Council to identify an appropriate schools for this purpose. Educational contributions a significant negative effect. The solution. will be required. development of greenfield, grade 4 • Advise that St Edwards CofE Academy Middle ALC land is likely to have a • County Highways advise that development of School currently has some capacity. However negative effect, as could the site’s site would be acceptable if accessed through projections across the Leek catchment indicate proximity to designated and historic site LO002. that the scale of new housing across it will mean assets. that at least an additional 1 FE Middle school will • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement need to be provided in Leek, and there is limited Setting Study and this site is not identified as potential to expand existing first schools for this being important landscape setting to the purpose. Educational contributions will be settlement. required. • Advise that Westwood College currently has some • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In capacity. However High Schools in the Leek order for Longsdon to accommodate new catchment are projected to have insufficient development, an infill boundary will need to be capacity to accommodate any children generated created. The Council has recently completed a from housing allocated across the catchment. Green Belt Review in order to assess parts of There is limited potential to enlarge existing the Green Belt where minor adjustments can be secondary schools in the Town. If it is not possible made without having an impact on the function to enlarge existing schools to the level required for of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined in

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings the proposed growth on existing sites, then government planning guidance). This study additional land may be needed. Educational recommends considering site LO021 for release contributions will be required. from the Green Belt. • Consultation with SoT LEA will be required as there is potential for cross-boundary impacts. • Given the housing requirements of the village, it • In general consideration should be given to sites’ is not possible to meet this need upon proximity to essential infrastructure and services to brownfield sites in the village alone. Therefore a maximise sustainable transport, eg walking to number of greenfield options have been school. proposed. National/Local Policy does not rule out allocating upon greenfield sites. Note that SCC Highways - would be acceptable if accessed through not all options will be required to meet Endon’s LO002. requirements. Note that not all options will be required to meet Endon’s requirements. Developer/Agent/Landowner – Correspondence from owner received indicating immediate availability for • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 housing. Also co-own LO007. Ecological Study for the District. This assessed sites included in the Site Options consultation. Public response 45 comments - 43 objections and 2 The site survey results will be used as part of support the site selection process. Any other sites which come forward and are potentially suitable Issue s ra ise d: for development will also need to be assessed.

Objections • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, •Infrastructure – Schools – Local schools closed. Primary the results of which are being used to inform the school is full. site selection process. The Council also fully Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport - consults with both the Environment Agency and - Exacerbate problem of access and egress from County Council Lead Local Flood Risk Officer Sutherland Road to A53 (blind bend no visibility) during the Plan preparation process. - More houses would increase the danger of accessing the road network. • New development is the main way to deliver - Site is locked and would require access across other new or improved infrastructure e.g. more land. residents may support an improved bus service, •Infrastructure – other – and provision of a mains gas supply. - Mains drains would need to be installed to site. Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new - Lack of facilities – no schools or shop, post office and development will be provided as part of that minimal public transport. development e.g. childrens’ play areas, •Landscape – footpaths. Similarly, any existing - Site is in green belt /area of natural beauty and facilities/services in Longsdon will assess their previous planning applications refused on this ground. capacity needs as a result of new development - Only area of green belt between urban areas of SM in Longsdon so that provision can be made to and Stoke. accommodate new residents. - Longsdon is set in SLA which should be preserved. •Nature Conservation – Impact on wildlife. • Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty •Flood Risk to complete necessary improvements to sewers •Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – to provide the capacity for new development. - Additional noise of 28 houses spoil tranquillity of The Council will continue to liaise with the EA village. and Severn Trent regarding this issue. - Land slopes and will be overlooked by existing houses in Sutherland Road. • Amenity – issues such as overlooking and loss •Scale of development – of light will be assessed in detail once a site - Number of dwellings proposed is excessive and not layout has been determined at the time a in keeping with village/rural location and spoil planning application is received and residents character of village. (infill better option). will have the opportunity to comment on the - Unlikely to meet Victorian character. content of that application. - New development on the The New Inn Public House site to be bungalows only, suitable for the older • It is not considered that development of this people. particular site would be out of proportion with

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings - Scale of proposed development would open up sites the rest of the village. Any new development for more housing on green belt and would connect taking place will be subject to design policies Longsdon to potteries and loose village status. contained within the new Local Plan – which will •Government Policy - Against green belt policy. be subject to public consultation next year. •Other – - Housing numbers for Longsdon excessive. • The development requirements for the different - Infill development would seem to be a better option. villages stem from the rural housing requirement - Devalue property. set out within Policy SS3 of the Core Strategy, - Loss of views then split based on a combination of factors - Better area for development would be around New Inn including existing village population/ assessed PH. development capacities/ access to facilities and - Site no feasible without others. services etc. Longsdon is a ‘smaller village’. - Density of the housing does not allow for any green space. - Extend village infill boundary to include all roads in Longsdon both sides of A53.

Support •Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport- - Traffic issues would be negligible we all have a bad junction somewhere on the way to work. - Site is landlocked but in the same ownership as LO007 so can be accessed from A53. •Infrastructure – Other - Drainage is not an issue with state of the art sewage treatment plants. •Landscape - There would be minimal visual impact providing design parameters are applied. •Nature Conservation

Draft - Lower Tean

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Site s within the infill boundary None Statutory bodies/stakeholders • Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty Allocation of sites not to complete necessary improvements to sewers considered necessary – Checkley Parish Council to provide the capacity for new development. new housing could be

The Council will continue to liaise with the EA accommodated within the Increase in traffic not just from this area but if the and Severn Trent regarding this issue. infill boundary. surrounding areas are developed then this will raise the traffic levels. Lower Tean is also on the diversion route if • Fole Dairy has the benefit of planning

the A50 is closed between Uttoxeter and Blythe Bridge. permission and will be counted towards the Surface water run off leads to increased flooding at Mill overall housing requirement. Lane, which already has an issue with flooding. • Detrimental effect on heritage sites, views of the burial See comments regarding sites below mound and the character of the village. Access to both sites are particularly hazardous. Loss of village identity as it will become sprawling and join up with Upper Tean. Infrastructure - Lack of public transport, amenities, and the substation would need upgrading. Local schools are already at capacity. Why green field sites? There are brown field sites ripe for development.

Suggestions

Fole Dairy isn’t included on the maps as a potential site and it is brown field, and ideal for development.

Sites outside the infill boundary LT001 20 1 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 20 • The Highway Authority has raised an issue dwellings is considered to have a regarding access to the site from Uttoxeter SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and significant positive effect. Similarly, Road. If access can be resolved to an if adequate visibility splays can be provided. Visibility splay the site’s accessibility to areas of acceptable standard then development could be unlikely to be achieved onto Uttoxeter Road. open space is likely to have a take place Alternatively, access would be much more preferable off positive effect. However, the site is Heath House Lane. Footway should be provided to link inaccessible to services and • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement between existing and the proposed access point. facilities which is likely to have a Setting Study and this site is not identified as Crossroads should not be formed with Goldhurst Drive. significant negative effect, as could being important landscape setting to the the development of greenfield, settlement. A Landscape & Visual Impact SMDC Conservation - Site adjoins Willowgate, Grade II grade 3 ALC land and proximity to Assessment will be undertaken during the plan Listed cottage. Development could harm the rural setting of historic assets. The site’s proximity production process if the site is taken forward. this building and form of the historic settlement. to designated assets and the inaccessibility of areas of existing 1

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - Lower Tean employment are likely to have a • The site is located in the close to the historic negative effect. consists of three elements core of the village and there are listed buildings adjacent to the site. A Heritage Impact • the historic village with a cluster of Listed Buildings Assessment will be undertaken during the plan production process if the site is taken forward. including a striking collection of farm buildings

centred on a tall Dovecote (Listed Grade II) • Amenity – issues such as overlooking, • A southern development: sizeable houses in screening and other impacts on existing generous grounds that sit well with Bank House residents will be assessed in detail once a site layout has been determined at the time a (Listed Grade II) planning application is received and residents • A northern development: smaller, more densely will have the opportunity to comment on the content of that application. packed and largely semi-detached houses

The positioning of the 20th century developments both • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 respected the historic core and allowed an appropriate Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, style of housing to develop adjacent to Bank House (Listed the results of which are being used to inform the Grade II). In contrast: the present proposals would have an site selection process. The site is within Flood immediate and damaging impact on the early settlement Zone 1 – Low probability. and its Listed Buildings and the archaeology of a field containing a major barrow (Scheduled Ancient Monument). • Any application would be accompanied by an We suggest searching for alternative development sites. FRA which would consider surface water run- LT001 adjoins Willowgate, Grade II Listed cottage. off. Mitigation would be required to ensure that Development could harm the rural setting of this building neighbouring areas are not affected. and form of the historic settlement. Inappropriate. • Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty Developer/Agent – Land is available to complete necessary improvements to sewers to provide the capacity for new development. Public response 176 comments - 175 objections and 1 support • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 Ecological Study for the District. This assessed Issues raised: sites included in the Site Options consultation. The site survey results will be used as part of Objections the site selection process. The survey identifies the hedgerow as becoming more diverse further •Infrastructure – Schools – Schools full and Checkley north and potentially qualify as SBI status. School would need to expand limited options to do this. • The District Council is working with the County •Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Council on the issue of school capacity. - Increased traffic on narrow roads (Heath House • Lane), poor access to site and poor visibility. New development is the main way to deliver - Poor public transport that does not operate at new or improved infrastructure e.g. more commuter times. residents may support more local facilities. - Parking already a premium on estate. Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new - Heath House Lane and Teanhurst Road used as development will be provided as part of that short cuts – danger to children and public footpath development e.g. children’s play areas. at junction. • The Core Strategy clarifies the role that smaller - A522 regularly used when A50 is closed. - Estate already used as short cut will be worse with villages play. They have a more limited role as increased traffic. service centres and will provide a limited - Plans to alter access into Willowgate refused due amount of housing to provide local housing to safety concerns. opportunities.

•Infrastructure – Other – • A Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment will - No employment for additional 25 homes therefore be undertaken during the plan production more commuting adding to traffic and pollution. process if the site is taken forward. - No facilities for children to play safely.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings - Shop is 1 mile away with little parking and • The land has an agricultural classification of disruptive at loading times. Grade 3 which means that it is good to - Schools and GP’s full. moderate. - Sewerage facilities poor in Upper Tean and will need to be improved. • Fole Dairy has the benefit of planning - Infrastructure in area already massively over permission and will be counted towards the capacity. overall housing requirement. - Housing should be nearer employment opportunities such as Cheadle, Uttoxeter and • There is a requirement for the developer to Stoke on Trent. provide a proportion of affordable housing on each site. •Landscape – - Site is greenfield site and good agricultural land. • The Objectively Assessed Housing Need takes - Development would spoil the contours of the land, into account houses that are for sale. ancient field layout and visually changes open aspect of land fronting Uttoxeter Road.

•Nature Conservation – Loss of wildlife habitat (owls, badgers, bats and buzzards) and hedges/hedgerows.

•Flood Risk – - Increased risk of flooding for houses near river and water run-off from new development. - Flooding on Mill Lane and road opposite Dog and Partridge is an issue.

•Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – Loss of privacy and light and overlooking into rear gardens due to topography.

•Scale of development - Development will block views of burial ground which is scheduled monument. - Modern development impact on historic village. - This is overdevelopment of the village and does not respect pattern of development in village.

•Listed Building / Conservation Area - Site is adjacent to scheduled monument and will ruin views and historical significance of the area. - Site is also near village hall and Heybridge Farm (both listed). - Views impacting on setting of listed building – Willowgate. and Heybridge Farm – which paints historical picture of Lower Tean.

•Government Policy – Brownfield sites should be used in preference to greenfield sites such as site at Fole Dairy.

•Other – - Already low cost homes for sale in area. - What proportion of new housing would be affordable? - Development previously refused on site due to access issues and urban sprawl. No change since then except A50 is now A522 but still busy road. - Loss of village identity bringing Lower Tean closer to Upper Tean (ribbon development).

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings - Village needs to retain its historic character. - No shortage of housing in area and these are generally low cost. - Houses still for sale in mill devt in Upper Tean. - At public meeting in Nov 2011 land to north/west of Heath House public wanted land protected. - Will greatly increase the size of Lower Tean. - Better brownfield site at Fole Dairy.

Support

Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – A522 less busy now that A50 completed.

•Scale of development – - Better related than other sites put forward through the SHLAA. - It is of an appropriate size to meet the housing need identified.

•Government Policy – Planning policy has changed both nationally and locally since previous determinations.

•Other – - Can be delivered in a short timescale. - Total increase in population would be 66 people less than 10% of existing population. This is not a disproportionate increase. - Greenfield sites need to be developed in addition to brown field sites such as Fole Dairy. - The existence of vacant housing is not an alternative to new development. LT002 6 0.30 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 6 • The Highway Authority has raised an issue dwellings is considered to have a regarding access to the site. If access can be SCC Highways - May be acceptable if visibility splays can positive effect. Similarly, the site’s resolved to an acceptable standard then be achieved, which may be difficult. Minimum 2m footway accessibility to areas of open space development could take place should be provided on frontage if visibility can achieved. is likely to have a positive effect. However, the site is inaccessible to • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement SMDC Conservation - Group of Listed Buildings across services and facilities which is likely Setting Study and this site is identified as being road to the south. Development could harm the rural to have a significant negative effect, important landscape setting to the settlement. A character and historic form of the village. as could the development of Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment will be greenfield, grade 3 ALC land and undertaken during the plan production process if Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - Lower Tean proximity to historic assets. The the site is taken forward. site’s proximity to designated consists of three elements assets and the inaccessibility of • The site is located in the close to the historic • the historic village with a cluster of Listed Buildings existing employment are likely to core of the village and there are listed buildings have a negative effect. including a striking collection of farm buildings adjacent to the site. A Heritage Impact Assessment will be undertaken during the plan centred on a tall Dovecote (Listed Grade II) production process if the site is taken forward. • A southern development: sizeable houses in • Amenity – issues such as overlooking, generous grounds that sit well with Bank House screening and other impacts on existing (Listed Grade II) residents will be assessed in detail once a site layout has been determined at the time a • A northern development: smaller, more densely planning application is received and residents packed and largely semi-detached houses will have the opportunity to comment on the content of that application. The positioning of the 20th century developments both

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings respected the historic core and allowed an appropriate • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 style of housing to develop adjacent to Bank House (Listed Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, Grade II). In contrast: the present proposals would have an the results of which are being used to inform the immediate and damaging impact on the early settlement site selection process. The site is within Flood and its Listed Buildings and the archaeology of a field Zone 1 – Low probability. containing a major barrow (Scheduled Ancient Monument). We suggest searching for alternative development sites. • Any application would be accompanied by an LT002 has a group of Listed Buildings across road to the FRA which would consider surface water run- south. Development could harm the rural character and off. Mitigation would be required to ensure that historic form of the village. Inappropriate. neighbouring areas are not affected.

Developer/Agent – land availability unknown • Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty to complete necessary improvements to sewers Public response 172 comments - 172 objections to provide the capacity for new development.

Issues raised: • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 Ecological Study for the District. This assessed Objections: sites included in the Site Options consultation. The site survey results will be used as part of Infrastructure – Schools – Schools full and Checkley the site selection process. Any other sites which School would need to expand limited options to do this. come forward and are potentially suitable for development will also need to be assessed. •Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Poor public transport that does not operate at • The District Council is working with the County commuter times. Council on the issue of school capacity. - Heath House Lane and Teanhurst Road used as • short cuts – danger to children and public footpath New development is the main way to deliver at junction. new or improved infrastructure e.g. more - A522 regularly used when A50 is closed. residents may support more local facilities. - Increased amount of traffic using roads, poor Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new access to site and dangerous junctions with low development will be provided as part of that visibility. development e.g. children’s play areas. - Plans to alter access into Willowgate refused due • to safety concerns. The Core Strategy clarifies the role that smaller - Increase in cars causing danger for children and villages play. They have a more limited role as pedestrians. service centres and will provide a limited - A522 used as cyclist race course extra traffic amount of housing to provide local housing would cause danger to cyclists and other road opportunities. users. • The land has an agricultural classification of - Amount of tractors and hgv’s using Teanhurst and Grade 3 which means that it is good to Heath House lane as rat run with some getting moderate. stuck.

• Fole Dairy has the benefit of planning •Infrastructure – Other permission and will be counted towards the No employment for additional 25 homes therefore – overall housing requirement. more commuting adding to traffic and pollution.

- No facilities for children to play safely. • There is a requirement for the developer to - Shop is 1 mile away with little parking and provide a proportion of affordable housing on disruptive at loading times. each site. - Schools and GP’s full.

- Sewerage facilities poor in Upper Tean and will • need to be improved. The Objectively Assessed Housing Need takes into account houses that are for sale. - Infrastructure already at capacity.

•Landscape – - Site is greenfield site and good agricultural land. - Development would spoil the contours of the land, ancient field layout.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings - Loss of open aspect of site fronting Uttoxeter Road. - Natural underground water courses through fissures in this field. Could cause underground water pressure if blocked by development. - Several active domestic wells adjacent to older properties. - Site is SLA and recent planning applications for small development have been refused on these grounds. - Development would impact on setting, heritage and landscape.

•Nature Conservation – Loss of wildlife habitat (owls, badgers, bats and buzzards) and hedges/ hedgerows.

•Flood Risk – - Increased risk of flooding especially near river despite flood defences being improved. - Increased flooding on Uttoxeter Road and Mill Lane.

•Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – Loss of privacy and light and overlooking into rear gardens due to topography.

•Scale of development – - This is overdevelopment of the village and does not respect pattern of development in village. - Will block views of ancient burial ground.

•Listed Building / Conservation Area – - Development would cause significant damage to protected monument. - There are a number of architecturally significant buildings near the plot. Development would spoil the attractiveness of these and village.

•Government Policy – Brownfield sites should be used in preference to greenfield sites better site at Fole Dairy.

•Other – - Already low cost homes for sale in area. - What proportion of housing would be affordable? - Site is outside village boundary and would result in loss of village identity by bringing Lower Tean closer to Upper Tean (ribbon development). - No shortage of housing in area and these are generally low cost. - Houses still for sale in mill devt in Upper Tean. - At public meeting in Nov 2011 land to north/west of Heath House public wanted land protected. - Will greatly increase the size of Lower Tean. - Development previously refused on site due to access issues and urban sprawl. - This part of Lower Tean retains its historic character modern development will spoil this. - Better brownfield site at Fole Dairy.

Draft - Oakamoor

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Sites within the infill boundary Environment Agency – Draft infill boundary in Oakamoor Comments noted. Allocation of sites not which include additional land in floor plain and likely to be considered necessary – affected to some degree by flood risk and if taken forward new housing could be will require the support of the Sequential Test and a Level accommodated within the 2 SFRA. infill boundary. Environment Agency – Where the main sewer is not available, packaged treatment plants and other non-main solutions are able to operate effectively and discharge their treated effluent safely into the water environment. Issues have been raised regarding this area, and the impact of the allocations needs to be considered.

SCC Education – • Advise that Valley Primary School currently has capacity. However only 4 miles from St Werburgh’s Primary School in Kingsley, which is currently overs ubscribed. Large scale development across the Cheadle Rural north catchment as a whole would not be able to be accommodated at the existing schools. Educational contributions will be required fro additional school places. • Cons ultation with SoT LEA will be required as there is potential for cross-boundary impacts. • In general consideration should be given to sites’ proximity to essential infrastructure and services to maximise sustainable transport, e.g. walking to school. Oakamoor Parish Council responses: Comments noted.

OA016 – Unsuitable for housing due to: • Housing commitments between 2011-2015 will Topography be factored in to calculate the village’s residual Numerous underground springs housing requirement to 2031. This will inform Imminent Conservation Village status the Council when it decides whether allocations need to be proposed in this village. OA026 – unsuitable for housing due to: Topography Imminent Conservation Village status OA030 – unsuitable for housing due to: Topography Access

OA031 - Further to our earlier recommendation, a redundant plot of land (former children’s play area) lies directly opposite this area. Given the major land slip difficulties experienced with the current development (13/00163/FUL) adjacent to OA031, we – again - would recommend that this area is swapped for the land lying opposite.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings

General: Oakamoor has currently two houses under development and planning has been recently approved for a further seven. Given the housing allocation is ten, we would expect, with the one parcel of land outlined above, and the two approved developments, that this would more than fulfil the estimated requirement.

SMDC Conservation Officer - Potential for Conservation Area designation.

Boundary around the Holy Trinity Church should be removed – Infilling would be harmful to historic character and views.

Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust – Oakamoor has been put forward in the Churnet Valley Master-plan as a potential Conservation Area. It would be premature to determine development boundaries until the Conservation Area boundaries have been established, as further building here on any of the proposed sites could have a damaging impact on the historic settlement. In determining the development boundary we suggest the church and its churchyard are omitted.

OA026 (mostly 11 0.52 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 11 • County Education advise that whilst there are outside Woodland Trust – Object as site adjacent to ancient dwellings is considered to have a no capacity issues at Oakamoor Valley primary boundary but woodland significant positive effect. Similarly, School, there are however c apacity issues access point the site’s accessibility to areas of across the Cheadle Rural north catchment as a within SCC Highways - Not directly connected to the highway. open space is likely to have a whole. Therefore educational contributions will boundary) Only access appears to be along a narrow, private positive effect. However, the site is be required for additional school places. unadopted unsurfaced track. Land will be required to inaccessible to services and provide an access of adequate width. Visibility is also facilities and areas of existing • County Highways advise that site does not restricted at the access onto Star Bank - land also likely to employment which are likely to appear connected to highway, and there are be required for visibility. Is any other access route have a significant negative effect. access issues. However clarification has been possible? The site’s proximity to designated provided to SCC that access is propos ed via and historic assets and the Rose Bank Cresecent, not the western access SMDC Conservation Officer - Work needed to establish development of greenfield, grade 4 to Cotton Dell. Highways comments are awaited any detrimental impact on settlement character and form. ALC land are likely to have a on this basis. negative effect. During the course of assessing the proposed Conservation • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement Area..[this site has].. been identified as highly sensitive and Setting Study and this site is not identified as unsuitable for housing allocations. being important landscape setting to the settlement. Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - An exceptionally steep site flanking the track leading to • New development is the main way to deliver Staffordshire Wildlife Trust’s site of Cotton Dell. This new or improved infrastructure e.g. more currently provides a natural boundary the eastern side of residents may support an improved bus service, the historic settlement and should be left undeveloped. and provision of a mains gas supply. Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new Developer/Agent/Landowner – correspondence from development will be provided as part of that owner/agent received, re-affirming support for residential development e.g. childrens’ play areas, allocation. footpaths. Similarly, any existing facilities/services in Oakamoor will assess their Public response 4 comments - 4 objections capacity needs as a result of new development in Oakamoor so that provision can be made to

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Issues raised: accommodate new residents.

• Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty Objections to complete necessary improvements to sewers • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – to provide the capacity for new development. - Lack of road infrastructure. The Council will continue to liaise with the EA - Country roads already have to cope with traffic and Severn Trent regarding this issue. to Alton Towers, JCB, Hales Caravan park etc. • Infrastructure – Other – • When deciding over which site options to - Lack of services such as schools doctors etc. proceed with the Council will consider the - Significant development along Farley Road respective comments of statutory consultees causing issues re sinkholes and landslip including Environment Agency, SMDC issues. Cons ervation, SMDC Environmental Health, • Landscape SCC Highways/ Transportation, infrastructure • Nature Conservation – providers etc; and utilises the results of its - This site adjoins a Wildlife Trust Nature sustainability appraisal work. With regards land Reserve. There would be large adverse stability the Council consults with Coal Authority impacts upon it in both nature conservation and County Minerals Planning Authority during and landscape terms. Local Plan preparation. In addition prior to the - Any idea of using it as an access to the site is commencement of any development further ridiculous. investigative work may be required. • Scale of development – Development ruin small traditional village. • It is not considered that development of this particular site would be out of proportion with the rest of the village. Any new development taking place will be subject to design policies contained within the new Local Plan – which will be subject to public consultation next year.

• The Council has recently completed a Phas e 1 Ecological Study for the District. This assessed sites included in the Site Options consultation. The site survey results will be used as part of the site selection process. Any other sites which come forward and are potentially suitable for development will also need to be assessed. Sites outside the infill boundary OA016 9 0.40 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The propos ed delivery of circa 9 • County Highways advise that development of dwellings is considered to have a site acceptable subject to suitable access and SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to suitable access and positive effect. Similarly, the site’s visibility. visibility. Footway should be provided on frontage. Carr accessibility to areas of open space Bank is steep and with limited pedestrian provision. is likely to have a positive effect. • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement However, the site is inaccessible to Setting Study and this site is not identified as SMDC Conservation Officer - Work needed to establish services and facilities and areas of being important landscape setting to the any detrimental impact on settlement character and form. existing employment which are settlement. likely to have a significant negative During the course of assessing the proposed Conservation effect. The site’s proximity to • When deciding over which site options to Area..[this site has].. been identified as highly sensitive and designated and historic assets and proceed with the Council will consider the unsuitable for housing allocations. the development of greenfield, respective comments of statutory consultees grade 4 ALC land are likely to have including Environment Agency, SMDC Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - Outside and a negative effect. Cons ervation, SMDC Environmental Health, above the northern boundary of the historic settlement on SCC Highways/ Transportation, infrastructure an extremely steep site. Its development will put pressure providers etc; and utilises the results of its on a narrow road already constrained by historic buildings. sustainability appraisal work. With regards land stability the Council consults with Coal Authority Developer/Agent/Landowner – Owner has confirmed and County Minerals Planning Authority during support for residential allocation. Local Plan preparation. In addition prior to the commencement of any development further

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Public response 2 comments - 2 objections investigative work may be required.

Issues raised: • It is not considered that development of this particular site would be out of proportion with the rest of the village. Any new development Objections taking place will be subject to design policies contained within the new Local Plan – which will • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Impact on be subject to public consultation next year. already overstretched road network (quarry and Alton Towers). • The Council has recently completed a Phas e 1 • Infrastructure – Other - Significant development Ecological Study for the District. This assessed along Farley Road causing issues re sinkholes and sites included in the Site Options consultation. landslip issues The site survey results will be used as part of • Landscape the site selection process. Any other sites • Nature Conservation - This site adjoins a Wildlife which come forward and are potentially suitable Trust Nature Reserve. There would be adverse for development will also need to be assessed. impacts upon it. • Scale of development - Development ruin small traditional village. OA030 23 0.77 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 23 • County Highways advise that development of dwellings is considered to have a site acceptable subject to appropriate access SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to appropriate access significant positive effect. Similarly, design and visibility provision, and design and visibility provision. Careful consideration the site’s accessibility to areas of consideration for pedestrian access to village. required for pedestrian access to village - at the very least open space is likely to have a a footway on the frontage as far as the proposed access. positive effect. However, the site is • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement Possible pedestrian route through OA031? inaccessible to services and Setting Study and this site has been identified facilities and areas of existing as being important to the landscape setting of SMDC Conservation Officer - Work needed to establish employment which are likely to the settlement. any detrimental impact on settlement character and form. have a significant negative effect. The site’s proximity to designated • When deciding over which site options to Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - Likely to and historic assets and the proceed with the Council will consider the have a detrimental impact on settlement character and development of greenfield, grade 4 respective comments of statutory consultees form. An assessment of the sites industrial remains should ALC land are likely to have a including Environment Agency, SMDC be an important consideration here. negative effect. Cons ervation, SMDC Environmental Health, SCC Highways/ Transportation, infrastructure Developer/Agent/Landowner – agent of landowner has providers etc; and utilises the results of its advised of their support for residential allocation. sustainability appraisal work. With regards land stability the Council consults with Coal Authority Public Response 4 comments - 4 objections and County Minerals Planning Authority during Local Plan preparation. In addition prior to the Issues raised: commencement of any development further investigative work may be required. Objections • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Impact on • The Council has recently completed a Phas e 1 already overstretched transport infrastructure Ecological Study for the District. This assessed (Quarry and Alton Towers) sites included in the Site Options consultation. • Infrastructure – Other – The site survey results will be used as part of - Severn Trent water have recently denied the the site selection process. Any other sites use of land drains, to remove excess surface which come forward and are potentially suitable water in this area, as they had determined that for development will also need to be assessed. the current system did not possess sufficient additional capacity. • Amenity – issues such as overlooking will be - Land has been destabilised due to assessed in detail once a site layout has been development at Farley Road further determined at the time a planning application is development could have catastrophic results. received and residents will have the opportunity - Subsidence and sink hole issues on site. to comment on the content of that application. • Landscape – Development impact on landscape and environment. • It is not considered that development of this 4

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings • Nature Conservation - Site connects to wildlife particular site would be out of proportion with reserve. the rest of the village. Any new development • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) - The taking place will be subject to design policies topography of this site would result in overlooking contained within the new Local Plan – which will This loss of privacy and light would be be subject to public consultation next year. unacceptable. • Scale of development - Development ruin small traditional village. • Other – Site identified by NFUM as low factor of safety with possible risk of land movement.. OA031 20 0.66 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 20 • County Highways advise that development of dwellings is considered to have a site acceptable subject to access design and SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and significant positive effect. Similarly, visibility provision. Farley Road must be visibility provision. Farley Road must be widened on the the site’s accessibility to areas of widened on the frontage and a footway provided frontage and a footway provided. Allowance should be open space is likely to have a made for a potental pedestrian route through the site for positive effect. However, the site is • The Council has a Landscape & Settlement access to OA030. inaccessible to services and Setting Study and this site has been identified facilities and areas of existing as being important to the landscape setting of SMDC Conservation Officer - Work needed to establish employment which are likely to the settlement. any detrimental impact on settlement character and form. have a significant negative effect. The site’s proximity to designated • It is not considered that development of this Leek and Moorlands Historic Buildings Trust - The creation and historic assets and the particular site would be out of proportion with of a bund is already underway here (SMD/2014/0834). Its development of greenfield, grade 4 the rest of the village. Any new development visual impact on the historic settlement is considerable as ALC land are likely to have a taking place will be subject to design policies would any further development. negative effect. contained within the new Local Plan – which will be subject to public consultation next year. Developer/Agent/Landowner – correspondence received from owners confirming interest in releasing site for • When deciding over which site options to housing. proceed with the Council will consider the respective comments of statutory consultees Public Response 4 comments - 4 objections including Environment Agency, SMDC Cons ervation, SMDC Environmental Health, Issues raised: SCC Highways/ Transportation, infrastructure providers etc; and utilises the results of its Objections sustainability appraisal work. With regards land • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport - Would place an stability the Council consults with Coal Authority additional burden on the over stretched transport and County Minerals Planning Authority during infrastructure (quarry and Alton towers traffic) – Local Plan preparation. In addition prior to the Narrow and dangerous roads. commencement of any development further • Infrastructure – Other – investigative work may be required. - The land is unsuitable for development due to subsidence / sink hole issues. £2.5m to • The Council has recently completed a Phas e 1 stabilise land at Farley Road – how ca the site Ecological Study for the District. This assessed be viable? sites included in the Site Options consultation. - It has been identified by (NFUM) and their The site survey results will be used as part of geotechnical engineers as having an ACTIVE the site selection process. Any other sites landslide with movement recorded as far up to which come forward and are potentially suitable the tree line due East of OA031. for development will also need to be assessed. - Approximately 90% of the land covered by OA031 has a slip plane approx 4 metres below • Amenity – issues such as overlooking will be the surface. This in itself makes this land assessed in detail once a site layout has been unsuitable for construction without a huge determined at the time a planning application is investment in stabilisation. received and residents will have the opportunity - It is also land known to have had historic to comment on the content of that application. mining and marl extraction. - The border of OA031 with the new • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 development adjacent to Threeways will also Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, have a huge number of subterranean concrete the results of which are being used to inform the

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings piles installed site selection process. The Council also fully • Landscape - Affects the landscape and sensitive consults with both the Environment Agency and environment. - County Council Lead Local Flood Risk Officer • Nature Conservation - This area is one of the most during the Plan preparation process. beautiful parts of Staffordshire and connects to a Staffordshire Wildlife Reserve. • Flood Risk – - Approx 75% of the land covered by OA031 is also affected by a natural spring that flows down the hill from where OA030 meets OA031 and runs onto Farley Road. - Severn Trent Water have denied the use of these land drains on previous applications on the basis the current system does not possess sufficient additional capacity. • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) • Scale of development - Development ruin small traditional village.

Draft - Other Areas

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing and employment

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Site s within the Green Belt OC003 (south 6 0.25 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The development of brownfield, • The site is within the Green Belt. The Council of Hulme) grade 4 ALC land is considered to has recently completed a Green Belt Review in SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and have a positive effect, as could the order to assess parts of the Green Belt where visibility splay provision.Additional land from the builders site’s accessibility to areas of open minor adjustments can be made without having yard is likely to be required to provide adequate visibility space and the proposed delivery of an impact on the function of the Green Belt as a splay. circa 6 dwellings. However, the site whole (as defined in government planning is inaccessible to services and guidance). This study concludes that site Developer/Agent – Land is available facilities and areas of existing OC003 should not be considered for release employment which are likely to from the Green Belt. Public response – No comments received have a significant negative effect. The site’s proximity to designated and historic assets are likely to have a negative effect. Sites outside the infill boundary OC055 (Blythe Employment 8.58 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The development of new SITE HAS PLANNING PERMISSION PENDING Site has planning Park Draycott Parish Council employment premises should have permission – No Decision Cresswell) • The Local Plan does not include the 168 houses next a significant positive effect upon the issued March 2016 to the Business Park (approved Feb 2015). No vitality and viability of the District, objection to the principle of less than 25 dwellings in strengthen economic growth and the Parish but the chosen site on Core Plan Map is support a higher level of not supported (poor location, access and suitability) employment within the District. • Object to OC055 & Policy SS6c: Insufficient Similarly, the site is located away justification text. No assessment of impact on from designated and historic Cresswell settlement and toxicity. assets. However, the site is • Concerns over the consultation/determination of the inaccessible to services and Blythe Park site which was approved in Feb 2015. facilities, is within a flood zone Consider that the concerns of the community were not which are both assessed to have a fully considered. significant negative effect. The • Blythe Park already has areas within its boundaries development of greenfield, grade 4 for expansion ALC land is considered to have a negative effect. Developer/Agent Turley – Support – Client’s site only partially features within site options consultation document and should be included in entirety. Welcome formal allocation of OC055 as employment site. Western parcel of land should be allocated for residential use. Help meet housing needs. There are no environmental constraints on site restricting development that cannot be overcome by mitigation. Creation of 1,000 full time jobs. Decision by SMDC to grant planning permission demonstrates Council are supportive of development on this site.

Public response 11 objections, 1 support

Objections • Infrastructure – Schools – There are no schools within walking distance of site. • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Increase in traffic at peak times would be unsafe, especially

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings around Blythe Bridge. Road from Cresswell to Draycott has pinch point at the Izaak Walton. Issue of HGV’s using local road network (Draycott and Cresswell, Hilderstone) No land acquired by developer for footpath. Local bus service poor so increased car users. Access to site dangerous. Surrounding road network will be congested and dangerous. • Infrastructure – Other – There are no amenities for 168 houses such as doctors and dentists and shops within 2 miles therefore residents will have to use their car to travel Â to Cheadle or Blythe Bridge • Landscape –Damage to wildlife and landscape. Location of site in SLA and green field site. • Scale of development - Cresswell is classified as a hamlet. Werrington and Cellarhead and Waterhouses are also hamlets and their development in the local plan is a lot smaller. 10 hectares of employment developments is needed in the WHOLE of the Staffordshire Moorlands. The local plan has put 8.58 hectares of this just in Cresswell Scale of development including houses too big for hamlet. • Nature Conservation – Impact on wildlife and hedgerows. Next to nature reserve. • Amenity – Area much noisier. Amenity The noise of HGV's travelling through the residential area and the safety aspect of these vehicles travelling around proposed roundabouts close to pedestrians and cyclists is unacceptable. A limit of 16 HGV's at night has been proposed but there is no limit during the day. Health and safety is a HUGE issue. • Flooding – Area prone to flooding. In flood risk area 1, 2 and 3. • Listed Building / Conservation Area – • Government Policy - The local plan does not correspond with the adopted Core Strategy. It corresponds with the DRAFT Core Strategy which was rejected and support for the expansion of Blythe Business Park" in the draft Core Strategy was removed. • Other - Support of expansion not justified in supporting text. The evidence indicates 70ha of employment land available in rural areas (over 56ha with planning permission) Impact on Cresswell. Known toxic industrial waste. Is expansion feasible or desirable? There is still land off the site not remediated.

Draft - Rudyard

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

SMDC Conservation – Proposed Cons ervation Area. Discuss sites near reservoir access (land associated with Rudyard Hotel) would have a major impact on openness of the area and future devel associated with the reservoir.

RU016 13 0.53 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 13 • County Education advise that whilst the local Horton PC - object on highway grounds, there is no access dwellings is considered to have a First School is currently oversubscribed, to site and development would create excessive traffic. significant positive effect. Similarly, additional school places in the catchment are Access to the Caravan site is also from Lake Road. the site’s accessibility to areas of unlikely to be needed. open space and location away from SCC Education – historic assets are likely to have a • County Highways raise physical/legal/ownership • Advise that St Michaels CE First School currently positive effect. However, the site is issues regarding access of this site from ‘The oversubscribed. However additional school places inaccessible to services and Drive’. It would need to be established whether in this catchment are unlikely to be needed to facilities and areas of existing these issues are viably surmountable (or mitigate the impact of this scale of development employment which are likely to whether alternative access arrangements are • Cons ultation with SoT LEA will be required as have a significant negative effect. available). there is potential for cross-boundary impacts The site’s proximity to designated • In general consideration should be given to sites’ assets and the development of • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In proximity to essential infrastructure and services to greenfield, grade 4 ALC land are order for Rudyard to accommodate new maximise sustainable transport, eg walking to likely to have a negative effect. development, an infill boundary will need to be school created. The Council has rec ently completed a Green Belt Review in order to assess parts of SCC Highways - RU016 – Not connected to highway. How the Green Belt where minor adjustments can be is access proposed? made without having an impact on the function of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined in Not directly connected to the public highway. The Drive is government planning guidanc e). This study a private/unadopted road, potholed and breaking up. The recommends considering site RU016 for release Drive will need rec onstructing with agreement of owners from the Green Belt. and bringing up to acceptable standard. Gradient at junction with Camrose Hall is steep, this will need to be • When deciding over which site options to reduced, again by agreement with owners. The Drive proceed with the Council will consider the narrows to a field access at 'White Barn' - additional land respective comments of statutory consultees may be required to construct an acceptable access. including SMDC Cons ervation, SCC Highways/Transportation, Environment Agency, SMDC Cons ervation - Need to assess on site. Likely infrastructure providers etc; and utilises the detrimental impact on form of village/ setting of canal results of its sustainability appraisal work.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings feeder. • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 Developer/Agent/Landowner – Landowner has confirmed Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, site is available for housing. Also clarifies that some the results of which are being used to inform the adjacent land to the south (connecting to ‘The Drive) is site selection process. The Council also fully also available. consults with both the Environment Agency and County Council Lead Local Flood Risk Officer Public response 14 comments - 14 objections during the Plan preparation process.

Issues raised: • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 Ecological Study for the District. This assessed sites included in the Site Options consultation. Objections The site survey results will be used as part of - Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – the site selection process. Any other sites - No access to site without demolition of which come forward and are potentially suitable house/garage. for development will also need to be assessed. - Lake Road is very narrow with no parking restrictions or turning areas. • Amenity – issues such as overlooking will be - The Road also serves, Hotel, sailing club, assessed in detail once a site layout has been caravan site, church,lake and visitors centre determined at the time a planning application is and parking causes problems and conjestion. received and residents will have the opportunity - Infrastructure – Other – Development would to comment on the content of that application affect main sewer that runs across the site. - Landscape – • It is not considered that development of this - Site would be very visible and detract from particular site would be out of proportion with natural beauty of area. the rest of the village. Any new development - Site is in green belt taking place will be subject to design policies - Nature Conservation – Damage to ecology contained within the new Local Plan – which will - Flood Risk – Site next to stream and adjacent be subject to public consultation next year. fields have flooded in past. - Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) - development would lead to noise and loss of privacy. - Scale of development – Would alter character of village. - Other – De value property Footpath runs along site.

RU020 14 0.43 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 14 • County Education advise that whilst the local Allocation of site not Horton PC – This is the preferred site dwellings is considered to have a First School is currently oversubscribed, considered necessary – significant positive effect. Similarly, additional school places in the catchment are new housing could be SCC Education – the site’s accessibility to areas of unlikely to be needed. accommodated within an • Advise that St Michaels CE First School currently open space is likely to have a amended (extended) oversubscribed. However additional school places positive effect. However, the site is • County Highways have advised that in this catchment are unlikely to be needed to inaccessible to services and development of site acceptable subject to infill boundary. mitigate the impact of this scale of development facilities and areas of existing access design and visibility splays. • Cons ultation with SoT LEA will be required as employment which are likely to there is potential for cross-boundary impacts have a significant negative effect. • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In • In general consideration should be given to sites’ The site’s proximity to historic order for Rudyard to accommodate new proximity to essential infrastructure and services to assets, the district ecological development, an infill boundary will need to be maximise sustainable transport, eg walking to importance of the site and the created. The Council has rec ently completed a school development of greenfield, grade 4 Green Belt Review in order to assess parts of ALC land are likely to have a the Green Belt where minor adjustments can be SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and negative effect. made without having an impact on the function visibility splays. of the Green Belt as a whole (as defined in government planning guidanc e). This study SMDC Conservation - Need to assess on site. Likely to be recommends considering site RU020 for release

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings acceptable. from the Green Belt.

Developer/Agent • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 Rob Duncan Planning Consultants - Support Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, the results of which are being used to inform the Public response 13 c omments - 3 objections and 10 site selection process. The Council also fully support consults with both the Environment Agency and County Council Lead Local Flood Risk Officer Issues raised: during the Plan preparation process.

• The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 Objections Ecological Study for the District. This assessed • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport- Roads cannot sites included in the Site Options consultation. accommodate additional traffic. The site survey results will be used as part of • Infrastructure - Other the site selection process. Any other sites • Landscape – This is a local beauty spot. which come forward and are potentially suitable • Nature Conservation for development will also need to be assessed • Flood Risk • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) – Loss of • Amenity – issues such as overlooking will be light and privacy plus additional noise. assessed in detail once a site layout has been • Scale of development determined at the time a planning application is received and residents will have the opportunity Support to comment on the content of that application

• Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport - It has good • It is not considered that development of this access/egress to highway and public transport. particular site would be out of proportion with Existing access same ownership as site. the rest of the village. Any new development • Landscape – Site is brownfield site. taking place will be subject to design policies • Flood Risk – not in flood plain. contained within the new Local Plan – which will be subject to public consultation next year. • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light)

• Scale of development – Relate well to existing development and character of village. Well screened. • Other – More housing is needed and this site very suitable. On site of old hotel so already developed land. Permission already granted for housing but approval lapsed. Preferred option of Parish Council. Site achievable and viable within 5 years.

Draft - Rushton Spencer

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Site s within the infill boundary Environment Agency – Where the main sewer is not • Staffordshire County Education Authority advise Allocation of sites not available, packaged treatment plants and other non-main that there is currently some spare capacity at considered necessary – solutions are able to operate effectively and discharge their Rushton CE Primary School School and new housing could be treated effluent safely into the water environment. Issues that the small number of homes proposed in accommodated within an have been raised regarding this area, and the impact of the Rushton Spencer should not impact significantly amended (extended) allocations needs to be considered. on this school. Additional school places are infill boundary. unlikely to be needed to mitigate the impact of SCC Education: this scale of development in the area. • Rushton CE Primary School currently has some capacity. The small number of homes proposed in • Housing commitments between 2011-2015 will Rushton Spencer should not impact significantly on this be factored in to calculate the village’s residual school. housing requirement to 2031. This will inform • Given the total number of dwellings proposed across the Council when it decides whether allocations the entire catchment area, additional school places are need to be proposed in this village. unlikely to be needed to mitigate the impact of this scale of development in the area. • The EA have not ruled out development of any • Consultation with SoT LEA will be required as there is of the sites, subject to consideration of each of potential for cross-boundary impacts from level of their impacts. growth in this part of Moorlands. • In general consideration should be given to sites’ proximity to essential infrastructure and services to maximise sustainable transport, eg walking to school.

General objections:

• apparent omission of the permitted housing development site off Sugar Street, to the south of the school and request its inclusion

Other:

• Site RS006 forwarded for inclusion by landowner. RS005 7 0.45 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 7 • The Highways Authority advise that subject to Does not need to be dwellings is considered to have a acceptable gradients and provision of 2m allocated: site lies within Summary of Parish Council meeting submitted by District positive effect. Similarly, the site’s footway, likely to acceptable subject to access existing infill boundary Councillor accessibility to areas of open space design and visibility. is likely to have a positive effect. • The requirement for five houses can be met by However, the site is inaccessible to • It is not considered that development of this infill development within the existing infill services and facilities and areas of particular site would be out of proportion with boundary. existing employment which are the rest of the village. Any new development • None of the sites are suitable or desirable for likely to have a significant negative taking place will be subject to design policies development and should be removed from future effect. The site’s proximity to contained within the new Local Plan – which will consideration. historic assets, the district be subject to public consultation next year. • The village does not have a mains sewerage ecological importance of the site system. and the development of greenfield, • New development is the main way to deliver • Traffic issues were a cause for concern. grade 4 ALC land are likely to have new or improved infrastructure e.g. more a negative effect. residents may support an improved bus service, SCC highways - Slopes up from Sugar Street. Will need and provision of a mains gas supply. careful design to achieve acceptable gradients. Mature Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new hedge and stone wall on Sugar Street frontage. Footway development will be provided as part of that 2m wide should be provided on Sugar Street. Likely to development e.g. childrens’ play areas,

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings acceptable subject to access design and visibility. footpaths. Similarly, any existing facilities/services in Rushton Spencer will Developer/Agent/Landowner – Landowner confirms that assess their capacity needs as a result of new would be willing to release the land for future development. development in Rushton Spencer so that provision can be made to accommodate new Public response 11 comments – 11 objections residents.

Objections • Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty • Infrastructure – Schools Primary School is to complete necessary improvements to sewers oversubscribed. to provide the capacity for new development. • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – The Council will continue to liaise with the EA • Frontage on Sugar Street is already heavily and Severn Trent regarding this issue. congested with farm vehicles and school traffic. • Access road is narrow and existing residents park • Housing requirements in the Staffordshire there. Location is on a badly drained junction. Moorlands are in addition to existing properties • Leek Old Road needs traffic calming even if these are for sale or derelict. The new implementation. Local Plan will cover a period to 2031 so lack of • Public transport is poor. demand (perceived or actual) at one point in • Landscape – time is not a valid reason for not meeting the • Development would impact the rural character of area’s objectively assessed housing needs. the village • Earlier application to convert field into garden was refused on these grounds. • Field is integral part of unspoilt village setting. • Land is on a steep upwards slope. • Ivy House opposite is already approved for 11 houses adding to congestion and housing density. • Lack of public transport, shops, doctors. Post office etc. • Development would change the rural nature of the village. • Flood Risk – Surface water run-off and standing water is an issue on this site. Sugar Street is subject to flooding. • Scale of development – prominent position in the village • Other – Lack of demand for existing housing.

Sites within the Green Belt RS009 30 1 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 30 • County Highways advise that development of dwellings is considered to have a site acceptable subject to access design and SCC highways - Acceptable subject to access design and significant positive effect. Similarly, provision of visibility splays. provision of visibility splays of 2.4mx120m. the site’s accessibility to areas of open space is likely to have a • The land in question is within the Green Belt. In Developer/Agent/Landowner – Landowner has confirmed positive effect. However, the site is order for Rushton Spencer to accommodate supports residential allocation. inaccessible to services and new development, the Green Belt boundary facilities and areas of existing may need adjustment. The Council has recently Public response 10 Comments - 10 objections employment which are likely to completed a Green Belt Review in order to have a significant negative effect. assess parts of the Green Belt where minor Objections The site’s proximity to historic adjustments can be made without having an • Infrastructure – Schools. Local schools fully assets, the district ecological impact on the function of the Green Belt as a subscribed. importance of the site and the whole (as defined in government planning • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – development of greenfield, grade 4 guidance). This study recommends that RS009 • Access issues. ALC land are likely to have a is not released from the Green Belt. • Narrow frontage onto A523, Dangerous junction at negative effect. the Royal Oak pub. • It is not considered that development of this • Infrastructure – other. particular site would be out of proportion with

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings • No mains sewer. Properties rely on septic tanks. the rest of the village. Any new development • Landscape taking place will be subject to design policies • Land held under lifetime agricultural tenancy. contained within the new Local Plan – which will • Impact on rural street scene. be subject to public consultation next year. • Scale of development - The site is identified as being capable of delivering 30 dwellings, over 4 • New development is the main way to deliver times the identified requirement for the village new or improved infrastructure e.g. more across the 20 years to 2031. residents may support an improved bus service, • Listed Building / Conservation Area and provision of a mains gas supply. • Government Policy – Green belt site. Identified Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new development needs can be met from non-green development will be provided as part of that belt sites within the immediate locality. Release of development e.g. childrens’ play areas, RS09 would be inconsistent with the development footpaths. Similarly, any existing priorities and scale of development appropriate for facilities/services in Rushton Spencer will Smaller Villages as set out in the Core Strategy assess their capacity needs as a result of new Local Plan. development in Rushton Spencer so that provision can be made to accommodate new • Other – Lack of demand for housing. Existing residents. development land not started shows lack of demand. Housing needs can be delivered by infill. • Severn Trent have stated that they have a duty to complete necessary improvements to sewers to provide the capacity for new development. The Council will continue to liaise with the EA and Severn Trent regarding this issue.

• Housing requirements in the Staffordshire Moorlands are in addition to existing properties even if these are for sale or derelict. The new Local Plan will cover a period to 2031 so lack of demand (perceived or actual) at one point in time is not a valid reason for not meeting the area’s objectively assessed housing needs.

• When deciding over which site options to proceed with the Council will consider the respective comments of statutory consultees including Environment Agency, SMDC Environmental Health, SMDC Conservation, SCC Highways/ Transportation, infrastructure providers etc; and utilises the results of its sustainability appraisal work. Sites outside the infill boundary RS007 26 0.84 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 26 • County Highways advise that visibility splays dwellings is considered to have a and footway widening required, but otherwise SCC highways - Footway should be widened to 2m on significant positive effect. Similarly, development not ruled out. frontage. Accesses will require visibility splays of 2.4m x the site’s accessibility to areas of 120m open space is likely to have a • When deciding over which site options to positive effect. However, the site is proceed with the Council will consider the Developer/Agent/Landowner – correspondence from inaccessible to services and respective comments of statutory consultees landowner confirms site still deliverable for housing. facilities and areas of existing including Environment Agency, SMDC employment which are likely to Environmental Health, SMDC Conservation, Public response 9 Comments - 9 objections have a significant negative effect. SCC Highways/ Transportation, infrastructure The site’s proximity to historic providers etc; and utilises the results of its Objections assets, the district ecological sustainability appraisal work. • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – Site too narrow importance of the site and the for access road plus new row of houses. Limited development of greenfield, grade 4 • The Council would expect that any development visibility to main road. ALC land are likely to have a proposals affecting a public right of way would • Infrastructure – other negative effect. avoid impacting upon its route (or require

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings • Partially contaminated site. appropriate re-routing as required under • Septic tank contamination. Drainage issues from legislation). those built there already. Further houses would exacerbate this. • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 • Legal mine on site. Ecological Study for the District. This assessed • 6 homes already built on site, these did not prove sites included in the Site Options consultation. to be affordable. The site survey results will be used as part of • No access to mains sewer. the site selection process. Any other sites • Landscape – 2m Public footpath on site which come forward and are potentially suitable • Nature Conservation – Previously a designated for development will also need to be assessed. SSI - what happened to remove this? • • Flood Risk – Owing to its size, range of facilities/services, • Damage and loss of existing land drains and etc, Rushton Spencer is identified in the soakaways has led to standing water and flood adopted Core Strategy as a ‘smaller village’ meaning that the scale of housing proposed risk. relates to local needs only; and only limited • Drainage and contamination issues are part of economic development is envisaged. ongoing legal dispute. Brook runs through site with known flood risk. • Other – Employment in the village is limited. Most housing owned by elderly residents which will be available within next few years. RS015 12 0.41 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 12 • County Highways advise that visibility to site is dwellings is considered to have a severely restricted but development may be SCC Highways: Visibility at Tanhouse Lane onto A523 is significant positive effect. Similarly, acceptable if access is provided directly onto severely restricted. May be acceptable if access is the site’s accessibility to areas of A523. provided directly onto A523 subject to access design and open space is likely to have a visibility positive effect. However, the site is • Owing to its size, range of facilities/services, inaccessible to services and etc, Rushton Spencer is identified in the Developer/Agent/Landowner – Owner position unknown. facilities and areas of existing adopted Core Strategy as a ‘smaller village’ employment which are likely to meaning that the scale of housing proposed Public response 10 comments – 10 objections have a significant negative effect. relates to local needs only; and only limited The site’s proximity to historic economic development is envisaged. Objections assets, the district ecological • Infrastructure – Schools – School full to capacity importance of the site and the • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – Tan House development of greenfield, grade 4 Lane is single track with a blind junction to the ALC land are likely to have a A523 negative effect. • Infrastructure – other. Limited facilities, shops, public transport etc. • Landscape – Development would spoil the green field approach to the village. • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) - loss of local open space. Only flat green space in the village. .Site is better suited to community use. • Other - Housing needs should be met by infill. Should be used for future expansion of the business rather than for housing.

Draft - Stockton Brook

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Sites within the Green Belt SB014 10 0.35 Statutory bodies/stakeholders: The proposed delivery of circa • It would appear that access to this site is 10 dwellings is considered to problematic and the Highway Authority’s Endon Parish Council – Object re greenbelt, narrow have a significant positive concerns require careful consideration. access to site and understand planning permission already effect. Similarly, the site’s granted on residential garden area. accessibility to areas of open • There appears to be no recent relevant space and location away from planning history on the site. SCC Highways - No existing access off Willfield Lane. historic assets are likely to Declassified one-way road with no footways or street have a positive effect. • The land in question is within the Green Belt, lighting. Considerable level difference. Overall appears However, the site is though the Staffords hire Moorlands Core inappropriate site for development in terms of highways inaccessible to services and Strategy categorises Stockton Brook as a safety. facilities and areas of existing ‘smaller village’ which will include an infill employment which are likely to boundary (to be determined through the Local Developer/Agent/Owner – Land available. have a significant negative Plan process). The Council has recently effect. The site’s district completed a Green Belt Review in order to Public response 8 comments - 7 objections and 1 support ecological importance and the assess parts of the Green Belt where minor development of greenfield, adjustments can be made without having an Issue s ra ise d: grade 4 ALC land are likely to impact on the function of the Green Belt as a have a negative effect. whole (as defined in government planning Objections guidance). This study recommends that site • Infrastructure – Schools – Local schools near or SB014 could be considered for release from at capacity. the Green Belt. • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Roads cannot accommodate additional traffic. Surrounding • Staffordshire County Council say that St Luke’s roads used a cut through from Brown Edge to A53. Primary School (Endon) currently has Moss Holl/Leek Rd junction dangerous, no insufficient capacity for the likely number of pavements, no lights and high volume of traffic. pupils generated from the overall level of Stanley Road especially congested with 1 way development in that catchment. Endon High listed bridge with heavy and large vehicles using School is also projected to have insufficient this. capacity and the District Council will work with • Infrastructure - Other the County Council to identify an appropriate • Landscape – Site is in greenbelt solution. • Nature Conservation – Impact on wildlife • Flood Risk – Existing plot absorbs rainwater. • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) Ecological Study for the District. This assessed • Scale of development Number of houses sites included in the Site Options consultation. excessive for plot. The site survey results will be used as part of • Government Policy the site selection process. • Other • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 Support Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, the results of which are being used to • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport inform the site selection process. Mitigation

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings • Landscape measures will be taken as part of the site development to address any surface water issues.

• The number of houses suggested for the site is an estimate at this stage and is not fixed. The actual number will reflect site constraints. SB016 15 0.66 Statutory bodies/stakeholders: The proposed delivery of circa • The Highway Authority does not raise any 15 dwellings is considered to issues to suggest that the site is Endon Parish Council – Support site has good access, have a significant positive undevelopable. sustainable location and would form integral part of village. effect. Similarly, the site’s accessibility to areas of open • Staffordshire County Council say that St Luke’s SCC Highways - Existing bellmouth access into the site, space is likely to have a Primary School (Endon) currently has currently bollarded off, would appear easy to extend to positive effect. However, the insufficient capacity for the likely number of provide a site road site is inaccessible to services pupils generated from the overall level of and facilities and areas of development in that catchment. Endon High Developer/Agent/Owner – Availability unknown. existing employment which are School is also projected to have insufficient likely to have a significant capacity and the District Council will work with Public response 40 comments - 5 objections plus petition negative effect. The site’s the County Council to identify an appropriate (34) and 1 support proximity to historic assets, solution. district ecological importance Issue s ra ise d: and the development of • Ground conditions would be investigated greenfield, grade 4 ALC land before any development took place on the site. Objections are likely to have a negative • Infrastructure – Schools – local schools effect. • New development is the main way to deliver oversubscribed. new or improved infrastructure / services. • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Visibility will Infrastructure needs specifically related to a be restricted by listed canal bridge and busy new development will be provided as part of entrance to golf club. that development. Traffic lights • Infrastructure – Other – Uncertainty over ground • The land in question is within the Green Belt, conditions re levels of peat and ground gas may though the Staffords hire Moorlands Core affect viability. Strategy categorises Stockton Brook as a Village lacks facilities such as shop or school and ‘smaller village’ which will include an infill residents have to travel. boundary (to be determined through the Local • Landscape – Site is in green belt and area of Plan process). The Council has recently natural beauty. and will be viewed from alongside completed a Green Belt Review in order to the canal. assess parts of the Green Belt where minor • Nature Conservation – impact on wildlife adjustments can be made without having an • Flood Risk – Site has been subject to surface impact on the function of the Green Belt as a water flooding. whole (as defined in government planning Flooding in back gardens a problem. guidance). This study recommends that site • Scale of development – Cluster of development SB016 could be considered for release from out of character with linear form of village. the Green Belt. Why can’t housing development site at old community centre count towards housing numbers • The site adjoins a listed building and a for Stockton Brook? conservation area but it is considered that a • Listed Building / Conservation Area – Mayfield is carefully designed scheme would not have an listed and surrounded by ancient woodland. Site adverse impact on either of these nor the abuts Caldon Canal Conservation Area and 4 listed character of the village. buildings within 100m range. Development will cause harm to heritage assets. • The Council has recently completed a Phase 1 Access road runs through grounds of listed building Ecological Study for the District. This assessed which will impact on its character and appearance. sites included in the Site Options consultation. • Other – Given viability issues site unable to deliver The site survey results will be used as part of affordable housing numbers. the site selection process. Harm of delivering 15 units does not outweigh benefits. • The Council has recently completed a Level 1

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings Housing development should be accommodated in Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the larger villages. District, the results of which are being used to Development at Moss Hill more appropriate. inform the site selection process. Mitigation 5 houses erected recently so only 10 new houses measures will be taken as part of the site required. development to address any surface water Lots of properties for sale. issues.

Support • Housing requirements in the Staffordshire Moorlands are in addition to existing properties • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport - Good access even if these are for sale. • Infrastructure – other – Sustainable location. • Other – Would form integral part of village

ADD08 35 1.4 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa • The land in question is within the Green Belt, 40 dwellings is considered to though the Staffords hire Moorlands Core SCC Highways – Access would be preferable on to Moss have a significant positive Strategy categorises Stockton Brook as a Hill, but its not clear that there would be adequate width. Is effect. Similarly, the site’s ‘smaller village’ which will include an infill access to Quarry House Farm included? If access is accessibility to areas of open boundary (to be determined through the Local provided direct onto A53, adequate visibility, adequate space and location away from Plan process). The Council has recently offset from the existing junction, reconstructed retaining wall designated assets are likely to completed a Green Belt Review in order to would be required. Pedestrian linkages should be have a positive effect. assess parts of the Green Belt where minor considered. A53 footway should be widened to 2m. However, the site is adjustments can be made without having an Trans port Statement or Assessment may be required inaccessible to services and impact on the function of the Green Belt as a depending on numbers. facilities and areas of existing whole (as defined in government planning employment which are likely to guidance). This study does not recommend Developer/Agent/Owner – Land available. have a significant negative that this site is considered for release from the effect. The site’s proximity to Green Belt. Public response None – site was put forward during historic assets and district consultation. ecological importance are likely to have a negative effect.

Draft - Whiston

Question 5a - Potential sites suitable for housing

Sites outside the infill boundary General comments:

The prioritisation of sites is led by landowners and developers rather than community and does not take into account the character of the village.

No evidence for housing need in Whiston. Approval for housing at Copperworks – never built. Recently built houses remain unsold.

Limited facilities in the village and community transport minimal - reliance on private car travel.

If SMDC take into account 13 houses approved at Copperworks and a further housing at The Green and Whiston Leys then housing requirement met and exceeded. WH002 10 0.44 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 10 • The Highway Authority has not raised any dwellings and proximity to areas of issues which would prevent the development of SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and existing employment is considered this site subject to appropriate access design provision of visibility splays. Access would need to be off to have a signific ant positive effect. and provision of visibility splays. A52 due to topography. How would pedestrians be catered Similarly, the site’s accessibility to for? No existing footways on A53, no obvious route to the areas of open space is likely to • There are sites in Whiston that already have the private road to the rear of the site, despite right of way. have a positive effect. However, the benefit of planning permission and are under Public right of way Kingsley 63 runs on the northern site is inaccessible to services and construction. At this stage it is not considered boundary. facilities which is likely to have a that the development of this site would be significant negative effect, as could necessary to meet the estimated need in this Environment Agency – Site may be brownfield and the site’s proximity to designated settlement. previous land use may have caused contamination of the and historic assets. ground, or through redevelopment may cause risk to water • Potential contamination issues from former environment. Such sites will require Preliminary Risk copper works. Assessment in support of planning application.

If affected by historic landfill. The site may be more expensive to develop due to remediation and mitigation measures to protect water environment and human health. In extreme circumstances may not be developable.

Developer/Agent – HLW Development ltd - support

Public response 5 comments - 4 objections and 1 support

Issues raised:

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings

Objections • Infrastructure – Other – limited facilities within village. • Landscape – Greenfields should be preserved • Other – Already plot at Copperworks with permission for 13 houses therefore no need. In addition houses built recently so no further development required. Houses in village remain unsold.

Support

• Other – Results of recent Envirep report identifies potential contamination on site but development opportunity would facilitate comprehensive remediation of the area.

WH009a 15 0.80 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The proposed delivery of circa 15 • The Highway Authority has not raised any dwellings and proximity to areas of issues which would prevent the development of SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and existing employment is considered this site. provision of visibility splays. Stone wall on frontage would to have a signific ant positive effect. need to be lowered. Similarly, the site’s accessibility to • New development is the main way to deliver areas of open space is likely to new or improved infrastructure e.g. more have a positive effect. However, the residents may support more local facilities. Developer/Agent – Site is available site is inaccessible to services and Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new facilities which is likely to have a development will be provided as part of that Public response 11 comments - significant negative effect. The development e.g. children’s play areas. 11 objections site’s proximity to designated and historic assets and the development • A Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment will Issues raised: of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land are be undertaken during the plan production likely to have a negative effect. process if the site is taken forward.

Objections • The Council has recently completed a Phas e 1 • Infrastructure - Schools Ecological Study for the District. This assessed • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Increased sites included in the Site Options consultation. traffic through village and small country lanes The site survey results will be used as part of especially if Moneystone Quarry development the site selection process. Any other sites goes ahead. . which come forward and are potentially suitable Poor visibility on access to site cause substantial for development will also need to be assessed. risks to children using playing fields. • Infrastructure – Other – Lack of village facilities no • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 post office, shop, garage, doctors etc. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, • Landscape - Outside of settlement boundary and the results of which are being used to inform the in open countryside and using greenfield land. site selection process. The site is within Flood Conflict with policies SS6, SS6b and SS6c which Zone 1 – Low probability. states infill development would be allowed. LSCA states ‘part of an attractive field with open • Amenity – issues such as overlooking, views across it’ screening and other impacts on existing The site is an integral part of the pastoral residents will be assessed in detail once a site landscape and sensitive to impacts of layout has been determined at the time a development – Policy DC3 seeks to protect this. planning application is received and residents Development would have harmful impact on the will have the opportunity to comment on the character and appearance of the area and conflict content of that application. with policy DC3 of the Core Strategy.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings • Nature Conservation • The National Planning Policy Framework • Flood Risk supports housing growth which meets the • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) Council’s objectively assessed housing needs. • Scale of development – Development on this site would be intrusive on the landscape and impact on • There are sites in Whiston that already have the the amenity enjoyed by the residents on the south benefit of planning permission and are under side of Back Lane. construction. At this stage it is not considered Development would block views of play area. that the development of this site would be • Government Policy - attaches great importance to necessary to meet the estimated need in this conserving and enhancing natural environment. settlement. To designate site for housing would conflict with core planning principles of NPPF. • Other – This is a public open space owned by SCC. used for horse grazing, allotment and abuts children’s play area. . Its supports the use of the village hall, Has potential to provide garden allotments (fresh produce important given lack of shops), provides recreational space for all ages, safe play area for children. There is already permission for at least 5 houses in Ross Rd and Black Lane and therefore no additional need. No need for housing – Copperworks not developed and enough houses for sale in village. 10+ houses built ‘Bull House Development’ Proposals to develop site opposite WH0018 previously refused for housing due to poor visibility. Site bought by SCC for school but not developed die to poor traffic visibility. Development would harm the settlement of Whiston, its residents, its setting in the wider landscape and would not be outweighed by any significant benefits WH015 6 0.20 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The site’s proximity to areas of • The Highway Authority has not raised any existing employment is considered issues which would prevent the development of SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and to have a signific ant positive effect. this site. provision of appropriate visibility splay. Similarly, the site’s accessibility to areas of open space and the • New development is the main way to deliver proposed delivery of circa 6 new or improved infrastructure e.g. more Developer/Agent – Rob Duncan Planning Consultancy - dwellings are likely to have a residents may support more local facilities. support positive effect. However, the site is Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new inaccessible to services and development will be provided as part of that Public response 6 comments - 5 objections and 1 support facilities is likely to have a development e.g. children’s play areas. significant negative effect. The Issues raised: site’s proximity to designated and • A Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment will historic assets and the development be undertaken during the plan production of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land are process if the site is taken forward. Objections likely to have a negative effect. • Infrastructure - Schools • The Council has recently completed a Phas e 1 • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport Ecological Study for the District. This assessed • Infrastructure – Other – Lack of amenities. sites included in the Site Options consultation. • Landscape – Object to building on green belt and The site survey results will be used as part of outside village/infill boundary. the site selection process. Any other sites • Nature Conservation which come forward and are potentially suitable • Amenity (e.g. noise, privacy, loss of light) for development will also need to be assessed.

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings • Scale of development – Number of houses • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 excessive for size of site. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, • Government Policy the results of which are being used to inform the • Other – 13 houses already approved at old copper site selection process. The site is within Flood works site and should be taken into account Zone 1 – Low probability. including 7 at The Green and 3 at Whiston Leys so housing numbers already exceeded. • Amenity – issues such as overlooking, Number of applications refused as outside village screening and other impacts on existing boundary. residents will be assessed in detail once a site Site already has 1 house approved out of the layout has been determined at the time a suggested 5 not in keeping with current planning planning application is received and residents policy to add more to this site. will have the opportunity to comment on the content of that application. Support • The National Planning Policy Framework • Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport – Easy access to supports housing growth which meets the local highway network. Council’s objectively assessed housing needs. • Flood Risk - Not in flood plain • Scale of development – unlikely to have impact on • There are sites in Whiston that already have the character of surrounding area. benefit of planning permission and are under Views will be seen against backdrop of Ross Road construction. At this stage it is not considered and Whiston as a whole and as a part of linear that the development of this site would be development that characterises this part of the necessary to meet the estimated need in this village. settlement. • Other – SHLAA identifies site suitable for 6 dwellings. Site maybe suitable for small scale affordable housing. Site is viable and achievable within 5 years. WH0016 6 0.20 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The site’s proximity to areas of • The Highway Authority has not raised any existing employment is considered issues which would prevent the development of SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and to have a signific ant positive effect. this site. provision of appropriate visibility splay. Similarly, the site’s accessibility to areas of open space and the • New development is the main way to deliver proposed delivery of circa 6 new or improved infrastructure e.g. more Developer/Agent – Site is available dwellings are likely to have a residents may support more local facilities. positive effect. However, the site is Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new Public response 4 comments - 4 objections inaccessible to services and development will be provided as part of that facilities which is likely to have a development e.g. children’s play areas. Issues raised: significant negative effect. The site’s proximity to designated and • A Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment will historic assets and the development be undertaken during the plan production Objections of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land are process if the site is taken forward. • Infrastructure – Other – Lack of facilities within likely to have a negative effect. village • There are sites in Whiston that already have the • Landscape – Development should not occur on benefit of planning permission and are under greenfield sites. construction. The site is well related to the Site is outside settlement boundary and in open existing settlement and could be a reserve site if countryside and conflict with policies in Core needed. Strategy – SS6, SS6b SS6c. • Other – Already plot at Copperworks with permission for 13 houses Other and recently approved housing in village therefore no need. Housing in village remains unsold. WH0018 5 0.17 Statutory bodies/stakeholders The site’s proximity to areas of • The Highway Authority has not raised any existing employment is considered issues which would prevent the development of SCC Highways - Acceptable subject to access design and to have a signific ant positive effect. this site. provision of visibility. Existing footway should be extended. Similarly, the site’s accessibility to 4

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings areas of open space and the • New development is the main way to deliver Developer/Agent – Rob Duncan Planning Consultancy - proposed delivery of circa 5 new or improved infrastructure e.g. more support dwellings are likely to have a residents may support more local facilities. positive effect. However, the site is Infrastructure needs specifically related to a new Public response 8 comments - 7 objections and 1 support inaccessible to services and development will be provided as part of that facilities which is likely to have a development e.g. children’s play areas. Issues raised: significant negative effect. The site’s proximity to designated and • A Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment will historic assets and the development be undertaken during the plan production Objections of greenfield, grade 4 ALC land are process if the site is taken forward. • Infrastructure - Traffic / Transport – Increased likely to have a negative effect. traffic through village and narrow lanes. • The Council has recently completed a Phas e 1 Poor visibility on access to site cause substantial Ecological Study for the District. This assessed risks to children using playing fields. sites included in the Site Options consultation. • Infrastructure – Other – Lack of facilities within The site survey results will be used as part of village the site selection process. Any other sites • Landscape – Outside of settlement boundary and which come forward and are potentially suitable in open countryside and using greenfield land. for development will also need to be assessed. Conflict with policies SS6, SS6b and SS6c which states infill development would be allowed. • The Council has recently completed a Level 1 LSCA states ‘part of an attractive field with open Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the District, views across it’ the results of which are being used to inform the The site is an integral part of the pastoral site selection process. The site is within Flood landscape and sensitive to impacts of Zone 1 – Low probability. development – Policy DC3 seeks to protect this. Development would have harmful impact on the • Amenity – issues such as overlooking, character and appearance of the area and conflict screening and other impacts on existing with policy DC3 of the Core Strategy. residents will be assessed in detail once a site Development would fail to make effective use of layout has been determined at the time a greenfield land contrary to policies SD1 and SS1 planning application is received and residents of Core Strategy. will have the opportunity to comment on the Site has character and appearance of open content of that application. countryside • Scale of development – Would block views of safe • The National Planning Policy Framework play area. supports housing growth which meets the • Government Policy – attaches great importance to Council’s objectively assessed housing needs. conserving and enhancing natural environment. • Other – There is already permission for at least 5 • There are sites in Whiston that already have the houses in Ross Rd and Black Lane and therefore benefit of planning permission and are under no additional need. construction. At this stage it is not considered Already plot at Copperworks with permission for 13 that the development of this site would be houses Other and recently approved housing in necessary to meet the estimated need in this village therefore no need. settlement. 10+ houses built ‘Bull House Development’ Housing in village remains unsold. This site has had several planning applications refused the most recent dismissed at appeal Oct 2014. Development would harm the settlement of Whiston, its residents, its setting in the wider landscape and would not be outweighed by any significant benefits Support

• Infrastructure -Traffic / Transport - Easy access to highway network and existing village facilities. • Flood Risk – Not in flood zone • Scale of development – Site has potential for 5

Site Reference Capacity 5+ Size of site Key Issues from the Site Options Consultation July 2015 Sustainability Appraisal Report Comment Draft Recommendation dwellings dwellings, SHLAA suggests some limited development along frontage of Eaves Lane. In keeping with established character of village. Linear development enclosed by existing residential development. Feasible to develop split level housing to reflect slope of site. • Other – Site is economically viable and achievable within 5 years.