CHESHIRE EAST BC – LOCAL PLAN HEARINGS Supplementary Comments from Congleton Sustainability Group Matter 14.5 – SL6, SL7, CS16, SL8, CS17 – Congleton NOTE: Many of the issues raised in these supplementary comments also apply to many, if not all, other Key Service Centres identified in the Plan. Key Issue The Congleton Sustainability Group was formed to address local climate change issues and in particular, to reduce the carbon emissions of the town. To this end we gained Transition Town status for Congleton in 2011 and have delivered a number of notable projects. While fully agreeing with Plan’s vision of reducing carbon emissions, we consider the Plan will not achieve this, particularly with its proposals for Congleton. However, we believe that the Plan can be modified to address some of the unsustainable elements, particularly the very high levels of commuting (both in and out) at Congleton (and at other Key Service Centres). We believe that it is not sufficient simply to aim to reduce the carbon emissions for the Borough as a whole by measures such as the ground source heating proposals (which we very much welcome) but the Plan must be predicated on reducing the carbon emissions for each community and each development within those communities. To this end each community must be as self-contained as possible, not only in terms of services but in terms of all aspects of daily living particularly employment. This requires innovative, aspirational but realistically deliverable measures to reduce carbon emissions at every community and development. We feel this is missing from the Plan as currently drafted, but consider this can be addressed by relatively minor modifications to the Plan. Additional Comments on Spatial Portrait (paras 2.51 – 2.53) Congleton is reasonably self-contained in terms of services (retail, schools, leisure etc.). However, retail only provides for basic daily needs. The proposed retail development in the town centre and a possible lifestyle centre (to replace or supplement the existing sports centre) will, in our opinion, simply provide for the increase in demand for basic daily needs created by the planned development (3500 dwellings). Comparative shopping will still be very limited with existing and new residents continuing to look to Macclesfield (closest) or further afield to Crewe, Stoke-on-Trent/Hanley etc. The key issue with Congleton and most, if not all, Key Service Centres is that it woefully fails to be self-contained in terms of employment with high levels of both out-commuting and in-commuting. Currently about 2/3 of workers commute out with about 1/3 travelling to nearby towns (Crewe Macclesfield) and 1/3 commuting travelling greater distances to Manchester and further afield – we have evidence of commuting as far as Birmingham, Leicester etc.. 1 Congleton is historically a manufacturing town and although there has been a marked reduction in manufacturing in the town, Class B type employment (including manufacturing) still represents the vast majority of businesses in the town. Background In 1947 the population of Congleton was around 14,000; there was a wide range of employment available, the vast majority being in manufacturing (textiles represented the majority but there were a wide range of other goods manufactured). The Co-op was a major employer and provider of retail and services i.e. the town was substantially self-contained. In the intervening years there has been a very significant increase in housing, principally to the north, south and west of the town such that now the population is in the order of 26,000. Rather than employment opportunities keeping pace with the increased population there has been a significant reduction in employment opportunities, principally resulting from a reduction in manufacturing. New manufacturing businesses have started up or come to the town but this has not addressed the overall reduction in employment opportunities. The key thing to note here is that the clear evidence from past experience is that simply building more houses has not resulted in more employment in the town on the contrary; the significant increase in housing has singularly failed to halt the reduction in employment opportunities. While accepting and welcoming, albeit (in our opinion) the allocation of limited employment sites we are very concerned that simply building more houses will simply exacerbate the existing problems of high levels of out and in commuting with the twin knock-on effects of increased congestion (which adversely affects the economy of the Borough) and increased carbon emissions. The Local Plan must contain robust and workable solutions to expand employment at Congleton to begin to address the gross imbalance between the size of the town and the low levels and relatively poor quality of employment. There is a vicious circle whereby workers commute out of Congleton to the higher paid jobs (that match their skills and education) which enable them to afford the relatively higher cost of market housing in the town which in turn keeps the house prices high. While the existing employment market is comparatively poor, offering mainly low paid and/or part-time jobs to workers who cannot afford to live in Congleton and therefore commute in from more affordable areas of north Staffordshire, principally Biddulph, which is only 4 miles from Congleton. The Local Plan The following are the key issues we wish to raise in relation to Congleton in the Local Plan: We recognise that the Plan needs to be aspirational but also realistic, so while we would like to see a very significant reduction in both in and out commuting this is perhaps not realistic. We would however want the Plan to aim to reduce the level of out-commuting to below 50% and preferably nearer to 40%. 2 To achieve this, the Plan needs deliver a meaningful reduction in commuting by ensuring there is a wide range of jobs to match the full range of skills and education attainment available at Congleton and each town in the Borough. This will be a significant step towards achieving sustainable development and will result in benefits to both the economy of the Borough and to the wellbeing and quality of life for its residents, both existing and new. We are not convinced that the 24ha identified in the Plan is sufficient to provide the required number of jobs to enable Congleton to become far more self-contained. Key points are: We know of a number of businesses in Congleton desperate to expand on their current site and are currently unable to do so; they are not interested in relocating. While the number of homeworking jobs including sole trader businesses is increasing there is a finite number of these, i.e. not everyone will be able to work from home. Manufacturing is and will remain a key staple of the UK’s economy; manufacturing in Congleton and elsewhere in the Borough will need to play its part in this. With existing technology based businesses in Congleton (electronics, aerospace etc.) there is a case for further technology based business, particularly green technology. We are concerned that not only does Cheshire East have to compete with adjoining authority areas to attract employment (most notably with Manchester), the various towns within Cheshire East need to compete with each other to attract employment and we are concerned that while employment land has been identified for Congleton, Cheshire East BC are looking to promote Crewe and Macclesfield first. We believe this is not good for the sustainability and self-containment of Congleton and the other Key Service Centres. There is a very serious and likely risk that the Plan as currently drafted will simply result in even higher levels of commuting from the likes of Congleton to Crewe and Macclesfield. This will be bad not only for the likes of Congleton but for the Borough as a whole as levels of congestion increase significantly which is bad for the economy of the Borough and also bad for those forced to commute and whose quality of life will be degraded by stressful and ever increasing commuting journey times. If there is to be the level of development at Congleton as currently envisaged in the Plan we are content with the sites identified for Congleton in the Plan. The main reasons for this are: While we wish to see a significant reduction in out-commuting, as recognised above, there will always be workers who will commute and the most likely destination for this traffic is Crewe, Macclesfield and beyond (including Manchester). Commuters from this new development will be able to access these and other locations without having to pass through the town centre, nor indeed, with the Link Road, adjacent existing residential areas. The housing development will be adjacent to the existing and expanded employment sites and the existing Park Barn Retail Park consequently, with proper planning these would be accessible by sustainable, i.e. non car-based, modes. 3 The proposed Link Road is needed to give access to all this new development, particularly, all HGV traffic to the existing and expanded business and industrial parks will be re-directed via the Link Road and so remove these vehicles from the existing local road network, particularly, Back Lane which is unsuitable for HGVs. Having given our support to both the location of development and the Link Road there are a number of issues and caveats we wish to raise, as follows: The description of each of the development sites includes for the provision of local services, public transport, green travel etc. which we welcome, but no details are given at this stage. However, all the sites adjoin each other and the existing built-up area.