Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Policy Principles Document and Development Strategy for Jobs and Sustainable Communities Document

Transcription

1 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Policy Principles Document and Development Strategy for Jobs and Sustainable Communities Document Representations on behalf of: Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd 22 February /07/MW/NMi

2 This document is formatted for double sided printing. Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd Trading as Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners. All Rights Reserved. Registered Office: 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL All plans within this document produced by NLP are based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Licence number AL50684A

3 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 Purpose...1 Structure Policy EG3: Existing and Allocated Employment Sites 4 Introduction...4 Consideration of Policy Policy SC2: Health and Well Being 5 Introduction...5 Consideration of Policy Policy SC3: Residential Mix 7 Introduction...7 Consideration of Policy Policy SC4: Housing to meet Local Needs 9 Introduction...9 Consideration of Policy Policy SE1: Design 11 Introduction...11 Consideration of Policy Policy SE2: Efficient Use of Land 12 Introduction...12 Consideration of Policy Policy SE4: The Landscape 13 Introduction...13 Consideration of Policy Policy SE5: Green Infrastructure 14 Introduction...14 Consideration of Policy Policy SE8: Energy Efficient Development 16 Introduction...16 Consideration of Policy v1

4 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 11.0 Policy SE9: Allowable Solutions 17 Introduction Consideration of Policy Policy CO1: Sustainable Travel and Transport 18 Introduction Consideration of Policy Policy CO2: Enabling Business Growth through Transport Infrastructure 19 Introduction Consideration of Policy Policy CO3: Digital Connections 21 Introduction Consideration of policy Policy CS1: Overall Development Strategy 26 Introduction Consideration of Policy Policy CS2: Settlement Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution 29 Introduction Consideration of Policy Policy CS3: Green Belt 32 Introduction Consideration of Policy Policy CS4: Safeguarded Land 34 Introduction Consideration of Policy Policy CS5: Strategic Open Gaps 35 Introduction Consideration of Policy Policy CS8: Sustainable Development in Cheshire East 36 Introduction Consideration of Policy Policy CS9: Sustainable Development Principles 37 Introduction Consideration of Policy P v1

5 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 22.0 Policy CS10: Infrastructure 38 Introduction...38 Consideration of Policy Chapter 8: Preferred Strategic Sites 39 Introduction...39 Poynton...39 New Settlements Appendix E: Strategic Sites Alternatives 42 Introduction...42 Site Poynton 1 (Alternative) Land to the West of Poynton Recommendations 45 Introduction...45 Policy Principles Document...45 Development Strategy for Jobs and Sustainable Communities Document...47 Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Cheshire and Warrington Sub-Regional Housing Study November 2012 Barton Willmore The Draft Poynton Town Strategy v1

6

7 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 1.0 Introduction Purpose 1.1 Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners is instructed by Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd to make representations on the Cheshire East Local Plan Policy Principles document [the Policy Principles document] and Development Strategy for Jobs and Sustainable Communities document [the Development Strategy document] published for consultation by Cheshire East Council on 15 th January The representations are subsequent to the Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd submissions on the Poynton Draft Town Strategy in September Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd are seeking to bring forward a high quality, sustainable mixed use development on land to the west of Poynton. This site is identified as Site Poynton 1 (Alternative) Land to the West of Poynton in the Development Strategy and Site A in the Draft Poynton Town Strategy. 1.3 Where necessary, this report demonstrates that a number of policies within the Policy Principles and Development Strategy documents are at present unsound in the context of the tests of soundness established by the National Planning Policy Framework [the Framework]. The Framework [ 182] states that to be sound a Local Plan should be: 1 Positively Prepared: The plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development. 2 Justified: The plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. 3 Effective: The Plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities. 4 Consistent with National Policy: The Plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the polices in the Framework. 1.4 The Framework [ 178] states public bodies have a duty to cooperate on issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities. The Government expects joint working on areas of common interest to be diligently undertaken for the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities. Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd consider that the Council should co-operate with neighbouring authorities on the preparation of the plan v1 P1

8 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates Structure 1.5 This report provides representations in relation to the following Policy Principles policies. 1 Policy EG3: Existing and Allocated Employment Sites 2 Policy SC2: Health and Well Being 3 Policy SC3: Residential Mix 4 Policy SC4: Housing to Meet Local Needs 5 Policy SE1: Design 6 Policy SE2: Efficient Use of Land 7 Policy SE4: The Landscape 8 Policy SE5: Green Infrastructure 9 Policy SE8: Energy Efficient Development 10 Policy SE9: Allowable Solutions 11 Policy CO1: Sustainable Travel and Transport 12 Policy CO2: Enabling Business Growth Through Transport Infrastructure 13 Policy CO3: Digital Connections 1.6 This report provides representations in relation to the following Development Strategy policies: 1 Policy CS1: Overall Development Strategy 2 Policy CS2: Settlement Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution 3 Policy CS3: Green Belt 4 Policy CS4: Safeguarded Land 5 Policy CS5: Strategic Open Gaps 6 Policy CS8: Sustainable Development in Cheshire East 7 Policy CS9: Sustainable Development Principles 8 Policy CS10: Infrastructure 9 Chapter 8: Strategic Sites 10 Appendix E: Strategic Sites - Alternatives 1.7 Recommendations are drawn at the end of the report for both the Policy Principles document and the Development Strategy document. P v1

9 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates Policy Principles Policies v1 P3

10 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 2.0 Policy EG3: Existing and Allocated Employment Sites Introduction 2.1 Policy EG3 seeks to protect existing and allocated employment sites but allows for alternative uses subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Consideration of Policy 2.2 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Part (2) of the Policy. It is considered that the requirement in Part (2) of the Policy to explore opportunities to incorporate an element of employment development as part of a mixed use scheme is not justified, given that some existing employment sites may no longer be suitable or locationally preferable for continued employment use. The term employment development is also considered to be too wide in scope as developers would need to consider a wide range of development proposals to explore all opportunities as required by the Policy. It is therefore considered that Part (2) should be deleted. 2.3 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd also object to Part (3) of Policy EG3 which is considered to be inconsistent with national policy as it does not allow for the review of employment allocations during the Plan period. The Framework [ 22] states: Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. 2.4 National guidance makes clear that there is an onus upon local planning authorities to keep employment allocations under regular review. On this basis Part (3) of Policy EG3 should be amended to allow for a regular review of employment allocations (at least every 5 years) and to confirm that sites may be released for alternative uses following the review. There may be instances where employment sites are more appropriate for housing development. P v1

11 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 3.0 Policy SC2: Health and Well Being Introduction 3.1 Policy SC2 seeks to create and safeguard opportunities for healthy, fulfilling and active lifestyles. Consideration of Policy 3.2 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd broadly support the provision of Policy SC2 as this broadly accords with the principles of the Framework [ 17] which states that planning should take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well being for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs. 3.3 However, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Part (2) of the Policy which requires Health Impact Assessments on all strategic development proposals and seeks contributions towards new or enhanced health and social care facilities from developers where development results in a shortfall or worsening of provision. 3.4 It would not be possible to secure any financial contribution towards Health Impact Assessments by means of a S106 agreement. Reg. 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations (Amendment) 2012 sets out three tests for the use of S106. In respect of development that is capable of being charged CIL obligations should be: 1 Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. 2 Directly related to the development. 3 Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 3.5 If an obligation does not meet all of these tests it cannot in law be taken into account in granting planning permission. It is considered that the requirements of Policy SC2 would fail at least two of the above tests because: 1 It would be difficult to demonstrate how it directly relates to a specific development as it does not relate to any specific impact, and, 2 It would be difficult to demonstrate that the requirement is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to development in the absence of any viability evidence to support this assumption. 3.6 This type of requirement should be dealt with through the Community Infrastructure Levy and it does not therefore need to be set out as a requirement in a Local Plan Policy. 3.7 In addition, it is considered that a requirement for Health Impact Assessments is unjustified in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that they are necessary. There is no viability evidence to support such a requirement and it v1 P5

12 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates would potentially add unreasonable charges to development, threatening scheme viability. 3.8 It is considered that the requirements of Part (2) are also covered by the requirements of Part (5) in any event. It is therefore submitted that Part (2) of Policy SC2 should be deleted. 3.9 Whilst Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd support the promotion of allotments and garden plots in new development, there will be instances where it will not be practical to accommodate such uses within a development scheme due to issues such as space restrictions or the type of development proposed (e.g. apartment development). The provision of allotments should only provided where there is evidence justifying that there is a need to deliver them and they should be based on up to date evidence contained in the Council s Open Space Assessment. Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd therefore object to the wording of Part (6) of Policy SC2 and consider it should be re-worded as follows: Where practical and based on evidence, the Council will promote the role of allotments, garden plots within developments, small scale agriculture and farmers markets in providing access to healthy, affordable locally produced food options. P v1

13 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 4.0 Policy SC3: Residential Mix Introduction 4.1 Policy SC3 seeks to maintain, provide or contribute to a mix of housing tenures, types and sizes to help support the creation of mixed, balanced and inclusive communities, including older residents. Consideration of Policy 4.2 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd broadly support the provisions of Part (1) of Policy SC3 which accord with the Framework [ 50] and seek to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. 4.3 Whilst the need to provide housing for all sectors of the population is recognised, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Part (2) of Policy SC3 as it could commit developers to providing levels of Lifetime Homes, bungalows and/or extra care homes which could threaten the viability of development. The need to deliver lifetime homes, bungalows and extra care facilities should be based on robust evidence contained in the Cheshire East SHMA Table 4.9 of the SHMA 2010 sets out details of future households requiring market housing. From this table it is clear that the vast majority of people (76.9%) would prefer detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. Only 15.4% specified a preference for bungalows and 7.8% specified a preference for flats. The SHMA [ 4.55] states that the vast majority of older people want to stay in their own homes with a degree of interest [ 4.56] in new forms of older persons accommodation, for instance sheltered and extra care schemes. 4.4 In terms of the future affordable housing requirements, the SHMA [ 5.22] identifies a preference for 42.3% houses, 38.7% flats and 19.0% bungalows. Whilst the proportion of bungalows is greater in the case of affordable housing than market housing, it is important to note that the vast majority of residents in Cheshire East (88.6%) live in open market properties. The proportion of households requiring affordable housing and with a preference for bungalows is not therefore significant when assessed as part of the overall number of households in the Borough. It is therefore considered that there is little evidence or justification for Part (2) of Policy SC These requirements may also impose unnecessary restrictions upon sites where the inclusion of these residential units may not be viable or deliverable (i.e. in areas where there is little demand for property from elderly residents). 4.6 The Framework [ 173] makes clear that sites should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. The issues raised in Part (2) can be dealt with through v1 P7

14 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates negotiations on individual planning applications if necessary. It is therefore considered that Part (2) of Policy SC3 should be deleted. P v1

15 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 5.0 Policy SC4: Housing to meet Local Needs Introduction 5.1 Policy SC4 seeks the provision of affordable housing in new residential developments and applies the following thresholds and percentages; 1 In developments of 15 or more dwellings (or 0.4hectares) in the Principal Towns, Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres at least 30% of all units to be affordable. 2 In developments of three or more dwellings (or 0.2 hectares) in all other locations at least 30% of all units are to be affordable. Consideration of Policy 5.2 Whilst the provision of affordable housing is generally supported, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to the proposed 30% requirement for affordable housing set out in Part (1) of Policy SC4. It is considered that the policy is not justified or consistent with national policy in the Framework [ 158] which advises local planning authorities to ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing take full account of relevant market and economic signals. Policy SC4 is based upon housing need evidence which is now almost two and a half years old and may have viability implications for the development of sites. 5.3 There have been a number of recent cases of planning applications in Cheshire East where developers have been unable to meet the Council s aspirations for affordable housing delivery because viability issues that have arisen and the resultant affordable housing provision agreed with the Local Authority has been significantly lower than its policy requirement. On this basis, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd consider that the SHMA 2010 and accompanying viability evidence need to be updated to reflect current market conditions and this evidence should be used to inform the affordable housing requirements of Policy SC It is considered that Part (3) of Policy SC4 should include the types of affordable housing tenure which are currently available and suitable. Providing a range of tenure choice in Policy SC4 is vital to help to ensure that the affordable housing needs of all sectors of the population within the Borough are met most effectively. This should include discounted affordable rented units, as introduced by the Government in 2011 and other types of intermediate affordable housing such as that targeted at first time buyers including the NewBuy mortgage indemnity scheme. Both the discounted rent tenure and the NewBuy scheme are Government backed and would allow a greater choice of affordable housing tenure for the different household types and demographics in affordable housing need. These types of affordable housing tenure are equally as important as social rented units v1 P9

16 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 5.5 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd broadly support Part (5) of the Policy which seeks to increase choice and supply by considering new affordable housing products. However, should the Council s efforts to increase affordable housing supply involve increases in the percentages of affordable housing sought in Part (1) of the Policy, this should be supported by appropriate evidence of need through an up-to-date SHMA and related viability assessment. 5.6 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd broadly support the inclusion of Part (6) of Policy SC4 which, in exceptional circumstances where scheme viability may be affected, allows developers to provide viability assessments to demonstrate alternative affordable housing provision. This accords with the Framework [ 173] which requires plans to be deliverable and viable. 5.7 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd support the inclusion of Part (7) of Policy SC4 which, in exceptional circumstances, allows for off-site provision or a financial contribution, as an alternative to on-site provision. This option will give the flexibility to provide affordable housing in areas of greatest need or use financial contributions to address issues such as the improvement of existing housing stock. 5.8 Paragraph 4.41 of the supporting text to Policy SC4 states that the tenure split would normally be 65% social rent and 35% intermediate affordable housing. Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to the inclusion of a specific tenure split in the supporting text. In practice, a range of tenure splits have been recently accepted for residential applications in Cheshire East to account for viability issues on individual sites. In order to help ensure that viable development continues to come forward it is considered that the Council should continue to be flexible in terms of the tenure split and should not seek to impose arbitrary tenure splits across the Borough as a whole. It is therefore considered that the second sentence of Paragraph 4.41 of the supporting text to Policy SC4 should be deleted. P v1

17 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 6.0 Policy SE1: Design Introduction 6.1 Policy SE1 states that the objective of achieving high quality design should be embedded within the development process. It states that development proposals should be founded on a rigorous design assessment of the site, and environmental sustainability should be a key design priority in the planning of new development. Consideration of Policy 6.2 Whilst a design Policy is broadly supported in principle Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to the wording of Part (3) of Policy SE1 which requires a rigorous design assessment for development proposals. This requirement is considered to be onerous as there is not explanation or definition of what a rigorous design assessment involves. It goes beyond national guidance in the Framework [ 59] which advises that design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail. It is therefore considered that this reference should be removed from the Policy text. 6.3 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to the final sentence of Part (3) which states that environmental sustainability should be a key design priority in the planning of new development. Again, this requirement is considered to be onerous as there is no explanation of what would be required to satisfy this requirement and no justification is provided for its inclusion within the Policy. It is considered that such an open ended requirement would potentially harm the viability of development by placing unrealistic requirements for renewable energy etc. on new development. It is therefore considered that the final sentence of Policy SE1 should be deleted. 6.4 Taking the above issues into consideration, it is considered that Part (3) of Policy SE1 should be re-worded as follows: - Development proposals should respond to and respect the amenity of the site and its neighbouring area in terms of scale, height, layout, architectural form, materials, landscape character, relationship to neighbouring buildings and uses in terms of its impact upon the highway network and safety v1 P11

18 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 7.0 Policy SE2: Efficient Use of Land Introduction 7.1 Policy SE2 relates to windfall development and applies the following sequential approach for windfall sites: i First, use existing buildings (including conversion) within settlements, and previously developed land within settlements; ii iii Second, use other suitable infill opportunities within settlements; and Third, the development of other land where this is well-located in relation to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure. Consideration of Policy 7.2 Whilst the use of brownfield land for development is broadly supported, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Part (2) of Policy SE2 which sets out the sequential approach to windfall site development. The inclusion of a brownfield first approach is contrary to the Framework and should therefore be removed from the strategy. Whilst the Framework [ 111] advises that local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land, it does not advocate a sequential approach to windfall development. 7.3 It is therefore considered that Part (2) of Policy SE2 should be deleted. P v1

19 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 8.0 Policy SE4: The Landscape Introduction 8.1 Policy SE4 seeks to protect the landscape character of the Borough through a number of means including the protection and management of trees, hedgerows and woodland, and making the most effective use of land. Consideration of Policy 8.2 Whilst a Policy to protect the landscape is broadly supported, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Parts (2) (i) & (ii) of Policy SE4. Whilst the desire to retain trees, woodland and hedgerow is accepted it is considered that Parts (2) (i) & (ii) of the Policy are unduly restrictive. In some cases, the loss of trees, woodland and hedgerow on site may be unavoidable in order to create safe, properly accessible and well designed development, for example, where issues such as the removal of tress and hedgerow is necessary on highway safety grounds. A more pragmatic Policy approach would help facilitate these aims. It is therefore considered that flexibility needs to be introduced to the wording of Parts (2) (i) and (ii) to allow for the loss of trees, woodland and hedgerow where necessary and to allow the provision of suitable replacement planting to mitigate any loss where practical. 8.3 Whilst the desire to protect high quality agricultural land is broadly supported, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Part (4) of Policy SE4 in relation to safeguarding high quality agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a). Part (4) is not considered to be consistent with national Policy on the basis that it may hinder the delivery of sustainable development. In some cases the desire to protect agricultural land will need to be balanced with the need to locate new development in the most sustainable locations so that people can minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other facilities in accordance with the Framework [ 37]. The Local Plan identifies a requirement for greenfield land to meet future development needs and some sites will need to be located on the edge existing settlements where accessibility to existing services and facilities can be maximised. It is likely that some of these sites will fall on land which comprises high quality agricultural land. It is therefore considered that the text to Part (4) of Policy SE4 should recognise that in some cases a balance will need to be struck between retaining the best quality agricultural land and ensuring that the most sustainable sites are brought forward for development v1 P13

20 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 9.0 Policy SE5: Green Infrastructure Introduction 9.1 Policy SE5 seeks to deliver a good quality, and accessible network of green spaces for people to enjoy. This includes the designation of Strategic Open Gaps. Consideration of Policy 9.2 Whilst Policy SE5 is broadly supported, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Part (5) of the Policy which relates to Strategic Open Gaps. 9.3 As set out in the representation to Policy CS5, the Development Strategy fails to provide any detailed evidence base or clear justification for the proposed Strategic Open Gaps. It is not clear from the Key Diagram (Figure 5.2) and the Strategic Open Gap diagram (Figure 5.3) how the location and the boundaries of the proposed Strategic Open Gaps have been defined as they do not relate to any definitive physical boundaries. 9.4 In terms of general location, part of the Strategic Gap is proposed from the western boundary of Sandbach and across land to the north of Crewe. It is not clear why a Strategic Gap is necessary in this location, as there is a considerable distance between the northern boundary of Crewe and any communities to the north. The distance between Crewe and Middlewich in this direction is over 5 km and Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd therefore question the need for a Strategic Gap in this area. Similarly, an Open Gap is proposed on land between Sandbach and Crewe where there is a distance of over 3.5 km between the built up areas of the settlements. 9.5 Given the lack of detailed evidence base and justification for the proposed Strategic Open Gaps it is considered that Part (5) of Policy SE5 should be deleted. 9.6 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Part (6) (ii) of Policy SE5 which requires developers to make provision for adequate open space. Whilst the provision of open space as part of housing development is supported, it is considered that the open space standards identified in Paragraph 5.35 and Table 5.1 of the Policy Principles document are not justified or consistent with the FIT standards set out in Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 1. The FIT Standards establish an overall benchmark of 2.4ha per 1000 population for outdoor sport and outdoor play provision. Whilst the Council s combined open space standards for Outdoor Sports Facilities and Children s 1 Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play Fields in Trust/National Playing Fields Association 2008 P v1

21 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates Play Space reflect this benchmark, the Council has chosen to impose additional standards with regard to Amenity Green Space, Allotments and Green Infrastructure Connectivity, which do not form part of the FIT standards, resulting in an overall open space requirement of 4.2ha. (75% greater than the FIT benchmark of 2.4ha). As these uses do not fall within the categories of open space set out in the FIT standards, it is considered that they should not be included in the Council s open space requirement per 1000 population. Table 5.1 should be amended so that it only includes Children s Play Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities. Amenity Green Space, Allotments, and Green Infrastructure Connectivity should be removed from the table and dealt with separately. 9.7 In addition, no viability evidence has been provided in the Policy Principles document to justify the combined open space standards of 4.2 hectares of open space per 1,000 population. The Framework [ 173] makes clear that the sites and scale of development in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. The Framework [ 174] also states that local authorities should assess the likely cumulative impacts on development in their area of all existing and proposed local standards, supplementary planning documents and policies that support the development plan when added to nationally required standards. There is no evidence to suggest that this exercise has been undertaken and it is considered that the imposition of the proposed space standards in isolation, and in conjunction with other required standards and contributions, could threaten the viability of development, contrary to guidance in the Framework. It is therefore considered that the open space requirements of Part (6) (ii) of Policy SE5 should be based on an appropriate viability exercise to demonstrate that any proposed open space requirements would not affect the deliverability of sites v1 P15

22 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 10.0 Policy SE8: Energy Efficient Development Introduction 10.1 Policy SE8 seeks to encourage an increase in the use of renewable energy through a number of means including construction standards, integrating renewable energy technologies, maximising opportunities to retrofit suitable renewable technologies, and contributing to the development of district heating networks. Consideration of Policy 10.2 Whilst Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd generally support a move towards energy efficient development it considers that there are a variety of different approaches to help achieve these goals. With regard to this matter, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Part (4) of Policy SE Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd considers that the requirement for all major developments to explore the potential to include district heating is unduly onerous and may threaten the viability of development, contrary to guidance in the Framework [ 173]. It is Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd s experience that district heating schemes can only be viably provided on very large schemes with a minimum of over 600 dwellings on site. It is therefore considered that Policy SE8 (4) should only be applied to very large schemes where it can be shown to be deliverable and viable. The Policy should confirm the size of scheme affected by this requirement based on viability evidence. Additional text should be added to the Policy to make clear that the requirements of Part (4) do not apply to those sites below the identified size threshold, P v1

23 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 11.0 Policy SE9: Allowable Solutions Introduction 11.1 Policy SE9 states that the money raised through Allowable Solutions will contribute towards the delivery of energy efficiency and carbon dioxide reduction priorities identified by the Council. Consideration of Policy 11.2 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Policy SE9 for the following reasons Firstly, it would not be possible to secure any financial contribution towards Allowable Solutions by means of a S106 agreement. Reg. 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations (Amendment) 2012 sets out three tests for the use of S106. In respect of development that is capable of being charged CIL obligations should be: 1 Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. 2 Directly related to the development. 3 Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development If an obligation does not meet all of these tests it cannot in law be taken into account in granting planning permission. It is considered that the requirements of Policy SE9 would fail at least two of the above tests because: 1 it would be difficult to demonstrate how it directly relates to a specific development as it does not relate to any specific impact, and, 2 That the requirement is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to development in the absence of any viability evidence to support this assumption. 3 It would also be difficult to justify that the requirement is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms given that the Allowable Solutions Framework is still in the development stages. 4 This type of requirement should be dealt with through the Community Infrastructure Levy and it does not therefore need to be set out as a requirement in a Local Plan Policy. 5 There is no viability evidence to support such a requirement and it would potentially add unreasonable charges to development, threatening scheme viability It is therefore considered that Policy SE9 should be deleted v1 P17

24 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 12.0 Policy CO1: Sustainable Travel and Transport Introduction 12.1 Policy CO1 sets out a number of measures through which the Council will seek to encourage sustainable travel and transport. Consideration of Policy 12.2 Whilst the Policy is broadly supported, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd consider that Part (4) of Policy CO1 should include details of the locations of the stations which will serve the proposed HS2 route. P v1

25 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 13.0 Policy CO2: Enabling Business Growth through Transport Infrastructure Introduction 13.1 Policy CO2 states that the Council will support new developments that are well connected and accessible through a number of ways including; locating new development where there is good access to a range of services, supporting transport infrastructure, supporting improvements for communication technology, providing recharging points for hybrid and electric vehicles in large new developments, and adhering to the current adopted Cheshire East Council Car Parking Standards. The Policy states that schemes outlined in the current Transport Infrastructure Plan will be supported. Consideration of Policy 13.2 Whilst the provisions of Policy CO2 are broadly supported, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd note that Part (2) of Policy CO2 identifies the Woodford to Poynton Relief Road as a scheme outlined within the current Transport Infrastructure Plan which the Council will seek to support. No public money has been set aside for this Relief Road and the provision of the road would in fact hinge upon funding generated by the development of land to the west of Poynton [Identified as Site Poynton 1 (Alternative) in the Development Strategy]. Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd have previously supported the development of land to the west of Poynton in representations made to the Draft Poynton Town Strategy [The site is identified as Site Reference A in the Draft Town Strategy]. It is considered that identification of land to the west of Poynton as a Strategic Site in the Development Strategy is vital if the Council is to deliver the Woodford to Poynton Relief Road Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Part (2) bullet point 3 of the Policy which relates to the provision of electric vehicle recharging points [EVRP] in large new developments. It is not clear from the Policy whether this requirement would apply to residential developments and it is considered that the Policy should clarify this matter If the requirement for EVRP does apply to residential development, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object. The delivery of ERVP in housing developments is likely to increase development costs unnecessarily and affect viability. The Framework [ 173] makes clear that the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened The Council has not provided any evidence of take up in Cheshire East to demonstrate that the above policy requirements are justified or any other evidence to demonstrate that they are required. As such, it is considered that v1 P19

26 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates there is currently no justification to support the implementation of electric charging points on residential development and it is difficult to estimate the demand for such facilities over the life of the Local Plan. It is considered unreasonable to require residential developments to provide EVRP as the take up of electric cars in the UK is still very uncertain due to the expense of purchasing the cars in the first instance. Until the Council can justify that there is demand for EVRP in the area through robust evidence they should not enforce this requirement on residential developers Part (2) bullet point 3 of Policy CO2 should therefore be amended to confirm that it does not apply to residential development. P v1

27 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 14.0 Policy CO3: Digital Connections Introduction 14.1 Policy CO3 requires developers to include the necessary physical infrastructure to accommodate information and digital communications (ICT) networks as an integral part of all appropriate new developments. Consideration of policy 14.2 Whilst the provision of communications infrastructure is broadly supported Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to Policy CO3 Part (2). It is considered that Part (2) is contrary to national planning guidance in the Framework [ 173] as it may threaten the viability and deliverability of development by imposing unnecessary cost upon new development In any event, it is the responsibility of telecommunications providers to provide the cabling and masts etc for telephone and mobile communications networks and these providers are responsible for identifying the locations where infrastructure needs to be provided. The onus should not therefore be placed upon developers to provide this infrastructure in new development It is therefore considered that Part (2) of Policy CO3 should be deleted v1 P21

28 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates v1 P23

29 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates Development Strategy Policies v1 P25

30

31 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 15.0 Policy CS1: Overall Development Strategy Introduction 15.1 Policy CS1 sets out the overall development strategy for the Borough and seeks sufficient land to accommodate at least 27,000 (1,350 dwellings per annum) homes between 2010 and 2030 to be phased as follows: 2010 to 2015 at least 1,150 homes each year (5,750 total) 2016 to 2020 at least 1,250 homes each year (6,250 total) 2020 to 2030 at least 1,500 homes each year (15,000 total) Consideration of Policy 15.2 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to the requirement for 27,000 homes set out in Policy CS1 as this does not represent the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives Barton Willmore has recently undertaken a Sub-Regional Housing Study 2 on behalf of a consortium of house builders and landowners, incorporating the local authorities of Cheshire East, Cheshire West & Chester, and Warrington. A copy of this study is attached at Appendix 1. This study was commissioned following concerns that the housing targets being progressed by each of the local authorities were grossly inadequate, and will harm the Sub-Region s ability to realise economic growth in line with expectations, along with its ability to meet future affordable and demographic need. At the time the study was commissioned, the preferred housing target for Cheshire East Council was 1,150 dwellings per annum The Barton Willmore Housing Study [ 11.3] identifies the following key failings for each of the three local authorities in pursuing the proposed housing targets: They fail to take into account the latest evidence on projected employment growth, including aspirations of the Cheshire & Warrington LEP and as a consequence will constrain economic growth; They do not meet the 2008-based CLG household projections, nor the housing growth required by the 2010-based ONS population projections; The fail to plan for the provision of their own affordable housing requirements; and They fail to acknowledge the extent of market and affordable need. 2 Cheshire and Warrington Sub-Regional Housing Study November 2012 Barton Willmore P v1

32 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 15.5 The study [ 12.9] also identifies the following economic implications of the Councils approach: Failure to realise resident employment growth of approximately +2,000 residents in employment per annum; An implausible and environmentally undesirable 22bn GVA delivered by an in-commuting workforce if economic aspirations are to be realised; and Reduced competitiveness of local business and strategic locations The Housing Study [ 12.7] concludes that to fully comply with the requirements of the Framework in fully meeting objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing, each local authority would be required to provide a significantly higher level of housing The Housing Study [ 11.6] recommends that as a minimum [our emphasis] Cheshire East plan for 1,800 new dwellings per annum (36,000 over the plan period 2010 to 2030) excluding any allowance for past shortfall against Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) targets It is considered that the dwelling requirement figure of 1,350 dwellings per annum set out in Policy CS1 is not justified and is not consistent with national policy for the following reasons: 1 The SHMA [ 6.4] identifies an expected increase in households from 154,000 in 2006 to 191,000 by This equates to 37,000 new households by 2031 or 1,480 dwelling per annum. The SHMA 2010 [ H.8] also identifies a need for 1,243 affordable homes per annum which, in itself, is only slightly less than the 1,350 dwelling per annum figure in Policy CS1. 2 It is not considered that the figure meets demographic need. The 2010 based sub-national population projections estimated that the population would grow by 47,000 people, requiring the need for an additional 1,600 dwellings per annum. 3 It does not reflect the majority of consultation responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options, where 59% of people who responded considered that the Issues and Options High Growth option of 1,600 homes each year was the most appropriate. 4 It is not considered that the proposed dwelling requirement figure will match the economic aspirations of the Borough. Modelling undertaken for the Council estimates that the preferred option of providing 1,350 dwellings per annum would result in an increase in labour supply of 2,900 people over the plan period. Policy CS1 identifies a requirement for the provision of a minimum of 300ha of employment land between 2010 and Assuming a plot ratio of 40% for development on this land the 3 Cheshire East Strategic Housing Market Assessment v1 P27

33 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates employment floorspace created on 300ha would be 1.2 million sqm. Assuming an average of around of 1 employee per 50 sqm metres from the 1.2 million sqm created, this floorspace would provide 24,000 jobs. This labour provision of 24,00 jobs far outweighs the predicted labour supply increase of 2,900 people identified in the Development Strategy and is likely to result in significant in-commuting from areas surrounding Cheshire East Borough. It is considered that such a high level of incommuting would be unsustainable given the level of private car journeys likely to be generated as a result Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd therefore consider that the 1,800 dpa requirement figure set out in the Barton Willmore Study is realistic and can be achieved in Cheshire East. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Udpate January 2013 (Base date 31 st March 2012) identifies suitable sites for a total of 49,645 dwellings over the next 15 years. This would be more than adequate to meet the 15 year developable supply which the Framework advises local planning authorities should identify [ 47]. It would also be more than adequate to meet the Local Plan requirement for the whole plan period up to It is therefore submitted that the housing requirement for the Borough set out in Policy CS1 should be increased to 1,800 dwellings per annum plus any allowance for past shortfall against RSS targets. The identification of land to the west of Poynton as a Strategic Site would help to meet this identified requirement Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to the proposed phasing mechanism set out in Policy CS1. Since 2008/09 net housing completions in the Borough have been consistently and considerably below the RSS annual requirement of 1,150 dwellings per annum. As a result of this under delivery, there is an urgent requirement for the release of housing land. It is considered that the proposed phasing mechanism would exacerbate this situation by restricting the release of land in the early years of the Local Plan. As a result, it is submitted that the phasing mechanism in Policy CS1 should be removed. P v1

34 Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan : Representations on behalf of Harrow Estates 16.0 Policy CS2: Settlement Hierarchy and Spatial Distribution Introduction 16.1 Policy CS2 establishes a Settlement Hierarchy for the Borough which identifies the Principal Towns of Crewe and Macclesfield as the main foci for development, followed by Key Service Centres, New Settlements, Local Service Centres and Sustainable Villages. Consideration of Policy 16.2 Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd broadly support the establishment of a Settlement Hierarchy for the Borough and support the identification of Crewe and Macclesfield as Principal Towns and the identification of Poynton as a Key Service Centre However, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to the proposed distribution of development set out in Table 5.2 for the reasons set out below. Given that Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd have objected to the overall housing requirement in Policy CS1, as we set out below, the spatial distribution between settlements needs to be reconsidered to reflect the need to deliver more housing across the Borough. This includes proving a robust evidence base based on meeting housing need and the provision of evidence to justify the release of Green Belt land with regards to the function and purpose of the land. Further comments on the need for a robust Green Belt review are provided in the subsequent section of these representations However, Harrow Estates plc and Avro Heritage Ltd object to the proposed distribution of development for Poynton set out in Table 5.2 of the justification for Policy CS2 for the reasons set out below As a Key Service Centre, it is considered that the proposed dwelling requirement for Poynton of 200 dwellings between 2010 and 2030 (10 per year) is too low. It is not considered that this level of development will provide for all of the local need in Poynton and there is no robust evidence to justify the housing requirement, which is substantially lower than previously suggested for the town. It is also significantly lower compared to other Key Service Centres (e.g. Congleton where 3,500 dwellings are proposed) and similarly sized Key Service Centres such as Middlewich (where 1,500 dwellings are proposed) and Sandbach (where 1,800 dwellings are proposed). It has also been noted in these representations that the dwelling requirement for the Borough in Policy CS1 should be increased significantly. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling requirement for Poynton should be increased Additional land will need to be identified in the Key Service Centres, including Poynton, to satisfy this increased requirement. The evidence within the Draft v1 P29